Loading...
2008.05.20 (Queensbury Planning Board OS/20/08) QUEENSBURY PLANNING BOARD MEETING FIRST REGULAR MEETING MAY 20, 2008 INDEX Site Plan No. 5-2008 David & Lois Arakelian Tax Map No. 227.10-1-27 3. Site Plan No. 7-2008 Freshwater Wetlands Permit No. 4-2008 K Twin Holdings Tax Map No. 296.20-1-9,10 20. Special Use Permit No. 16-2008 Karen & Peter Bogert Tax Map No. 227.17-1-55 32. Subdivision No. 3-2008 SKETCH PLAN Ronald Ball Tax Map No. 295.10-1-31.1 39. Site Plan No. 15-2008 Freshwater Wetlands Permit No. 5-2008 Robinson & Son Tax Map No. 303.20-2-42 45. Site Plan No. 13-2008 Lake George Campsites Tax Map No. 295.12-1-6 53. THESE ARE NOT OFFICIALLY ADOPTED MINUTES AND ARE SUBJECT TO BOARD AND STAFF REVISIONS. REVISIONS WILL APPEAR ON THE FOLLOWING MONTHS MINUTES (IF ANY) AND WILL STATE SUCH APPROVAL OF SAID MINUTES. o (Queensbury Planning Board OS/20/08) QUEENSBURY PLANNING BOARD MEETING FIRST REGULAR MEETING MAY 20, 2008 7:00 P.M. MEMBERS PRESENT CHRIS HUNSINGER, CHAIRMAN GRETCHEN STEFFAN, SECRETARY STEPHEN TRAVER TANYA BRUNO THOMAS SEGULJIC DONALD SIPP DONALD KREBS, ALTERNATE GIS ADMINISTRATOR-GEORGE HILTON LAND USE PLANNER-KEITH OBORNE STENOGRAPHER-SUE HEMINGWAY MR. HUNSINGER-Good evening. I'll call to order the first regular meeting of the Town of Queensbury Planning Board, Tuesda~, May 20, 2008. The first item on the agenda is approval of minutes from March 11th, 18t and 25th. APPROVAL OF MINUTES March 11, 2008 March 18, 2008 March 25,2008 MOTION TO APPROVE THE PLANNING BOARD MINUTES OF MARCH 11TH, 15TH, AND 25TH, 2008, Introduced by Thomas Seguljic who moved for its adoption, seconded by Donald Sipp: Duly adopted this 20th day of May, 2008, by the following vote: AYES: Mr. Traver, Mrs. Bruno, Mrs. Steffan, Mr. Sipp, Mr. Seguljic, Mr. Hunsinger NOES: NONE ABSTAINED: Mr. Krebs MR. HUNSINGER-The next item on the agenda is administrative item, and actually there's five separate items. This was in our package. There were some recent subdivisions that the Board identified as Unlisted Actions, which the Department of Health has now come back and said should have been identified as Type I. Did I get that in the correct order? Okay. So there's actually five separate resolutions that we need to take to seek Lead Agency Status only. We will send notification to the Department of Health, of course, and then deal with the projects one at a time accordingly. The first one is Subdivision No. 13-2006 for Thomas Brennan, and there is a prepared resolution here, to Seek Lead Agency. Would anyone like to move it? MR. SEGULJIC-Well, I guess, just clarify this for me. What exactly does that mean? So we have to go back and do a SEQRA review? MR. OBORNE-Okay. What has happened is that the Department of Health, New York State Department of Health, has looked over these subdivisions and they're less than five acres and more than five lots, it signifies that they're a realty subdivision, which requires, in their guidelines, a Type I Action, SEQRA action. So this is basically an administrative process that you're going through, just to basically, it's just a resolution Seeking Lead Agency Status for the same thing. You don't have to go through SEQRA again. It's just semantics more than anything. MR. SEGULJIC-So it's just an administrative clean up then? MR. OBORNE-Yes. You can reaffirm the administrative findings. 1 (Queensbury Planning Board OS/20/08) MR. SEGULJIC-Okay. MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. So assuming that there were no additional environmental concerns identified by the Department of Health or some other agency, we could then reaffirm the findings. MR. OBORNE-That would be correct. MR. HUNSINGER-And take care of it next month. MR. OBORNE-And Staff will make sure, in the future, that when those certain thresholds are met, that we make sure that it's a Type I Action. MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. So who caught this, the Department of Health? MR. OBORNE-I'm not quite sure. MR. HILTON-I believe so. MR. OBORNE-Yes. MR. HUNSINGER-I mean, I just find it encouraging that our work's being checked and questioned, you know. Because we often wonder, you know, we allow and require other agencies to do their part of the job in terms of coordination of overview and oversight, not always sure that they really do. MR. HILTON-I think this is, and I'm not completely sure, but I think there's a difference in what the Department of Health sees as a Type I Action and what our Code refers to these subdivisions as. If you look at our Subdivision Regs, the Code says it's an Unlisted Action. MR. HUNSINGER-Right. MR. HILTON-And that's the way we've been treating it, but, you know, with this new information, you know, we're happy to make it clean and go along and just reaffirm the actions as a Type I. MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. Okay. So the first item for consideration is Subdivision No. 13- 2006 for Thomas Brennan, and again, we're just seeking Lead Agency Status. There is a draft resolution in our Board package. Would anyone like to move it? MOTION TO SEEK LEAD AGENCY STATUS FOR SUBDIVISION NO. 13-2006 THOMAS BRENNAN, Introduced by Donald Krebs who moved for its adoption, seconded by Stephen Traver: Duly adopted this 20th day of May, 2008, by the following vote: AYES: Mrs. Bruno, Mrs. Steffan, Mr. Sipp, Mr. Seguljic, Mr. Krebs, Mr. Traver, Mr. Hunsinger NOES: NONE MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. There's a similar draft resolution for Theodore Rawson, for Subdivision No. 17-2006. Would anyone like to move that one? MOTION TO SEEK LEAD AGENCY STATUS FOR SUBDIVISION NO. 17-2006 THEODORE RAWSON, Introduced by Donald Krebs who moved for its adoption, seconded by Gretchen Steffan: Duly adopted this 20th day of May, 2008, by the following vote: AYES: Mr. Traver, Mrs. Bruno, Mr. Seguljic, Mr. Sipp, Mr. Krebs, Mrs. Steffan, Mr. Hunsinger NOES: NONE 2 (Queensbury Planning Board OS/20/08) MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. There's a similar resolution for Christine Germaine, Subdivision No. 12-2007. I think that was the one that we had the letter on as well. No, I'm sorry, that was on Brennan. MR. TRAVER-Yes. MR. HUNSINGER-Would you like to move that, Steve? MOTION TO SEEK LEAD AGENCY STATUS FOR SUBDIVISION NO. 12-2007 CHRISTINE GERMAINE, Introduced by Stephen Traver who moved for its adoption, seconded by Gretchen Steffan: Duly adopted this 20th day of May, 2008, by the following vote: AYES: Mrs. Bruno, Mr. Krebs, Mr. Seguljic, Mr. Sipp, Mr. Traver, Mrs. Steffan, Mr. Hunsinger NOES: NONE MR. HUNSINGER-And then there were two more that were handed out this evening. The first is Subdivision No. 14-2005 for the Hayes Construction Group. Would someone like to move that one? MOTION TO SEEK LEAD AGENCY STATUS FOR SUBDIVISION NO. 14-2005 HAYES CONSTRUCTION GROUP, Introduced by Gretchen Steffan who moved for its adoption, seconded by Donald Krebs: Duly adopted this 20th day of May, 2008, by the following vote: AYES: Mr. Sipp, Mr. Seguljic, Mrs. Bruno, Mr. Traver, Mrs. Steffan, Mr. Krebs, Mr. Hunsinger NOES: NONE MR. HUNSINGER-And then the final one is Subdivision NO.1-2007 for Cerrone Builders. MOTION TO SEEK LEAD AGENCY STATUS FOR SUBDIVISION NO. 1-2007 CERRONE BUILDERS, Introduced by Gretchen Steffan who moved for its adoption, seconded by Tanya Bruno: Duly adopted this 20th day of May, 2008, by the following vote: AYES: Mr. Traver, Mr. Krebs, Mr. Seguljic, Mr. Sipp, Mrs. Steffan, Mrs. Bruno, Mr. Hunsinger NOES: NONE MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. Before we get into our regular business, I just want to make the public aware that we did get a request from the Lake George campsites to table their project. They didn't request a specific date, but if there's anyone here for that project, it will be tabled. The first item on the agenda, the regular agenda, is David and Lois Arakelian, Site Plan No. 5-2008. SITE PLAN 5-2008 SEQR TYPE II DAVID & LOIS ARAKELIAN AGENT(S) HUTCHINS ENGINEERING OWNER(S) TROUT PAVILION, INC. ZONING WR-1A LOCATION 14 TROUT PAVILION ROAD APPLICANT PROPOSES DEMOLITION OF EXISTING CABINS AND CONSTRUCTION OF A NEW RESIDENCE, GARAGE, DRIVEWAY, WASTEWATER SYSTEM AND STORMWATER MANAGEMENT CONTROLS. SITE PLAN REVIEW AS A MAJOR STORMWA TER PROJECT PER CHAP. 147 IS REQUIRED DUE TO DISTURBANCE WITHIN A CEA. CROSS REFERENCE: BP 07-625,07-624,06-700,99-612 WARREN CO. PLANNING 2/13/08 3/12/08 APA/CEA/DEC L G CEA LOT SIZE 3.37 ACRES TAX MAP NO. 227.10-1-27 SECTION CHAPTER 147-12 JONATHAN LAPPER & TOM HUTCHINS, REPRESENTING APPLICANT, PRESENT MR. HUNSINGER-If someone could summarize Staff Notes, please, whenever you're ready. 3 (Queensbury Planning Board OS/20/08) MR. OBORNE-Okay. Staff comments. The application was tabled by the Planning Board at the 3/18/08 meeting for the following information. Revise the Floor Area Ratio calculations, and that was done. Address the VISION Engineering comments. That was done. Address the Staff Notes. Point One, a waiver is still required from the lighting plan requirement, although the applicant has agreed to downcast lighting. All other Staff comments have been addressed. Provide a landscaping plan. That was completed also, with the caveat, while extensive plantings are proposed around the home, only one new area of plantings is proposed between the house and the shoreline, and, Number Five, put a notation on their plan so that all lighting will be downcast. MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. Thank you. Good evening. The floor is yours. MR. LAPPER-Good evening. For the record, Jon Lapper with Jim Miller and Tom Hutchins. You've heard the Staff comments. We submitted everything that was requested, and I asked, would you like to go over the changes, or just any questions? MR. HUTCHINS-I believe we've addressed all the engineering comments and Staff comments, the technical, and Jim's done the landscaping plan. MR. LAPPER-Do you want to show them anything about the landscaping plan. Yes. Let's just ask Jim to walk you through the landscaping plan. MR. HUNSINGER-Sure. MR. MILLER-Good evening. Jim Miller, project landscape architect. I wasn't involved in the earlier phase of the project, and I was asked to prepare a landscape plan, and what we've done is we've blown the area up for the home construction. This is the area of disturbance here off the plan, and one of the things I felt was important to show on the plan, and we also submitted some additional photographs, some of the large extensive trees around the home site, there's three large maples that, you know, Tom Hutchins has located the building to preserve those, and then between the lake and the residence is a large group of red oaks and a very nice grove of white birch trees, which would all remain. The area to the north is more open grass area. We'll work to preserve those existing trees as much as possible. The other item, if you recall on the Site Plan, there's a stormwater basin on the back side of the building that takes runoff from the roof, and in the original plan, that was shown as a grass basin. So we looked at that and we actually reshaped it somewhat so the water is taken back more behind the building. There's a shallower swale up along the driveway. One is that way we don't have water near the front of the building and also we did that to sort of incorporate around the grading the large maple that's there, and any standing water, then, would be more to the rear of the building. The other thing we did with that basin is, instead of it being a grass basin, we've planted it where it's more of a rain garden where we've planted ferns and iris and some other planting around that. So that'll now be a planted stormwater basin, and not just a grass basin. The majority of the landscaping is around the building, you know, the direction that we were working under was to try to maintain the landscaping in the disturbed area and not to go outside that area as much, any more than possible. Which you can see we've worked out in more detail the walkways, and landscaping around the buildings, and I tried to use a mix, as much as possible I could, off the native species list. We've used some of the native plants, you know, dogwoods and winterberry, the ferns, the iris, the service berry, and we've also utilized some low maintenance plants that wouldn't require a lot of pruning or fertilizer to sort of compliment that, since we're working very close to the home. A lot of the native plants are fairly big and fairly native. So we tried to use a balance. We used, in some areas, some additional birch to tie in with the existing grove of birch down near the lake, and it was mentioned in Staff Notes where the existing tree is on the lakeside of the residence. We felt that was an appropriate place to add some additional planting around that, even though it was outside of the disturbance area, to provide a little more buffer on the lakeside, but that was the approach. We tried to get some smaller trees in and around the building to supplement the big trees, to compliment the residence, and to provide more buffering from the lake. MR. HUNSINGER-Anything else? MR. LAPPER-I guess last time the discussion, where it was left, about how the house should be buffered in terms of the vegetation. So what was attempted, when they went back to the shop after the last meeting, was to concentrate the new landscaping in the area around the house to avoid disturbance of the existing grassed lawn, which is long established on the rest of the site, but to put the trees and the shrubs near the house to 4 (Queensbury Planning Board OS/20/08) block the house somewhat from the lake but to leave the rest of the lawn alone because that's something that they appreciate, and we hope that that's a reasonable compromise. MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. Questions, comments from the Board? MR. SIPP-I'II start off. Is there a proposed walkway between the dock and the house? MR. HUTCHINS-No. MR. SIPP-No walkway. MR. HUTCHINS-No, the walkway, it'll be across the lawn area as is currently the case. MR. SIPP-AII right. Between the 50 foot setback and the seawall, you've got anywhere from an 18 to a 20% slope. MR. HUTCHINS-Down near the house, yes, on the south portion, yes. MR. SIPP-Now, I would like to see some buffering along that seawall. MR. HUTCHINS-In order to do that, we'd be disturbing an area that is undisturbed now. It's well established now. MR. SIPP-Yes, but that's only grass lawn, which is not a good buffer. It's not a good filter. MR. SEGULJIC-It's not good at removing nutrients from the stormwater, to protect the lake. MR. LAPPER-Well, let's talk about that. The lawn area that's there has been there for most of the last century, very well established. There's, the lip of the seawall in most places is a few inches higher than the lawn. So it's not that there's any sedimentation going into the lake, and the direction of the project was not to disturb within that 50 foot area, just to leave it the way it is, but we did, wanted to be respectful of the Board in terms of concentrating the plantings near the house, but with the idea of leaving that lawn area, which has been there since this was a hotel many years ago. So the goal was to leave the lawn and not disturb by the lake. This is very different from a project which wouldn't have a higher seawall where there would be sedimentation going into the lake. Here everything's going to be maintained on the lawn. You're not going to have runoff. MR. MILLER-One other thing to look at is if you look at the overall plan, you'll see on the side of the house away from the lake, there's a drainage, there's a stream that comes down through there. So the only area that drains toward the lake, it's fairly limited. There's not, in a lot of places on the lake there's a very long runoff area. Here's it's sort of mounded where some of it goes back, you know, granted, it goes back to the brook which goes to the lake, but we don't have a large drainage area that's going in to the lake. MR. SEGULJIC-But, just keep in mind that you're located in a CEA. Sometimes I think we forget the definition of a CEA. We're supposed to have an enhanced environmental controls in place to protect the lake. MR. LAPPER-Well, the question is, what sedimentation is going into the lake. What are you trying to protect from? MR. SEGULJIC-We're talking about the nutrients, from the fact that they call for utilizing fertilizer right on their plans. MR. LAPPER-But in terms of the nutrients, you have to have runoff into the lake to get Into the lake, and what Jim just described is that the catchment area here. MR. SEGULJIC-These plantings will help capture those nutrients also. MR. LAPPER-The plantings that have been proposed we think are sufficient for that purpose, and the lawn does not, and the seawall doesn't allow water to go into the lake. Nothing's going to erode from the lake. 5 (Queensbury Planning Board OS/20/08) MR. SEGULJIC-But it's going to get into the ground and eventually get into the lake. These plantings will help absorb the nutrients. MR. LAPPER-The grass does that. MR. SEGULJIC-Grass does it to a limited degree. MR. SIPP-Grass is a very poor filter. Grass roots are at the most. MR. LAPPER-Well, here we have a very established lawn. So the question is, in terms of a balance, does it make sense to disturb that established lawn area? MR. SEGULJIC-Yes. MRS. STEFFAN-Yes, I don't agree. I think the lawn has been long established, and the house is significantly away from the lake, and I think that disturbing that grass would not be in the best interest of the lake. We've seen, well, I went to the site. The retaining wall is sufficient to keep the runoff from going out into the lake. There is stormwater controls in place. They are keeping some of the larger trees that are there. The stormwater does exit into the driveway area, and so I thought the plan was very good. MR. LAPPER-Thank you. MRS. BRUNO-I think perhaps if we were to pass this this evening, one of the things the Board might consider is putting a stipulation in the motion that if the seawall should have to be replaced in the future, that that is when we, the future Planning Board that would be reviewing it would require, you know, the increased plantings along there, since they will be disturbing that area at that point. MR. HUNSINGER-There was also an article, and I can't remember if maybe it was from the Lake George Association, about the use of phosphorus fertilizers on lawns and bushes and such near the lake, and, you know, maybe that would be another stipulation, that there be no phosphorus used on the property. DA VI D ARAKELIAN MR. ARAKELIAN-It's maintained by Jim Girard who's a local, you know, landscaper. My name's David Arakelian. Jim Girard is the gentleman that takes care of the property, and I've spoken with him, and he's dealing in extensive inventory of what he's using in and around the lake and he is very aware of that, and he said absolutely, you know, that he is not going to be using, or minimally going to be using, I mean, anything that would harm the lake. MR. LAPPER-Would you stipulate that, no phosphorus? MR. ARAKELIAN-Sure, absolutely. MR. LAPPER-Okay. So that condition would be acceptable. MR. SIPP-That would also include pesticides and herbicides. MR. ARAKELIAN-I don't know. I know like for dandelions he does spot treat dandelions. I mean, there's not a lot of them, but, I mean, you know, I think that does happen. So I'm not one. I can't answer that. He would be (lost words). MR. SEGULJIC-Within your notes you indicate the use of fertilizers containing phosphorus. MR. LAPPER-But we're willing to stipulate that that won't be the case. MR. SEGULJIC-AII right. The other reason for the buffer, geese are becoming more and more of a problem on the lake. They love these big, open lawns. It's a way to prevent them from getting up there. You'll notice a lot of people on the lake now have fishing line across there. MR. ARAKELlNA-That works very well, as a matter of fact, fishing line does. MR. SIPP-Your house is up high enough that these shrubs are not going to interfere with any view, and they are definitely an asset to the lake, by preventing any type of runoff. 6 (Queensbury Planning Board OS/20/08) MR. LAPPER-I guess here it's the applicant's position that there isn't runoff into the lake because of the established lawn and the established seawall that's higher than the lawn, and they just feel that this has been. MR. SIPP-How much higher is it? MR. LAPPER-It's only a few inches, but that's sufficient, and Tom's gone to look at that, and this is just historic that this lawn has been there for generations and it means something to them. MR. SIPP-On a 20% slope you've got a good movement of water down there, grass or no grass. MR. LAPPER-Yes, but that 20% slope is only over a short distance, about 50 feet. MR. SIPP-Well, 60 feet. MR. LAPPER-And it infiltrates into the lawn. MR. HUTCHINS-But there's very little area above it. There's very little drainage area contributing to that short section that you're concerned about, and a 20% slope on a lawn, if you're driving it, yes, it's kind of steep. On a lawn it's not that steep. MR. SIPP-I'm just concerned about the whole frontage. MR. HUTCHINS-All of the drainage from the impervious structures are going to go back to the stormwater treatment area, and not in that direction. MR. SIPP-I understand that. MR. HUTCHINS-So the only. MR. SIPP-I am concerned about the grass area at a 20% slope. MR. LAPPER-And you don't feel that it's a problem. MR. HUTCHINS-I don't feel that it's a problem. I mean, we have done some planting in that particular area around the large maple. MR. SIPP-Yes, but this whole area here has nothing. This area here has nothing. MR. LAPPER-Well, you're pointing to an area that's not proposed to be disturbed at all. So the proposal is to leave it alone. I guess I'd like it on the record for you to say that it doesn't require it. MR. SIPP-Just because you don't disturb it is not going to cut down the runoff into the lake, two inches high. MR. HUTCHINS-And the area that you had shown to the north of the boathouse I guess is not 20% slope. It's not as steep. I walked it today. The steepest portion is from where the existing cabin is looking directly toward the lake. As you go further to the north, the grade is much less, and you can see that in the topography, and you can really see it in the field. MR. SIPP-Yes, 15%. MR. HUTCHINS-I don't know. I walked it today, Don. I don't believe it's 15%, but if you pick a certain particular contour, then that may be the case, but it's been our position all along that, in disturbing that area, we're going to do more harm than good, and we think it's sufficient as it currently is. MR. HUNSINGER-Are there any other issues that the Board wants to address? MR. SEGULJIC-Could we spend a minute on the septic system? You have a 50% reserve area listed. MR. HUTCHINS-It will be right next to it. 7 (Queensbury Planning Board OS/20/08) MR. SEGULJIC-But you'll put it on the plan? MR. HUTCHINS-It will be right adjacent to it, yes. MR. SEGULJIC-But we'd have to show that on the plan. MR. LAPPER-There's plenty of room for that, right, Tom? MR. HUTCHINS-Yes, plenty of room. MR. SEGULJIC-Correct me if I'm wrong, but the septic design calls for two perc tests and a septic field? MR. HUTCHINS-Yes. MR. SEGULJIC-I you only did one. Maybe I'm wrong. MR. HUTCHINS-I've done a number of them actually. I only showed the one that is in the particular area, the particular area that we used. MR. SEGULJIC-But we need two. MR. HUTCHINS-I've done more than one. I don't show two on the plan. MR. SEGULJIC-Also you did your test pit in November. I believe they should be done from March until June. MR. HUTCHINS-I don't know. A Town Engineer was with me. I thought that was the protocol. I requested it through the Town. He observed me through two of them. MRS. BRUNO-Yes, as long as he's with you. MR. ARAKELIAN-Went to the Town Board and got that approved, out of season test pit. We were there, and that's been approved. MR. SEGULJIC-But we still need the other perc test. MR. HUNSINGER-We also had a letter from Staff on that, too. MR. HUTCHINS-The engineers accepted it. MR. LAPPER-The Town Engineer accepted the stormwater plan. MR. SEGULJIC-You have an existing septic system on site? MR. HUTCHINS-Yes. MR. SEGULJIC-What's going to happen with that? MR. HUTCHINS-It'll be decommissioned. MR. SEGULJIC-And that means? MR. HUTCHINS-It means generally pumped and filled in place, or if it's in the winter removed. MR. SEGULJIC-And the leaching fields also? MR. HUTCHINS-Yes. MR. SEGULJIC-You're not going to remove any of that soil, then? MR. HUTCHINS-We're not going to remove, if they're in an area that's to be disturbed, they'll be removed. MR. SEGULJIC-AII right, because you don't have any notes. It just says, you just have it located. You have no notes about what's going to happen with that. MR. HUTCHINS-That's correct. It would normally be decommissioned. 8 (Queensbury Planning Board OS/20/08) MRS. BRUNO-So none of the specs were required with the Town Board of Health for them to give you the certification for the new one? MR. HUTCHINS-This didn't, the project itself didn't appear before the Board of Health. We went to the Board of Health to ask permission to have the Town Engineer come with me and witness the test holes because they were done out of season. MRS. BRUNO-Okay. MR. HUTCHINS-But that was the sole motion of the Board of Health. We've confirmed, with regard to the question on setback, and I was somewhat mistaken in a comment I made at the last meeting. By Queensbury's definition, the way this is shown is a fill system. You'll find correspondence from Mr. Hatin in your file with regard to that. I went with him. I sat down with him, showed him the system, and he gave me that statement. So that's compliant. MR. SEGULJIC-Now with also this type of system, don't you have to let the soil stabilize for at least six months and go through the thaw freeze cycle? MR. HUTCHINS-No. MR. SEGULJIC-You don't? MR. HUTCHINS-No, and we have a Town Engineer signoff. MR. SEGULJIC-Now, the stormwater coming down the driveway. That appears to run towards the approximate location of the adjoining absorption fields, and we don't know where that absorption field is. MR. HUTCHINS-Yes, except there's a road there. There's a road there. It's a very short section of driveway, okay. You're looking at a. MR. SEGULJIC-I mean, why can't we take that stormwater and bring it back into that retention basin? MR. HUTCHINS-Well, because it's downhill from the retention basin and it shortly crosses the property line. MR. SEGULJIC-Can't we extend that retention basin down along the driveway? MR. HUTCHINS-Well, then it gets closer to the stream, and we start dealing with setbacks from the stream, because it's a major stormwater project because it's a CEA, which triggers a setback from a stormwater device to a stream. MR. SEGULJIC-Because of the 100 foot you're talking about from the absorption? MR. HUTCHINS-Once it's deemed major project, then stormwater devices need 100 feet. MR. SEGULJIC-Okay. MR. HUTCHINS-Which we provided, 100.00. MR. SEGULJIC-Now also if you're a large project, you also have to submit a stormwater control report, I believe. MR. HUTCHINS-The stormwater report, yes. MR. SEGULJIC-And part of that requires that on the increase in volume of runoff for the 10 year storm, and on the change in rate of runoff for two, ten, fifty and hundred year storms. I only saw it for the 25 year storm. I didn't see the 50 and 100 year storms. MR. HUTCHINS-No, there's 10, the criteria in your standard are 10 and 25, in Queensbury's standard. MR. SEGULJIC-It says you have to prepare a stormwater control report, in accordance with Schedule B, and I believe Schedule B requires two, ten, fifty, and one hundred year. 9 (Queensbury Planning Board OS/20/08) MR. HUTCHINS-Well, if we run the math for those storms, you're going to have proportional differences. Your standard, I believe 147, and perhaps I'm wrong. I'm talking a little on your standard, but it's from the Park Commission model standard, references volume reduction from the 10 year event and volume and rate from the 10 year event, and rate from the 25 year event. MR. SEGULJIC-Well, I would recommend that you look at Schedule B, Part Two, contents of stormwater control report. MR. HUTCHINS-Okay. MR. SEGULJIC-And the narrative states you have to do the two, ten, fifty, and one hundred. MR. HUTCHINS-Okay. MR. SEGULJIC-That's my interpretation. I'm not the expert on it. MR. LAPPER-We got a Town Engineer signoff on the plan. MR. SEGULJIC-Maybe he didn't look at that. I would like the Town Engineer to look at that. MR. HUNSINGER-Any other questions or comments from the Board? MR. LAPPER-We were only required to reply to the Town Engineer's comments and get his, in the tabling motion, and get his signoff, and that's what happened. So I don't know what Tom is referring to, but it wasn't something that the Town Engineer raised. MR. SEGULJIC-Well, I'm just referring to the Codes. MR. LAPPER-Okay, but it wasn't in the tabling resolution from the last time. MR. HUNSINGER-Anything else from the Board? MR. SIPP-I have here a list of the recommended native species, if somebody would like to check this against your landscaping. I find two items, only two. MR. MILLER-Well, you know, like I said before, I'm not disagreeing with this list, and, you know, the native areas and rain garden areas and things, I think this is fine, but, you know, in this particular plan, the majority of our plants are in and around the building, and obviously there's a lot more plants to be planted than what's on this list, and so what I tried to do was, you know, strike a balance, and this, actually I had another list that I was working off of when I did that plan. I don't know if was an LGA list or something which was different than this, and so what we did was we tried to pick varieties off of that that were appropriate in areas where we were planting, and some of the other varieties that are not on this list are, you know, since we're planting in and around the entrances and terraces and things to the building, we planted, you know, other varieties that are, you know, more aesthetic than some of the ones that are on the native list. So I tried to reach a balance to come up with a planting plan that was appropriate adjacent to a residence, and I tried to focus on plants that were low maintenance, you know, that were fairly hardy, that are not going to require any special fertilizations or any special treatments that were resistant to insect damage and diseases. So I tried to reach a mix, you know. A lot of the native plants, you know, as much as we love to use them, they're really not appropriate in and around a residence. A lot of the shrubs are very big and what would end up happening is they would be pruned heavily to the point where they were unsightly and would probably be removed. So what I tried to do is reach a balance, and that's how I approached it. MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. MR. SEGULJIC-But I'd just like to remind you, again, you are in a CEA. MR. MILLER-I understand, but you're telling me that every plant that's not on this list is no good? MR. SEGULJIC-No. I'm not saying that at all. MR. SIPP-We're not saying that. 10 (Queensbury Planning Board OS/20/08) MR. MILLER-That's what it sounds like. MR. SIPP-But what we're saying is that these are better plants for planting. MR. MILLER-Well, I don't agree. MR. LAPPER-Could you explain, could you give an example of one that you don't agree with, like milkweed, some of the stuff that you don't agree with. MR. MILLER-Well, it's not that I don't agree with them. I think, you know, when you're doing a landscape plan for a residence, you want a landscape plan that's appropriate for what you're planting, and to just say you only want to plant wild plants around the residence, I don't think that's appropriate. MR. SIPP-I'm not saying around the residence. I'm saying along the shoreline. You can plant all of those rhododendrons and that sort of landscaping around the building. That's fine. I have no argument with that. What I am concerned about is what flows towards the lake. MR. MILLER-Yes. I don't disagree with that, but I mean, our landscape plan, my plant list, is, you know, primarily around the building. MR. HUNSINGER-Yes, okay. MRS. BRUNO-Tom, do you have a Schedule B with you? My Chapter doesn't have it. MR. HUNSINGER-Is there anything else from the Board, any other questions, comments? We do have a public hearing scheduled. Is there anyone in the audience that wanted to address the Board on this application? MR. LAPPER-I thought it was closed. MR. HUNSINGER-I'm sorry. It says right on the agenda that it was closed. My bad. MR. OBORNE-Just for the record, we did receive, at 4: 12 this afternoon, from the Lake George Water Keeper, knowing that it's closed, that the public hearing is closed, they would like to have this, not necessarily read for the record, I'm sure they would. You would have to open up it again for that to happen. If not, this will be in the file for review. MR. HUNSINGER-Well, we did close the public hearing at the last meeting. MRS. STEFFAN-Did you see this letter, Tom? MR. SEGULJIC-Yes, that deals with the 100 feet, 200 feet. Well, I guess, I mean, if there's someone here, I mean, it's unusual for us to close a public hearing like that, typically, we keep it open until the end. MRS. STEFFAN-We thought that the only outstanding issue, you know, without going back into the minutes, the only outstanding issue was the landscaping, and then he came back and gave us a landscaping. MR. SEGULJIC-And now we have a letter that's been submitted. So I would request that we open the public hearing. MR. HUNSINGER-Well. MR. ARAKELIAN-Chris Navitsky was here during the first time. MR. HUNSINGER-He was. MR. ARAKELIAN-And he was here and he left without saying anything. So after closing the public hearing, I don't think it's fair to us to open that up. MR. SEGULJIC-Sir, I believe there was a snowstorm that night, if I recall. MR. ARAKELIAN-No, there wasn't. It was last month, not even close. MR. SEGULJIC-I believe the Board can open it by a vote of the members. 11 (Queensbury Planning Board OS/20/08) MR. HUNSINGER-Well, I mean, the risk here is, I think it's just bad precedent. Once a public hearing is closed, I think we need to respect the process and move on. I think, you know, the risk of re-opening a public hearing creates a precedent that I don't think we want to go down that road. The reason the public hearing was closed is because the feeling at the time was that all of the public comment was on the record. I mean, certainly there aren't any new issues that have been raised by the Board or. MR. SEGULJIC-Well, the only comment is requested that they look at putting in a buffer. They've come back and said no. MR. LAPPER-No, we came in and put somewhat of a buffer. MR. SEGULJIC-Well, that's not what we've been looking for. MRS. STEFFAN-I believe that at the last meeting, when we asked for a landscaping plan, there wasn't a lot of landscaping detail, and there was a family member here who loved to garden, and their position was that they were going to create their own landscaping plan as they had done on the rest of the property, but the Planning Board wanted a plan. The applicant came back with a plan, and that's one of the reasons why the public hearing was closed, that we had a lot of the issues covered, and so I'm kind of scratching my head here because I thought we had wrapped this up. MRS. BRUNO-It looks like we stumbled on a few things, because obviously, I remember I think I was the one who was pushing for the landscaping plan to actually see it, perhaps, you know, in hindsight we shouldn't have closed it because you could have come back, you know, you do quality work. We've seen it many times, say they had come back with something that they had put together themselves, and it wasn't, you know, there are always things that we could have worked out, whatever. I guess what I'm trying to say is, we probably should have left it open. The other thing that I think that we were fallible about was overlooking this issue that Mr. Seguljic brought up, in terms of the stormwater concept plan, and thinking that it's. MR. HUTCHINS-What Section of 147 is it that refers there? Because I'm reading out of the design requirements for Major Projects out of Part 147. MRS. BRUNO-I've got it under 147-12, Permit Application Review Procedures, Major Projects, Preparation of a Stormwater Control Report in accordance with Schedule B Part II, and that's what I just. MR. HUTCHINS-The stormwater control report is what we typically call our stormwater plan, and Schedule B isn't attached to the regulation that's on the website, which is where I got this one. So I don't have Schedule B. MR. SEGULJIC-No, it's not on the Queensbury website. It's on the Lake George Park Commission, which is where the regulation was adopted. So it's the same regulation the Lake George Park Commission has. MR. HUTCHINS-Yes. It is. MR. SEGULJIC-And that's where Schedule B is. MR. HUTCHINS-Well, it says Schedule B is attached, but it's not available on the Queensbury Code. It's Queensbury's reg. Now, I'm reading from the design requirements for Major Projects, which is where it outlines all the design requirements, and it says stormwater control measures shall be designed so that there's no increase in runoff volume from a 10 year frequency 24 hour duration storm event for storm (lost word) exceeding the 10 year design storm, stormwater control measures shall function to attenuate peak runoff rates for a 25 year frequency storm to be equal or less than pre- development flow rates. For developments greater than five acres, consistent with New York State Guidelines, stormwater control measures shall function to attenuate peak runoff rates for a 100 year storm to equal or less than pre-developed rates. Now, to me, this is less than five acres. That says if it's over a five acre project, yes, then we look at the 100 year event. MR. SEGULJIC-But if you look at another Section, it states that you've got to go to the stormwater control report, and it says follow the requirements in Schedule B. 12 (Queensbury Planning Board OS/20/08) MR. HUTCHINS-Schedule B, which isn't available on the website, which I don't have, okay, and what's it say in Schedule B? MR. SEGULJIC-There's like about 13 conditions you've got to follow. MR. LAPPER-But obviously the Town Engineer did look at it. MR. HUNSINGER-Well, that's what I was going to say. MR. LAPPER-The Town Engineer reviewed it. MR. HUNSINGER-I think there's, and we talk about this often. At some point there's a leap of faith that we, as the Planning Board members, need to take when it comes to engineering. I mean, I'm not an engineer. I can't pretend to interpret whether or not a plan, you know, what the calculations are for a 50 or 100 year storm, which is why we get the stormwater report and have the Town Engineer review this. Our Town Engineer is satisfied with the infiltration rates, with the stormwater report, and has given us a signoff. So, I mean, I have to assume that because he's given us a signoff that he has reviewed that, because that's what we've asked him to do. MRS. BRUNO-Can we use this as a moment for education for the Planning Board and for, you know, folks that are in front of us that come in front of us in terms of, I'm trying to absorb everything that's in Schedule B right now. Could we take a moment to have Mr. Seguljic explain what he thinks is the difference between just the stormwater analysis and the Schedule B? Because I'm looking at it and I'm not seeing a lot of difference, but again, I'm doing this. MR. SEGULJIC-No, most of it's there. The main thing is the 50 and 100 year storm, which could change the design of the retention basin they have on site. MR. HUTCHINS-I can tell you, if your path is correct, the correct paper path, and indeed I'm suppose to run 50 and 100 year models, I can tell you that it's likely that it won't change things, okay. It might. It might make things a slightly little bit larger, but it's very likely that it won't change them, and I just want to comment, because we're seeing this in a lot of situations, that the stormwater requirements for major projects were developed for projects that are more significant than constructing one residence, on a small, I mean, this is lucky because it's a large parcel. The criteria within Major Criteria are they were developed for projects much larger in scale than the small lakefront project. In a lot of cases they're just, it doesn't make sense to be able to meet all the criteria. MR. SEGULJIC-Well, excuse me, what defines a Major Project? MR. HUTCHINS-A Major Project as defined by the Ordinance. MR. SEGULJIC-Is what? MR. HUTCHINS-There are several criteria. MR. SEGULJIC-Fifteen thousand square feet. MR. HUTCHINS-Fifteen thousand square feet is one of them. This one, well, now it does, but it didn't initially. MR. SEGULJIC-It exceeds 15,000 square feet. MR. HUTCHINS-Well, Tom, the reason I showed that is because I could because I was already determined to be Major. MR. SEGULJIC-Well, I'm just pointing out, it's a 15,000 square feet exceedence. MR. HUTCHINS-Okay. MR. ARAKELIAN-Can I add something here? Originally this did not exceed 15,000 square feet. Because it became a Major, and because it took so long, we decided to add the garage on. So it wouldn't have been, but because of you making it a Major, that we decided to do it. Since it's going to be a Major, we might as well put the garage and the breezeway on now. MRS. BRUNO-Twisting our arm is not going to help the situation this evening. 13 (Queensbury Planning Board OS/20/08) MR. ARAKELIAN-I'm not twisting your arm. I'm just trying to tell you how it happened. mean, it wasn't a, I'm sorry, but it wasn't a Major until. MR. LAPPER-Our goal is to comply with the Major. We believe that the Town Engineer signed off on it as a Major. We submitted it as a Major. We believe that it complies. The Town Engineer signed off. MRS. BRUNO-May I ask Staff if we have the jurisdiction to ask the Town Engineer to look at something again if we feel, perhaps, we or he overlooked something that was at that time important? MR. HILTON-I believe that if you have questions you can still table and seek additional information. So I believe, yes, but the one thing I would be cautious of here is this was tabled. The public hearing was closed. There's a certain amount of time to act once the public hearing is closed. MRS. BRUNO-Okay. MR. HILTON-But, to answer your original question, I believe if the Board has a, you know, they're seeking more information or have more questions then I believe you can table, and in the resolution state the additional information, or the additional question you want answered. MRS. BRUNO-And do you know approximately, let's see, when did we close the, we have, what 60 days? MR. HILTON-I believe so, 60 or 62, and this was tabled on the 18th of March. MRS. BRUNO-So we're getting pretty close. This goes back to that original mistake of us closing it. MRS. STEFFAN-Well, I also think that we're being unreasonable. If you look at the tabling motion. MR. HUNSINGER-I was going to say. I take exception to that. I don't think it was a mistake at all. MRS. STEFFAN-Yes, revised the Floor Area, we asked the applicant, in our tabling motion, to revise the Floor Area Ratio calculations, which they did, to address the VISION Engineering comments, which they did, to address Staff Notes, which they did, to provide a landscaping plan, which they did, and to put a notation on their plans that all lighting will be downcast. They haven't done that. We could put that as a condition for approval, but the other conditions that we laid out have been met, and so this issue was not brought up at the last meeting, and so I'm kind of scratching my head. I just think it's unreasonable to go back. MR. HUNSINGER-I feel the same way. MRS. BRUNO-Well, I think we're starting to go off into a bit of a tangent that it's not just this applicant, in terms of reasonableness or unreasonableness, and I was starting to allude to this earlier, in that we asked for a landscaping plan, yes, they came back with it, yes, but that doesn't mean that we had to accept that, and that seems to be happening at different points, that applicants come in front of us and think that just because they have given us all of the information that that gives them an automatic okay. So I think we're starting to have more of an argument about processes. MR. KREBS-Yes, but I think if you're going to constantly ask these people to come back, come back, come back, that's ridiculous. MRS. BRUNO-Well, I agree with that, and that's why I'm saying. MR. KREBS-Okay. So you either do the job properly the first time, and get all your questions down, or don't expect them to answer those questions at a later time. MRS. BRUNO-I agree with you. Excuse me, please, let me finish. MR. SIPP-Why not? 14 (Queensbury Planning Board OS/20/08) MR. KREBS-Why not? Because you can't hold these people up forever, Don. MR. SIPP-We're not holding them up forever. We're holding them up for a reason. MRS. BRUNO-Excuse me. MR. HUNSINGER-Mrs. Bruno has the floor. MR. SIPP-For a reason, they never came back. MR. KREBS-That property has been like that for years. MR. SIPP-Fine. MR. KREBS-You're asking him to do something in addition to what that property was before. MR. SIPP-Right. I am. We've asked a lot of people. MRS. STEFFAN-Gentlemen, Tanya has the floor, please. MR. HUNSINGER-Mrs. Bruno, do you want to finish your thought? MRS. BRUNO-Thank you. I agree that when we make mistakes it takes the applicants more time. I have been in their shoes many times, both personally and professionally, and it is extremely frustrating. However, one thing that we have to understand is that, again, we all make mistakes. I don't want to beat a dead horse with this particular applicant, but, Mr. Krebs, I think you're out of line by stating that, and maybe after you've volunteered more time you will understand that only a certain time. MR. HUNSINGER-Well, let's keep the issues to the project and not talk about personal attacks here. The one person that really hasn't made any comments is Mr. Traver. What's your feeling on this application? You haven't said anything yet. MR. TRAVER-Well, quite honestly, with regards to stormwater, I'm more concerned with the buffering on the lake than I am of the calculations for the 100 year storm, and I guess I would ask perhaps Mr. Seguljic and Mr. Sipp that if we could add some form of additional buffering at the seawall, would that offset any concern you had regarding the stormwater issues perhaps in other locations on the property? MR. SEGULJIC-Absolutely. MR. TRAVER-Then I would then ask the applicant if perhaps you would consider adding some area of buffering in that area immediately behind the seawall and let that resolve the stormwater issue so we can move forward. MR. LAPPER-How much of the seawall are you asking for? I mean, right by the house or the entire frontage? MR. TRAVER-Myself, I'm more concerned, not with the area immediately in front of the house because you have added some vegetative buffering there. I would be more concerned about the area in front of the open lawn. MR. LAPPER-And I guess the applicant's position is that that's a historic lawn. It's been there, and they want to keep it the way it is, and that it's not causing sedimentation to go into the lake because of the design. That's important to them. MR. TRAVER-I understand, and I can appreciate your position. I guess, and I think as a Board we can appreciate the historic value. I guess we also hope that you appreciate our need to feel that we're adding to the protection of the lake. So this is why I think perhaps in this way we can reach some kind of comfort level on both sides with regards to the stormwater issue, rather than go back and having to recalculate or submit additional information regarding the stormwater for potential 100 year storms or whatever. That may be a valid issue. However, I think there's no question, and there's precedent with other applicants, even though they've had pre-existing lawns, that we have always made an effort to try to increase the buffering of the lake, and I think you folk are also aware of that as an issue around a lake, and I appreciate the landscaping that you've done around the house. I think that that's appropriate, but there does remain the concern where there is an open area of lawn immediately behind the seawall, and I 15 (Queensbury Planning Board OS/20/08) would just ask that if you'd consider providing some level of, right now there's zero. I'm not saying you have to do 10 feet or 15 feet, but if you could put a row of, a hedge row or something there that as Don I think pointed out earlier, the topographic nature of the property is such that it's not going to interrupt the view, but it is going to provide some buffering and some additional absorption of nutrients to reduce the tropophication of the lake, and that would I think make us feel much more comfortable about the project, which I think in general is an excellent project, and we'll move this thing forward. MR. LAPPER-First of all, Steve, we appreciate any effort to compromise, is the way this process should work, and we appreciate your position, and I guess what the applicant just whispered to me is that they wouldn't want to disturb anything, the main part of the lawn, but the area near the house where there is that one area of the 20% slope seems reasonable that if they were going to add additional planting, that that would be the area that would make the most sense. It would be south of the boathouse, of the dock, and, Jim, can you propose something for that area, some low shrubs? MR. MILLER-Certainly could if I knew what area we were talking about. MR. LAPPER-Right here, south of the dock. MR. SIPP-South of the dock. MR. TRAVER-The area from the dock to, south to the area of that one tree, to the west of the house. MR. LAPPER-So a reasonably sized low shrub bed in that area. MR. MILLER-We're talking this area in here? MR. LAPPER-Yes. MR. HUTCHINS-We're talking from the boathouse down. MR. LAPPER-Not the whole area, just some part, the center part of that, by that curve. MR. ARAKELIAN-The steepest part is like probably from, where there might be some, which I don't believe there is, I've been living there a long time, I've never seen it, but from this area here from probably to this area here, this hill, where this is, and that's why we planted this, to catch any that was coming down here, but obviously that wasn't enough. So I would say to catch that, because I mean, this is pretty flat over here. There's nothing happening there. Possibly from like here to here, this hill is the steepest on the land by far, and we would consider in the front of that. MR. LAPPER-That is an attempt to compromise. Is that something that would be acceptable to you, Steve? MR. TRAVER-It's acceptable to me. MR. LAPPER-What could you propose, Jim? MR. MILLER-I think, you know, what I would suggest, and I think would probably be more in keeping with what's intended in that buffer, what I'd like to do, if we could identify an area that's say eight feet by twenty or twenty five, whatever the dimension is, and then we could develop a plan for that, and we certainly could work off of this list down next to the lake, and I would suggest, though, what we'd like to do is something that's more natural, you know, rather than to do a row, we'd rather do more natural grouping using a selection of plants, but if we could define an area, size and location, I could develop a plan, and we would work off of this list that Mr. Sipp provided. MR. TRAVER-It's my own feeling that I'd rather see it narrower, but wider, behind that seawall. MR. MILLER-Okay. MRS. BRUNO-Narrower but wider. Which is it? MR. TRAVER-I think, you know what I mean. MRS. BRUNO-Lengthwise longer, but thinner. Okay. 16 (Queensbury Planning Board OS/20/08) MR. MILLER-I absolutely do, the other wider. MR. TRAVER-Yes, I mean, and not as far back from the lake, perhaps, the same square footage that you're referring to, but rather covering as wide an area of that lake frontage as possible. MRS. STEFFAN-But then it becomes a feel good project, instead of something that can do the work that needs to be done. MR. TRAVER-I think even a relatively small buffer is going to have a measurable impact, although I would defer to Don on that. I think something is better than nothing. MR. SEGULJIC-It's going to help. It's going to help keep the geese off the lawn, the geese from populating. MR. TRAVER-And I think it's a good compromise. MR. HUNSINGER-Do you have something to propose? MR. MILLER-What if we said we'd pick an area along there that was five foot wide by 30 foot long, in that area. MR. LAPPER-As a compromise. MR. MILLER-And then we would develop a planting plan using native species. MR. TRAVER-That sounds like a good. MR. SEGULJIC-Could you make it a little bigger than that, 10 feet wide? MR. SIPP-Ten feet because of the width of your. MR. HUNSINGER-How far off the lake, off the seawall? MR. HUTCHINS-Basically at the seawall. MR. MILLER-What I think we'd do is we'd want to do it at the seawall. MR. LAPPER-So we're offering five by thirty. MR. MILLER-I think the intent would be, if we were to do that, you know, we'd actually create a bit of a depression below the top of the seawall and then grade back and then, you know, plant it in that area. MR. TRAVER-I think that would be a big help. MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. MR. LAPPER-So five by thirty is what we're offering, along the seawall. MR. SEGULJIC-Could we make it any bigger than five by thirty? MR. LAPPER-The applicant said that's what they'd offer. MR. SIPP-Eight by thirty. Two rows. MR. LAPPER-Five by thirty is what the applicant's offering. MRS. STEFFAN-Jim, you said planted with natural, native species? MR. HUNSINGER-Is there a name on that list? MR. LAPPER-Yes. MR. SIPP-Well, here is the Lake George Association, it's just a reiteration, but there's more of them. MR. HUTCHINS-That's it. 17 (Queensbury Planning Board OS/20/08) MR. HUNSINGER-I think we've referenced that document before. MR. LAPPER-And we would just add that to the final plan, as a condition. MR. SEGULJIC-Okay. One other quick question. You have a well on the site, but yet you note you're going to be taking water from the lake. MR. LAPPER-No. They're going to be taking well water. Right now they're using lake water, but the proposal is to use a well. MR. SEGULJIC-On your wastewater and stormwater details, in the notes you say potable water supply will be Lake George lake water. MR. HUTCHINS-That was the original plan. The well was added later. MR. SEGULJIC-So that should be taken off, and then you're going to use the well. MR. LAPPER-Yes. So that note should be changed. Yes, it should be well. MR. SEGULJIC-So as far as I can tell, we've have the note for the 50% reserve. Should add the second perc test information, and then the use of no fertilizers on site. MR. LAPPER-Or no phosphorus. MR. SIPP-No fertilizer. MRS. STEFFAN-You can't, that is unenforceable. MR. LAPPER-No phosphorus fertilizer. MR. SEGULJIC-But they volunteered. MR. LAPPER-Phosphorus is what was volunteered. MR. HUNSINGER-Well, they volunteered no phosphorus. MR. KREBS-No phosphorus, and that's the only thing you really want to control anyway, because there's already enough nitrogen in the water to create the problem. So you've got to control the phosphorus. MR. SEGULJIC-And then the other note would be the existing absorption field. So, we should put that on there. You said you're going to decommission. MR. HUTCHINS-Yes, I'll put a note on there. MRS. STEFFAN-Tom, you need to put the motion together. I didn't write down all the things you were talking about. So you're going to need to do that. MR. SEGULJIC-Okay. MR. HUNSINGER-Is everyone comfortable with the project, then? MR. SEGULJIC-Yes. MR. HUNSINGER-It's a Type II action which doesn't require SEQRA. MRS. STEFFAN-I will say that I'll vote to approve it because I think the project should be approved, but I am not happy about some of the conditions. I just don't think they're appropriate. I think they're unreasonable, but I will vote for the project. MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. Would anyone like to put forward the motion. Mr. Seguljic, you're working on that? MR. SEGULJIC-I'm working on it diligently. You said five by thirty? MR. LAPPER-Yes, and our goal is always to try and compromise and work it out, and we appreciate it. 18 (Queensbury Planning Board OS/20/08) MR. MILLER-Tom, could you say average of five by thirty? Because I have a problem kind of planting everything in that little square box. MR. SEGULJIC-I understand, and how are we going to define that area, the location of it? MR. MILLER-Well, if you want to, if you can show me on the plan, I'd be happy to. MR. TRAVER-Why don't you just say from the boathouse south along the seawall. MR. MILLER-Okay. MR. ARAKELIAN-Well, we want it to be south of that. MR. LAPPER-lt'lI be the area where the steepest slope. MR. SEGULJIC-In the area where it says 450 feet along shore? This area here I believe is what's being described. MR. HUNSINGER-It's north of the 12 inch birch tree, basically. MR. LAPPER-lt'lI be right where it says 450. MR. SEGULJIC-Okay. MR. LAPPER-Where it says 450, Tom. MR. SEGULJIC-We'lI say north of the 12 inch birch tree. MR. LAPPER-Yes. MR. SEGULJIC-Okay. Was there anything else, then? Okay. MOTION TO APPROVE SITE PLAN NO. 5-2008 DAVID & LOIS ARAKELIAN, Introduced by Thomas Seguljic who moved for its adoption, seconded by Donald Sipp: 1) A site plan application has been made to the Queensbury Planning Board for the following: Applicant proposes demolition of existing cabins and construction of a new residence, garage, driveway, wastewater system and stormwater management controls. Site Plan Review as a Major Stormwater Project per Chap. 147 is required due to disturbance within a CEA 2) A public hearing was advertised and held on 3/18/08; and 3) This application is supported with all documentation, public comment and application material in the file of record; 4) Pursuant to relevant sections of the Town of Queensbury Zoning Code [Chapter 179], the Planning Board has determined that this proposal complies with the requirements as stated in the Zoning Code; and 5) NOT APPLICABLE - The requirements of the State Environmental Quality Review Act have been considered and the Planning Board has adopted a SEQRA Negative / Positive Declaration; OR if the application is a modification, the requirements of the State Environmental Quality Review Act have been considered, and the proposed modification[s] do not result in any new or significantly different environmental impacts, and, therefore, no further SEQRA review is necessary; and 6) 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. The applicant must meet with Staff after approval and prior to issuance of Building Permit and/or the beginning of any site work. Subsequent issuance of further permits, including building permits is dependent on compliance with this and all other conditions of this resolution. 19 (Queensbury Planning Board OS/20/08) 7) The applicant will provide as-built plans to certify that the site plan is developed according to the approved plans prior to issuance of the certificate of occupancy; and 8) NOT APPLICABLE - If applicable, Item 7 to be combined with a letter of credit; and 9) NOT APPLICABLE - The Sanitary Sewer connection plan must be submitted to the Wastewater Department for its review, approval, permitting and inspection; and 10) MOTION TO APPROVE SITE PLAN NO. 5-2008 DAVID & LOIS ARAKELIAN, Introduced by Thomas Seguljic who moved for its adoption, seconded by Donald Sipp: In accordance with the resolution prepared by Staff. Number Five does not apply. It was a Type II. Number Eight does not apply. Number Nine does not apply. I will move for approval with the following conditions: 1. That a 50% septic system reserve area will be located on the plans. 2. The second perc test information for the new septic system will be provided on the plans. 3. A note that the existing absorption field with cabins will be properly decommissioned. 4. That a buffer area consisting of native plantings averaging five feet wide by thirty feet long the lakeshore, located adjacent to the seawall to the north of the 12 inch birch tree noted on the landscape plan. 5. That we grant the waiver for lighting. Duly adopted this 20th day of May, 2008, by the following vote: MRS. STEFFAN-Tom, you didn't make the note that they asked for a waiver on lighting. We have to identify whether we grant that. MR. SEGULJIC-Motion that we grant the waiver for lighting. MRS. STEFFAN-And we have to add a notation on the plat that all lighting on the site will be downcast. MR. SEGULJIC-And provide a note, yes, they already have that on the wastewater plan, lighting note, all exterior lighting will is to be downcast. MRS. STEFFAN-According to Staff Notes it's not. MRS. BRUNO-It's right here. MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. We have a motion and a second. I just wanted to comment, as a point of clarification on the planting, that it should be five feet wide and thirty feet long along the lakeshore. MR. LAPPER-Yes, we'll say average of five feet wide. It'll undulate a little bit. Thank you. AYES: Mrs. Traver, Mrs. Bruno, Mrs. Steffan, Mr. Krebs, Mr. Seguljic, Mr. Sipp, Mr. Hunsinger NOES: NONE MR. LAPPER-Thank you. We appreciate it. MR. HUNSINGER-You're welcome. Good luck. SITE PLAN NO. 7-2008 FRESHWATER WETLANDS 4-2008 SEQR TYPE UNLISTED K TWIN HOLDINGS AGENT(S) RICHARD E. JONES ASSOCIATES OWNER(S) K TWIN THREE, LLC ZONING HC-INT LOCATION WEST SIDE MEADOWBROOK RD., NORTH OF QUAKER RD. INTERSECTION SITE PLAN: APPLICANT PROPOSES CONSTRUCTION OF AN OFFICE BUILDING WITH ASSOCIATED SITE WORK. OFFICE BUILDINGS IN THE HC-INT. ZONE REQUIRE PLANNING BOARD REVIEW AND APPROVAL. FRESHWATER WETLANDS: APPLICANT PROPOSES 20 (Queensbury Planning Board OS/20/08) DISTURBANCE, FILLING AND CONSTRUCTION WITHIN 100 FEET OF A DEC DESIGNATED WETLAND. CONSTRUCTION WITHIN 100 FEET OF ANY REGULATED WETLAND REQUIRES A FRESHWATER WETLANDS PERMIT FROM THE PLANNING BOARD. PLANNING BOARD WILL ACKNOWLEDGE LEAD AGENCY STATUS; COMMENCE SEQR REVIEW AND FORWARD THEIR RECOMMENDATIONS TO ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS. CROSS REFERENCE AV 5-08 WARREN CO. PLANNING 2/12/08 APA/CEA/DEC DEC; GF-19 LOT SIZE 0.22 ACRES; 0.43 ACRES TAX MAP NO. 296.20-1-9, 10 SECTION 179-4-020, 179-9-020, 94-5 RICHARD JONES, REPRESENTING APPLICANT, PRESENT MR. HUNSINGER-Do you want to summarize Staff Notes, please, when you're ready. MR. HILTON-Really quickly, I'll just go over a couple of items here. As I've indicated in my memo, the Planning Board, it's anticipated, will accept Lead Agency Status for the SEQRA review tonight and begin, continue further reviewing the application and potential begin reviewing SEQRA. The ZBA has asked for a recommendation on potential wetland stormwater impacts. Should the Planning Board conclude the SEQRA review this evening, the Planning Board should table the item and forward any recommendation to the Zoning Board of Appeals. A couple of notes on the new information received. The applicant has indicated that snow will be removed from the site, and the Planning Board may wish to have a draft agreement in place before any approval, indicating where the snow will go. As far as lighting, the Planning Board should consider a stipulation of any final approval that all lighting be completely downcast with cutoff fixtures as required by the Code. As far as plantings, the previous Staff comments have asked for additional trees and plantings along Meadowbrook Road, and the applicant has stated, due to bedrock, that that's difficult to do, and I guess my comment to reiterate is that the Board should consider some shrubs or low lying plantings, that may not need a lot of soil, that would help screen the parking area and the site a little bit more from the surrounding areas. I guess the biggest comment is that the applicant, under the new information, has stated that they're seeking a waiver from Section 147 and Section 147 is the stormwater code, as you are aware, that applies to areas in the Town that are in the Lake George drainage basin. As this is not in that drainage basin, the stormwater basin, the stormwater requirements listed in the Subdivision Regs apply. The Planning Board can grant a waiver to this Section. However, in doing that, I've stated that you should consider any comments on the sizing of the proposed basin and any stormwater comments that VISION Engineering may have prior to granting such a waiver. Lastly, the applicant indicates that additional test pits will be dug in cooperation with the Town Engineer, and I guess it's just a question, has this work been done and has the Town Engineer witnessed this or reviewed this data? Separately we have a memo that kind of goes through and summarizes the SEQRA issues in preparation for your SEQRA review potentially this evening, as I indicated. If you guys have any questions on that, by all means, and I think that's all we have at this time. MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. Thank you. Good evening. MR. SEGULJIC-Excuse me. Could I just ask a question? What exactly could the Zoning Board, because the Zoning Board sent this to us for a recommendation, correct? MR. HUNSINGER-Right. MR. SEGULJIC-So now we're going to seek Lead Agency Status? MR. HUNSINGER-Yes. MR. SEGULJIC-And then start Site Plan Review? MR. HUNSINGER-George? MR. HILTON-You've already passed a resolution to seek. This evening you would probably. MR. HUNSINGER-This would be to accept. MR. SEGULJIC-To accept. MR. HILTON-Yes. 21 (Queensbury Planning Board OS/20/08) MR. SEGULJIC-Okay, but don't we just have to give the Zoning Board a recommendation? MR. HILTON-Well, except that they need a SEQRA determination prior to their reviewing, or prior to their acting on the required variances. MR. SEGULJIC-Okay, and so we have to do the SEQRA and then it goes back to the Zoning Board? MR. HILTON-To the Zoning Board, correct. MR. SEGULJIC-For the variances, and then it comes back here for the Site Plan. MR. HUNSINGER-Right. We can't approve Site Plan this evening. MR. SEGULJIC-Okay. MR. JONES-Good evening. For the record, Richard Jones, architect for the project. With me is Dan Krueger from K-Twin Holdings. We've gotten the comments back from VISION Engineering in response to our submission of Mayor April, I believe, and basically most of the items have been addressed and completed. There are several items that are still open. We did, for the Board's information and the Staff information, we did complete the test pits on site last Friday. In reference to the Town Engineer reviewing or being on site for those, it was determined by Craig Brown that it was not a requirement of the Planning Board. So he did not appear and he did not witness the test holes. Basically, we were looking to complete the test pits on site, as a pre-condition to submission of our Freshwater Wetlands permit to DEC, and that is going to be made. We have the applications completed at this time, and they are ready to go in. With regard to the test pits, and I know that Staff had some questions with regard to additional plantings along the roadside, the test pits that we dug from the rock outcroppings to the, what would be the south end of the site, we picked a spot right in the middle of that, approximately 15 feet back from the property line. We have anywhere from two to four inches of soil. So it's going to be very difficult to do any planting at all because of that limited condition. As we go to the north along Meadowbrook Road, we did attempt to dig a test hole in the middle of the area that's proposed for the driveway. Rock is right at, basically we removed the leaves and the debris, and rock is right there. We still have enough in that area to do our base course and our paving. As we go to the north corner, approximately 10 to 15 feet back from the property line, we were able to get down approximately three feet in that area, and we hit large boulders. The site is full of boulders that are anywhere from two feet in diameter to three or four feet in diameter. We did not have a piece of equipment large enough on site to move those, but it's our feeling that at that point we could definitely get down into the five and six foot range, and that is adjacent to the Town property where the pumping station is, and that does drop off considerably right in there. That is forward of the test pits that we had dug initially in the area where we were looking to provide our retention and detention area for our stormwater. We did dig a test hole in the middle of the building area, and we basically had gotten down in the neighborhood of 52 inches, and again, we hit large boulders, and we didn't have a piece of equipment large enough to move them. The site has been filled and there's a large abundance of large rocks, debris, concrete block, that type of thing. So it appears that once you get back approximately 25 feet from the road, which is about the setback to the front of our building, we have maybe one to two feet of depth to get to bedrock at that location. It would be our intent, basically, to pin foundations on the front side of the building to bedrock, and we would have adequate depth as we come back, the depth from Meadowbrook Road to be able to get standard foundations in to a five foot dimension, below frost. In reference to our water and sewer, there is a manhole that exists right now in Meadowbrook, a sanitary manhole that's right about, I believe the Site Plan does indicate that. It's just to the northeast of our northeast corner of our property. Because of our ability to get down in that test hole in that corner, our sewer line can be put in in that area as well as our water. I know that the Town Engineer had requested a protection detail for the water. It would be our intent to provide that five to six feet below grade, and if we were having problems getting it down, we would then provide protection, but I think what we need to basically, when we excavate for that, do a removal of large boulders to be able to get enough depth for that. With regard to the waiver that was requested, I believe that that was a misnomer on our part. It should have been Chapter 183 and not 147, as we had referenced. Basically, the determination of the additional comments or the review comments that we had received back from VISION, we feel, are minor in reference to what needs to be completed in that regard. With regard to Staff comments, we did not feel, at this point, that there was anything in 22 (Queensbury Planning Board OS/20/08) those comments that was adverse to what we were attempting to do. The majority of the questions and comments I think at this point are still in reference to the stormwater as proposed for the site, and the waiver that we would be requesting. MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. Questions, comments from the Board? MR. SEGULJIC-Could you have picked a tougher site? MR. JONES-No. MR. SEGULJIC-I thought so. MR. JONES-I think we've hit just about every request for a variance or waiver that we could ask for. MRS. STEFFAN-What's the building going to be used for? MR. JONES-It's basically an office building. It will have one space for ARMA, which is another division of K-Twin, which is basically a building maintenance company. They do landscaping, building maintenance, that type of thing, and the other would be a rental space for professional offices. MR. HUNSINGER-Based on the test pits, is it your opinion now that you will be able to have infiltration on site? MR. JONES-We feel that we can provide infiltration on site, but it's going to be limited in nature, and I know that we have designed, at this point, to a ten year storm. Could we increase that probably to a 25 year, probably we could, and the impact on the infiltration probably is not going to be much greater than what we currently have. There will be an increase in requirement, but I think it'll be minimal in nature. MRS. STEFFAN-I just think, based on reviewing the project, and looking at all the limitations of the site, I think that by approving this, that we'd be exacerbating the problems in the area. I mean, we had some public comment the last time where folks have water in their basement a good part of the year, and the percolation rates in the area are quite long because it's a wetland, and so I'm just not feeling real good about this particular project. It's like everything is to an extreme, and I'm just afraid that if we proceed further, what will happen, if during construction you run into any issues. There's no margins for error here. MR. JONES-Basically the wetlands that flow along what would be the west side of this property are a flow through area from the intersection of Quaker and Meadowbrook. Most everything comes through the culvert under Quaker Road and dumps onto the north side of Quaker Road. It flows to the west toward Midas Muffler, and then it's found an area, when Midas Muffler was built, it basically displaced the wetlands that were there, to the east, and I know that George, when he originally did his wetland overlay, had indicated that there were wetlands just on the northwest corner of this property. Well, the actual wetlands now have been displaced along the entire west side of the property. As you go to the north, you have the Queensbury pumping station, and then you have the storage units. The storage units basically paved over the entire wetland and put a culvert underneath it, which is restricting the flow of the water to the north. That is not something that we've caused, and I think that the majority of the water that's flowing onto this property is from the south side of Quaker Road, and that we cannot control. The amount of runoff that we have on this site is minimal in comparison to what you have right now for flow through under Quaker, as you can see there, and that basically, as I said, goes to the west side of the property and flows north along the west property line, and it was flowing pretty heavily this Spring. The runoff that we're getting from this property, the soils are fill soils. There's a lot of boulders, but it's very granular material that's mixed in with that. There's an abundance of topsoil and loam, but there is a lot of granular material that's mixed in with that. MRS. STEFFAN-When you're not at the bedrock. MR. JONES-And the bedrock, as you go to the back of the property, drops off significantly. The only place we have an outcropping is along the front edge. Once we get back 25 feet onto the property, the bedrock drops off substantially, and as you go to the north it drops off substantially. There's that one rise that runs parallel with Meadowbrook Road, and that's the only one that we have to contend with. Everything 23 (Queensbury Planning Board OS/20/08) else is a filled site on that property. They actually filled right to the wetlands, and I think that they actually pushed fill into the wetlands originally. MRS. STEFFAN-What is the life of a timber retaining wall? MR. JONES-I would say it's probably in the neighborhood of 20 years, and that's subject to maintenance. MRS. STEFFAN-Because I know in my time on the Planning Board I don't think I've seen a timber retaining wall. Most of them have been concrete or some kind of a stone product. MR. JONES-Well, they want it to be natural, and I think that the choices were stone or timber, and we felt that timber was a more reasonable use, because if we need to batter the face of it, we can certainly do that. MR. HUNSINGER-Other questions or comments from Board members? MR. TRAVER-Could you address the issue of the buffering along the Meadowbrook side of the property? MR. JONES-The Meadowbrook side of the property, which is what you're looking at here, that rise that you see, that mound, is actually the bedrock, and that runs from, I'm going to say, a point probably 25 feet from our south property line all the way through to where our driveway is proposed, and there's anywhere from two to four inches of soil, and that goes back, you're back probably 25 feet, which is I think what we're proposing for a setback on our front yard, and at that point you get about two feet of depth. So we really don't have enough depth in that area, and you can tell from the existing tree lines that there is not enough depth to support any type of tree. MR. TRAVER-Right. MR. JONES-It's our intent to try and plant plantings, foundation plantings, along the base of the building to soften it. In reference to the parking area itself, anything that we can do with that outcropping that we have, we're not going to remove it. If anything, we're going to be building up the site behind it. So we're going to be picking up a little bit of elevation, but my concern would be how close we can get a major tree and what kind of root system we can get in the ground. MR. TRAVER-Well, I'm just wondering if you could put some kind of a berm or something across there, and even if you don't put large trees, can you put a hedgerow or just something to break up. MR. JONES-To screen the building or are you thinking the building or the parking itself? MR. TRAVER-The parking. MR. JONES-The parking we could probably get enough depth back to do some type of a hedgerow in that area, that would be the parking on the south side or to the front of the, well, to what we're calling the front of our building, the side of the building. The other side, the parking that we have to the north side, is adjacent to the retention area, and we have part of the retaining wall starting in there. So I would hesitate on putting too many large trees or hedgerows in there. I think that we could probably plant along the edge of the, what would be the first parking space closest to Meadowbrook on that side, do some type of planting there, but it would be limited again. MR. TRAVER-Okay. MR. HUNSINGER-Any other questions from Board members, comments? MR. SEGULJIC-Well, I'm just, because the Code says you can maintain a landscape of at least 10 feet wide I believe is what it says, along public roadways. MR. JONES-Yes, and we're back far enough to be able to do that. MR. SEGULJIC-So along Meadowbrook you're going to be able to maintain? MR. JONES-Well, assuming we've got enough depth, and that I think is. 24 (Queensbury Planning Board OS/20/08) MR. SEGULJIC-But you could berm that up to bring? MR. JONES-We could berm it up, but we've also got to be careful because our sheet flow drainage is going to the north along the front, and now we're probably going to be severely limited in trying to put that culvert in. I don't think we're going to be able to do that under the drive. We're going to have to raise up the area in front of the building and basically have it sheet flow across the pavement to the north side and then do collection which goes into our storm area. MR. SEGULJIC-Just take a second, again, and explain how the stormwater's going to work. I'm sorry. MR. JONES-That's okay. MR. SEGULJIC-Stormwater is a big concern of mine. MR. JONES-Yes, and I understand that. Basically we're doing collection from roof and collection devices on site, and we're going to that retention area on the north side of the parking. MR. SEGULJIC-The northern most part of the site. MR. JONES-Yes. MR. SEGULJIC-Okay. MR. JONES-I think there's a depressed area there before you get to the property line, and we're doing limited infiltration in that area, and then I believe that there was an overflow designed into that. MR. SEGULJIC-And that goes out towards the wetland. MR. JONES-Right, and I believe that there's an existing culvert in that area now. MR. SEGULJIC-Okay. All right, and then you also have the retention along Meadowbrook. MR. JONES-Yes. I don't think that's going to work, though, because of the rock outcroppings that we have, and the fact that we don't have sufficient depth to be able to get the culvert in on the south side of the drive and pipe it to the north side of the drive. It's going to be a sheet flow situation across there. MR. SEGULJIC-So you're not going to control stormwater running on the west, from west to east towards Meadowbrook? MR. JONES-It's not going to flow toward Meadowbrook. It's actually, Meadowbrook is higher than. MR. SEGULJIC-Well, I guess that retention basin you had proposed along Meadowbrook. MR. JONES-Right. MR. SEGULJIC-What was that going to collect? MR. JONES-That was collecting whatever we had coming, running north along and parallel to Meadowbrook. MR. SEGULJIC-So you're saying you can't fit that in because of the bedrock. MR. JONES-We cannot do that. So we're going to be dependent upon sheet flow coming across and collecting on the north side. We have enough depth, once you get to the north side of the drive, to be able to do the retention or the little depression that we have. MR. SEGULJIC-So you hope to have, should I say the landscaping, directed, the sheet flow to the north and hopefully into the culvert under your driveway and then to the basin on the north? Is that? 25 (Queensbury Planning Board OS/20/08) MR. JONES-The culvert under the driveway cannot exist because of the bedrock, right. MR. SEGULJIC-Something's got to give here. MR. JONES-Well, the sheet flow, all the flow on the site currently is going from Meadowbrook to the north, along parallel with Meadowbrook, or it's going to the west on the back side of the site. Once we do our development, we're going to raise the site where the building is, okay, and then we're going to basically have a drainage swale coming along the front of the building, and we would have sheet flow coming across. MR. SEGULJIC-Excuse me. When you say the front, what side is that? That's the east side of the building? MR. JONES-East side of the building, yes. MR. SEGULJIC-AII right. MR. JONES-It would be coming across the drive and then we would do our small depression on the north side, and then pipe or divert that into our retention area on the north side. MR. SEGULJIC-Now is that retention basin going to meet the design requirements? MR. JONES-It's currently designed as a ten year storm. I think we can design it for a 25 and have a minimal impact both on the size and the infiltration that we're looking at. MR. SEGULJIC-Now, getting back to one of the earlier questions, really you're having a proposed one story office with a two car garage, and you also have another two car garage. MR. JONES-No, there's a garage on site that will be for storage of equipment. MR. HUNSINGER-Yes, there's only one two car garage. MR. JONES-Yes. MR. SEGULJIC-Well, it says proposed one story office building and two car garage. Then we have two car garage. MR. JONES-Which one are you looking at, Tom? MR. HUNSINGER-I see what you're saying. MR. SEGULJIC-Okay. You're just saying it's a one story building with a two car garage and this is where the two car garage is? MR. JONES-Right, yes. MR. SEGULJIC-Okay. That clarifies that. MR. JONES-We're not going to park any trucks or cars in that. It's strictly for equipment. MR. SEGULJIC-You're going to have your business running here, and hopefully be able to rent out the other space. MR. JONES-Yes. MRS. BRUNO-I think you had indicated that you might sometimes work on that equipment within the garage? DAN KRUEGER MR. KRUEGER-No, you had asked if we would work on that equipment. MRS. BRUNO-Okay. Thank you for clarifying. MR. SEGULJIC-I mean, this is (lost word) of what we've been dealing with lately here. This has all come to a head right here. 26 (Queensbury Planning Board OS/20/08) MR. JONES-We've bundled it all into one little neat package for you. MRS. BRUNO-I'm a little worried about the inability for the winter infiltration. You state that the discharge to the infiltration in winter cannot be accomplished, and the discharge to the stream through a stone covered one inch orifice is supplied to ensure the trickle discharge to the tributary of Halfway Brook. To me that just sends up a red flag. I mean, if you have any sort of leakage or anything in the driveway during the winter, and that'll go straight in. I mean, that's one of the red flags that comes up in my mind. MR. JONES-We could do a separation device of some type for oil separation if that were something that the Board wanted us to address. MRS. BRUNO-Yes, I would say that at least minimum, and then we would need to require a maintenance plan for something like that. MR. JONES-Yes, and that's typically what's done. Yes. MR. SEGULJIC-My concern is that, engineering wise, I think we could make this site work, but overall, individually, we could handle these things, but overall, I mean, you're on a relatively visible corner. You're going to have limited landscaping there. You've been having stormwater issues right adjacent to a wetland area, which is where we know we have drainage issues. I'm comfortable with the overall thing. I mean, is there a way we can make the building smaller? Are you married to this site? I mean, it's going to be. MR. KRUEGER-I bought it. MR. JONES-He's married. MR. SEGULJIC-Is there a way we can make the building smaller and try and reduce the runoff? MR. KRUEGER-I mean, every reduction has a cost and whether it makes it a feasible project. The smaller you go, the less, you know, worthwhile it is doing. MR. SEGULJIC-I can understand that. MR. KRUEGER-I guess I would ask how much reduction? MR. SEGULJIC-I mean, you see what we're up against. Everywhere you turn there's an issue. MRS. STEFFAN-And one of my concerns is granting all these waivers would set precedents for other projects that come forth. I mean, there's so many issues with this particular site. MR. KRUEGER-Well, I think it's a very unique piece of property. I mean, I don't think there's many like it. MRS. STEFFAN-In many ways. MR. SEGULJIC-I don't think there's any question about that. MR. HUNSINGER-Well, where are we at? MRS. STEFFAN-The ZBA wants a recommendation, and it doesn't meet some of our basic criteria. So I'm reluctant to give the ZBA a thumbs up, I guess. MR. SIPP-On the west side of this, where you have your retention basin along Meadowbrook, how much soil do you have there? MR. JONES-Along Meadowbrook? MR. SIPP-Yes. MR. JONES-Not much, until we hit the north side of our entrance drive. MR. SIPP-The north side of the entrance, okay. 27 (Queensbury Planning Board OS/20/08) MR. JONES-Yes. There's anywhere from two to four inches of soil in that bedrock area, and some areas the bedrock is exposed, and it's not until we get back approximately 25 feet that we're able to get enough depth. MR. SIPP-Then it slopes down. MR. JONES-Right. Yes. The bedrock starts to fall off, and it falls off very quickly, as you come back on the site. It's just that one ridge of rock that's exposed parallel with Meadowbrook. MR. SIPP-Well, if you get two to four inches of soil, if you get another inch in there, another foot, I should say, not an inch but a foot, you could grow some low looking shrubs that would enhance the property. MR. JONES-Yes. I think we could probably develop a berm along the back side of the bedrock. The thing we would want to do is keep it so that it was not above the bedrock, so that we weren't flowing toward Meadowbrook. I think if we can get to the back side, berm it, and then be able to provide a swale along the front of the building so that we still get positive drainage away from the building and the back of the bedrock, moving it to the north, I think that we could do some limited planting. I don't think they're going to be deep root plants, but we could certainly do some type of limited planting in that area. MR. SIPP-Yes. There are box wood type hedges that don't, their root systems are not that deep, and yet they can be attractive. MR. HUNSINGER-I think part of the difficulty, at least for myself this evening, is, you know, knowing this new information, that's as current as Friday, which has some impacts on your Site Plan. Certainly it affects the drain under the driveway, it affects the potential for plantings and landscaping. I wonder if maybe we should table it so that you can address, you know, use the information that you have from Friday to address concerns that you've heard raised this evening. MR. JONES-Right, and I guess my question would be if we address those concerns, but we don't, if we maintain the size of the building as it currently is, I mean, are we just beating a dead horse, or are we heading in a positive direction? MR. HUNSINGER-I don't know if I can answer that right now. You said you might be able to design to a 25 year storm. I mean, certainly if you can design to a 25 year storm, that's going to gain some more comfort that it's a workable project. MR. JONES-Right. MR. HUNSINGER-If you are able to put in some even, you know, shrubs along Meadowbrook, that's going to help a little bit also. MR. SEGULJIC-It's actually a 50 year storm you have to design to. MR. JONES-Well, we're supposed to design to a 50, and we were asking for a waiver from that. MR. SEGULJIC-Twenty-five. MR. JONES-Right. MR. SEGULJIC-Okay. MR. JONES-Yes. MR. HUNSINGER-I mean, maybe I should poll the Board now, if people are comfortable designing only to a 25 year storm. If we're willing to grant the waiver, because I think maybe that, if the Board's not comfortable with a waiver on the 50 year storm, then, you know, that would certainly send you back to the drawing board for a smaller building. MR. JONES-And I guess that's kind of where I'm going. If we're going to make revisions to the plan and we have some direction from the Board at this point, even if it's advisory, at least we have a direction to proceed with. MR. SEGULJIC-I guess one of the things, I don't know, if I recall correctly, there was some testimony about water issues in there. 28 (Queensbury Planning Board OS/20/08) MR. HUNSINGER-Yes, there is. MR. SEGULJIC-I don't believe our engineer has yet weighed in on that, as far as this potential impact on that, that narrow question. I mean, that's what I'd be looking for. MR. HUNSINGER-Yes. MR. JONES-And I don't think he's addressed that directly as a question. He didn't have a direct question. His was more questions of infiltration. MR. HUNSINGER-Mr. Krebs had a comment or question. MR. KREBS-Yes. Could you build a two story building and get the square footage and reduce the footprint? MR. JONES-Well, we could, but then it increases the circulation that we're going to need within the building, because now we need a stair tower and an elevator. So we're going to be reducing the footprint, but we're going to be adding some square footage back. I mean, we could certainly look at that as an option. MR. KREBS-I'm thinking if you have a 3,000 square foot footprint, you'd end up with a 6,000 square foot building, which may be more rentable than the smaller space, but yet you're going to reduce by 1300 square feet the actual footprint and therefore be able to do more planting or a bigger retention. MR. JONES-Yes, well, we need to be careful with the square footage that we have because of the number of parking spaces. So we don't want to increase the footprint and require more parking either. I think we've kind of optimized the size of the building, and at this point it is single story. We could certainly look at a two story option. The thing that's a little bit strange is that the space that that ARMA needs for their professional office and their garage for storage is not as big as the other tenant space. So we'd have a little bit of a strange scenario there as to how we'd break the building up if we do it as a two story. MR. SIPP-George, did the Meadowbrook studies touch on this area? MR. HILTON-Honestly I can't say. I haven't reviewed that study. MR. SIPP-I think most of it was north of here that they did an extensive study on. MR. HILTON-Yes. I don't know. I can only say that this tributary just to the west does eventually make it's way to the Halfway Brook. It's in the same drainage basin, but to answer your question, I haven't seen or reviewed the study in detail. MR. HUNSINGER-Yes. I don't believe the study even, it didn't come south of Haviland Road. MRS. STEFFAN-Although there have been problems with the culvert under, the Meadowbrook culvert that goes underneath Quaker Road. I don't think the study goes all that way. MR. JONES-Yes, I don't believe this one was a problem, though. MR. SIPP-No. MR. JONES-Because this was flowing. Where it was becoming restricted was at the storage building site, because they had paved over the site and put that culvert in, which I think has restricted the flow. MR. SIPP-Minogue's is where they had the big problem. MRS. STEFFAN-I would like to see the applicant try to re-work the project, because I just think, from a Planning Board point of view, I think it would be irresponsible for us to grant a waiver, especially in the Meadowbrook watershed. We know we have known water issues there. The water table, maybe not on this site, but the water table in that area is very high, and I'm just, I'm really uncomfortable with granting a waiver on that stormwater from the Code. There's so many deviations from the Code on this site, and that's one I wouldn't want to deviate on. 29 (Queensbury Planning Board OS/20/08) MR. HUNSINGER-Anyone else want to comment on that? MR. TRAVER-Well, I agree on the stormwater issues. With the proximity to the wetland and the public comment we've received on the issue, I think if they can manage the stormwater according to Code, I think that's fine, but a waiver I think is risky at best. MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. One of the resolutions that was in our Board package is a resolution acknowledging the Lead Agency Status. Would it be appropriate to go ahead and adopt that this evening? MR. HILTON-Absolutely. MR. HUNSINGER-Even if we don't go any further? MR. HILTON-No, absolutely, because there's no time clock associated with that resolution. MR. HUNSINGER-Right. MR. HILTON-It just says that you're Lead Agent. MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. MRS. STEFFAN-Do you want to do that now? MR. HUNSINGER-Sure. MOTION TO ACKNOWLEDGE LEAD AGENCY STATUS FOR SITE PLAN NO. 7-2008 FRESHWATER WETLANDS PERMIT NO. 4-2008 K TWIN HOLDINGS, Introduced by Gretchen Steffan who moved for its adoption, seconded by Thomas Seguljic: WHEREAS, in connection with the K TWIN HOLDINGS 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 Planning Board to conduct a coordinated SEQRA review, and WHEREAS, the Zoning Administrator has advised that other involved agencies have been notified and have consented to the Town of Queensbury Planning Board being lead agent, and NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, the Town of Queensbury Planning Board hereby recognizes itself as lead agent for purposes of SEQRA review according to the resolution prepared by Staff. MOTION TO ACKNOWLEDGE LEAD AGENCY STATUS FOR SITE PLAN NO. 7-2008 FRESHWATER WETLANDS PERMIT NO. 4-2008 K TWIN HOLDINGS, Introduced by Gretchen Steffan who moved for its adoption, seconded by Thomas Seguljic: According to the resolution prepared by Staff. Duly adopted this 20th day of May, 2008, by the following vote: AYES: Mr. Sipp, Mr. Traver, Mrs. Bruno, Mr. Krebs, Mrs. Steffan, Mr. Seguljic, Mr. Hunsinger NOES: NONE MR. HUNSINGER-I think we're going to end up tabling this. I think what you're hearing from the Board is a reluctance to grant the waiver request for the 50 year storm event, and certainly with the new information, you know, that may affect your plan. MR. JONES-Well, I think one of the things that we'll take a look at is trying to reduce the building and ARMA will look for other office space for themselves, which will basically enable us, I think, to take about 2,000 square feet out of that footprint. It will also reduce, have a major reduction in paving because we don't need the drive around the back side of the building. Plus it'll reduce the amount of parking that's required for the site. So basically it would be construction of building for one tenant, a professional office tenant. That'll enable us to basically increase our detention area, increase our infiltration through 30 (Queensbury Planning Board OS/20/08) various pits in that area as well. So we probably can get to a point where we can design around a 50 year storm. MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. MR. TRAVER-That will help the landscaping, too. MR. JONES-Yes. It's going to enable us to pull the building back and probably not request all of the variance that we're looking for currently for the front yard as well. We're still going to need variances to setback to the wetlands and the clearing to the wetlands and that type of thing. It'll also enable us to reduce the, basically the retaining wall that we have on the back side of the site. MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. MR. SEGULJIC-Should we request the Town Engineer to look at the stormwater? mean, because you're going to do are-design. MR. JONES-Yes. Why don't you have us re-design before we spend anymore time. MR. HUNSINGER-George? MR. HILTON-I don't know how well this will go over with the applicant, but, I mean, is it appropriate to consider withdrawing the application all together and coming in with a whole new set of? Because if you're going to start eliminating numerous variances that would make it confusing from an administrative standpoint, do we want to start fresh with new variance, new site? I don't know. I just, potentially, see some confusion down the line if we say, okay, what variances did we eliminate. I'm just wondering, more than anything. MRS. STEFFAN-Well, you've left that up to the applicant, George. MR. HILTON-I guess, except I know from an administrative standpoint, you know, our clerical staff will get to, may get to a point where, you know, we have to re-advertise it and it gets confusing, and again, what variances are being eliminated and which ones are staying, and getting new information in anyway. MR. JONES-Well, I think one of the things we would need to be able to do is put together a narrative which would detail what our intent is and what variances were being modified and deleted, and then we'd have a full narrative which would basically accompany the applications as currently submitted. MR. HILTON-Okay, and that's fine as well. I just, I guess at that point would caution that, you know, there may be need for re-advertising on both applications. MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. We did have a public hearing scheduled for this evening. Was there anyone in the audience that wanted to address the Board on this application? PUBLIC HEARING OPEN MR. HUNSINGER-You have a written comment, George? MR. HILTON-I just have a letter. It's addressed to Mr. Daniel Krueger. It's from Kent Smith at Midas. It says, "Dear Mr. Krueger: Please be advised that I am the property and business owner at the Midas Auto Service Center located at 333 Quaker Road. It is my understanding that you wish to construct an office building on the corner of Bay Road and Quaker Road right next door to my shop. I would like to go on record as having no objection to your application and consider the development of your site consistent with the retail and professional space in the area. Moreover, I believe the development of this corner will make the roadway more aesthetically pleasing and become a welcome addition to the neighborhood. Feel free to call me if you have any questions. Thank you. Kent Smith Midas Franchise" MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. MR. HILTON-That's all we have. 31 (Queensbury Planning Board OS/20/08) MR. HUNSINGER-In terms of new submission, how much time do you need? I mean, normally we would table this to a meeting in July, with a submission deadline of June 15th. MR. HILTON-And again, typically what we see with something where it's unknown is the Board would say something like table it to the next available meeting and so if the applicant comes in on July 15th, he would be placed on the August meeting. That way there you're not picking a date that may change and it looks like we're going to re- advertise this anyway. MR. HUNSINGER-I was going to say, the only risk there is that you have to re-advertise for the public hearing, yes. Okay. MR. JONES-We'll make a submission by June 15th. MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. July 15th. MRS. STEFFAN-I guess I'll make the motion. We just want them to re-work the plan. I mean, (lost word) to do everything. MR. HUNSINGER-Yes. MOTION TO TABLE SITE PLAN NO. 7-2008 FRESHWATER WETLANDS PERMIT NO.4-2008 K TWIN HOLDINGS, Introduced by Gretchen Steffan who moved for its adoption, seconded by Thomas Seguljic: This will be tabled to the July 15th Planning Board meeting with a submission deadline of June 15th. The applicant will need to re-work their entire plans and resubmit. Duly adopted this 20th day of May, 2008, by the following vote: AYES: Mr. Sipp, Mr. Traver, Mrs. Bruno, Mr. Krebs, Mr. Seguljic, Mrs. Steffan, Mr. Hunsinger NOES: NONE MR. HUNSINGER-Thank you. MR. JONES-Thank you. MR. HUNSINGER-Good luck. MRS. BRUNO-Thank you. SPECIAL USE PERMIT NO. 16-2008 SEQR TYPE UNLISTED KAREN & PETER BOGERT OWNER(S) SAME ZONING WR-1A LOCATION 133 SEELYE ROAD APPLICANT PROPOSES TO ESTABLISH A CLASS A MARINA FOR TWO NON OCCUPANT BOAT SLIPS. A CLASS A MARINA REQUIRES A SPECIAL USE PERMIT REVIEW BY THE PLANNING BOARD. CROSS REFERENCE SUP 17-07, AV 39-00, SP 38-00 WARREN CO. PLANNING 4/9/08 APA/DEC/CEA L G CEA LOT SIZE 0.29 ACRES TAX MAP NO. 227.17-1-55 SECTION 179-10-10 MR. HUNSINGER-Whenever you're ready, would you summarize Staff Notes. MR. OBORNE-The applicant's name is Karen and Peter Bogert. Staff comments include the following. The applicant's are seeking a temporary special use permit for the marina, the specific amount of time that this permit will be valid should be included as a condition of any granting of any special permit, per Section 179-10-030. The applicants have obtained approval for this special use permit last year, 2007, and this is a submittal for the year 2008. The applicants submitted the Class A Marina permit from the Lake George Park Commission with an expiration date of 5/23/2012. This is a requirement for the berthing of 2 or more boats. Staff would like clarification of parking spaces accessed over the leach field per map submitted by applicant dated 1/21/07. MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. Thank you. Good evening. MRS. BOGERT-Good evening. I'm Karen Bogert from 133 Seelye Road. I'm a little nervous tonight. I don't know why. I wasn't nervous last year. What I'm doing is I'm representing my husband and myself. We're re-applying for a temporary special use 32 (Queensbury Planning Board OS/20/08) permit. We had gone through the different meetings last year, and the Lake George Park Commission granted us a temporary permit for a five year period of time. We have four years left on that, which would include the boating seasons for now through 2011. So what I'd like to do tonight is I'd like to request for the same time period to synch this up with the Lake George Park Commission. Both the Park Commission and the County feel that there's no environmental impact on what we're doing. It's just the way the Lake George Park Commission regulations are written that if anybody besides an owner or a non-occupant of the house has a boat, family, friends, whatever, you have to take into consideration you're classified as a marina. Nothing has really changed. The only thing that is different this year, and I'll bring it up right up front, as indicated, Craig Brown did point out that he has an issue with a couple of the parking places on the property. The parking places that he's referring to are our personal parking places where we park pretty much all the time. What it is you cross a corner of the leach field to get to the parking places that we use for personal parking, but if you take a look at the maps that are included in the package that you got, we do have plenty of parking places on the property that, you know, if it had to be contingent on, you know, where we're going to park our personal vehicles, we have other options on the property. We only have one person who actually needs a parking place, with what we're submitting for, because the other person is a neighbor who lives across the street from us. So he never brings his vehicle over by us. They just walk across the street. I don't know if anybody, I see familiar faces, but I don't know if there's anybody new this year that may have additional questions that we didn't touch on last time around, but I'm willing to answer any concerns that you guys have. MR. HUNSINGER-So do you routinely park over your leach fields and septic systems? MRS. BOGERT-We're not parking over it. We cross the pipe that goes from the holding tank to the leach field. So we cross that to get to where we park. The configuration on the property has been untouched for about 20 years. We've owned the property for 11, have lived there full time for five years now. So, I mean, Craig indicated that that could be an issue, and I kind of thought if it was an issue it would be an issue by this point in time. There's been no detrimental effects to us crossing this pipe. Of course, you know, we don't really want to open up the whole back yard to take a look and see how things are going, but the septic system continues to work properly. MR. SEGULJIC-It would seem, though, that you have plenty of other places to park. MRS. BOGERT-Yes. The places that we park at are the places that are closest to the house for like taking in groceries and such. MR. SEGULJIC-Do you understand why he's concerned about parking over the septic system? MRS. BOGERT-Yes. He did point out that that's not the norm. MR. SEGULJIC-Well, it could lead to the detriment of your septic system. MR. HUNSINGER-Yes, it could lead to a failure of your septic system. MR. SEGULJIC-Shorten the life a little bit, and all of a sudden you've got a big bill. MRS. BOGERT-Right. MR. SEGULJIC-I mean, it looks like there's plenty of other spaces to park. MRS. BOGERT-There is. MR. SEGULJIC-You also have the garage. MRS. BOGERT-Yes. MR. SEGULJIC-Or is that full of stuff? MRS. BOGERT-No, there's, we have the garage. We have parking in front of the garage. It's possible to park a vehicle to the side of the garage. Actually you can park two vehicles to the side of the garage. You can park a vehicle just kitty corner off the entrance to the garage and still be able to get around it. So there are other options. 33 (Queensbury Planning Board OS/20/08) MR. SEGULJIC-AII right. The other question is, Mr. Chairman, can we grant the, I don't know, it would be four years for the permit? MR. HUNSINGER-To the best of my knowledge we can. Yes. MRS. STEFFAN-Yes. We just have to specify the time for a special use permit. MR. SEGULJIC-Because I would have no problem with doing that. That would make sense. MR. HUNSINGER-The other question I had, when you were here last year, are you leasing the dock spaces to the same renters? MRS. BOGERT-Yes. MR. HUNSINGER-Because that might be the only other consideration. Because part of the reason why there's been low impact and no difficulty is because they're renting one of the docks, too, and if that were to change, then that might change the situation. MRS. BOGERT-Yes, well, specifically last year we looked at, we were only asking for two vessels, you know, non-owners. It was for a specific amount of time. We established that there's no discharge of port-a-potties at all. The two vessels involved are on the small side and don't have facilities, but we did do due diligence, and Castaway Marina, which is only about four properties away from us, does do pump out, you know. So that was covered also. It is specifically for these two people. One is a close friend, who has a house over on West Mountain, and the other is a close neighbor across the street. So this is keeping is specifically to these guys and, you know, should they decide during this period of time they're not interested, that's going to be the end of that. MR. HUNSINGER-So does your Lake George Park permit run with those two specific individuals as well? MRS. BOGERT-You know what, they weren't as stringent about it. So, no, it's not mentioned in theirs, but we have no problem. We thought with what we were requesting that the stipulations last year were fair because we weren't, we're not looking to open up a marina. We're just looking to be in compliance with the Park Commission, and it does sound strange to say you need a marina permit for a residential, you know, property, but that's the way the regulation is written. MR. TRAVER-As I recall, and I remember your application last year, and the issues that we deal with regarding Class A Marinas, in your type of situation, is the requirement of access to bathrooms and parking and that type of thing. MRS. BOGERT-Right. MR. TRAVER-And as I recall, because these were acquaintances and you knew exactly who they were going to be, we resolved that issue by having you note the registrations. I think it was my idea, actually, note the registrations of the boats on the application, and that kind of addressed that issue. Do I understand that you would be willing to do that again for this new application? MRS. BOGERT-Yes. MR. TRAVER-Okay. Then I have no objections to that. MRS. STEFFAN-And I also think we approved it for a year just to see how everything went. MR. TRAVER-Right. MR. HUNSINGER-Yes. MRS. STEFFAN-And so, you know, we've had a year trial. MRS. BOGERT-Yes. We really didn't see any impact whatsoever. The users, you know, one user is an older couple with grown kids, and of course, you know, maybe they get over to use it when they can, you know, when they have a weekend free, and also with the neighbor across the street, he's not near by. It's a second family home that's 34 (Queensbury Planning Board OS/20/08) been in the family for a while. So his usage is also on the brief side. Of course with the price of gas this summer, I think everybody's usage will be cut back. MR. HUNSINGER-Any other questions or comments from the Board? We do have a public hearing scheduled on this application this evening. Is there anyone in the audience that wanted to address the Board on this application? PUBLIC HEARING OPENED KATHY BOZONY MS. BOZONY-Good evening. MR. HUNSINGER-Good evening. MS. BOZONY-Kathy Bozony with the Lake George Water Keeper. My main concern, looking at this, was not the rental of the boat slips but the septic system. The septic system looks like it's within 100 feet of the lake, at least per the schematic drawing, and I'm very concerned that they're driving over the intake pipe or whatever pipe, or the absorption field or anything, and I think that maybe the Board or somebody could share the information of what it will cost to both the environment and to the applicant if they have to replace that septic system. So that's my number one thing, and I had asked the Planning Department about that last week, and I was waiting for an answer on that. This may be unrelated, but I'm not sure if all that whole area is filled with crushed stone, if there's any permeable surface left on this property. It's .29 acres and I can't tell by the drawing if there's, what goes around the septic system, if that's lawn or it's got that dotted mark going around. I don't know what that is. I was just curious about that, and I'm curious whether impervious calculation has been done on this property, and you answered the question that I had about the renters and whether or not it would comply to Park Commission, if, in fact, the people actually changed, but the applicant answered that. Thank you. MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. Thank you. MRS. BRUNO-It looks like it says it might be crushed stone, part of the driveway. MRS. STEFFAN-It was crushed stone when we went. MR. HUNSINGER-Yes. Anyone else that wanted to comment on the application? Written comment? MR. OBORNE-I do have that letter. I do want to ask that you take those parking spaces off the plan, because you have more than enough spaces for, you know, what you need to have done, if you could, and there wouldn't be any issues in the future. MRS. BOGERT-Yes. MR. OBORNE-And I do have one more, and this is dated May 15th. It's from Rose Guerra. Her address is 127 and 123 Seelye Road. Special Use Permit for Karen and Peter Bogert, and Mr. and Mrs. Guerra called to say they have no objection to the proposal. The Bogerts are wonderful neighbors. That's it. MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. Thank you. I'll go ahead and close the public hearing, unless there's any objection. PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED MR. HUNSINGER-It's an Unlisted action. Are people comfortable moving forward? MR. TRAVER-Yes. MR. HUNSINGER-It's a Short Form. MRS. STEFFAN-"Does the action exceed any Type I threshold in 6 NYCRR Part 617.4?" MR. HUNSINGER-No. MR. KREBS-No. 35 (Queensbury Planning Board OS/20/08) MRS. STEFFAN-"Will the action receive coordinated review as provided for Unlisted Actions in 6 NYCRR, Part 617.6?" MR. HUNSINGER-No. MR. SEGULJIC-No. MRS. STEFFAN-"Could the action result in any adverse effects associated with the following: C1. Existing air quality, surface or ground water quality or quantity, noise levels, existing traffic patterns, solid waste production or disposal, potential for erosion, drainage or flooding problems?" MR. HUNSINGER-No. MR. SEGULJIC-No. MRS. STEFFAN-"C2. Aesthetic, agricultural, historic, or other natural or cultural resources; or community or neighborhood character?" MR. HUNSINGER-No. MR. SEGULJIC-No. MRS. STEFFAN-"C3. Vegetation, fauna, fish, shellfish or wildlife species, significant habitats, or threatened or endangered species?" MR. SIPP-No. MR. SEGULJIC-No. MRS. STEFFAN-"C4. A community's existing plans or goals as officially adopted, or a change in use or intensity of use of land or other natural resources?" MR. HUNSINGER-No. MR. SEGULJIC-No. MRS. STEFFAN-"C5. Growth, subsequent development or related activities likely to be induced by the proposed action?" MR. HUNSINGER-No. MR. SIPP-No. MRS. STEFFAN-"C6. Long term, short term, cumulative or other effects not identified above?" MR. HUNSINGER-No. MR. SIPP-No. MRS. STEFFAN-"C7. Other impacts (including changes in use of either quantity or energy)?" MR. SIPP-No. MR. HUNSINGER-No. MRS. STEFFAN-"Will the project have an impact on the environmental characteristics that caused the establishment of a Critical Environmental Area?" MR. HUNSINGER-No. MR. SIPP-No. MRS. STEFFAN-"Is there or is there likely to be controversy related to potential adverse environmental impacts?" MR. HUNSINGER-No. 36 (Queensbury Planning Board OS/20/08) MR. SIPP-No. MRS. STEFFAN-I'll make a motion for a Negative SEQRA Declaration. RESOLUTION WHEN DETERMINATION OF NO SIGNIFICANCE IS MADE RESOLUTION NO. 16-2008, Introduced by Gretchen Steffan who moved for its adoption, seconded by Thomas Seguljic: WHEREAS, there is presently before the Planning Board an application for: KAREN & PETER BOGERT, and WHEREAS, this Planning Board has determined that the proposed project and Planning Board action is subject to review under the State Environmental Quality Review Act, NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED: 1. No Federal agency appears to be involved. 2. The following agencies are involved: NONE 3. The proposed action considered by this Board is Unlisted in the Department of Environmental Conservation Regulations implementing the State Environmental Quality Review Act and the regulations of the Town of Queensbury. 4. An Environmental Assessment Form has been completed by the applicant. 5. Having considered and thoroughly analyzed the relevant areas of environmental concern and having considered the criteria for determining whether a project has a significant environmental impact as the same is set forth in Section 617.11 of the Official Compilation of Codes, Rules and Regulations for the State of New York, this Board finds that the action about to be undertaken by this Board will have no significant environmental effect and the Chairman of the Planning Board is hereby authorized to execute and sign and file as may be necessary a statement of non-significance or a negative declaration that may be required by law. Duly adopted this 20th day of May, 2008, by the following vote: AYES: Mr. Sipp, Mr. Traver, Mrs. Bruno, Mr. Krebs, Mr. Seguljic, Mrs. Steffan, Mr. Hunsinger NOES: NONE MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. Would anyone like to make a motion? MR. SEGULJIC-Well, I guess the only, would there be the two conditions in that, then? Well, first of all we'd extend it to 2011 I think. Correct? MR. HUNSINGER-Well, the Park permit expires on 5/23/2012. MRS. STEFFAN-Yes, I put an expiration date of May 2012. So they'll expire at the same time. MR. SEGULJIC-Okay. MRS. STEFFAN-And then I've got the boats listed. MR. SEGULJIC-And then the elimination of the parking over the septic. You would agree to that? MRS. BOGERT-Yes. MRS. STEFFAN-Okay. 37 (Queensbury Planning Board OS/20/08) MOTION TO APPROVE SPECIAL USE PERMIT NO. 16-2008 KAREN & PETER BOGERT, Introduced by Gretchen Steffan who moved for its adoption, seconded by Thomas Seguljic: 1) A site plan application has been made to the Queensbury Planning Board for the following: Applicant proposes to establish a Class A Marina for two non occupant boat slips. A Class A Marina requires a special use permit review by the Planning Board 2) A public hearing was advertised and held on 5/20/08; and 3) This application is supported with all documentation, public comment and application material in the file of record; and 4) Pursuant to relevant sections of the Town of Queensbury Zoning Code [Chapter 179], the Planning Board has determined that this proposal complies with the requirements as stated in the Zoning Code; and 5) The requirements of the State Environmental Quality Review Act have been considered and the Planning Board has adopted a SEQRA Negative Declaration; and if the application is a modification, the requirements of the State Environmental Quality Review Act have been considered, and the proposed modification[s] do not result in any new or significantly different environmental impacts, and, therefore, no further SEQRA review is necessary; and 6) 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. The applicant must meet with Staff after approval and prior to issuance of Building Permit and/or the beginning of any site work. Subsequent issuance of further permits, including building permits is dependent on compliance with this and all other conditions of this resolution. 7) The applicant will provide as-built plans to certify that the site plan is developed according to the approved plans prior to issuance of the certificate of occupancy; and 8) If applicable, Item 7 to be combined with a letter of credit; and 9) The Sanitary Sewer connection plan must be submitted to the Wastewater Department for its review, approval, permitting and inspection; and 10) MOTION TO APPROVE SPECIAL USE PERMIT NO. 16-2008 KAREN & PETER BOGERT, Introduced by Gretchen Steffan who moved for its adoption, seconded by Thomas Seguljic: Approved according to the resolution prepared by Staff. Paragraph Four complies. Paragraph Five, Negative. Paragraph Eight and Nine do not apply. It's approved with the following conditions: 1. That the term of this Special Use Permit will go from now and expire in May of 2012. 2. That the applicant will eliminate parking over the septic and leach field on the property. 3. That the boats that are registered to coincide with this Special Use Permit have registration numbers, Number One, NY 6728JR, for Joseph Koenig, and Number Two, NJ02616M for Walter Mahon. Duly adopted this 20th day of May, 2008, by the following vote: AYES: Mr. Traver, Mr. Sipp, Mrs. Bruno, Mr. Krebs, Mr. Seguljic, Mrs. Steffan, Mr. Hunsinger NOES: NONE MR. HUNSINGER-You're all set. MRS. BOGERT-Thank you very much. 38 (Queensbury Planning Board OS/20/08) MR. HUNSINGER-Thank you. MRS. BOGERT-I appreciate it. MR. HUNSINGER-You're welcome. MRS. BRUNO-Mr. Chairperson, I'd just like to mention that I think somebody may have just shown up for the public hearing for the campground, and we might want to just let him know. I just recognize him from a neighboring facility. MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. The Lake George Campground has requested that we table the Site Plan Review until our June meeting. So we will be tabling that this evening. AUDIENCE MEMBER-Were they here in front of you? MR. HUNSINGER-No, they submitted a letter to Staff this afternoon. I guess, does anyone on the Board have a preference to which meeting in June we table it until? MRS. STEFFAN-The last. MR. HUNSINGER-The last. So it would be June 24th, on Tuesday evening. AUDIENCE MEMBER-Thank you. MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. You're welcome. Thank you, Mrs. Bruno. SUBDIVISION 3-2008 SKETCH PLAN REVIEW RECOMMENDATION TO ZBA RONALD BALL AGENT(S) CHARLES SCUDDER OWNER(S) RONALD & LINDA BALL ZONING SFR-1A/RR-5A LOCATION 1085 WEST MT. ROAD APPLICANT PROPOSES SUBDIVISION OF AN 8.05 +/- ACRE PARCEL INTO 3 LOTS OF 1.0, 3.33 & 3.72 +/- ACRES. SUBDIVISION OF LAND REQUIRES PLANNING BOARD REVIEW AND APPROVAL. ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS IS REQUESTING A RECOMMENDATION FROM THE PLANNING BOARD RELATIVE TO ACCESS TO THE LOT AND DENSITY. CROSS REFERENCE SUB 5-98; AV 19-08 WARREN CO. PLANNING N/A LOT SIZE 8.05 +/-ACRES TAX MAP NO. 295.10-1-31.1 SECTION A- 183 CHARLES SCUDDER, REPRESENTING APPLICANT, PRESENT MR. HUNSINGER-Do you want to summarize Staff Notes. MR. OBORNE-I'm going to go ahead and read the whole Community Development page here, for the record. MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. MR. OBORNE-Okay. This is application SB 3-2008, Sketch Plan, Applicant is Ronald and Linda Ball Requested Action: The Zoning Board asks the Planning Board to determine if building houses would be recommended on such steep slopes and will such a project, with its associated lot widths and multiple zoning requirements, be a detriment to the neighborhood. The minutes of the Zoning Board of Appeals dated April 16, 2008 are attached for clarification. Location: 1085 West Mountain Road. Existing Zoning: SFR 1A and RR-5A. SEQRA Status: N/A. Parcel History: Sub 5-98; AV 19.08 Project Description: Applicant proposes subdivision of an 8.05 +/- ac. Parcel into 3 lots of 1.0, 3.33, and 3.72 +/- acres. Staff Comments: Due to the density requirements for both districts involved and the density calculations for this site, staff asks that the Planning Board consider an alternate plan to satisfy the density requirements per A 183-22, Subdivision of Land. MR. HUNSINGER-Good evening. MR. SCUDDER-Good evening. MR. HUNSINGER-The floor is yours. MR. SCUDDER-I'm Charlie Scudder. I'm an engineer here in Queensbury, and my client is Ron Ball. I think among the papers that I submitted was a general statement that sort of describes our project briefly, and describes the matters that are going to come again before the Zoning Board, and I know you have a communication from the 39 (Queensbury Planning Board OS/20/08) Zoning Board asking for some help, some guidance, and your opinion. As you know, on the first lot, which we call Lot One, there is and has been a home for many years. I think it was built around 1975. RONALD BALL MR. BALL-'53. MR. SCUDDER-'53? I beg your pardon. So anyway, we propose to leave that property unchanged. So that the remaining parcel we propose to subdivide into two lots, and to put a home on each lot, and when we appeared before the Zoning Board, there seemed to be a lot of concern about the slopes and the effect of our proposal on the possible adjacent properties, things like that, and from an engineering standpoint, we think the project is doable and, you know, rather ordinary for Queensbury. There are many, well, there are a number of properties that are on steeper slopes than we have here. So one of the issues, of course, is the driveway situation. In the Town, the maximum driveway slope we're told is 10%, and in order to achieve a 10% slope, we had to lengthen the driveways, and that shows up on the drawing. Earlier on, the property was some sort of a farm, possibly a dairy or something, and the driveway went right straight up the hill, and it still does. There is a driveway that goes right straight up the hill from the existing cut, and as a matter of fact, Ron and I drove up there yesterday. He drove his pick up and I drove my car, and went right straight up the hill. Now, we measured that slope with our instruments and it's around 15 or 16%, which is too much for emergency vehicles, fire trucks and what not. We understand that. Hence the driveway design that we show on our drawing and the profiles. So we're here for Sketch Plan consideration, and hopefully for your approval, and I guess if you have some questions, we'd be glad to respond. MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. Questions, comments from the Board? MRS. STEFFAN-I guess one of the things that, you know, this is a split zone. The front of the property that borders West Mountain Road is Single Family Residence One Acre, but the majority of the property behind that line is Rural Residential Five Acres, and the lots are under Five Acres, one's 3.7. One's 3.3, and I guess one of the issues I have is really, considering this subdivision when the property really isn't fitting the zone. It's putting two lots where I think one lot should be, in my opinion, and I did walk up the hill, and there is a flat spot where it certainly seems like you could build, that would be a nice house site. MR. SCUDDER-I'm glad to hear you say you walked up there. MRS. STEFFAN-I did think that the sight distance coming out of West Mountain was a little difficult, but it just happens to be a fast road. MR. TRAVER-And particularly when you consider the areas that are not buildable because of the extreme slopes. Really it seems to me that it is more suitable for one lot, not two, because then you're looking at a practical area of about the five acres that we're talking about. So I think it would be a much better application under those circumstances. MR. BALL-Did you actually walk up there, too? MR. TRAVER-I haven't. MR. BALL-No? Has anyone else? MRS. BRUNO-I haven't gone way up into it, but part way up. Did you say that it has been logged or it was logged? I didn't get up into that cleared area. MR. BALL-What happened about two years ago, there was a huge storm that came through, and if you walked up there, you've probably seen those large trees that are still laying there. I did start clearing some of them out. When they went, they actually took a lot of good ones, but once you're up there, there's an area up there where you could probably put five houses, in my opinion. It's flat enough for it. It's doable, and, you know, I'm not a surveyor, but I really think, with this survey that was done, this topo was done on it, I really don't think that's correct, and someone would walk up there, folks would walk up there, you would see it. It's doable to build two houses on there. I know it's zoned five acres, and I know it's zoned one acre, and I don't know if I stand a better chance of building on the one acre, closer to the road, but my intentions are to do that. I don't want to knock down a forest that separates my house that I want to build and the 40 (Queensbury Planning Board OS/20/08) road, and I'm hoping that maybe we could compromise here. I know there's a lot of people that have come to you that wanted to build a couple of houses on less than ten acres on a five acre zoned area, but I think since my property is split, part of it's one acre, part of it's five acres, if I took the lower half and I could squeeze a house on the one acre, what are you telling me? I can't use the other five acres that's behind it? But to put a house close to West Mountain Road would really destroy the property. People coming out of Lehland Estates, they would not like that one bit, and I know I wouldn't, and I know National Grid has got plans to come down through there and tear some more trees out, which I protested against. I don't want them to do that. Originally I gave them permission to do that because I wanted power onto the property, but then they took their application off the table, I guess. They decided they weren't going to do it. Earlier this Spring, about a month ago, they approached me again and they said that they're going to go through with it. They're going to bring the power there, and I thought they were going to start soon. I said, no, I told them, I said, I don't want them to. Well, they said that I've already signed a document that gives them the right to put the pole there on my property. I said you're going to knock down a lot of trees down along the West Mountain Road, and I don't want that to happen, and two years ago, if you've been up there, I know one of you persons here on the Board, I think lives in Lehland Estates, or somewhere near it, but somebody saw the work that I was doing out there near the road, and what I was doing is they told me they were going to put a pole right next to a curb stop. The original person that owned the property, her son passed away, but her son wanted to build on that property, I believe, and he put a curb stop in there to get the water up to the property. There's a well that was put up on the property, which we can't figure out what that was for, but the driveway has always been there. They've got a large stone wall that sets way up in there. The only way they could put the stone wall was through that driveway that's existing. It's an existing driveway. I've always wanted to use that driveway. I didn't want to knock down anymore trees in front of Lehland Estates, none of that. I want to keep it forever wild, and I'd be willing to put it in writing that I would keep it that way, but I want to be able to build two houses up there. So I was hoping for a compromise, and a compromise would be that I wouldn't touch any of those trees in the front. I don't even want to put a split driveway in there because you're going to have to make the driveway extra wide, but we've got to do that so we have less than 10% grade and put it extra wide. That means more trees that I've got to take down to go up, to swing it around, to get up there to the top of the hill. It isn't that steep of a slope. That's why I say, I think someone has to look at the property and say, to me, why I cant build on it. I mean, other than that, is my other alternative to go back and try to persuade you to allow me to build a house on the one acre part of it, near the road, or would you rather have me build a house up on the five acre? MRS. STEFFAN-I think it's too steep on the one acre near the road. MR. BALL-It's too steep. MRS. STEFFAN-Yes. MR. BALL-But most lots aren't level to begin with, when people build a house. So I'm sure there's excavating that has to be done. I've got my own excavating equipment. I can do a lot of my own work, but who wants to see a house next to the road. Really. I mean, it would ruin that property terrible, and we're just trying to please somebody to do it this way. MR. SEGULJIC-So these steep slopes have not, they were not subtracted out of the total acreage? MR. BALL-Yes, they were. MR. SEGULJIC-Lot Three at 3.7 acres, the steep slope is subtracted out of that, and the roadways? MR. SCUDDER-Do you have the survey in part of your exhibit? The survey's map. This document, and there's a piece up here that says density information at the top. MRS. BRUNO-It's also in the second paragraph of your statement. MR. SCUDDER-Yes. MR. HUNSINGER-It's 2.7. That's why he needs the variances from the Zoning Board. MR. SEGULJIC-Okay. 41 (Queensbury Planning Board OS/20/08) MRS. BRUNO-What's in your statement is the two lots combined, though, right, 1.85 usable within the one acre, and then? Okay. MR. SCUDDER-We realize this project cannot be done without the variances that I've enumerated, and the Zoning Board is looking for guidance from this Board, so that they can make an informed decision, and I think it's also required by law, as I understand it, that they have the Planning Board review before they make their ruling. MR. SEGULJIC-Excuse me, though, back to the density calculation. I believe they're also supposed to subtract out the roadways, the driveway. MR. HUNSINGER-Well, there's no roadways. There's just driveways. MR. SEGULJIC-You don't subtract out a driveway? MR. HUNSINGER-No. MR. SEGULJIC-So it's just the steep slopes on this particular lot, because there's no wetlands. MR. HILTON-It's steep slopes, wetlands, any easements. MR. SEGULJIC-Easements and roadways, but driveways are not considered roadways. Okay. MR. HUNSINGER-You were here a year ago for Sketch Plan as well, and the big concern we had then is you showed two separate driveways, and I don't recall the discussion, other than that, other than, you know, we wanted to see a combined driveway, which, you know, which you have shown this time. MR. SCUDDER-The shared driveway is an effort, also, it eliminates a curb cut, and it gets us around a problem where you have to have double the lot width unless you have a shared driveway. MR. HUNSINGER-Right. Yes. MR. SCUDDER-And the curb cut is going to be where it's always been, where the farmer had it, you know. I mean, if you go by there and look, you'll see that it's an old curb cut. MR. HUNSINGER-Yes. MR. BALL-There's a barn directly across the street. That's where they kept the tractor. The tractor would cross over West Mountain Road, which then was called Sand Road, and through the years they widened to West Mountain Road. They've taken, as you can see the line, from where the house was, and why the line doesn't go straight is beyond me, but they've taken, where the cut is now, where the existing driveway is now, that's in there, they've actually taken more property from the existing property. I didn't buy it that way, but this is way I bought it, the way it is now, but what happened is when this guy put the curb stop in for the property, which is right near the existing driveway, that curb stop is about one to two feet off the shoulder of the road, which I always thought they had to put those things on the property line, which tells me, well, the property line apparently must have been closer to the West Mountain Road, and so maybe they just decided, Warren County, just because it's Warren County Highway, they just decided, well, let's widen the road a little bit more, okay. So that was my reason for digging near this curb stop because they're going to put a pole there. I had to get to the curb stop before they got the pole in, because once the pole's in, I would not be able to use that curb stop for water, and that's the only reason I did any digging, and the trees were knocked down right where if you walked up there, that's cleared off there, that was one of the worst spots, but I've got equipment, I have chippers, tractors and stuff. I have a burning permit. I went up there and, during the winter, didn't do it during the summer, any hot time, did it on rainy days because I didn't want to harm anything, started a little fire, but logged it off, chipped up the stuff that wasn't any good, and took out the dead, just the stuff that's dead, never took off anything more than that, and I've still got a large amount of trees that's down, but the thing is, to do the shared driveway, which I'll do it if you'll allow me to put the house, the two houses in there, but that's going to take down, even strip more trees away than what I really want to do. I really don't want to, but what I thought I would do is, my wife and I would like to build a house on Lot Two, and I just thought I would put that driveway in there, then not touch the other side, but it's there, my 42 (Queensbury Planning Board OS/20/08) kids want it or whatever, but I've got no intentions of selling it. I know there was a guy at the last Board meeting or the variance Board, I couldn't attend, I was out of town. MR. SCUDDER-Zoning Board. MR. BALL-And there was a guy that did not want us to see us have the project, but then he came up to Charlie afterwards and said to Charlie that he was interested in buying the property, but we know, Charlie and I are up against a lot here, but I just wish that someone would reason with us and look at this and say, you know, I'm making sense where, to build a house close to the road, if you were to say, okay, we're only going to allow me one house, what would you say, okay I'm going to put that one house 35 feet from the edge of West Mountain Road, and I'm going to knock that whole bank down. You'd have to give me the application. Correct? I'm not threatening anybody. Really. I'm not threatening. I'm not. I would never do it. I'd probably sell it. I'd probably sell the property, but realistically, when you say one house, I mean, I could come back to you and say, well, one house, all right, I'll put it right next to the road, and these people are complaining, they're going to really have something to complain about, because after NiMo gets done stripping their trees down, I'm going to go down and strip more MR. HUNSINGER-I'm confused now. You said you don't want to do the shared driveway, but that's what's on your plan. MR. BALL-It is. MR. SCUDDER-He has to do the shared driveway. He doesn't want to do it, but he has to do it. MR. BALL-I have to do it, because the only way. MR. SCUDDER-Ron feels that he can drive straight up the hill, just the way we did yesterday, the way it's always been done, and of course you can, but it doesn't meet the Town requirements. MR. BALL-And there's many driveways, many driveways much steeper than mine, much steeper than mine. MR. HUNSINGER-Well, you're confusing two issues. I mean, there's no reason, I mean, the shared driveway and the slope of the driveway, they're mutually exclusive issues. MR. BALL-Right. MR. HUNSINGER-So I think that's what was confusing me about your comment. MR. BALL-We're doing this is because I want to get approval on the property. I'm not doing it because it's my wishes. My wishes are I wish I could still use the existing driveway to this lot, okay, but you would never give me permission to build on the other lot unless I could show a driveway to it. MR. HUNSINGER-Right. MR. BALL-So that's where I stand. MR. SEGULJIC-Well, I guess the Zoning Board is asking us for a recommendation. MR. HUNSINGER-Right. MR. SEGULJIC-With regards to the waivers in particular? MR. KREBS-The variances. MR. SEGULJIC-The variances? MR. SIPP-Variances. MR. SEGULJIC-Personally I'm uncomfortable with granting, I'd have to recommend against the variance. I mean, it's zoned five acres. It's five acres. You have plenty of room there to put one house. MR. BALL-I do. I have plenty of room to put one house. 43 (Queensbury Planning Board OS/20/08) MR. SEGULJIC-The zoning says one house. MR. BALL-So you're saying that I can put one house right next to the West Mountain Road? MR. SEGULJIC-Well, if I'm correct, zoning says. MR. BALL-You are saying that. It's zoned for one house. So I could put that one house right near the West Mountain Road. Thirty-five feet from the edge of West Mountain Road, I could put that house in the center of that property. You're saying that, right? MR. SEGULJIC-I'm just saying I believe. MR. BALL-No, that's what you're saying. It's zoned for one house. MR. SEGULJIC-If you have eight acres, I believe you can put a house on it is what I'm saying. MR. BALL-Right. MR. SEGULJIC-That's my recommendation. MR. SCUDDER-He's not saying next to West Mountain Road. MR. BALL-No, he's not saying that, but what I'm saying is, if you're saying one house, okay, if that's the way you want to play the game, all right, I'll put one house. I'll put it right next to West Mountain Road, okay. I mean, you don't want me to have two houses up there hidden in the woods and protect that area down along the West Mountain Road. MR. SEGULJIC-Sir, I'm just stating what the Code says. It says five acres. MR. BALL-I know. It's zoned one acre, too. So can't we compromise? MR. SEGULJIC-The Zoning Board, as I understand it, has asked us for a recommendation with regards to the granting of the variances. I, personally, would not be in favor of it. MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. How do others feel? MR. TRAVER-I agree with Tom. MR. SIPP-I agree. MRS. STEFFAN-I don't know if this is possible, but I'd like to suggest that we table this until next week, and between now and next Thursday when we have our Planning Board meeting, this is only Sketch, it won't take that long, the rest of the Planning Board members go to the site. It's very easy to walk up the hill, and take a look at the property physically, so that you have an informed opinion. MR. SEGULJIC-I have no problem with that. Okay. MR. SCUDDER-I think that's a terrific idea. MR. BALL-I would appreciate that totally. MRS. STEFFAN-And I think Mr. Ball would feel like he's fully heard. MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. MRS. BRUNO-Very good idea. MR. BALL-Thank you. I appreciate that very much. MRS. STEFFAN-Okay. Do I have to motion this because it's Sketch? MR. HUNSINGER-It's Sketch Plan. So we don't need to make any motion. 44 (Queensbury Planning Board OS/20/08) MR. HILTON-I would just, just to make it clean, just say, maybe just a quick table to next week. Just with some instruction, because you want everybody to go visit the site, just to state that so it's on the record. MR. HUNSINGER-Right. It would make sense to do a motion. MRS. STEFFAN-I have to admit, it was very deceiving. So that's why I would recommend that the Planning Board just run up there. MR. HUNSINGER-Staff had recommended that we make an actual motion instructing Board members to visit the site between now and next Thursday. So, Gretchen, if you want to make that motion, just to table this until next Thursday, and it is Thursday, not Tuesday. MRS. STEFFAN-Correct. MOTION TO TABLE SUBDIVISION NO. 3-2008 SKETCH PLAN RONALD BALL, Introduced by Gretchen Steffan who moved for its adoption, seconded by Donald Krebs: Until the next Planning Board meeting, which is Thursday, May 29th, so that the Planning Board members can visit the site to make recommendations to the applicant at that Board meeting, and this would be added as an extra item. It will be the first item on the agenda. Duly adopted this 20th day of May, 2008, by the following vote: AYES: Mr. Sipp, Mr. Traver, Mrs. Bruno, Mr. Seguljic, Mr. Krebs, Mrs. Steffan, Mr. Hunsinger NOES: NONE MR. HUNSINGER-The only point of clarification I have is that, is it the intention that we would deal with this first or last on the agenda? I don't have the agenda in front of me for next week. MRS. BRUNO-It's pretty extensive. MRS. STEFFAN-I say first item. MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. First item, seven o'clock. MR. SCUDDER-Thank you. MR. HUNSINGER-Okay, next Thursday. SITE PLAN NO. 15-2008 FRESHWATER WETLANDS 5-2008 ROBINSON & SON AGENT(S) HUTCHINS ENGINEERING TEKLA, PAUL & MICHAEL MICHAUD ZONING MU LOCATION 144 RIVER STREET APPLICANT PROPOSES CONVERSION OF EXISTING RESIDENCE & SHEDS TO PROFESSIONAL OFFICE & STORAGE AREA AND ASSOCIATED SITE WORK. PROFESSIONAL OFFICE IN A MU ZONE REQUIRES PLANNING BOARD REVIEW AND APPROVAL. CROSS REFERENCE NONE FOUND WARREN CO. PLANNING 4/9/08 LOT SIZE 3.62 ACRES TAX MAP NO. 303.20-2-42 SECTION 179-4-020 TOM HUTCHINS, REPRESENTING APPLICANT, PRESENT MR. HUNSINGER-If you could summarize Staff Notes, please. MR. HILTON-Sure, really quickly. This is an existing residence, accessory structures which are going to be used as an insurance office. Additional site work is proposed, new parking spaces, driveway surfacing, stormwater management. Due to the fact that some of this disturbance is within 100 feet of a regulated Army Corps wetland, the Freshwater Wetlands Permit is required as well. As I've noted, it appears that no disturbance within the wetland is proposed. The proposal would not require an Army Corps permit, and stormwater management is proposed, as I've previously mentioned. My quick couple of comments here, consideration should be given to requiring a revised landscaping plan, really maybe just adding a couple of street trees as required by the Zoning Code along the frontage, and I guess the plan should be revised to show future vehicular interconnect to the property to the west. They're under the same ownership, and should 45 (Queensbury Planning Board OS/20/08) that come in for future development, it would be nice to, you know, clean up the curb cuts and get everything using one curb cut. That's the basis of my comment. There's a VISION Engineering comment letter as well. That's alii have at this time. MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. Thank you, George. Good evening. MR. HUTCHINS-Good evening. MR. HUNSINGER-The floor is yours. PETER ROBINSON MR. ROBINSON-I'm Peter Robinson, and James is my son, and together we're Robinson and Son. Our insurance business is a little different from what you may think of in terms of Cool and McPhillips. We are not a heavy traffic organization. We specialize in maritime insurance. Most of our clients are not in this area. We're choosing to locate in the Town of Queensbury. My great-great-grandfather ran a canal boat on the canal that runs right behind this property. My grandfather and my father had a plumbing and heating wholesale supply store just down the street on Warren Street in Glens Falls. So it's a good place for us to locate. We started out with the two of us and one other employee. We've grown to four and a half employees and one branch employee in Boston, Massachusetts area. Our growth is going to be mostly oriented to the people that we have, but we hope to bring some decent white collar, non impact type jobs to the Town of Queensbury. With that as just a brief description of what we're about, we don't have people visiting us, that's the point of what I'm trying to say. It's not like we have people coming to pay their bills because most of them are a long ways away. If we have five people visit us over the course of six months, that's pretty good. I'll turn this over to Tom for the engineering part of it, and address the comments the Board may have. MR. HUTCHINS-Good evening, Board. Tom Hutchins, Hutchins Engineering. What we have done with this application, the primary goal is to upgrade the access, the vehicular access to the site, to a more commercial standard, and provide some reasonable parking. Right now, it is a residence. We don't propose to change the structures in any way, in terms of addition. Yes, they will make some modifications to the interior to suit their business, but we don't propose to change the footprint of the structures in any way. We want to upgrade the drive, widen it, provide some parking in the rear of the facility, and do some drainage improvements to the area. There are some current drainage issues that are evident in the area. There are, as well, there's two spots identified on the plans that appear would be for jurisdictional wetlands. When we put this together, there was still a whole lot of snow on the ground, but I have confirmed that these locations are reasonable with what's there. So under advice of Staff, we have applied for the Queensbury wetlands permit as well. Even though the Corps would not want jurisdiction because we're not proposing anything within the wet areas, and with the exception of an outlet of a stormwater area, we're not proposing anything near any of the wet areas. We have shown a series of drainage swales. Slopes are slight on this site. We have shown a series of drainage swales which really are improvements to existing drainage swales. We're not changing patterns significantly. Right now there's a swale that runs across the backyard to the other side of the barn and runs down, and there is a pipe that connects down to the wet area in front. We've proposed to upgrade that and put in a retention area so we can meet our peak rate reduction requirement of the 50 year storm per Site Plan criteria, and we're going to upgrade the drive to a 15 foot wide drive with a 22 foot section near the street and provide seven regular and one handicap parking space. With that, I'll do my best to field questions. MRS. BRUNO-I'm just curious, with that site work, why the concrete walk that crosses somebody else's site just wasn't reconfigured? It probably isn't used very much, is it? MR. HUTCHINS-It's there. It probably is not used, and I guess it could be reconfigured. You probably have no plans to use it. Do you, the one that goes out the front? MR. ROBINSON-(Lost words) mailbox. That may have been what it was used for. MR. HUTCHINS-That is, that's where their mailbox is. MRS. BRUNO-And that's, you would use that mailbox? MR. ROBINSON-No, we have a post office box in Hudson Falls. 46 (Queensbury Planning Board OS/20/08) MR. HUTCHINS-They are co-owners. They're under the same ownership. MRS. BRUNO-Okay. MR. HUTCHINS-Okay, and they would continue to be under the same ownership, but they are separate parcels, and this one is not part of the application. MR. SIPP-That's a separate parcel? MR. HUTCHINS-Correct. MR. SEGULJIC-And the picture I'm seeing on the screen is a little different than what I'm seeing on the drawing, in that that appendage off of River Road, I guess it is, on the east side, if I'm correct. That's not depicted on these. MR. HUTCHINS-You're saying how the large parcel wraps around the other parcel? MR. SEGULJIC-Yes. MR. HUTCHINS-By survey, that's the tax map, per the surveyor, that's incorrect, and this is correct. MR. SEGULJIC-Okay. So this is correct. Okay. MR. HUTCHINS-Yes. MR. SEGULJIC-How do you feel about the street scape trees? MR. HUTCHINS-Peter, any objection to a reasonable number? I don't think we have a problem with that. MR. HUTCHINS-According to Code, what is it, 20 feet I think or something. MR. HUTCHINS-Is the Code specific on quantity per lineal foot or? MR. HILTON-Yes, I believe so. MR. HUNSINGER-I don't know if you're going to be able to get more than a couple. MR. HILTON-Yes, I mean, a couple would be fine with me. MR. HUNSINGER-Basically one on each side of the driveway. MR. SEGULJIC-Yes. MR. HUNSINGER-We went to the site on Saturday during site visits. It is a, you know, pretty spot. Very flat. It looks like that the separate site that's labeled retail shop, is that an old gas station? MR. ROBINSON-Yes, it is. MR. HUNSINGER-Do you know how long it's been since? MR. ROBINSON-The 30's. MR. HUNSINGER-The 30's. MR. ROBINSON-Yes, and they did, the previous owner did the whole New York State certification and tank removal. MR. HUNSINGER-That was going to be my question. MR. ROBINSON-That's all been done. MR. HUNSINGER-Yes. MR. HILTON-It says one shade tree for every 250 linear feet. If you get two trees in there, I mean, that's more than exceeding the Code, I think. 47 (Queensbury Planning Board OS/20/08) MR. HUNSINGER-Yes. MR. SEGULJIC-So one tree on either side of the driveway. MR. ROBINSON-The one that we'd have to site it carefully on the, it would be the west, no, the east side of the driveway, because of the fact that you've got to drive out into traffic there, but other than that, you'd have to site it back some, but that's doable. MR. SEGULJIC-Trees are nice. MR. HUTCHINS-We have a sign on one side of the drive. MR. HUNSINGER-That was going to be my next question. MR. SIPP-How big is that sign? MR. HUTCHINS-It will be in accordance with the sign standards. MR. ROBINSON-Walk-in traffic is not a big issue for us. We just want to be able to have vendors know where we are and that sort of thing. MR. SIPP-Well, the Town Engineer questions the septic system being aged. Is that all going to be looked at and re-done? MR. HUTCHINS-We have, I've discussed it with Dan today, and we've put in an inquiry to a local service provider that has worked on this system, and I don't have a response to that inquiry at this point. I have roughed out an area for replacement should it become an issue. MR. ROBINSON-I would also add that we're probably going to be a net decrease in usage because we're not going to be showering there. We're not going to be doing washes, we're not going to be doing dishwashing. We'll have four and a half people in there for eight or nine hours a day, and also I've lived in 10 different houses with septic systems. So I know that they need to be babied, and if it goes bad, we'll have to replace it. MR. SEGULJIC-So, with regard to the area of disturbance in the wetland, it's really just a corner of the parking lot and those are your stormwater controls? So if water runs off the parking lot. MR. HUTCHINS-Area of disturbance within 100 feet of the wetland. MR. SEGULJIC-Yes. MR. HUTCHINS-Okay. MR. SEGULJIC-So the runoff from the parking lot will be captured in the stormwater control, correct? MR. HUTCHINS-Yes. MR. SEGULJIC-And it'll be directed around. MR. HUTCHINS-Yes. MR. SEGULJIC-Okay. All right. MRS. BRUNO-Where would you rough out that replacement, just to remain consistent. MR. HUTCHINS-Would you like to see it, or would you like me to describe it? MRS. BRUNO-Either. I have a feeling that we're going to just request that it be put on your plans. MR. HUTCHINS-It's just south of, see the two trees in the westerly yard? MRS. BRUNO-Yes, right under the vegetation note. MR. HUTCHINS-May I just show her where it is? 48 (Queensbury Planning Board OS/20/08) MRS. BRUNO-You may approach. MR. HUTCHINS-It's right here. MRS. BRUNO-Those two. Okay. Is that on here? MR. HUTCHINS-No, it's not on, because I just got the comment. MRS. BRUNO-Okay. So you've already done it. MR. HUTCHINS-That's where I've roughed it out. Yes. MRS. BRUNO-Okay. Thank you. MR. SIPP-There's going to be no alteration of the house, to the outside? MR. ROBINSON-No, just wiring. We'll just move in. We urgently need to get in there. We had to leave the place we were in, and we're in a holding pattern right now, pending the Board's decision. MR. HUTCHINS-And that is with the exception of an entrance ramp, an entrance porch. Right now it's a tight residential backdoor, and they're going to improve that. MR. HUNSINGER-Anything else? MRS. STEFFAN-Do you have a picture of the sign? I didn't remember seeing one. MR. HUTCHINS-Of the sign? MR. HUNSINGER-Yes. MR. HUTCHINS-There is none. MRS. STEFFAN-So you're proposing a monument or a pole sign? MR. HUTCHINS-A freestanding two pole sign. MR. ROBINSON-Yes. MR. HUTCHINS-Unlit. MR. ROBINSON-Yes, it's going to be unlit. MR. HUNSINGER-How tall? MR. SIPP-I see you've got plantings around the sign. MR. HUTCHINS-We do have plantings shown around the sign. MR. HUNSINGER-Yes. How tall would it be? MR. ROBINSON-I'll be within the zoning, whatever is required. Very setback and not, we don't want to draw more attention to ourselves. We're not looking for walk-in traffic. MR. HUNSINGER-Right. MR. ROBINSON-We definitely don't want people coming in. MR. HUTCHINS-The UPS guy needs to be able to find your building, yes. MR. ROBINSON-And if we have someone from out of town come to visit, they need to find us, they need to find us, because most people aren't overly familiar with River Street. That would be, yes, we haven't had a sign out for the three years we've been in business. So just a little something. MR. HUTCHINS-They haven't laid out a sign, and it'll certainly be in conformance with the Sign Ordinance. 49 (Queensbury Planning Board OS/20/08) MRS. STEFFAN-We have a height, I'm trying to find it. Was it 18 or 20 feet? MR. HUTCHINS-It'll be less than 20 feet high. MR. HUNSINGER-See, that's why we asked. The Sign Ordinance is somewhat outdated. So it allows you to do a lot more than I think what most of us on this Board would appreciate. MR. SIPP-Keep it under 10 feet. MRS. STEFFAN-Yes, no LED's. MR. HUNSINGER-Yes. MRS. STEFFAN-George, off the top of your head, do you remember how tall the Rite Aid sign is? MRS. BRUNO-Was that 15 that we asked? MR. SIPP-Fifteen. MR. HUTCHINS-You're going to want something you can reach anyway. We're willing to say it will be less than 10 feet. MR. HUNSINGER-Less than 10 feet. MRS. STEFFAN-We're liking that. MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. We did have a public hearing scheduled for this evening. There's only one member left in the audience. I don't know if you wanted to comment on the application? Okay. PUBLIC HEARING OPENED MR. HUNSINGER-Are there any written comments? MR. HILTON-No. MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. I will close the public hearing. PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED MR. SIPP-Snow removal, that would be to the rear? MR. ROBINSON-I would assume so. MR. HUTCHINS-Yes. MR. ROBINSON-And probably headed towards the drainage, so that when it melts it'll just slide right off. MR. SIPP-Did you do any test pits there? MR. HUTCHINS-No, I have not. We have done some borings and just trying to spot the limit of the wet area, but not for wastewater. MR. SIPP-I just wonder how that driveway's going to be in the middle of the winter when you get a thaw. MR. ROBINSON-I think it's pretty firm. It was very wet there this winter, and there was maybe just a little bit of mud, and we're going to have to, we're not going to pave it. We're going to do some sort of crushed stone. MR. SIPP-That's good. MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. Anything else? MRS. STEFFAN-I have four items on conditions. To add a future vehicular interconnect on the plan, to show an area segregated for septic replacement, for future. 50 (Queensbury Planning Board OS/20/08) MR. ROBINSON-The issue of the interconnect, we don't even know what we're going to do with that building, and it may be, I mean, you know, it may be something that's leased out to somebody else. It may be totally separate. We may involve it with the business, but why would we do a vehicle, you know, I mean, the plan for that, for the time being, it's just going to sit there. Is this just a plan, show it on the plan or is it to actually? MR. SEGULJIC-Just show it on the plan. MR. HUTCHINS-Just a dotted line as potential future. MR. ROBINSON-All right. MR. HUNSINGER-And again, we were there on Saturday, and well, it's really, it really wasn't gravel. It was more dirt than gravel. MR. ROBINSON-It is. It needs to be built up some. MR. HUTCHINS-There's gravel out here, yes, it was surveyed in the winter. MR. HUNSINGER-I mean they're already, the two lots are already connected by that, it's more of a pull off of the main road, you know, we pulled right into there, and then actually backed up to come in the driveway. MR. HUTCHINS-So is the reference from the new driveway across to this parcel, with the potential vehicle interconnect, is that what you have in mind? MR. HILTON-That's what I had in mind. MR. HUTCHINS-Okay. MR. HILTON-And again, it's on paper, so that if this other lot comes in in the future for some type of development, then we try to get that lot to connect to the driveway that you're improving. MR. HUNSINGER-So is your thought, George, in making that comment, to basically show it as is? MR. ROBINSON-I guess my only question would be, are you looking for the lawn to have a vehicular interconnect going way back into that parking lot or is it just along the roadside that you're looking for an interconnect? MR. HILTON-Well, I just, my thought, you know, you're improving this driveway here. Potentially somewhere in this area there be some kind of connect drawn on the plan, on your Site Plan, that would allow this site, should this site come in in the future for re- development, to direct it's traffic to this driveway, so that both of these properties are operating on one driveway. MR. HUNSINGER-As you know, it's something we always recommend, you know, adjoining commercial lots to have, it's in the Master Plan, Comprehensive Land Use Plan. So you don't have to go out on the street to go between two sites. MR. HUTCHINS-Okay. MR. HUNSINGER-You don't have to build it. You just have to show it on the plan. Then if you come in for, you know, Site Plan Review for the small lot, it's already shown on the big lot, and you work from there. Somebody has to be first, though, to put it on paper. MRS. STEFFAN-Okay. So then there were two other items. One was to revise the landscaping plan to add two additional street trees, and then the other condition is that the sign will be less than 10 feet tall. MR. HUTCHINS-As far as species of street trees, that's pretty much up to us? MR. HUNSINGER-Well, it's in the Code, it offers you choices. MR. HUTCHINS-Okay. 51 (Queensbury Planning Board OS/20/08) MR. HUNSINGER-Do we want to say anything about engineering signoff, engineering signoff letter? I think the only outstanding issue we had was the septic, which you said you're looking into. Well, there was the water supply line and source should be indicated on the drawing. MR. HUTCHINS-Yes, and I have that on my updated one. I've shown that. MR. HUNSINGER-But I tend to agree with you. I think the sewer use between residential and the office it should be a lot less than what it currently is. MRS. STEFFAN-I hadn't really thought about it like that. I had it in my notes to look at the sewer, look at the septic, rather. MRS. BRUNO-Was the house used before you purchased it? MR. ROBINSON-Yes. The lady just moved, she moved out just before you saw the place. MR. HUNSINGER-Yes, she made a comment to us Saturday morning. She was just pulling out as we were pulling in. Yes. I can't remember exactly what she said. MR. ROBINSON-Yes. She'd lived in that for 60 some odd years she'd lived there. MR. HUNSINGER-Wow. MRS. STEFFAN-Okay. MOTION TO APPROVE SITE PLAN NO. 15-2008 FRESHWATER WETLANDS PERMIT NO. 5-2008 ROBINSON & SON, Introduced by Gretchen Steffan who moved for its adoption, seconded by Thomas Seguljic: 1) A site plan application has been made to the Queensbury Planning Board for the following: Applicant proposes conversion of existing residence & sheds to a Professional Office & storage area and associated site work. Professional Office in a MU zone requires Planning Board review and approval. 2) A public hearing was advertised and held on 5/20/08; and 3) This application is supported with all documentation, public comment and application material in the file of record; 4) Pursuant to relevant sections of the Town of Queensbury Zoning Code [Chapter 179], the Planning Board has determined that this proposal complies with the requirements as stated in the Zoning Code; and 5) NOT APPLICABLE The requirements of the State Environmental Quality Review Act have been considered and the Planning Board has adopted a SEQRA Negative / Positive Declaration; and if the application is a modification, the requirements of the State Environmental Quality Review Act have been considered, and the proposed modification[s] do not result in any new or significantly different environmental impacts, and, therefore, no further SEQRA review is necessary; and 6) 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. The applicant must meet with Staff after approval and prior to issuance of Building Permit and/or the beginning of any site work. Subsequent issuance of further permits, including building permits is dependent on compliance with this and all other conditions of this resolution. 7) The applicant will provide as-built plans to certify that the site plan is developed according to the approved plans prior to issuance of the certificate of occupancy; and 8) NOT APPLICABLE If applicable, Item 7 to be combined with a letter of credit; and 9) NOT APPLICABLE The Sanitary Sewer connection plan must be submitted to the Wastewater Department for its review, approval, permitting and inspection; and 52 (Queensbury Planning Board OS/20/08) 10) MOTION TO APPROVE SITE PLAN NO. 15-2008 FRESHWATER WETLANDS PERMIT NO. 5-2008 ROBINSON & SON, Introduced by Gretchen Steffan who moved for its adoption, seconded by Thomas Seguljic: According to the resolution prepared by Staff. Paragraph Four complies. Paragraph Five, this is a Type II Action. Paragraph Eight and Nine do not apply. This is approved with the following conditions. 1. That the applicant obtain VISION Engineering signoff. 2. That the applicant will show on their plans an area segregated for future septic replacement. 3. That the applicant, on their plans, will add a future vehicular interconnect. The purpose of that is to eliminate any future curb cuts on River Road should the lots be merged. 4. That the applicant will add two street trees. 5. That the signage for this business will be 10 feet tall or less. Duly adopted this 20th day of May, 2007, by the following vote: MR. HUNSINGER-I just want to make a point of clarification. There's a typo in the Draft resolution. It's actually Site Plan No. 15-2008, not 25-2008. MRS. STEFFAN-Okay. AYES: Mr. Sipp, Mr. Traver, Mrs. Bruno, Mr. Krebs, Mr. Seguljic, Mrs. Steffan, Mr. Hunsinger NOES: NONE MR. HUNSINGER-Good luck, you're all set. MR. ROBINSON-Thank you very much. MR. HUTCHINS-Thank you. MR. HUNSINGER-Thank you. SITE PLAN NO. 13-2008 SEQR TYPE I LAKE GEORGE CAMPSITES AGENT(S) LEMERY GREISLER OWNER(S) SAME ZONING HC-INT. LOCATION 1053 ST. RT. 9 APPLICANT PROPOSES EXPANSION OF THE EXISTING CAMPSITE OPERATION IN ORDER TO PROVIDE FOR APPROXIMATELY 340 CAMPSITES AND THE CONSTRUCTION OF NEW FACILITIES INCLUDING A NEW FIELD HOUSE, RESTROOMS, POOL AD LAUNDRY FACILITIES. SITE PLAN REVIEW IS NECESSARY FOR ALL USES REQUIRING A USE VARIANCE. PLANNING BOARD MAY ACKNOWLEDGE LEAD AGENCY STATUS AND COMMENCE SEQR REVIEW. CROSS REFERENCE NONE FOUND WARREN CO. PLANNING 3/12/08 LOT SIZE 38.51 ACRES TAX MAP NO. 295.12-1-6 SECTION 179-4-020, 179-9-020 MR. HUNSINGER-As I mentioned earlier at the beginning of the meeting, we did receive a fax from the applicant today, actually at 3:23, and I'll just read it very quickly for the record. It's addressed to George Hilton, and it, in bold letters, requests to table Planning Board appearance. "Dear George: As per your telephone conversation with John Lemery, this letter is intended as a formal request on behalf of Lake George Campsites LLC to table our appearance this evening before the Planning Board. We would like to take the opportunity to thoroughly address the comments made in Stuart Baker's Staff Notes, and therefore respectfully request that the Planning Board table our appearance until its June meeting. Thank you very much. Should you need further information, please feel free to contact me. Very truly yours, Lynn Schwartz" From Lemery/Greisler LLC. MRS. STEFFAN-The only issue with that is that we would have to change their submission deadline. They've already missed it for May. So if they're going to address the Staff Notes, and make any revisions to the plans, then they would not be able to be on the agenda until July, in order to meet the next submission deadline. MR. HILTON-Yes, unless otherwise granted another deadline. MRS. STEFFAN-That would put everybody else in the queue behind. 53 (Queensbury Planning Board OS/20/08) MR. HILTON-Yes. MRS. STEFFAN-There were a lot of outstanding issues on that. MR. HILTON-I agree. MR. HUNSINGER-Yes. MR. HILTON-I mean, I guess the other option is pick a meeting in July or do the, until the next available meeting, and then when they get everything in, put them on the next available meeting. I don't know. MR. HUNSINGER-Well, what's the feeling of the Board? I'm sorry, was there a comment? MR. HILTON-Well, just that some members of the public were already told June 24th, and I guess the solution to that is that we'd have to re-advertise. MR. HUNSINGER-Yes. MR. SEGULJIC-Well, pardon me, but what's the problem with June 24th, then? MRS. STEFFAN-They've already missed the application deadline. If they change any of the materials, they've missed the application deadline for the month. MR. SEGULJIC-Yes, and they've got a lot of work ahead of them. MR. HUNSINGER-They do. MRS. STEFFAN-And it is a big project, so I would think it's going to take a while. They'll need a lot of information. MR. SEGULJIC-So table them until July, then? MR. HUNSINGER-I'm looking for the preference of the Board. MR. SEGULJIC-I think that makes more sense. MR. HUNSINGER-Put them back in the queue then basically. MRS. STEFFAN-I think to the next available meeting when they submit all of their materials. MR. TRAVER-Yes. MR. HUNSINGER-I see a lot of heads nodding, yes. So it would be tabled until July with a June 15th submission date. MRS. STEFFAN-Well, I thought we'd just decided whenever they get all their materials in. MR. HUNSINGER-Right. MRS. STEFFAN-So do we have to physically set a date or just say until? MR. HUNSINGER-If we don't specify a date, then we'll have to re-advertise. MR. HILTON-Well, at this point I think we're going to have to re-advertise anyway. Because of the people that were under the impression that it was the 24th. MR. HUNSINGER-Right. Well, it was only, well, the person that approached you, too. That's a neighbor. MRS. STEFFAN-Yes, what do we want to do? MR. HILTON-I certainly don't know how to advise you, but if you pick a date in July, and they miss that submission deadline, then they just get further tabled anyway. 54 (Queensbury Planning Board OS/20/08) MR. HUNSINGER-Well, I think we've learned this lesson the hard way enough times to know anytime we do, I shouldn't say anytime, but there's been a number of times when we've made special submission dates and say, you know, table it to June 24th. They have to get all the materials in by, you know, June 1st. MR. HILTON-Right, and I'm not suggesting that. I guess what I'm saying is that if you do pick a date in July, one of the regular meetings, that deadline is the regular deadline of June 15th. That's one option, and if they miss that then they're going to be tabled anyway. MR. SEGULJIC-Would it make sense to have Staff contact them and see what their intentions are, what they want to do? MR. HUNSINGER-Well, clearly in this letter their intention is to have everything for a June meeting, but, you know, the problem is, once you get outside of the normal cycle, it messes up the Town Engineer. It messes up, you know, the setting of the agenda. MRS. STEFFAN-How many things do we have in the queue? MR. HUNSINGER-A lot. MRS. STEFFAN-A lot. MR. HILTON-I honestly don't know. MR. HUNSINGER-I saw the drafts, I think it was in an e-mail today. MR. HILTON-Yes. Sue and I were just talking, and there was a public hearing for this item scheduled this evening, which was not opened, and I guess, you know, typically, if you're tabling, if the Board is tabling to a specific date, the public hearing will be opened, and that way there we don't have to re-advertise, but I think this is a little different situation where we have members of the public that came in and out and are aware of a different date. So I think we're going to be re-advertising anyway. So, I don't know what you want to do with opening the public hearing, but, again, let it be known that typically the Board will open the public hearing and then table the item to a specific date. Maybe you want to do that, even if it's tabling it to a July. MR. HUNSINGER-So you're suggesting if we don't open the public hearing that we don't have to specify a date? MR. HILTON-No, no. I'm just simply saying you may want to, I don't know, as a matter of, I don't know, I don't want to say consistency, but again, what's been done in the past is the Board will open the public hearing, table it, and even if you pick a date in July, that's probably the cleaner way. We're probably going to end up re-advertising this anyway, but I guess my suggestion would be to maybe open that hearing up and then just quickly close it, table it, and. MR. HUNSINGER-All right. I will open the public hearing. PUBLIC HEARING OPENED MR. HUNSINGER-And we will consider a tabling motion. I guess my suggestion would be to July 15th. MRS. STEFFAN-Okay. MOTION TO TABLE SITE PLAN NO. 13-2008 LAKE GEORGE CAMPSITES, Introduced by Gretchen Steffan who moved for its adoption, seconded by Thomas Seguljic Tabled at the request of the applicant. Tabled to the first Planning Board meeting in July, which is July 15th. The applicant will have a submission deadline of June 16th. The item will be re-advertised so that the public hearing will be re-advertised. Duly adopted this 20th day of May, 2008, by the following vote: MR. HILTON-Can I just suggest that you also state that the item will be re-advertised. AYES: Mr. Sipp, Mr. Traver, Mrs. Bruno, Mr. Krebs, Mr. Seguljic, Mrs. Steffan, 55 (Queensbury Planning Board OS/20/08) Mr. Hunsinger NOES: NONE MR. HUNSINGER-I just had kind of like an announcement item, and I'll leave the information with Staff and they can make copies for everybody. I received, in my, actually it came in my Town mailbox, is a workshop sponsored by the Association of Towns with the New York Conference of Mayors Planning and Zoning Summer Schools, and one of the, it's actually a day long, it's kind of an introduction to case law in Planning and Zoning related issues, and one of the workshops will be held here at the Queensbury Town Hall and Activities Center on July 23rd. I'm sure, as in the past, that the Town would pay the registration fees for any members that want to go. It is $60, pre- registration, $70 at the door, but I'll leave this with Staff so they can make copies for everyone to distribute, either at the meeting next week or with our Staff Notes when they go out. MR. TRA VER-Mr. Chairman, is that during the week or on the weekend? MR. HUNSINGER-Yes, it is during the week. MR. TRAVER-That's too bad. MR. HUNSINGER-Yes, there's other dates, too, though, that, you know, they're not too far away. One was New Paltz, Hamilton College, and I forgot where the other one was. Geneseo. I don't think you want to go to Geneseo. MR. TRAVER-Not at $4.00 a gallon. MR. HUNSINGER-Any other business? MR. SIPP-Does anybody know what time the Warren County Planning Board meets? know it's the second Wednesday, but what time? MS. HEMINGWAY-Seven. MR. HUNSINGER-Seven? MR. SIPP-Seven? Nobody in the building could tell me over there. They had no idea. MR. HUNSINGER-Why would that surprise you. MR. SIPP-Well, the big box is going to them in June, and I just wanted to go over there and see what they tell the Planning Board. MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. Anything else? Motion to adjourn is always in order. MOTION TO ADJOURN THE QUEENSBURY PLANNING BOARD MEETING OF MAY 20,2008, Introduced by Donald Krebs who moved for its adoption, seconded by Thomas Seguljic: Duly adopted this 20th day of May, 2008, by the following vote: AYES: Mr. Traver, Mrs. Bruno, Mrs. Steffan, Mr. Seguljic, Mr. Sipp, Mr. Krebs, Mr. Hunsinger NOES: NONE MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. We're adjourned. Thank you, everybody. On motion meeting was adjourned. RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED, Chris Hunsinger, Chairman 56