Loading...
2008.06.17 (Queensbury Planning Board 06/17/08) QUEENSBURY PLANNING BOARD MEETING FIRST REGULAR MEETING JUNE 17, 2008 INDEX Site Plan No. 10-2008 Randy Gross 1. Tax Map No. 303.16-1-33 Subdivision No. 11-2007 Larry Clute 2. SEEKING L.A. STATUS Tax Map No. 301.20-1-11, 28, 29 Subdivision No. 4-2008 Jane Lowell 5. SKETCH PLAN Tax Map No. 290.-1-22.221 Site Plan No. 44-2007 David & Marylou Dutra 8. Tax Map No. 289.6-1-33 Subdivision No. 13-2007 John Fedorowicz 12. PRELIMINARY STAGE Tax Map No. 265-1-19.11 Site Plan No. 14-2007 Redbud Development 27. Tax Map No. 239.7-1-7 Site Plan No. 19-2008 Eric Eckardt 46. Tax Map No. 309.11-1-46 Site Plan No. 22-2008 Mike Barbone/West Mt. Ski Center 48. Tax Map No. 307.-1-29 Site Plan No.18-2008 Jolley Associates 55. Tax Map No. 302.6-1-29 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. 0 (Queensbury Planning Board 06/17/08) QUEENSBURY PLANNING BOARD MEETING FIRST REGULAR MEETING JUNE 17, 2008 7:00 P.M. MEMBERS PRESENT CHRIS HUNSINGER, CHAIRMAN GRETCHEN STEFFAN, SECRETARY THOMAS FORD DONALD SIPP THOMAS SEGULJIC STEPHEN TRAVER DONALD KREBS, ALTERNATE GIS ADMINISTRATOR-GEORGE HILTON LAND USE PLANNER-KEITH OBORNE TOWN ATTORNEY-MILLER, MANNIX, SCHACHNER, & HAFNER-MIKE HILL STENOGRAPHER-SUE HEMINGWAY MR. HUNSINGER-I’ll call to order the meeting of the Town of Queensbury Planning th Board, Tuesday, June 17 . The first item on the agenda is review and approval of ndth minutes from April 15, 22, and 29. APPROVAL OF MINUTES April 15, 2008 April 22, 2008 April 29, 2008 MOTION TO APPROVE THE QUEENSBURY PLANNING BOARD MINUTES OF APRIL TH 15, 22, AND 29, 2008, Introduced by Gretchen Steffan who moved for its adoption, seconded by Thomas Seguljic: th Duly adopted this 17 day of June, 2008, by the following vote: AYES: Mr. Sipp, Mr. Ford, Mr. Traver, Mrs. Steffan, Mr. Seguljic, Mr. Hunsinger NOES: NONE ABSTAINED: Mr. Krebs MR. HUNSINGER-We have a couple of items under Administrative Items. ADMINISTRATIVE ITEMS: SITE PLAN NO. 10-2008 RANDY GROSS FOR FURTHER TABLING CONSIDERATIONS [TABLED TO 6/17 – NO SUBMISSION] th MR. HUNSINGER-It’s been recommended that we table it to June 17. th MR. HILTON-July 17. MR. HUNSINGER-As the applicant has not submitted the required information. MRS. STEFFAN-Actually, they want to move it to a July meeting. MR. HUNSINGER-I’m sorry. MRS. STEFFAN-The application deadline was yesterday. So, that causes a problem. MR. HUNSINGER-George? 1 (Queensbury Planning Board 06/17/08) MR. HILTON-I guess our recommendation would be, if you are so inclined to move it to a July meeting, that the first July meeting would be best for this application. MR. HUNSINGER-Have they submitted any additional information? MR. HILTON-Well, they’ve certainly requested the first July meeting. RANDY GROSS MR. GROSS-Can I interrupt? I’m here. MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. Can you come up to the table, please. If you could state your name for the record. MR. GROSS-Randy Gross, the applicant. All the items that were requested are now complete and they were filed like Thursday. MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. MR. GROSS-And so we would like to request if we could be on the first July meeting. MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. MR. GROSS-The delay was at the engineer’s hands, and nothing I could do about it. MRS. STEFFAN-So you have all your materials submitted to the Community Development Department already? MR. GROSS-Yes. MRS. STEFFAN-Okay. MR. HUNSINGER-I’m glad you came this evening. MR. GROSS-Yes. MR. HUNSINGER-It saved us a lot of potential conflict here. Okay. The applicant has indicated that they’ll be ready for the July meeting. Everything’s been filed. Would anyone like to make a resolution? MRS. STEFFAN-Okay. I’ll make a motion. MOTION TO TABLE SITE PLAN NO. 10-2008 RANDY GROSS, Introduced by Gretchen Steffan who moved for its adoption, seconded by Thomas Ford: th To the first Planning Board meeting in July, which is July 15. The application deadline was yesterday. The applicant has submitted materials to the Community Development Department. th Duly adopted this 17 day of June, 2008, by the following vote: AYES: Mr. Sipp, Mr. Seguljic, Mr. Traver, Mr. Krebs, Mrs. Steffan, Mr. Ford, Mr. Hunsinger NOES: NONE MR. HUNSINGER-Thanks again for coming. We’ll hear your project next month. MR. GROSS-Thank you, sir. SUBDIV. NO. 11-2007 LARRY CLUTE - RESOLUTION SEEKING LEAD AGENCY STATUS MR. HUNSINGER-Do you want to brief us, George? MR. HILTON-Sure. We’ve been having some conversations prior to this meeting, and I don’t think there’s any issue with this resolution. The Board can seek Lead Agency Status. However, under Recommendations, some agendas that have been released make reference to a recommendation to the Zoning Board in relation to this subdivision 2 (Queensbury Planning Board 06/17/08) application, which also requires an Area Variance. I guess the bottom line is, is that the Planning Board probably should not make such a recommendation this evening, since the SEQRA, you know, you’re seeking Lead Agency Status to do the SEQRA review, or reaffirm previous findings, whichever it is in this case, but with the SEQRA question unanswered, it’s probably, I guess, not appropriate to make a recommendation to the Zoning Board. So, if there are any of your agendas that identify that recommendation, again, we probably would not want to do that this evening. MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. Any questions, comments from the Board? Would anyone like to put forward a resolution? Again, the resolution is to seek Lead Agency Status on Subdivision No. 11-2007. MRS. STEFFAN-Did I not get that, or didn’t George just say we shouldn’t do that? MR. HUNSINGER-What he said we shouldn’t do is make a recommendation to the Zoning Board. We’re okay to make a resolution to seek Lead Agency Status. MR. HILTON-Yes. Right. This resolution that you’re about to pass, presumably, is fine. I’m just bringing this up because, as I said, and I don’t want to complicate anything, but there are some agendas out there that, under 3.0, Recommendations, talk about a recommendation to the Zoning Board for this item as well, and that recommendation the Board probably should not do this evening. MR. FORD-I concur with that. MRS. STEFFAN-Okay. MR. HUNSINGER-Everyone understand what we’re doing? MRS. STEFFAN-Okay. MR. HUNSINGER-Would someone like to make a resolution? MRS. STEFFAN-So then I’ll make a resolution. MOTION TO SEEK LEAD AGENCY STATUS FOR SUBDIVISION NO. 11-2007 LARRY CLUTE, Introduced by Gretchen Steffan who moved for its adoption, seconded by Donald Krebs: WHEREAS, the Town Planning Board is in receipt of a Subdivision Plan and Variance application: Subdivision: Applicant proposes subdivision of a 7.81 +/- acres into 18 residential lots ranging in size from 0.34 to 0.54 +/- acres. Subdivision of land requires Planning Board review and approval. Area Variance 52-2007 referred to PB for recommendations relative to traffic impact; lot sizes; density vs. the Comprehensive Plan; stormwater; development of open space, whether it would be positive or negative; 175 feet centerline vs. 300 feet curve. Area Variance 52-2007: for Applicant proposes a 20 lot subdivision; extension of Geneva Estates. Relief requested from area / lot width requirements. WHEREAS, the Planning Board of the Town of Queensbury has determined to begin an environmental review process under the State Environmental Quality Review Act (SEQRA), and WHEREAS, the Planning Board of the Town of Queensbury has identified the project to be a Type I action for the purposes of SEQRA review pursuant to 6 NYCRR 617, and WHEREAS, the Planning Board is the agency most directly responsible for approving the actions because of its responsibility for approving the land uses for the property, and NOW, THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED, The Planning Board of the Town of Queensbury hereby indicates its desire to be Lead Agency for SEQRA review of this action and authorizes and directs the Zoning Administrator to notify any other potentially involved agencies of such intent. That Part I of the SEQRA will be sent to the following agencies [as identified in EAF]: Zoning Board of Appeals, NYS DOH, NYS DEC 3 (Queensbury Planning Board 06/17/08) MOTION TO SEEK LEAD AGENCY STATUS FOR SUBDIVISION NO. 11-2007 & AREA VARIANCE 52-2007 LARRY CLUTE, Introduced by Gretchen Steffan who moved for its adoption, seconded by Donald Krebs: th Duly adopted this 17 day of June, 2008, by the following vote: AYES: Mr. Traver, Mr. Ford, Mr. Seguljic, Mr. Sipp, Mr. Krebs, Mrs. Steffan, Mr. Hunsinger NOES: NONE MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. The next item on the agenda are recommendations. RECOMMENDATIONS: 3.1 ZBA REQUESTS RECOMMENDATION FROM THE PLANNING BOARD FOR THE FOLLOWING ITEM WHICH IS SCHEDULED BELOW: SUBDIVISION 4-2008 & AREA VARIANCE NO. 13-2008: JANE LOWELL MR. HUNSINGER-The Zoning Board has requested a recommendation from the Planning Board on Subdivision No. 4-2008 and Area Variance No. 13-2008 for Jane Lowell. Any discussion of the Board? MRS. STEFFAN-Okay. So we’re looking at that separately. We’ve got the Sketch Plan Review at the end. That’s our last agenda item. MR. HUNSINGER-Yes. Should we wait until then? MR. HILTON-I think. MELISSA LESCAULT MS. LESCAULT-My name is Melissa Lescault. I’m an attorney with McPhillips, Fitzgerald and Cullum, and I’m here on behalf of Jane Lowell. We did see the Zoning Board about two months ago, and they did ask for the recommendation because we’re seeking an Area Variance and because it’s a three lot subdivision. They asked that we get the recommendation from your Board first, before we could, before they could rule on the Area Variance. I’m not sure, or am confident in regards to the fact that I should be here tonight for the Sketch Plan Review until the Area Variance is granted. So when I submitted the application today for Jane Lowell’s subdivision, it was really to get on the agenda for today for the recommendation on the Area Variance to the Zoning Board of Appeals, but I’m not confident that anything should be decided today for Sketch Plan Review. MR. HUNSINGER-That makes sense. Yes, and according to our Town Code, Sketch Plan Review is just an opportunity to discuss, sort of informally, the project, and we don’t take any action on Sketch Plan Reviews. So we wouldn’t be taking any action on that anyway. There would just be a discussion. MS. LESCAULT-Okay. If we could do Sketch Plan Review tonight that would be great. I just didn’t know, procedurally, if that was something that could be done until the Area Variance is granted. MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. Yes. George? MR. HILTON-I certainly think, as you mentioned, you know, there’s no action, if you will, on a Sketch Plan. It can be, such a discussion item can take place prior to the Area Variance. MS. LESCAULT-Okay. MR. HILTON-I think the question is, does the Board want to make such a recommendation at the same time as reviewing the Sketch Plan, which, I guess, is your call. MR. HUNSINGER-What’s the will of the Board? MR. TRAVER-Can we just deal with that agenda item now, as opposed to? 4 (Queensbury Planning Board 06/17/08) MRS. STEFFAN-Yes, I think it’ll be a long time before we get to it. So I think it would be a good idea. SUBDIVISION NO. 4-2008 SKETCH PLAN SEQR TYPE II JANE LOWELL AGENT(S) MELISSA LESCAULT, ESQ. OWNER(S) SAME ZONING SR-1A LOCATION CHESTNUT RIDGE & COUNTY LINE ROAD APPLICANT PROPOSES SUBDIVISION OF A 14.626 +/- ACRES INTO THREE LOTS OF 5.2, 4.7 AND 4.65 ACRES. SUBDIVISION OF LAND REQUIRES PLANNING BOARD REVIEW AND APPROVAL. AREA VARIANCE NO. 13-2008 JANE LOWELL REFERRED TO PLANNING BOARD FOR RECOMMENDATION RELATIVE TO THE ACCESS TO THE LOT. CROSS REFERENCE AV 13-08; SUB 1-04 WARREN CO. N/A LOT SIZE 14.626 +/- ACRES TAX MAP NO. 290.-1-22.221 SECTION A-183 MR. HUNSINGER-We sort of have to. I guess, with that, I’ll open it up for any discussion. Maybe you could summarize what it is the applicant’s looking to do. MS. LESCAULT-Sure. Absolutely. My client owns 14.62 acres. The property is currently vacant. It’s zoned one acre residential. The property fronts on Chestnut Ridge, as well as County Line Road, and we’re proposing a three lot subdivision. Each lot is at least 4.5 acres, and again, like I mentioned, the zoning is one acre zoning, Single Family Residential zoning. So we have, each lot is four times the size that’s required by the zoning, but because the property fronts on County Line Road, which is an arterial road, they are required to have double width of the road frontage. We need 300 feet on County Line Road, and as you can see, there’s 200.05 feet of road frontage. I can go through the full balancing test for you as to why I believe we should be granted an Area Variance. I don’t know if you want me to go through that right now or if you want me to just, it’s up to you. MR. HUNSINGER-The floor is yours. Yes. MS. LESCAULT-Okay. We believe that the benefit to the applicant of the variance being granted outweighs, obviously, any detriment to the health, safety and welfare of the neighborhood. The first element that must be proven, as a consideration for an Area Variance, is that the undesirable change that would be produced, whether an undesirable change will be produced in the character of the neighborhood, or a detriment to nearby properties will be created by granting a variance. The area there is predominantly residential. The only permitted use in the zone is Single Family dwelling, and therefore there would be no change in change in the characteristic of this neighborhood if the variance was granted. The second element for the Zoning Board to consider, and again, obviously I’m in front of the Planning Board, is whether the benefit sought by the applicant can be achieved by some alternative method feasible for the applicant to pursue other than an Area Variance. We had asked both property owners to the north and the south of that lot that fronts on County Line Road to see if they’d be willing to purchase that lot, so as to do a boundary line adjustment of some sort, and neither neighbor had responded to me, and we submitted letters to them in writing and called both property owners, as well as I called the realtor for the property owner to the south. Keep in mind that the property owner to the north cannot sell us land because their property would then be short and would be a substandard lot, but we also asked if we could buy from the south, and they did not respond to us. MR. FORD-When you called, did you make actual contact with the individuals? MS. LESCAULT-I called, first wrote letters, Tom. I wrote a letter to Tra-Tom, as well as to the, Mrs. Hesslin. Mrs. Hesslin called me back and we played phone tag. I tried to reach the property owner to the south on various occasions, left messages at his business office I could find in the yellow pages, and then I was able to find out who his realtor was, and left a message with her as well, and I never received a call back. The third element that the Board has to consider is whether this Area Variance is substantial. The project, as a whole, only requires one variance. Without the fact that it needs the double width, they would be in full compliance with the zoning that they’re in. However, due to the double width, they need a 33% variance. A point that I would like the Board to consider is if you notice the property to the north, their driveway is located on that map, and it’s about 100 feet already north of our property line. So, in fact, we really would have the 300 feet that’s required, which is basically for sight distance purposes. The fourth element that must be considered is whether the proposed variance will have an adverse effect or impact on the physical or environmental conditions in the neighborhood. Like I said before, the neighborhood is made up of Single Family dwellings, with similar sized lots. As you can tell, the majority of the area is actually less than the four acres that we would have. There would be no impact on physical or 5 (Queensbury Planning Board 06/17/08) environmental conditions of the neighborhood, and the fifth element that the Board would have to consider is whether this alleged difficulty was self-created. Well, interestingly enough, the property, as it is, is already substandard. It fronts on both County Line Road and on Chestnut Ridge, and right now it is substandard. The property was actually subdivided in 2003, and it wasn’t my client that did the subdivision application. It was the purchaser of this property. That’s not to say that my client doesn’t already have imputed knowledge of the fact that this subdivision created a substandard lot. However, this Board also granted that subdivision which created this substandard lot. So I just wanted that to be noted, and lastly, I just wanted to make comments on the economic considerations of this. Although not a required element to be obtained for a variance, I still wanted to point out that my applicant was willing to sell this particular lot that fronts on Chestnut Ridge to one of the neighboring parcels for $55,000. A local realtor has contacted me and gave me a value, at a minimum, of $100,000, and she based that on the fact that there was a sale two doors down for just over $300,000. It had a house on it, but it was only two acres, and then there was another sale for $60,000 on a vacant piece of one acre property in the Town of Kingsbury. So, my client risks losing between $55,000 to $100,000. In conclusion, I just wanted to point out that this road is not heavily traveled, as are most arterial roads, such as Lower Warren, Glenwood and Round Pond. The area is predominantly residential. It’s not commercial, which would provide an increased in flow of traffic. The road is particularly flat. So there’s sight distance of at least half an acre, and I drove it myself. So you can see from where the point is, that you can see about, I’m sorry, about a half mile, not acre, you can see a half a mile down on each side, and it’s not significantly traveled. Each time that I was on the property, about three different times, maybe two cars passed me. So I just want to conclude that the benefit to Mrs. Lowell clearly outweighs the detriment to any health, safety and welfare of the neighborhood, as there is no detriment. MR. HUNSINGER-Any questions, comments from the Board? Thank you. MR. SIPP-Does anybody know when this was made an arterial? The definition there is so much traffic per day, per certain time, and I think you’d have a tough time counting that many cars when on County Line Road. The properties above this, 22.20, 22.19, 22.18, well, 18 has 300 feet, only have 150 foot width or 200 foot width on County Line Road, and she’s got basically 200, 198, something. I can see no problem with. MR. TRAVER-Sight distance, also, is not an issue on that area, which is certainly a factor in considering a variance. I don’t see any problem with it. MR. SEGULJIC-I see no problem with it. MR. FORD-I concur. MR. SEGULJIC-Looks like it’s meant for homes. MRS. STEFFAN-And out of the 14 properties that are in close proximity on County Line, nine of them have less than the required number for an arterial road. MR. HUNSINGER-Anyone feel comfortable in offering a resolution of recommendation to the Zoning Board? MR. KREBS-I’ll move that the Board recommend to the Zoning Board of Appeals that this be approved, this variance be approved. MR. HUNSINGER-Is that enough? MR. OBORNE-Well, we’re just looking for a resolution of recommendation for the access to the lot. MR. HUNSINGER-For the access. MR. OBORNE-For the access to, is it 1B? MS. LESCAULT-Yes, 1B. MR. HUNSINGER-Well, I think in looking at the Site Plan, I believe we did approve a subdivision for Tra-Tom, the area to the south, the large lot to the south. MS. LESCAULT-I don’t remember if it was under Tra-Tom’s name. I think there was a. 6 (Queensbury Planning Board 06/17/08) MR. HUNSINGER-I know we have reviewed projects. MS. LESCAULT-Yes. It may not be under that particular name, though, if you look it up under your records. MR. HUNSINGER-I guess if the Zoning Board is looking for a recommendation, my recommendation is that the placement of the driveway on Lot 1B be as far away from the northern most driveway as possible, that it be located along the southern boundary of the lot. MRS. STEFFAN-Are there any wetlands or anything? MR. HUNSINGER-Well, that’s what I don’t know. I mean, it’s pretty much an open field if I’m not mistaken. MS. LESCAULT-To my knowledge there are no wetlands at all. MR. TRAVER-The wetlands are all to the west, I believe. MR. HUNSINGER-What do other members think? MR. FORD-Could you reinforce what you indicated before about the distance from that northern driveway? MS. LESCAULT-If you look on the map that you were provided, you can see where John Hesslin and Eileen Smith’s property, their driveway to the north, it’s about an inch on the map, which is 100 feet. So if you add, obviously, 100 feet to our 200 feet of road frontage, we’d have 300 feet, and I did make a recommendation to the Zoning Board that we were willing to make it a condition that our driveway would be at the southern most. MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. I mean, I don’t know if I’d want to see it right on the property line, but, because it’s nice to have a little buffer, too, between lots. Anybody else want to chime in? MR. SEGULJIC-That’s the only issue I really see. MR. HUNSINGER-Yes. MR. SEGULJIC-I mean, it looks pretty straight forward. MR. HUNSINGER-Yes. I think so, too. MR. SEGULJIC-So we have to do a resolution for the recommendation. MR. HUNSINGER-Recommendation to the Zoning Board. MRS. STEFFAN-So you want to recommend that the driveway be where? MR. HUNSINGER-That the placement of the driveway be on the southern half, yes, or maybe a minimum of 200 feet from the driveway on the property to the north. That would be about the same thing. MR. FORD-They could even go 250 and still have room to spare. MRS. STEFFAN-Okay. MR. HILL-Mr. Chairman, if I may. Presumably the applicant has applied for a specific variance in connection with the project, and I think it would be useful, I think you have a motion pending right now. MR. HUNSINGER-We do, yes. MR. HILL-To approve, presumably as applied for. If you’re going to suggest something that would modify the variance that’s been applied for, then it might be helpful for the Zoning Board to have some further clarification from this Board about that. In other words, if this Board is going to do something other than simply recommend approval of the variance as applied for, then you might want to expand on that and let them know that you’re suggesting that they do something different than what’s been applied for, if, in fact, that’s what you’re suggesting. I don’t really know. It’s hard to understand exactly 7 (Queensbury Planning Board 06/17/08) what’s going on with the variance application here, but just as a point of clarification, if they’ve made application for something in particular, and the motion is to approve the grant of that variance, if this Board thinks that there ought to be something different, then there probably ought to be some clear direction in that regard provided to the ZBA. Just a suggestion. MR. HUNSINGER-Thank you. I guess it’s my understanding that the only variance required is for the minimum lot width on an arterial road. So I think we are recommending that they approve it as submitted, but then that the ZBA has asked for further clarification on our, from us on a recommendation of placement of the driveway. So I think, between the motion that was offered and the one that’s being considered, it would identify both issues. MR. TRAVER-Yes, the relief that’s requested is 99.95 feet, and the placement of the driveway maybe we could address with regards to our comments on Sketch. MR. HUNSINGER-Yes. So we did have a motion from Mr. Krebs. Would you like to withdraw the motion, so that we can just do it as one? MR. KREBS-Yes, I’ll withdraw the motion. MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. All right. Would anyone like to put forward a new motion, then? Gretchen’s taking copious notes. MRS. STEFFAN-Let me see if I can try here. MOTION TO MAKE A RECOMMENDATION TO THE ZONING BOARD FOR SUBDIVISION 4-2008 JANE LOWELL, Introduced by Gretchen Steffan who moved for its adoption, seconded by Thomas Ford: The Planning Board would look favorably on approving the variances as submitted. We have considered the project history, the sight distance which we believe is good, other lots in close proximity, which have similar lot widths on an arterial, and we would recommend to the Zoning Board that the driveway placement be a minimum of 200 feet from the driveway to the north. th Duly adopted this 17 day of June, 2008, by the following vote: AYES: Mr. Sipp, Mr. Seguljic, Mr. Traver, Mr. Krebs, Mr. Ford, Mrs. Steffan, Mr. Hunsinger NOES: NONE MR. HUNSINGER-Thank you. Good luck. MS. LESCAULT-Thank you. SITE PLAN NO. 44-2007 SEQR TYPE UNLISTED DAVID & MARYLOU DUTRA OWNER(S) ETHEL, DAVID & MARYLOU DUTRA ZONING WR-1A LOCATION 28 NACY ROAD APPLICANT PROPOSES TO RECONSTRUCT A RETAINING WALL AT THE LAKE EDGE ALONG WITH FILL ACTIVITY WITHIN 50 FEET OF THE SHORELINE. HARD SURFACING WITHIN 50’ OF A SHORELINE IN A CEA REQUIRES SITE PLAN REVIEW AND APPROVAL BY THE PLANNING BOARD. CROSS REFERENCE NONE FOUND WARREN CO. PLANNING N/A CEA GLEN LAKE CEA LOT SIZE 0.18 +/- ACRES TAX MAP NO. 289.6-1-33 SECTION 179-6- 060(D)(2) DAVID DUTRA, PRESENT MR. HUNSINGER-Keith, are you going to be summarizing Staff Notes? MR. OBORNE-Yes. MR. HUNSINGER-Whenever you’re ready. MR. OBORNE-Application No. 44-2007, Site Plan, David and Mary Lou Dutra. They are site plan approval to reconstruct a retaining wall at the lake edge, along with associated fill, shoreline activity. Location is 28 Nacy Road. Zoning is WR-1A. The applicant proposes to reconstruct a retaining wall at the lake’s edge along with associated fill 8 (Queensbury Planning Board 06/17/08) shoreline activity. The applicant has obviously been before the Board previously, and vacationing in Florida, I believe, and he had a, it was the builder that was representing him through the winter, and we have taken care of some of the concerns of the Board, in fact all of the concerns of the Board, and he’s here today to get approval. MR. HUNSINGER-Good evening. The floor is yours. If you could you identify yourself for the record. MR. DUTRA-David Dutra. MR. HUNSINGER-Did you have anything else to add? MR. DUTRA-No. I’m just trying to get my approval. MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. I’ll open it up for questions comments from members of the Board. MRS. STEFFAN-According to the Staff Notes, there was a tabling motion, and Number Three, revised profile of the slope to remove the seawall, and the Staff Note, no revised profile was submitted. No retaining or seawalls are shown on the revised plan. MR. DUTRA-There is none. The seawall is being omitted. That’s why I had to go down and get this new surveyor’s map. Mr. Wick suggested we do not do anything with the seawall, that we just make it an earthen, regular earthen slope up through there. MRS. STEFFAN-Okay. The soils man. Okay. That’s what this is. MR. DUTRA-That was in his letter. MRS. STEFFAN-Okay. MR. HUNSINGER-Anyone else, questions from the Board? MR. SEGULJIC-It looks good to me. I’m all set with it. MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. MR. SEGULJIC-He’s got the vegetation along the lake. He’s taken off the seawall. MR. HUNSINGER-We do have a public hearing scheduled this evening. Is there anyone in the audience that wanted to address the Board on this application? The hearing was left open from the last meeting in April. If there are no takers, I will close the public hearing. PUBLIC HEARING OPEN NO COMMENT PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED MR. HUNSINGER-Is everyone comfortable moving forward on SEQRA? MR. SEGULJIC-Yes. MR. HUNSINGER-Whenever you’re ready. MRS. STEFFAN-Okay. “Does the action exceed any Type I threshold in 6 NYCRR Part 617.4?” MR. HUNSINGER-No. MR. FORD-No. 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. 9 (Queensbury Planning Board 06/17/08) 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. HUNSINGER-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. SEGULJIC-No. MR. FORD-No. MRS. STEFFAN-“C6. Long term, short term, cumulative or other effects not identified above?” MR. SEGULJIC-No. MR. FORD-No. MRS. STEFFAN-“C7. Other impacts (including changes in use of either quantity or energy)?” MR. SEGULJIC-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. SEGULJIC-No. MRS. STEFFAN-“Is there or is there likely to be controversy related to potential adverse environmental impacts?” MR. HUNSINGER-No. MR. SEGULJIC-No. MRS. STEFFAN-Okay. Then I’ll make a motion for a Negative SEQRA declaration. 10 (Queensbury Planning Board 06/17/08) RESOLUTION NO. 44-2007, Introduced by Gretchen Steffan who moved for its adoption, seconded by Thomas Seguljic: WHEREAS, there is presently before the Planning Board an application for: DAVID AND MARY LOU DUTRA, 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. th Duly adopted this 17 day of June, 2008, by the following vote: AYES: Mr. Traver, Mr. Krebs, Mr. Ford, Mr. Sipp, Mr. Seguljic, Mrs. Steffan, Mr. Hunsinger NOES: NONE MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. Would anyone like to put forward a motion? MRS. STEFFAN-Okay. MOTION TO APPROVE SITE PLAN NO. 44-2007 DAVID & MARY LOU DUTRA, 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 reconstruct a retaining wall at the lake edge along with fill activity within 50 feet of the shoreline. Hard surfacing within 50’ of a shoreline in a CEA requires Site Plan review and approval by the Planning Board. 2)A public hearing was advertised and held on 9/18, 11/20/07; 1/15, 3/18, 4/15 tabled to 6/17/08; 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)The requirements of the State Environmental Quality Review Act have been considered and the Planning Board has adopted a SEQRA Negative Declaration; OR if the application is a modification, the requirements of the State Environmental Quality Review Act have been considered, and the proposed 11 (Queensbury Planning Board 06/17/08) 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 MOTION TO APPROVE SITE PLAN NO. 44-2007 DAVID & MARY LOU DUTRA, 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, Negative. Paragraph Eight and Nine do not apply. th Duly adopted this 17 day of June, 2008, by the following vote: AYES: Mr. Traver, Mr. Krebs, Mr. Sipp, Mr. Ford, Mr. Seguljic, Mrs. Steffan, Mr. Hunsinger NOES: NONE MR. HUNSINGER-You’re all set. MR. DUTRA-Thank you. MR. HUNSINGER-Thank you. SUBDIVISION NO. 13-2007 PRELIMINARY STAGE SEQR TYPE UNLISTED JOHN FEDOROWICZ AGENT(S) B P S R OWNER(S) JOHN & LAURA A. FEDOROWICZ ZONING RR-3A LOCATION 1433 BAY ROAD APPLICANT PROPOSES SUBDIVISION OF A 10.14 ACRE PARCEL INTO 2 RESIDENTIAL LOTS OF 3.7 AND 6.44 ACRES. SUBDIVISION OF LAND REQUIRES REVIEW AND APPROVAL BY THE PLANNING BOARD. CROSS REFERENCE SUB 1-00 WARREN CO. PLANNING N/A LOT SIZE 10.14 +/- ACRES TAX MAP NO. 265-1-19.11 SECTION A-183 JON LAPPER, REPRESENTING APPLICANT, PRESENT MR. HUNSINGER-Keith, whenever you’re ready. MR. OBORNE-Subdivision No. 13-2007, Sketch, it’s for John Fedorowicz, Preliminary Plan review of proposed two lot subdivision on 1433 Bay Road. This property is zoned Rural Residential Three Acres. SEQRA Status Unlisted. The project description: Applicant proposes subdividing a 10.14 acre parcel into 2 lots of 3.7 and 6.44 acres respectively. Prior subdivision that created this parcel included the condition of no further subdivision. MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. Thank you. Whenever you’re ready. MR. LAPPER-Good evening. For the record, Jon Lapper and John Fedorowicz. When we were here last, you had asked us to make the full submittal for the Preliminary application so that you could be certain that the lot could be properly subdivided before addressing the request to waiver the condition of no subdivision that was in a subdivision of the predecessor in title in around approximately 2000. We made the submittal and I’d like to start out going over the Staff Notes and the engineering comments. There are a 12 (Queensbury Planning Board 06/17/08) few items that are listed as still open, which I view as sort of minor in scope and would be really applicable to a Final review rather than a Preliminary, but we’re certainly willing to resubmit anything if the Board feels that what was submitted is not complete and we need to make another submittal for Preliminary we’ll certainly do that. A few of the comments, there were pages that were submitted separately that were part of the report, such as the area of 25% grade. So they were submitted. It just wasn’t on the plat, it was on a separate submittal. So I want to go through some of that. Starting out, the issue, on the Staff comments, the first one is the scale of one inch equals 50. Everything that came in from the engineer was one inch equals fifty, but the survey map from Van Dusen and Steves was at 200, and the reason for that was to show the wells on all the adjacent properties, as well as the adjacent property owners. So we could certainly resubmit that, but there was a purpose for doing it that way, just to put it all on one map. Let me grab that. That is this map. The next comment is the location of septic fields on all adjacent properties is not provided. The location of all the wells on the adjacent properties is provided, but these are, there’s no way, in the field, to know where the septic systems are because these lots were subdivided a long time ago and these are, the houses are 300 or more feet back from our western property line. So there just wasn’t a way to determine where the septic systems were located, but we did show the septic system on the applicant’s adjacent house lot, and of course the proposed septic system on this lot. The property across Bay Road is vacant. So there’s no septic system on that, and the main point is that the well has to be 200 feet, our well has to be 200 feet from a septic system, and of course their wells have to be 200 feet from our septic system. So, if you look at that map, their wells are all the way at the far end of the adjacent sites, nowhere near our septic system, and our well, in the middle of the site, is 200 feet from nearly every boundary. I think there’s, the closest one, it may be right about a little bit less, but there’s certainly no conflict between well and septic and separation distance, but certainly if the Board feels that we should go back out and knock on doors and ask people if they know where their septic system is, we could do that, but these were built in an era where the Town wouldn’t have those on file, but there’s a great distance. That’s the point. The adjacent property ownership to the east on Bay Road. That is, we just looked that up. That’s not on the map. That’s correct. That is a person named Deborah O’Reilly who owns a 59.04 acre vacant parcel. So there are no improvements at all, but we certainly can add her name to the map, and the areas where slopes exceed 25% are not shown, and that was in Kevin Hastings’ submittal. Matt’s plan has the table which shows that it’s 2.64 acres with slopes of 25% or greater, and you can see, by looking at the map, obviously I have Matt’s map where the lines are very close together is where the steep slopes are, but that was actually provided, and it is provided, here it is, as an attachment to the Kevin Hastings’ letter, which is the dark areas are the 25%. So the point there is that the area which is proposed for development at the top of the hill is very flat, and that’s why it’s a good location for the house and it’s a good location for the septic system. There are areas of steep slope that are primarily down by Bay Road, and the project has been designed to stay away from that, and obviously the road has been designed with a sweeping curve so that it would maintain the 9.19% grade, and a flat grade along the road as required. Next on the Staff Notes, detailed measures regarding protection of remaining trees are not provided. That needs to be a very specific limit of clearing, and that needs to be added. So we could submit that for a Final submission or we could obviously resubmit that for Preliminary, but that needs to be added. It’s not a problem because the area for construction is very specific here, very well defined, and Bay Ridge Volunteer Fire Company, we had sent a letter in March to both the emergency squad and the fire company, and we just received a letter just this week from the fire company. So you haven’t seen it, but it is a letter of consent. We have copies, but if you want us to resubmit, we’ll handle it however you want. It’s a very short letter from the fire company. Generally, when an applicant submits, we can’t force them to comment, and they waited a number of months, but after a few phone calls, they did comment, and they asked for a pull off area so that two trucks could pass each other in the event of a fire, which is certainly something that we would be happy to agree to, but we do have that letter now. MR. HUNSINGER-Did they specify where they wanted the pull off? MR. LAPPER-Yes. MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. JOHN FEDOROWICZ MR. FEDOROWICZ-Actually it said about halfway up the driveway, but they gave us the option to move it a little bit. They’re not really concerned about it. 13 (Queensbury Planning Board 06/17/08) MR. LAPPER-Approximately halfway point. MR. FEDOROWICZ-They looked at the site. They looked at the prints, and they have approved, said it will be in the letter and give each a copy of it. I brought it with me tonight. Would you like those? MR. HUNSINGER-Sure, you might as well. MR. LAPPER-Now I’ll turn to the VISION Engineering comments. The first comment is that the test hole data should be located at the location of the proposed absorption system. If you look at the map, you’ll see that there are four test holes that are at each corner of the system, and there’s far more than 24 inches of soil beneath the system. So all four of those were fine, but, you know, obviously if that’s something that, the engineer’s position is that they’re right up next to it and there’s four of them, so you know what the soils are, but obviously if the Board wants that, we’ll go back and take one, do one more test. Completed, completed, completed, completed, and then Number Six, additional contours are shown. As stated in the response letter, an easement may be necessary for proposes changes on the adjacent parcel, and what they’re talking, what he’s talking about here is between the two Fedorowicz parcels, that there should be a permanent easement for grading and maintenance in case there was any erosion, and that is something that we could put on the plans as a note, that, you know, some day one of them will get sold and they’ll be in separate ownership. So that certainly makes sense for maintenance of that slope. Number Seven, the applicant has indicated a two to one slope will be proposed. Grading contours should reflect the shallower slopes and slope stabilization measures should be specified on the erosion and sediment control plan for all embankments, cuts and fills and that’s fine. That can just get added. Number Eight, the driveway culvert has been deleted. Consideration should be given to having Warren County review and approve the driveway location and determine if a culvert will be necessary, and we did just actually get a permit issued from Warren County. This is the only copy that we have. You have copies? Okay. So they did want a culvert, and we do have a permit. MR. FEDOROWICZ-Yes. I met with George VanDusen yesterday, and he has, I applied for a permit and have all the information. I have a signed permit as of today, the insurances and everything, so, what he has, I have a copy, if you’d like, of that also. MR. LAPPER-The next comment, Number Nine, is the infiltration trench detail should be modified to show adjacent to the house foundation. There is infiltration trench detail shown because there’s infiltration trenches along the road. What this comment means, I think, is that it should show how it relates to the drip edge and the foundation. It would be the same method of construction, but the location should be specified. So that would be adding another infiltration trench detail, and that’s fine. The next comment, Ten, essentially says that a SWPPP needs to be submitted, and that’s correct, and that will have to be done, and Number Eleven, this is just a modification to the erosion and sediment control plan, pretty minor, and that’s no problem. The applicant’s engineer will take care of that. Number Twelve, spillway detail, with dimensions and elevations for the basin outlet should be added to the plans. That’s fine, and the rest were completed. So there are some technical comments from the engineer, some notes, and a few changes that he would like to see that are all acceptable to the applicant and the applicant’s engineer. You had asked us to establish that this could be done and meet the standards of the Town. I hope you see that it’s clear from the review letters that this subdivision lot is certainly larger than the minimum in the zone, and it meets the technical standards, and we’ll handle it however you would like, in terms of making a resubmission at Preliminary or making a submission for Final, whatever is appropriate. MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. Anything else? MR. LAPPER-No. MR. HUNSINGER-Questions, comments from the Board? MR. SEGULJIC-Well, I guess I’d have a question for Counsel, and that is, with regards to our burden for approving or denying this, could you give me some insight into that? MR. HILL-Are you referring specifically to the prior condition regarding no further subdivision? MR. SEGULJIC-Correct. Yes. 14 (Queensbury Planning Board 06/17/08) MR. HILL-That was, obviously, put on by a prior Board. They did that, I don’t know whether they articulated the reason, if they provided some reasoning as to why they put the condition on. It would be advisable to look at the reasoning and find out whether that reasoning is still applicable or whether there’s something about the application that you have before that addresses whatever concern that the prior Board had, consider whether it’s still a valid concern, either in light of changed conditions or in light of some aspect of the proposed application that addresses whatever the concern was, and determine whether the condition is still appropriate. MR. SEGULJIC-Now, correct me if I’m wrong, but I believe the prior Board was because of the slopes, correct? MR. HUNSINGER-It wasn’t fully articulated in the discussion. It was offered by the applicant and the Board kind of ran with it, but that certainly was one of the considerations. MR. SEGULJIC-So I guess it appeared as if it was slopes, but that’s not really clear. It appeared as if the applicant accepted it, with no further subdivision. So, as far as our burden for denial or approval, with regards to no further subdivision, it’s really not clear as to why it appears as if it was offered. MR. HILL-Well, I think that, or I guess our recommendation would be that you evaluate the present application, look at as much information was available with respect to the prior application, and any reasons that were offered for the imposition of the condition, and I understand the point that you’re making. It appears that it was volunteered on the one hand, and that perhaps there was some concern about the slopes that may have motivated the Board to seek the applicant’s agreement to the condition, but I think now, with this application, you have to see if there is a basis on which to continue the imposition of the condition, see if there’s a valid basis or rationale basis for the continued imposition of the condition. It seems cleared, based on the application, that the applicant is asking you to reconsider it. So the applicant, presumably, to the extent that the applicant previously volunteered it, it would seem as though the applicant now has indicated that he has a different view and is essentially changing his mind, and would like you to reconsider the imposition of that condition. I don’t know, is that helpful? MR. SEGULJIC-Some. MR. HILL-Okay. MR. KREBS-But another question related to that is, do we set a precedent, if we do approve this, that on all of the others where we have said no subdivision, now, is that open again? MR. TRAVER-Or any other conditions. MR. KREBS-Or any other condition, right. MR. HILL-But it’s always within the discretion of the Planning Board to reconsider a condition of no further subdivision. It was a condition previously imposed on an approval by this Board in its discretion, and it can be lifted by action of a future Board, provided the facts and circumstances warrant the lifting of the condition, and there’s a rational basis for doing so. MR. SEGULJIC-So, it’s a high hurdle to lift the condition? MR. HILL-You’re not looking at something that say is on the order of a Use Variance or anything. I would say, no, to the extent that there was a rational basis for imposing the condition to begin with, if that rational. MR. SEGULJIC-But if the applicant accepted it, that’s where I get hung up. It wasn’t something the Board went out of their way to impose. It’s something that the applicant accepted. MR. HILL-All right. The applicant, I mean, the record is clear that the applicant volunteered the. MR. SEGULJIC-Well, I’m not going to say it’s clear. MR. HILL-Okay. Well, I mean, again, here. 15 (Queensbury Planning Board 06/17/08) MR. SEGULJIC-I mean, we’re talking how many years ago, five years ago, I guess? MR. LAPPER-Eight, I think. MR. TRAVER-2000. MR. SEGULJIC-Eight years ago. MR. LAPPER-Yes, it was a previous applicant, previous owner. MR. HILL-So it was eight years ago, and I’m sorry, was there a comment there was a different applicant at the time? MR. LAPPER-Yes. MR. HILL-A prior owner of the property. To that extent, you can say that the current applicant took ownership of the property, presumably with knowledge of the condition, or at least with implied or imputed knowledge of the condition, and I think you go back to, try to understand what the basis of it was, other than the prior owner volunteering it, the prior applicant volunteering it, to see if, underlying that, there was a concern or a basis of concern and see if that concern was addressed by either the change in circumstances or something about the current application that alleviates that concern. MR. SEGULJIC-I’ve got to think about that. MR. HUNSINGER-Anyone else want to chime in? MR. HILL-If I could just ask one more question here. With regard to the particular proposal, was there a variance required from the Zoning Board of Appeals for lot size or anything here, or are the proposed lot sizes? MR. LAPPER-Conforming. MR. KREBS-Now it’s a three acre zone and they’re 3.7 and 6.44. MR. HILL-Thank you. MR. LAPPER-That’s actually 4.06, and 6.07. MR. KREBS-Mine says 3.7. MR. SEGULJIC-I don’t have the minutes in front of me from that Planning Board meeting, but if I recall correctly, there was some concern about the slopes, and then there was discussion about how it wouldn’t be developable anyway. That’s just my understanding of it, but then I believe the applicant volunteered, said, well, we can put no further subdivision. MR. LAPPER-Could I comment on that, Mr. Chairman? MR. HUNSINGER-Yes, go ahead. MR. LAPPER-The issue that we read in the minutes from 2008 did address slope, and that’s why when we came in this time, we drew the lots not with a perpendicular lot line between the two parcels, but with the sweeping lot line so that the road could be, the driveway could be put in on a curve, so that it would minimize the slope of the driveway, and as to the house location, as I stated before, that was picked, the house and the septic system in the flat part of the site at the top. So there’s no slope issue where the development is proposed, and there’s no slope issue with the road, with the driveway that exceeds the Town standard of 10%. This is just slightly over nine percent for the driveway grade. So we believe that this lot, I mean, I concur completely with what the Town Attorney said. We believe that this lot meets all the standards for the Town for a two lot subdivision. In effect, each of the lots exceeds the minimum lot size and one of them is, this lot is basically double, and so we think that if you just look at this based upon the standards for subdivision that we comply. MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. 16 (Queensbury Planning Board 06/17/08) MR. LAPPER-I’m sure you’ve seen Mr. Fedorowicz and Mrs. Fedorowicz’s house next door, the white house, and how attractive the house is, and the land. They’d like to sell that and build a new house for themselves here, but they’ve certainly done a very nice job of developing and taking care of their property. MR. SIPP-This proposed pull out that the fire company has stated they want, would this be on the uphill side or the downhill side of the road? MR. FEDOROWICZ-Where they want would be, driving in on the left hand side, and depend on the slope. MR. SIPP-Left hand side, that’s station six, test pit six. MR. FEDOROWICZ-It’s test pit number six, which is shown on the print, and he said, you know, they allow either way, plus or minus. MR. LAPPER-But it would be the uphill side. MR. SIPP-Now, that is almost in the same area as station six on the survey. Right? Fairly close together. MR. LAPPER-Test pit six, it’s station five. Test Pit Six is Station Five. MR. FEDOROWICZ-Yes, Station Five. MR. SIPP-Station Five, yes. MR. FEDOROWICZ-And as you can see that’s pretty much a straight of way at that point. That’s why they picked that area. MR. SIPP-This is where you leave your average, go above average in the slope percentage, right, at Station Four and a Half. MR. LAPPER-We have a chart right there that shows the grade. MR. FEDOROWICZ-It shows you on profile five. MR. SIPP-You’re up in the 10% slope range. MR. FEDOROWICZ-It’s 9.1. MR. LAPPER-No, it’s 9.1. What you’re looking at, the top of that, there’s a cut that brings it down to that 9.1. The straight line is the road. MR. SIPP-The straight line is the road, and average grade is 9.1%, but above Station Five, or above Station Four it’s above nine percent. MR. LAPPER-No, above that, that’s the existing grade which would be cut. There’d be a cut on top and a fill on the bottom. That’s how you read that. MR. SIPP-All right. Let’s go back down to the bottom of that diagram. I looked in every surveying book I have and went on the Internet. These abbreviations, PVI Station, I assume, I can figure that one out, and PVI elevation is the beginning elevation, right? What is the abbreviation PVI mean? MR. LAPPER-What you’re not reading right, Don, is that it’s a three percent slope up to the first station. MR. FEDOROWICZ-They’re changing points in the grade. It’s three percent, then it goes to, the difference in grade of 6.19 and 8.08. MR. LAPPER-That 9.19% is not the average grade. That’s the steepest grade. That’s not the average grade, because it’s only three percent down by Bay Road, as required. MR. SIPP-I know that. Well, what I’m getting at is you go to Station One, you have two elevations here, 97.0 and 98.79. Is that the forward siting and the turning point to give us back site on Station One? 17 (Queensbury Planning Board 06/17/08) MR. FEDOROWICZ-The first point you come to is a radius. As you drive straight in, you make a left hand turn, that’s a radius at that point. That’s showing the radius. This point is a radius here, and it’s showing two radiuses, the beginning of the radius and the (lost words) radius. MR. SIPP-But why is this 97.0 and right next to it is 98.79. MR. FEDOROWICZ-Because you’re on the radius. MR. SIPP-All the way up? MR. FEDOROWICZ-No. MR. SIPP-Well, why is it 134 here and 130 here? MR. FEDOROWICZ-From this point here it’s 9.19% grade. That won’t change. That profile is this driveway. This line is the existing, what’s there now, (lost words) this is cut and fill. MR. SIPP-What do these numbers mean? MR. FEDOROWICZ-They’re stations, 400 foot stations. MR. SIPP-Yes, but what is 103.1? Right there, 103.1. Right next to it, or right below it is the 107.79, and what is that, is that a foresight and a back sight? MR. FEDOROWICZ-It’s, the proposed grade and the finished grade. MR. SIPP-The proposed grade and the finished grade. MR. FEDOROWICZ-Existing grade, and. MR. FORD-Existing, as opposed to proposed. MR. LAPPER-Right. MR. FORD-You’ve got the two. MR. LAPPER-That’s right. MR. SIPP-All right. MR. HUNSINGER-That’s what we were just saying. MR. SIPP-Those abbreviations never appeared anyplace in any surveying thing that I ever found. I still say that I am not in favor of this, because of the amount of grade and problems that these winters cause, and I fear for somebody’s safety, one way or another, on this length driveway and this slope. MR. HUNSINGER-So what’s the grade between Station, well, the first dot and then Station One, is that still three percent also? MR. LAPPER-Three percent. MR. FEDOROWICZ-Three percent is the first, as you drive in from the flat section. MR. HUNSINGER-Right. MR. FEDOROWICZ-And then it changes to. MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. I see. It changes to 9.1. MR. LAPPER-Yes, that’s right. Three, then eight, and then eight percent, and then nine percent, which is all within the Town standard. MR. HUNSINGER-Any other questions or comments from the Board? MR. SIPP-Are we beginning the grade at 90.00? Is that what we’re doing? 90.00 is the beginning? 18 (Queensbury Planning Board 06/17/08) MR. FEDOROWICZ-Yes. MR. SIPP-And the end of the first one is finished grade will be 98.79. Am I correct on that one? MR. LAPPER-That’s the second one. That’s not the first one. MR. SIPP-Well, that first Station, 98.79. MR. LAPPER-I think part of the issue is that it starts. MR. SIPP-So that’s 8.79 feet rise in 100 feet. MR. FEDOROWICZ-Exactly. MR. SIPP-That’s an 8.7% grade. MR. LAPPER-It’s three percent halfway to the first station. Because you have to have 50 feet at three percent, the first 50 feet. The point is that it’s compliant. MR. HUNSINGER-Anyone else want to comment? MR. TRAVER-Yes. I’d like to ask the applicant, were you the owner in 2005? It appears from the notes that there was an application at that time to remove the restriction? MR. FEDOROWICZ-Yes. MR. LAPPER-I can explain. I was not involved then, but I’ve read the minutes. That was, the proposal there was a subdivision that didn’t have this road at nine percent. It had a straight line, a typical two lot subdivision with a perpendicular line, and it was after that that we went back and looked at the minutes from 2000 and came with this proposal that addressed the issue of the slope, so that this lot was fully compliant. That’s what happened. MR. TRAVER-But at the time were you not, before seeking Site Plan, were you not seeking to remove that restriction, as a first step? MR. LAPPER-Yes, it would have had the same thing. The restriction would have had to have been removed, but it was a different application. It wasn’t this level of application. MR. FORD-That was the 2005 application? MR. LAPPER-Yes. It wasn’t this application. It wasn’t addressing the technical issues to this extent. MR. TRAVER-But it was the same relief that you were seeking, from the restriction? MR. LAPPER-A two lot subdivision, yes. MRS. STEFFAN-I think when the applicant first came in front of us, a few months ago, one of the things that we talked about was that we needed more information in order to reconsider removing that condition, and that it would be at the applicant’s risk, not encouraging them, not that there would be an approval, but they had to develop more information so that we could make a decision, to see whether it was doable or not. So, now we’re a few months down the road and we do have more information. MR. TRAVER-Well, again, if I could just, just for my own edification, just to clarify, the applicant did not own the property at the time that the original restriction was placed. MR. LAPPER-That is correct. It was the predecessor. MR. TRAVER-So, some time between that restriction and the Year 2000, it looks like May of 2000, the applicant acquired the property, and in 2005 sought relief from the no subdivision, correct, which was subsequently denied three years ago. MR. LAPPER-That’s correct, but it was denied based upon a different application, a different plan. I believe that if we came in with this application today, and that condition 19 (Queensbury Planning Board 06/17/08) didn’t exist, there’d be no reason, no technical reason to turn this down. This is a better application. It meets the Town standards. MR. FORD-The reason for the denial in 2005, you’ve reviewed those minutes, have you, Jon? Can you summarize those? MR. LAPPER-It seems that the, one issue was because there was a condition imposed and the other was because of the slope. MR. FORD-Thank you. MRS. STEFFAN-I guess I’m kind of on the fence, because the applicant has come back with a plan that identifies that they can get a driveway with an appropriate slope, you know, slope up to the top of that lot. Why I’m on the fence is that when you look at this property, when you visit this property, it is unique. There’s a rock face. I mean, it’s a sheer drop off in the front of this property. We don’t get to see too many of those, and so I can certainly see why there was a condition of no further subdivision on it. MR. LAPPER-But we’re staying away from that area. You’re absolutely completely correct, Gretchen, but we’re avoiding that area. MR. SEGULJIC-Now, with regards to the location of the driveway, and the southern property line, I believe, I mean, you’re going to be cutting across some pretty aggressive slopes there. Correct? MR. LAPPER-You mean the cut to get down to this? MR. SEGULJIC-So you’re going to have to go beyond the property line. You’re going to have to go beyond the property line to get that grade. MR. LAPPER-It’s John’s property. MR. FEDOROWICZ-Right, I own the property. MR. SEGULJIC-So you’re going to go beyond the property. MR. LAPPER-That was the issue about granting an easement to himself. MR. SEGULJIC-So you really can’t construct that driveway there, then, without an easement. MR. LAPPER-He owns both parcels, he certainly can. MR. SEGULJIC-But if he didn’t own the other parcel, you couldn’t construct that driveway. MR. FEDOROWICZ-With an easement, a construction easement. MR. LAPPER-He can grant himself an easement. MR. SEGULJIC-But you couldn’t construct that driveway if you didn’t own the other property. MR. LAPPER-Unless the other owner consented. MR. SEGULJIC-Unless the other owner consented. MR. FEDOROWICZ-With a construction easement or maintenance easement, you’d be able to do that, and that’s done. MR. SEGULJIC-So, once again, you wouldn’t be able to construct that driveway. MR. LAPPER-Without the permission of the neighbor. MRS. STEFFAN-So once the driveway is constructed, the easement would no longer be valid. MR. LAPPER-No, what the Town Engineer pointed out is there should be a note on the map that there should be a maintenance easement, a perpetual maintenance easement, 20 (Queensbury Planning Board 06/17/08) and that makes sense, and that’s something that John can grant himself, John and Laura. MR. SEGULJIC-I have two big concerns here. One is that no further subdivision means something, then, people agreed to it, and, Number Two, they couldn’t construct a driveway if there was another owner there. MR. LAPPER-He owns both sites, so I don’t see what that makes sense. MR. SEGULJIC-But he might not in the future. MR. LAPPER-Yes, but we grant it now at the time that the plat gets filed. That sounds pretty arbitrary to me. MR. HILL-Was your question really directed to me as a legal question? MR. SEGULJIC-Yes, as far as the, I mean, that no further subdivision means nothing. MR. HILL-Well, I wouldn’t necessarily say so. I don’t think that means nothing. When this Board imposes a condition for no further subdivision, presumably there’s a concern, you know, a basis for imposing that condition. Here in this case, based on what we discussed earlier, it seems as though perhaps it wasn’t extensively articulated, and perhaps not as clearly as all of you might like right now, but it seems that the basis of the imposition of the condition was a concern about slopes. Sometimes these things happen, as you probably know. Perhaps a Board member or two previously indicated, gee, there’s some steep slopes there, you know, this could be a concern in the future, and the prior owner, perhaps to expedite the Board’s, to alleviate the Board’s concern and expedite the approval that he wanted so much back then said, fine, I’ll agree to a condition of no further subdivision, in order to address that concern about slopes, and now you have a different owner, albeit an owner who took the property aware, presumably aware, of that condition, but nonetheless presenting a plan to you that, in the applicant’s view, addresses the concern about the slopes. Now whether or not it addresses it to your satisfaction is for you to decide, but the applicant is proposing to you that what they’ve put together, by way of a plan, addresses the concern about the slopes. With respect to the other point that you identified about not being able to do this without an easement, and that the applicant wouldn’t be able to do it if the property was owned by someone else, if that were the circumstance and the adjacent lot was owned by someone else, the applicant could go to that adjacent property owner with his proposal and seek voluntary agreement to provide an easement or the applicant could propose to pay that adjacent property owner for a perpetual maintenance easement to have a perpetual right to maintain features, so as to alleviate drainage concerns. In this case, of course, the applicant actually owns that adjacent property right now, and so it’s within his ability, as the owner of that adjacent property, to grant himself an easement, and that may sound a little strange, but the point of it is that once that easement is granted, it runs with the land. So that if the applicant then goes to sell that adjacent lot, the new owner takes that adjacent lot with the burden of the easement on it, and understands that that easement allows the owner of the other lot to come on to his property to maintain whatever feature is on there, to continue to address that drainage concern into the future. That would be the purpose of the easement, and it’s fully within his ability, as the owner of both lots, to grant himself that easement. MR. SEGULJIC-Even if someone else comes along to purchase it? MR. HILL-Right. When somebody else comes along to purchase it, if Mr. Fedorowicz wants to sell that adjacent lot on which he’s granted himself the easement, to somebody else, that purchaser is going to, when, Mr. Fedorowicz will tell him, and when that purchaser does the title search on the property, that purchaser is going to find that easement, and he’s going to realize that the property that he’s thinking of buying is burdened by an easement to Mr. Fedorowicz’s benefit, so that he can come on to the property that this buyer is proposing to buy and do whatever is necessary to maintain the feature on that property, so as to prevent the drainage issue, or whatever it is, for whatever purpose the easement is granted. So that buyer would buy with the full knowledge that there’s a potential, in the future, for Mr. Fedorowicz or the owner of the other property to come on to the property he’s buying, to do whatever maintenance work is necessary. MR. SEGULJIC-Okay. Now when we look at our Code, you know, requirements for approval in 179-9-010, you know, it talks about the, you know, the establishment, maintenance, or operation of proposed use would not create public hazards from traffic, 21 (Queensbury Planning Board 06/17/08) traffic congestion or parking. Now when they say public, does that, I mean, this driveway isn’t, you know, it’s a tortured driveway. They use the word public in here. Is that just, I mean, does that fall into this purview? MR. HILL-I don’t think that’s really contemplating the situation here where you have a private driveway. MR. SEGULJIC-Right, because a private driveway would not be, it’s more like the roads and things like that, even though members of the public would have to go up there, you know, public service people, whoever it might be. MR. HILL-To that extent, you may have a concern about emergency access, access for emergency vehicles, that type of thing. MR. SEGULJIC-Right. I mean, they did bring the fire department saying they’d have no problem with it, but I’ve never seen them have a problem with anything, really. So, I mean, is that enough that they say there’s not a problem with it? MR. HILL-I haven’t reviewed the letter that you’re looking at, but if the fire department is saying in their letter that they don’t see an issue with access, that they are going to be able to access the property in emergency situations, then I think that’s something that you’d want to take cognizance of. That’s certainly why it’s been presented here. MR. SEGULJIC-But we can’t foresee all emergency vehicles that may go up there. MR. HILL-No, you probably can’t, but you’ve got something from at least one, and probably one of the most important being the fire department. If there’s somebody else that you want to hear from, you can certainly ask the applicant about. MR. LAPPER-We also have a letter from EMS. In the file there’s a letter from EMS as well. MR. HILL-There’s a letter from EMS. So you’ve got EMS and you’ve got fire I guess, based on what they’ve said. MR. KREBS-But certainly the fire department is the one that’s got the biggest problem getting the equipment in and out. MR. FEDOROWICZ-Well, they’ve got the largest equipment. MR. KREBS-Right. MR. TRAVER-There’s also a letter from the rescue squad, saying that they’re, they don’t have an issue with it. I’m pretty sure I saw that somewhere in there. th MR. LAPPER-That’s dated March 13, Steve. MR. KREBS-I’d just like to say from a practical standpoint that if this applicant came to us today, without this pre-condition, we would probably approve this because he’s met all the requirements, and has agreed to meet all the requirements. So I don’t know why we shouldn’t approve it. MR. HUNSINGER-Mr. Ford? MR. FORD-You all may recall that I spoke pretty vehemently against reversing previous Boards, assuming that they had a rational for the decision made at that time. After a lot of consideration, I believe that we are presented with new conditions, a new proposal, and at this point, with an EMS squad and other emergency squad, the fire department indicating that they can deal with the slope as recommended, I believe that we have new conditions that it’s causing me to lean very much against my original recommendation that we not reverse a previous Board. I think that we don’t have to reverse the previous Board by looking at new conditions, and I think that’s what we’re faced with right now, and I think that we ought to proceed toward approval. MR. HUNSINGER-Is this proposed to be paved or gravel? MR. FEDOROWICZ-Gravel. 22 (Queensbury Planning Board 06/17/08) MR. HUNSINGER-I think my concern is just, and I think a lot of the comments kind of, you know, allude to concerns with the driveway, but my concern is one of upkeep. I mean, I have a gravel driveway. I have a little bit of a slope. It’s nowhere near nine percent, and any time there’s a good rain, I have to go out the following day, you know, with the shovel and shovel gravel back up the driveway because it washes down, and with a driveway of this size, my concern is one of maintenance, and it’s not just the gravel and the driveway itself, but it’s the check dams. It’s the proper slope. It’s the drainage, which could become, very easily, I don’t want to overstate it, I mean, an environmental concern or a health and safety hazard, and I guess that’s really the biggest concern that I have is not so much the construction, because I think, you know, the engineers can engineer it and construct it, but then, you know, it really becomes a maintenance issue, and it’s not just now, but 30 years down the road, and again, I’ll bring it back to my own small driveway, which is, you know, maybe 100 feet long, but the house is now 35 years old, and it’s easy to see where the pitch of the driveway has changed over time, and that’s what’s going to happen here, unless you re-grade it every Spring, or address it after every storm. MR. FEDOROWICZ-Right. I have to agree, I mean, it is a steep slope, but we have other, numerous driveways throughout the township, county, and people, when you have their driveway, naturally you know you have maintenance to deal with, the same as anything. MR. HUNSINGER-Right. MR. FEDOROWICZ-And I really don’t want to get restricted to a blacktop driveway. MR. HUNSINGER-Right. MR. FEDOROWICZ-With today’s costs, you know, there’d be a considerable amount to go ahead and blacktop. MR. HUNSINGER-Sure. MR. FEDOROWICZ-I mean, the engineering plans that we have are, as you can see with the way the grades, the ditching and so on, the back slope, pitching into the ditches, I think our engineer did a great job on it, and I think we just general maintenance I think the road will hold up pretty decent. There is monthly requirements on there. MR. HUNSINGER-You have the language there. It’s on the map. It’s something that is enforceable if the Town wanted to enforce an enforcement action, but there’s the practicality of it. I mean, we’re not going to send, the Code Enforcement Officer isn’t going to run out to your property after every rain storm, you know, or once a month to make sure that you did your maintenance plan. MR. LAPPER-But if you have a steep driveway, you have to maintain it. I mean, there’s nothing earth shattering about that, and John’s driveway next door, I mean, his property is beautifully maintained. MR. SEGULJIC-I would concur with Chris in that I think what you’re going to see is wash outs across that road. You’re going to be running all that silt down the mountain. MR. LAPPER-Well, there’s a detention basin. MR. HUNSINGER-Yes, there’s about 17 check dams. MR. FEDOROWICZ-This is quite an elaborate system. MR. HUNSINGER-I agree. MR. FEDOROWICZ-That you’re going to have rock and rock ditches, which you know you’re not going to get much erosion at that point, and with, you know, you’ve got to maintain it. There’s no doubt about it, but, as you can see, you know, there’s quite an expense in just the installation of this driveway. It’s not your normal driveway, as most specs are around. You can see driveways next to the lake. You have pitches a lot steeper than 9.1%, and people maintain their driveways, and I’m just saying that I don’t want to be restricted to blacktopping a driveway. I understand there’s maintenance. MR. HUNSINGER-No, that’s not what, I was just asking what the intent was. 23 (Queensbury Planning Board 06/17/08) MR. FEDOROWICZ-Okay. On the upside where our ditch is going to be, it is rock. We show that in our test pits. So the erosion will be kept down to a minimum, and the way the slopes are, if you see the contours, everything actually pitches away. The only water that comes down the ditch is what is on the surface up here, and it is maintained through the check dam and the system we have set up now. Everything away from that, that pitches the other way which goes that way anyway. MR. SEGULJIC-And I would agree with that, because it’s not like the monthly maintenance is going to be that big rain storm that we had in February, when you can have wash out across the road. All your check dams are going to be wiped out. MR. FEDOROWICZ-I wouldn’t necessarily say that. I would think it would be minimal compared to a lot of other places and private drives in the township, because of the construction, because the ditches and so on in this are designed, if you look at a lot of the driveways in the township, you don’t have ditches on them. This is designed with adequate drainage and specific places for the water to run. MR. SEGULJIC-But I think it’s the overall length and the grade of it. MR. LAPPER-It just has to be maintained like your house or anything else. MR. FEDOROWICZ-Right. We know there’s maintenance to every driveway. I mean, there’s no getting away from it. MRS. STEFFAN-This is a remarkable driveway, though. MR. FEDOROWICZ-It’s unique. MR. LAPPER-You can have a road at this pitch, though. MR. FORD-You may find, eventually, that the maintenance is so expensive and extensive that you may choose to pave it. MR. FEDOROWICZ-That would be a choice, I guess. MR. LAPPER-The way the Town Planning Board usually deals with maintenance issues is to require a maintenance report, filed annually. I mean, that’s an inconvenience for a residential property, but it’s certainly something that could be done as a condition and you have to file a report saying you did it. MR. SEGULJIC-But that wouldn’t alleviate my concern. My concern is the frozen ground and the two inch rainfall in February. Everything’s going to be rushing down that. So that’s, monthly maintenance isn’t going to do it for you. MR. LAPPER-There’s infiltration drywells. I mean, this was all engineered in terms of the winter conditions. It’s not like you can’t build a nine percent driveway in the Town of Queensbury in the northern climate. There’s nothing remarkable about that. It has to be maintained, and that’s why the Town Engineer required a maintenance plan in here, and it’s in there. I don’t think that’s a reason to deny an application. MR. SIPP-There’s a lot of difference between a four percent driveway and a nine percent driveway. MR. LAPPER-But the Town allows a nine percent driveway. MR. SIPP-You double the speed of water, you increase its carrying capacity by the square of the increase. MR. LAPPER-That’s fine, but the Town has standards, and 10% is allowable. MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. Where are we at here this evening? Do we want to, we do have a number of outstanding engineering comments. MRS. STEFFAN-I guess the only comment that I want to make is that, does the applicant as it’s presented right now meet most of our Code requirements, and I’m assuming so. I know there’s details we haven’t considered yet, but I just, is this good planning? I mentioned before the steep rock face in the front, and it is a formidable driveway, whether there’s a maintenance agreement or not, and so I just, in my mind, that’s something that we have to consider as a Planning Board, is this good planning. 24 (Queensbury Planning Board 06/17/08) MR. HUNSINGER-What would people like to do, table this, or, I think there’s still outstanding issues, and I think we’re really at the same point where we were in April. There’s not enough information to approve it, but if we’re not inclined to, you know, there may be an inclination by the Board to not continue forward. I guess that’s what I see as the two options at this point. MR. SEGULJIC-I’m very concerned about the driveway and it’s potential impact, the steepness of the driveway. Given the slope and the length, I think we’re going to have to environmental issues with that. I’ll bet you you’re going to be driving past there and you’re going to have silt built up across the road. MR. LAPPER-There’s a detention basin that won’t go into the road. There’s a detention basin that’s nowhere near the road. It wouldn’t get into the road. It’s all designed to go into a detention basin with infiltration drywells. MR. SEGULJIC-That’s just my engineering opinion. I’ve seen it happen on plenty of driveways that are built up on slopes. MR. LAPPER-All right, but it’s not the Town Engineer’s position. MR. HUNSINGER-Well, again, there are outstanding issues from the Town Engineer. MR. LAPPER-And we are certainly willing to complete addressing all of those. We’re pretty close. MR. HUNSINGER-Yes. I guess it would be my recommendation that we table this, pending the engineering comments. MR. LAPPER-Pending a complete signoff from the Town Engineer. MR. HUNSINGER-Yes. MR. LAPPER-That’s fine. MR. HILL-Mr. Chairman, you’re suggesting. I don’t think you’ve made a motion. MR. HUNSINGER-I didn’t make a motion. Right. MR. HILL-I think you’re suggesting tabling the application. Are you for an opportunity for the engineering comments to be addressed. Given the concern, I’m not sure whether the engineering comments, are they going to address the concerns that have been raised with respect to potential driveway issues? MR. HUNSINGER-Some do, yes. MR. HILL-Some do. Just an observation. You may want to, as part of your whatever motion is put forward to table, you may want to specifically ask the engineer to look at the driveway issues that have been raised, or questions that have been raised with respect to potential driveway issues. MR. FORD-And make sure that Tom’s concern about runoff is addressed. MR. HUNSINGER-Well, before we consider any tabling resolution, we do have a public hearing. Is there anyone in the audience that wanted to address the Board on this application? Okay. We’ll open the public hearing and I’ll leave the public hearing open. PUBLIC HEARING OPEN MR. HUNSINGER-Would anyone like to put forward a tabling resolution? Has there been any new information submitted to the Town Engineer at this point? MR. LAPPER-As of when? MR. HUNSINGER-Since the comments? MR. LAPPER-We just got the Town Engineering comments a day or two ago. MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. That’s what I figured. 25 (Queensbury Planning Board 06/17/08) MR. LAPPER-I think there was a letter faxed to him today, with comments that mirrored what I said on the record, but we’ll certainly now address the maintenance of the driveway and the runoff. MR. HUNSINGER-So is there new information that you would like to present, is I guess what I’m asking? MR. LAPPER-Well, I guess we already have a maintenance plan, but since you’ve raised the issue, we would look for comments from the Town Engineer, and we’d probably have to address his comments on those issues. MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. I’m trying to ascertain if we should table until next month or July, which is why I asked. MR. LAPPER-I guess we’d say July because we’re ready, we’ve addressed everything that he’s asked so far, and we can address whatever on the maintenance issue. MRS. STEFFAN-What is our queue like, George, as far as, how many apps? MR. OBORNE-For August? MRS. STEFFAN-July and August. MR. OBORNE-July, you might be able to get on the second meeting, but the deadline has passed for that. MR. HUNSINGER-Yes, that’s why I asked if there was already new information submitted. MR. LAPPER-Well, it wasn’t submitted before the deadline. It was just submitted today. nd MR. HUNSINGER-Right, understood. Personally I’m okay with tabling it until July 22. MRS. STEFFAN-I’m just wondering how long will it take the engineer to look at the stormwater management and maintenance plan? I’m bringing this up because at the last meeting we had issues with timetables, and if we’re injecting ourselves in a timetable that’s going to cause us problems in meeting our deadlines, then. MR. OBORNE-That’s correct. The queue has not been totally finalized at this point. We just had, the application deadline was yesterday. MR. HUNSINGER-Right. MR. OBORNE-So, I mean, we’re still going through those, as it stands. MR. HUNSINGER-And Old Business always takes precedent over New Business. I can go either way. MRS. STEFFAN-So when would the application deadline be? MR. KREBS-I’d like to ask the question. Is the Board willing to approve this if the engineer goes and looks at the plan and says he doesn’t believe the driveway will be a problem? Is the Board going to approve this anyway, or are you not going to approve it, even if the engineer says yes, this driveway plan is sound? MRS. STEFFAN-I don’t think there’s an answer to that, because it depends on the composition of the Board that night, and it depends on the information that’s provided from the engineer. So, you know, all of our decisions are based on the information at hand, so I don’t think you can answer that question. MR. HUNSINGER-Yes, I agree. Which is why I said I see two directions for this evening. I mean, if someone wants to put forward a resolution to deny, I mean, we could certainly entertain that. MRS. STEFFAN-But that hasn’t been done. MR. HUNSINGER-That hasn’t been done. 26 (Queensbury Planning Board 06/17/08) MRS. STEFFAN-So we’re still weighing and considering. MR. FORD-I suggest we table and we get additional information, engineering input, and make the decision at that time. MRS. STEFFAN-Okay. I’m going to go to the last meeting. I’m going to give them until th the 27. So that’s another. MR. HUNSINGER-Well, I think what the applicant has said is they already submitted new information, that the engineer hasn’t commented on. Right? You already submitted new information in response to the engineer’s comment letter? MR. LAPPER-Just today, yes. MR. HUNSINGER-Just today. So I don’t know if there’s anything else that you feel you need to submit. MR. LAPPER-I guess we don’t, just to be whatever his comments are on maintenance of the driveway. MR. HUNSINGER-I think that’s why I was willing to table it until July, because I didn’t think there was any additional information for you to submit to the engineer, or to the Town for consideration. MR. LAPPER-Yes. MRS. STEFFAN-And we’ll get the letter from the Fire Marshal. All right. MOTION TO TABLE PRELIMINARY STAGE SUBDIVISION NO. 13-2007 JOHN FEDOROWICZ, Introduced by Gretchen Steffan who moved for its adoption, seconded by Thomas Ford: nd To the July 22 meeting, so that the applicant can address VISION Engineering comments, to address Staff Notes, and so that the Town Engineer can specifically look at driveway issues related to this application for stormwater management and control, and also the accompanying maintenance plan for the driveway. th Duly adopted this 17 day of June, 2008, by the following vote: AYES: Mr. Traver, Mr. Sipp, Mr. Seguljic, Mr. Ford, Mrs. Steffan, Mr. Hunsinger NOES: Mr. Krebs MR. LAPPER-Okay. Thank you. MR. HUNSINGER-You’re welcome. SITE PLAN NO. 14-2007 SEQR TYPE UNLISTED REDBUD DEVELOPMENT AGENT(S) REDBUD DEV. OWNER(S) GREGG & LIZABETH BROWN ZONING WR-1A LOCATION 31 KNOX ROAD APPLICANT PROPOSES CONSTRUCTION OF NEW RETAINING WALLS AT THE SHORE OF LAKE GEORGE, LANDSCAPING AND STORMWATER CONTROLS. FILLING/HARD SURFACING WITHIN 50 FEET OF THE SHORELINE REQUIRES SITE PLAN REVIEW BY THE PLANNING BOARD. CROSS REFERENCE SP 44-92, AV 59-96 AV 9-08 WARREN CO. PLANNING 4/11/07 APA APA LAKE GEORGE CEA LOT SIZE 0.64 ACRES TAX MAP NO. 239.7-1-7 SECTION 179-4-020 JON LAPPER, REPRESENTING APPLICANT, PRESENT MR. HUNSINGER-Keith, whenever you’re ready, if you could summarize Staff Notes. MR. OBORNE-I’m going to go ahead and read the analysis that’s on here. MR. HUNSINGER-Sure. MR. OBORNE-Applicant proposes construction of new retaining walls at the shore of Lake George, blue stone patios, landscaping and stormwater controls. Filling/hard- surfacing within 50 feet of the shoreline requires Site Plan Review by the Planning 27 (Queensbury Planning Board 06/17/08) Board. This application was last reviewed by the Board at your 12/18/07 meeting, tabled to 2/28/07, a series of tablings would be pretty much the way to say it at this point. MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. Thank you. Whenever you’re ready, the floor is yours, gentlemen. MR. LAPPER-For the record, Jon Lapper, with the applicant, Gregg Brown, not to be confused with Craig Brown. Clark Wilkinson, the project engineer, and Geff Redick, the landscape architect. We were tabled last time and asked to address some specific issues, and also to receive the engineering signoff on this application. We did get an th engineering signoff letter dated June 13. He had one very minor comment. New comments in bold text. Applicant has indicated that the house perimeter grade is slightly higher and directs runoff away from house. A note should be added to the grading plan to field verify conditions and the direction of overflow from the basin, and to divert runoff away from the existing house. That’s just a very simple note. Of course we agree to that. His comment was with the inclusion of the above requested notation on the grading plan, the applicant will have satisfied all my technical review comments for the project. So that addresses the applicant, the engineer, excuse me. This is a fairly straightforward landscaping project that falls under review because it’s a major stormwater plan. We have the DEC approval to replace the seawall, which is crumbling, and we’ve submitted photographs with this submission that shows the problems with the seawall. We have a very unhappy neighbor, for whatever reason, and they’ve raised issues, turtles and things, about concrete walls along the lake. Of course there’s concrete walls all over the lake, but this wall is now proposed to be faced in granite. So that addresses that issue in a very expensive manner. I guess, before we go over the submission letter which addresses the issue that you asked us to comment on, I’d just, for any new Board member, I’d just like to ask Geff to quickly go through the plan and explain what it is that we’re proposing. GEFF REDICK MR. REDICK-On the current site we have a residence, boathouse, general property, and a large driveway that comes in across through, which essentially the new driveway has an easement associated with it that ties together with the property next door which is owned by David Brown. The proposed application is to remove the existing driveway, which is approximately 4,000 square feet, install a new driveway of significantly reduced size, about 1500 square feet, have that driveway come across on Gregg Brown’s property, incorporate a garage, and incorporate a covered walk to a house, and then a screen porch extension with an outdoor patio. The new application also requests for the reconstruction of an existing retaining wall that’s at the lake, which already has a DEC approved application, and the existing retaining wall, as Jon Lapper has already suggested, is in poor condition, which is also indicated in the pictorial that was submitted as part of the application. Associated with all of this as well has been significant stormwater management studies and design to control runoff, maintain it away from the lake, and to incorporate significant plantings along the lakeshore, as well as other areas to further help with the control of any runoff toward the lake. So it’s our opinion, and our application, that this design is a significant improvement. It’s good for the lake because we’re controlling situations now that are not currently controlled. We’re keeping water away from the lake, and any potential contaminants, etc., that currently have no controls in place. So, from that perspective, we are incorporating much of what, everything that the Board has asked for and the comprehensive design to (lost words) and again, our position is that everything we’re doing here is not only, it is good for the lake. Any questions or comments? MR. HUNSINGER-Questions from the Board? MR. TRAVER-One question I had was with regards to utilities, you’d indicated that it was, they’re going to remain above ground, and I can recall some discussion, in prior reviews, some concern about the location of the utility pole near the end of the driveway. Could you refresh my memory on that? MR. LAPPER-You had asked us to approach National Grid to see if it was possible to underground the line, and they said that there wasn’t enough width to do that. We did approach them, and had those discussions. The issue, right now, the line runs along the property line to the north, from the road, and there’s a small amount of vegetation that has to be removed along the road, in order to move this driveway onto this property, so it has its own curb cut, rather than sharing the neighbors’ curb cut, but what the photos th show, and I’m referring to the Redbud Development photos submitted on the May 15 date on the submittal, the area of the growth right at the edge of the road is nowhere 28 (Queensbury Planning Board 06/17/08) near the neighbor’s house, and it’s really just very scrubby. This photograph it shows where the pole is. So we don’t think that there’s anything. It’s Figure Six, excuse me. We don’t think there’s anything meritorious about that little bit of scrub, and we don’t think that it affects the neighbor to the north because their house is nowhere near this, but we did make a good faith effort to contact the power company and to see if undergrounding was a possibility. MR. TRAVER-So the pole that’s there now is going to remain, basically, that’s what’s proposed? MR. LAPPER-It’ll be moved a few feet. MR. TRAVER-It will be moved. GREGG BROWN MR. BROWN-National Grid, what they’re being asked to do, if you look at the same photograph, you can see the cable that comes from this pole, and you can see the yellowing that’s on, I mean the yellow, it’s a piece on the cable, but it’s a support cable that comes from the pole to support the lines that go toward the north, and those lines come from actually across Knox Road. They come from the other side of the road, from the north. In order to access the property through my frontage there, they have to move that support cable, to eliminate the support cable. Their design solution was to add a second pole, approximately, I don’t know what it is, 12 feet north, 10 feet north, of the existing pole, just to the right of it here, and put the cable from that pole down to the ground at the base of the existing pole, to take the strain off the lines going north. That was their solution. In talking to them and asking them about burying the line, they don’t, I mean, the net conclusion of the conversation was they don’t want to bury the lines, especially in areas where they exist up high, and areas that are encroached by trees on both sides, because you’ve got root issues that would require them to do a great deal more easement work than they have today. They don’t like to bury lines where they don’t have proper clearances to the property lines, you know, and so they bury them in new subdivisions where they’re able to get all that clearances, but they won’t bury them, or they don’t necessarily desire to bury them where it exists today. Technically, I guess it may be able to. They don’t want to. It was made very clear to me, that’s not something they want to do. I had asked them to put something into a letter back to the Board that would try to explain that or at least, you know, give you their position, and unfortunately that didn’t come. So that’s where we are. MR. LAPPER-Essentially it stays where it is right at the property line, between the two, and one more pole gets added. Turning now to our submittal letter, the Staff comments th dated June 17, project was most recently tabled for the following information. Applicant to provide one set of final site plans so that we don’t have two separate plans that we’re looking at, and that was submitted. Two, that they show all current existing conditions, including all structures on the property, see Sheet C-1 revised 5/15. (lost words) the Staff comments. Three, that the applicant investigate alternatives to the cement wall, including any epoxy coatings to minimize contaminations into the lake, see Page One of the 5/15 cover letter from attorney Lapper, and that comment on the cement wall, Number Three, we have researched other options relative to the cement wall to minimize contamination into the lake and we’ve determined that the best option is to continue working with the proposed design, which is faced with granite. We took care of any exposed concrete with the riprap and veneer work, because there’s riprap at the bottom, and the granite veneer all along the top. So it’s not a concrete wall. Number Four, that the applicant move the rain garden approximately 10 feet further away from the lake, see Sheet C-2 and C-3. That was done. Five, they update landscaping plan to show existing eight trees to the northwest corner. Sheet C-1 and C-4 show seven existing hemlock trees in the northwest corner. Number Six, the applicant addresses the engineering comments, see the 5/15 letter from Paragon Civil Engineering, PC., and we have the VISION Engineering signoff letter. Seven, the applicant shall verify the separation of the septic from the proposed garage, see Item Seven on the cover letter from attorney Lapper, and that item says septic distances. The separation of the septic from the proposed garage is five feet, plus or minus. In Part 75 A the separation requirements are from dwellings, with no requirement from a garage with slab on grade. This was verified in a conversation with Mr. Jim Meacham from the New York State Department of Health in Troy. He also stated that DOH allows a decrease in setback to a dwelling when the dwelling is a slab on grade, and of course this isn’t a dwelling. It’s a garage. Number Eight, and the applicant consider reduction of the impervious area near the lake, see Item Eight on Page Two of 5/15 cover letter from attorney Lapper. The proposed blue stone patio and fire pit adjacent to the shoreline have been eliminated from the plans. 29 (Queensbury Planning Board 06/17/08) Those were the improvements that were closest to the lake, and Number Nine, the applicant will get more information regarding the comment regarding consider burying the electric line and identify the consequences of burying the line and where you would put it, and that’s the discussion that we just had. Additional comment, the existing conditions and proposed conditions sheet do not show the location of the overhead utility lines and poles, and in fact they are on the proposed conditions, C-3. Let’s turn to that. It says existing overhead wires run this line. That is an existing power pole, power buried from the pole into the house. So that is along the northern property line closest to the road. So we believe that we have the engineering signoff and that we’ve addressed all of the issues that you’ve asked us to address. MR. SEGULJIC-Can we spend a minute and talk about the retaining wall? MR. LAPPER-Yes. MR. SEGULJIC-Can you just explain, one has a two tiered retaining wall, that northern one, I guess it is? MR. REDICK-The northern most wall, the wall that’s existing by the lake, is going to remain in place. Nothing will be touched with that wall. The upper wall is literally falling over at this point, and that wall is going to be replaced as it has been designed from Day One. MR. SEGULJIC-So is that one or two? MR. REDICK-One or two, I’m not following. I’m not sure I follow. MR. SEGULJIC-On your plans, on Sheet C-5. MR. REDICK-That would be Number Two. MR. SEGULJIC-So you said you’re going to let the wall remain on the lake, then? MR. REDICK-That wall is there, and we aren’t touching it. MR. SEGULJIC-So nothing’s changing there at all? MR. REDICK-Nothing’s changing there at all. MR. SEGULJIC-All right. Then section one you’re changing? MR. REDICK-Correct. MR. SEGULJIC-Okay, and that’s where you’re going to have the, it’s going to be a concrete core with the granite veneer? MR. REDICK-Correct, per DEC design requirements. MR. SEGULJIC-But our Code says it has to be wood or native stone, I believe. MR. LAPPER-That’s, the granite is the native stone. MR. SIPP-How is that going to be affixed to the wall, epoxy? MR. REDICK-For traditional veneer applications, with concrete and mortar. MR. SIPP-Mortar. MR. SEGULJIC-Well, I guess it says constructed of, not faced, not veneered. It says constructed of native stone or wood. MR. LAPPER-Well, it’s a visual issue. It’ll, plenty of retaining walls on the lake are faced in granite. MR. SEGULJIC-No, because they go further to say, when treated lumber is used, shall be sealed and of non-leaching type. So I think they’re also going to an environmental concern. MR. LAPPER-But whether it was all granite or not, it still has to be mortared. 30 (Queensbury Planning Board 06/17/08) MR. SEGULJIC-Well, I’m just stating what the Code states. MR. LAPPER-Okay. So our position is that we’re facing it in granite, and that is what the Code requires. MR. SEGULJIC-No, it says constructed of native stone or wood. MR. LAPPER-And this is going to be constructed of native stone. MR. SEGULJIC-That’s concrete. MR. LAPPER-With native stone on the outside. MR. SEGULJIC-No, that’s not constructed then. So I guess, do we have to give a waiver for this? Do you have to get a variance for this? Because they’re not meeting the Code, as I read it. MR. LAPPER-Most of the walls on the lake are faced in stone. MR. SEGULJIC-That doesn’t mean it’s correct, though. MR. SEGULJIC-I’m just reading the Code. MR. LAPPER-It hasn’t been raised previously, that that was insufficient. MR. SEGULJIC-I don’t think we were aware of it. Now we’re concerned about zebra mussels, and one of the sources of zebra mussels is the lime, and it’s becoming more of a concern. MR. LAPPER-There’s no. MR. SEGULJIC-Yet. MR. LAPPER-Well, this is not going to be concrete on the water. It’s going to be granite. MR. SEGULJIC-It says it must be constructed of stone. MR. OBORNE-I think the Code specifically says what’s to keep the rock or the wood up. That’s how I would interpret it. It’s made, it’s preferably made with native stone or wood. It doesn’t say how it’s to be constructed. It can be dry laid, or it can be. MR. SEGULJIC-Right, but it says constructed of. 179-6-060 D(e)(3). MR. TRAVER-But I think constructed of doesn’t necessarily mean 100%. MR. LAPPER-Exactly. That’s right. MR. HUNSINGER-Right. MR. TRAVER-So I think in this application, in looking at the design, it’s certainly half or more of the wall is constructed of the granite. So it’s not a pure wood or native stone, but I don’t think the Code specifically says that it has to be 100%. It just says constructed of. So I don’t know. That’s kind of subjective, I guess. MR. LAPPER-The zebra mussels are only on the water, on the lake side, obviously. MR. HUNSINGER-Any other questions, concerns from the Board? MR. TRAVER-Just a comment. I think, again, dealing with the wall and the issue that Tom raised with regard to the concrete and the zebra mussels, this may be another application where some type of maintenance report could be called for, so that if we do see some deterioration in the veneer where there’s, concrete is exposed or in danger of being exposed, that, you know, some remedial work could be done. That would address the issue. MR. LAPPER-That’s fine. If it needs to be refaced or re-pointed, that’s fine. MR. SEGULJIC-That was my only issue. 31 (Queensbury Planning Board 06/17/08) MR. HUNSINGER-Anything else? MRS. STEFFAN-I had a question, just on the stormwater management report, under the design concept, it said that the runoff volumes and rates, it appears to be a 25 year storm that it was designed to. This is on Page Two of Three, of the introduction to the stormwater management plan. MR. REDICK-That’s correct. All the stormwater on site was sized to hold up through the 25 year storm, which is probably 90 to 95% of the storms that occur. Because a 25 year storm is approximately, my recollection is like 3.4 or 3.9 inches in that rain. That’s a lot of rain. I also ran the 100 year calculations to show what the discharge from the site is, and again, that’s been reviewed by the engineer and no other comments from him. MRS. STEFFAN-Okay. That jumped out at me, because usually we’re designed to a 100 year. MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. We do have a public hearing scheduled this evening. Is there anyone in the audience who wanted to address the Board on this application? If you could identify yourself for the record, as we do tape the minutes. PUBLIC HEARING OPEN JEFF BAKER MR. BAKER-For the record, I’m Jeff Baker, an attorney in Albany with Young Summer, on behalf of John and Carol Collins. We e-mailed in a comment letter today, and I’ve got 14 copies I will be passing out to everyone. I want to make a few points in addition to that. I think there are some fundamental issues that still haven’t been addressed, and I think a change from what had been discussed at the last meeting when we were here with you. I think the biggest omission that has not been addressed, and really has to be addressed, is the fact that they are planning on building the garage, driveway and walkway over the 50% reserve area for the septic system. The Site Plan does not show the 50% reserve area for the septic system. That is a mandatory requirement under the State Sanitary Code, and incorporated by reference under the Town of Queensbury Code. It is simply not shown as to how that’s being maintained, and as you had your concerns with the prior applications, this is a fundamental issue of bad planning, to allow somebody to use an undersized lot and build it out to the maximum extent possible, while technically meeting setback and bulk restrictions of the Zoning Code, but ignoring the other applicable standards that you have to look at, primarily the Sanitary Code. It is not a good idea, while they may want to make the short-sided decision to build over virtually every piece of available land on their property, and ignoring their future septic needs, that’s why we have the standards and the Planning Board such as yourselves to keep them from doing that, and I strongly urge that this not be allowed. There is no need for the garage and walkways being required at the threat to the public health and safety. It’s just a fundamental question, and then by removing those structures, it eliminates much of the stormwater problems, and then also changes some of the issues of the driveway. On the issue of the new driveway, that is being done, again, because there is a dispute between Mr. Brown and his brother, and contrary to the representations of Mr. Brown and Mr. Lapper today, I strongly recall that at the last meeting the question went to the expense associated with putting the utility line underground, and Mr. Brown said it was too expensive, but then admitted that he had no estimate of the cost of that. We now have hearsay representations about National Grid stating that they’d prefer not to do so, but again, the cost of putting an underground utility in is not borne by National Grid, but is borne by the applicant, and in fact both the Collins’ and Mr. Brown’s brother have put in underground lines going to their properties from those same areas of the poles. So it is clearly feasible. It may not be desired, but what Mr. Brown is doing is trying to shift the burden of his utility poles onto his neighbors, and not bearing the cost themselves, and it is our opinion that moving the driveway requires an Area Variance because you are putting a driveway in an area frontage that is undersized, and it has impacts. It has impacts on vegetation, and primarily it has impacts on the location of the utility pole because that’s going in front of the Collins’ property, without any demonstration that it is not feasible or practicable to do that, since other neighbors have done that. I’d like to turn it over to Dr. Collins right now to make her comments on this, but I really reiterate, I think the most fundamental question is you cannot allow construction on the only available reserve area for the septic system. CAROL COLLINS 32 (Queensbury Planning Board 06/17/08) DR. COLLINS-Hi. My name is Dr. Carol Collins, 35 Knox Road. I’d like to read a letter before you of violations and comments regarding the Site Plan proposed by Gregg Brown at 31 Knox Road. Number One, in 1996 a variance was granted for building the house within 50 feet of the shoreline, based on the appeal and assurance of Gregg Brown that it would preserve the neighbor’s view shed to the south, and maintain the open space on the property. This is a site where a building, a garage, walkway and out building is designed, is proposed in this site, and this would be inconsistent position with his 1996 appeal, and it will expand a nonconforming use. Number Two, had the variance been denied in 1996, the building of a garage, walkway and out building would be impossible to today. Number Three, segmentation of development, as in this case, is in violation of SEQRA, and cannot be permitted. Number Four, the Brown septic system was not installed as permitted in 1997. Records show, Town records show, that the contractor, Dean Howland, requested an as built certificate. The current status and the as built condition of the systems, need to be determined and reviewed by this Board. A 50% reserve area for a septic system is required by the New York State Department of Health, and no reserve area has been identified. Construction of a garage will eliminate any possible location for this reserve area, and will be a violation. Utility pole location as proposed as rejected last August. A different location needs to be proposed. There are other locations possible which would not impact us. Since all of the Brown requests have been self-imposed hardships, we see no reason for us to suffer further. Number Seven, a mass of asphalt, extending from David Brown’s driveway to the basketball court to the proposed parking lot, to Gregg Brown’s driveway will be unsightly. The mass would extend with a radius from over 70 to over 120 feet in radius. Only a narrow strip of vegetation exists between David Brown’s driveway basketball court and the proposed parking lot. The length of this mass of concrete and asphalt is also considerable. From Knox Road, the community would be confronted with a mass of pavement, a wall of buildings, obstructing any view of the lake. This same wall would be seen from the lake as well. Number Eight, the stormwater management plan conveniently removes the proposed parking lot from the impervious area calculations. This impervious area must considered in the calculations for pre and post development in the Brown Site Plan. According to the Paragon analysis, the existing stone trench around the house is considered as part of the stormwater management plan, yet specifications relating to sizing, soil type, volume, detention time of the trench has not been represented to us. This information is critical in determining its usefulness and validity. Additionally, this trench may likely daylight in order to relieve hydraulic pressure. In such a case, the stormwater management process would be short-circuited and considered useless. Number Ten, in any case, the trench is located within 50 feet of the lake and in violation of stormwater code. Stormwater devices located within 100 feet of shoreline are not permitted. Number Eleven, a rain garden is proposed to be located 10 feet from the shoreline. Shoreline regulations require 100 feet, and would be in violation. Number Twelve, a view shed analysis required under SEQRA yet none has been submitted. Number Thirteen, Mr. Lapper’s characterization of Collins’ view shed at the last meeting was incorrect. The impact on our view shed would be significant and very important to us. A view shed analysis would provide a verifiable accounting. For those of you who have not visited this location, including Staff, I suggest you do a site visit so you are all well informed when you make this very important decision. From a personal point of view, I find it disturbing when a landowner proposes a plan that is so egregious that it must be revised again and again, and as often seen, these changes are marginally tweaked so as to try to appeal to the Board, then the landowner can say they have done everything we have asked of them when in reality little of significance has changed. When regulations are disregarded, ineffective setbacks suggested, numbers manipulated, and important information left out, something has to suffer. If you accept the Brown plan, it would most certainly be Lake George, it’s visitors, public health, safety and the neighborhood. It is our hope and expectation that this Board will deny this plan in its entirety. Any request by the applicant to expedite any part of this plan prior to a full submission and comprehensive analysis would be a travesty. I expect this Board would not agree to any such request. I would also like to comment, based on the prior point case today, when Dave Wick recommended that a seawall not be done, rebuilt in Glen Lake, and that they do the natural slope. We should consider that for Lake George. It was the Queen of the American Lakes. MR. HUNSINGER-Thank you. DR. COLLINS-And by the way, this is not good for Lake George. I’d like you to find another limnologist with credentials better than mine, if possible, to say that it is. JOHN COLLINS 33 (Queensbury Planning Board 06/17/08) MR. COLLINS-My name is John Collins, 35 Knox Road. I will keep my comments brief. Mr. Lapper, tonight, started off his presentation, and he tried to really trivialize our concerns. I think we’ve been before the Board a number of times. Our message has been consistent. I think it has been clear. It’s in writing. The reasons for our concerns are valid. We hope you take them into account, and referring also to the prior applicant who wanted to subdivide his property, you were addressing his issues, taking into account the big picture as well as the detailed technical issues. Please keep the big picture in mind here. If I were to take some of the issues that you spoke about there and apply it here, we have Gregg Brown asking for a variance in ’96, and in his own words acknowledging the importance of our view shed. Yes, we can see to the west on the lake, but we can also see to the south, and everybody acknowledged in ’96 that was an important view shed. So we want you to make sure that you really look at that and look at whether there really is the need. There was a characterization of the vegetation at the roadside, and that it was scrubby, it was small. It is not inconsequential. Not only would moving that driveway impact the view from the road, and cause the removal of that vegetation, and cause the moving of that telephone pole, it would also cause the trimming of our trees and totally skew the view that the Adirondacks offer. Concrete wall, putting a veneer facing on it, and then have a concrete below the riprap, part of the problem with the concrete wall is the leaching of the calcium out of the wall into the water. The riprap is not going to stop that. The water’s going to go through the riprap. It’s going to hit the concrete, and it’s going to leach out, and the fact that the area was not knowledgeable in the impact on concrete walls in the past is not relevant today, and I heard that comment from the Board, and appreciate it. It’s more than just visual. It has to do with making sure we preserve the lake. We are very committed to this lake. We want to do right by the lake, right by the neighborhood, right by ourselves, and we expect the Brown’s to hold up the same standard, and the fact of the way they’ve been trivializing our concerns, to me, just illustrates that they don’t care about us and they don’t care about the neighbors. Thank you very much. MR. HUNSINGER-Thank you. MR. OBORNE-Mr. Chairman, I have a comment from the Lake George Water Keeper to read into the record. MR. HUNSINGER-Sure. Thank you. MR. OBORNE-This is concerning Redbud Development, 31 Knox Road, Site Plan No. 14-2007, “Dear Mr. Hunsinger: The Lake George Water Keeper has reviewed the submission material regarding the above referenced site plan application. This Board has deliberated over the application for several meetings, and through your involvement and public comment, there has been improvement to the proposal to mitigate the potential impacts to Lake George. It is also recognized that the applicant is willing to increase planting on the property. The Lake George Waterkeeper offers the following comments regarding the proposal. We recognize the fact that the applicant has proposed increasing types and numbers of native species(species and varying sizes) to the site plan. However, the Lake George Waterkeeper offers the following comments regarding the proposal: 1. The proposed development increases impervious coverage within 100 feet of Lake George, sacrificing lakeshore areas which should be used for buffering. Although the applicant continues to focus on the reduction of overall impervious coverage on the property, there is a net increase of in impervious coverage within 100 feet of the lake, which is in an area which should be preserved for shoreline protection. The entire width of the site will be developed at the expense of open space critical for buffering and protecting Lake George. It is our opinion the Board should continue their protection and scrutiny of development in close proximity to Lake George. 2. The construction of the proposed retaining wall will have adverse environmental impacts on Lake George. The position by the New York State Department of Environmental Conservation to permit the construction of the concrete retaining wall in Lake George remains perplexing. This is a change from their policy of discouraging vertical shorelines, which has impacts on the ecological integrity of the lake and disrupts the transition between the lake and land. The applicant still has not provided information regarding how the waters of Lake George will be protected from concrete. Our concerns regarding the leaching of calcium remain and the potential for developing a micro environment conducive to the development of zebra mussels is possible. In addition, it is unclear of the necessity of the replacement of the retaining wall. Upon review of the photographs dated May 14, 2008, in this submission, it appears the bottom portion of the wall is dry laid and in fairly stable condition and not near failure. It is the policy of the Lake George Waterkeeper to recommend natural shoreline stabilizations in lieu of constructing retaining walls. 3. It appears there will be construction demolition above the existing absorption field. It appears there will be the removal of the retaining wall and 34 (Queensbury Planning Board 06/17/08) blue stone patio above the existing absorption field which may impact the condition of the system. The extent of the disturbance should be provided. Furthermore, there should be some consideration for the 50% reserve/replacement area for the system. Upon review of the application, once the benefits to the applicant are weighed against the potential environmental impacts, it is the opinion of the Lake George Waterkeeper that the existing proposal has a great potential to impact Lake George. For example, all the proposed re-vegetation can do nothing to mitigate the impacts to the lake from pouring concrete footings below the water elevation. Thank you for your consideration. The Lake George Waterkeeper looks forward to working with the Town of Queensbury Planning Board in defending the natural resources of Lake George and its watershed. Sincerely, Chris Navitsky, PE Lake George Waterkeeper” MR. HUNSINGER-Thank you. Obviously there’s no further commenters from the public. Okay. I’ll open it up for any additional questions or comments from the members of the Board. MR. KREBS-I’d like to ask a question. It says, Carol Collins says on her item number ten, stormwater devices located within 100 feet of the shoreline are not permitted. Is that correct? That is correct? Then why did we, at a previous meeting, insist that they put a five by thirty foot garden to catch the rain right next to the retaining wall? I’m not talking about your application. CLARK WILKINSON MR. WILKINSON-No, but for clarification in the Code, because I know it well. In Section 147, it specifically prohibits infiltration devices within 100 feet of the lake. The rain garden proposed is not an infiltration device. The Lake George Association actually encourages them. MR. HUNSINGER-I was going to say, they encourage rain gardens close to the lake. MR. WILKINSON-Yes, because they’re not infiltration devices. MR. LAPPER-That was not part of this original proposal. That was something that the Board asked us to consider and we did that. MR. HUNSINGER-Anything else from the Board? MR. LAPPER-One comment Mr. Navitsky missed, that we took out the blue stone patio and the fire pit area. That was what was proposed between the house and the lake, and at your request we removed that after the last meeting. MR. HUNSINGER-In fact, I was wondering if that was the comment from the Waterkeeper. MR. LAPPER-He specifically mentioned the blue stone patio towards the end of his letter. So he must not have caught that in our re-submission. MRS. STEFFAN-One of the questions that I had about the old plan, and I’m recalling there was considerable discussion about the large hemlock trees that are along the front of the property, and I notice on the new plan they’re all staying. Originally some were going to be taken out. MR. LAPPER-It’s only the ones that are right at the wall that are compromised because of the roots, because of the deteriorated wall. MRS. STEFFAN-Okay, but aren’t they shown, still? MR. FORD-How many will there be that will be removed? MR. BROWN-Two. MR. LAPPER-Those two right here. MRS. STEFFAN-Are they shown to be taken out on the landscaping plan? MR. LAPPER-And we’re doing a lot of landscaping to make up for that. 35 (Queensbury Planning Board 06/17/08) MR. SEGULJIC-But just keep in mind, those have well established root systems that maintain your bank. If we left trees around the lake, we’d be in much better shape. MR. WILKINSON-We definitely agree with that. In this particular circumstance I think it’s clearly shown in the pictures and the proximity of the root systems to the trees. There’s virtually no root system on the lake side of the trees, because the trees are in such proximity to the wall, within a foot, a foot and a half, that there virtually cannot be a root system on the lake side of the tree. Not planted, they happened there naturally. Nature planted them too close to the wall. MR. SEGULJIC-There would be trees all the way around the lake if we didn’t cut them down. Just keep that in mind. MR. WILKINSON-Well, correct, but it’s our position that because of the proximity of the trees to the wall, there is no root system on the side of the trees, which essentially doesn’t allow any strength to that side of the root system, and these trees are effected by the winds that are coming the (lost word) side of the lake, which is essentially blowing to the house. So, because there’s no strength on the windward side of the trees, where are the trees going to go? They’re going to fall over the house, and those root systems are also pushing against that wall which are negatively impacting the condition of that wall. MR. SEGULJIC-So you’re saying the trees would fall to the side where they have the roots? MR. WILKINSON-Yes, because there’s no strength in the opposite side. Mrs. Steffan, you asked about the landscape plan and the trees shown to be removed. If you look on the plan, it does say existing hemlocks, 24 inch and 12 inch caliper, and in parenthesis it shows to be removed, and that’s on Sheet C-3. MRS. STEFFAN-These? MR. WILKINSON-Yes, correct. MRS. STEFFAN-Okay. Sorry, too much visual spaghetti. I didn’t see it. I was looking for it, but I didn’t see it. MR. FORD-During the public session, reference was made to the septic, and the reserve area. Could that be addressed, please. MR. LAPPER-We talked about that at a previous meeting. This project has a septic permit from the Town, and there’s not a requirement for a replacement leach field. So in this case, if it had to be replaced, it would have to be replaced in the same location. It would have to be removed and replaced. Anything else you want to add? MR. WILKINSON-As far as any area above the existing septic for expansion, that area is currently covered by paving, and that’s one of the other things that we’re doing is we located the garage over top of the existing paved area. I think we encroach maybe two additional feet towards the septic area, but it’s mainly, that whole area is already paved. So it’s not available for expansion area to begin with, and that’s why we located it there, but as far as the expansion, required expansion area, yes, indeed, that is true under the New York State Health Code, there is a requirement, but this system was installed prior to that requirement. It previous exists. MR. SEGULJIC-When was the system installed? MR. LAPPER-’97. MR. REDICK-The plans that were approved and that were installed never showed a 50% expansion area, and it’s acceptable to replace it in kind. MR. LAPPER-The engineer, the Town Engineer didn’t raise that. MR. FORD-The point was made that it is the homeowner’s responsibility for the placing of underground lines, at least the digging of the trenches and so forth and the proper preparation. What is your response to that point, relative to National Grid’s position, that, in as much as they would only be placing the line, not digging the trench, etc.? MR. BROWN-I’m not sure I understand your question. 36 (Queensbury Planning Board 06/17/08) MR. LAPPER-What we’re talking about is the power line that runs along the north side of the Brown property line, where the trees are. So that’s already camouflaged by the trees that are there, and it is going to be undergrounded from the end of that, from the pole to the house. It already is. So we could show you on the top blue line. That’s existing right now, and didn’t we talk about the fact that to underground that we’d be compromising some of the trees on the Collins’ property if we had to trench it because that’s where they have some trees along the Collins’ property line on the north side. So there’s some downside to that. It’s just doesn’t, there’s no real benefit. There’s a bunch of trees there now, and it would be a real issue to trench in that ground and possibly destroy the roots of the trees that are there. We’d explored also undergrounding it in the right of way, and that’s where National Grid said that there’s not enough room. So there’s two different issues. MR. SEGULJIC-When we had requested that you look at alternatives for the retention wall, what did you look at exactly? MR. LAPPER-Well, we already have a DEC permit, of course, which was a big deal to apply for that. So we looked at that in terms of the issue of whether that was concrete, and determined that because it was faced in granite it complied with the Town Code, and it addressed the issue in terms of the leaching. MR. SEGULJIC-Well, I still disagree, it meets the Town Code, but apparently you didn’t look at any alternatives, then. MR. LAPPER-Well, it’s a very steep bank and there has to be a retaining wall. The natural slope isn’t going to work. You’d have siltation in the lake. MR. SEGULJIC-Did you look at putting wood there at all? MR. LAPPER-Wood breaks down over time. I mean, this is a permanent structure. The facing will look great with real granite, something that other people wouldn’t spend the money to do. MR. SEGULJIC-Did you look at a straight granite wall? MR. LAPPER-I think we had talked about that, but it’s a pretty tall wall. MR. SEGULJIC-I mean, I didn’t see any evaluation or comparison. We requested one. MR. LAPPER-Well, I mean, what we have there is a very attractive wall that minimizes the interface of concrete with the lake. There’s nothing wrong with that, and we have a DEC permit. I mean, the Collins’ called DEC and asked them to withdraw the permit, and they didn’t. So we have a permit for that wall. It’s a structural thing and it’s also a visual thing, and we think it complies with both. It’s a good wall. MR. SEGULJIC-So you didn’t look at environmental at all, then? MR. LAPPER-No. The environmental issue is that it’s not a concrete wall. It’s a stone faced wall with a little bit of mortar. So that minimizes it. It would be very different if we were proposing a concrete wall, that it would be all concrete against the lake. MR. SEGULJIC-So, once again, I characterize it by you didn’t look at any other alternatives. MR. LAPPER-We discussed the idea of whether it would be possible to bring granite boulders and what that would be to construct, and that would, it’s a pretty good sized wall and we thought that that would not be feasible in this case. MR. SEGULJIC-Why wouldn’t it be feasible? MR. LAPPER-Just the construction. We’d be tearing up the whole site to get stuff there. MR. SEGULJIC-You’re already tearing up the whole site anyway. MR. LAPPER-Not compared to, if you bring in huge boulders. MR. SEGULJIC-You didn’t submit anything to us. 37 (Queensbury Planning Board 06/17/08) MR. LAPPER-We could, well, we believe what we submitted is the best plan. We considered it and we responded to that in our response, that by facing it in granite, we think that covers it. That’s what your Code calls for. MR. SEGULJIC-Well, once again, it says to be constructed of, and I get the impression you ignored that request. MR. LAPPER-No. Other people on the Board disagree with you, Tom, but we agree with them that it’s faced in granite, that that’s sufficient. MR. SEGULJIC-I don’t know, does anyone agree with me or disagree with me? MR. HUNSINGER-Well, I mean, I think the fact that they came back with an alternative plan proves that they considered options. Now whether or not they considered every possible option, you know, we could debate that, probably, all night, but, I mean, they certainly have at least considered one other option and that’s what they brought forward. I understand what you’re saying. You’re entitled to your opinion. MR. SEGULJIC-Yes, I mean, technically we said options, not one option, for example. MR. HUNSINGER-You’re entitled to your opinion. MR. SEGULJIC-Yes, that’s just my opinion. MR. HUNSINGER-I think the fact that they came back with something different proves that they looked at at least one other option. MR. FORD-Is there, in fact, an increase in impervious area within 100 feet of the lake? MR. LAPPER-The only increase would be the porch, and that is on the far side of 100 feet from the lake. MR. FORD-The answer is yes. MR. LAPPER-Yes, 70 feet from the lake, but we removed, after the last meeting, the blue stone patio and the fire pit, which would have been impervious surfaces right up against the lake, because the Board asked us to do that, but there’s no prohibition on that. MR. HUNSINGER-Any other questions? MR. LAPPER-That’s the reason for the rain garden, and at previous meetings, in response to Mr. Sipp, we added all of these planting areas. That wasn’t part of the first proposal, all along the lakeshore behind the retaining wall. MR. TRAVER-Reviewing the issue of the retaining wall again, when we began our discussion, there was talk about having an annual maintenance report submitted to the Town. Does the applicant have a problem with that? MR. BROWN-An annual report to the Town? MR. TRAVER-Correct. MR. LAPPER-In terms of the condition of the wall, the retaining wall. MR. BROWN-I’m not sure what would be required. MR. LAPPER-Well, in terms of whether it needed to be re-pointed or, you know, I don’t see that as a big inconvenience. MR. BROWN-I’m just thinking, what’s the process? MR. LAPPER-You’d write up a, you’d inspect it annually and submit it to the Planning Department, photographs seem like that would be pretty effective. Do you think? MR. TRAVER-I’m not sure I know the answer to that. That’s not my area of expertise. MR. LAPPER-Okay, well the issue is whether the wall is deteriorating, and so we could submit photographs and a narrative. We’d certainly agree to that as a condition. I mean, 38 (Queensbury Planning Board 06/17/08) that’s not a big problem. The applicant doesn’t want to let the wall deteriorate. It costs a lot more to replace it than to fix it. MR. TRAVER-Right. I would think that would be the case. MR. LAPPER-So we’d certainly agree to that as a condition. MR. TRAVER-Obviously the concern is the worry that the concrete is going to be leaching calcium in the lake, and understanding the design with the facing of the stone is intended to eliminate that, if not severely curtail that, but I think it’s important, wouldn’t you agree it’s important to monitor that? MR. LAPPER-Absolutely. MR. SIPP-Yes. The composition of mortar is what? The composition of mortar used to put this stone in place is what? Is it high in calcium? MR. LAPPER-Do you know, Clark? MR. SIPP-There’s a lot of lime in it. MR. LAPPER-We need a mason. MR. WILKINSON-In the cement itself, yes, the cement itself (lost words) the limestone is what creates the powder that creates the mortar. So the answer is, yes, there is a higher concentration of it. There’s definitive studies that says that concrete and the interface of the concrete and the lake water does have an effect on the zebra mussels, and again, if we’re trying to mitigate that by a veneer face, as well as some additional riprap, which again doesn’t change the permeation of any of the water, it will not change that, but it does have an effect on how much the water makes contact with it, depending on, so that, in effect, helps it as well. MR. SIPP-That’s what you want to keep the water away from the concrete or the mortar. MR. WILKINSON-From the concrete as much as possible. MR. SIPP-From the concrete or the mortar, because either one is going to distribute calcium into the lake. MR. WILKINSON-Correct, the mortar joins much less so than a straight concrete wall, but there is some. Having a wall with any natural stone, you’re going to have mortar in it, most likely, or else it’s going to deteriorate and fall over time. MR. SIPP-Did you ever explore the epoxy. MR. WILKINSON-Epoxy systems generally are, you don’t, they’re toxic. They’re toxic when they’re uncured. So you don’t really want to use a toxic system in the proximity of the lake. I certainly don’t, and so that’s why I wouldn’t want to use an epoxy compounded system directly over the lake. MR. SIPP-Going back over, I think this has already been covered, but we’ve also agreed that fertilizer will not be used. MR. WILKINSON-Yes, that’s right. MR. SIPP-And pesticides. MR. WILKINSON-And pesticides. That’s right. MR. SEGULJIC-One last thing about the retaining wall. If you’re putting, you’re putting the granite veneer on there, to help prevent the water from contacting the concrete. MR. WILKINSON-Correct. MR. SEGULJIC-Then why doesn’t the granite veneer extend below the water line? MR. FORD-I was going to ask the same question. MR. WILKINSON-Based on? 39 (Queensbury Planning Board 06/17/08) MR. SEGULJIC-Based on your drawings. MR. WILKINSON-Essentially it’s part of an engineering issue, on the strength and the requirements of the engineering of the wall, meaning that if we were to take up more of that wall with granite on the face, now the wall starts becoming narrower and it doesn’t have the same engineering aspect. MR. SEGULJIC-But where it could potentially come in contact with the water, you don’t have the veneer. MR. FORD-Below the surface of the water, what is the water hitting? What’s coming in contact with what? MR. LAPPER-The riprap. MR. SEGULJIC-And water flows through riprap. MR. FORD-What’s behind the riprap? MR. LAPPER-Concrete. MR. SEGULJIC-Concrete. So this leads me to believe you put the concrete on there just for visual aesthetics, not to protect the lake. MR. LAPPER-No. I think we can agree to continue the facing as far as we can go, down to the footer. MR. SEGULJIC-I mean, how was that an oversight? MR. LAPPER-It was addressed as a visual issue because of the Code, rather than under the water. Now we’re talking about it as an environmental issue. MR. SEGULJIC-It was brought up as an environmental issue last meeting. MR. LAPPER-Well, we’re agreeing to do that. Gregg will agree to face it beneath the water line with granite. th MR. HUNSINGER-If I’m looking at the pictures that were submitted May 15, and I look at Figure Four, which shows the existing wall. MR. LAPPER-Yes. MR. HUNSINGER-Will there be more or less exposed concrete with the proposed than with the current? MR. WILKINSON-Less. MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. MR. WILKINSON-And additionally it should be noted that the location of the existing wall, or the location of the proposed wall is going to be three to four feet behind or closer to the house away from the lake than where the current wall is being shown, and there’d be more riprap. MR. SEGULJIC-But once again, we’re concerned about what’s below the water line. MR. LAPPER-And we’re agreeing to face it. MR. SEGULJIC-I’m kind of curious. How could you say it’ll be less exposed? MR. WILKINSON-Because it’s essentially, it’s a very similar system, but the stone that we’re going to be using is all square and rectangular, where this is very odd shaped and all over the place. So it just requires more mortar to hold it up. MR. SEGULJIC-But this isn’t a concrete core wall? MR. WILKINSON-It’s not a concrete core wall. 40 (Queensbury Planning Board 06/17/08) MR. LAPPER-It’s the mortar that was where you’ll see the concrete. MR. SEGULJIC-And just to clarify, on your current design, you have essentially naked concrete in contact with the water. MR. FORD-And they’re going to modify that. MR. LAPPER-We just agreed to. MR. SEGULJIC-Okay. MR. HUNSINGER-Anything else? Members comfortable in moving forward? MR. TRAVER-You had indicated you were expecting a letter from Mr. Hall from National Grid stating that they could not do the underground utilities? MR. LAPPER-That was in the road right of way, not on the property, and we spoke with them, and we never got a letter, but we’re not really talking about the, tonight we haven’t really been talking about the utility line in the road, but the issue there, I had discussions with them and this is a road by use not a road by dedication. So they don’t even have any rights to underground in the road. There are a whole bunch of property owners. So they just dismissed that and we discussed it, but they never followed up. I mean, they’re the utility company. They don’t have to write letters. MR. HUNSINGER-You already had an opportunity to speak, ma’am. DR. COLLINS-There’s so many inaccuracies in this conversation. MR. HUNSINGER-That’s up to the Board to decide. Thank you. What’s the pleasure of the Board? MR. SEGULJIC-Well, I hate to have them keep on going. I mean, we’ve got to come to our term with it. Just another concern of mine. I’m perplexed. If that septic system was installed in ’97, most of the (lost word) went into effect in ’96, as I understand it, and that’s when the 50% reserve area was in. MR. WILKINSON-The date on the system was 1995. The date on the permit is 1996, and I think the as built was done in ’97. MR. SEGULJIC-So why wouldn’t the 50% reserve areas be required? MR. WILKINSON-That’s what was approved back then and permitted back then. I can’t answer that. I wasn’t there. MR. SEGULJIC-But if we have a shot to improve something, why don’t we improve it? MR. WILKINSON-Again, any area greater than 100 feet from the lake above the existing septic area is currently paved. There’s no area there for expansion now, because it was all built under the 1995 permit. MR. SEGULJIC-You’re telling me there’s no place you could put that? You can’t even say you could put it in between the existing laterals. You can’t even say that? MR. WILKINSON-You could put them in between the existing laterals. However, that would be the practice, and if I were to redesign a system, that’s how I would design it, line them up so that it would be in between the laterals, but basically, in this case, you’re going to take, if that system failed for any reason, you’re going to take out those laterals and replace it pretty much in kind. MR. LAPPER-Because that’s a better way to do it. MR. WILKINSON-Because that’s the better way to do it, rather than try to squeeze it between laterals and everything else, and with regular maintenance the septic system shouldn’t fail. Regular maintenance being pumping of the system, watching what you put in the toilets, things like that. It shouldn’t fail. MR. SEGULJIC-Do you have a hot tub there now? MR. BROWN-No. 41 (Queensbury Planning Board 06/17/08) MR. SEGULJIC-Do you plan on having one? MR. BROWN-No. MR. SEGULJIC-Okay. Because you can have that, according to Code. MR. BROWN-No, I don’t want a hot tub, thank you. MR. SEGULJIC-No grinder pump? MR. BROWN-No. MR. SEGULJIC-Okay. MR. WILKINSON-And any septic system I design, if somebody says they want the under sink stuff, I tell them, no, don’t put it in. MR. SEGULJIC-So there’s not one there now? MR. WILKINSON-No, and also the house is used on a part-time basis. It’s not a full-time living, another reason that the septic system won’t fail, or shouldn’t fail. MR. SEGULJIC-Well, what happens when you have part-time, and it goes through these th huge peaks like July 4 you’ll have 12 people in there, and then nobody, and then all of a sudden 20 people and then nobody, which I think you would agree is probably the worst thing for a septic system. MR. WILKINSON-Actually not. Believe it or not, dosing it like that actually works better, larger doses. Because in the time for rest, it actually improves itself dramatically. MR. SEGULJIC-Okay. MR. HUNSINGER-Is there any other additional information that the Board’s looking for? MR. SEGULJIC-I think we’ve gone as far as we can. The only thing I would ask is Staff, did you get a clarification of that retaining wall, constructed of, it says construction of native stone or wood. MR. OBORNE-I’ll pass that along to the Zoning Administrator. MR. SEGULJIC-For future reference. MR. OBORNE-Okay. MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. Are people ready to move forward? Okay. I’ll close the public hearing. PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED MR. HUNSINGER-This is a SEQRA Short Form. Whenever you’re ready. MRS. STEFFAN-Okay. “Does the action exceed any Type I threshold in 6 NYCRR Part 617.4?” MR. HUNSINGER-No. 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?” 42 (Queensbury Planning Board 06/17/08) 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. HUNSINGER-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. SEGULJIC-No. MR. HUNSINGER-No. MRS. STEFFAN-“C6. Long term, short term, cumulative or other effects not identified above?” MR. SEGULJIC-No. MR. HUNSINGER-No. MRS. STEFFAN-“C7. Other impacts (including changes in use of either quantity or energy)?” MR. SEGULJIC-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. SEGULJIC-No. MRS. STEFFAN-“Is there or is there likely to be controversy related to potential adverse environmental impacts?” MR. HUNSINGER-No. MR. SEGULJIC-No. MRS. STEFFAN-Okay. Then I’ll make a motion for a Negative Declaration. MR. FORD-I’d like to, on that last question, I would like to voice a yes, but I’m one voice. RESOLUTION WHEN DETERMINATION OF NO SIGNIFICANCE IS MADE RESOLUTION NO. 14-2007, Introduced by Gretchen Steffan who moved for its adoption, seconded by Donald Krebs: 43 (Queensbury Planning Board 06/17/08) WHEREAS, there is presently before the Planning Board an application for: REDBUD DEVELOPMENT, 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. th Duly adopted this 17 day of June, 2008, by the following vote: AYES: Mr. Traver, Mr. Ford, Mr. Seguljic, Mr. Sipp, Mrs. Steffan, Mr. Krebs, Mr. Hunsinger NOES: NONE MR. HUNSINGER-Would anyone like to make a motion? MRS. STEFFAN-I guess that would be me. MOTION TO APPROVE SITE PLAN NO. 14-2007 REDBUD DEVELOPMENT, Introduced by Gretchen Steffan who moved for its adoption, seconded by Donald Krebs: 10)A site plan application has been made to the Queensbury Planning Board for the following: Applicant proposes construction of new retaining walls at the shore of Lake George, blue stone patios, landscaping and stormwater controls. Filling/Hard-surfacing within 50 feet of the shoreline requires Site Plan Review by the Planning Board. 11)A public hearing was advertised and held on 4/17, 6/19, 8/21, 10/16, 12/18/07; 3/11, 4/22 tabled to 6/17/08; and 12)This application is supported with all documentation, public comment and application material in the file of record; 13)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 14)The requirements of the State Environmental Quality Review Act have been considered and the Planning Board has adopted a SEQRA Negative 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 44 (Queensbury Planning Board 06/17/08) 15)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. 16)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 17)NOT APPLICABLE - If applicable, Item 7 to be combined with a letter of credit; and 18)NOT APPLICABLE - The Sanitary Sewer connection plan must be submitted to the Wastewater Department for its review, approval, permitting and inspection; and MOTION TO APPROVE SITE PLAN NO. 14-2007 REDBUD DEVELOPMENT, Introduced by Gretchen Steffan who moved for its adoption, seconded by Donald Krebs: According to the resolution prepared by Staff. Paragraph Four complies. Paragraph Five is Negative. Paragraph Eight and Nine do not apply. This is approved with the following conditions: 1.That the applicant should show the location of the overhead utility lines and poles on the plans. 2.The applicant will satisfy VISION Engineering comment Number 30 on the letter of June 13, 2008. 3.That the applicant will agree to a maintenance agreement on the retaining wall, and provide an annual report to the Town on the condition of the wall. 4.That the applicant will face the retaining wall with granite to below the water line which will be to the bottom of the footers. th Duly adopted this 17 day of June, 2008, by the following vote: MR. SEGULJIC-I would just say to and including the footers. Remember we’re trying to prevent the concrete from coming in contact with the lake. MR. LAPPER-To the footers. MR. SEGULJIC-Well, to the footers just means to the top. I’m saying around them. MR. LAPPER-They’re below. MRS. STEFFAN-I did say to below the water line to the footers. Is that not specific enough? MR. KREBS-Well, he wanted you to go below the footer, all the way down to the bottom of the footer. MR. WILKINSON-All the way to the bottom of the footer, yes. MR. KREBS-Isn’t that what you’re saying, Tom? MR. SEGULJIC-Yes. MR. FORD-Yes. MRS. STEFFAN-Okay. AYES: Mr. Sipp, Mr. Traver, Mr. Seguljic, Mr. Ford, Mrs. Steffan, Mr. Krebs, Mr. Hunsinger 45 (Queensbury Planning Board 06/17/08) NOES: NONE MR. LAPPER-Thank you. MR. HUNSINGER-Thank you. Good luck. MR. BROWN-Thank you very much. SITE PLAN NO. 19-2008 SEQR TYPE II ERIC ECKARDT OWNER(S) ERIC & ROBERT ECKARDT ZONING MU LOCATION 16 MAIN STREET APPLICANT PROPOSES CONVERSION OF A 680 SQ. FT. SINGLE FAMILY DWELLING TO A PROFESSIONAL OFFICE. PROFESSIONAL OFFICE USE IN A MU ZONE REQUIRES PLANNING BOARD REVIEW AND APPROVAL. CROSS REFERENCE BP 08-89, 08- 90 WARREN CO. PLANNING 5/14/08 LOT SIZE 0.29 +/- ACRES TAX MAP NO. 309.11-1-46 SECTION 179-4-020, 179-9-020 ERIC ECKARDT, PRESENT MR. HUNSINGER-Keith, whenever you’re ready, if you want to summarize Staff Notes. I’m sorry, George? MR. HILTON-It doesn’t matter. Just in case there are some questions, I wrote this memorandum, but the memorandum I wrote simply states that the new materials received appear to be responsive to the tabling resolution the Planning Board passed in response to the previous review of this application. It doesn’t appear that anything’s outstanding, and the applicant is before you. That’s all I have. MR. HUNSINGER-Thank you. Gentlemen, the floor is yours. MR. ECKARDT-Sure. Thank you. My name is Eric Eckardt, and this is Robert Eckardt. We’re the owners of the property, and hopefully you received the information we submitted about a week or so ago in regards to the four conditions that were brought up in the last meeting, and if you’d like, I can walk you through them quickly. The first item is for us to identify the boundary line, or the new boundary line in regards to the property that would be acquired by Warren County in connection to their project on Main Street. With that we’ve gone to, we contacted Warren County, and in addition to getting the exact dimensions, we went a step further and got the recorded deed to submit receipt of payment. They’ve actually already acquired that property. It comes out to about a foot and a half. So, we took care of that. Secondly there was a concern with regards to the landscaping. We had a professional landscaping drawing done by a registered landscaper, and this is something we are going to commit ourselves to. We’ve got it in color if you’d like. You should have a copy of that also, to satisfy the landscaping request. Thirdly there was some concern with flooding lights, given the projection of the lights. So what we did is we went and got the tear sheet or sorry the cut sheet that shows the projection of the new lights we’re proposing to put in, the under mount lights. So that was the last item, and finally you wanted us to address the concerns through the engineering report, which we went through and addressed. So if there’s any questions on your end, I’d be happy to answer them or provide you with further clarity. MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. Questions, comments from the Board? MR. SEGULJIC-Sorry we put you through that. Thank you very much. It looks good. MR. ECKARDT-We’re not putting in a 90 degree driveway. We’re not doing in a retaining wall. MR. SIPP-Do you know if there is a septic system or was a septic system there, do you know where the tank is and the field approximately? MR. R. ECKARDT-It’s in the back yard, about 30 feet from the house, and then the leach fields go out. MR. SIPP-Yes. That has been disconnected? MR. R. ECKARDT-Why, are there City sewers there? MR. SIPP-No, but if the septic system remains without any service, you can have some problems. 46 (Queensbury Planning Board 06/17/08) MR. R. ECKARDT-Well, it just was cleaned by the other owners, I know. MR. SIPP-Well, I’m not worried about cleaning. I’m worried about having it filled with something to keep it from floating if something happens. MR. ECKARDT-I don’t understand that. If there’s laterals in there, what. MR. TRAVER-Are you going to have a restroom in the building? MR. ECKARDT-Yes. There’s one bathroom, handicap accessible. MR. R. ECKARDT-One bathroom. MR. TRAVER-I think that’s what Don was wondering about. MR. SIPP-There is a sewer line which it’s probably hooked into. MR. OBORNE-No. MR. SIPP-No? MR. OBORNE-Not at this point, no. MR. R. ECKARDT-There’s no sewer. There was a bathroom there. We’re just making a handicap bathroom eventually. MR. HILTON-Yes. There’s water. The sewer, there has been discussion about a district and infrastructure, but at this point it’s not there. MRS. STEFFAN-Well, I certainly think that the kind of use, I mean, this is going to be a real estate office. It’s not going to be occupied 24 hours a day. MR. ECKARDT-I wish it was, but, no, it’s not. It’s more of a satellite office. Our main office is in Saratoga Springs. So hopefully you guys will use us and use our services. MRS. STEFFAN-Well, with that beautiful landscaping, people will want to come to that building. MR. ECKARDT-Yes. I was proud of this, and we are going to commit ourselves to what’s on here. It’s not just for optics. We will commit ourselves to this. MRS. STEFFAN-I think it’ll improve your property tremendously. It’ll also improve the area and it’ll be a nice addition. MR. HUNSINGER-Anything else from the Board? We do have a public hearing scheduled this evening. I’ll open the public hearing. Is there anyone that wanted to address the Board on this application? Hearing none, I will close the public hearing. PUBLIC HEARING OPEN NO COMMENT PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED MR. HUNSINGER-It’s a Type II action, so no action on SEQRA is required, unless we identify something of concern. If there’s no further questions, would anyone like to put forward a resolution? MRS. STEFFAN-Okay. MOTION TO APPROVE SITE PLAN NO. 19-2008 ERIC ECKARDT, Introduced by Gretchen Steffan who moved for its adoption, seconded by Thomas Ford: 1)A site plan application has been made to the Queensbury Planning Board for the following: Applicant proposes conversion of a 680 sq. ft. single family dwelling to a professional office. Professional Office use in a MU zone requires Planning Board review and approval. 2)A public hearing was advertised and held on 5/29/08 tabled to 6/17/08; and 47 (Queensbury Planning Board 06/17/08) 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. 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 MOTION TO APPROVE SITE PLAN NO. 19-2008 ERIC ECKARDT, Introduced by Gretchen Steffan who moved for its adoption, seconded by Thomas Ford: According to the resolution prepared by Staff. Paragraph Four complies. Paragraph Five, this is a Type II Action. Paragraph Eight and Paragraph Nine do not apply. There are no conditions for this application. th Duly adopted this 17 day of June, 2008, by the following vote: AYES: Mr. Traver, Mr. Seguljic, Mr. Sipp, Mr. Ford, Mr. Krebs, Mrs. Steffan, Mr. Hunsinger NOES: NONE MR. HUNSINGER-You’re all set. MR. ECKARDT-Thank you very much. I appreciate it. MRS. STEFFAN-Good luck on your project. SITE PLAN NO. 22-2008 SEQR TYPE II MIKE BARBONE/WEST MT. SKI CENTER AGENT(S) RUCINSKI HLL ARCHITECTS OWNER(S) EAST SLOPE HOLDINGS, LP ZONING RC-3A LOCATION 59 WEST MT. RD. APPLICANT PROPOSES ADDITIONS TOTALING 2,000 SQ. FT. TO THE MAIN SKI LODGE AND 1,230 SQ. FT. NEW OPEN DECK. EXPANSION OF A RECREATION CENTER IN A RC-3A ZONE REQUIRES SITE PLAN REVIEW BY THE PLANNING BOARD. CROSS REFERENCE SP 41-07 WARREN CO. PLANNING 6/11/08 LOT SIZE 365.43 +/- ACRES TAX MAP NO. 307.-1-29 SECTION 179-9-020 ETHAN HALL, REPRESENTING APPLICANT, PRESENT MR. HUNSINGER-If you want to summarize Staff Notes, whenever you’re ready. 48 (Queensbury Planning Board 06/17/08) MR. OBORNE-Synopses. The applicant requests to build a 1430 square foot two story addition to the east end of the lodge, a 1,008 square foot second story addition to the west end of the lodge, and incorporate 1230 square feet of existing deck off the west end addition. Expansion of a recreational center requires Site Plan Review by the Planning Board. The subject property is located at 59 West Mountain Road. The property is zoned RC-3A, Recreation Commercial Three Acres. This application is a SEQR Type II. A Short EAF has been submitted. Project Description, the applicant proposes to build an addition to the second floor restaurant and lounge and incorporate part of the existing open deck facing the mountain. The applicants also plan to build a two story addition on the east side of the structure in order to renovate kitchen on second floor and bathrooms and storage on ground floor. Staff Comments, the site is located off West Mountain Road and is an area landmark. The owner wishes to upgrade the lodge to include a 1,008 square foot A-frame addition to the existing deck, and a 1430 square foot two story expansion off the east end for bathrooms and additional storage. The owner would like to finish off construction by the beginning of the ski season. The applicant is seeking a waiver for stormwater management, grading, lighting and landscaping plans. Concerning stormwater, the new pitch to the roof, subsequent increase in area and runoff may be a consideration in requiring a stormwater plan. At the very least, clarification on stormwater and snow melt mitigation should be addressed on the plans. As far as grading, the proposed two story addition will require a minimal amount of earth movement as the site for expansion is level. The trenching for footers and possible cut/fill activities may require some notation for soil stabilization on the plans. Considering lighting, the applicant should supply a cut sheet on any lighting and stay within the minimum requirements per Article Six of the Town Code to clarify and ensure all new lighting are downcast, cut off fixtures and are of the appropriate foot candle. Some level of lighting is needed, and as such should be noted on the plan. In addition, a landscaping plan may not be needed due to the nature of the business. The site experiences very high patron traffic during the ski season and as such may require more open ground than other commercial entities, and in conclusion the plans need to be amended to include clarification of what is below west end addition and any proposed plans for the second floor handicap access. This application has been forwarded to VISION Engineering for review and comment. MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. Thank you. Good evening. MR. HALL-Good evening. MR. HUNSINGER-The floor is yours. MR. HALL-My name is Ethan Hall. I’m a partner with Rucinski Hall Architecture. With me is Mike Barbone, the owner of West Mountain Ski Center. Pretty much as Staff has commented, we’ve set forth proposed plans to, the picture that’s up on the screen shows the encompassment of the existing deck. The second floor of this area is the barroom lounge restaurant area. The open air deck that’s there is used as an open air deck right now. The area that’s directly underneath the deck is the ski storage for, that’s for people when they’re there skiing, Mike, they can bring their. MIKE BARBONE MR. BARBONE-Yes, it’s a ski check. MR. HALL-Ski check to keep them from being stolen. They can bring their, like a coat check. They can bring their skis up, drop them off, they get a number, then there’s somebody there watching the skis when they’re inside using the facilities. There it is inside. MR. BARBONE-That’s what we use it for. No heat. No electric. It’s just there, you know, very minimal amount of hours. Just pretty much nights and weekends and holidays. MR. HUNSINGER-Is that a gravel floor? MR. HALL-Yes. MR. BARBONE-Gravel floor. MR. HUNSINGER-Wow. MR. HALL-It was the area that was underneath the deck. 49 (Queensbury Planning Board 06/17/08) MR. HUNSINGER-Sure. MR. HALL-They just enclosed it. It’s been designed to carry the load for the deck, which will be the new floor for this building that we’re talking about the addition. We are adding an egress door from that space, directly to the outside, right about where that picture’s taken actually. This is the, the door that you see in the picture comes in from the office space and then we’re going to go right out the end wall, which is already an exit way coming out from the main lodge, the first floor of the main lodge. The area on the first floor underneath where the restaurant and lounge are, are upstairs is the owners offices and the business offices for the Mountain are in there. It’s the access way to the main lodge and to the kitchen. On the east end of the building where we’re putting the two story addition, I’m just looking at the pictures that you’ve got on the screen there, I think that one right there. It’s around the back, on the opposite side, the east end of the building, is where we’re putting the two story addition. The two story addition on the first floor is going to be just strictly storage so that when they have deliveries of food and such they’ve got an area to bring it in on the first floor. The second floor will be expanded bathroom facilities for the upstairs restaurant and an expanded kitchen area for upstairs. Right now they have a very, very small, about the size of this table that they use to feed the restaurant out of. So it’s really, it’s really quite tiny. So that’s the upgrade to the upstairs. MR. BARBONE-That’s the kitchen. MR. HALL-Yes. There you’re standing in the doorway looking into what they use for the kitchen now. It’s really inadequate for the amount of food that they’re preparing in there. MR. BARBONE-We want to step up the quality of food, too. So we have to enlarge the kitchen for it. MR. HALL-The area to the east, the addition, currently the roof over the top of the existing restaurant and lounge is a relatively flat slope. It pitches very slightly to the south. All of that water drains onto the roof of the existing lodge and then is then captured and taken off from the lodge roof. There’s going to be a whole new roof system put on this building . They’re going to use a spray foam with a urethane coating over the top of it, so that they’ve got some added insulation benefit on the roof, and a waterproofing membrane that’s going to go on top of everything. The addition that we’re going to put on is going to match, on the east side, is going to match that roof slope so from the parking lot there’ll be no real visual change to that side of the building. There’s already a pretty good size arborvitae hedge that runs along the front face. So the addition to the east won’t really be noticeable. The addition that’s going on over the top of the existing deck, where this picture is taken, is going to be an A Frame. It’s going to be a very steep chalet style look. It’s going to have a prow to the front of it for the roof. So there’s a little bit of an overhang, with a lot of glass facing the Mountain, so that when you’re inside the lounge, right now those are really the only windows that you can see out of, and when you stand up they’re just about at head height. So we want to put a lot of glass on that side with glass up in the A Frame, so that you’ve got a nice visual sitting inside the lounge to see out through. A couple of the notes that were on there, as far as the lighting goes, the existing lights that are on top of this building and the lights that are around, I mean, anybody who’s driven in from Argyle, you can see West Mountain from Argyle in the wintertime. So we feel that there’s plenty of lights. We’ve got, there’s some big lights up on the poles there that are mounted. Lighting’s really not an issue out there. So we’re not really adding any lights, other than we’ve got a couple of recessed lights at canopy doors, and then in the eaves overhang we’re going to recess a couple of can lights that are just going to shine right down the face of the building addition that we’re putting on, and that would only be on that side of the building. There’s not going to be any additional lights on the parking lot side or anything. I mean, there’s ample light there now. We don’t want to add to it. So, as far as the stormwater runoff goes, as I said, the roof that we’re adding is basically a flat, semi-pitched roof. It’s only going in one direction, and all that water gets captured by the existing flat roofs. The new very steeply pitched roof, we’re going to have gutters on both sides of that to catch that rain water runoff. There is, on the north side of the building, there’s an existing catch basin that’s out there, and we’re going to pipe all of our downspouts into that catch basin, so that the roof water is going to get picked up and taken off in the catch basin system. As far as the grading plan goes, we agree that there’s very minimal grading around this building. Our Site Plan does have a note on it already that says something to the effect of grading, final grading, all bare earth areas shall be seeded and mulched as soon as is reasonably possible to prevent erosion and every bare earth area shall be seeded and mulched by st October 1. Temporary rapid growth cover crops such as rye grass and millet may be 50 (Queensbury Planning Board 06/17/08) used for temporary surfacing. So, I mean, we’re already making provisions to take care of the grading as soon as it’s done, and there’s really not a significant amount of grading, other than the excavation they’re going to need to do for the footings and trenches of that nature. A couple of the other comments that came from VISION Engineering, the expansion of the restaurant and the kitchen area, he’s presuming that there’s an increase of flow for the on-site sewage disposal system. Consideration should be given to verifying the existing system. Once we got the notes, we went out and did take a look at that, and as it turns out, the existing system is right where we’re putting the new addition is where we’re putting the septic tank is. So we’re going to have to move that anyway. So there is going to be some upgrade to that system. It’s going to be upgraded in kind, and we’ll take that into account with Mr. Ryan, and then as the other thing that he talks about is an infiltration device. MR. FORD-Excuse me. What’s the size of that tank, please? MR. HALL-The existing tank? MR. BARBONE-I couldn’t tell you. It’s been there. MR. HALL-It’s been there since the Mountain has been. MR. BARBONE-The Mountain’s been there 40 something years. MR. HALL-So it could be very small. MR. BARBONE-As small as the bathrooms I would consider that is very small. MR. HALL-This area’s not hooked into the main, the main toilet room for the whole lodge facility is on the other end of the building and I believe there’s a total of, what, eight or ten water closets in there. So there’s a fair amount of sewage disposal system on the opposite end of this building. This is going to have a small men’s room and a small lady’s room on the upper floor, and then the kitchen will be tied into this as well. That’ll all be internally grease trapped and everything before it gets to that sewage disposal system. So we’re going to take care of putting a new septic tank inside and we’ll tie into the leach field outside, go from there. MR. FORD-Existing leach field or a new and expanded? MR. HALL-It’ll wind up being a new and expanded, because we don’t know exactly where that is, and that was one of the comments that Dan made is, well. MR. BARBONE-I don’t even know if there is a leach field. It’s that old. MR. HALL-Yes. That we’ve got coming out from that end. So there is, we are going to take that into account, and we’ll make those determinations on the final drawings, and the last thing that Dan talks about in his letter is infiltration device for the roof gutters, and as I said, we’re tying that into the existing on-site stormwater. I don’t know if there’s any other questions. MR. HUNSINGER-Questions from the Board? MR. SEGULJIC-So how much are you increasing the actual square footage of the building, I mean, footprint of the building? MR. HALL-The actual footprint of the building is increasing by. MR. SEGULJIC-A few hundred feet I think. MR. HALL-One thousand, two hundred and thirty square feet. It’s funny, in one place there is says 1,230. Let me see what the actual application. In one place this says 1,230. MR. SEGULJIC-It also says proposed addition of 2,000 square feet. MR. HALL-Well, that’s total, when you consider the deck space, the deck area that we’re adding outside the front, because when we infill this deck we’re going to need to have additional outside decking, just to get up to it. So the proposed structure on the front is 22 by 40, two floors. 51 (Queensbury Planning Board 06/17/08) MR. SEGULJIC-Twenty-two by forty. So almost one thousand square feet. MR. HALL-Yes. MR. SEGULJIC-Okay. Yes, to me it’s a ski area, and I would have no problem with the stormwater, landscaping. To me, it’s a good thing. MR. HALL-Yes, I mean, our total coverage, we’re at 366 acres, and I think our total coverage is increasing by .01% or something. I mean, it’s a fairly small amount that we’re increasing by. MR. HUNSINGER-Any other questions? We do have a public hearing scheduled. There’s nobody here to comment. So I assume there isn’t any. We’ll open the public hearing and close the public hearing. PUBLIC HEARING OPENED NO COMMENT PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED MR. HUNSINGER-It’s a Type II Action so we don’t have to do a SEQRA review unless there’s an environmental concern that we identify. MRS. STEFFAN-Yes, you definitely need a new kitchen. MR. HALL-Yes, that’s the upstairs kitchen. The main kitchen for the lodge, obviously, downstairs is bigger. Quite large, but the one upstairs at the restaurant is pretty tight. MR. BARBONE-It’s tight quarters. There’s three people in that. They come back every year. Imagine that. MR. SIPP-Were there any soil tests taken there, test pits? MR. HALL-When we put up the maintenance building, which is not too far away from this, we did test pits for that, and Dan was there when we did those, so I’ll talk to him and see. If he wants to dig them again we can dig more. MR. SIPP-That building is up, that we passed last year or the before. MR. HALL-Yes, the maintenance building. Actually it’s being erected right now. They’ve got the steel up and the sheathings going on it. probably tomorrow. MR. SIPP-So you’re all in sand and gravel there. MR. HUNSINGER-I was going to say, it’s pretty much all sand down there. MR. HALL-Yes, it is, it’s actually glacial till. Yes, it’s good stuff. We didn’t have any problems. They’ve got an import pit over on Northwest that they’re pulling sand and stuff out of, too. So we’ve got plenty of on-site material to use. MR. BARBONE-I’ve been there 10 years and we haven’t had a problem with any of the septic tanks there. MRS. STEFFAN-Ethan, did you address the second floor handicap access? MR. HALL-Inside the building, currently, I don’t know if you’re familiar with the inside of the building, but there’s a set of stairs that go up from the ground floor up into the lounge, and just inside of that stair is the entrance to the office space. What we’re proposing to do there is, because we are over 3,000 square feet on the second floor now, is we’re going to put a handicap, a wheelchair lift in and we’re going to put it right next to the stair. MRS. STEFFAN-Okay. MR. HALL-The Code allows us to do that. It’s an existing building that we’re renovating. It allows us to use a wheelchair lift if we’re only going one floor. So we’re going to put it just inside there. It’ll come right upstairs, right out into the lounge area. It’ll just be an open wheelchair lift, and those work very well actually. It gives us handicap access for not the $60,000 price of putting in an elevator. 52 (Queensbury Planning Board 06/17/08) MR. HUNSINGER-Sure. MRS. STEFFAN-And the maintenance contract. MR. HALL-And having to tear up the floor to put the pit in and everything else. We looked at putting a ramp in, but, I mean, you know, we’re going up nine and a half feet. Ninety feet six inches worth of ramp is not what we’re looking for. MR. HUNSINGER-It’s silly. MR. HALL-Yes. MR. HUNSINGER-Yes. Anything else from the Board? Anyone like to put forward a resolution? MRS. STEFFAN-So is the Board okay with the waivers on stormwater management, grading, lighting and landscaping? MR. SEGULJIC-I am, in consideration that it’s a ski area. It gets used in the wintertime. MR. KREBS-And we can all see it from where we live. Right? MR. HALL-Pretty much. MR. HUNSINGER-Well, not from where I live, but. It’s always what I look for when I’m driving home at night in the winter, especially in a storm. MR. HALL-And they are correct, Staff is correct. It is a landmark. Everybody knows where it is. MR. BARBONE-I’ll get phone calls in the middle of the night, saying, Mike, you know you left the lights on the top of the Mountain. MR. HALL-Now we’re making snow, we need to see. MRS. STEFFAN-Okay. So we’re okay with the lighting waiver, we don’t need cut sheets? MR. HALL-As I said, we’re really not adding any lighting. We feel there’s adequate enough lighting. MRS. STEFFAN-It is facing the Mountain. MR. HUNSINGER-So it’s not visible from the street. MR. HALL-No. MR. SEGULJIC-If you’ve ever been there at night, it’s pretty well lit. MR. HUNSINGER-It’s lit up. MR. HALL-It’s pretty well lit. MR. HUNSINGER-Well, that might be the concern that it’s too light. MR. BARBONE-Just the reflection of the snow with the lights of the Mountain reflects just enough lighting. MR. HALL-Yes. MRS. STEFFAN-And how about the VISION Engineering comments? Because the applicant obviously has to re-visit their septic issue. MR. HALL-Yes. MRS. STEFFAN-To satisfy VISION Engineering. MR. HUNSINGER-Well, I think we should get a signoff. Yes. 53 (Queensbury Planning Board 06/17/08) MRS. STEFFAN-Okay. MR. HALL-Yes. I’ll get together with Dan and we’ll get the septic issue squared away and the roof drainage as we said we’re going to into the existing on-site. So that should take care of that. MR. HUNSINGER-Basically what happens is if you, well, there’s only two issues that are addressed by VISION Engineering. If you can’t work them out, then you’d have to come back to us. MR. HALL-Yes. I’m confident we’ll be able to work them out. He was on site with us when we did the maintenance building, and that one was pretty straightforward. MRS. STEFFAN-That’s enough motivation to get it taken care of. MR. HALL-That’s it. MR. HUNSINGER-It’s a pretty standard condition to get final signoff. MR. HALL-Yes. MRS. STEFFAN-Okay. MOTION TO APPROVE SITE PLAN NO. 22-2008 MIKE BARBONE/WEST MT. SKI CENTER, Introduced by Gretchen Steffan who moved for its adoption, seconded by Stephen Traver: 1)A site plan application has been made to the Queensbury Planning Board for the following: Applicant proposes additions totaling 2,000 sq. ft. to the main ski lodge and 1,230 sq. ft. new open deck. Expansion of a Recreation Center in a RC-3A zone requires Site Plan Review by the Planning Board. 2)A public hearing was advertised and held on 6/17/08; 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. 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 54 (Queensbury Planning Board 06/17/08) MOTION TO APPROVE SITE PLAN NO. 22-2008 MIKE BARBONE/WEST MT. SKI CENTER, Introduced by Gretchen Steffan who moved for its adoption, seconded by Stephen Traver: According to the resolution prepared by Staff. Paragraph Four complies. This is a Type II action, and Paragraph Eight does not apply and Paragraph Nine does not apply. This approved with the following conditions: 1.That the applicant obtain a VISION Engineering signoff. 2.The Planning Board has granted waivers for stormwater, grading, lighting, and landscaping. th Duly adopted this 17 day of June, 2008, by the following vote: AYES: Mr. Sipp, Mr. Seguljic, Mr. Ford, Mr. Krebs, Mr. Traver, Mrs. Steffan, Mr. Hunsinger NOES: NONE MR. HALL-Thank you very much. MR. HUNSINGER-Well, congratulations on your purchase, and good luck. MR. BARBONE-Thank you very much. Thank you. SITE PLAN NO. 18-2008 SEQR TYPE II JOLLEY ASSOCIATES AGENT(S) NACE ENGINEERING OWNER(S) SAME ZONING HC-INT. LOCATION 777 GLEN STREET APPLICANT PROPOSES REPLACEMENT OF THE EXISTING 944 SQ. FT. CONVENIENCE STORE WITH A 2,288 SQ. FT. CONVENIENCE STORE. GAS STATIONS AND CONVENIENCE STORES IN THE HC-INT. ZONE REQUIRE SITE PLAN REVIEW AND APPROVAL FROM THE PLANNING BOARD. CROSS REFERENCE AV 24-08 WARREN CO. PLANNING 5/14/08 LOT SIZE 0.81 ACRES TAX MAP NO. 302.6-1-29 SECTION 179-4-020, 179-9-020 TOM NACE, REPRESENTING APPLICANT, PRESENT MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. Whenever Staff’s ready, if you could summarize Staff Notes, please. MR. HILTON-Certainly. The applicant is proposing to remove an existing 900 plus or minus square foot convenience store and replace it with a 2288 square foot store on the southwest corner of Route 9 and Route 254. The property is zoned HC-Intensive and it’s a Type II SEQRA action. The Zoning Board of Appeals approved an Area Variance related to this application granting setback relief, travel corridor setback relief, for the proposed building. I’ve listed the waivers that have been requested, stormwater management, grading, lighting and landscaping. I guess the first comment is consideration should be given to requiring some form of stormwater management that would capture at least the roof water from the building and canopy and infiltrate that into the ground, and as the site is proposed to be disturbed as part of construction, it shouldn’t be too costly to install the drywells that would in effect at least reduce the amount of flow, stormwater flow coming off this property and would certainly help the stormwater situation along Route 9, and in the Halfway Brook watershed. As far as the proposed reconfiguring the Aviation Road access point on this property, consideration should be given to making that a right in/right out only. Traffic trying to go left out of that and go west towards Interstate 87 would face significant obstacles and would likely be stacked on the property and probably would not even make it, considering the amount of traffic that sits on Aviation Road coming east bound in the area of this site. As I’ve mentioned, the site is in the Route 9 Design area. Design guidelines apply. Color drawings should be provided to the Board showing the proposed building materials, and it appears that those are being handed out as we speak. Building lighting is proposed. However, the applicant has requested a waiver from providing a lighting plan, and Staff suggests that a lighting plan be provided showing all proposed fixtures and foot candle values for the proposed lighting, as well as any proposed canopy lighting, if that is to be replaced. Street trees along Aviation Road and Route 9. This site is within the Route 9 Design area, as I’ve mentioned, and landscaping along the street frontages is part of those Design guidelines. It would also be consistent with other commercial projects approved by the Planning Board along this corridor, and as far as the gas island canopy, I’ve asked the questions, are any changes proposed to that, any neon strips, accents, changes to the façade, and finally a note indicating a future vehicular interconnect to the 55 (Queensbury Planning Board 06/17/08) property to the south should be added to the Site Plan. There are VISION Engineering comments as well, and a letter from the Fire Marshal included in your packet, and I believe that’s all I have at this time. MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. Good evening. MR. NACE-Good evening. MR. HUNSINGER-The floor is yours. MR. NACE-For the record, Tom Nace of Nace Engineering and Sean Crumb from Jolley Associates. Okay. I guess I’ll let, go to the Staff comments first. Maybe I’ll let Sean talk first, as far as the colors and lead you through the proposed façades and signage and colors and the canopy issues. SEAN CRUMB MR. CRUMB-Good evening. I handed out to all of you the building elevations that were lacking, and with that we’ve attempted to keep some consistency with the other two projects that we’ve been before you recently with the colors and so forth. So the building design isn’t exact, it’s a little bit more square, but the overall appearance we’re trying to keep in keeping with our other stores and using the same Kingston blend brick and color schemes. I also provided you with a rendering of the signage that we’d like to replace and this signage would be times two because there is two signs at the location. Regarding the Staff comments on the stormwater management plan, we don’t have any issue with tying the roof of the building and the canopy into the stormwater drains. We believe that they are currently tied in, but I cannot confirm that for you, because we’ve done very little to no underground work there, but we do believe that they are tied in currently, and if they’re not, they will be. The Aviation Road issue, I’m aware that Burger King is right in, right out. I have, in fact, attempted, on several occasions, to turn left out of there, and some days you have luck and others you don’t. So, I think that we’re negotiable with that and willing to work with you on that, to accommodate a right in, right out. I don’t see a great deal of issue with that. It’s almost a no brainer at night. MRS. STEFFAN-It only works at night or like six o’clock in the morning. MR. HUNSINGER-Right. I was going to say, the morning is no problem. MR. CRUMB-So, one thought I have a little concern with, but I am willing to work with you on this, is the Route 9, the design there. We don’t actually own the property on the corner. If you take a look at the Site Plan, the dark line outlines the property that we actually own. The State owns the actual corner, and I’m not sure how that works with landscaping requirements, to landscape someone else’s property. MRS. STEFFAN-So the green grass that’s there is the State’s property? MR. CRUMB-We do mow it. We do maintain the flower gardens that are there and so forth, but adding additional plantings there, again, you know, we’re willing to work with you on that, to the point that the State is acceptable to that as well. I’m not sure how their feeling of street trees and things of that nature are for an intersection such as that, but again, we’re flexible with that. MR. SEGULJIC-Could you just clarify what, I can see the black line, how far back does it go? MR. HILTON-Look at the yellow, a rough representation. MR. NACE-The green is almost all State. MRS. STEFFAN-Interesting. MR. CRUMB-So we’re open to suggestions on that one. Changes to the island canopy we’re really looking to have very minimal changes there, aside from re-skinning the canopy to just make it a little more presentable. That will not be disturbed during construction, and again, just aesthetically make it a little more appealing, and lighting, I agree we need to come up with a lighting plan for you, because we did, we have shown some lights on the exterior of the building that we’ll come back with you, with a formal lighting plan. 56 (Queensbury Planning Board 06/17/08) MR. HUNSINGER-So when you said you’re not going to be changing the canopy, I assume, then, you’re not changing the light fixtures within the canopy? MR. CRUMB-Well, we’ll certainly update those, and again, you know, we’re not looking to make an argument with you over lighting. We’ll work to meet the requirement, as we have with our other sites. MR. HUNSINGER-Well, and I’m just going to speak for myself, not for the Board, obviously, but, you know, your other locations were in different parts of the community than this one. I mean, this is a very bright, well lit area of Town. So there might be an ability to not be as stringent as some of the other, and we’ve talked about that with other applicants. MR. CRUMBS-Right. MR. HUNSINGER-Depending upon where the property is located. MR. CRUMB-That’s a full commercial corridor where I haven’t seen much residential around here. MR. HUNSINGER-You probably get, I mean, I know there’s a light pole. In fact, it’s shown on your plan. You have street lights right on your site that provide a lot of light. So even if we try to force you in strict compliance with the Town Code, it’s still going to be a lot brighter than a lot of locations. MR. CRUMB-Right. There’s a lot of bleeding effect there, I understand. So, you know, we’ll come back with a reasonable plan for you, and I think that it’ll make everybody happy, is our hope. That’s about all I have. MR. SEGULJIC-With regards to the gas pump located right there, that’s being moved. Correct? It looks like it’s really close to the building. MR. CRUMB-No. It is, the building is being stretched out. MR. SEGULJIC-Okay. MR. CRUMB-And that will be a one sided dispenser. MR. SEGULJIC-And that’s allowed, to have it that close to the building? MR. CRUMB-It is, and I did check with the Fire Marshal. I have a copy of what their requirements are for a dispenser such as that. Provided that we use the proper materials, what’s the proper wording I want here, non-combustible materials, it’s acceptable. We did check with the Fire Marshal on that. MR. SEGULJIC-So in summary, you’re keeping the existing canopy. MR. CRUMB-Yes. MR. SEGULJIC-And more or less the same building, but adding out? MR. CRUMB-No, we’re going to tear the building down entirely, and it’s. MR. NACE-If you look at your plan, the old building footprint shows inside (lost words). MR. SEGULJIC-Okay. Now, with regards to stormwater, and maybe Staff can help me out here. I remember Warren County did that stormwater study, if I recall correctly it talked about stormwater retention basin area of Burger King and Mobil. MR. HILTON-I believe the basin is proposed for this northeast corner, if you will. I can’t say for sure, but my recollection is that there was a, you know, major basin, the idea was proposed for this area, but certainly any improvement to the drainage where this, I believe this site connects to the Route 9 drainage that runs down to Halfway Brook. If there’s anything that can be done to better capture stormwater and improve the situation, it would be an upgrade, obviously. MR. SEGULJIC-Do you know what I’m speaking of? 57 (Queensbury Planning Board 06/17/08) MR. NACE-I will look into it. That’s the study that Dave Wick’s group did, or participated in. MR. SEGULJIC-Yes. I want to say it was a few years ago, probably five, ten years ago now. MR. NACE-That old. Okay. MR. SEGULJIC-It was a while ago. MR. NACE-I’ll certainly contact Dave and see what he has, because I know they’re doing the, down at the Price Chopper they’re doing that project, okay. I think that was part of the outcome of that study. MR. SEGULJIC-Yes, and I think that was part of that whole plan. I sort of remember like George had indicated they were going to put the basin over in the other plaza there. MR. NACE-I wasn’t aware of that, but I’ll talk to Dave and find out, but I think George’s suggestion that we do something with our roof water is certainly something we can accommodate on that site. MR. SEGULJIC-And I guess my big concern is landscape. I’d like to see something get done there. I mean, if we can’t get something, you know, you’ve got a big open green space there. I mean, when you look at that area, the one thing that that thing is really lacking is trees, and we’re in the northeast, and trees grow, and that’s the. MR. HILTON-If I may, I don’t want to interrupt. The applicant certainly seems willing, as he’s stated, to consider and work with the Board as far as landscaping. I guess I just wanted to point out that over here across the street, all this landscaping as well is within the State, and there are trees that are within the State right of way, and I know with the USA Gas project, I believe that there was a, that planting is within the State right of way. The addition of the green space that’s proposed as part of this project would require a State permit. I believe it’s been done, I’m almost certain it’s been done before where the State has approved or has at least reviewed or has the ability to review and potentially approve street trees or any plantings in the right of way. So I think it’s possible, and I guess our suggestion would be that the applicant follow up with the State and at least see about whether it can be done or not. MR. NACE-We’ll contact the State residency and see if it’s possible. MR. SEGULJIC-And maybe get something around the building, too, and then the other thing is, you have the two curb cuts on. MR. NACE-No, that’s an old photo. There is only one cut. MR. SEGULJIC-Okay. I’ve been there enough times. I should know better. MR. CRUMB-This area here, there’s a portion of this area here taken by the State (lost words) with this single westerly curb cut. MR. SEGULJIC-Okay. MRS. STEFFAN-I have to admit, I always liked the grass on that corner. It’s the only green thing there and it’s always very nice and manicured. So you’re maintaining it very nicely. MR. SIPP-Would it be possible to open up behind the bank or somewhere in that area so there’s access to Toys R’ Us and the rest of that whole area? MRS. STEFFAN-I think the, I personally think the slope is too steep to do that. MR. TRAVER-It’s very steep there. MR. NACE-There’s a grade separation. MRS. STEFFAN-It’s quite dramatic. When you’re getting gas there, you’re looking down at the roof of the bank. 58 (Queensbury Planning Board 06/17/08) MR. NACE-Yes. If you go into the back of Burger King, around the drive-thru of Burger King and look down, you’ll see the separation. MR. KREB-If you go through the bank, you can look up. MR. NACE-Sure. MRS. STEFFAN-It’s quite dramatic. MR. HILTON-And I guess that’s the, I don’t know, to follow-up, that’s where my comment for an interconnect, you know, potentially on paper so that if this comes in in the future with a different design, where that building’s pushed back, or re-located, that potentially we could link these properties, but I agree, right now there’s. MR. NACE-I think there’s five or six feet of grade separation. MR. HILTON-Even out here? MR. NACE-Yes. MR. SIPP-If there was a possibility of opening up at Route 9 it would save, just like, you don’t get in the same hassle up there, at the Million Dollar Half Mile, where everybody has to go in one and then out the same way to get to the next one. MR. CRUMB-We have always generally been agreeable to those types of arrangements if it makes sense. I’m not sure, in the configuration that the bank is now, that it makes sense, but if that were to be changed, we would certainly entertain that. MR. HUNSINGER-Well, typically what we’ve asked is that you just show it on your plan as, you know, potential future interconnect. So that somebody puts it on paper somewhere first, so then there’s at least a record of it somewhere. MR. FORD-I have one other point. I just want to reinforce that your pricing signage will be manually applied? MR. CRUMB-Yes. MR. FORD-As per the. MR. CRUMB-I remember the last conversation. MRS. STEFFAN-Gee, Tom, I had a little condition, I already wrote down. MR. SIPP-Speaking of signs, can we reduce the height of that a little bit? MR. CRUMB-Well, this one is just about an exact replica of what you approved down for our Exit 20 site. MR. SIPP-Yes, but I made a mistake. I should have got you lower. MR. CRUMB-Well, I would say this. MR. SIPP-Cut two feet off of that. MR. CRUMB-Cut two feet off of it. How about if I look at some other options, possibly a monument sign? MR. SIPP-All right. That sounds good. With a planter on the bottom. Get some more landscaping in there. MR. CRUMB-Okay. I think a monument would be appropriate in that area. MR. FORD-Yes. MRS. STEFFAN-It would be very nice. MR. HUNSINGER-There’s a, I can’t say it’s the best monument sign I’ve ever seen, but it is something that we are starting to require more of. There’s one on the back side of Lafayette Street. 59 (Queensbury Planning Board 06/17/08) MR. NACE-Where would you locate it? MR. CRUMB-Well, I’d locate them in the same position that the current sign would be. There’s currently a sign, one here, and a second. MR. SIPP-Right up there, yes. MR. CRUMB-So I would look at just replacing those, the same area. MR. SIPP-If we’re going to go with right in, right out, we’re going to have to have another sign someplace, too. MR. CRUMB-Well, and we’ve also talked about that, between Tom and myself. My thought is I think the signage is adequate. I’m not sure that we need to go beyond that, just because of the direction of the cut and the flow. I mean, so again, I don’t have any issue with. MR. SIPP-Well, I’ve seen people go out and stop halfway across, back up the cars coming down the hill until they get a break going left up the hill. MR. CRUMB-Right. It’s tough going left out of there, out of either cut. So that location’s really a right in, right out location. MRS. STEFFAN-A smart person wouldn’t try during the day. It’s an exercise in futility. MR. CRUMB-It’ll delay your day trying to turn out up there. MR. FORD-And everybody else’s. MR. SEGULJIC-What does everybody think about the building design? MRS. STEFFAN-Well, I think you’re kind of building on what they have. It’s very plain. Where the other, your other buildings have been very. MR. SEGULJIC-More exciting? MRS. STEFFAN-Flamboyant is the word I wanted. MR. CRUMB-In my own defense of that, I will say that when we bought this property, directly behind us you see that strip that’s between our property and Burger King. That’s owned by the Town. You’re not collecting any taxes on that. We did approach the Town Board and request to purchase that property. I was promptly shown the door. They were. MR. FORD-Didn’t like your offer? MR. CRUMB-No. They were upset that I even thought to come and ask to purchase that property. Because it’s one of the few green spaces in the area. So our plan was to possible look to put in a different building, but with the dimensions of the lot we have now, it’s very, very difficult. I looked at this long and hard and looked at a lot of different ideas for this, and this really came out as the best option for what was available. MR. FORD-Excuse me, but how long ago did you go to the Town Board with that proposal? MR. CRUMB-I would have to say two and a half years maybe. MR. NACE-I would say two years, yes. MR. CRUMB-It was quite a while ago. MR. SIPP-Well, I can see that point, but. MR. CRUMB-And my statement to them was we really only needed the property for setback, so that we could position the building, but they wanted no part of that. MR. SEGULJIC-Well, I’m no expert when it comes to building design, but this just looks really, could we get some peaks or something on it, break it out a little? 60 (Queensbury Planning Board 06/17/08) MR. CRUMB-Well, again, you understand the position of the building, it’s partially under the canopy, and that’s really the reasoning in keeping it in the shape that it is. There’s not a lot of room for creativity with that, and again, with the setbacks, we did need to get a setback variance for the front corner of the building, because of the tightness of the lot. So, you know, believe me I would have chosen to put up a brand new building similar to what we’re putting up at Exit 20 and Exit 19 if we could, but it just, it wouldn’t work on the property. MR. SEGULJIC-Well, if you could just look at that for me, because it looks like the canopy’s only in the front corner of the building and you’ve got some room in the back, just to. MR. CRUMB-Well, we do have some room in the back, and I’ve got to be honest with you. I’m going to throw it out to you. I mean. MR. SEGULJIC-I’m the wrong one to ask. MR. CRUMB-I also think it would look a bit odd to have the rear of the building peeking up over the canopy from the rear. I think that we have to make everything flow somewhat if you will. I would be open to suggestions on that, but believe me when I say I’ve put a lot of time and a lot of thought into different options for this property and for now this one makes the best sense for us. MR. HUNSINGER-Did you think about having the front of the building face Aviation Road instead of Glen? MR. CRUMB-No. MR. HUNSINGER-Does that free up any design ability for you? MR. CRUMB-No, because we’re utilizing the existing canopy. MR. NACE-Yes. It puts part of the pumps, the major part of the pumps, behind the building, which is kind of awkward. MR. CRUMB-Yes. We’ve looked at a number of different variations and this was the one that really. MR. HUNSINGER-Yes. Okay. MR. CRUMB-And we did look at replacing the canopy as well. MRS. STEFFAN-One of the reason that station works is you can go get your gas and you never have to go out in the weather to go get the newspaper or to get a cup of coffee. It’s just, the way it’s designed currently is very user friendly from my point of view. MR. CRUMB-And it would remain that way, with this configuration. Again, I do agree with you, it’s a little plainer than what we’ve come with before, but, in trying to make the best use of the property, this really works well for us. MR. KREBS-A suggestion to tie it together a little more might be that where you have your short stop panel, you have a panel over there that’s kind of a cream color. If you made that blue to match the thing, it would tie the whole thing together more. MR. CRUMB-Well, I agree. However, in keeping with what we’ve had approved at the other sites, I brought this along, just for anybody that needed maybe a reminder, this is what’s been approved for this Aviation Road. MRS. STEFFAN-19, Exit 19. MR. CRUMB-Similar for Exit 20 as well. So we wanted to keep those colors. MR. KREBS-I was just trying to think of a way to, you know, without peaks, etc., to make it look different than just a plain old block building. MR. CRUMB-Well, I think it’s a drastic improvement over what’s there now. 61 (Queensbury Planning Board 06/17/08) MRS. STEFFAN-I’m sure those are all new windows that are there? MR. CRUMB-Everything is brand new, the whole building. MRS. STEFFAN-Okay. The whole building. Sorry. MR. FORD-Thanks for having documentation of our previous wisdom. I knew I could count on you. MR. CRUMB-You’re welcome. MR. SIPP-Is short stop going to be illuminated? MR. CRUMB-Quite honestly, I think that those are probably going to go away. Because of your sign regulation, I’m allowed, I would be allowed the two price signs and two wall signs, and I do need to revise this rendering for you to show the Mobil legends on the canopy, and if that’s approved, that would be my two. MR. SIPP-Is that “O” going to be lit? Is the “O” in Mobil going to be lit? MR. CRUMB-The way that this rendering is proposed is that blue would be illuminated with the illuminated Mobil legend. MRS. STEFFAN-And it doesn’t have it on there now. The current canopy is just plain. MR. CRUMB-That’s correct, and, you know, at Exit 19, we went away from the illuminated blue band as well as the legend because of the residential area and the churches. I hope that you’ll see favorably on my canopy here, due to the area that we’re in. MR. FORD-Based upon the illumination you’re going to be coming in with? MR. CRUMB-Yes, and the fact that we’re in a commercial corridor and there’s no real residential to speak of in that immediate area. I would hope that this would be acceptable, but you can tell me otherwise if you’d like. MRS. STEFFAN-That’s reasonable. MR. HUNSINGER-Anything else? We do have a public hearing scheduled this evening. I will open the public hearing and we will table the public hearing, when we table the application. PUBLIC HEARING OPEN MR. HUNSINGER-We’re going to leave the public hearing open, obviously. Anything else from the Board at this point? MR. KREB-Are you tabling it to a specific time? MRS. STEFFAN-I think it’ll take a little while to get what they need, so it looks like August. MR. HUNSINGER-Yes, it looks like August. MR. NACE-Yes, we’re going to have to contact DOT. MR. CRUMB-What would be your meeting date in August? MR. HUNSINGER-There’s two. thth MRS. STEFFAN-The 19 or the 26. MR. HUNSINGER-Yes. th MR. CRUMB-I would say the 26 would be better. MRS. STEFFAN-The week before Labor Day. Okay. 62 (Queensbury Planning Board 06/17/08) th MR. CRUMB-So that means we need to have our information back in by the 15 of July. Is that correct? MR. HUNSINGER-Yes, that’s right. MR. CRUMB-I’m not sure we’ll be able to meet all of that, but we will make our. MR. FORD-Did you want to shoot for September instead? MR. CRUMB-What do you think? MR. NACE-I think the lighting shouldn’t be too bad. Landscaping. DOT is the only hang up. th MR. CRUMB-Let’s go with the August 26. MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. MR. NACE-If we don’t make it, we don’t make it. MR. CRUMB-That’s right. MRS. STEFFAN-Okay. MOTION TO TABLE SITE PLAN NO. 18-2008 JOLLEY ASSOCIATES, Introduced by Gretchen Steffan who moved for its adoption, seconded by Thomas Ford: th Tabled to the August 26 Planning Board meeting, and that means that the applicant will th have an application deadline of July 15 for materials. This is tabled so that the applicant can address: 1) VISION Engineering comments, 2) to address the Staff comments, 3) To also provide the Planning Board with a lighting plan, 4) To evaluate the Halfway Brook stormwater study, so that the applicant can follow up with the Department of Transportation on planting in the right of way, 5) That the applicant will look at a monument sign, with perhaps a planter at the base, 6) And that the applicant will add a notation on their sign drawings that no LED lighting will be included regarding gas pricing. th Duly adopted this 17 day of June, 2008, by the following vote: AYES: Mr. Sipp, Mr. Seguljic, Mr. Traver, Mr. Krebs, Mrs. Steffan, Mr. Ford, Mr. Hunsinger NOES: NONE MR. NACE-Thank you. MR. CRUMB-Thank you. MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. Thank you. MRS. STEFFAN-We’ll see you in August. MR. HUNSINGER-Yes, see you in August. Okay. Our next meeting we are scheduled to have a workshop at six o’clock, before the Board meeting. MR. KREBS-Was that originally supposed to be tonight? MR. HUNSINGER-What’s that? 63 (Queensbury Planning Board 06/17/08) MR. KREBS-When we discussed that, did we originally have that on for tonight? MR. HUNSINGER-I don’t know if we ever specified a date. MR. KREBS-I thought it was tonight. MR. TRAVER-For some reason all of a sudden I thought, my God it’s tonight, or, you know, this meeting, and that’s why I called the office to just verify that, because apparently I didn’t have it written down anywhere. I normally would have put it in my planner. MRS. STEFFAN-I figured we would have gotten an e-mail, because at ten to six I did think, oh, no. Are we supposed to be there? MR. HUNSINGER-A reminder e-mail. MRS. STEFFAN-Yes. MR. HUNSINGER-If there’s no other. MR. FORD-Steve and Don and I, particularly Steve and Don, have pulled together some recommendations for public participation and I’ll see that those are e-mailed out and we can review those at that meeting. MR. HUNSINGER-Good. Okay. Is there any other business? MRS. STEFFAN-I’ll make a motion to adjourn. MOTION TO ADJOURN THE QUEENSBURY PLANNING BOARD MEETING OF JUNE 17, 2008, Introduced by Gretchen Steffan who moved for its adoption, seconded by Donald Krebs: th Duly adopted this 17 day of June, 2008, by the following vote: AYES: Mr. Sipp, Mr. Seguljic, Mr. Ford, Mr. Traver, Mr. Krebs, Mrs. Steffan, Mr. Hunsinger NOES: NONE On motion meeting was adjourned. RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED, Chris Hunsinger 64