Loading...
2009.06.23 (Queensbury Planning Board 06/23/09) QUEENSBURY PLANNING BOARD MEETING SECOND REGULAR MEETING JUNE 23, 2009 INDEX Site Plan No. 17-2009 Wal-Mart 1. Subdivision No. 11-2008 Tax Map No. 303.15-1-25 Site Plan No. 61-2007 Wal-Mart 2. Freshwater Wetlands 1-2008 Tax Map No. 303.15-1-25 Site Plan No. 37-2009 Brett R. West & Pamela T. West 2. Tax Map No. 226.15-1-17 Special Use Permit No. 15-2009 John & Kim Polunci 5. Freshwater Wetlands 1-2009 Tax Map No. 289.15-1-1 Site Plan No. 18-2009 Joseph & Debra Gross 25. Tax Map No. 309.17-1-17.2, 15.1, 15.2 Site Plan No. 34-2009 Dariusz & Bozena Jackowski 30. Tax Map No. 265-1-73.2 Site Plan No. 35-2009 Brian Granger & BG Lenders Service, LLC 30. Tax Map No. 309.10-1-62, 61, 60 Site Plan No. 38-2009 Mastoloni Family, LLC 38. Tax Map No. 226.15-1-29 Subdivision No. 2-2009 Cerrone Builders 55. Final Phase II Tax Map No. 315.5-1-1 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 06/23/09) QUEENSBURY PLANNING BOARD MEETING SECOND REGULAR MEETING JUNE 23, 2009 7:00 P.M. MEMBERS PRESENT CHRIS HUNSINGER, CHAIRMAN GRETCHEN STEFFAN, SECRETARY THOMAS SEGULJIC DONALD KREBS THOMAS FORD STEPHEN TRAVER DONALD SIPP LAND USE PLANNER-KEITH OBORNE TOWN ENGINEER-VISION ENGINEERING-DAN RYAN STENOGRAPHER-SUE HEMINGWAY MR. HUNSINGER-I’ll call to order the meeting of the Town of Queensbury Planning Board on Tuesday, June 23, 2009. ADMINISTRATIVE ITEM: SITE PLAN 17-09 & SUBDIVISION 11-08 WAL-MART: FOR FURTHER TABLING CONSIDERATION MR. HUNSINGER-Is there anyone here representing Wal-Mart? Okay. It was published to be heard this evening, and the applicant has asked for an extension. Do we know when they might be read, Keith? thst MR. OBORNE-They’ll be coming on on the first meeting in July. Not the 7, but the 21. st MR. HUNSINGER-The 21. th MR. FORD-Which is the last meeting of June, July 7, the last meeting of June? MR. OBORNE-That’s the way I look at it, exactly. MR. HUNSINGER-Is there anyone in the audience that’s here for that project, to address the Board? Okay. I will open the public hearing. PUBLIC HEARING OPENED MR. HUNSINGER-And we will leave the public hearing open, and we’re looking to table st that to July 21? MR. OBORNE-Correct. MR. HUNSINGER-Would anyone like to make that motion? MOTION TO TABLE SITE PLAN NO. 17-2009 & SUBDIVISION NO. 11-2008 WAL- MART STORES, Introduced by Gretchen Steffan who moved for its adoption, seconded by Thomas Ford: st Tabled to the July 21 Planning Board meeting. rd Duly adopted this 23 day of June, 2009, by the following vote: MR. KREBS-I just want to question the fact, is that what we’re supposed to be doing, st tabling it until the 21? Or were they asking us for an extension? MR. OBORNE-No. First they’re asking for us to table the current Site Plan. MR. KREBS-Okay. 1 (Queensbury Planning Board 06/23/09) MR. SEGULJIC-I want clarification, also. They also said the subdivision. That’s not what we’re talking about here. That’s something different. This is the Site Plan and Wetlands, then they had the subdivision also. MR. HUNSINGER-Yes, it’s both. MR. SEGULJIC-So this includes the subdivision? MR. HUNSINGER-Yes, it includes the subdivision and the Site Plan. MR. SEGULJIC-Okay. AYES: Mr. Traver, Mr. Krebs, Mr. Seguljic, Mr. Sipp, Mrs. Steffan, Mr. Ford, Mr. Hunsinger NOES: NONE SITE PLAN 61-07 & FW 1-08 WAL-MART: EXTENSION REQUEST MR. HUNSINGER-The second item, now, is on the extension request from Wal-Mart and this is on Site Plan 61-07 and Freshwater Wetland Permit 1-08, and my question, I don’t know if Staff has an answer to this, but it would make sense to me to address that when they’re here, in case there’s questions of the applicant. MR. OBORNE-They requested it in a letter. So, in anticipation of them not getting into the ground by September. So they went ahead and I guess they’re doing a preemptive strike on that. MR. HUNSINGER-Yes. Okay. I guess it would be my inclination to address that on the st 21 of July when they’re here. MR. OBORNE-If that’s your pleasure, that’s fine. MR. FORD-I think you’re right on target. MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. So we’ll deal with that. I just want to make sure we don’t lose track of that request, though. EXPEDITED REVIEW: SITE PLAN 37-2009 SEQR TYPE TYPE II BRETT R. WEST; PAMELA T. WEST AGENT(S) MICHAEL J. O’CONNOR; FRANK DE NARDO OWNER(S) SAME ZONING WR-1A LOCATION BAY PARKWAY APPLICANT PROPOSES INSTALLATION OF BOAT LIFT WITH CANOPY. BOATHOUSE IN A WR ZONE IS AN ALLOWED USE SUBJECT TO SITE PLAN REVIEW AND APPROVAL. CROSS REFERENCE AV 47-07; SP 39-07, LGPC PERMIT # 5234-15-07 WARREN CO. PLANNING 6/10/09 APA, CEA, DEC, ACOE L G CEA, APA WETLAND LOT SIZE 0.96 ACRES TAX MAP NO. 226.15-1-17 SECTION 179-5-060 MICHAEL O’CONNOR, REPRESENTING APPLICANT, PRESENT MR. HUNSINGER-Keith, whenever you want to, actually, we don’t summarize Staff Notes for Expedited Review. Good evening. MR. O'CONNOR-Good evening. MR. HUNSINGER-If you could identify yourselves for the record. MR. O’CONNOR-I’m Michael O’Connor from the law firm of Little & O’Connor. I represent Mr. and Mrs. West, and with me is Mr. Denardo, who is part of the contracting firm that is installing the boat lift and the canopy. MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. Are there any questions or comments from members of the Board on this application? MR. SEGULJIC-Just, with reference to the Staff Notes, the boat lift is going to be energized. Correct? MR. O'CONNOR-Yes, it is. 2 (Queensbury Planning Board 06/23/09) MR. SEGULJIC-All right, because Staff Notes say you should note the utilities on the plans. MR. O'CONNOR-Okay. I’d like to make a statement even before that, though. MR. SEGULJIC-Okay. MR. O'CONNOR-I sit here with full reservation of our rights. I don’t think the Town of Queensbury has jurisdiction over this subject because it’s beyond the mean low water mark, and I have contested that with the Town Attorney and gotten an opinion that they disagree with my opinion, and so we’re here, but I want, on the record, to note that I do not think that the Town line extends beyond the mean low water mark off of Assembly Point. Actually this facility that’s being built is being built in the Town of Bolton. The answer to the question of Staff is that the dock already has electricity on it and they just spliced into that line and are running the lift with the existing electric line that serves the lights that are on the docks. MR. SEGULJIC-Okay. That’s it, then. MRS. STEFFAN-And they want a waiver for lighting. You want a waiver for lighting, according to the application. MR. O'CONNOR-No. MR. OBORNE-I don’t think so. MR. O'CONNOR-I think in the application we had a waiver for all the land, or upland issues, not for anything on the dock itself. MR. OBORNE-No, ma’am, I don’t see a request for a waiver for lighting. MRS. STEFFAN-On Page Five of the application, the Site Plan Review application. MR. HUNSINGER-Right towards the bottom. MR. O'CONNOR-Is there a requirement for lighting? Not that I’m aware of. MRS. STEFFAN-But it’s in the application. MR. OBORNE-It is. MR. O'CONNOR-Okay. I don’t know the necessity for that, and I apologize if the application is made out incorrectly. MR. HUNSINGER-Any other questions, comments from members of the Board? We do have a public hearing scheduled this evening. Is there anyone in the audience that wants to address the Board on this application? Any written comments, Keith? MR. OBORNE-No, sir. MR. HUNSINGER-I will open the public hearing. PUBLIC HEARING OPENED MR. HUNSINGER-And seeing how there is no one here to comment, I will close the public hearing. PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED MR. HUNSINGER-Would anyone like to put forward a resolution? MOTION TO APPROVE SITE PLAN NO. 37-2009 BRETT R. WEST; PAMELA T. WEST, 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 installation of boat lift with canopy. Boathouse in a WR zone is an allowed use subject to Site Plan Review and approval. 3 (Queensbury Planning Board 06/23/09) 2)A public hearing was advertised and held on 6/23/2009; and 3)This application is supported with all documentation, public comment and application material in the file of record; 4)MOTION TO APPROVE SITE PLAN NO. 37-2009 BRETT R. WEST; PAMELA T. WEST, Introduced by Gretchen Steffan who moved for its adoption, seconded by Thomas Seguljic: According to the resolution prepared by Staff. Paragraph Four A complies. Paragraph Four B, it’s a Type II action. Paragraph Four E, F, G, H, J and K do not apply. This is approved with the following condition. That a plat notation that the boat lift will not extend beyond 40 feet from the mean low water mark should be included on the plans. a)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 b)This is a Type II-no further SEQRA review is necessary; and c)Final approved plans, in compliance with the Site Plan, must be submitted to the Community Development Department before any further review by the Zoning Administrator or Building and Codes personnel. 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; and d)As-built plans to certify that the site plan is developed according to the approved plans to be provided prior to issuance of the certificate of occupancy; and e)NOT APPLICABLE. If applicable, Item d to be combined with a letter of credit; and f)NOT APPLICABLE. The Sanitary Sewer connection plan must be submitted to the Wastewater Department for its review, approval, permitting and inspection; and g)NOT APPLICABLE. Waiver requests granted / denied: stormwater mgmt., grading, landscaping & lighting plans] h)NOT APPLICABLE. The limits of clearing will constitute a no-cut buffer zone, orange construction fencing shall be installed around these areas and field verified by Community Development staff i)Engineering sign-off required prior to signature of Zoning Administrator. j)NOT APPLICABLE. The applicant shall submit a copy of a NOI [Notice of Intent] SWPPP [Stormwater Pollution Prevention Plan] & NOT [Notice of Termination] - see staff k)NOT APPLICABLE. The applicant shall submit a copy of a NYS SPDES [State Pollution Discharge Elimination System] rd Duly adopted this 23 day of June, 2009, by the following vote: AYES: Mr. Sipp, Mr. Ford, Mr. Traver, Mr. Krebs, Mrs. Steffan, Mr. Seguljic, Mr. Hunsinger NOES: NONE MR. O'CONNOR-We thank you. MR. HUNSINGER-Thank you. Good luck. 4 (Queensbury Planning Board 06/23/09) SPECIAL USE PERMIT 15-2009 FRESHWATER WETLANDS 1-2009 SEQR TYPE II JOHN & KIM POLUNCI AGENT(S) FITZGERALD MORRIS BAKER & FIRTH; HUTCHINS ENGINEERING OWNER(S) MARYLEE GOSLINE ZONING RR-3 LOCATION 21 BLIND ROCK ROAD APPLICANT PROPOSES CONSTRUCTION OF A KENNEL FACILITY WHICH INCLUDES A 2,064 SQUARE FOOT PET CARE BUILDING, A 576 SQUARE FOOT ADMINISTRATIVE BUILDING/KENNEL WITH ASSOCIATED SITE IMPROVEMENTS. KENNELS IN AN RR ZONE REQUIRE A SPECIAL USE PERMIT; FRESHWATER WETLANDS PERMIT IS REQUIRED FOR LAND DISTURBANCE/FILLING WITHIN 100 FEET OF A WETLANDS BOUNDARY. BOTH ARE SUBJECT TO PLANNING BOARD REVIEW AND APPROVAL. CROSS REFERENCE SUP 30-08, SP 18-05 WARREN CO. PLANNING 3/11/09 NO COUNTY IMPACT DEC, ACOE, OTHER NWI WETLANDS LOT SIZE 20.58 +/- ACRES TAX MAP NO. 289.15-1-1.1 SECTION 179-10, 179-6-060 MATT FULLER, REPRESENTING APPLICANT, PRESENT MR. HUNSINGER-Keith, whenever you’re ready to summarize Staff Notes, please. MR. OBORNE-Special Use Permit 15-2009, Freshwater Wetlands 1-2009, applicant John and Kim Polunci. Requested action: Special Use Permit for kennel facility. Freshwater wetlands permit required for land disturbing, filling within 100 feet of a wetland boundary. The location is 21 Blind Rock Road. Existing zoning, RR-3A. This is a Type II SEQRA. Project Description: Applicant proposes construction of a Kennel Facility with associated site improvements on 20.13 acres in the RR-3A zone. There are two buildings associated with this project. The first building is a 576 square foot administrative building which includes boarding for approximately 24 cats, handicap unisex bathroom, water-heater room and laundry facilities. The second building is a 2,064 square foot dog kennel which includes boarding for 8 dogs, a dog play area, mechanical room and numerous facilities to promote cleanliness. The buildings are accessed via an existing private drive which fronts on Blind Rock Road. The length of the access road is approximately 800 feet, crosses NWI wetlands, and terminates in an eight (8) space parking lot with 30 foot drive aisle adjacent to the kennel structures. The kennel is serviced by underground town water and electric. The kennel is also serviced by an on site wastewater system designed for up to 30 dogs and 3 employees per day. Typically what follows is Site Plan Review. I do want to go and touch on comments that require attention at this point. Clarification on heating and cooling source for Administrative/Cat boarding structure will need to be forthcoming. Details on the availability of space to board up to 30 dogs, regardless of size should be submitted. Clarification on potential DEC or ACOE permits required. Consideration for a stop sign at Blind Rock Road should be considered. With that I’d turn it over to the Board. MR. HUNSINGER-Thank you. Good evening. MR. FULLER-Good evening. For the record, Matt Fuller from Fitzgerald, Morris, Baker, Firth. I’m here with Tom Hutchins, the engineer, and John Polunci, the proprietor of the dog kennel. I think what I’ll do is I’ve prepared something in writing to give to the Board in response to the Staff comments, just to have that for the record. So I’ll give the Board that, and I’ll quickly, I’ll go through them, just what we got last Friday. The first was the heating for the administrative cat boarding facility not evident. On the plans, the color fold out plans that we had, they aren’t shown in that mechanical room, but in the binder, in Tab E, there’s a thorough discussion of what we’re going to do for the heat. Both buildings will have radiant heat. In the administrative cat boarding facility we’ll have 330 cubic per minute air to air exchanger with filter. So if you have any other questions or anything about the heat system, that’s John’s profession and he can comment on that further. The next one was the consideration for a stop sign at Blind Rock Road. I remember talking about this last month, and I looked back through the minutes. I don’t know that we ever, we, the Board, you came to a conclusion as to what you want, but certainly if the Board thinks, you know, one of the smaller stop signs is warranted out there, we can consider that. I don’t think that’s a deal breaker, if the Board feels inclined. I don’t know if you want one of those great big ones out there, but one of the smaller, residential type small stop signs, you know, I think we can work on that. The other that seems to be a recurring comment, but I think one that we did discuss last time, in pretty great detail, was the wastewater design and this focus on 30 dogs. Thirty dogs, and the reason it was sized to that size was from an engineering standpoint. It wasn’t to say we’re going to have 30 dogs in there all the time seven days a week. Tom found the standards from North Carolina, if I recall correctly, and sized it to the 30 dogs. Going to the amount of dogs that could possibly be boarded there, that’s when the Pet Care Association standards kick in, and the discussion we have, and again, I understand the details are quite large, in the binder that we’ve presented, but if you do look through 5 (Queensbury Planning Board 06/23/09) there, that standard sets forth, it doesn’t say, you know, one square foot per dog or 10 square feet for the kennel. It’s more a subjective to the animal, and I think that’s for a reason. The reason being, if you set, you know, one dog for every 10 square feet, 10 square feet may not be enough for a big dog, and it may be way too much for a small dog. So that’s why we intentionally haven’t committed to say X numbers of dogs per square foot. On the opposite of that, the run area that we’ve got shown on the larger building, that does have a criteria. If you look back into the materials, it’s around Page 57, and I apologize. I saw the copy, some of the numbers kind of got cut off at the bottom, but if you look at that standard, it does give you a number that you should stick to, and that’s about 120 square feet per dog. So I just quickly, before we came in, calculated it out. We’re about 1100 square feet, based on the measurements for that interior space. That’s about nine dogs. So that we can tell you that at any time, when the dogs are playing, that Pet Care standard’s number kicks in. So, you know, that’s when you may have more dogs resting in the kennel. You’re not going to have them all running around at the same time, and the reason for that is, again, going back to the standards, the standards that they suggest in here employ the SPCA’s 50% rule, meaning, you know, dogs have dominant propensities. So if there’s two dogs in a room, if one dog is less than 50% of the weight of the other dog, that’s to be avoided, and I think, you know, commonsense would dictate. If I’m walking my dog and a big dog that weighs more than double my dog, I’m going on the other side of the street. That similar logic kicks in with, you know, not only the square footage, but using that run area to begin with. You’re not going to put one large dog in there with three or four small dogs half its weight. It just doesn’t make sense. So, you know, I know that that concept, probably got a lot of comments on it. You may get more tonight, about we need a number, and that’s the reason we haven’t, you know, and I think it’s the same with a veterinary practice. Veterinarian comes in here, they can’t tell you it’s going to be one dog per square, whatever square foot per kennel. They’re going to adjust it, based on how many dogs are there that night or, you know, what the care is, so I think, on the number of dogs, I’m not trying to be evasive. I’m trying to tell you that we’ve committed to sticking to these standards, and the standards, I think, lay out relatively stringent criteria for the care of the dogs. You’ve got to be flexible. Again, smaller dog, less space. Larger dog, big space, and while we could hypothetically come up with some number, I don’t think it does any service to the ultimate animal that’s going to be in there, and again, people might have trouble with that response because it’s not a number, but I think the strong commitment that’s been shown in these standards will carry the day in the end, and be a working standard for the animals, and I think that’s the ultimate concern. I think, you know, the noise and things, I’m hoping that the Board agrees. We’ve gone to great lengths to address that, with the ultimate design, there weren’t any follow up comments on that. Keith, did I miss any? I think there were four, right? There was one that might have been, we talked about the heating, the boarding of the dogs, DEC or ACOE. We’ll touch on that briefly with Tom, and the stop sign we just talked about. Clarification on the potential DEC. Tom and I talked about it. Based on the maps and things, those aren’t conditional. There’ve been discussions about dredging permits and things in the past with the ponds, which would not kick in the jurisdiction but, you know, ultimately, if we have to get a letter or something, you know, as a condition, we can certainly do that, and as for the remainder of the engineering comments, Tom, I think I’ll let you address those now. One last thing, the Board did get, and I did staple it to the letter that I did, proposed conditions. We talked about that last time. I think Michael O’Connor and I had talked before. Since then, I think obviously the ultimate decision on any conditions or things rests with Board, and we didn’t have those discussions to attempt to subvert the Board’s authority or anything, but I think any time, you know, you can come to some reasonable conditions that both sides agree to, and be able to present those to the Board, that’s a good thing. We’ve done that. I know there may have been some question about whether or not we have ultimately agreed to those. We have, and I can state unequivocally, that, what I have given you, it says draft on it, but Mike did give me a clean copy, and I didn’t know how to get that draft off of there, so I monkeyed with it for a half an hour and gave up, but that, what you have there is what he gave me a clean copy of, we’re satisfied. I think those conditions are stringent. I think they’re more stringent than many other conditional or Special Use Permits that the Board has had, even conditions you guys have supplied, and I think, again, that goes a long ways towards addressing the concerns that have been expressed, and certainly says something about, John and Kim and Mary Lee did address those concerns and agree to these conditions. So, just for the record, we have approved the conditions, and obviously that’s left to the Board’s discretion. On the engineering, Tom. MR. HUTCHINS-Yes. I’d just like to touch on the specific engineering comments. I have written a brief response to each of them and provided to you, and I’d just run through each of them. Comments One through Ten are indicated on the comment letter, are all completed and addressed. They really don’t need any response. Comment 11, with 6 (Queensbury Planning Board 06/23/09) regard to silt fencing, I have modified silt fencing on the erosion control plan to show it more parallel to the contours in a couple of areas. Comment 12, stabilize construction entrance. I have located one on the erosion plan. Obviously you don’t have it. I’ve had these since Friday, but I have made these changes. Existing drainage boundaries in the report. There was a labeling error in my report. I have corrected those maps, and they’re ready to be resubmitted. The project owner within the operation maintenance plan, and this was an outright silly error on my part. It has been corrected in the report, and I’ve also contacted the other owner that I named in there and told them that we don’t expect him to maintain this facility, and I’ve modified the grading slightly at the parking area to show how the water will surface flow to the proposed pond, and that was all the engineering comments. MR. HUNSINGER-Anything else? MR. FULLER-One last, real quick. We talked, at the last meeting, about the clearing along the driveway, widening it and things like that, and we have shown it on the plans, because the Site Plan requires the limits that we’ve shown, but I had John take a picture to show you what the look is coming out towards Blind Rock, and what we wanted to propose to the Planning Board is, we’re certainly willing to clear to those limits that you’ve shown on there, but we think that when you take a look at this and you take a look at the vegetation that’s there right now, that you might agree with us that clearing out to the limits even that we’ve shown, while to your regulation, something we need to do, may not be the best sense, visually, for the neighborhood in general. We would propose leaving the bulk of trees that we could, just because it’s existing vegetation and it’s tall top trees. So I’ll give you these. It’s something for the Board to consider. Again, we have shown on the plans to comply, that we can meet that clearing and that we would do that clearing, but if it’s the Board preference that, you know, given the nature of the use, that these trees remain, the evergreens especially and things like that, I think we would agree, if the Board wanted to take that up. So I’ll give you these, too, just so that you can get a sense of what we’re talking about. MR. SIPP-Matt, how much are you going to widen this road? MR. FULLER-Tom, what do we have on there? MR. HUTCHINS-We’re going to go to a 20 foot drive. MR. SIPP-Twenty foot. MR. FULLER-If you look at, at the picture, if I’m looking at the left side of it, the tall, bright tree that’s in there, that’s a good question, and I didn’t explain that. John walked it off, out to that, and that’s the distance we need to go to, out to that tree. MR. HUTCHINS-There’s a pretty good cut in one spot, and it shows it’s right in the early, it’s right in the initial part of the drive where it leaves Blind Rock Road. MR. SIPP-Are you going to seed that? I mean, you’re going to have to cut some trees. MR. HUTCHINS-Sure. MR. SIPP-And are you going to re-seed that area? MR. FULLER-Of course. MR. HUTCHINS-Yes. MR. SIPP-With the clover, crown vetch. MR. HUTCHINS-Yes. MR. SIPP-Did anybody take the Ph of that soil? MR. HUTCHINS-No, we didn’t take the Ph. MR. SIPP-You’ve got to get the Ph up. You’ve got two legumes, which take a 7.1, 7.2 soil Ph to grow at the best, and I don’t know, white clover eventually is going to be choked out. I don’t even know why you’re starting with white clover. That doesn’t germinate that quickly. 7 (Queensbury Planning Board 06/23/09) MR. HUTCHINS-Well, we’re stabilizing, if you will, for the steep slopes. MR. SIPP-You could use a little rye grass. MR. HUTCHINS-We’ll use whatever you’d like to see, we’ll be glad to use. MR. SIPP-The crown vetch is good, because that will spread. It does have deep roots. It does the job. White clover, I’m. MR. FULLER-That’s fine. Again it was just, not to muddy the water, just to give you an idea of exactly what we were looking at. MR. HUTCHINS-That’s a typical seed mix for stabilizing relatively steep slopes. MR. HUNSINGER-Other questions, comments from the Board? MR. SEGULJIC-Not at this point. MR. FORD-I’m anxious to hear from the public. MR. HUNSINGER-I will open the public hearing. I think you’ve all attended the meeting before. The purpose of the public hearing is for you to make comments to the Board. It’s not to engage in a dialogue with the applicant. So I would ask that you address any of your comments to the Board. We do tape the meeting, and we do transcribe literal minutes. So I would ask that you identify yourself for the record and speak into the microphone. We do have a timer. So I would ask that you try to limit your comments to three minutes, and with that, who would like to be first? PUBLIC HEARING OPEN MR. HUNSINGER-Yes, sir. KARL FRANK MR. FRANK-My name is Karl Frank. I live at 66 Cedar Court. I have a letter to the Board I’d like to read, and afterwards I have a copy to go to the records, if that’s okay. MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. Thank you. MR. FRANK-According to the information in the application, the discharge from the flushing of the kennels goes to a septic tank system, and then into a leach field. This discharge water has a disinfectant chemical added to it, to reduce the bacteria in the wastewater. Number One, will this chemical reduce the action in the septic tank so it is ineffective in breaking down the solids? How much carryover of the chemical will occur from the septic tank to the leach field at 350 to 400 gallons per day at the recommended concentrations of the disinfectant? How far is the leach field from the two ponds that are on the property? How far are the two ponds from the nearby stream? Are the two ponds up gradient to the stream? The nearest stream does not show on the plot plan, but this stream eventually proceeds south into Halfway Brook, which is a trout stream. List any Dog Kennels using this chemical with a comparable septic system tank and leach field system that has used it for at least five years. The soil analysis in three locations of the proposed leach field and depth to groundwater should be included on the plot plan. An MSDS sheet for each chemical being proposed for use at the facility should be submitted with the Environmental Impact Statement. Does this application require a SPDES Permit because of the chemical additives? Has anyone reviewed this application with the NYSDEC for a SPDES Permit with the Fisheries Division? The building drawings do not have a PE or Architect stamp and signature. The Plot Plan does not have a PE or LS stamp and signature. It appears that a more thorough environmental review of this application would be appropriate. That’s all I have to say with this. I’d like to give you this. MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. Thank you. MR. FRANK-And I’m sure you’re all familiar with what SPDES stands for? MR. HUNSINGER-Yes. MR. FRANK-Okay. I don’t have to go into that. 8 (Queensbury Planning Board 06/23/09) MR. HUNSINGER-Yes, ma’am. Good evening. DOROTHY SEHLMEYER MRS. SEHLMEYER-My name is Dorothy Sehlmeyer and I live at 71 Cedar Court. Dear Board Members: Once again I address you to defend the rights of other property owners beside the petitioners. I can’t understand why we are still fighting this, when the Comprehensive Land Use Plan states, the issuance of a special use permit must respect the character of the neighborhood and fit into the existing neighborhood even though it might be a permitted use. This clearly does not fit in. Unlike people who buy a home next to an existing airport or busy highway, and then complain of the noise, this medium to high density residential area has been well established for long before the petitioner came up with the plan, or the property for the plan. As for Mr. Krebs’ cavalier remarks of 4/21 this year about his not objecting to people walking their dogs in front of his house and behind his house on the golf course, that is a lot different than having a 24 hr/7day a week dog kennel operation behind his house. Our neighbors walk their dogs in front of our homes, too – with no problem I might add; neighbors walking dogs is not what this is about! A renewable permit is one possibility. But even with that I am concerned that the specified plans which are supposed to be our safeguards will, in fact, be adhered to. With the faltering economy and increasing construction costs who will ensure that what is proposed is done? It is clear the overwhelming majority of the surrounding (affected) community does NOT want a dog kennel, as per letters, petitions, etc. I continue to request you deny the petition. Thank you. MR. HUNSINGER-Thank you. Anyone else? Yes, ma’am. NANCY MURTHA MRS. MURTHA-Good evening. My name is Nancy Murtha. I live at 28 Fitzgerald Road in Queensbury, New York. I realize there is a compromise on the table here tonight, but in the event the Board is not inclined to accept that agreement, in lieu of a renewable Special Use Permit, I simply want it on the record that I have opposed the intrusion of a dog kennel into my neighborhood since its inception, and I continue to oppose the st project. As one Planning Board member stated during the April 21 meeting, and I quote from the minutes of that meeting, on Pages 52 and 53, we went through the zoning and the Comprehensive Land Use Plan and we spent three years in the process, and so one of the things that the Planning Board is responsible for is, even if something’s an allowed use, we have to review it to make sure it fits within the parameters of the Comprehensive Land Use Plan, and especially in the case of a Special Use Permit, neighborhood compatibility is a very big issue, and so you know, it’s important for the masses here to agree that this is a good idea because of the situation of a Special Use Permit. I mean, that’s the criteria for approval, end of quote. Remembering the 250 plus signatures on the recently submitted petition in opposition to this kennel, as well as the 150 signatures on petitions proceeding this one, also in opposition, it’s obvious the masses here are not agreeing that this is a good idea. The masses have continued to express their concern and have continued to argue that a dog kennel is not something that fits within the character of this neighborhood. Just because a new application proposes an indoor kennel and the applicants have addressed the noise issue, doesn’t change the fact that a dog kennel does not belong in a populated residential neighborhood and that it is not compatible with the character of this neighborhood. The neighborhood compatibility criteria required for the approval of a Special Use Permit as per the Comprehensive Land Use Plan is all you need to deny this application, that one fact, just for the record. Thank you for your continued patience and your impartial consideration on this matter. MR. HUNSINGER-Thank you. Anyone else? Yes, sir. BOB MURTHA MR. MURTHA-Good evening. My name is Bob Murtha. I live at 28 Fitzgerald Road, and I’m opposed to this new improved dog kennel. I feel it is a commercial operation that should not be in a residential area. Thank you. MR. HUNSINGER-Thank you. Anyone else? Yes, sir. RON STEWART MR. STEWART-My name is Ron Stewart, 8 Cedar Court. I just have somewhat of a generic question. In terms of special use that have time limits on it, what is the past practice or past experience of the Board in terms of getting involved, intervening at the 9 (Queensbury Planning Board 06/23/09) end of that period to correct the problems? I was, I’m rather new to this. I was given a statement by someone in Cedar Court as to how this is going to operate, and the fact that they were looking at a four year term. In past practice, in things that you’ve done similar to this, how often has the Board actually gotten involved after that time, any time frame, to correct problems or simply to shut the operation down? So I’m just asking about your past practice. Thanks, Chris. MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. You’re welcome. Anyone else? Yes, ma’am. DIANA COTE MRS. COTE-Good evening. My name is Diana Daggett Cote. I live at 63 Cedar Court in the Woodlyns. I’m as tired of coming back fighting this project as I am sure you are of seeing me. However, every time we return there seems to be major problems with consistencies in this dog kennel plans. Although their current presentation before you is substantially different from the first iteration presented to this Board we, the neighbors, still have major concerns. First of all, let me repeat that we continue to feel that allowing a dog kennel in this residential area is out of character for the neighborhood, which is all part of the good neighbor plan in the Town of Queensbury’s Comprehensive Plan. Neighborhood compatibility is a huge issue that should be addressed by this Board. How did we go from a mom and pop operation to the current operation with the Della Auto Group as the new project owner? That’s in the packet that I picked up, dated May th 15. How did we go from 30 small dogs, which were in the last minutes, to 30 large dogs? Would this equate to 60 small dogs? How much traffic are we talking here? There’s a huge difference between 30 small dogs or 30 transports in, as opposed to 60 transports in, several times a day. We went from hours of pick up from seven to nine and five to seven, and the sheet that I picked up this week said seven to nine, twelve to one and three to five. Nothing is consistent. It keeps changing. How did it go from one, one thousand gallon septic tank, to the addition of two more 1250 gallon septic tanks? Are these plans for future expansion in the residential neighborhood? We’ve been against this project from Day One. The applicants have changed their plans over and over again. Yes, their current plan is certainly an improvement over their first hand drawn version of a kennel, but after all is said and done, this is still not an appropriate use of the land in a residential area. The neighborhood has asked you over and over again to use the Comprehensive Land Use Plan and deny this use on Blind Rock Road. You listened and acted on this in December. Please listen to your constituents again and deny this request for a Special Use Permit. Thank you very much for all that you do for all of us in the Town of Queensbury. MR. HUNSINGER-Thank you. Anyone else? No takers? Okay. Did you have any comments based on the neighbors’ comments? MR. FULLER-Sure, just a couple, and Tom can address some of the engineering stuff. On the discharges into the septic system, we did look into that. That’s strictly the Town’s regulation. We contacted DOH and DEC. The Town administers the septic regulations. We did contact DOH and DEC to see if there were any other special permit requirements or anything like that, and there aren’t. It’s going to fall under the Town’s septic regulations, no different than anyone else. As far as this vast list of chemicals and things that are going to be discharged in there, the suggested, again, going back to the care standards that’s in Standard Seven under Sanitation, is diluted bleach, 30 to 1, standard to cleaning many other things. That’s for the kennel itself. As for this grass, the suggested cleaning agent is Simply Green. Some of you may use it at home. I have it, partially because it’s okay for my septic system, but it’s that, you know, the green stuff you buy at Home Depot or wherever, in the spray bottle, and that’s the recommended for the grass. So that’s the main cleaning agents we’re going to be dealing with. So, I don’t know, you know, how to prove a negative, but we did look into those to make sure there weren’t going to be any additional permit requirements, and there weren’t. So, again, we did look into that. As to the zoning, in between when we were here last time and now, the Town Board, once again, reiterated that this is an allowed use. Double the acreage, we still meet that, even under the new standard, we’ve got the minimum acreage needed. So that it didn’t get removed. We’re not grandfathered here. It’s an allowed use in the zone. So that, while I understand that some may still be opposed, I think with the conditions and things that we’ve worked through, that I thought, prior to coming in here, had been approved, now I don’t know what that case is, but I think we’ve addressed those concerns that are in the zoning for a Special Use Permit, and as far as inconsistencies, I just want to state for the record, I don’t need to state this, the Planning Board deals with projects all the time. Changes to applications aren’t inconsistencies. If we have to react to neighbor comments, Planning Board comments, Staff comments, and engineering comments, those aren’t inconsistencies, that’s us reacting to what I 10 (Queensbury Planning Board 06/23/09) think is a thorough review, and if I may say doing a good job at it. I think we’ve gone a long way to really targeting every comment and coming up with very good, sound ways to address those comments. So the typo and things like that, it happened, and I think Tom addressed that, but again, we’re not being inconsistent. We’re making changes to address. The hours of operation actually was a suggestion by Michael O’Connor. He said seven a.m. to seven p.m.’s fine. We were the ones that threw out seven to nine, maybe sometimes around noon every now and then, and then in the evenings, and then when Mike and I went back and forth on those comments, you know, for a suggested condition, I put it in there that, let’s face it, if somebody’s going to a hospital or going to a doctors, and they say, listen, I need to run by and drop my dog off at eleven, is that going to be okay? We’re not going to tell them no. We’re not going to say, no, you can’t come in here, but at the same time, it’s not going to be a habit. You’re not going to have that person every time saying, well, I want to drop my dog off at eleven again. Well, no, you’re going to have to make alternate arrangements, and they will be offering to pick up a dog. So if they have to go out to the person’s house to say, well, you know, you may want to drop it off at eleven, but we’ll come get it, you know, it’s not going to be at a different time or something. So we’re going to be accommodating. They’re going to attempt to stick to those hours of operation. The seven to seven comment was thrown out there not by us, but by a few of the neighbor’s attorneys. I’m not sure how many. So that’s where that came from. Again, we’re not being inconsistent. It’s reacting to comments that have been raised. Tom? MR. HUTCHINS-You hit most of them. MR. FULLER-Okay. MR. HUTCHINS-Yes, you touched on most of them. Somebody talked about sealed plans, and we’ve had this discussion before, before this Board, that we don’t like to seal plans because they always get changed and there’s so many of them change. So we don’t seal every set of plans that comes before this Board on a review process, and when we’re approved, then we submit sealed plans. We’ve been through that before, and that isn’t something that, we would expect to submit sealed plans when the time comes. MR. HUNSINGER-The other comment was about past practice with Special Use Permits, and I think this is a discussion we need to have anyway, in light of the agreed conditions of approval that are attached here. Typically, when a Special Use Permit is approved by the Board, it is within our jurisdiction and our discretion to have a renewal period. Since I’ve been on the Planning Board, there have been multiple Special Use Permits that have come back to the Board for renewal, and each of those occasions, there were no objections to any neighbors. A public hearing was held, and those permits were renewed by this Board, and that’s how this would occur as well. However, we now have, based on this document that you’ve presented, there would be an opportunity for neighbors to file a petition or to file a, they don’t give it a term, but they would file an objection with the Board. Typically, if there’s an issue with the Code, once this Board approves a project, if there’s an issue with the project it then goes to Code Enforcement, and it’s Code Enforcement that deals with it, not this Board. I just wanted to make sure that the public realized that, and there have been instances where the Town has taken a property owner to court for violation of their Site Plan Review or for violation of the Town Code. That is always an option that the Town has, but Code Enforcement typically is not something that this Board addresses, unless there’s mitigation proposed or a change in the Site Plan then proposed to mitigate these issues, and then it would come back to us for Site Plan Review, but I just wanted to get your comments on how you see this agreement operating. MR. FULLER-I think you hit it right on the head. MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. MR. FULLER-That was the conversation and the basis of the proposal was in lieu of saying three or four years, you know, leave it out there, that if we get towards the end of that three or four year period, and everything’s gone fine, then it becomes permanent, but if we get out to that four year period and something has gone wrong, then it can come back to you, again, for mitigation, and that was the conversation that Michael O’Connor and I had, you know, in lieu of saying, you’re going to come back here, re- apply, go through this entire process again, let’s leave the opportunity that, hey, if this has gone fine, let’s not go back through this process again, and raise objections for objections. Let’s, if there’s an objection that’s concrete and we need to deal with it, then we’ll come back, mitigate it. If not, then it becomes permanent thereafter. So he and I 11 (Queensbury Planning Board 06/23/09) went back and forth on that a couple of times, with the language, and in the end, like I said, I think certainly it’s a little bit different than a flat out, in five years you’re coming back, or something like that. MR. HUNSINGER-Right. MR. FULLER-I think it’s reasonable. I think it works. It allows the family to protect the investment, and at the same time I think gives the neighbors, if there is a significant issue, to raise it, and so, in the end, obviously we wouldn’t like to see any timeframe, but if one was discussed, it is within the Board’s discretion. John and I discussed it, and Mike and I worked out the language. MR. HUNSINGER-And of course any formal agreement, there’s nothing that would not allow a neighbor from approaching you directly with any kind of issue, and I would anticipate that that would be the first step anyway. MR. FULLER-Absolutely. We hope. MR. SEGULJIC-I guess, could you just flesh out this language for me? So the way the draft agreement reads is it’s a proposed four year permit, Special Use Permit, and at the end of four years, it would be automatically renewed, unless an application is filed not to extend or renew the permit by a neighboring property owner or resident. Application is filed, I mean, isn’t that reverse? MR. FULLER-Just a letter. I think it would be the reverse. Basically, as you said, if some comment came up, and hopefully they would talk about it. Hopefully it wouldn’t be coming here first, but that opportunity would exist that if a condition or something, even something that hasn’t been discussed here tonight, but something happens out there that affects the neighbors and prior to the expiration of that, they can’t get it resolved with the family, a letter can come in from the Town, and we’re going to have to come back here and address it. MR. SEGULJIC-I guess, what’s the hurdle for that, coming back in? I mean, someone complains about lights? It’s not really spelled out in here as to what the hurdle would be. MR. FULLER-We talked about that. We couldn’t have a laundry list of requirements. I think we said a material failure to comply with this. MR. SEGULJIC-So in some ways you’re leaving it up to the Zoning Administrator, I guess, to be the ultimate judge, as I read this. MR. FULLER-I think. MR. SEGULJIC-So what you’re proposing is you get a permit for four years, the way this is written, you get a permit for four years, and if no negative letters are submitted, you get a permanent permit, then. MR. FULLER-Still subject to those conditions that are on there. MR. SEGULJIC-How are people going to know? MR. FULLER-It’s right now. We’re saying within four years from this date, whenever, if you approved it tonight, four years from now, within that timeframe, that’s when it would expire, and again, the remainder of the conditions, if it’s sold. MR. SEGULJIC-I guess where I’m getting hung up, so let’s say someone calls and makes a verbal call, complaint of some type, as I read this, that wouldn’t count then. MR. FULLER-If it’s significant. Again, just like any Code Enforcement matter, it’s still going to be the discretion, no different than if somebody’s violated their Site Plan or Special Use Permit. It’s still going to be the discretion of the Zoning Administrator as to whether or not that’s happened. That’s always going to be the case for any application that’s here, subdivision, Site Plan, even this. MRS. STEFFAN-Well, you know, and I think the other issue that’s kind of cloudy here for the Planning Board members is that this, the conditions of approval that we got tonight, is an agreement between the applicant and some of the members of the public. This is not a Planning Board document, and we can accept pieces and parts of this and make it included as conditions of our approval, but this is not a Town document. 12 (Queensbury Planning Board 06/23/09) MR. SEGULJIC-I’m not following that exactly. MR. FULLER-That was our proposal. MR. SEGULJIC-Okay. Yes. So we can accept all of this, (lost words). MRS. STEFFAN-Correct. MR. SEGULJIC-Okay. MRS. STEFFAN-And as you’re dissecting the draft agreement, you know, there are things that are in here that are nice, but as far as, there are things in here we can’t regulate, as a Planning Board. Even if we put these conditions in, we wouldn’t put them in our motion because we can’t regulate it. We don’t have an enforcement mechanism. So it would be the same thing we’ve talked about in the past about putting a condition of no fertilizer, and it’s something we can’t enforce. It’s a feel good thing in our motions. So there are a couple of issues here that are nice, as far as their agreement goes, but it really, it may not be things we want to put in our motion. MR. SEGULJIC-Right. MR. TRAVER-The other regulatory body, if you will, that’s associated with much of the design of this facility is the Pet Care Services Association and I think it might be a good idea to put in the language in here somewhere that the PCSA accreditation be attained and maintained, as part of the operating permit. MR. FULLER-I think we did. MR. TRAVER-I don’t remember, I know it talks about, permittee will construct and operate the kennel per the standards of the Pet Care Services Association. MR. FULLER-Or a like organization with higher standards. MR. TRAVER-Or a like organization. MRS. STEFFAN-But we can put that in there, but here’s no way we can regulate that. There’s no way that we can hold them to that standard. They’ve proposed that information to us, and I think in a very positive way, that the applicant provided us with that information so we had an objective standard from which to evaluate the application, and so I think that that’s important, but from a Town enforcement point of view, we can’t make sure that the applicant runs their business according to those standards. They’re looking for certification and that’s something they do as an independent business, but the Planning Board in the Town of Queensbury has no regulatory authority to make sure that they comply with those things. MR. SEGULJIC-Right, but can’t we, I mean, one of the things they propose in here is permittee shall file with the Town Planning Board a copy of the application. I mean, can’t we state that they need to get certified within two years or something like that? MRS. STEFFAN-Right. That’s their goal, and they provided that in the documents. MR. TRAVER-Yes. It looks like it’s about an 18 months process. MR. FULLER-Yes. MR. SEGULJIC-And you were always comfortable with that, and that was one of your goals. MR. TRAVER-It looks like it’s from, basically from approval, my guess would be about an 18 month process to get the initial accreditation, and then it’s renewed in five year increments. MRS. STEFFAN-I thought it was 12 months? Was it 12 months? I thought it was six and six? MR. TRAVER-Well, it’s six and six, but once the facility is up and running. So if you give them six months to. 13 (Queensbury Planning Board 06/23/09) JOHN POLUNCI MR. POLUNCI-You have to be open for six months, and then after six months you’d have to, there’s schooling that goes along with it, and it is 12 months where you’re eligible for it, but there’s some time in there where they may say you have to, as here, you have to change this and come back. MR. TRAVER-So my thought was 18 to give them a window to attain that certification, if we chose to use that language. MRS. STEFFAN-Okay. Because one of the things that I was doing, in considering this, because based on our last meeting, it seemed that the public was going to be okay with the new proposal, based on what was presented, the standards that were presented from the Pet Care Association, the standards that the applicant agreed to, and, even though they were talking about a four year period, I thought a two year period would be better, but I have to re-think that now that you’re talking about your certification, and the reason I came up with a two year period, it’s not arbitrary. It’s just in business, a business cycle is a year, and so, obviously it’s going to take you some time, if you got an approval, to construct this, and once you got your certificate of occupancy, then you have to kind of work out your business systems. Usually in the first year of business, those things happen. So you would get those things worked out, and then you would have a full year, after you’ve had your business systems in place, to see whether this is working. The other thing is that it would also give the public an opportunity to see whether this is really working on their behalf. Because this is an application, this is a Special Use Permit application. So based on the public controversy that came up as a result of the application, I looked at the two year period as a way for the applicant to demonstrate that they can successfully pull this off as presented, and it would give the public an opportunity to feel like, okay, it’s not going to be forever if this is not working out, and the applicant is not complying with all the things that they said they would do. So, I was looking at a two year period versus a four year period, but, you know, I’m one member of seven. MR. HUNSINGER-Mr. O’Connor, did you have some comments that you wanted to make? MICHAEL O’CONNOR MR. O'CONNOR-My name has been used. I would like to state something. MR. HUNSINGER-Yes. I was going to say, I’ll need to get you on the microphone, though. MR. O'CONNOR-For the purpose of your record, I’m Michael O’Connor. I am an attorney for some of the neighbors. I have no disagreement with Matt said. I do disagree, though, with what Mrs. Steffan has said, and I think you have to be very careful. The applicant has made that agreement and those conditions part of its application or their application, and all we’re asking you to do is condition your approval, if you’re going to approve this, upon them following what they have said that they will do. A big part of the problem here is a moving target, which maybe I and Matt understand better than some other people, because you always change your application a little bit, but it would be arbitrary and capricious of you not to accept what they have offered as mitigation, and it would also be very misleading to many of the neighbors who had that agreement circulated to them within the last week, saying this is what the applicant has agreed to. We think it’ll solve a lot of your problems, and you’ve heard most people say, if you’re going to accept those conditions, we can live with it. So I’d just strongly say that those conditions should be made a part of your approval in total. If you want to add to them, that’s fine, but that is part of the offered mitigation by the applicant. So, thank you. MR. HUNSINGER-Thank you. MRS. STEFFAN-Thank you. MR. FORD-Good points. MR. SEGULJIC-I guess could I ask Staff a question, please. With regards to their proposal for four years, and then an automatic renewal unless, I guess, some material objection is forwarded. How does that sound to Staff? Does that make sense? Is that workable? 14 (Queensbury Planning Board 06/23/09) MR. OBORNE-I think it’s cumbersome, but that’s just an opinion. It’s difficult, just as the secretary said, to enforce. It’s not in the Code. MR. HUNSINGER-Well, thank you for the comments, Mr. O’Connor, but in my mind, and I think, you know, and I can’t really speak for Gretchen, but I think we’re thinking, well, we could always do something that’s more stringent, and certainly if there’s a complaint, Code Enforcement’s going to go and investigate that anyway. So, if there’s an item in here that they’re not following, if there’s an item in their Site Plan approval that they’re not following, and there’s a complaint filed, and Code Enforcement goes and investigates, there’s going to be some kind of action by the Town. MR. OBORNE-If it’s an enforceable complaint. MR. HUNSINGER-Right. So even if we agree to the conditions that are here on paper, that doesn’t mean that the Town doesn’t have other automatic oversight of the project. MR. FULLER-And I would agree. MR. O'CONNOR-I don’t think Mr. Fuller or I intended that to be a stop gap. MR. HUNSINGER-Exactly. MR. O'CONNOR-This was an ultimate that we had said, if it was cumbersome, it was substantial and repetitive, the people could come in and ask that it not be renewed. MRS. STEFFAN-And they would have that right, but they would have that right anyway, upon renewal. MR. O'CONNOR-The compromise the neighbors and I (lost word) to said they had no problem with it being automatically renewed, unless somebody came forward. It made it a little bit simpler for the applicant. It was a, it’s a give and take type thing. The opponents gave something up. The applicant gave up different things as they went through with their application. So it was a give and take type thing. That was a give and take on behalf of the opposition. MR. FULLER-And as far as the different things that are in here, I think they are enforceable. We’ve agreed to supply the application, agreed to supply the permit, if we accomplish that and make it to that goal. If those things aren’t satisfied, there’s recourse, and this isn’t intended to circumvent or subvent any of that. So I would agree with Mike on that comment, is these are conditions. You still have the fact, and the fact that it is in our application does make it binding. The fact that it’s also a condition is kind of belt and suspenders, because if an applicant proposes something, and then doesn’t meet that proposition, they haven’t met their approval. It’s different, it would be different, I think, from an enforcement standpoint if the Planning Board came up with the standard and said we found this on line, we want to impose this, you need to meet it. Then I think it’s an enforcement issue, and I think it’s a bit of a constitutional issue, but when an applicant comes forward and proposes it, it’s part of the application, no different than X lights in a parking lot. If they’ve got 20 and only have approval for 15, they’ve violated their approval. MRS. STEFFAN-So even if the Pet Care Services Association goes bankrupt and out of business, because the document is in part of the Site Plan approval, that’s the criteria which you will be measured against. MR. FULLER-Or a like organization, with like or higher standards. So it couldn’t be something we form and say we accredited ourselves. I think you guys would see that coming, but not to make light of that comment, but that’s why we, it actually got put in there because of that. Hey, we don’t know, SPCA, you don’t know who’s going to be around 20 years from now, and, you know, that needs to be taken into consideration. That’s why we worded it like that. MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. MR. FULLER-And as far as the timeframe and things like that, there were a lot of different things in here. We’re getting, if they ever sell it, they have no desire to. That’s not in the plans, not even in the cards, but when this came over to me, it had this condition in there that we didn’t talk about last time about notifying neighbors. The first time I saw it I said, we’re not doing that. This Board has never imposed a condition that you’ve got to notify your neighbors if you’re going to sell your property. I think that would 15 (Queensbury Planning Board 06/23/09) be far overreaching. Mike and I talked about it. It was more of an immediate neighbors type of issue. We came to an agreement that, okay, these immediate neighbors, not a problem. If they ever intend to sell it, you know, it’s in the permit. It’s in the condition. We’ll agree to that. So the fact of four years and then it becoming automatic, again, was part of that give and take, and while, yes, the Board could do two, just for the record, I think two years would be tough for any applicant to meet and justify an investment of this magnitude. You probably hear that with timeframes on most Special Use Permits. It comes up a lot, but I think two years is very short, especially, particularly given the investment that they’ve gone through just to get us to where we are here tonight. In addition to the double walls and, you know, just things that aren’t in, I would predict, any veterinary office or any other kennel around. I think we’ve done a good job. The investment is much higher than certainly would have been with an outdoor, and it was done so intentionally, and I think that does warrant a condition like this, because of that. I think they’ve shown that they’re going to go to that extra step to mitigate these issues. So I guess that’s my take on the timeframe. MR. HUNSINGER-Anything else from the Board? MR. KREBS-I’d just like to say one thing, and that is the fact that we have a lot of confusion in this community as to what the Comprehensive Plan is. The Comprehensive Plan was put together by myself, Gretchen, and our Chairman and other people to make recommendations to the Town Board on what the zoning should be. It is not a law. It has no legal bearing. The Town, as Matt Fuller pointed out, the Town Board has reconfirmed that a permitted use in this area is a dog kennel. I just want you to understand that the Comprehensive Plan is not law. There is a zoning law, and that’s all. MRS. STEFFAN-But it is up to the Planning Board to review the application. MR. KREBS-Yes, I’m not saying it isn’t. I hear this continually from people that have a misconception that the Comprehensive Plan is a law. It is not. MRS. STEFFAN-No, it’s not, but it does provide the. MR. KREBS-It provides guidance to, and it was proposed, and we put it together to provide guidance to the Town Board in making changes to the Zoning Ordinance. MRS. STEFFAN-And it provides the Planning Board with context in which to make decisions on the zoning. So even though, for example, this is an allowed use, it puts, the Comprehensive Land Use Plan puts it in context so that we make better decisions. MR. SEGULJIC-Tom, a couple of questions for you. The septic system. It’s four foot, from the bottom of the septic to the groundwater is about four feet, if I read the plans correctly? MR. HUTCHINS-I’ll look to my test holes. I don’t believe I, I found no water table (lost words). MR. SEGULJIC-So it’s at least four feet. MR. HUTCHINS-It’s at least four feet. It’s probably more than that, Tom, because it’s on a rise, and you get into the Glen Lake typical bouldery glacial. MR. SEGULJIC-Okay, and all the chemicals you’d be using would be septic safe, then. MR. HUTCHINS-Yes. MR. SEGULJIC-Okay, and then with regards to the DEC or Army Corps permits, you had touched on that before. You might do some dredging, I thought? I mean, just clarify that for me. MR. HUTCHINS-I don’t have written documentation that the pond is not a DEC wetland. I have some documentation from a prior application on this site that I worked on that the only DEC wetland is on the entire back of the parcel, but it’s not, it’s hard fast written documentation. As far as Army Corps, anything we’re proposing is not a disturbance within this area. So they don’t have a regulatory buffer to their wetlands. You get an Army Corps permit if you’re going to work in their wetland. MR. SEGULJIC-Okay, and then that road that’s between the two ponds, you’re not doing anything to that road? That’s an existing road? 16 (Queensbury Planning Board 06/23/09) MR. HUTCHINS-No. We’re surfacing it, yes, it’s there. We’re improving the surface. MR. SEGULJIC-All right. MR. TRAVER-You’re putting boulders on each side of it, as I recall. MR. HUTCHINS-Yes. MR. SEGULJIC-I mean, I think you guys have come a long ways. I’m okay with everything. The only thing I question is the agreement about the renewal. It’s almost as if we’re granting a permanent permit, and I guess that’s the only thing I’m struggling with. I guess I’d just like to hear what the other Board members have to say. MRS. STEFFAN-Well, I know, I’m really bummed, as I sit here tonight, because we didn’t see this agreement until tonight, and for me, there’s something in here, and will be automatically renewed. I don’t think, as a Planning Board, we should be making a decision like that. The applicant’s got counsel. The public has counsel, but our counsel didn’t look at this agreement, and so I’m very concerned about that, because we could be making, obviously we’re binding the Town, and we don’t have legal opinion. th MR. FULLER-Gretchen, I can tell you, I sent this to the Town on June 8. So I apologize if you didn’t get it until tonight, but Keith and I had e-mails back and forth, you know, this can be released to the Planning Board immediately. There was a lengthy e-mail, I don’t know if you got it, that went with it. I mean, so this was out a long time ago. I apologize you didn’t get it until tonight, but the Town had this, and I took, Mike and I passed the filing deadline to get it done, that was because of my schedule. I would tell you that the Town had this a long time ago. MR. OBORNE-The Town had a rough draft. The Town did not have a final completed agreement, and you were still working on it, and they did get it in their packets on Friday. MR. HUNSINGER-Is that the only issue left for members of the Board? MR. SEGULJIC-That’s my issue. MR. TRAVER-The issue of renewal? MR. HUNSINGER-Yes. MR. SIPP-I think that there should be a method by which in four years there could be a review, some type of review, maybe not in depth, but at least a public hearing or such that this plan has come a long ways, as Matt said to me one time, the Planning Board has changed this original submission considerably and made it much better, as far as I can see, and except for eliminating an automatic renewal, I think this has a good chance of working the way it is now. MR. FORD-I really appreciate the effort and the discussions and the negotiations and the compromises that have been made. I appreciate everyone’s input. I don’t happen to share the concern over the end of the four year term, and the problem that may exist, because it clearly specifies that a single individual can bring to the Town’s attention that there are violations or problems that occur, and they must be addressed at that time. I don’t have a problem with this document. I think it’s okay, as a compromise. MR. HUNSINGER-Anyone else? My thought is I think I’d like to have our counsel review this before we act on it. How does the rest of the Board feel? MR. FORD-I certainly don’t have a problem with that. MR. HUNSINGER-If that’s the only remaining issue, just hear me out for a second. We could get this to counsel and we can finalize it, at maybe our first meeting in July. MR. OBORNE-If that is your wish, absolutely. th MR. KREBS-You mean, are you talking about the July 7 meeting? MR. HUNSINGER-No, the first regular meeting of July. st MR. TRAVER-The 21. 17 (Queensbury Planning Board 06/23/09) MR. HUNSINGER-Yes. MR. TRAVER-Mr. Chairman, it’s my recollection that Special Use Permits, when they’ve come in for renewal, typically if there hasn’t been a change in the operation involved, it’s a fairly straightforward process, and not as cumbersome as the duty that the applicant has had to perform tonight. I mean, I guess I would ask the applicant, because it might the eliminate the concern about counsel if we eliminated the automatic renewal and had a renewal in four years. Because I think, in the absence of complaints, and no changes in the Site Plan, it would be a fairly straightforward and simple process, and that would eliminate, I think, a number of reservations that we have with regards to binding the Town to basically eliminating a renewable permit. I know that’s a change from what you propose, but I would just ask the applicant how you would feel about that, and I say that because I think if that stipulation were removed, we might be looking at possible an approval. MR. POLUNCI-That makes sense, but my concern is the use of my property for my own personal animals. In this time and this process, I’ve been nothing but harassed, okay, on my property, and I have an issue with this. As long as it’s stated in there, I don’t care what you do, or how you do it, I think it’s shown that at this point in time I’ve gone to great lengths to say, I’m willing to work with my neighbors, even though they live 1500 feet away, I’m willing to do whatever it takes to make this work, because this is my wife’s passion. This is my wife’s dream. We have a considerable amount of animals over there that are taken care of very well and they’ve been out there for the last eight years. That’s nine dogs, pigs, goats, everything, and they don’t even know they’re there, and what I don’t want is I don’t want them to say, I hear a dog barking, and it’s my animal. I will keep any of the animals in the kennel there, and I have no problem with it. My only thing is I want some safety for me, because sometimes there’s some irrationality that’s going on, and emotion in here. What’s going to protect me? There’s nothing here protecting me. I’m spending $130,000 on this, plus legal fees at this point, and there’s no protection for me, the applicant, and that’s where I get a little concerned here. I don’t believe noise will be an issue. That’s why we went with an indoor kennel. I actually got that idea from you. I read the minutes and it said indoor kennel, and I found a way to make that work. I have no problem with that, doing a four year renewable permit, but what’s protecting me, you know, if we put those in there, for protecting me slightly, to say, listen, I’ll give you guys, the neighbors, an opportunity to protest this, but if there’s no protesting, it rolls over, and that’s, my only concern is my own animals. I’m not going to get into a match about my animals being on the property. MR. TRAVER-Well, I think, I understand your concern. However, I think your concern is really separate from the issue of making it automatically renewable, and I say that because if your relationship with your neighbors is such that, as you say, you feel you’re being harassed, then very likely, even with this document as drafted, you may have complaints would trigger a renewal application in any case. MR. POLUNCI-I understand. MR. TRAVER-So what I’m trying to suggest is that we bypass the possibility of additional delay in giving you an opportunity to get this started, by eliminating the issue of binding us to, in effect, turn a Planning Board responsibility over to your neighbors, relying upon them not to complain, and rather say let’s give you an opportunity to do what you’ve pledged to do, with the help of your neighbors and their representatives and see if this works and take a look at it in four years. If there has been no substantial change, and your performance, according to what you’ve presented, has been good, and it certainly seems like you have a very good plan, then our discussion is going to be very limited, and I think you can have every reason to expect a renewal. If the problems that you are concerned about remain after four years, then you may have an issue with the renewal in any case. So, I’d just leave that for you to consider for this evening. MR. HUNSINGER-Well, what’s the will of the Board? MR. FULLER-We would so concede, if that’s the will of the Board. MR. SEGULJIC-To make it a four year renewable, then. MR. FORD-Well, there’s a difference between four year renewable, or renewable at the end of four years. MR. FULLER-That’s a good point, Tom. 18 (Queensbury Planning Board 06/23/09) MRS. STEFFAN-And those are things that I think that the Town Attorney has to help us with. I’m just, I’m not going to cover the Town with that. I think that would be wrong. MR. TRAVER-I think if it’s renewable. MR. FULLER-That means us just sending an application. We’ve complied with the permit, please put us on an agenda to renew. I think that’s what the comment is. I think we’d agree with that. MR. SEGULJIC-Yes. MR. TRAVER-If that’s the case, then I have no problem, and I don’t see a legal, I mean, I’m not an attorney, but I don’t think that there would be a, I can’t see anything in here that would be a concern, because we’re not committing the Town to anything. The applicant is making the commitment, not the Town. MR. FORD-I can see that that’s a safeguard, and I could agree to that. I don’t think it’s necessary, but I could agree to it. MR. FULLER-One question. Would you want to measure it from tonight or the issuance of the CO? MR. KREBS-I would think from the CO. MR. FULLER-From the CO. That’s what I was going to say. MR. FORD-That was the agreement. MR. TRAVER-I guess, I would defer to the Chairman, whatever the practice has been. MR. FULLER-I think it’s been the CO. MR. FORD-Conceivably, when could you project a CO to be issued? MR. FULLER-It depends. MR. FORD-Assuming approval. MR. POLUNCI-We’re hoping to be a year, but, I mean, it’s probably going to take us a year now by the time. MR. FULLER-No, no, your CO to get started. When you start construction, when would you be done with construction? MR. OBORNE-The building permit. MR. POLUNCI-We’d want to file the building permit as soon as possible. MR. FULLER-Early Fall? MRS. STEFFAN-CO is the Certificate of Occupancy, and that means the building has to be completed, ready to move in, the dogs are ready to come in. MR. FORD-The CO is a year away. MR. KREBS-Which is really the beginning of the operation anyway. MR. HUNSINGER-Exactly. So does the Board want to move forward with this without counsel input? MR. KREBS-I certainly would. MRS. STEFFAN-I would say absolutely not. MR. HUNSINGER-How about down here? The question was do you feel comfortable moving forward without input from our Town Attorney? MR. TRAVER-With the conditions of a four year renewable. 19 (Queensbury Planning Board 06/23/09) MR. FORD-I feel comfortable with it. MR. SEGULJIC-So I guess we would be talking about a renewable permit, correct? That’s what we’re talking about. MR. FULLER-Correct. MR. HUNSINGER-Yes. MR. SEGULJIC-Then, yes, I’m fine with that. MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. Well, in that case, I will close the public hearing. PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED MR. FULLER-Just real quick, the two things we threw out about the, while you’re discussing resolutions, the trees and the stop sign. We got focused on the conditions, and just some of those Site Plan related issues, if the Board had a preference. Obviously, again, we would like to leave as many trees as we possibly can, but if we have to go to the limits of clearing that we’ve shown, we understand. Again, our strong preference would be to leave the trees. MR. POLUNCI-It would approximately affect I’d say about 150 trees or more. MR. HUNSINGER-Wow. MR. POLUNCI-Because you’re going to cut the root systems, the other ones (lost word). MR. KREBS-And you’re saying not to go to 20 feet? MR. POLUNCI-We’re saying leaving what’s there, that’s been used by Schermerhorn with all those (lost words) and dump trucks. You have a site, you can see cars, and there’s a turnoff. That picture I took right there, there’s a turnoff right next to it. So people can get past, in and out of there. MR. TRAVER-And if it’s an issue, we’ll know about it in four years. MR. HUNSINGER-Well, here’s the question that I have, though, regarding that, and I’m not sure where the comment initially came from, if it came from the engineer or from Staff, but it says that the access road taper is 17 feet by the ponds, as denoted on the plans, road widths per Section D103.4 Fire Code of New York State must be a minimum of 20 feet in width for emergency vehicles, but the trees that we’re talking about are up closer to Blind Rock Road. MR. FULLER-Yes, where we have the width. MR. HUNSINGER-You already have the width there. MR. FULLER-Yes. The turnoffs and things for the fire department were already satisfactory as we had out there. MR. HUNSINGER-That’s why I asked the question. Because you don’t need to widen the road closer to Blind Rock in order to meet Fire Code. MR. FORD-Correct. MR. TRAVER-And the only other issue is the stop sign. MR. HUNSINGER-Yes. MR. TRAVER-And it’s for exiting purposes. So I would say I’d be fine with a small one. I think it’s a good idea. MR. SEGULJIC-I really don’t see a need for a stop sign. I think people know to stop. I hope they know to stop. MR. FULLER-It might be a lot to ask. 20 (Queensbury Planning Board 06/23/09) MR. HUNSINGER-Well, what’s the will of the Board here? MR. SEGULJIC-I guess, not to cloud the matter. MRS. STEFFAN-Somebody else would need to put a motion forward, because I cannot support going forward with an approval on this project without having our Town Attorney review this agreement. MR. SEGULJIC-Well, that’s what I was going to ask about the agreement. Do we embody the agreement in our motion or not? MR. HUNSINGER-Well, my opinion is, for what it’s worth, the standard resolution references the application in all the submissions. MR. SEGULJIC-Then it will be embodied in. MR. HUNSINGER-This application is supported with all documentation, public comment and application material in the file of record, and so since it was submitted to be in the file of record, it’s already on file. MR. TRAVER-So you just need to note that one minor change with renewal. MR. HUNSINGER-Right. That you would have to specify in your resolution. The other question that I would ask of Staff, I guess, is in the draft resolution, the Special Use Permit and the Freshwater Wetlands permit were combined, and typically we do that as separate resolutions. Is there a strong preference one way or the other? MR. OBORNE-You may do so. I mean, we don’t usually put it on agenda as separate, but, I mean, if you’re more comfortable doing it. MR. HUNSINGER-I’m asking if it makes a difference? MR. OBORNE-I don’t think it makes a difference at all. MR. HUNSINGER-Okay, and it is a Type II action, under SEQRA. MRS. STEFFAN-I just have to tell you guys, you are willing to agree to this agreement that was provided by the applicant, that says that this Special Use Permit will be automatically renewed as a permanent permit unless an application is filed not to extend or renew the permit by a neighboring property. MR. FULLER-No, we’re removing that. MR. SEGULJIC-No, we’re not. MRS. STEFFAN-You are willing. MR. SEGULJIC-No we are not willing. MR. FULLER-We’ve removed that. MR. SEGULJIC-They’ve removed that. MR. KREBS-We’re going to make that a condition. MR. SEGULJIC-And that’s the issue I have, if this becomes embodied so we have to change that language. MRS. STEFFAN-Okay. So you’re going to do a scratch and paste. MR. SEGULJIC-Well, that’s what we were just discussing. MR. HUNSINGER-That’s what you have to put in the resolution. MRS. STEFFAN-I think you’re on very shaky ground. MR. HUNSINGER-You have to deal with that in the resolution, then. MR. KREBS-Well, this resolution is part of the application, though. 21 (Queensbury Planning Board 06/23/09) MR. TRAVER-Right, but the point that she’s making is that we would need to modify part of the application in the resolution. We’d have to note that in the resolution. MR. HUNSINGER-No, I think you’d just make it a special condition of approval. You’d make it a special condition of approval, and that’s what we always do. A special condition of approval is where the special condition is different than what’s been submitted, for example, engineering signoff. Because it’s not in the record, yet, so you say it’s subject to engineering signoff. So in this case it would be it’s subject to all of the documentation and submission, with the special condition. MR. SEGULJIC-Could we just say that, then, Paragraph One, the agreed conditions are eliminated, to be replaced with, that this shall be a four year renewable. MR. FULLER-If the Board will hear me out, I will offer to amend the application as follows. Right at the end of the last parenthetical where the addresses are, it says and will be automatically, here’s what I would propose. We say and may be renewed on application by the applicant, and then we scratch the rest of that sentence, then it will begin with the next sentence. The application to extend or renew must be filed prior to the date set forth for expiration and shall be made in accordance with the applicable provision now applying to Special Use Permits for a kennel. MR. TRAVER-And that’s now on the record. MR. FULLER-And we would be willing to stipulate to that, and I’ll give you this. I don’t have a copy myself, but I think I’d submit this for Staff. MR. FORD-Did you discuss that with Mr. O’Connor prior to submission of this? MR. FULLER-He was whispering in my ear. MR. SEGULJIC-So, we have to go through the motion prepared by Staff, and then this is a special condition. Well, can I just say as modified and submit this, then? No? MR. OBORNE-Are you asking me? MR. SEGULJIC-Yes. I’m asking your opinion. MR. OBORNE-I strongly urge the Board to have counsel look at that. That’s my advice. MR. SEGULJIC-Okay. MR. FULLER-And I think, with all due respect, that it’s a further delay, and I understand some people’s reluctance, but I think, if this was a significant legal actual issue, I would more fully understand it, but this is, if there was a concern about whether or not the renewable with the neighbor’s objection, that’s fine, but I think we’ve taken that off the table and recommended a condition no different than you do every other application. You scratch out some parts of the resolution, you adopt the rest. I just, again, it’s within the Board’s discretion, but I think there’s some undercurrent, not like you Gretchen, but there’s some undercurrents that want to delay this, and I think we’ve come a long way. MRS. STEFFAN-And I believe very strongly that we are light years from where we were when we had the denial. I mean, this application, in my mind, has satisfied the criteria of the neighbors and some of their concerns. You came back and you modified the application to meet the Town’s needs. We are light years from where we were, but I’m very concerned about this being a legal document, and, you know, it would be a month. We’d get you on the agenda, first thing in July, first item, but I’m only one member. MR. SEGULJIC-What are your thoughts, Mr. Chairman? MR. HUNSINGER-Well, I was the one that suggested that. I would feel a lot better having counsel take a look at it. One of the things that counsel has mentioned to us multiple occasions, and almost every time at a workshop, and that is we don’t need to feel obligated to offer a resolution the night of the meeting. I did close the public hearing. So the clock started to tick. We have to come up with a decision. I’m not hearing any objection from the Board on any, you know, other issues, engineering issues, Staff comments or anything else. I think it’s just an issue of drafting the final resolution that everyone’s comfortable with. 22 (Queensbury Planning Board 06/23/09) MR. SEGULJIC-Okay. MR. HUNSINGER-I feel more comfortable having counsel weigh in on that. th MR. SEGULJIC-Could we get this on the July 7 meeting? No? Okay. MR. OBORNE-The agenda’s already been set. MR. FULLER-He has the authority to change it. MR. HUNSINGER-Well, that’s what I was going to ask. If there’s no public hearing, what’s the public notification requirement? MR. OBORNE-Well, if there’s no public hearing, there’s no reason for public notification. MR. HUNSINGER-Yes. Exactly. Of course, I don’t know if counsel can turn it around, well, I’m sure they could turn it around in two weeks. MR. OBORNE-So you would have this as an Administrative Item, or as a full? st MR. HUNSINGER-Well, I’d rather just wait until the 21 and have it as a, I mean, we could do it first on the agenda. MR. OBORNE-And I would suggest that, because it’s not the only issue that’s before you either with this application. There is a little bit of fleshing out that needs to be taken care of. MR. HUNSINGER-There is, I agree. MR. SEGULJIC-Okay. So back to Gretchen for a tabling motion, then. MR. HUNSINGER-That would be my recommendation. MR. SEGULJIC-Okay. MR. OBORNE-Mr. Chairman, are you planning on re-opening the public hearing? MR. HUNSINGER-No. I don’t see a need to, to be honest. MR. KREBS-I don’t understand why we can’t just put some more criteria here. I mean, you’ve got criteria already in the proposed motion. Staff even left I available for us to add something to it. MR. OBORNE-Well, I think the reason that I’m uncomfortable is that the applicant and a lawyer for some of the public have come up with a document that was handed to me tonight in its clean form, okay, and also some of the public’s, and I repeat that, some of the public, is represented by a lawyer, and that lawyer stated that if you don’t accept this, you’d be arbitrary and capricious. I highly suggest that you let counsel look at this. MR. FULLER-I flat out disagree. That’s not what Mike said, and that is a, I’ll let him speak if he wants to, but that’s a misrepresentation of what he said. Again, if you have concerns, that’s fine, but to say that he threatened you that you were capricious if you didn’t adopt it. MR. OBORNE-No, I didn’t say he threatened. MR. FULLER-I don’t think he said that it was arbitrary if you didn’t. It’s completely up to you to adopt or not adopt that condition. MR. TRAVER-Well, speaking for myself, and I was initially in favor of expediting this because of the effort that the applicant has put forward to address these issues, I’ve heard several concerns about having counsel review the application and that’s sufficient for me. I understand that it’s a further delay, but I’ve heard enough voices expressing a desire that that process be carried forward that I can support that. MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. Would you like to make a motion, then? MRS. STEFFAN-Okay. 23 (Queensbury Planning Board 06/23/09) MOTION TO TABLE SPECIAL USE PERMIT NO. 15-2009 FRESHWATER WETLANDS NO. 1-2009 JOHN & KIM POLUNCI, 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 construction of a Kennel Facility which includes a 2,064 square foot Pet Care Building, a 576 square foot Administrative Building / Kennel with associated site improvements. Kennels in an RR zone require a Special Use Permit; Freshwater Wetlands Permit is required for land disturbance/filling within 100 feet of a wetlands boundary. Both are subject to Planning Board review and approval. 2)A public hearing was advertised and held on 4/21/09 & 6/23/09; and 3)This application is supported with all documentation, public comment and application material in the file of record; and 4)MOTION TO TABLE SPECIAL USE PERMIT NO. 15-2009 FRESHWATER WETLANDS NO. 1-2009 JOHN & KIM POLUNCI, Introduced by Gretchen Steffan who moved for its adoption, seconded by Stephen Traver: st This is tabled to the July 21 Planning Board meeting. So that the applicant can satisfy the recommendations cited in VISION Engineering comments, specifically nd Number 11, 12, 13, 14, 15. The letter was dated June 2, and they would need to obtain a signoff. The other issues is that the applicant has presented agreed conditions for approval to the Planning Board, and our Town Counsel will need to review that document and make recommendations to the Planning Board. MR. HUNSINGER-I guess an item of discussion. Dan, have you seen the revised plans? Because they do have a response letter here. MR. RYAN-No, I have not seen actual revised plans based on this letter. MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. MR. RYAN-But based on some of these issues, they certainly wouldn’t change the project to any degree. MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. So, in terms of re-submitting the information, do you see a problem in submitting it and Mr. Ryan looking at it? MR. RYAN-Yes. As soon as Staff forwards it on to us, we’ll take and expedite the review on that. Again, it’s mostly clean up that could be easily reviewed. MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. MR. HUTCHINS-We’re not looking at a full blown resubmission for the July meeting? MR. HUNSINGER-No, it’s just those items that are, but that’s why I brought it up, because I table it to a July meeting on the understanding that they really wouldn’t have to re-submit new information and new material for your review. MRS. STEFFAN-Well, I can withdraw that motion. Those are things that they would have to do before they got final signoff, and I could just include those as conditions. MR. HUNSINGER-No, I think your resolution is fine. MR. OBORNE-Yes, and I agree with that. I think that Dan has stated that there’s not going to be any real change to the plan, it’s just clean up, and as a condition of approval engineering signoff. MRS. STEFFAN-Okay. MR. HUNSINGER-Yes . Any further discussion? I just wanted to get that clarified. 24 (Queensbury Planning Board 06/23/09) AUDIENCE MEMBER-Is the public hearing still open? MR. HUNSINGER-No, I did close the public hearing, sir. AUDIENCE MEMBER-Can you re-open it? MR. HUNSINGER-We’re in the middle of a resolution. AUDIENCE MEMBER-I know you are, but (lost words) public hearing. MR. HUNSINGER-Yes, I did, and I asked several times if there were any additional comments from the public before I did that. AUDIENCE MEMBER-That was before you started this discussion. MR. HUNSINGER-Yes. I’m sorry if you didn’t hear it. AUDIENCE MEMBER-Because all of us aren’t (lost words) to that agreement. MR. HUNSINGER-I understand that. We understand that. Yes. Any other discussion from the Board? rd Duly adopted this 23 day of June, 2009, by the following vote: AYES: Mr. Sipp, Mr. Seguljic, Mr. Ford, Mrs. Steffan, Mr. Traver, Mr. Hunsinger NOES: Mr. Krebs MR. FULLER- Thank you. MR. HUNSINGER-We’ll see you in a month. Thank you. MRS. STEFFAN-We’ll see you in a month. SITE PLAN NO. 18-2009 SEQR TYPE UNLISTED JOSEPH & DEBRA GROSS OWNER(S) SAME ZONING LI-1A LOCATION 27 SILVER CIRCLE APPLICANT PROPOSES A MODIFICATION TO AN EXISTING APPROVED SITE PLAN FOR THE ADDITION OF TEMPORARY OPEN STORAGE SHED STRUCTURES AS WELL AS AS-BUILT CORRECTIONS TO THE ORIGINAL APPROVED PLAN. COMMERCIAL PROJECTS REQUIRING A BUILDING PERMIT IN THE LI ZONE REQUIRES PLANNING BOARD REVIEW AND APPROVAL. FURTHER USE OF PORTIONS OF TWO ADJOINING PARCELS FOR OUTSIDE STORAGE PROPOSED. CROSS REFERENCE SP 6-04, BP 04-783, 04-365; SUB 11-02 WARREN CO. PLANNING 4/8/09 LOT SIZE 3.43 +/- ACRES TAX MAP NO. 309.17-1-17.2, 15.1, 15.2 SECTION 179-9-010 TOM NACE, REPRESENTING APPLICANT, PRESENT MR. HUNSINGER-Whenever you’re ready, Keith. Thank you. MR. OBORNE-Site Plan 18-2009, Joseph Gross is the applicant. Site Plan Review for a commercial project requires a building permit. Location is 27 Silver Circle. It’s in Light Industrial 1-A is the zoning. SEQRA Status is an Unlisted. SEQRA review is required. Project Description: Applicant proposes a modification to an existing approved site plan for the addition of temporary open storage shed structures as well as as-built corrections to the originally approved plan. The design calls for three (3) covered storage areas, each approximately 2,240 square feet in area and include 2 storage containers for additional storage and roof support. The roof trusses of each storage shed is supported by a four foot knee wall stabilized by lag bolts, and I’m not going to go into too much detail here. Most of the issues have been addressed. Under additional comments. The Planning Board may wish to direct the applicant to have an engineer stamp affixed to as- built plans as suggested in Nace Engineering letter dated May 15, 2009. The Planning Board may consider approving the 11 additional parking spaces currently existing for the office. Parking calculation: 4000s.f. office/300g.l.f.a. = 13.33 spaces required. Plan denotes 25 existing spaces. Approval of this site plan, with revisions, will close out the S.P.I.R. associated with this parcel. MR. HUNSINGER-Thank you. Good evening. 25 (Queensbury Planning Board 06/23/09) MR. NACE-Good evening. For the record, Tom Nace of Nace Engineering and Joe Gross, owner of Gross Electric. I think we have taken care of most of the comments from before with the submission of a surveyed, as built drawing showing existing conditions as well as the proposed roof structures over the open storage areas. The only one that I know of that hasn’t been taken care of to date but would be at building permit is the request of the Town Engineer that the foundation details be provided for those open storage sheds, and those would be part of, normally would be part of a building permit application and not a Site Plan. MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. Anything else? MR. NACE-That’s all. MR. HUNSINGER-Questions, comments from members of the Board? MR. FORD-No. MR. KREBS-There was one other question I’d like to just ask, and that was how long are these temporary structures going to be there? JOE GROSS MR. GROSS-It obviously depends on the workload. I’m bursting at the seams right now. MR. KREBS-You should be happy about that. MR. GROSS-Yes. I can’t even tell you. I work more hours, we’re very fortunate. We’re very busy, bursting at the seams. I’m looking at this window of AMD work, so, I’m hoping they’re well needed for five to six, seven more years now. That’s why I went through the pain of putting them the way I did, so they could. MR. KREBS-Okay. MR. HUNSINGER-Anything else? We do have a public hearing scheduled this evening. Is there anyone in the audience that wants to address the Board on this application? I will open the public hearing. PUBLIC HEARING OPENED MR. HUNSINGER-And seeing how there are no comments, I will close the public hearing. PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED MR. HUNSINGER-No other questions, comments from the Board? MRS. STEFFAN-So all the pending items here will be satisfied when the final as builts are done, I’m assuming? Right, all the pending comments? MR. NACE-Right. These are the final as builts. They just need to be signed and sealed, and they will be. MRS. STEFFAN-Okay. So then the pendings are satisfied. So we really just have two issues with Staff comments, and then, other than that. MR. HUNSINGER-Board members comfortable with the parking as it is? MR. SEGULJIC-Yes. MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. MRS. STEFFAN-Do we have to specifically approve the 11 parking spaces, or do, if we approve the plan? MR. HUNSINGER-If we approve the plans, yes. It’s an Unlisted Action. They submitted a Short Form. MRS. STEFFAN-Okay. “Does the action exceed any Type I threshold in 6 NYCRR Part 617.4?” 26 (Queensbury Planning Board 06/23/09) 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. FORD-No. MRS. STEFFAN-“Could the action result in any adverse effects associated with the following: C1. Existing air quality, surface or ground water quality or quantity, noise levels, existing traffic patterns, solid waste production or disposal, potential for erosion, drainage or flooding problems?” MR. HUNSINGER-No. MR. FORD-No. MR. TRAVER-No. MRS. STEFFAN-“C2. Aesthetic, agricultural, historic, or other natural or cultural resources; or community or neighborhood character?” MR. HUNSINGER-No. MR. FORD-No. MRS. STEFFAN-“C3. Vegetation, fauna, fish, shellfish or wildlife species, significant habitats, or threatened or endangered species?” MR. HUNSINGER-No. MR. KREBS-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. FORD-No. MRS. STEFFAN-“C5. Growth, subsequent development or related activities likely to be induced by the proposed action?” MR. HUNSINGER-No. MR. FORD-No. MRS. STEFFAN-“C6. Long term, short term, cumulative or other effects not identified above?” MR. HUNSINGER-No. MR. FORD-No. MRS. STEFFAN-“C7. Other impacts (including changes in use of either quantity or energy)?” MR. FORD-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. 27 (Queensbury Planning Board 06/23/09) MR. SIPP-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-Then I’ll make a motion for a negative declaration. RESOLUTION WHEN DETERMINATION OF NO SIGNIFICANCE IS MADE RESOLUTION NO. 18-2009, Introduced Gretchen Steffan by who moved for its adoption, seconded by Thomas Ford: WHEREAS, there is presently before the Planning Board an application for: JOSEPH & DEBRA GROSS, 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. rd Duly adopted this 23 day of, June, 2009, by the following vote: AYES: Mr. Traver, Mr. Krebs, Mr. Seguljic, Mr. Sipp, Mrs. Steffan, Mr. Ford, Mr. Hunsinger NOES: NONE MRS. STEFFAN-So really all we have to do is approve this because the conditions in the Staff Notes, if the drawings are approved, and that includes the 11 additional spaces, if we approve it, it gets rid of the Site Plan deficiency report. MR. HUNSINGER-Right. Yes. MRS. STEFFAN-And they have to be stamped to be as builts, and to be accepted to the building permit. MR. HUNSINGER-Yes. MRS. STEFFAN-Okay. I’m just checking. MR. HUNSINGER-That’s my opinion, too. 28 (Queensbury Planning Board 06/23/09) MRS. STEFFAN-Okay. I’ll make a motion. MOTION TO APPROVE SITE PLAN NO. 18-2009 JOSEPH & DEBRA GROSS, 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 a modification to an existing approved site plan for the addition of temporary open storage shed structures as well as as-built corrections. Commercial projects requiring a building permit in the LI zone requires Planning Board review and approval. 2)A public hearing was advertised and held on 4/28/09 & 6/23/09; and 3)This application is supported with all documentation, public comment and application material in the file of record; and 4)MOTION TO APPROVE SITE PLAN NO. 18-2009 JOSEPH & DEBRA GROSS, Introduced by Gretchen Steffan who moved for its adoption, seconded by Thomas Ford: According to the resolution prepared by Staff. Paragraph Four A complies. Paragraph Four B, Negative. Paragraph Four E, F, J and K do not apply. a.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 b.The requirements of the State Environmental Quality Review Act have been considered and the Planning Board has adopted a SEQRA Negative Declaration; and c.Final approved plans, in compliance with the Site Plan, must be submitted to the Community Development Department before any further review by the Zoning Administrator or Building and Codes personnel. 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. d.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 e.NOT APPLICABLE. If applicable, Item 7 to be combined with a letter of credit; and f.NOT APPLICABLE. The Sanitary Sewer connection plan must be submitted to the Wastewater Department for its review, approval, permitting and inspection; and g.Waiver requests granted / denied: stormwater mgmt., grading, landscaping & lighting plans] h.The limits of clearing will constitute a no-cut buffer zone, orange construction fencing shall be installed around these areas and field verified by Community Development staff i.Engineering sign-off required prior to signature of Zoning Administrator. j.NOT APPLICABLE. The applicant shall submit a copy of a NOI [Notice of Intent] SWPPP [Stormwater Pollution Prevention Plan] & NOT [Notice of Termination] - see staff k.NOT APPLICABLE. The applicant shall submit a copy of a NYS SPDES [State Pollution Discharge Elimination System 29 (Queensbury Planning Board 06/23/09) rd Duly adopted this 23 day of June, 2009, by the following vote: AYES: Mr. Traver, Mr. Sipp, Mr. Seguljic, Mr. Krebs, Mr. Ford, Mrs. Steffan, Mr. Hunsinger NOES: NONE MR. HUNSINGER-You’re all set. Good luck. MR. NACE-Thank you. MR. GROSS-Thank you. SITE PLAN NO. 34-2009 SEQR TYPE TYPE II DARIUSZ & BOZENA JACKOWSKI OWNER(S) SAME ZONING RR-3A LOCATION BAY ROAD APPLICANT PROPOSES CONSTRUCTION OF SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENCE. SITE PLAN REVIEW IS REQUIRED AS A CONDITION OF A PREVIOUS SUBDIVISION APPROVAL. CROSS REFERENCE SUB 14-06, SUB 5-08 WARREN CO. PLANNING 6/10/09 APA, CEA, DEC, ACOE L G CEA LOT SIZE 3 +/- ACRES TAX MAP NO. 265-1-73.2 SECTION 179-9-010 MR. HUNSINGER-Is there anyone here representing the applicant? MR. OBORNE-Let me look out in the foyer. MR. HUNSINGER-Yes, please. Thank you. No? Okay. Well, is there anyone in the audience that’s here to address the Board on that application? AUDIENCE MEMBER-I had a couple of things, but they can wait. MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. As long as you don’t. Okay. I will then, well, we can do one of two things. We can either put them to the end, in the event they show up? Why don’t we do that. MR. FORD-Okay. Good. MR. SIPP-Yes. MR. HUNSINGER-And we’ll move on. SITE PLAN NO. 35-2009 SEQR TYPE TYPE II BRIAN GRANGER & BG LENDERS SERVICE, LLC OWNER(S) SAME ZONING MU LOCATION 18 ½ NEWCOMB STREET APPLICANT PROPOSES 70’ X 90’ EXPANSION TO STORAGE LOT ASSOCIATED WITH REPOSSESSION BUSINESS. MODIFICATION TO AN APPROVED SITE PLAN IN MIXED USE ZONE REQUIRES PLANNING BOARD REVIEW AND APPROVAL. CROSS REFERENCE SP 45-08, SP 51-08 WARREN CO. PLANNING 6/10/09 LOT SIZE 0.45, 0.44 & 0.16 ACRES TAX MAP NO. 309.10-1-62, 61, 60 SECTION 179-9-010 MARK NOORDSY, REPRESENTING APPLICANT, PRESENT MR. HUNSINGER-Keith, whenever you’re ready. MR. OBORNE-I will assume that the Planning Board has read the memorandum from the Zoning Administrator? MR. FORD-Yes. MR. OBORNE-Would you like me to read that into the record? MR. HUNSINGER-No, that’s okay. MR. OBORNE-Site Plan 35-2009, applicant BG Lenders Services, LLC, requested action, modification to an approved Site Plan in the MU zone requires Site Plan Review. Location 18 ½ Newcomb Street Existing Zoning: Mixed Use. SEQRA Status, this is a Type II SEQRA. Project Description, Applicant proposes a 70 by 90 foot expansion to processing and redemption area associated with Repossession business. This expansion will incorporate a portion of a recently purchased parcel to the rear of the business. The removal of existing septic structures, shed and boat to be accomplished 30 (Queensbury Planning Board 06/23/09) as part of the proposal. Modification to an approved site plan in the Mixed Use zone requires Planning Board review and approval. Staff comments. The applicant has stated that this proposal if for processing and redemption only and no storage of vehicles is proposed. The lot to be expanded upon has a 25 foot right of way for property to the west. This road will be graded and graveled as part of this proposal. What follows is plan review, and with that I’d turn it over to the Board. MR. HUNSINGER-Thank you. Good evening. MR. NOORDSY-Good evening. I’m Mark Noordsy, an attorney representing Brian Granger who’s the owner of BG Lenders, and as you may recall we’ve been here a couple of times before with regard to the repossession business that’s located on the property. We were here for approval of the office and the processing and redemption area and then subsequently for an off site storage area. This is with regard to a small parcel adjoining the existing property that Mr. Granger had an opportunity to purchase. The entire property is on the market so that he can find a spot where he can centralize everything and have a storage spot. This gives him a chance to have a more attractive offering, just by making his property a little bigger. The property that he’s purchased is in need of clean up, and as he’s doing that, he’d like to enlarge the processing and redemption area a little bit. The majority of the property, a slight majority of the property, would still remain green grassed. Storage will not be, this is still just for processing and redemption. Basically what this will allow is a little more elbow room to jockey the cars through as they’re being processed. Mr. Granger hasn’t had to utilize the Big Boom Road site that we were in front of you. Luckily enough he’s been able to use a spot in Clifton Park that comes without cost and without the need to make those improvements that he would have had to have done at that property. As long as he maintains what we had discussed with this Board, which was keeping this property for processing and redemption and not using it for storage, I don’t really see how the Board can mandate where his storage would occur. The fact that he didn’t choose to use the Big Boom Road storage, I don’t think, is of consequence, unless there was a complaint from a neighbor or some evidence of storage occurring on this property, which is not occurring. Without any complaints or any such evidence, I don’t see any reason for any protocol or what have you, but certainly we’d go through the details. Brian can go through the details of what he’s proposing with the property and address the Staff comments and answer any questions that you have. MR. HUNSINGER-Thank you. Go ahead. BRIAN GRANGER MR. GRANGER-The height of the fence, this is going to be consistent with what’s out front. It would be a six foot chain link with barbed wire. Redemption service will be gravel. The length of time that the vehicles are there is no more than, on average, three days, and that’s someone that’s redeeming. In New York State, the debtor has 10 days to redeem. We know within 24 hours if they’re getting their car back or not. If they’re not getting the car back, the car is out of there, if not already. If we’re picking up cars that are voluntary or they’re telling when we’re picking them up that they’re not getting them back, they don’t come back to Newcomb Street at all. We dispose of them right away. The total number of vehicles. I can’t answer that. If you’ve been reading the paper lately, I’m not complaining about business right now. So we’re doing, but that could slow down. In the next six months we’re expecting a slow down, and again, I work for the auction in Clifton Park, and they’ve given me area to put cars for storage, and it comes with a 24 hour guard. So we have access to the cars any time down there, and it’s free. So anything for storage and it’s not on Newcomb Street. I know I proposed Big Boom Road, and Big Boom came with a cost of constructing a fence and renting, and the monitoring that over there, and this came for free. So obviously it was an economical choice. The plan is still to sell the property. The property’s up for sale. All the other properties around me are for sale, and everybody’s kind of in limbo waiting to see when Main Street gets going, especially the ones on Main Street. I’ve contacted the other property owners on Main Street, and they all know I’m for sale and it would kind of go along with that. So that’s the ultimate plan. The next parcel I get, I understand and agree, based on the new zoning, that I should be in a Light Industrial area and I agreed with that, and I think that would be appropriate, and the next time I get a parcel, it’s going to be a lot larger. That’s about it. MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. Questions, comments from members of the Board? MR. SIPP-Is the Big Boom project underway? Has it been done or? 31 (Queensbury Planning Board 06/23/09) MR. GRANGER-I’m not utilizing it because I was given a spot outside the Town of Queensbury in Clifton Park for free. I work for the auction in Clifton Park, and they gave me an area down there to use. MR. SIPP-And you’re talking about how many cars would you have on Newcomb Street? MR. GRANGER-On Newcomb Street, average? About 25, on average, on the high side. MR. SIPP-And they would be there for two, three days? MR. GRANGER-At the most, on average. MR. NOORDSY-So that’s not a change. MR. GRANGER-That’s not a change. Well, it’s no change from when we were here in November. There’s really no change. MR. TRAVER-During the two or three days that a given vehicle, or let me re-phrase the question. Approximately 25 vehicles, and that number would maintain, again, depending on the economy, relatively constant because different vehicles are coming and going at different periods over there in a roughly three day cycle? MR. GRANGER-Yes. MR. TRAVER-So it wouldn’t be unreasonable for us to assume that there could be up to 25 vehicles there on a more or less constant basis, even though a given one may only be there for three days? MR. GRANGER-Yes. MR. TRAVER-Thank you. MR. GRANGER-It fluctuates a little bit. It’s just, you know, average. MR. HUNSINGER-How would you address the, I don’t know if youv’e seen the memo th from the Zoning Administrator, the June 19 memo. How would you address his comment, and there’s really one comment, one sentence specifically, where he writes, while the Planning Board has allowed for a small “redemption area” for this particular use, the current proposal appears to be inconsistent with the prohibition of vehicle storage. MR. NOORDSY-That’s an issue that, (lost word) would like to re-argue it. I’m trying to really not enter into that. That’s been decided several years ago, and though he doesn’t want to agree with it, he knows he can’t store there. There’s no intent to add storage. That’s a, there’s no evidence of that. I mean, obviously that was the discussion before. If there was storage occurring, then that’s not part of the approval. for years is MR. GRANGER-The thing that I argued about with the Zoning Administrator that the zone, under the Mixed Use, calls for a parking area. The parking area definition is any parcel, lot used in whole or in part for parking or storing three or more vehicles, and that’s been my argument for three years. So in light of that, I’ve moved the storage off, put the property up for sale, and I’m trying to work until I find a more suitable location, which now, the Town has adopted a repossession business in the new zoning to go in the Light Industrial zone. Essential Towing and Recovery was allowed to go across the street at 19 Newcomb Street, five months before I was there. So it’s been an argument for three years. So I surrender. I’m selling my property. MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. MR. GRANGER-I’ll go to a Light Industrial zone. That’s okay, once I sell it. I’m a good neighbor. All the neighbors have no problems with me. I get along with everybody. I keep things neat and quiet, and if any of the neighbors were objecting, I wouldn’t ask for any approval whatsoever, but under the zone it says parking and storing of three or more vehicles, and Mr. Brown and I have bashed heads on this for three years. MR. HUNSINGER-Well, I don’t think the zone addresses the time, you know, and so you’re saying they’re only there while they’re being redeemed. 32 (Queensbury Planning Board 06/23/09) MR. GRANGER-I’m trying to keep it as limited as I possibly can and still be able to operate, until I find a more suitable location. So anything I possibly cannot have on that site is gone, and out of there. MR. NOORDSY-And that concept you already approved during the Site Plan Review. MR. HUNSINGER-Right. Sure. MR. NOORDSY-That concept is not changing, the proposed use is not changing. It’s basically a little more area to move around the cars that are there temporarily, but it’s, the concept of the process and redemption is something that you’ve already approved. MR. HUNSINGER-So it’s not like you’re proposing more cars to be added? MR. GRANGER-No, absolutely not. MR. NOORDSY-More room for the cars that are there, not an increase. MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. MR. GRANGER-And the biggest issue is to clean up the 25 foot right of way to the rental house in the back that is for sale as well, and to get rid of the septic system and clean up the property. There’s some old fencing there, that, I don’t like the way it looks. It’s not consistent with a piece of property that I would own, so I want to re-grade the driveway and dress all that up and neaten it up and make it more presentable. MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. Any other questions or comments from the Board? MR. SEGULJIC-Just so I understand all of this, so the issue is the storage. What you’re claiming is you just process the cars there for a short period of time, and the Zoning Administrator considers that processing storage? MR. GRANGER-I can’t get a definite answer. MR. NOORDSY-The Zoning Administrator ruled, several years ago, that storage could not occur in that area, and there was an appeal to the Zoning Board. There was another, I was not involved in this, I’m just remembering. MR. SEGULJIC-Back in 2006 or something. MR. NOORDSY-Yes, and then there was another determination, another appeal, an Article 78, anyway, I mean, that issue’s been hashed and re-hashed, and we were not arguing that issue when we came before you for the Site Plan application. Before the idea was, okay, we’re going to get this approved for office and redemption and the come before you for the other spot up on Big Boom for the storage, and the storage is, you know, it’s off site. We’re not trying to ask for permission to do storage here. I mean, he’s made this allegation that we’ve made that request. Should that happen, he can come in and show that it has. MR. SEGULJIC-So, just clarify, how big an area are you, you’re increasing your processing area from what to what? MR. GRANGER-We’re increase it from approximately 90 feet by 90 feet to 160 by 90. MR. NOORDSY-And some of the trucks that come in, he’s got full size, full sized car carrier coming into that area. MR. SEGULJIC-So you’re increasing it by like 80% or something like that, if I’m understanding you correctly. MR. NOORDSY-Not on the same parcel. You’re using the new parcel. He purchased a new parcel of property adjoining one he already owned. MR. SEGULJIC-Okay. MRS. STEFFAN-It’s what’s up there in red. MR. NOORDSY-Yes. 33 (Queensbury Planning Board 06/23/09) MR. GRANGER-Yes. MR. NOORDSY-Where the hand is is where the existing is. MR. GRANGER-The existing is. The building that you see in the, that’s outlined in red was a mobile home that burned down. That’s no longer there. MR. SEGULJIC-So you purchased that, and you’re going to, you, in quotes, use that for the processing. MR. GRANGER-Yes, move the fence just back a little bit. MR. SEGULJIC-And that’s where you’re getting the 160 by 90. MR. GRANGER-Yes. Not all of that. The area that we’re adding is 70 feet. Moving back onto that property 70 feet by the 90 wide. MR. SEGULJIC-All right. MR. TRAVER-So in terms of this modification to an approved Site Plan, it sounds like what you’re presenting to us this evening is basically you’re modifying the site, but you’re not modifying the plan. MR. GRANGER-Yes. MR. NOORDSY-Correct. MR. GRANGER-The 25 feet on the side is a deeded right of way to the rental house in the back and I’m responsible for the roadway, and right now that roadway is a mess. It’s potholes and mud and it’s just, every time it rains there’s big ponds in it, and I wanted to do something so it’s not like that. MR. NOORDSY-Again, go back to the main reason for him picking it up is it makes the entire parcel, you know, he’s trying to sell the property. It makes the parcel a little bit larger. He’s got to clean it up. It’s a mess. Try to move this. Yes, he’s making the area a little bigger so he can jockey things around and move it all back a little bit. MR. GRANGER-If Keith can move the map up a little bit or out, the other way. Keep your pointer right there. That’s where the office is. Right behind it, this is Main Street, going this way, that’s Ben Aronson’s property right there. That’s Ben Aronson’s property that’s for sale. If he goes to the left, that parcel’s for sale right now. If he goes to the left more, those two parcels are for sale, and the next three parcels over are Jerry Nudi’s. They’re for sale, and the rental house is for sale. So everything’s lining up. When Main Street gets done, hopefully it’s going to go bing, bing, bing, and I’m priced at a price where it’s attractive for somebody to grab me to make it go with everything, and I’ve spoken with Ben Aronson’s plan, as soon as the Main Street gets dug, he wants to sell, and I’ve spoken to all the neighbors. It kind of lines up with everything. That’s what we’re hoping for anyway. MR. SEGULJIC-So for now you just process the vehicles here and then you bring them down to Clifton Park? MR. GRANGER-Yes, or they get transported right to a different auction. Some of them don’t go there. They go to different auctions. It’s for once they get their car back. They go pay their loan up current, they get their car back. That’s what this area is for. So that when they get their car back, I’m in a controlled environment. MR. SEGULJIC-You know that within 24 hours. MR. GRANGER-I know that within 24 hours, either by the bank or the debtor themselves. That’s all this area is for. The rest of them are already gone. MR. SEGULJIC-And business has been good. MR. GRANGER-No complaints. Things are picking up. Not getting much sleep these days. MR. HUNSINGER-Any other questions? We do have a public hearing scheduled this evening. Is there anyone in the audience that wants to address the Board on this 34 (Queensbury Planning Board 06/23/09) application? I don’t know if you were here earlier, sir, but if I could have you state your name for the record, and make sure you speak into the microphone. PUBLIC HEARING OPENED DON KRUGER MR. KRUGER-Hi. My name is Don Kruger, and I live on Glen Lake, part of Queensbury. I’ve been in business 49 years, and I can’t tell you how much enjoyment I get out of seeing a young guy that really tries to go into business and has a zeal and enthusiasm for it. You see that picture over there that Brian has of his place. I wish we had a before picture of it. Because it was the worst tumble down mess that you’d ever want to see. I looked at it and I said, Brian, are you sure this guy didn’t give this place to you? I mean, we took truckload after truckload of junk out of there and everything that Brian’s done, I sit in his office and he has a three inch thick file from the Town of Queensbury fighting him for everything he’s done, and I don’t want to risk inflaming Craig Brown, but I have to say that I think it’s selective enforcement because there’s other repossession agents, which I don’t know anything about that business, but there’s other guys, his competitors in Town, that are in nonconforming zones that do anything they want and get away with it, and everything that Brian does he’s fought tooth and nail, and I can’t tell you how many times he’s come to me and said, Don, you’re not going to believe what they did to me next, and there’s no end to it. Why can’t we help young guys do business and support their families, encourage them to do business in our Town? Why do we fight them? That’s my question. MR. HUNSINGER-Thank you. Anyone else? Any written comments? MR. OBORNE-I do have public comment. To Town of Queensbury, Queensbury Planning Board, subject Brian Granger, “Dear Sirs: I am unable to attend the meeting scheduled for June 23, 2009, but I would like to comment on this applicant from Brian Granger and his business at 18 ½ Newcomb Street, Queensbury, New York. I have lived at 7 Newcomb Street for the last 20 years. Before Mr. Granger bought the property at 18 ½ Newcomb Street, this property was an eye-sore. Since then, Mr. Granger has worked at making this piece of property one of the nicest on the street. I have no objections to Mr. Granger’s future plans for his property. I am very pleased that he is a neighbor of mine. I wish a few more residents on Newcomb Street took the pride in how their property looked like Mr. Granger does. If you need to reach me for further comment on this issue, feel free to call me on my cell phone. Sincerely, Kathleen Dorvee 7 Newcomb Street Queensbury, NY 12804” And that’s it. MR. HUNSINGER-Thank you. Any other comments? I guess I will close the public hearing. PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED MR. HUNSINGER-What’s the will of the Board? MR. TRAVER-It’s my feeling that if the modification is to the site and not the plan, then our previous review holds. MR. FORD-Agreed. MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. This is a Type II SEQRA action. So if anyone would like to put forward a resolution. MRS. STEFFAN-With the Zoning Administrator’s letter, do we have to do anything extraordinary? MR. HUNSINGER-I don’t know. MR. NOORDSY-My opinion would be no. MR. KREBS-Well, there’s a resolution put forward by Staff that covers this. We just move your proposed motion. MR. OBORNE-If you so wish. MRS. STEFFAN-It’s just Paragraph Four A says that pursuant to the relevant sections of the Town of Queensbury Zoning Code, the Planning Board has determined that this 35 (Queensbury Planning Board 06/23/09) proposal complies or does not comply with the requirements as stated in the Zoning Code. Then we have the memo from Craig Brown that said. MR. NOORDSY-He’s not saying that we don’t comply. He’s making an allegation that he intends to in the future. What’s happened before was his ruling, and then an administrative appeal of that, and then a legal appeal of that, but that’s, Mr. Granger is in compliance with that. That memo is not saying he’s not in compliance. It’s making an allegation that he intends to be in compliance. There’s no evidence that he currently is not in compliance. MRS. STEFFAN-Okay. MR. HUNSINGER-That’s why I asked the question. MR. TRAVER-I was going to say, we previously approved a Site Plan for processing, but not storage, and he’s not now before us saying that he’s now requesting storage. He’s just altering the site. MR. KREBS-Expanding the processing. MR. TRAVER-Correct. MRS. STEFFAN-Well, and based on what we know, I mean, we gathered information that it’s a three day term. MR. HUNSINGER-Right. MRS. STEFFAN-So that seems reasonable to me. MR. OBORNE-I do want to mention that the minutes that were provided do explain the position of the Zoning Administrator and he is very consistent in that. The Zoning Administrator makes determinations, but the Zoning Board of Appeals approves certain plans. So with that said, the minutes are pretty explicit. MR. HUNSINGER-Well, it seems to me like what we’re doing is we’re differentiating between storage and processing. MR. OBORNE-Absolutely. He’s not allowed to have storage on that property. MR. HUNSINGER-Right. MR. OBORNE-And he acknowledges that. MR. HUNSINGER-Right. So I don’t think we’re doing anything that’s inconsistent with an opinion of the Zoning Administrator. MR. OBORNE-No, not at all. MRS. STEFFAN-And a three day term, in my mind, is not storage. MR. HUNSINGER-Yes. The Code doesn’t say that storage shall be defined as more than two hours or more than four hours or more than three days, and so I think what we’re doing as a Board is differentiating between processing and storage. MR. OBORNE-Absolutely. MR. TRAVER-And we did that once previously for this. MR. HUNSINGER-Right. Exactly. MR. NOORDSY-And to follow up on Keith’s point, that is, at least on my printout, these pages are not (lost words), but it’s specifically discussed on Page 34 and 35 of the minutes of the November 18, ’08 meeting about this whole issue, about halfway down. It starts about halfway down. Again, I know the pages print out differently, but what I have is on Page 34. MR. HUNSINGER-Ours are 14 and 16. 36 (Queensbury Planning Board 06/23/09) MR. NOORDSY-It’s slightly before the resolution gets adopted, where you see that discussion, where I see Motion To Approve and I go back, you know, at the end of that discussion is on the page before, and then it starts on the page before that. You see a discussion. There’s a long paragraph from Brian, not surprisingly, and then we have this, the only issue is an office. The office is allowed. This is for processing and redemption, not storage. You see that discussion right there. I don’t know if you’re seeing what I’m talking about, referring to, and probably some of the reason that it doesn’t ring a bell with everyone is there were four people there that night. MR. HUNSINGER-So let me just ask this question, then, Keith. This motion by the Zoning Board, what they’re saying specifically that the proposed use is not allowed in the MU zone. MR. OBORNE-You’re talking about the Notice of Appeal? The minutes that were provided? MR. HUNSINGER-Well, the resolution says 18 Newcomb Street zoning mixed use, appealing that Zoning Administrator’s determination that the proposed parking garage facility is not an allowable use in the MU zone. MR. OBORNE-Right, and that’s correct. They upheld that. MR. HUNSINGER-So what they said was that what the applicant, of course this was before we approved the Site Plan in 2008. MR. OBORNE-It’s still consistent because you approved the Site Plan without the condition of storage, that he’s not allowed to store on it. MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. MR. OBORNE-And then there were issues with public, private, and so on and so forth. The main and the only issue is storage. MR. HUNSINGER-Because when I read that, before tonight, I read it differently than I read it in light of the discussion that we just had. MR. OBORNE-Yes, I read that today. MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. MR. NOORDSY-And my reference was to the minutes of your meeting. MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. I’m sorry. MRS. STEFFAN-We’re ready to go forward. MR. HUNSINGER-I think so. MRS. STEFFAN-Okay. MOTION TO APPROVE SITE PLAN NO. 35-2009 BRIAN GRANGER & BG LENDERS SERVICE, LLC, 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 70’ x 90’ expansion to storage lot associated with Repossession business. Modification to an approved site plan in Mixed Use zone requires Planning Board review and approval; and 2)A public hearing was advertised and held on 6/23/2009; and 3)This application is supported with all documentation, public comment and application material in the file of record; 4)MOTION TO APPROVE SITE PLAN NO. 35-2009 BRIAN GRANGER & BG LENDERS SERVICE, LLC, Introduced by Gretchen Steffan who moved for its adoption, seconded by Thomas Ford: 37 (Queensbury Planning Board 06/23/09) According to the resolution prepared by Staff. Paragraph Four A complies. Paragraph Four B, this is a Type II action. Paragraph Four E, F, G, J and K do not apply. a)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 b)Type II-therefore, no further SEQRA review is necessary; and c)Final approved plans, in compliance with the Site Plan, must be submitted to the Community Development Department before any further review by the Zoning Administrator or Building and Codes personnel. 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; and d)As-built plans to certify that the site plan is developed according to the approved plans to be provided prior to issuance of the certificate of occupancy; and e)NOT APPLICABLE. If applicable, Item d to be combined with a letter of credit; and f)NOT APPLICABLE. The Sanitary Sewer connection plan must be submitted to the Wastewater Department for its review, approval, permitting and inspection; and g)NOT APPLICABLE. Waiver requests granted / denied: stormwater mgmt., grading, landscaping & lighting plans] h)The limits of clearing will constitute a no-cut buffer zone, orange construction fencing shall be installed around these areas and field verified by Community Development staff i)Engineering sign-off required prior to signature of Zoning Administrator. j)NOT APPLICABLE. The applicant shall submit a copy of a NOI [Notice of Intent] SWPPP [Stormwater Pollution Prevention Plan] & NOT [Notice of Termination] - see staff k)NOT APPLICABLE. The applicant shall submit a copy of a NYS SPDES [State Pollution Discharge Elimination System] rd Duly adopted this 23 day of June, 2009, by the following vote: AYES: Mr. Sipp, Mr. Traver, Mr. Krebs, Mr. Seguljic, Mrs. Steffan, Mr. Ford, Mr. Hunsinger NOES: NONE MR. HUNSINGER-You’re all set. Good luck. MR. GRANGER-Thank you. MR. NOORDSY-Thank you. SITE PLAN NO. 38-2009 SEQR TYPE TYPE II MASTOLONI FAMILY LLC AGENT(S) HUTCHINS ENGINEERING; STAFFORD CARR MCNALLY, BRIAN REICHENBACH OWNER(S) SAME ZONING WR-1A LOCATION 18 NEIGHBORS WAY APPLICANT PROPOSES RENOVATION AND EXPANSION OF AN EXISTING 2,020 SQUARE FOOT FOUR BEDROOM HOUSE TO A 2,895 SQUARE FOOT THREE BEDROOM HOUSE. EXPANSION OF A NON-CONFORMING STRUCTURE IN THE L G CEA REQUIRES PLANNING BOARD REVIEW AND APPROVAL. CROSS REFERENCE BOH 28-08, AV 9-09, NOA 2-09, AV 31-09 WARREN CO. PLANNING 6/10/09 APA, CEA, DEC, ACOE L G CEA LOT SIZE 0.54 ACRES TAX MAP NO. 226.15-1-29 SECTION 179-13-010 G 38 (Queensbury Planning Board 06/23/09) BRIAN REICHENBACH & TOM HUTCHINS, REPRESENTING APPLICANT, PRESENT MR. HUNSINGER-Whenever you’re ready, Keith. MR. OBORNE-Site Plan 38-2009, Mastoloni Family, LLC. This is an expansion of a nonconforming structure in a CEA that requires Site Plan Review. Location is 18 Neighbors Way. Waterfront Residential. This is under the new Code, by the way. Type II, no further review needed. Project Description: Applicant proposes renovation and expansion of an existing 2020 square foot four bedroom single family dwelling to a 2,895 square foot three bedroom single family dwelling. The proposal includes the construction of an 810 square foot first story addition to include a Great Room with Vestibule, Dining Room and Powder Room. Further, the renovation of the second floor bedrooms includes the raising of the roof and the addition of 65 square feet of living space. Site improvements include a proposed patio off of the Great Room, walkway from the driveway to the front door, permeable paver drive turn around and landscaping to include a rain garden. Concerning the wastewater system, the Town Board of Health approved a variance (BOH 28-2009) for the placement of a leachfield on an adjoining parcel owned by the applicant. Expansion of a non-conforming structure in the Lake George CEA requires Site Plan review and approval. Staff comments. This application was before the Zoning Board of Appeals on June 17, 2009 for an area variance concerning infiltration devices within 100 feet of the Lake George shoreline (see attached resolution and minutes). Note: Rain Gardens are considered an infiltration device. One additional comment. The Planning Board, as a condition of approval, may wish to direct the applicant to move the garage door to mitigate any parking on wastewater leachfield as discussed at the BOH meeting dated 11/28/08 (see attached minutes) MR. HUNSINGER-Thank you. Good evening. MR. REICHENBACH-Good evening. I’m Brian Reichenbach from Stafford, Carr & McNally in Lake George on behalf of the Mastoloni Family, LLC. I’d like to make a brief opening presentation, and then allow Mr. Hutchins to address the technical particulars of the plan. Folks, our position is that this Site Plan meets all the requirements of the Town local law. Specifically, the project meets the design requirements set forth in 147-9B. Mr. Hutchins will speak to those particulars in more detail. The project not only will not have an adverse effect on the impact of the health, safety and welfare of the public, it will have a beneficial effect. Taken together, this project will reduce the stormwater runoff, reduce the use of the home on the site. The stormwater control measures that are proposed for the project will function as designed. We have chosen the measures that are the highest priority in the Town law, and we have designed them in a way that will reduce the stormwater runoff that currently exists on the property. The measures will remain in place. They will remain effective. Mr. Hutchins has designed a plan that will ensure that they will operate as designed for many years to come. This property will also remain in the Mastoloni Family for many years to come. It will be Mr. Mastoloni’s retirement home, and then he envisions that it will remain in the family after that. Finally, not only will the project not contribute to flooding, siltation or stream bank erosion, it will work actively to prevent those negative effects. It has been designed, again, to reduce the current stormwater runoff. So this project will have a beneficial effect on the quality of the environment in that area and the neighborhood. With that, I’ll allow the Board to ask any questions they have or Mr. Hutchins to address the technical aspects of the project. Thank you. MR. HUNSINGER-Thank you. MR. HUTCHINS-Good evening. For the record, Tom Hutchins, Hutchins Engineering, on behalf of the Mastoloni Family, and I would note that to my right is Mr. Mastoloni. Just a brief description of this project, I think it’s a really cool setup. You’ve got this existing residence that’s in dire need of repair, or it’s going to be beyond repair in the reasonably near future. The Mastoloni’s have, are probably in the unique position whereby they can utilize this parcel and have the ability to have a compliant wastewater system installed on contiguous lands that they own, that is approved by the Town Board of Health to be located several hundred feet away from the lake and away from this parcel. You’ll note that, well, when he had the peninsula shape of this parcel, there is no area on this parcel that’s 100 feet from the lake. There’s very little that’s more than 60 feet from the lake. It’s unique parcel. On my Sheet S, or on our Sheet S-2, we’re showing the layout of the proposed parcel that the application is under, and it’s about a half acre in contiguous area, as well as the adjoining parcels owned by the Mastoloni’s. Access to this parcel, the only land access to this parcel is across the adjoining properties owned by Mastoloni, and there is a, there is right of way mechanism in place to allow for permanent access to this residence through, it’s across Mastoloni property and through a private road in over 39 (Queensbury Planning Board 06/23/09) to Neighbors Way. I’m sure you’re familiar with it. We show on this parcel the outline, the footprint of the existing cottage as well the footprint of the proposed addition and the elevations in front of you show existing and proposed elevations, what we’re looking to do. Presently it is a 2,020 square foot house. We’re looking to be finished at a 2,800 square foot house. Essentially it will reconfigure the house and remodel the existing, the upstairs is broken up with four itty, bitty, tiny bedrooms, and they’re going to rearrange those to a three bedroom house with a nice great room overlooking the lake. Our plans show existing vegetation. Before you get to the landscape plan, our plans show existing large trees over about four to six inch diameter. There’s a whole lot of smaller vegetation that’s shown on the landscape plan, but these are indeed surveyed locations. It’s our intent to keep all these large trees that are shown. On Sheet S-2, the development data shown is for the adjoining Mastoloni parcel and that was presented there at the request of Staff just to prove out permeability on that parcel, and it’s obviously not a problem. Turning to, or I’m turning to S-3, which is the main Site Plan for this project. Some of the things we’ve done is we’ve utilized permeable pavers for a patio and a portion of the driveway. We’ve utilized perimeter eaves trenching with decorative stone around a majority of the house. We’ve utilized a rain garden at a semi natural, or at a very natural low area on the site, and I hope you had the opportunity to go there because it’s evident that that’s a logical place for this type of device, and within all the permeability calculations, I have included our permeable pavers as impervious area. So there’s no question that we’re well under either permeability requirements of the Ordinance or Floor Area Ratio, as you can see on there, is not an issue either. There’s a summary of variances that have been granted for the parcel listed on the upper left of S-3, and that has to do with no lot frontage on a public street, and there were setback variances from the lake issued to allow us to increase the height of the roof by two feet. Because it is within 50 feet of the lake, the existing building, we want to raise that height. Those variances were issued, and also the side setback for the same reason, because we want to increase the height of the structure. The second floor of the existing cottage is extremely low. I don’t know how high it is at the walls, but it’s like, three, four feet at the outside wall. So there’s really no headroom. We want to go up a couple of feet, three feet at the highest point, and we’re still well within the 28 foot height requirement. Another variance was issued for location of stormwater devices within 100 feet of Lake George. Obviously we want to locate stormwater devices and we can’t get them 100 feet from Lake George. With that, I’d just make attention, we have done a, made a considerable effort at a landscaping plan that we think will, one, it will look great, two, it will suit the needs of the applicant, and, three, it will suit the needs and desires of the Town, and do it’s purpose to protect the lake. MR. REICHENBACH-I can address one Staff comment. There was a Staff comment regarding the moving of garage door access to the detached garage on the adjoining property. One of the things that was required, I think for the septic variance, was that there be an easement granted by the adjoining Mastoloni property to allow the septic system to be on that property. One of the conditions was that vegetation be provided and a method to preclude parking over the leach field. I’ve prepared that easement proposal, sent that to Mr. Hafner. So I’m awaiting his response on that, but that provides for no parking on the back side of that garage, the east side. So there would not be an issue. The door would have to be moved from the garage anyway. MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. Anything else? MR. HUTCHINS-I think I’m done. I’m ready for questions. MR. HUNSINGER-Questions, comments from the Board? MR. KREBS-My only question is, if we approve a rain garden in that location, are we going to have the same problem we had before where somebody’s going to come in and? MR. OBORNE-It’s already been approved. MR. HUNSINGER-Yes. MRS. STEFFAN-They got a variance. MR. HUTCHINS-We have that variance, yes. MR. KREBS-Okay. Well, I didn’t mean that. I mean, we approved one up on the east side of Lake George, and the court turned it around, not. 40 (Queensbury Planning Board 06/23/09) MR. HUNSINGER-Yes. MR. HUTCHINS-Well, and within that Ordinance, this is a unique property relative to the stormwater ordinance, because that 100 foot rule obviously. MR. KREBS-But it also is relatively level, as I walked, you know, until you get right to the edges, there’s only, what, four, five feet difference from the lowest point to the highest point. MR. HUTCHINS-Yes. We go from an elevation 325 to 321, and 320.2 is Lake George. MR. SEGULJIC-The landscaping looks very good. I mean, you’ve got a lot of nice vegetation there. MRS. STEFFAN-Yes, the landscaping plan is nice. MR. SEGULJIC-The concern is obviously the septic system, because, I mean, people park in that area now, right? So you’re going to put vegetation to keep people from parking there in the future? MR. HUTCHINS-Now, I will attempt to address it. The system is going to be elevated, to some extent, and it’s not going to be parked upon. MR. FORD-How high is it going to be? MR. HUTCHINS-I don’t know how high. I’m sorry. As approved by the Board of Health, and it was done by another engineer, which is why I’m not so forthcoming with information, because I don’t know. MR. RYAN-The answer is approximately two feet. MR. HUTCHINS-Thank you. Good answer. MR. HUNSINGER-The other engineer. MR. HUTCHINS-The other engineer. MR. SEGULJIC-Sometimes parking is a premium, though. MR. SIPP-Well, explain the septic system. MR. REICHENBACH-The variance for the septic requires that we provide a, that the adjoining Mastoloni owner provide an easement that will be designed in such a way and require them to maintain a design that will preclude parking on that leach field, and we came to an agreement with them during the variance hearing that we would do that through vegetation. That’s what the easement that I’ve drafted says, that the benefitting property, this applicant, will be required to maintain vegetation on that parcel or preclude on or above the leach field. If Mr. Hafner has a problem with that, I’m sure he’ll let me know and we’ll work that, but the variance requires that, and the Mastoloni’s are going to provide that. MR. SEGULJIC-Now, I went there, I forget already. The garage door is on the east side of the garage, so you’re going to have to move that, then? MR. REICHENBACH-Yes. MR. HUTCHINS-And relocate it. MR. SEGULJIC-So you’re going to relocate the garage door. Okay. So that should take care of the septic. So no one’s going to be able to park over that due to the vegetation. MR. REICHENBACH-That’s correct. MR. SEGULJIC-Okay. As far as stormwater goes, I think you’ve just got to clean up, you don’t have any of the erosion control measures. MR. HUTCHINS-I’ve got perimeter silt fence. 41 (Queensbury Planning Board 06/23/09) MR. SEGULJIC-But I mean under 147-11-3, where it talks about, you know, you’ve got to. MR. REICHENBACH-Time constraints on the re-vegetation and temporary stabilization. MR. SEGULJIC-Exactly. You’ve got up to seven to ten days, things of that nature. MR. HUTCHINS-Okay. Those are carry over, those standard notes. I can do that. MR. SEGULJIC-Yes, and then there’s also the inspection requirements, which, because Keith upset my world. He sent me, I was always looking at the wrong one apparently. There is some differences. There’s inspection requirements under 12. I guess. MR. OBORNE-Inspection requirements regarding erosion control? MR. SEGULJIC-147-12, Erosion and Sedimentation Control inspections. MR. OBORNE-Well, there should be a copy in person on site doing those inspections. MR. SEGULJIC-Well, it says, the applicant shall notify the Town Enforcement Officer within 48 hours before any of the following is required by the stormwater management officer. Start of development, installation of sediment controls, completion of the site clearing. I mean, none of this is a big deal. It’s just it should get noted and taken care of. Then one other question, if you can clarify this for me. In your stormwater plan, you cite that the 10 year storm, I believe, is 4.8 inches, I think, 3.9 inches. When I look in the back of the Code, at Schedule D, I come out with that should be, you state it’s 3.9. If I do it right, it should be 4.8. MR. HUTCHINS-Ten year storm? MR. SEGULJIC-When I look at Schedule D, in the back of 147? No? MR. RYAN-I think he’s got it properly depicted there. He’s got 3.8 for the 10 year. MR. SEGULJIC-Well, I’m just, maybe this is my education, it’s the graph, rainfall intensity (lost words) Lake George, New York, and I would calculate it to be 4.8. MR. RYAN-Based on the graph? MR. SEGULJIC-Based on the graph, because the Code. MR. RYAN-That’s not customarily what’s used for that storm design. MR. SEGULJIC-Because in this one it says you have to use that, as I interpret 147. MR. OBORNE-I’m seeing 3.8. MR. SEGULJIC-You’re seeing 3.8? MR. HUTCHINS-Is the 4.8 the 50 year? MR. SEGULJIC-I could be all wet on this. MR. OBORNE-This is a horrible graph, too. MR. HUNSINGER-Any other questions or comments while they’re verifying the graph? MR. SIPP-Well, let’s go back to this septic system. You say it’s going to be higher than the surrounding ground? MR. RYAN-Approximately two feet. The septic system is going to be approximately two feet higher than some of the surrounding terrain. MR. HUTCHINS-Finished grade will be approximately two feet above the surrounding finished grade. MR. REICHENBACH-It’s inches. You’re looking at the intensity. In ten minutes you’re looking at that, you’ve got to look at the 24 hour duration and multiply that by the (lost words). 42 (Queensbury Planning Board 06/23/09) MR. SEGULJIC-All right. So that’s the difference. All right, and the only other thing is the requirement of the infiltration devices shall be designed to extend a minimum of 10% of the infiltration below the prevailing frost line, or four feet, and I look at it and it’s only two feet down you went, because you have to have 10%. MR. HUTCHINS-I showed it two feet down. If I go any deeper than two feet, I’m going to be within the groundwater table. MR. SEGULJIC-And I believe that’s okay, then, because I’ll turn to the engineer. MR. RYAN-I’ve questions that myself in my letter. Basically what he’s trying, he has to provide both the separation from the lake but also separation from groundwater. He’s proposed shallow infiltration devices to obtain some separation to the water table. A couple of my comments are basically along the same lines, and I think they can be cleaned up, you know, with some model adjustments. In particular like the rain garden. The test pit shows water table at the grade of the rain garden. So technically it probably would be better served to be designed as a retention or storage device rather than an infiltration device. MR. HUTCHINS-Yes, but the reality of it is, it’s going to be a retention storage device, whether I call it a rain garden or a retention, storage device. It’s not going to have an outlet. The water is going to flow to it and the water’s going to infiltrate into the ground. I’ve had this discussion with, in fact I had it today with Chris Navitsky on that one. I can meet the separation in that rain garden by putting in fill, and we can fill an area down there, but to me that’s much less desirable. MR. RYAN-No, I think the preference on that particular design is to omit infiltration in your model and size it accordingly, omitting infiltration which would make it larger, but again, it’ll still allow that design. MR. SEGULJIC-And give us better quality of water. MR. RYAN-It would. I mean, he’s got the bottom of the rain garden at 420. Well, groundwater is at 420, according to his test pit. So certainly you’re not going to meet any kind of separation, but I would rather see the rain garden sizing and volume of storage based on no infiltration, again, a minor adjustment in the model which certainly can be accommodated. MR. HUNSINGER-So is it likely that the rain garden will have to be larger than what’s depicted on this plan? MR. RYAN-It would be slightly larger than what’s depicted, again, with an overflow outlet as he’s already stated will exist. So basically I would prefer to see it, and he’s done that on previous applications where you have groundwater that’s so shallow. MR. HUNSINGER-Yes. MR. HUTCHINS-I can remove the infiltration from the model. MR. RYAN-And he took a very conservative number I think, anyway, in the model. MR. HUTCHINS-Yes, there’s almost none, but it won’t impact the required volume significantly. MR. OBORNE-And if I may add, if you’re going to expand that, don’t expand towards the shore, because then you will need an Area Variance for that. MR. RYAN-I think a rain garden in the water table is probably not an infiltration device. You probably could have gotten away with that. It’s more of a water quality pool at that standpoint. MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. Any other questions, comments from members of the Board? We do have a public hearing scheduled this evening. We do have a couple of people who do want to address the Board on this project. If you weren’t here before, the purpose of the public hearing is for members of the audience to address the Board. You should direct your comments to the Board. I would ask that you state your name for the record. We do tape the meeting, and then that tape is used to transcribe the minutes, 43 (Queensbury Planning Board 06/23/09) and we do take literal minutes, which are then available on the Town’s website. Who would like to be first? Yes, ma’am. PUBLIC HEARING OPENED BEVERLY POSEY MS. POSEY-Good evening. I’m a neighbor, Beverly Posey, and I look directly at where the new house will be, and I’ve listened to many of the hearings that come across quite favorably, but in addition, I have a couple of concerns. None of the pictures here show the opposite shoreline looking to the west, and my concern is that the shoreline on the west side of the property remain with a buffer of longstanding growth, helping to maintain the stability of the land and its beauty. New plantings, although desirable, take time to root deeply, and the water area adjacent to it is a cove and much of it is a sandy bottom. My second concern is that the north end of this narrow piece of land ends with a bed of rock, and that not be disturbed, since there are water pipes from four families, close to that area, and these families do not have wells, but the Mastoloni property does have a well, and last but not least, and although difficult to control, that the building contractor be encouraged to prevent debris from falling into the lake, from any point of the property, and I’ve heard more than one contractor say that worse things than that fall into the lake, indicating that they have very little concern for it. Thank you, ladies and gentlemen. MR. HUNSINGER-Thank you. Good evening. KATHY BOZONY MS. BOZONY-Good evening, Lake George Water Keeper. I reviewed the planting plans, and I know this Board is always encouraging native species planting, and I have spoken with Tom Hutchins regarding some of the chosen species. There are a half dozen or so that are not only not native, but they’re invasive plants, and I just pulled up a couple of them. Some of the spireas, basically you pull up the plant and it says, special note, this species has demonstrated an invasive tendency, meaning it may escape from cultivation and naturalize in minimally managed areas, and if you go further, it just goes on to explain that minimally managed habitats such as forests, woodlands, open spaces, roads, in doing, they may threaten naturally occurring species and have the potential to cause ecological damage to plants, animals, and human interests. So I’ve spoken with him about this. Again, I would encourage landscapers to plant native so that they don’t, once these plants are established, they don’t need to use fertilizers and pesticides. One of the birches that is selected, although we have many native birches here in the Adirondacks, it’s from the Himalayas, and again, we really do encourage, there’s one Japanese Maple, a serviceberry, excellent choice in a bush if you want to attract cedar wax wings, which is really wonderful. So some of the plant choices I would really support. Some of them I would ask for some sort of a change. One of the spirea actually states that it can be affected by pests and diseases, and we all know what happens when we have pests and diseases, we have to get out the insecticides and herbicides and pesticides, and I don’t know if you’ve heard, but I’ve been doing some research on what is being used around the lake, as far as these pesticide products, and a lot of the products, Seven is being used, which kills honey bees, and every one of the pesticide, herbicide and insecticide products that I looked at that is being used around the lake is either extremely or highly toxic to aquatic invertebrates and fish, and if anybody’s interested in seeing some of my research, again, I’m just looking at the EPA labels, and just to share with you, the only thing that is on the EPA label is the active ingredient, and the active ingredient is often four percent of the product, and in a product like Roundup the active ingredient is somewhat benign, not that dangerous, but it’s the inactive ingredient that is highly toxic to fish and aquatic invertebrates. I’m not going to go any further, but I really do support and am really pleased that this Board always insists on native vegetation and I would encourage that to be for this applicant as well. Thank you. May I say one more thing about the permeable pavers? MR. HUNSINGER-Sure. MS. BOZONY-Great using permeable pavers to create impervious surfaces, or pervious surfaces, but they need to be installed and maintained properly. One other thing, the thinning for the view on the northeast side of that peninsula, I would like the Board to discuss that because we don’t really know what that means. I have not seen the property in person. I’m looking at it up there. I don’t see a lot of vegetation there that if it’s thinned, I guess I just need a clarification on what thinning for a view is. I don’t have a problem with a view, but vegetating that buffer, you know, creating a buffer where there is no buffer and maintaining it is really important to the lake. Thank you. 44 (Queensbury Planning Board 06/23/09) MR. SIPP-Kathy, which part of the northeast section are you? MS. BOZONY-Well, it’s on one of those maps, and it says northeast, from the dock it says, I believe from the dock to the end of the peninsula. It’s on the landscape plan. MR. SIPP-I see. MS. BOZONY-And we just need clarification what that is. I don’t mind filtered views there, but I look at the shoreline, this is the first photo that I’ve seen, and it looks to me like a lot of vegetation could go on that shoreline, very substantial vegetation. What’s being proposed is good vegetation, but it’s not real substantial. MR. SIPP-In other words, you want low growing shrubs? MS. BOZONY-Yes, of mixed height vegetation. Again, you want a canopy that will, the pouring rain will actually hit it and trickle down and then you want a minimum canopy and the low ground cover. You want those three height canopies in order to really handle rain water. The rain garden as well. If there’s a better spot, I mean, I can see the elevation is dipping towards that location, so that is the natural low area. I don’t know if a rain garden would be more appropriate up higher on the elevation, in the lawn area or something like that, as opposed to that low elevation. Generally you don’t build rain gardens in naturally low wet areas because they won’t infiltrate. So I don’t know. I haven’t spoken with Tom about a better location for that rain garden, but we do support rain gardens that will infiltrate, not just hold water. They should only hold water for 24 hours or less. Thank you. MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. Anyone else? Keith? MR. OBORNE-I do have public comment, the Planning Board, Town of Queensbury, this is from John Caffrey. Site Plan review issues for Mastoloni. “The plans show that the driveway for the expanded house will be located, in part, upon adjoining property that is also owned by the Mastoloni family. It is likely that some of the stormwater runoff controls for the expanded house and/or relocated driveway will also be located on the adjoining property. However, the Planning Board’s file does not contain a proposed easement granting the applicant the perpetual right to use the adjoining property. A proposed easement should be provided to the Planning Board and it should be reviewed and approved by the Town Attorney before site plan approval is granted. On November 17, 2008, when the Town Board of Health approved the variances for the location of the septic system on the adjoining property, it imposed several permit conditions on the approval. These included the applicant’s agreed-upon responses to issues which we had previously raised in a letter from me dated October 17, 2008:: 1. “Appropriate landscaping should be required to be placed between the mound and Neighbors Way to prevent vehicles from accidentally driving on the mound and damaging the septic system. These plantings should be located on the Mastoloni property.” 3. “The land on which Neighbors Way is located, and adjoining areas, are owned by the Trust. The plans should show that the Jane C. Caffry Trust is the owner of Neighbors Way and these adjoining areas.” These items should be added to the site plan before it is approved and should also be made permit conditions by the Planning Board. We also suggest that it be made a condition of approval that the use of fertilizers and lawn pesticides be prohibited, since, due to the area variances, any stormwater that picks up these substances would not receive full subsurface treatment by soils before draining into the lake. In addition, the Board of Health required the granting of an easement for the use of the adjoining property for the septic system. This easement is shown on the site plan, but no copy of the easement has been provided to the Planning Board. Also the Board of Health required that Mr. Mastoloni grant the Town a drainage easement. Again, this is shown on the site plan, but no copy of the easement has been provided to the Planning Board. Copies of both of these easements should be provided to the Planning Board, together with proof of their filing with the County Clerk. We also request that it be made a permit condition that, following the completion of construction, the applicant shall be required to repair any damage to Neighbors’ Way which may be caused by construction vehicles. We assume that Mr. Mastoloni would do this anyway, but also request that it be included in the permit. Thank you for your consideration. Sincerely, John W. Caffry” And that’s all the public comment. MR. HUNSINGER-Thank you. Did you have anything else from the public comment? MR. HUTCHINS-Yes. I’ll touch on the cutting intent. If we’re, or on the landscaping plan and comments on cutting, as far as the westerly shore, it’s our intent and it’s our, we’re 45 (Queensbury Planning Board 06/23/09) willing to commit to absolutely not touching anything on the entire west shore of the peninsula, not touching anything vegetation wise. On the eastern shore, in the area between the dock and the point, what we propose to do is thin some of the rather dense brush vegetation below ten feet, such that a person standing or sitting on the patio can get a filtered view of the lake. You’ll still have all these trees up above, but right now I took a picture today, and I didn’t get them all put together, looking directly, standing in this lawn, looking directly at the point, and it’s dense brush. You can barely see any lake, and that’s in spots, and the idea is to thin out some of the small brush material, and what this is, this is an old rock wall, apparently this was, it appears to me that it was created at some point in time, man-made, and there’s a large area of rock up there. We’re not going to touch any of that. That’s got to stay. I presume it’s protecting the point, but that’s the clarification on what we propose to thin out here. MR. SIPP-Tom, you’re talking about the east side? MR. HUTCHINS-Yes, sir. Did I say west? MR. SIPP-Well, you started out on the west. MR. HUTCHINS-I started out on the west. The west we’re proposing not to touch any vegetation. We’ll agree to a no cut zone. MR. SIPP-On the west side, how about putting, I mean, there are some gaps between those large trees, and I can see your point on the east, but let’s not remove all of the material that’s there. MR. HUTCHINS-On which side? MR. SIPP-On the east side. Right. We don’t intend to remove all of it. We intend to thin out below 10 feet, and I’m not sure how to show that on a drawing, which is why I didn’t try. MR. SEGULJIC-Yes, that’s my only concern. MR. HUTCHINS-Yes. We’re not going to cut anything over two inch diameter. MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. MR. SIPP-You know where you can get a list of the approved native variety. MR. HUTCHINS-Yes. I can find one, I’m sure, and I’m going to give you the answer my landscape architect would give you in a much better terminology than I will. MR. SIPP-Yes, but as Kathy says, you know, the native grown stuff is time tested. It’s not in need of pesticides or herbicides or control anything. MR. HUTCHINS-Okay. Whatever you’re not happy with on the schedule we’ll remove and substitute something else. MR. SIPP-And that rain garden, you can make things look very nice with the rhododendrons, but I’m not so sure that they’re the thing you want. MR. HUTCHINS-Okay. So I’ll let the Board phrase that any way they want. We’ve put together a landscape plan, by a landscape architect very familiar with the area and there are a couple of items Kathy pointed up to me, some species of spirea and barberry she had a concern with being invasive, and we’ll take them out. MR. SEGULJIC-And the other thing is, on your fertilizer notes, using five/ten/five, can we use non-phosphorus at least? MR. SIPP-Yes. MR. HUTCHINS-Yes. MR. SIPP-See, the new rules say no fertilizer within 50 feet, period, and then any other fertilizer would have a one percent or less phosphorus. That’s the new rules. MR. HUTCHINS-Okay. We’ll comply with the new fertilizer rules. 46 (Queensbury Planning Board 06/23/09) MR. SIPP-So within 50 feet of the lake you’ll have no fertilizer applied at all. MR. REICHENBACH-I’ll just note for the Board that the easements that Mr. Caffry raised in his letter have all been drafted and sent for approval. So we’re waiting to hear back from Mr. Hafner. MR. HUNSINGER-Okay, and those were conditions of the variance. MR. REICHENBACH-They were conditions of the earlier variance, so they have to be done anyway. MR. HUNSINGER-Yes. Okay. What’s the will of the Board here? MRS. STEFFAN-I think we have to table it because of the 15 engineering comments. MR. SEGULJIC-Yes, I think, you know, you’re almost there. MRS. STEFFAN-But if they address them, I don’t see any reason why we can’t move forward. MR. HUTCHINS-If I’ve already written them, will you look at a response now? MR. SEGULJIC-Well, one of the concerns, too, would be the native species. Have you addressed that yet? MR. HUTCHINS-Okay. Is there a specific list within the Ordinance of species that are acceptable to be planted? MR. OBORNE-Yes. MR. SIPP-Yes. MR. HUTCHINS-Within the Ordinance? MR. SIPP-Yes. MR. SEGULJIC-The new Ordinance, I believe, the new. MR. OBORNE-They’re suggested. They’re not. MR. HUNSINGER-They’re not mandated. MR. OBORNE-Yes, they’re not mandated. MR. HUTCHINS-Well, it’s almost seeming like they’re mandated. MR. SEGULJIC-You understand why. You want the native species. MR. HUTCHINS-Absolutely, I understand, and I’m not here proclaiming to be an expert on landscaping. MR. SEGULJIC-Nor am I. MR. OBORNE-It is Article Eight of the new Code. MR. HUTCHINS-If you want everything off the list in Article Eight of the new Code, and that’s the only thing we plant, if that’s what the Board mandates, that’s what we’ll do. MR. SEGULJIC-And then Article Eight also addresses the fertilizer, correct, the non- phosphorus fertilizer? MR. OBORNE-I can’t see how you can mandate that, but that’s just me thinking that. I’m not sure that there’s anything about fertilizer in there. MR. SIPP-All right. Section 179-4-10, and it’s about four pages in, 179-4-10-15, I guess. MR. OBORNE-Residential Design requirements? Waterfront Residential. One moment. MR. REICHENBACH-Mr. Chairman, could I make sure I understand here? 47 (Queensbury Planning Board 06/23/09) MR. HUNSINGER-Yes. Go ahead. MR. REICHENBACH-There’s a list of plants that are suggested but not mandated in the Code. MR. HUNSINGER-Right. MR. REICHENBACH-Are we going to be held to that standard as a mandate? MR. HUNSINGER-Well, all we’re doing is suggesting that you use native species, not, you know, as opposed to some of the species that have been proposed. We’re not mandating that you only use certain things. Play on words, maybe, but. MR. REICHENBACH-Okay. MR. TRAVER-There may be regulations that prohibit invasive species. MR. HUNSINGER-Yes, I don’t know. MR. REICHENBACH-Mr. Chairman, I guess I’m not clear on the objection. I’m not trying to belabor the point. I just want to be certain that I understand the objection so that if it is going to be tabled, if we have to wait, if we have to come back, I want to be certain that we can overcome any objections and address them properly. MR. HUNSINGER-Sure. Yes. MR. REICHENBACH-Can you let us know exactly what the problems are that would cause this not to be approved? MR. HUNSINGER-Do you have the reference in the old Code? MR. SEGULJIC-As in? MR. HUNSINGER-Where we talk about plantings MR. SIPP-It’s almost the same list that’s in the old Code. MR. OBORNE-Do you need the list? I can provide the Board with the list right now. MRS. STEFFAN-Tom, do you have the VISION Engineering comments, the rebuttals to the? MR. HUTCHINS-I have responses to the comments. MRS. STEFFAN-Thank you. Since our engineer is here, perhaps he could take a look at those. MR. HUTCHINS-I’ll go through them, if I could, with the Board. Comment Number One, referenced the driveway, and we’ve already concurred that the rights of way are being drafted and reviewed by all the attorneys. Comment Two was a reference to two calculations in the plans. One of the calculations is based on Floor Area Ratio within the application. The other calculation is based upon the allowable 50% expansion of an existing nonconforming use. Both calculations are correct and they give different answers because it’s a different basis for developing the calculations. Comment Three, I looked at the sediment control fence outline in the field, and, yes, if you look at the drawing, it goes perpendicular across the contour, but if you look at the slopes involved, I still believe the way I laid it out is correct. If you look at it in the field, it makes sense, but I will add some sediment control fence, perpendicular to the contours in those areas where it does that. Comment Four had to do with the limits of the drive improvements across the other lands of Mastoloni, and admittedly I cut off a little portion of that on my drawing in order to fit all the information that I have on Sheet S-3, which is the one that shows all the detail, and I can provide a part plan blow up showing that information. It goes, to answer the question, it extends to the property line of the lands of Mastoloni and then it stops and it matches up with the existing drive. Comment Number Five, we did it the way we did it because we were advised by Staff to do it that way, and the means include only Parcel Number 29 on the application, which is the subject parcel, and then show the information about Parcel 28 to prove out permeability in another table on the plans which we did. So, and I think all that information is accurate, and that was the way 48 (Queensbury Planning Board 06/23/09) they advised us to put it together. With regard to some erosion controls around the plantings, near the lake, my landscape architect advises that they’re in a mulch bed, and it’s not typically done. However, we can add silt fence out there if that will satisfy. We have added a detail to the rain garden admittedly, based on our discussions. I’m going to re-work that a little bit, and I think that would be something that Dan and I could come to concurrence on the technicals of. Comment Number Nine, the eaves overhang on the west side of the building does overlap the 50 foot setback, but it will overlap less than the allowed one and a half feet, unless the Ordinance has changed. MR. OBORNE-One more time? Sorry. MR. HUTCHINS-You’ve got an allowable eaves overlap of one and a half feet into a setback. MR. OBORNE-I’ll get back to you on that. MR. HUTCHINS-Okay. Well, that was the old Code. I don’t know if that was changed in the new Code or not. Your roof eaves can overhang a setback by up to 18 inches. MR. OBORNE-I think that’s true. MR. HUTCHINS-Comment Ten, soil stockpiled on site will be limited to within the erosion controls shown, but I can specify a specific area for that, with some erosion controls, and 11 they ask for a section of the drive, and I did not provide that, and the drive is primarily existing. We are going to upgrade it with stone, and I can provide that. An eaves trench detail likewise. I described it as a two foot eaves trench, two foot wide, two foot deep, and by the length of the house. Water supply. Water supply for this parcel is from the lake, and that’s going to continue to be the way. There is a well shown on the adjoining parcel as a water supply for that parcel, and 14 and 15 were with regard to the rain garden that I think we could work out, and the reason I took the time to try to do this is to try to hasten this process of time that results between submissions and reviews and re- submissions and re-reviews ends up chewing up months. MR. FORD-Thank you. MRS. STEFFAN-Dan, since Tom’s gone through those, are any of those issues insurmountable? MR. RYAN-No. I think, based on, you know, some adjustments to the actual calculations and accurately depicting some of those changes and recommendations that we’ve provided in our letter, I think he can accommodate those to at least satisfy what we need, in terms of getting the Code in compliance and what we’d expect for practical scenarios on site. The only other thing that I, I the discussions tonight that came up, and Tom Nace is here, I wasn’t involved in the Town Board approval of the septic system. The only thing I don’t remember is if there’s an on-site septic system on this property that has not ever been removed, and perhaps that could be clarified. I suppose we should have it removed at this point, if one exists. MR. HUTCHINS-On this parcel. MR. RYAN-On the peninsula parcel I would presume there’s an old septic system somewhere located on this property. MR. HUTCHINS-Yes, I think there’s a seepage pit there. TOM NACE MR. NACE-Yes, it’s directly off the corner of the, the northeast corner of the house. MR. HUTCHINS-Yes. It will be right under our addition, so it will be decommissioned. MR. RYAN-Okay. So it would be removed by default if that’s where it’s located, then, but, yes, I agree, I think that certainly he’s addressed them here. Birdseye glance here it appears that they can be satisfied, and I know some of those design criterias and changes will have a minor impact on the overall Site Plan. MR. SEGULJIC-There was a question about the plantings. MR. HUTCHINS-We’ll agree to plant everything off the list. 49 (Queensbury Planning Board 06/23/09) MR. SEGULJIC-Well, in the new Code, under 179-8-040, there’s the shoreline buffers, and there’s a list of accepted trees and plant species. MR. HUTCHINS-Are they the only accepted tree and plant species? MR. SEGULJIC-You’re asking the wrong guy. MR. HUTCHINS-Okay. MR. SEGULJIC-There’s a list. Mr. Sipp also gave you a list. MR. HUTCHINS-It probably came from this list. MR. HUNSINGER-The current Code, in 179-6, refers you to the Warren County Soil and Water Conservation District, and it does use the term indigenous in multiple locations. MR. SEGULJIC-And then also under, if I can get the Code right, 179-4-010. MR. HUNSINGER-That’s the new Code, though, right? MR. SEGULJIC-Right. MR. REICHENBACH-Mr. Chairman, I’d submit, would it satisfy the Board if we would agree to replace any plants that are not acceptable under the terms of whatever Code is applicable here, we will substitute plants that are acceptable according to the terms of whatever Code is applicable. I’m not prepared to give the Water Keeper a veto. The Code requires substantial evidence for you folks to make these findings. I don’t think her say so that something is invasive is sufficient. We will adhere to the Code. MR. SEGULJIC-Right, and as I pointed out, they’re listed in the Code, and it also says, under the Code, fertilizer use within 50 feet of the shoreline is prohibited. Where allowed, fertilizers shall have a phosphorus content of one percent or less. MR. HUTCHINS-And we’ll comply with the new fertilizer rule, and the new list, no problem. MR. HUNSINGER-Yes. We worked hard to get it into the Code, so that, because we’ve had this discussion multiple times with multiple applicants. MR. HUTCHINS-Understood. MR. HUNSINGER-Yes. So, are members of the Board comfortable moving forward? MR. FORD-Yes. MR. SEGULJIC-Personally I think we have to table this because there’s a lot of little details that have got to get addressed. I don’t think there’s anything major, but my issue is that we’re in a CEA. We get to do this once. MR. HUNSINGER-Anyone else want to comment? MRS. STEFFAN-Well, personally, because we have Dan here tonight, and he was able to look at the engineer’s feedback, I think that with conditions, we could probably move this along. MR. SEGULJIC-But as the engineer also stated, it may require some minor changes. MRS. STEFFAN-Right, but he’s the agent for the Town, and it will meet. MR. SEGULJIC-But, what happens if they move the rain garden, for example? MRS. STEFFAN-They weren’t going to move the rain garden. They were going to expand it. MR. RYAN-I certainly can’t predict what changes are going to come about at this point, but, you know, they are minor in nature. The volumes and rates are relatively close, in terms of satisfying the Code, but, again, they will require some minor changes. Until they’re proposed, I can’t tell you for sure that they’re acceptable, but based on what I 50 (Queensbury Planning Board 06/23/09) know at this point, I know we can come to some common ground on making sure that it is compliant in the end. MR. HUTCHINS-And I can commit that it won’t be any closer to the lake, and it’s location will be generally, essentially the same location with any modification, due to sizing changes. MR. SEGULJIC-But if you move it, that’s a modification, then. MR. HUTCHINS-Yes, but I just said I’ll agree to put, I’ll keep the location as is, although, if I need to modify it slightly, it’ll be for sizing. I’m not so sure I’m going to need to modify it for sizing, but. MR. SEGULJIC-Where I’m coming from is that you’re in a CEA, and I agree, most of these things are minor, but let’s get it done right the first time. MR. HUTCHINS-And I think we will, but if we table. MRS. STEFFAN-It’s August. MR. HUTCHINS-It adds two months to our process, and we’ve really tried to put together a good plan that. MR. SEGULJIC-You’ve done a great job, but let’s just make sure it’s all correct. MR. HUTCHINS-And we’ve been before the Town Board and the Zoning Board on a couple of occasions. MR. FORD-Can we proceed, Tom, with conditions? MR. SEGULJIC-We’d have to, but also have this easement. MR. FORD-But can we? MR. SEGULJIC-We also have a concern of a septic system. As we all know, you’re not supposed to park over a septic system. The way this is set up now is that they have a site where they could potentially park over a septic system. The solution is going to be an easement, not an easement, I forget what the term was, they’re going to have plantings there. Where are those plantings going? We haven’t seen those plans. MR. HUTCHINS-That’s already conditioned. MR. REICHENBACH-That’s a condition of the previous easement. We can’t put a shovel in the earth without taking care of that condition. MR. SEGULJIC-Well, there’s just a lot of loose ends here. MR. HUNSINGER-Anyone else want to comment? MR. TRAVER-The only, and I know maybe I’m being redundant here. I guess my only concern is, again, with regard to the issue of the vegetation, and I know there’s a suggested list, and the applicant has indicated that they will comply with Code, but I think the applicant has also stated that the list provided in the Code, the suggested list, is not mandated, which means that they could go ahead and continue with their existing landscape plan, including invasive species. So I would like some clarification with regards to species, whether or not they’re going to be from a list, and if so, what list, I guess would be my request. MR. HUTCHINS-We’ll commit to only plant out of the list that’s in the new Code, if that helps. MR. TRAVER-That’s fine. MR. HUTCHINS-And we won’t plant anything that’s not on the list. MR. FORD-That addresses it. MR. SIPP-And also under 179-4-010 D, Waterfront Residential Design, you would list a lot of no cutting of anything above three inches in diameter. Setbacks. 51 (Queensbury Planning Board 06/23/09) MR. KREBS-Didn’t you say you weren’t going to cut anything more than an inch and a half? MR. HUTCHINS-Yes, sir. MR. HUNSINGER-Yes. MR. SIPP-The Code is pretty specific about what you can do and what you can’t do in cutting along the shoreline, and it’s tighter than the old one. MR. SEGULJIC-Are you aware of what the Code says? MR. HUTCHINS-With regard to? MR. SEGULJIC-Cutting along the shoreline. MR. HUTCHINS-Well, it probably says no cutting along the shoreline or within a certain distance unless approved with a Site Plan, and what we’re saying here is we’re agreeing to no cutting with the exception that we’d like to thin that brush below 10 feet, smaller than an inch an a half in diameter. MR. HUNSINGER-Smaller than an inch and a half. MR. KREBS-And there really isn’t a lot of that, as I remember, I went to the site, until you almost get to the end of the peninsula. So it’s not like you’re doing the whole length here, most of this is already open. MR. MASTOLONI MR. MASTOLONI-And the other side, which is not even going to be touched, is all vegetation. MR. KREBS-Right. MR. HUNSINGER-Well, I’m trying to figure if there’s more people that want to table this or. MR. FORD-My preference would be to proceed with conditions to assure Code compliance. MRS. STEFFAN-That’s the way I feel. It was designed under 147, and the applicant and their agents have done a pretty good job in doing that. Our engineer is here. He looked at the response to some of his questions and feels that they can be satisfied. So I’d like to approve it. MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. I’ll close the public hearing. PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED MR. HUNSINGER-And I’ll entertain a motion for approval. MRS. STEFFAN-Okay. MOTION TO APPROVE SITE PLAN NO. 38-2009 MASTOLONI FAMILY LLC, 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 renovation and expansion of an existing 2,020 square foot four bedroom house to a 2,895 square foot three bedroom house. Expansion of a non-conforming structure in the L G CEA requires Planning Board review and approval. 2)A public hearing was advertised and held on 6/23/2009; and 3)This application is supported with all documentation, public comment and application material in the file of record; 52 (Queensbury Planning Board 06/23/09) 4)MOTION TO APPROVE SITE PLAN NO. 38-2009 MASTOLONI FAMILY LLC, Introduced by Gretchen Steffan who moved for its adoption, seconded by Thomas Ford: 1.According to the resolution prepared by Staff. Paragraph Four A complies. Paragraph Four B, this is a Type II action. Paragraphs Four D, E, F, G, J and K do not apply. a)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 b)Type II-no further SEQRA review is necessary; and c)Final approved plans, in compliance with the Site Plan, must be submitted to the Community Development Department before any further review by the Zoning Administrator or Building and Codes personnel. 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; and d)NOT APPLICABLE. As-built plans to certify that the site plan is developed according to the approved plans to be provided prior to issuance of the certificate of occupancy; and e)NOT APPLICABLE. If applicable, Item d to be combined with a letter of credit; and f)NOT APPLICABLE. The Sanitary Sewer connection plan must be submitted to the Wastewater Department for its review, approval, permitting and inspection; and g)NOT APPLICABLE. Waiver requests granted / denied: stormwater mgmt., grading, landscaping & lighting plans] h)The limits of clearing will constitute a no-cut buffer zone, orange construction fencing shall be installed around these areas and field verified by Community Development staff i)Engineering sign-off required prior to signature of Zoning Administrator. j)NOT APPLICABLE. The applicant shall submit a copy of a NOI [Notice of Intent] SWPPP [Stormwater Pollution Prevention Plan] & NOT [Notice of Termination] - see staff k)NOT APPLICABLE. The applicant shall submit a copy of a NYS SPDES [State Pollution Discharge Elimination System] l)This is approved with the following conditions: a.The applicant will move the garage door to mitigate parking on the wastewater leach field as discussed at the Board of Health meeting, and they can refer to minutes dated November 28, 2008. b.That the applicant can address the June 19, 2009 VISION Engineering comments, One through Fifteen, and obtain a VISION Engineering signoff. c.That the applicant will revise the landscaping plan to contain only native species. Please refer to the new version of the Town Code. d.That the applicant will remove the decommissioned septic system. e.That the applicant will comply with Section 179-4-010D(4) which is the use of fertilizers. rd Duly adopted this 23 day of June, 2009, by the following vote: MR. SEGULJIC-I think we have to amend that to include one other condition, that they comply with 179-4-010D(4) which is the use of fertilizer. MR. TRAVER-Well aren’t they required to comply with that in any case? 53 (Queensbury Planning Board 06/23/09) MRS. STEFFAN-It’s part of the new Town Zoning Code. MR. SEGULJIC-But remember, on their plan it’s not compliant right now. The plan is not compliant with that Code requirement. MR. HUNSINGER-They already stipulated they would. MR. SEGULJIC-Well, let’s put it into a condition. MR. HUNSINGER-You can just amend the motion. MRS. STEFFAN-Okay. I’ll amend the motion to include Mr. Seguljic’s comment, regarding no fertilizer. MR. SEGULJIC-One other thing I forgot, and that is what you agreed to do also, is the provisions for the coverage after 10 days. MR. RYAN-Your stabilization and erosion and sediment control requirements. MR. HUNSINGER-It’s part of the Code. MR. SEGULJIC-It doesn’t mean they’re going to comply with it, though. In their plans, they haven’t put that down. MR. KREBS-Well, if it’s part of the Code and they don’t comply with it, then they’re not going to get an occupancy permit. MR. TRAVER-They’re not going to get a VISION signoff. MR. KREBS-That’s right. MR. SEGULJIC-I wish that was true. I wish that was true. Remember, what they’re going to do with these documents is go out to contractors to get costs. The contractors are going to bid on the documents provided. So we have to make sure we get everything on the documents that is required. MR. HUNSINGER-Yes or no? MR. SEGULJIC-Come on, everyone complies with the Code? MRS. STEFFAN-That’s what Code Enforcement’s for. MR. SEGULJIC-I’m just saying things. MR. HUNSINGER-We’re calling the vote. Yes or no? MR. SEGULJIC-Well, is there any way to get that into the? MRS. STEFFAN-We’re already in process. MR. SEGULJIC-Then I’ll have to say no. AYES: Mr. Traver, Mr. Sipp, Mr. Krebs, Mrs. Steffan, Mr. Ford, Mr. Hunsinger NOES: Mr. Seguljic MR. HUNSINGER-You’re all set. Good luck. MR. REICHENBACH-Thank you. MR. HUTCHINS-Thank you. MR. MASTOLONI-Thank you. MR. HUNSINGER-You’re welcome. This is why we have you here, Dan. That was really helpful, that last discussion. MRS. STEFFAN-Well, that would not have been approved if you hadn’t been here. 54 (Queensbury Planning Board 06/23/09) SUBDIVISION NO. 2-2009 FINAL, PHASE II SEQR TYPE PREVIOUS SEQR CERRONE BUILDERS AGENT(S) NACE ENGINEERING; MICHAEL J. O’CONNOR OWNER(S) SAME ZONING SR-1A, RC 3A, WR-3A LOCATION WEST MT. RD. & CORINTH RD. APPLICANT SEEKS FINAL APPROVAL OF PHASE II PORTION OF SUBDIVISION WHICH COMPRISES OF 10 LOTS RANGING IN SIZE FROM 1.03 ACRES TO 47.68 ACRES. SUBDIVISION OF LAND REQUIRES PLANNING BOARD APPROVAL. WARREN CO. PLANNING N/A APA, CEA, DEC, ACOE NWI WETLANDS LOT SIZE 222.2 +/- ACRES TAX MAP NO. 315.5-1-1 SECTION A-183 MICHAEL O’CONNOR & TOM NACE, REPRESENTING APPLICANT, PRESENT MR. HUNSINGER-Keith, whenever you’re ready. MR. OBORNE-Subdivision 2-2009, Phase II, Cerrone Builders, Final subdivision review for Phase II of Corinth and West Mountain Road subdivision. Existing zoning, SR-1A, RC-3A, WR-3A. SEQRA Status: This is a Type I SEQRA subdivision. SEQRA Negative Declaration. This has already been accomplished. Project Description: Applicant proposes subdivision of a 222.2 +/- acre parcel into 25 lots ranging in size from +/- 1.03 acres to +/-47.68 acres. This proposal is for the Final approval of Phase 2 of the project which received preliminary approval in conjunction with Phase 1 on 4/28/09 (see attached). Staff comments. The preliminary application was approved at the 11/27/07 meeting with the conditions that the following three items be added to the plat: A notation that no building foundations are to be located above the 460 foot elevation. A notation that the maximum building height is 40 feet. That Phase I and Phase II will be denoted and differentiated. Lot lines on Phase II shall be lighter in color and labeled Preliminary only. I do want to go to Staff comments, under Plan Review. The Town Board approved the latest water district extension on April 06, 2009. The application has not changed and the Planning Board may wish to reaffirm SEQR and review both Preliminary and Final subdivision applications concurrently. The previously approved subdivision (SUB 1-07) has been reviewed against this new submitted subdivision and was found to be consistent in all aspects, and I’d turn it over to the Planning Board. MR. HUNSINGER-Thank you. Good evening. MR. O'CONNOR-Mr. Chairman, for the record, I’m Michael O’Connor from the law firm of Little & O’Connor and with me at the table is Al Cerrone, who is the principal of the applicant, and Tom Nace who is the engineering consultant for the applicant. We’re here looking for final approval of Phase II of this subdivision. The Board has had the same subdivision before it on a couple of different occasions. You had given us Preliminary approval both phases, and final approval of Phase I, and then that lapsed while we were getting the water district extension, and we did get the water district extension. We’ve come back. You’ve given us Preliminary approval again of both Phase 1, Phase II, and final approval of Phase I, and that’s why we’re here tonight. I mention all that simply because unfortunately, we seem to have switched engineering firms, and it’s due to actions by the applicant, and my comment, I guess is it looks like the new engineering firm wants to go back to base one, as opposed to accepting the fact that we have Preliminary approval for Phase II and take a look at the final adjustments to it. We have not changed the road system. We have not changed the lot layout. What we have done is incorporated some additional stormwater management because of anticipation that we may get some stormwater from the adjoining property, and I say that we’ve changed engineers. Mr. Cerrone has hired Dan Ryan’s firm to do some other engineering for him, and I think Mr. Ryan correctly has said that he can’t serve two masters, and he declined to continue to represent the Town on this particular application, but when I went over the Staff comments, or not Staff comments, I apologize, went over the Paragon Civil Engineering comments with Mr. Nace, I kept asking, wasn’t that part of the Preliminary approval, and was told, yes, it was, that typically it’s part of the Preliminary approval. So I don’t know how we avoid going back to base one, I guess, and that’s a question I have for you. I asked if Mr. Ryan would sit just a minute. I don’t know if he’s had a chance to see some of the comments by Paragon, but it seems like we’re beating a dead horse, and why that’s of concern is that we did this as Phase I and Phase II, but our intention probably is to build them both at the same time. It’s less than 35 lots. We aren’t required to have Phase I and Phase II, and it certainly is going to be much more economical for us to put the same people on there at the same time and do the clearing that we do, do the construction that we do, and do it all at one time, so we don’t have necessarily two set ups and what not, and we’re into the season. So we’re looking, I know you can’t just ignore this, but I think I’m very much troubled by it. I would hope that you’d be troubled by it, and how do we expedite it? And I think Tom has specifically made some comments as to what he thinks is redundancy, and I’d like to proceed with that. 55 (Queensbury Planning Board 06/23/09) MRS. STEFFAN-I have to admit, it did raise a big flag for me when I went through the comments. It was supposed to be a lot more simple than this. MR. FORD-I totally agree. MR. O'CONNOR-I don’t mean to put Mr. Ryan in a position he doesn’t want to be in, but I thought that the engineering on Phase II was pretty well set except for the additional stormwater that we dealt with. Maybe I’m wrong. MR. RYAN-Yes. My recollection is this was presented as one project, initially. MR. NACE-That is correct. MR. RYAN-And it was reviewed that way, and then subsequent to finding out some drainage concerns from the West Mountain property, it was separated for further evaluation of that runoff, if I recall correctly. MR. NACE-That’s exactly correct. MR. RYAN-I haven’t had a chance to review Paragon Engineering’s comments to see what, if anything, is substantive or not, to say so at this point. MR. HUNSINGER-Well, I mean, just to kind of follow up on that, the stormwater report that you prepared is only two pages. MR. NACE-It was just a supplementary stormwater. MR. HUNSINGER-Yes. So it appears as though it really wasn’t, I’m not trying to minimize something. I mean, it was an issue that we all recognized and recognized it enough so that we broke the project out into phases so we could address it, but I was expecting a fairly lengthy stormwater report. So, it seems like the concern that we had is really not much of a concern. MR. NACE-Well, and from that standpoint, I would not propose that we ignore Paragon’s comments as they pertain to that section of the stormwater system, the section that handles the water that comes on to us from off site. I’m just, I don’t particularly look forward to going back through a different engineer review process for stuff that’s already been approved by the Town Engineer, and has already been approved by the Department of Health. I mean, he got into comments on the septic systems, some of the things are just personal preference, and the septic systems have already been reviewed and approved by the Health Department for the entire subdivision. So I guess that’s where we’re coming from. I’ve gone through and I’ve highlighted the issues that he has identified here that do need to be addressed as far as the West Mountain stormwater runoff, but they consist of, out of four pages, they consist of eight, I think seven or eight issues, which we certainly will address. So, I don’t know, you know, going through these, the ones that I have identified as being related to the West Mountain runoff are on the general comments number two; on the Sheet S-2 comments Number Three; on the Sheet S-3 comments, Number Six; on the Sheet S-4 comments Number One, Two, and Three; and on the Sheet S-5, comment Number Two. Then on the stormwater management and stormwater pollution prevention plan narrative, comment Number Two. Those are the ones we would propose to address. I can address most of those verbally right now, but we would obviously prepare a written response on those issues. MR. O'CONNOR-I don’t know if a workshop with the engineer in this particular instance might be helpful, the applicant, Staff, and the new engineering firm, and maybe if Mr. Ryan has the opportunity, after he’s had the opportunity to see if he agrees with what Tom just summarized as having been already covered territory. MR. OBORNE-The Planning Board would have to direct that. MR. O'CONNOR-That’s why we’re asking, making the Planning Board to kind of give us that guidance, that direction. I’m not asking you to overrule somebody’s comment letter without them being heard. I was particularly concerned by the stormwater management plan, bullet number two. If he’s saying that each applicant, or you would condition your approval upon each building permit have its own individual grading plan, I have no problem, but to say that you’re going to have to have a Site Plan on each lot, and we don’t have the means within our Ordinance to say that it would be discretionary, I don’t think, for the Zoning Administrator to determine whether or not that Site Plan as 56 (Queensbury Planning Board 06/23/09) submitted needs to come to this Board. I’ve suggested that, but nobody’s ever taken that suggestion, like many of my other suggestions, but I’m not sure where the basis of that is, but that’s basically what he says is that, and I’m not sure what lots he was actually referring to, I guess, but I mean, if he says, and if your Board gets to the point of where we’re going forward, which I hope we will be soon, if you’re saying that on certain lots the application for a building permit should require a grading plan, to make sure that the grading of the lot doesn’t interfere with the stormwater management plan that we’ve submitted, that’s fine. That’s a reasonable condition, but this other business throws us, again, into Never Never Land, which makes it very difficult to do business. We sell a lot to somebody and say, well, we’ll sell it to you but you’ve got to go do your own Site Plan. MR. FORD-If I understand Mr. O’Connor’s recommendation to us, I think it has merit, for that workshop. I mean, we can beat this until one o’clock in the morning and we’re not going to resolve it tonight, and there are engineers that can hash this out and I think resolve any of the issues. I think that’s where it should be taken care of and come back to us with some sort of a clear direction. We sure don’t have it now. MR. OBORNE-I’m not sure if a workshop is the issue. I just think that the engineering comments need to be taken care of, and, you know, there might be some comments on here, especially as stormwater management number two, you know, I mean, that’s a call that the Planning Board can either dismiss or, you know, put as a condition of approval, but with that said, I don’t know how a workshop would really, facilitated by Staff, would really accomplish anything. MR. FORD-Really? MR. OBORNE-I don’t, not by Staff. I mean, maybe by the engineers. MR. FORD-Well, that’s what I thought the workshop was going to be, the engineers. MR. O'CONNOR-A meeting, I’m asking let’s have a meeting instead of this submittal, re- submittal, submittal. We’ll be here in December. MR. NACE-A meeting of the three engineers. MR. FORD-Call it a meeting instead of a workshop. MR. OBORNE-That’s fine. Thank you. MR. NACE-Simply a chance to resolve which of these issues need to be thoroughly addressed and which have already been addressed. MR. FORD-Yes. Discussion. MR. HUNSINGER-Yes. MR. NACE-Correct. MR. OBORNE-Paragon is the Town Engineer for this project, unfrotuately or fortunately, however you want to look at it, and, you know, his issues are the ones that are going to need to be. MR. NACE-I think the only issue here is the overlap and Paragon coming in at the end after most of the engineering has already been resolved and approved. MR. FORD-And all of the points they have made may be valid, but that could be resolved when the appropriate engineers sit down and discuss it. MR. OBORNE-You may want to direct Paragon Engineering, specifically through a recommendation, or a resolution, to specifically pay attention to this, or something along those lines. I mean, you certainly could direct Paragon to do that, to meet with the applicant. MRS. STEFFAN-And who arranges the meeting? Staff arranges the meeting? MR. OBORNE-That would be if you, I would contact Paragon, absolutely. MR. KREBS-But shouldn’t we also have Dan at the meeting because he was the engineer prior to, through all these approvals. 57 (Queensbury Planning Board 06/23/09) MR. OBORNE-You certainly can direct him to do so. I think you’d probably have to ask him that question. MR. FORD-That’s what I had in mind. I’m looking at three engineers sitting down and hammering this out. MR. RYAN-Normally the recommendation to get together with applicants with the Town or reviewing engineer, it’s normally done with Staff so that they’re enlightened of what’s resolved, and that is normally required by Craig Brown. So it is typically and most often occurs at the Town with Staff present with, with all the engineers present. MR. O'CONNOR-That’s what we’re looking for. MR. NACE-That’s fine. MR. O'CONNOR-I didn’t mean to jump entirely off a bridge, but you’ve also seen the package. Is there anything that you have concerns about, other than engineering, although you’ve been through this thing a couple of different times. MR. HUNSINGER-Well, I did have a question. I brought up the stormwater management report, and there’s two comments in particular that I thought conflicted. On Page One, right from the middle of it, you write, the area of ponding was self-contained and did not have any outlet to any other surface waters. MR. NACE-That is correct. MR. HUNSINGER-And then later on, actually the last sentence of the report, it says, in addition, should all else fail, an emergency overflow apron at the top of the basin will allow excess water to overflow to the adjacent stream. MR. NACE-Okay. The first statement was talking about existing conditions, okay. When we observed what was happening there in the Spring, the water that reached, came onto our site, ponded, and eventually dissipated without overflowing to any place. The second paragraph is talking about the proposed system, and the proposed system will, is good design and will have an emergency in case all else fails, where does the water go. MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. Anything else from the Board, questions, comments? MR. FORD-I’m all set. MRS. STEFFAN-So we want them to get together, but we want them to get together to discuss the letter, relating to Phase II, and the review criteria. We could tell them to talk about it, but we want to direct them to come to some conclusion. MR. FORD-Resolve it. MR. HUNSINGER-Yes. MR. FORD-Resolve it and we want a final recommendation before us that is the result of those engineers consultation. MR. KREBS-And consent. If they all consent, then there’s no problems. MR. OBORNE-Are you leaning towards a tabling or? MR. HUNSINGER-Yes. MR. OBORNE-You are. MR. FORD-Yes. MR. O'CONNOR-Are you going to table this until August and give us some time of response deadline in July after we’ve met, presuming we can meet some time before the date that you set in July for response. MR. OBORNE-Well, there certainly is no public hearing. So that doesn’t need to be advertised, that’s been taken care of. 58 (Queensbury Planning Board 06/23/09) MR. HUNSINGER-Right. Yes. MR. OBORNE-I would think it would be almost an Administrative Item, if you want to open it up and expand the agenda for an additional item, that may work. Again, however you want to do it. th MR. HUNSINGER-And the one July meeting is not too heavy, right, the 28? I didn’t memorize the draft agenda. Which night was lighter? MR. OBORNE-I think they’re both pretty heavy, but I don’t anticipate, if they can get all the comments taken care of, it should be approved quick. MR. HUNSINGER-We’re not really asking them to submit any new information. Although they may need to. I think we better. MR. FORD-We may be developing a whole new protocol. MR. NACE-Give us a deadline and if we can meet it, we’ll do it. If we don’t. MR. HUNSINGER-I don’t think there really is a deadline because I think what, you know, you’re going to sit down with the engineers and he’s going to say, well, you need to adjust this, modify that, whatever. You’re going to do it, and as long as. MR. O'CONNOR-My thought, Chris, and maybe I’m wrong, but we’ll sit, or the engineers would sit down and Tom would say, we think that we’ve covered bullets one, two, three, in our prior submittals, and they were approved by the Town. MR. HUNSINGER-Right. MR. O'CONNOR-We will answer your comment number five or number six or whatever, and that will be our submittal, and hopefully Clark will say okay, particularly the septic issues that have already been approved by the New York State Department of Health. We, and I don’t know why he wants us to go back or change those, but, I mean, some of those type issues, and if he says, no, no, no, you’re going to have to submit new to us, then we’ve got to make a choice whether we come back and argue with you. MR. FORD-It may be a lack of understanding of the history. MR. TRAVER-It sounds like there needs to be a comparison of notes. MR. HUNSINGER-That’s my thinking, but there may be a need for you to submit new information. MR. NACE-There will be. MR. HUNSINGER-Which, you know, I mean, I think from our perspective, what we want th to see is, you know, if we table this until August 18, we want to see a letter from th Paragon dated August 14 saying you’ve given us everything we need, we’re satisfied. th MR. O'CONNOR-Okay. If you say August 18, what is the submittal date for that? Is it th July 15? MRS. STEFFAN-Yes, but I was going to extend you, the application deadline is usually thth July 15, but I was going to extend you to the 24 if Staff couldn’t arrange a meeting in time. MR. OBORNE-I shall endeavor to do so, absolutely, ASAP. MRS. STEFFAN-But I just thought I’d give you a little more room. So, we want to get these guys together relating to Phase II final stage review. Period. The outcome of this meeting is to provide a final recommendation to the Planning Board on criteria for final subdivision approval. MR. HUNSINGER-Yes. That sounds good. MR. NACE-Okay, but now that, for the July, what did you say? 59 (Queensbury Planning Board 06/23/09) th MRS. STEFFAN-Normally for the August meeting it’s July 15 is usually submission th deadline, but we’ll give you an extended of July 24, just in case we can’t get all the parties together. MR. NACE-Okay, to make that submission, but we still have until some time in August to actually get the signoff letter from Clark saying everything’s okay. MR. HUNSINGER-Right. th MR. TRAVER-August 14. MR. HUNSINGER-Yes. MR. NACE-Yes. Okay. MRS. STEFFAN-Okay. MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. MOTION TO TABLE FINAL STAGE SUBDIVISION NO. 2-2009 PHASE II CERRONE BUILDERS, Introduced by Gretchen Steffan who moved for its adoption, seconded by Thomas Ford: A subdivision application has been made to the Queensbury Planning Board for the following; Applicant seeks final approval of Phase II portion of subdivision which comprises of 10 lots ranging in size from 1.03 acres to 47.68 acres. Subdivision of land requires Planning Board approval. MOTION TO TABLE FINAL STAGE SUBDIVISION NO. 2-2009 PHASE II CERRONE BUILDERS, Introduced by Gretchen Steffan who moved for its adoption, seconded by Thomas Ford: th This is tabled to the August 18 Planning Board meeting with a submission deadline for thth materials of July 15. Although we will extend the application deadline to July 24 at the latest, if this meeting can occur. This is being tabled so that the Community Development Staff can arrange a meeting with Staff, Paragon Engineering, VISION Engineering, who was the original engineer on the site plan and the applicant’s agent to discuss the June 19, 2009 Paragon Engineering letter relating to Phase II, Final Stage review. The outcome of this meeting is to provide a final recommendation to the Planning Board on criteria for Final subdivision approval. rd Duly adopted this 23 day of June, 2009, by the following vote: MR. NACE-Do you want to modify your who’s attending that meeting to include Dan Ryan? MRS. STEFFAN-I thought that applicant’s agent, because. MR. O'CONNOR-Not on this project. MRS. STEFFAN-Okay. Then I will amend the motion so that it would include, in addition to Paragon Engineering, VISION Engineering as well, who was the original engineer on site plan. MR. O’CONNOR-For the project. MR. HUNSINGER-Are you okay with that, Dan? MR. RYAN-Yes, and I think one thing that might be beneficial, I may have documents that were submitted in earlier stages that maybe Clark didn’t have the advantage of seeing. So if we can figure out what went to him, we may be able to clear some of that up. MR. FORD-That’s what I anticipate. AYES: Mr. Seguljic, Mr. Sipp, Mr. Traver, Mr. Krebs, Mrs. Steffan, Mr. Ford, Mr. Hunsinger NOES: NONE 60 (Queensbury Planning Board 06/23/09) MR. O'CONNOR-Okay. Thank you. MR. HUNSINGER-Thank you. MRS. STEFFAN-Thanks. MR. HUNSINGER-Our last item, seeing how they didn’t show up, is Site Plan 34-2009. I will open the public hearing. PUBLIC HEARING OPENED MR. HUNSINGER-And I will entertain a motion for tabling, or deny without prejudice. MR. OBORNE-Yes, that’s your other option at this point. MR. SEGULJIC-If you do that, don’t they have to start all over again? MR. OBORNE-Well, the application that they submitted, they pretty much had to anyway, but it gave the bare minimum, but there were a lot of issues on it. MR. HUNSINGER-Well, yes, it’s probably not worth mentioning, but I mean the single reason why we approved the subdivision and required Site Plan Review is because we had concerns about stormwater, and there was no information at all about stormwater management in the application. MR. OBORNE-And all things being equal, it probably should not have gotten on the agenda. MR. HUNSINGER-Yes. Well, you’ll just have to re-publish the notice, then. We’ll just table it indefinitely. I mean, we have two choices. Either table it indefinitely or deny without prejudice. MR. FORD-Let’s deny without prejudice. MR. TRAVER-I’ll second that motion. MOTION TO DENY WITHOUT PREJUDICE SITE PLAN NO. 34-2009 DARIUSZ & BOZENA JACKOWSKI, Introduced by Thomas Ford 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 construction of single family residence. Site Plan Review is required as a condition of a previous subdivision approval. 2)A public hearing was advertised and held on 6/23/2009; and 3)This application is supported with all documentation, public comment and application material in the file of record; 4)MOTION TO DENY WITHOUT PREJUDICE SITE PLAN NO. 34-2009 DARIUSZ & BOZENA JACKOWSKI, Introduced by Thomas Ford who moved for its adoption, seconded by Stephen Traver: rd Duly adopted this 23 day of June, 2009, by the following vote: AYES: Mr. Sipp, Mr. Seguljic, Mrs. Steffan, Mr. Krebs, Mr. Traver, Mr. Ford, Mr. Hunsinger NOES: NONE MR. HUNSINGER-I had two quick items. The first one, Keith passed out the e-mail from Mr. Lashway. That kind of resolved the mystery about the missing e-mails going back to May, and then the other item I had was a while ago we talked about the Association of Towns summer school, and there’s a session in July, and actually Paul Schonewolf had indicated an interest in going, and I had, I think I had mentioned it to Staff at a Board meeting or at a workshop, but I wanted to bring it back up again to see if anyone else rd was interested. It’s July 23. It’s down at the Albany Law School, and it’s a day long, 61 (Queensbury Planning Board 06/23/09) they call it summer school. It’s training for Planning and Zoning Boards, sponsored by the Association of Towns and the New York Planning Federation MR. TRAVER-What day of the week is that do you know? MR. HUNSINGER-It is a Thursday. MR. FORD-Chris, do they tend to split those seminars up according to Planning and Zoning. MR. HUNSINGER-They do, yes. Last year it was held here in this room in fact, and there’s some general sessions and then there’s some zoning specific and planning specific. MR. KREBS-I might be interested. I’ll have to just check my calendar and see if I’m available on that date. MR. FORD-Same here. MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. MR. TRAVER-I have a follow up discussion regarding the Town e-mail, and that is will we be notified, I’m trying to think, I went to the Town website today and, you know, put in my username, password and saw the e-mail that was there. I guess my question is, how are we to know that we have a message there? I mean, I already check two e-mail accounts. Are we expected to assume that we should check that weekly, or will we get maybe at least a notice in our personal e-mail that there is e-mail there, or should we plan on checking it on the tenth, the fifteenth and the twentieth? Because how. MR. OBORNE-I’d highly suggest that you check it often. That would be the only guidance I would give you. MR. TRAVER-Okay. MR. OBORNE-I think the whole idea is to streamline it for FOIL purposes, and for FOIL purposes only. MR. TRAVER-Yes, I understand. MR. OBORNE-And that will be the main source of communication. I’ll communicate through that also. MR. TRAVER-Yes, I saw there were some messages from you. Yes. MR. OBORNE-Yes, and I think that’s about it, and those, to tell you the truth, we have a drop down box that says Planning Board, it has everybody on it, actually, in the Town. It says Planning Board, and that, I was sending stuff to you through that, and that’s why you weren’t getting anything and certain other individuals weren’t getting anything, but again, the long and short of it is that I would check it often. Absolutely. Especially as you know how the cycle works. MR. TRAVER-Right. Okay. We’ll do. MR. KREBS-The people who didn’t show up today, when I did the site reviews, there seemed to be a lot of soil movement on this property. MR. OBORNE-Really. MR. KREBS-There was a backhoe out there. MR. OBORNE-Really. MR. KREBS-So you might just want to have somebody take a look. MR. OBORNE-I shall do it personally. MR. HUNSINGER-Any other business? Would anyone like to make a motion to adjourn? 62 (Queensbury Planning Board 06/23/09) MOTION TO ADJOURN THE QUEENSBURY PLANNING BOARD MEETING OF JUNE 23, 2009, Introduced by Thomas Ford who moved for its adoption, seconded by Donald Krebs: rd Duly adopted this 23 day of June, 2009, by the following vote: AYES: Mr. Seguljic, Mr. Sipp, Mr. Traver, Mr. Krebs, Mrs. Steffan, Mr. Ford, Mr. Hunsinger NOES: NONE On motion meeting was adjourned. RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED, Chris Hunsinger, Chairman 63