Loading...
2010.02.23 (Queensbury Planning Board 02/23/2010) QUEENSBURY PLANNING BOARD MEETING SECOND REGULAR MEETING FEBRUARY 23, 2010 INDEX Site Plan 8-2010 Steve & Debbie Seaboyer 1. Tax Map No. 227.13-2-36 Site Plan 9-2010 Jamie Walther 13. Tax Map No. 226.19-2-34 Subdivision No. 3-2010 Babajani & Mama, LLC 20. PRELIMINARY STAGE Tax Map No. 296.13-1-17 FINAL STAGE Site Plan No. 10-2010 Babajani & Mama, LLC 22. Tax Map No. 296.13-1-17 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 02/23/2010) QUEENSBURY PLANNING BOARD MEETING SECOND REGULAR MEETING FEBRUARY 23, 2010 7:00 P.M. MEMBERS PRESENT CHRIS HUNSINGER, CHAIRMAN GRETCHEN STEFFAN, SECRETARY DONALD SIPP PAUL SCHONEWOLF STEPHEN TRAVER STEVEN JACKOSKI, ALTERNATE MEMBERS ABSENT DONALD KREBS LAND USE PLANNER-KEITH OBORNE STENOGRAPHER-SUE HEMINGWAY MR. HUNSINGER-I’ll call to order the meeting of the Town of Queensbury Planning Board on Tuesday, February 23, 2010. We have a pretty short agenda this evening. If anyone wants to pick up a copy of the agenda, it’s on the back table. There’s also information on the back table regarding the public hearing. All three cases do have a public hearing scheduled. Actually, all three items are tabled items. SITE PLAN 8-2010 SEQR TYPE II STEVE & DEBBIE SEABOYER AGENT(S) DEAN HOWLAND, JR. OWNER(S) W. STEVEN SEABOYER ZONING WR LOCATION 83 ROCKHURST ROAD APPLICANT PROPOSES CHANGES TO APPROVED STORMWATER PLAN AND APPROVED SITE PLAN. CHANGES TO AN APPROVED SITE PLAN REQUIRE PLANNING BOARD REVIEW AND APPROVAL. CROSS REFERENCE AV 6-2010, AV 81-05, BOH 1-05, SP 33-06, NOA 6-07, BP 06-006, 781, BP 08-508 WARREN CO. PLANNING 2/10/2010 APA, CEA, OTHER APA WETLANDS, L G PARK CEA LOT SIZE 0.20 +/- TAX MAP NO. 227.13-2-36 SECTION 179-9-010, CHAPTER 147, 179-6-050 DEAN HOWLAND, REPRESENTING APPLICANT, PRESENT MR. HUNSINGER-Keith, whenever you’re ready to summarize Staff Notes. MR. OBORNE-Site Plan 8-2010, Steven and Debbie Seaboyer. Site Plan Review for changes to an approved Site Plan. The location is 83 Rockhurst Road. Waterfront Residential is the zoning. It’s a Type II SEQRA. Project Description: Applicant requires approval after the fact for changes to previously approved stormwater plan. Further, applicant requires approval after the fact for filling within 50 feet of shoreline and hard surfacing within 100 feet of a shoreline. I think that the Planning Board is aware of the issues on this parcel. They’re aware that we had a meeting last week on this. The applicant has gone before the ZBA and has gained approved with conditions. What I do have are additional comments. Paragon Engineering’s comments are attached. Area Variance 6-2010, which dealt with infiltration devices within 100 feet of a shoreline, and FAR relief, was approved by the Zoning Board of Appeals on February 17, 2010. As a condition of approval, the ZBA is requiring additional vegetation be installed on the property. The applicant has provided a draft plan as per the conditions of approval for the area variance to the Planning Board for their review and subsequent incorporation into the site plan. This was written in anticipation that I would have received the draft landscaping plan prior to this meeting so I could send it out to you for your review. As such, I just received it, I haven’t been able to review it at this point, and some of the conditions that the resolution, that the Area Variance dealt with were specific location and types of trees. So with that said, I do want to bring that up to the attention of the Board that this was given to me tonight, and third, the Planning Board, as a condition of approval, may wish to direct the applicant to have the plans sealed by a professional engineer. MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. Thank you. Good evening. MR. HOWLAND-Good evening. Again, my name is Dean Howland, here as agent for the owners. There was, I had a little trouble getting approval for the landscaping. The 1 (Queensbury Planning Board 02/23/2010) owners were in California due to a death in the family, and got back late Sunday night. The landscaper that did the original landscaping got back yesterday morning. We met late yesterday afternoon and discussed what had to be done, and I got the plans two o’clock this afternoon. So I brought them with me. I only had two copies because I was on the way out, but what they requested was that, at the Zoning Board of Appeals, is that they wanted some trees planted in the particular areas, and we met on site again yesterday late afternoon, and they wanted to have, I asked one time what size trees they wanted, but when they said six inch diameter trees, we’d have to bring them in with cranes. They just aren’t going to make it there, and then we met on the property, and due to, well, down to the lakeside, I’ll put the plan up here, but they put in, on the north side, they put trees actually in the retention ponds because there’s really no other location for us to put them there, and the one on the north side is heavily shaded by a red pine on the neighbor’s piece of property. So he’s picked, and I’ll pass out the specific plantings, and then on the south side to get six inch diameters, which they couldn’t bring them in, but they could bring in a clump of birch trees so they planted a clump of birch trees in the south retention pond or proposed south retention pond. When we went on the road side of the house, the difficulty was what kind of trees could we put between where I have my crushed stone that we’re putting all the water from the road into, and the septic system, what kind of root system could we have between the house and that, that wouldn’t grow into the leach field. We couldn’t come up with too many. So came up with an idea of putting clumps of yellow birches on the north side of the property where the water comes off the road during the major storms. They also wanted to put more vegetation along the seawall, and they had mentioned, in this meeting, Yews, but in the avoid planting list from the LGA, it’s got Japanese Yews. So he decided for something that would, I guess, soak up moisture the best. Even though it’s highly elevated there, would be what’s a plant called a bunch berry. I’m not familiar with it, but said it would grow well there and do the same purpose. Then they asked, along the fence lines on the north and south sides of the property, to plant some sort of shrubbery and bushes, and they came up with a winterberry holly that would work in there. I have some plants, some are here, and you all have a letter from them, just so I can explain. I can pass it down here and show you. I also was in contact with the Lake George Park Commission, because in other Towns we have put retention ponds right behind the berm on the shoreline, and so I asked them, where can you have retention ponds and what is the delineation on your part. He said, well, if they’re retention ponds for roof drains, such as for the (lost words) ponds, he said you can put them anywhere. There is no 100 foot setback. The 100 foot setback is what we did for the road water and/or driveway water. Those two items, and since, again, we’re picking up a bunch of road water, and dispersed it around the house, I assume that’s what the variance is for. I’m asking the question with Town of Queensbury because I thought, adoption of rules, I thought you adopted the Park Commission rules. I’m just, I’m trying to get a clarity, because I’ve got a couple of more houses coming up in the Town of Queensbury, and that’s what the two engineers are working on. They had the same feeling, that if it’s roof gutter water, the ponds can go anywhere. It doesn’t matter, but if it’s water for the roadway, which I do have, and the road water from the driveway, which I do have in that retention pond, that has to be the 100 feet, that’s what the variance would be. It was just a question I was asking. MR. HUNSINGER-Yes, I don’t know. MR. OBORNE-I can answer that. Chapter 147, which is the Town of Queensbury’s stormwater chapter, basically states that you can have an infiltration device within 100 feet of the shoreline. We had some adjudication in the past that states that rain gardens are considered an infiltration device and as such will require relief from the Zoning Board of Appeals if you place rain gardens within 100 feet of the shoreline for infiltration purposes. We know that it’s filtration and not infiltration, there is a difference, but, with that said, the judge has made his decree based on certain evidence that was presented. Regardless of what the issue is, they are considered an infiltration device. So anything within 100 feet of the shoreline. MR. HOWLAND-Okay. So that means really maybe there’s five houses in the Town of Queensbury shoreline that aren’t within 100 feet. So you’d need a variance for any house to put stormwater management in. MR. OBORNE-Yes, pretty much. MR. HUNSINGER-Yes. I was going to mention that same court case as well. I mean, we don’t really agree with it, but unfortunately that’s what the judge ruled. 2 (Queensbury Planning Board 02/23/2010) MR. HOWLAND-Yes. I was getting a little confused because we’re asked to do this in other townships. MR. HUNSINGER-Right. MR. HOWLAND-Berm and put these retention ponds right, you know, just stop it from going in the water down, and let it filtrate, and that’s why I was confused about, for something else I’m designing in the Town of Queensbury. It was just a question I had. MR. HUNSINGER-Now the other thing we could do, and maybe we should discuss this, is we could have the Code changed by the Town Board, which would clarify that. MR. HOWLAND-Because there was distinct between the two when I talked to the Park Commission, because I was really confused there. I had two drawings, it’s all the time I had to get, because I had to get the homeowner’s approval of something. They had to know what we were doing, and I had to get a fellow to design it, but I have a letter and I have a copy. I gave Keith one. I could pass them out. That’s all I can do. MR. OBORNE-If I may, I will say that I do need to vet what’s going on with this landscaping plan, and if there is a change to what the Zoning Board of Appeals has required of this applicant, if this, the application must be tabled. MR. HUNSINGER-Yes. MR. OBORNE-And the plan either needs to be updated, or the applicant needs to go back to the Zoning Board of Appeals and explain to them why you can’t meet the conditions of their approval. MR. HUNSINGER-I was going to ask that very question, because all I have are your briefing notes. I don’t have the actual resolution. MR. HOWLAND-There was just two trees in front and two trees in back. That’s all I really had, and shrubs along the edge. I didn’t have any other location. MR. HUNSINGER-And did the specify yews, yes. MR. OBORNE-Yes. It’s pretty specific. MR. HOWLAND-But you can’t put a yew in. MR. HUNSINGER-I know, but they didn’t know that. MR. HOWLAND-In fact, I was mistaken, but we had 16 feet of yews on this property that I thought we had to take them out, but we had to take them out to put the plantings that were already there. I mean, we pulled all these out, and yet, well, at that time, because they said it was a bad thing, and it says it’s bad in the LGA, but now it’s, and again, we’ve removed all those. MR. OBORNE-I don’t know if that was an allowable removal, to be honest with you. MR. HOWLAND-Well, you had to do it to put the plants in. They covered the first 16 feet back from the shoreline, and sometimes even further. MR. OBORNE-Again, it’s muddy, at this point, and I can’t speak, professionally, as to what was going on back in ’08, ’07, ’06, ’05. MR. HUNSINGER-Well, the problem we have is that if the Zoning Board resolution is very specific, which it appears to be, and you can’t meet that condition, then you’ll have to go back to the Zoning Board in that case. MR. HOWLAND-Really? Even though it’s in violation of what you want on the land? MR. HUNSINGER-Yes. Unfortunately. MR. OBORNE-What violation are you referring to? MR. HOWLAND-It says right here, avoid planting these plants, Japanese Yews, right here. 3 (Queensbury Planning Board 02/23/2010) MRS. STEFFAN-Well, it says, the specific language says shrubberies should include species like Yew or something low growing. So it doesn’t have to be low growing. So it doesn’t have to be a Yew. MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. It’s like Yews, then. MR. HOWLAND-Yes, but I thought it was an option. They were talking in general realities. I mean, you said a white pine. I would not put a white pine in front of a, there’s no red pine. I mean, it’s just going to blow down. MR. OBORNE-Well, I mean they specifically state white pines. MRS. STEFFAN-Along the property line. MR. OBORNE-Right, along the property lines. MR. HOWLAND-It won’t grow down in front. MR. OBORNE-That’s an issue that should have been brought before the Zoning Board of Appeals. MR. HOWLAND-Well, I don’t know that. I didn’t know that anybody was going to make us plant more because we already had an approved planting system. MRS. STEFFAN-Certainly when I read this ZBA resolution it sounded to me like they were trying to make the site as close to either what it was, or to match some of the landscaping of adjoining houses. I’m not really sure. MR. HOWLAND-Well, there wasn’t any trees down in front before. MRS. STEFFAN-This is very odd language. I mean, usually the Zoning Board is not this specific, and so there obviously had to be some logic behind that. MR. OBORNE-Yes, and the logic is that the, Rockhurst is pretty much barren of any large trees, and that’s what the Board was trying to do is let’s start with this property and let’s plant some larger trees, hardwoods, white pines. So, in the future, we could start to get a little bit of absorption, shade, etc., on these properties. MRS. STEFFAN-Okay. MR. SIPP-It’s pretty well laid out in 179-8-50 as to what you need in that 15 foot strip along the edge of the lake, one large tree every, what amounts to two trees. MR. OBORNE-Every fifty feet, somewhere along those lines. MR. SIPP-And then the shrubs, and then ground cover. So, if you read that Section, it lays it out, and after that there’s a preferred list of trees, shrubs, ground cover. MR. HOWLAND-Which is what, we took that off your preferred list. MR. OBORNE-Which in the non-specific conditions of this approval, that’s fine. MR. SIPP-I mean, your neighbor to the south. MR. HOWLAND-But it was just like a white pine. It wasn’t a specific, it wasn’t anything specific. On the borders there’s huge trees. I mean, there’s a massive red pine that overhangs the first, almost to the stairs that are going down there and the landscaper said it just won’t grow there. He said it’s something you don’t put there. MR. TRAVER-Well, it sounds like Staff, having just received the proposed landscaping, the Planning Department needs an opportunity to look at that, evaluate it, compare it specifically with the ZBA approval, and then see where we’re at from there, and possibly meet with the applicant again. MR. OBORNE-Yes, absolutely. It certainly needs to be vetted, and I also need to compare it with the specifics of the ZBA resolution, and I don’t doubt that there were issues with you not being able to get that to me last week, and then (lost words) Monday. That’s not the issue. The issue is that I haven’t had a chance to review it at this time. 4 (Queensbury Planning Board 02/23/2010) MR. HUNSINGER-Yes, nor us. MR. OBORNE-And if you can’t meet the conditions of the Zoning Board of Appeals, there’s no use in wasting this Board’s time at this point, until those conditions are either met or modified. MR. HOWLAND-All right, but I was just told, if you go back and put anything that’s on your approved planting list is what we did. MR. OBORNE-Right, but there are specifics. They’re looking for white pine. MR. SCHONEWOLF-They said white pines. MR. HOWLAND-No, they said like a white pine. I was told, I specifically asked them what size, and they said six inch. I mean, I can’t get a six inch. MR. SCHONEWOLF-It says and those would be white pines. MR. HOWLAND-No, he didn’t. He said like a white pine. I’m talking Jim Underwood said it was like a white pine. MR. TRAVER-Well, after Staff has an opportunity to examine your planting, in discussions, you may be able to come up with a proposed landscaping plan which can be submitted and we can then look at, which meets the conditions. MR. HOWLAND-But you’re saying no matter what I have to go back, if it’s different, I have to go back. MR. TRAVER-I don’t think no matter what. I think if it doesn’t meet, if you’re unable to meet the conditions of the approval that you just received. I’m not sure that we absolutely know. MR. HOWLAND-It always said I had to have two trees out in front, two trees out back, some trees along the fence line and something like a Yew down in front. MR. TRAVER-I understand what you’re saying, but we’re not able to answer that or evaluate that this evening because we haven’t received the plan. MR. HOWLAND-But what you’re saying is that I’d still have to go back to the Zoning Board of Appeals. MR. HUNSINGER-Well, we don’t know that. MR. TRAVER-We can’t make that determination this evening. We only know that it needs to be looked at by the Planning Staff. Then we’ll know, and then you’ll have an opportunity, perhaps, to maybe make adjustments to your proposed, if necessary, and it may not be necessary. MR. HOWLAND-But the house and the septic he said he just couldn’t think of anything that wouldn’t grow to the leach field. So I said well we definitely can’t put anything there. MR. OBORNE-I can’t disagree with you on that. MR. HOWLAND-And I need to be able to get down, and the only way I can get to the, and get anything into the, if they ever have to fix their dock or anything, is on the north side. So I’ve got to leave a path open there somehow. So that’s why we worked around that, too. They put something that would soak a lot of water up. MR. OBORNE-For the Zoning Board of Appeals to, I will say, I can’t say it’s extraordinary that they put these type of conditions on there, but it is rare, but in this case they were very specific on what they were looking for, and location. The trees up by the road, two large trees to be planted, native species on the list. Okay. Where are you going to put them up on the road. You have an Eljen system up there. MR. HOWLAND-So I put them in the area that I don’t have it. MR. OBORNE-Correct. MR. HOWLAND-That’s where I’d put them. Yes. 5 (Queensbury Planning Board 02/23/2010) MR. OBORNE-Okay. White pines. MR. HOWLAND-No, they said birch would be fine, too, anything that was native. We talked. MR. OBORNE-They did not say that. That’s the issue here. MR. HOWLAND-We talked about birch trees. They said like a white pine. We asked about birch. Anything that would have been native to that area originally. MRS. STEFFAN-Well, there’s a difference between the discussion and the motion that was presented, because the language in the motion is pretty specific. MR. HOWLAND-Well, I’m going to have to go back, because they said white pine won’t grow in those areas. MRS. STEFFAN-Right. Yes, because it’s very specific. MR. HOWLAND-I understand, but I mean I was there for the conversation. Because I asked them the question. MR. SCHONEWOLF-You had an understanding with them. MR. HOWLAND-Okay. MR. OBORNE-At this point you’re going to be tabled, pending submittal of a site plan that is compliant with the conditions of the Zoning Board of Appeals resolution. MR. HOWLAND-Well, I’m going to have to call him and find out. Because I think that’s a little odd there. MR. HUNSINGER-Well, before we table it, we do have a public hearing scheduled this evening. Is there anyone that wanted to address? I will open the public hearing and I will take those public comments, if you’re ready. Is there anyone else that wanted to address the Board on this project? Good evening. PUBLIC HEARING OPEN KATHY BOZONY MS. BOZONY-Good evening. Kathy Bozony with office of the Lake George Water Keeper. I’m not sure if I need to address the fact that I work for the Water Keeper, but I live in Saratoga County. Am I going to need to? MR. HUNSINGER-That’s fine. MS. BOZONY-Okay. Thank you. A couple of the, just comments on what was just stated. One of the specific things that the Zoning Board of Appeals did say were no birch trees, because of their short-lived nature. That was the one condition. I’m not sure what a clump of yellow birch are. Yellow birch and white paper birch are very different trees. Yellow birch would be very appropriate for any of the locations in that yard. They were very specific about hardwood or softwood, oaks, maples, yellow birch, beech, any of those trees that are native. The one comment that I would have about the shoreline buffering and the Yews or the shrubbery that they had asked for shoreline buffering, I believe bunchberry is a little tiny ground cover that grows in the wood. I could be wrong about that, which is not comparable to what should be on a shoreline buffer, as the only tree. Winterberry Holly is good. A couple of other comments that I have regarding changes were presented by the applicant. It was explained that the site condition improved from the alteration, yet it appears that stormwater runoff is still an issue. It was explained that when stormwater flows from Rockhurst Road and the upland neighbor’s properties, it enters an installed catch basin, is piped to stone trenches around the house and then is dispersed in the lawn. It was stated that the lawn may remain saturated for two to five days after a storm event. Due to the fact that there is no substantial vegetation on this property or the surrounding properties, all mature trees have been removed. Water is not absorbed by vegetation. Lawn is dominant in this area, and the shallow root of grass’s average two inch depth is not an adequate vehicle for stormwater absorption and treatment. The expectation that the grass on this site and the surrounding properties will absorb flowing water is having a cumulative effect on the 6 (Queensbury Planning Board 02/23/2010) neighborhood and potentially impacting the water quality of Lake George. Grass lawns do not compare to one mature tree that may store up to 15,000 gallons of water, and I think that’s where the Zoning Board of Appeals was coming, were discussing the mature trees. Six inch trees may be a challenge to plant. The proper tree, whether it’s white pine, hemlock or any of the hardwoods, at a reasonable size, you know, that would become established and be able to be planted without cranes is probably a little bit more appropriate. A six inch tree is a very large tree to transplant and be successful with it. Rain gardens that have been constructed next to the lake would function more effectively if more substantial vegetation was planted including trees and shrubs with deep roots and woody structures and woody structures that would remain during the winter months. Proper construction of a rain garden, including amended soils needed for adsorption and healthy plant growth, should be evaluated. Heavy clay like soils on the property that were used to construct the rain gardens should have been mixed with sand and compost in order to appropriate infiltration and treatment of stormwater. The site in the Staff Notes states that it’s of very good infiltration, but the applicant said it’s very clay like soils, and in order for a rain garden to adequately function, it needs to have that compost for adsorption and it needs to have sand so that it will actually infiltrate. The river stones and filter fabric that have been placed on the top of the soils in the northern rain garden to keep the mulch from floating should not be necessary. We recommend planting of a substantial vegetation throughout the property, and use of amended soils in the rain gardens. Prior Site Plan approval by the Town of Queensbury Planning Board on March 18, 2008 included a condition to plant a 20 foot wide shoreline buffer of woody and herbaceous native plants. It doesn’t appear that this has been done. Detailed planting plan was requested by the Planning Board at that time. I believe the condition was approved, that the planting plan would arrive after the fact. I don’t know if it’s arrived. I didn’t see it in the file. Rain gardens intended as infiltration devices have been planted in front of the retaining walls within 10 feet of the lake, but there are no shoreline buffer plantings, especially on the north end of the property, as this location has been planted with grass. An effective shoreline buffer should include a four tiered canopy of native trees, shrubs, perennials and ground cover in order to properly cushion heavy rainfall and to protect the ground from erosion during storm events. The flowers that have been planted in the rain gardens may be from the recommended native plant list but are not, in and of themselves, substantial enough to be considered an appropriate shoreline buffer that will properly infiltrate and treat the quantity of water that flows on this property. As stated in the Queensbury Town Code, 179-8-040, Buffer Requirements, a property should have a viable buffer to the maximum extent practicable. Lake George Water Keeper recommends that a minimum 20 foot buffer with substantial vegetation, more capable of infiltrating and treating stormwater, be planted, replacing existing lawn areas, if necessary. In addition, because of the proximity to the lake, prohibiting the use of chemicals, fertilizers and pesticides should be mandatory. This was also a condition by the Planning Board on March 18, 2008, and was required to have been included as a notation on the Site Plan at that time. Thank you very much. MR. HUNSINGER-Thank you. Does anyone else want to address the Board on this project? Did you have any written comments, Keith? MR. OBORNE-No, just from the Water Keeper. MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. So, the applicant submitted a revised landscaping plan and you just got it today. I’m just trying to think of when we would table this project until. MR. OBORNE-You may have a Special Meeting coming up in March. MR. HUNSINGER-Yes. MR. SCHONEWOLF-That would be a good idea. MRS. STEFFAN-Are there other outstanding items? MR. HUNSINGER-Well, the other item that we talked about last week is trying to get a revised letter from Nace Engineering. Do we have anything new? MR. HOWLAND-No. MR. HUNSINGER-We’re just looking for something, a stronger language regarding, you know, his opinions on the stormwater management systems that were installed. MR. HOWLAND-Even though he said it met the 100 year storm and all that? 7 (Queensbury Planning Board 02/23/2010) MR. HUNSINGER-Well, they hedged their bets a little bit by saying it meets the intent of the approved stormwater plan, and what we were looking for is something that would say, it is our professional opinion that the stormwater system as installed will work. I mean, maybe not that simplistic, but that would be. MRS. STEFFAN-And, you know, certainly, you’ve got an approved plan, and the site was not developed according to the approved plan. So we’re still in that no man’s land where we’re not really sure what you’ve done will work, and so that’s why we really want the certification or the insurance from Nace Engineering that that stormwater plan will work. MR. HOWLAND-Okay, but, I mean, I just want to reiterate a couple of things there, too. There were two things done in the last couple of years from this Planning Board and the Zoning Board of Appeals that doubled the amount of water that came to this property. One was the place across the way, and one was the septic system to the north. I mean, just hundreds of thousands of gallons more water came to the Seaboyers. The Seaboyers are below the road. They don’t put any water on the road. Everything comes to that. So we dealt with the problem, because it was just, oh, my God when you saw it coming at us, and it works, and nothing gets to the retention ponds, I know that, but, I mean, the other thing we can do, we can just put cement in this hole and then it’s just going to down the road and flood out and go right in the lake. So we’ve tried all that, but the retention ponds, you know, you’ve got to go there and see. There’s just nothing in them, other than the rain that falls on them. I mean, you don’t see anything in the bottom of these at any rainstorm at any time. So, I mean, we know it works, or I know it works, and I’ll be maintaining it. The shrubbery plan that they gave was the one that was approved way back when. I mean, this plan, the one that I brought in, I’ll have to take it back because I’ve got to re-do them, but that was the one that came through this Board, I don’t know if it was Mike O’Connor, Jon Lapper, I wasn’t involved in it at the time, but that’s just an addition to the plans, other than, again, we put the retention ponds down where the water would have gone because it just, the other water just bypassed it. I’m just trying to make a point that I’m dealing with a Town of Queensbury problem. I understand what you’re doing, but it was a water problem that the Seaboyers didn’t have beforehand. They had some, but not like it is now, and we certainly didn’t have it when we started the job, but it increased greatly. So, you know, I go up on site with everybody, with the professionals that say, well, this won’t grow here, but that will grow there. MR. HUNSINGER-Yes. I think we appreciate where you’ve been and where you’ve gone with it. I think it’s just a question, for us, of making sure that the record’s clear, and that, you know, the professionals who’ve signed off, saying, you know, they think it’s going to work okay. MR. HOWLAND-That’s what, Tom Center thought he did it twice. MRS. STEFFAN-But if all these things were going wrong, you know, some of the folks that you should have had on site were the Community Development Department. MR. HOWLAND-I had them on site, ma’am, nothing happened. MRS. STEFFAN-The Building and Codes people. MR. HOWLAND-No. MR. OBORNE-They weren’t called. MRS. STEFFAN-Okay. MR. HOWLAND-Building and Codes we have no problem with. It was (lost words) next door, can you do something, can you help us out, a silt fence, can you have them put in hay bales, so we don’t spend, every time it rains, bringing back sand and stuff and delivering it back to the property, and finally we just said, well, we’ll take care of it. If you won’t do it, we’ll have to take care of it. So don’t tell me I didn’t do that. I had three separate meetings on site for this, and nothing got accomplished. MRS. STEFFAN-The difficulty is that you had an approved site plan. You didn’t develop the site according to the Site Plan. MR. HOWLAND-I understand that. 8 (Queensbury Planning Board 02/23/2010) MRS. STEFFAN-And any time there’s a modification, you have to have the Town Staff there so that they know what they’re doing. If other people on the street developed, based on an approved site plan, and they didn’t develop according to the site plan, they’ve got issues, too. MR. HOWLAND-Okay. I understand what you’re saying, but the ponds weren’t, they weren’t, everything else was site specific, leach fields and everything. Ponds just (lost word). In the past, anywhere I go, I’ve always had the availability of moving them closer because, again, we’re just dealing with rain gutter water and stuff like that. The other part was a Town of Queensbury Highway Department. That’s why I went to them. Saying, you know, we can help you because you’re flooding this guy out. The neighbor was being flooded out, first time ever. As soon as that septic system went in on the north property. Never even been close to being septic, and of course blaming us, but then he realized, well, you’re below the road, you aren’t sending the water to us. So I went to the Highway Department thinking, all I’m doing is adding to it, I’m not changing, I’m just adding to what they had to solve a problem, otherwise the water just goes to the lake, because there’s no way to stop it, if we didn’t do what we did. MR. TRAVER-And this is all information that you explained to us in detail last week. MR. HOWLAND-I understand that, but I’m just trying to say, I just want it on the record because I thought I was solving a Town of Queensbury problem and it’s been a while. MRS. STEFFAN-And certainly, going forward, you’ll know in your other Queensbury development projects that if there are any modifications to the site plan you absolutely have to call Community Development. MR. HOWLAND-Well, but you also have, until we were notified in August that you’re going to inspect them. Because no one’s ever inspected stormwater management in the Town of Queensbury. Ever. MR. OBORNE-That’s not true. MR. HOWLAND-Every builder I know that builds on the lake, I was with 15 of them over the weekend at a meeting, and not one of them’s inspected. MR. OBORNE-Bruce Frank inspects stormwater. MR. HOWLAND-He does now, as of this summer. He just started to do it, but go on all these other properties on Rockhurst. There’s nothing there. I mean, it’s just not there. So I’m saying that you just started to inspect it. We were notified in August. Actually Bruce came up. We were told that, we were sent letters, the engineer, the owner and myself. Never received them. No other builder knows about it, other than the meeting that we happened to be all at a party, the whole bunch of us and stuff, and we all got in a conversation. It’s a good thing that you’re going to inspect it, but you never have in the past. MR. HUNSINGER-That’s interesting. Okay. What Keith was referring to a couple of minutes ago is he sent to me draft agendas for March, and I think we were all alerted last week that the March meetings would be really full. One of the items that is going to be before the Board is a project for Schermerhorn Properties at Exit 20, as people may have seen in the newspaper, and my suggestion to Keith was maybe we consider a Special Meeting just for that project, based on the controversy that there was the last time, because we know it’s going to be a long meeting. So Keith said he had some dates for, if we wanted to consider a Special Meeting in March. MR. OBORNE-Yes. I took the liberty of seeing when this building was open to us, and th you have, all these dates are in March. The 11, these are all Thursdays, also. The ththth 11, the 18, and the 25are open. MR. HUNSINGER-Well, I guess the question is, you know, does the Board want to do a Special Meeting in March? MR. TRAVER-And if we do a Special Meeting, that, theoretically, might open up a spot. MR. HUNSINGER-Right, theoretically. MR. TRAVER-I think it both makes sense, providing in the case of this applicant, that the materials can be prepared, the letter that I’m assuming we’re going to be asking for can 9 (Queensbury Planning Board 02/23/2010) be obtained, and the answers, with regards to the impact on the ZBA approval, can be determined, in time to submit. MR. HUNSINGER-Sure. MRS. STEFFAN-Well, yes, that’s another thing, because if we have a meeting, for th example, on March 11, I mean, that doesn’t give Staff enough time to review it, get the copies out. MR. OBORNE-No. Those meetings, there’s two ways you can go about this. You can tack it on to one of the current meetings, the Tuesday meetings, or tack it on to the Special Meeting. So, I mean, you do have a little bit of options here. The thing is if you tack is on to a current meeting or scheduled meeting, and the applicant doesn’t meet the requirements at that point, somebody else is losing out on a spot. MR. HUNSINGER-Right. MR. OBORNE-Whereas you do have a little bit more wiggle room with a Special Meeting. MR. HUNSINGER-Yes, or we could table it until April. MR. OBORNE-That’s true. MR. HUNSINGER-I mean, you’re not going to be installing this stuff until Spring anyway. MR. HOWLAND-You can’t install anything until Spring. How about a temporary CO. You can’t do that, can’t do anything. MRS. STEFFAN-No. MR. HOWLAND-Have you applied for an extension on the Temporary CO? MR. HOWLAND-Can’t. Craig told me I couldn’t get one. MR. OBORNE-You couldn’t get one? MR. HOWLAND-No, he said you can’t get one. I had one. MR. OBORNE-It’s my understanding you can ask for an extension from Building and Codes, but with that said. MR. HOWLAND-Well, Building and Codes I’m fine with. It’s just the zoning thing. MR. OBORNE-The applicant, the Temporary CO has expired. I think that’s pretty clear. MR. HUNSINGER-When did it expire? MRS. STEFFAN-That was in Craig’s letter. MR. HOWLAND-December or something. MR. HUNSINGER-So is the applicant in the house, I mean, are they living in the house? MR. HOWLAND-Well, yes, they got a Temporary CO because a lot of this stuff, we kept on being requested to do something that he wasn’t going to accept anyway, and then it expired but he was away, and only he can give you a Temporary CO. When he came back he said, well, I can’t give you a Temporary CO because you have to come in front of the Planning Board. So I’m in a Catch-22. Yes, they’re not moving out. I don’t understand why we can’t get a Temporary CO. MR. OBORNE-I think it’s safe to say that the applicant’s not going to be, storm troopers aren’t going to come and remove the applicant from the house. The fact of the matter is we do want to close this out. MR. HUNSINGER-Sure. MR. OBORNE-So, with that said. 10 (Queensbury Planning Board 02/23/2010) MR. HUNSINGER-And the fact is we’re so close at this point, and I would feel comfortable saying we could table this until March if we had been able to review the site plan, the landscaping plan that you submitted. MR. HOWLAND-Right. Really all you need from me is the planting plan, but I have to go back to the Zoning Board just to make sure that some checks out. MR. HUNSINGER-I don’t know. I mean, Keith will check that. He will give you an opinion. It’s reviewable by Staff, by Craig Brown, also. MR. HOWLAND-I mean, I’ve filed everything I have to file, other than this planting plan, so far. That’s all I’m asking. MR. OBORNE-I think instead of giving this back, let me keep it, let me vet it, and I’ll certainly contact you before the end of the week. MR. HUNSINGER-And, you know, if that plan meets the ZBA requirements then, you know. MR. OBORNE-It’ll be a quick turnaround for this Board. MR. HUNSINGER-Yes, it’ll be a five minute discussion. We still have a Nace Engineering issue, though. MR. HOWLAND-Well, I’ll speak to them and just have them call you to see whatever terminology that you want. MR. OBORNE-Well, it’s what the Planning Board is looking for. They’re going to give you direction as to what they’re looking for. MR. HUNSINGER-So do we want to table this until April, the first meeting? Okay. They have a letter from Nace Engineering, so it doesn’t necessarily have to be from Nace, but it needs to be from an engineer saying that the, well, I mean, ideally what we’re looking for is that the stormwater plan meets the Chapter 147 stormwater requirements in the Town of Queensbury. MR. TRAVER-Yes. Not the intent, but that it does. MR. HUNSINGER-Not the intent, but it does. MR. OBORNE-Are you looking for a seal, basically, signed, sealed? MR. HUNSINGER-Well, I mean, I didn’t say that it needed to be sealed, but I mean, it’s a subtle difference. MR. OBORNE-Would that satisfy the Board if the applicant could produce the seal of a PE? MR. SIPP-No. MR. HUNSINGER-Well, no, because, I mean, at this point it’s really more of an opinion letter than it is of a design, I mean, because they could give you a sealed design, but that doesn’t mean that the sealed design meets Chapter 147. So, to me, the letter was an issue, and this letter is close, you know, he says it meets the intent, but, you know, we need a letter that says not just the intent, but it meets the requirements. MR. HOWLAND-Of section 147. MR. HUNSINGER-147. Is everyone in agreement that that’s what we’re looking for? MR. OBORNE-And that would be major stormwater. MR. HUNSINGER-Yes, and then the landscaping plan. MR. SIPP-And the landscaping plan. MR. HUNSINGER-That’s a different issue, Keith. 11 (Queensbury Planning Board 02/23/2010) MRS. STEFFAN-Sealed by a professional engineer is the engineering stamp on the plans that they’ve been certified. MR. OBORNE-Well, that was something I wrote in my notes that you may wish to consider. MR. HUNSINGER-That’s a different issue, though. To me that’s a different issue than the opinion letter. MRS. STEFFAN-Yes. MR. OBORNE-Okay. My intent was to get that sealed to cover the stormwater plan. MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. MR. OBORNE-Because that really is the issue. MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. MR. OBORNE-I mean, I’ll be more specific in the future. MR. HUNSINGER-Yes, because I wasn’t sure what the intent was. Was there anything else that we were looking for, just those two items? MR. HOWLAND-Landscaping and the engineering letter. MR. TRAVER-Now of course if the landscaping, proposed landscaping plan does not meet the ZBA, that’s a whole other ballgame, but we don’t have to deal with that tonight. We can. I mean, we can assume that a plan can be devised that will meet. Obviously that’s a ZBA. MR. OBORNE-I think that we will endeavor to make the ZBA resolution work. I don’t want the applicant to go back to the ZBA. The applicant doesn’t want to go back to the ZBA. MR. HUNSINGER-Right. They were pretty clear, this is what they want. MRS. STEFFAN-Okay. I’ll make a motion. MOTION TO TABLE SITE PLAN NO. 8-2010 STEVE & DEBBIE SEABOYER, Introduced by Gretchen Steffan who moved for its adoption, seconded by Stephen Traver: thth This is tabled to the April 20 Planning Board meeting, with a March 15 submission deadline, so that Staff can review: 1. The new landscaping plan submitted this evening to Keith Oborne to determine if the plan is compliant with the ZBA resolution of February 17, 2010, and 2. The second condition is that the applicant will need to provide an engineering letter identifying that the stormwater plan meets the requirements of Chapter 147, and 3. The third condition is that the applicant’s plans must be sealed by a professional engineer. rd Duly adopted this 23 day of February, 2010, by the following vote: AYES: Mr. Sipp, Mr. Schonewolf, Mr. Traver, Mr. Jackoski, Mrs. Steffan, Mr. Hunsinger NOES: NONE ABSENT: Mr. Krebs MR. HUNSINGER-Thank you. MR. HOWLAND-Thank you. 12 (Queensbury Planning Board 02/23/2010) MR. HUNSINGER-And certainly if you have any questions, let Keith know. SITE PLAN 9-2010 SEQR TYPE II JAMIE WALTHER AGENT(S) JAMIE WALTHER OWNER(S) TIM & LUCY MORIARTY ZONING WR LOCATION 12 HONEYSUCKLE LANE APPLICANT PROPOSES AN 880 SQ. FT. BASEMENT EXPANSION. EXPANSION OF A NON-CONFORMING STRUCTURE IN A CEA REQUIRES PLANNING BOARD REVIEW AND APPROVAL. CROSS REFERENCE AV 8-2010, BP 09-615 WARREN CO. PLANNING 2/10/2010 APA, CEA, OTHER L G CEA LOT SIZE 0.14 +/- ACRES TAX MAP NO. 226.19-2-34 SECTION 179-9-010, 179-13-010 JEFF MEYER & JAMIE WALTHER, REPRESENTING APPLICANT, PRESENT MR. HUNSINGER-Keith, whenever you’re ready to summarize Staff Notes. MR. OBORNE-Site Plan 9-2010, Jamie Walther for Tim and Lucy Moriarty, site plan review for the expansion of a nonconforming structure in a Critical Environmental Area is the action. The location is 12 Honeysuckle Lane. The existing zoning is WR. This is a Type II SEQRA. Project Description: Applicant proposes an 880 sq. ft. basement expansion with a 12 sq. ft. outside access, which is basically a Bilco door access. Applicant requests relief from Floor Area Ratio and side setback requirements. Further, relief requested for the expansion of a nonconforming structure in a CEA is what this Board is looking at at this point. I’ll just jump down to my additional comments. Area Variance 8-2010 was approved by the ZBA on February 17, 2010, and one of the issues that seems to be coming to the forefront is the functionality and the location of the wastewater system. The applicant is proposing a drywell to take some of the water from a pump that will be installed in the basement and there’s no real location of this wastewater system at this point. With that said, I will turn this over to the Planning Board. MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. Thank you. Good evening. If you could identify yourselves for the record, please. MR. MEYER-Certainly. Mr. Chairman, members of the Board, my name is Jeff Meyer, I’m an attorney with Fitzgerald, Morris, on behalf of the applicant, Tim Moriarty, the homeowner, and Jamie Walther the builder who will be performing all this work. MR. HUNSINGER-Did you have anything else to add? MR. MEYER-Not really. It’s the same application we presented to you before. The ZBA didn’t have a problem with it. The issue that was mentioned by Keith was essentially just that. It was Kathy Bozony kind of mentioned that they were in close proximity and they started discussing it, and we’re not 100% sure exactly where the septic and the corresponding leach field is located. We certainly wouldn’t locate a drywell right on top of it if that is the case, but the intention is to have a drywell that can accept any water that comes up in the cellar to be pumped out. MR. HUNSINGER-Do you have any reason to believe that you’ll need a sump pump? MR. WALTHER-There’s existing sump pumps in the basement and the area does receive groundwater with melt off and so on. So we just want to have it there to prevent any problems in the future. MR. HUNSINGER-Sure. MR. WALTHER-We could install it all and with all the new stone that we put in underneath the slab, and, you know, fresh tar on the outside of a poured foundation wall, and drainage tile around it, we might never run the pump, but, you know, it’s just kind of a safety feature for the homeowner’s sake. MR. HUNSINGER-Sure. MR. WALTHER-And the front lawn is pretty small, and there is a septic system installed there, and we’re not sure of it’s exact location or, you know, what’s even in the ground as far as a septic system. So we have a rough idea of where we want the drywell, but it may have to move because it might be within 20 feet, you know, of the laterals of the septic system. MR. HUNSINGER-Where does the sump pump drain now? 13 (Queensbury Planning Board 02/23/2010) MR. WALTHER-He has a small, and it drains to the back of the house and it just pours out onto the ground like a gutter. MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. Did you have anything else? Other questions, comments from members of the Board? MR. JACKOSKI-Mr. Chairman, I have to just disclose, per Town Counsel, that my wife’s family does actually own the property to the immediate south of this parcel. MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. Thank you. MRS. STEFFAN-How do we go about proving that the wastewater system functions? How difficult is that? MR. OBORNE-That would require, most likely, an engineer, but at the very first thing that would probably need to happen is to locate it, at this point, and see what’s going on. MR. TRAVER-And that could perhaps be accomplished by a septic service company, something along those lines. MR. OBORNE-That would be a start, absolutely. Yes. MRS. STEFFAN-How old is this building? MR. WALTHER-I believe it was erected in 1952. TIM MORIARTY MR. MORIARTY-Fifty-seven years old. MRS. STEFFAN-Fifty-seven. MR. JACKOSKI-Was this a year round residence? MR. MORIARTY-Yes. MR. MEYER-Certainly if the septic system needed to be replaced, we’d follow the appropriate channels with the County and the Town to make sure that it’s done correctly. We’re not trying to avoid anything. We just have limited information at this point in time. MR. JACKOSKI-Is there any intention, at this point, to expand the current footprint, as far as the heating, the porches or any of that, enclose them, or is this pretty much it? MR. WALTHER-No, no intention to enlarge anything, just the basement area itself. MR. JACKOSKI-Right. Okay. MR. WALTHER-We’re removing about 30 square foot of deck, and in place of that we’re putting a bilco entrance. MR. HUNSINGER-Is there any possibility that the septic is under the house? MR. WALTHER-No, it does go in the front of the house. You can see where the septic lines exit the building and the rough direction that it heads. We just don’t know what the exact location is at. MR. HUNSINGER-Sure. Okay. MR. WALTHER-One possible solution to it is to take the proposed drywell and move it to the back of the yard where there is no septic to worry about, and that would be okay with us as well. We just want to have somewhere to receive any water, if there is any, you know, in the future. MR. HUNSINGER-Sure, and it’s not within 100 feet of Lake George. MR. OBORNE-That is correct. You are expanding the house, and, you know, I think that the Department’s concern is that the wastewater system is underutilized, not underutilized, under engineered at this point. It’s obviously old. It was an old camp at one point, upgraded to year round. Certainly if you move that drywell, that certainly 14 (Queensbury Planning Board 02/23/2010) would relieve any issues, as far as it effecting the wastewater system, that’s for sure, and if you can go ahead and get it looked at by a service company, to see where it is, first of all, potentially see what the functionality is of it, and they are professionals, and they’ll know if it’s working. MR. HUNSINGER-In fact, I know if they go and inspect a system and it’s not working properly, they are required to report it. MR. OBORNE-We had a similar issue with a property that we had reviewed also, they wanted to expand it, have another bedroom, and it was an old mound system, about three months ago, and it was found out to be, you know, it would not handle the extra bedroom, and right now they’re required to put water saving fixtures on everything and that really will reduce the footprint of this waste system or the tile lines that go in, but that’s neither here nor there at this point. MR. HUNSINGER-Right. Well, and of course, as anyone knows, you can’t buy fixtures now that aren’t water saving. MR. OBORNE-That is correct. If the house is 50 years old, you’d have to assume, unless the applicant has changed over, which could very well be, too. MR. SCHONEWOLF-Well, this had a full time residence before. MR. MEYER-It is a full time residence, and we’re not proposing any additional bedrooms or anything like that that would impact the strain on the system. MR. HUNSINGER-Sure. Okay. Anything else from the Board? We do have a public hearing scheduled. Did you want to speak on this application? Okay. I will open the public hearing. PUBLIC HEARING OPENED KATHY BOZONY MS. BOZONY-Kathy Bozony from the office of the Lake George Water Keeper. I agree that this on site wastewater treatment system should be evaluated to determine its condition and compliance with current Code. Intent of the applicant is to utilize the existing absorption field, although its location and condition are unknown. This project is being proposed as a replacement of a foundation wall, 6 foot 4 inch high. Expansion of living space in a nonconforming structure within the CEA should require an on site wastewater treatment system evaluation by a licensed design professional. Single family dwelling was built in 1952, and if no on site wastewater treatment system plans are available, it is imperative to determine its condition at this time. As stated, and I did give this as an attachment, and I did not bring a copy tonight. I don’t know if you have it or not, as stated in the New York State Department of Health Fact Sheet, an on site wastewater treatment system evaluation shall be performed and submitted by a licensed design professional for home alterations resulting in an increase in the number of bedrooms for complete home replacements, including those resulting in the same number of bedrooms, and for alterations resulting in significant increases in wastewater generation. In addition to the on site wastewater treatment that needs to be looked at because it is within the Critical Environmental Area of the lake. A couple of other site concerns. With the potential for equipment on the site, including large trucks to remove excavated fill from the basement, the existing on site wastewater treatment system, if it’s determined that it’s adequate the way it is, should be protected with construction fences in order to minimize disturbance on this 5400 square foot parcel that has 40% impervious coverage, use of snow fences to delineate a no touch zone in order to protect existing vegetation and trees should be installed under the drip line of any trees and around other vegetation on the property. It looked like from some of the photographs there were a couple of large trees on the property, and some of the equipment will damage them. Any vegetation around the perimeter of the single family dwelling that may be disturbed during the excavation process and re-setting of the existing structure should be replaced with native species, shrubs and other vegetation needed to infiltrate and treat stormwater. That’s it. Thank you. MR. HUNSINGER-Thank you. Anyone else? Any written comments? MR. OBORNE-Yes, sir, there is. There’s on. This is from James Fraser at 10 Honeysuckle Lane, which is next door. “This is to advise that we have absolutely no objections to the planned project to enhance the use of their property. We have been 15 (Queensbury Planning Board 02/23/2010) fully informed of the project and it should not, in our opinion, have any detrimental effect on the neighborhood. Respectfully yours, James M. Fraser, Jr.”. Additionally, I have received calls from neighbors with concerns exactly what Kathy was alluding to was the tightness of the property, and they want to, I assured them that there is room, but they do need to be very careful on that point. That’s it. MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. Great. Thank you. Anything else from the Board? I mean, I think we can move forward with a condition that they have the septic system inspected, documentation provided to Staff. I think the only issue that’s really outstanding is the drywell for the sump pump. (Discussion ensued between Board members, indistinguishable) MR. HUNSINGER-We were just having the same conversation. I’m sure you designed it to have it out front because there were advantages to having it out front. MR. WALTHER-Exactly. The back of the yard is kind of in a low lying area, and we just wanted to, if there was too much water for the drywell to handle we wanted it to be able to dissipate and run away from the house, whereas the backyard doesn’t have a lot of positive grade away from the house. It’s almost in the back, you know, it’s almost leveled with the house. There’s a lot more room in the back of the yard, and I think our best option would be just to move it there to get it away from the septic system. Because even if he has his septic inspected now and they say it’s okay, who’s to say, five years from now, he doesn’t need to install a new one, and then all of a sudden the new laterals are too close to the drywell. If we move that drywell to the back of the yard, that’ll prevent him from ever having that problem or possible problem, you know. The new system takes up a lot more room than the old steel boxes they threw in the ground. MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. MR. SCHONEWOLF-That can be a condition. MR. HUNSINGER-Can you give us an approximate location? I mean, this one says the exact size and location by contractor, but it says a minimum of 10 feet from the property lines. So, would you say minimum of 10 feet from the property line and I don’t know how many feet it needs to be away from the house. MR. WALTHER-Yes. See here is our back deck. Then you’ve got all kinds of room in here. It would be, we’d move it to the back side of the house on the same side that it is on now. So I would just put it to this side. MR. MEYER-To the northeast corner. MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. So approximately a minimum of 10 feet from the property line, a minimum of 10 feet from the corner of the house. MR. WALTHER-Yes. We’ve got enough room to do 10 feet from all property lines and the house in the back there. MR. HUNSINGER-Yes. The northeast side of the house, yes. I was just commenting, I mean, even the Site Plan submitted you say exact size and location by contractor. It’s approximate dimensions. MR. WALTHER-Right. We knew that we had to locate the septic system to be able to install the drywell because we didn’t know its exact location. MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. So even a condition to have your septic tested, you’re pretty much planning to do anyway. MR. WALTHER-We plan on leaving the septic as alone as possible, protecting it from any damage, you know, while we’re doing equipment work and so on. It was my hope not to have to dig the septic up, and, you know, I just spoke to Mr. Moriarty and recommended that he does have somebody come and inspect it, whether it be IBS Drain or one of the other companies in the area, just to verify for himself that it is going to, you know, keep up to par for years to come. MR. HUNSINGER-Yes. 16 (Queensbury Planning Board 02/23/2010) MR. WALTHER-I was just looking that I have a plot plan that I drew, and I believe you guys have a copy of it, on the Area Variance application, it’s on the back. MR. MEYER-Did you receive the Area Variance application? MR. OBORNE-The Planning Board would not have. MR. HUNSINGER-Yes. We do not. We do have, you know, Sheets A-1 and A-2. MR. WALTHER-Okay. Well, on this small plot plan it shows the approximately, it’s pretty much the same Site Plan that you have, A-2, I believe it is. So we propose moving the drywell to the northeast corner and, you know, maintaining 10 foot from all property lines, if that would be acceptable. MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. Is that specific enough do you think? MR. OBORNE-Yes. I think so. I think it certainly should be 10 feet away from the house also. MR. HUNSINGER-Yes. MR. OBORNE-Because, I mean, what’s the use of putting it right where the foundation is. MR. HUNSINGER-Right, it would just drain back in, yes. MR. OBORNE-You want to give it some infiltration. MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. MRS. STEFFAN-Okay. MR. HUNSINGER-I will close the public hearing. PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED MR. HUNSINGER-And I will entertain a motion. It’s a Type II SEQRA. MRS. STEFFAN-I’ll make a motion. MOTION TO APPROVE SITE PLAN NO. 9-2010 JAMIE WALTHER, 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 an 880 sq. ft. basement expansion. Expansion of a non-conforming structure in a CEA requires Planning Board review and approval. 2)The Planning Board provided a recommendation to the ZBA on 2/16/2010 as required; and 3)The ZBA approved the variance request on 2/17/2010; and 4)A public hearing was advertised and held on 2/23/2010; and 5)This application is supported with all documentation, public comment and application material in the file of record; 6)MOTION TO APPROVE SITE PLAN NO. 9-2010 JAMIE WALTHER, Introduced by Gretchen Steffan who moved for its adoption, seconded by Stephen Traver: According to the resolution prepared by Staff. 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 17 (Queensbury Planning Board 02/23/2010) 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)If applicable, Item d to be combined with a letter of credit; and f)If curb cuts are being added or changed a driveway permit is required. A building permit will not be issued until the approved driveway permit has been provided to the Planning Office. g)This is approved with the following conditions: 1.The applicant will identify the location of the wastewater system. 2.Certify the functionality of the wastewater system. 3.Regarding the drywell for the sump pump, it may be re-located to the northeast side of the house, to the northeast side of the property if the current location conflicts with the wastewater system. It is to be located 10 feet from all property lines and 10 feet from the house. rd Duly adopted this 23 day of February, 2010, by the following vote: MR. MEYER-Could I ask a quick question? MR. HUNSINGER-Go ahead. MR. MEYER-It’s only as it relates to some kind of certification that the septic system is in place. Is all you’re looking for is a letter from whoever is performing the test saying it works, or are you looking for something more? MRS. STEFFAN-It says the functionality of the wastewater system, so if it’s working then that’s what, will identify the location of it, so that on your completed plan, you know, you submit that plan to the Town, and then they will know where the wastewater system is, and then secondarily that it’s functioning and can support the house. MR. OBORNE-I note that your third condition was an engineering signoff on the functionality or on the waste system, that’s what you’re looking for. MRS. STEFFAN-Correct. Once that’s submitted to the Town, then the engineer has to take a look at it and sign off on it. MR. WALTHER-I need to ask, because how is an engineer going to determine if it’s functioning for the size of the house if it’s a lot smaller than what was required back in 1960? MR. OBORNE-Right. The chances are that the septic system is probably not compliant. An engineer would not sign off on that. MRS. STEFFAN-Well, that’s why I wanted that signoff. MR. OBORNE-Okay, and I know that if you go ahead and they’re required to put in a new wastewater system, it has to be designed by an engineer. So, I think we can work with that resolution, obviously. I’m just trying to work through that now. MR. MEYER-Could it even be if it’s not functioning up to its own essential design standards, the system, whatever it was at the time, is it still functioning for what it is, you know, the septic company can sign off on it. If they say no, it’s not functioning right, you know, then you get into having to put a new system in that will be certified by an engineer, but if it functions okay at the time, and you have something from whoever is performing the work that, at the time that would be sufficient, and you guys will have a th record now in the Town saying this is where it is, and as of, you know, April 4, 2010, it 18 (Queensbury Planning Board 02/23/2010) was working fine, but, you know, this is kind of a general idea of what the system is going forward. So you have that baseline. MR. OBORNE-That’s logical. I mean, it certainly is logical. Regardless if, like you say, the wastewater company, if it is not functioning, must report that. MR. HUNSINGER-Right, that’s right. MR. OBORNE-And as a result of that, an engineer is going to have to design a system. If you want to bring Clark in to vet or say that, yes, it’s functioning, okay, you know, I think he can do that, but you certainly can speak, absolutely. You are a Town. MR. HUNSINGER-Clark, could we get you on a mic, I’m sorry. CLARK WILKINSON MR. WILKINSON-For the record, Clark Wilkinson with Paragon Engineering, and my statement was that the first thing that I would ask to try to put the whole picture together is, from the time the house was constructed in, 57 years ago, or 1952, whatever the year was, has there been additional bedrooms made to that floor plan from that time? If so, it is likely, and I only say likely, that the septic system is undersized. If there has not, then I would say that the septic system is sized properly. Simple thing to do, research it, be done. MR. OBORNE-If there are records that are available. MR. WILKINSON-Correct. I don’t know if anybody’s got the records back from when the house was constructed or not, but. MR. OBORNE-Right. MR. WILKINSON-I don’t know if there’s any building permits that were issued to add on to the house. I can’t tell you that. MR. WALTHER-The Town of Queensbury doesn’t, Jennifer Henderson told me she has nothing at all, and I’ve been to the County and researched the deeds and so on, in order for these applications, and it doesn’t mention any surveying plans or, you know, building plans of any size. MR. WILKINSON-Correct. That would be the easiest, simplest way to resolve the issue. I don’t know how long Mr. Moriarty has owned the property, how long have you owned it? MR. MORIARTY-Ten years. MR. WILKINSON-Ten years, and have you lived in it full-time? MR. MORIARTY-The people who owned it before that lived there full-time probably 15 or 20 years, year round. MR. WILKINSON-Yes. From an engineering perspective, it’s nearly impossible to tell something under the ground whether or not it works, without having the original design, or the original number of bedrooms, and the current number of bedrooms to see if there’s a difference. MR. HUNSINGER-So asking for an engineer’s signoff is. MR. WILKINSON-Is ridiculous. MR. HUNSINGER-Yes, okay. MR. OBORNE-I wouldn’t say ridiculous, but I think that’s. MR. WILKINSON-It’s something that I would never do because there’s no way to prove it. MR. HUNSINGER-Sure, okay. It sounds like we need to withdraw the motion. MRS. STEFFAN-Withdraw the motion. 19 (Queensbury Planning Board 02/23/2010) MR. HUNSINGER-And consider a new motion. Thank you, or amend it. MRS. STEFFAN-So we take out the engineering signoff. MR. HUNSINGER-Amend the motion to take out the engineering signoff, and you’ll be okay. MRS. STEFFAN-Okay. So I would like to amend the motion for Site Plan 9-2010, to take out condition three regarding obtaining an engineering signoff for the wastewater system. So there will be three conditions on this. MR. TRAVER-I’ll second the motion as amended. AYES: Mr. Sipp, Mr. Schonewolf, Mr. Jackoski, Mr. Traver, Mrs. Steffan, Mr. Hunsinger NOES: NONE ABSENT: Mr. Krebs MR. HUNSINGER-You’re all set. Good luck. MR. MEYER-Thanks. MR. HUNSINGER-Thank you. SUBDIVISION 3-2010 PRELIMINARY & FINAL STAGE BABAJANI & MAMA, INC. AGENT(S) PARAGON ENGINEERING OWNER(S) SAME ZONING CI LOCATION 925 & 931 STATE ROUTE 9 APPLICANT PROPOSES SUBDIVISION OF A 3.48 +/- ACRE PARCEL INTO TWO COMMERCIAL LOTS OF 1.13 AND 2.35 +/- ACRES [RED ROOF INN & OUTBACK STEAKHOUSE]. SUBDIVISION OF LAND REQUIRES PLANNING BOARD REVIEW AND APPROVAL. CROSS REFERENCE AV 7-2010, SP 4-05, SP 61-07, SP 10-2010 WARREN CO. PLANNING N/A LOT SIZE 3.48 +/- ACRES TAX MAP NO. 296.13-1-17 SECTION: A-183 CLARK WILKINSON, REPRESENTING APPLICANT, PRESENT MR. HUNSINGER-Keith, whenever you’re ready to summarize Staff Notes. MR. OBORNE-This is Preliminary & Final subdivision 3-2010, Preliminary and Final subdivision review, Site Plan Review for modification to an approved Site Plan also. Those are going to be separate resolutions. With that being said, the location is 925 & 931 State Route 9. Existing zoning is Commercial Intensive. This is an Unlisted for the Site Plan and Unlisted for Area Variance. Project Description: Applicant proposes to subdivide a 3.48 acre parcel into two parcels of 2.35 acres and 1.13 acres, respectively. Staff Comments: The parcel in question has a site plan approval for both the Red Roof Inn and Outback Steakhouse. Outback Steakhouse owns the structure but not the parcel that it is located on. The applicant wishes to subdivide the Outback parcel from the larger parcel for the purposes of settling banking issues. We’ll just deal with the subdivision at this point. The applicant has received a waiver from this Board for Sketch Plan and the ZBA has given an approval with no conditions this past Wednesday, and with that said I’ll turn this subdivision, Preliminary and Final, over to the Planning Board. MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. Good evening. MR. WILKINSON-Good evening. For the record, my name is Clark Wilkinson with Paragon Engineering, representing Babajani & Mama, LLC. As Staff said, again, we presented this project to this Board last week, got the favorable recommendation, and then went in front of the ZBA and got the Area Variance for the cover, the reduction of pervious area, on the Lot Two, which would be the Outback Steakhouse site. Also for note for the Planning Board, Joe Nichols, who is an attorney from South Glens Falls area, I believe, he is the one that is currently preparing the cross easement agreements that are going to be to utilize access and parking. I know that the issue came up last week and I recommended that be done. He is the attorney that is currently working on that. He also knows the Planning Board attorney, and he is working with the bank attorney as well. So three of them hopefully will get their heads together and everything will be satisfactory. With that being said, we’re here for this purpose, for the subdivision into the two lots, and again, for the record, the biggest change will be that there’s a piece of paper that now subdivides the lot. The outward appearance of the lot and everything on the lot, there will be no outward difference in appearance. Everything will remain the 20 (Queensbury Planning Board 02/23/2010) same. It’ll just be a legal lot that’s subdivided off to satisfy the bank for the Chapter 11 procedures that are occurring. I’ll turn it over, at this time, to the Board, for questions, comments and discussion. MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. Questions, comments from the Board? I think we pretty much discussed it last week. MRS. STEFFAN-I think we can probably just, you know, go through the subdivision and put a condition about the cross easement agreement being reviewed by Town Counsel and get a signoff. MR. HUNSINGER-Reviewed and approved. Yes, because there’s been times when we’ve said reviewed, but not reviewed and approved. MRS. STEFFAN-So do we say approved? I put obtain signoff. So is it approved is the right word? MR. OBORNE-Reviewed and accepted or reviewed and approved is fine. That language is fine. I don’t think that’s ambiguous. MR. HUNSINGER-The ambiguous language we’ve used in the past is to say review, without saying a signoff or approval. Okay. Anything else from the Board? We do have a public hearing scheduled, of course. Is there anyone in the audience that wants to address the Board? PUBLIC HEARING OPENED MR. HUNSINGER-Let the record show there were no comments, and I will close the public hearing. PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED MR. HUNSINGER-And entertain a motion for Preliminary subdivision approval. MRS. STEFFAN-I’ll make a motion. MOTION TO APPROVE PRELIMINARY STAGE SUBDIVISION NO. 3-2010 BABAJANI & MAMA, LLC, Introduced by Gretchen Steffan who moved for its adoption, seconded by Stephen Traver: 1. A subdivision application has been made to the Queensbury Planning Board for the following: Applicant proposes subdivision of a 3.48 +/- acre parcel into two commercial lots of 1.13 and 2.35+/- acres [Red Roof Inn & Outback Steakhouse]. Subdivision of land requires Planning Board review and approval. Applicant is requesting a waiver from Sketch Plan review. 2. A public hearing was scheduled and held on 2/16 & 2/23/2010; and 3. The Planning Board has provided a written recommendation to the ZBA on 2/16/2010 as required; and 4. The requirements of the State Environmental Quality Review Act have been considered and the Planning Board has adopted a SEQRA Negative Declaration; and 5. The ZBA approved the variance request on 2/17/2010; and 6. This application is supported with all documentation, public comment and application material in the file of record; and 7. MOTION TO APPROVE PRELIMINARY STAGE SUBDIVISION NO. 3-2010 BABAJANI & MAMA, LLC, Introduced by Gretchen Steffan who moved for its adoption, seconded by Stephen Traver: According to the resolution prepared by Staff. rd Duly adopted this 23 day of February, 2010, by the following vote: AYES: Mr. Jackoski, Mr. Sipp, Mr. Schonewolf, Mrs. Steffan, Mr. Traver, 21 (Queensbury Planning Board 02/23/2010) Mr. Hunsinger NOES: NONE ABSENT: Mr. Krebs MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. I would entertain a motion for Final approval. MRS. STEFFAN-Okay. MOTION TO APPROVE FINAL STAGE SUBDIVISION NO. 3-2010 BABAJANI & MAMA, LLC, Introduced by Gretchen Steffan who moved for its adoption, seconded by Steven Jackoski: 1. A subdivision application has been made to the Queensbury Planning Board for the following: Applicant proposes subdivision of a 3.48 +/- acre parcel into two commercial lots of 1.13 and 2.35+/- acres [Red Roof Inn & Outback Steakhouse]. Subdivision of land requires Planning Board review and approval. Applicant is requesting a waiver from Sketch Plan review. 2. A public hearing was scheduled and held on 2/16 & 2/23/2010; and 3. The Planning Board has provided a written recommendation to the ZBA on 2/16/201 required; and 4. The requirements of the State Environmental Quality Review Act have been considered and the Planning Board has adopted a SEQRA Negative Declaration; and 5. The ZBA approved the variance request on 2/17/2010; and 6. This application is supported with all documentation, public comment and application material in the file of record; and 7. MOTION TO APPROVE FINAL STAGE SUBDIVISION NO. 3-2010 BABAJANI & MAMA, LLC, Introduced by Gretchen Steffan who moved for its adoption, seconded by Steven Jackoski: According to the resolution prepared by Staff. a)Pursuant to relevant sections of the Town of Queensbury Zoning Code [Chapter A-183], the Planning Board has determined that this proposal complies with the requirements as stated in the Zoning Code; and b)Final approved plans, in compliance with the Subdivision, 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 c)This is approved with one condition: That the cross easement agreements, once finalized, must be reviewed by Town of Queensbury Counsel and approved. rd Duly adopted this 23 day of February, 2010, by the following vote: AYES: Mr. Traver, Mr. Sipp, Mr. Schonewolf, Mr. Jackoski, Mrs. Steffan, Mr. Hunsinger NOES: NONE ABSENT: Mr. Krebs SITE PLAN 10-2010 SEQR TYPE UNLISTED BABAJANI & MAMA, LLC AGENT(S) PARAGON ENGINEERING OWNER(S) SAME ZONING CI LOCATION 925 & 931 STATE ROUTE 9 APPLICANT PROPOSES A MODIFICATION TO AN APPROVED SITE PLAN WITH A CHANGE TO LOT CONFIGURATION. CHANGES TO AN APPROVED SITE PLAN REQUIRE PLANNING BOARD REVIEW AND APPROVAL. 22 (Queensbury Planning Board 02/23/2010) CROSS REFERENCE AV 7-2010, SP 4-05, SP 61-07, SUB 3-2010 WARREN CO. PLANNING 2/10/2010 LOT SIZE 3.48 +/- ACRES TAX MAP NO. 296.13-1-17 SECTION 179-9-010 CLARK WILKINSON, REPRESENTING APPLICANT, PRESENT MR. HUNSINGER-At one point I understood why we had a separate Site Plan Review in addition to the subdivision, but now I’m not so clear. Because it required variances, right? MR. OBORNE-It’s because there’s been an approved Site Plan that is now has a modification to it. MR. WILKINSON-Correct. By creating two lots, we have to make sure that both lots conform to zoning, so therefore it’s a modification to the approved Site Plan. MR. HUNSINGER-If they didn’t need an Area Variance, would they still be required to file Site Plan? MR. OBORNE-Absolutely. MR. WILKINSON-Yes. MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. MR. OBORNE-Do you want to go through and just read this into the record again? MR. HUNSINGER-Yes, please. MR. OBORNE-Okay. Thank you. This is, application is Site Plan 10-2010, Babajani & Mama, LLC. Site Plan Review for modification to an approved Site Plan, location 925 & 931 State Route 9, CI, or Commercial Intensive is the zoning. This is an Unlisted SEQRA. The Planning Board will have to do a SEQRA review on this. Let’s go down to Site Plan Review. Staff has looked at the spacing, or spaces for parking and it is compliant. There are no issues there. Staff and the applicant have communicated on this issue. The numbers might not be exact, but I do want to say that on the motel requirements, the rooms, what I have were approved was 68, and you said today that it was, or in your message Monday, that it was 46. MR. WILKINSON-Forty-six. MR. OBORNE-Regardless, there’s adequate parking, and the Board had approved a 20% increase in parking for this project. MR. WILKINSON-Right. There was even a variance to that effect. MR. OBORNE-There was, and with that said, that’s not an issue. There is a light located on the parcel that houses the Outback Steakhouse that I would hopefully have taken care of. I don’t know where it is, I apologize. It’s bent. It’s been hit by a plow or something along those lines that it should be fixed. Stormwater controls will need to be sealed, and the SPDES permit, we’re looking for a Notice of Termination on the SPDES Permit should have been, a Notice of Termination should have been put forward for this, but records show that it has not. So, with that, I’d turn it over to the Board. MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. Thank you. Did you have anything else to add? MR. WILKINSON-No. The issue with the light fixture we noted last week, and I had notified the owner, which is my client, and he is going to make sure that’s repaired, and then as far as the NOT, that’s a paperwork thing that I can take care of as well. It’s a five minute filling that out and submitting it to DEC. I did not know it was not closed, and I’ll make sure that it’s taken care of, but certainly I would want it on the record. MR. HUNSINGER-Sure. Questions, comments from members of the Board? Keith, while you were introducing the project, we were having a general discussion about SEQRA. Because for the subdivision we did a full assessment last week. MR. WILKINSON-Correct. 23 (Queensbury Planning Board 02/23/2010) MR. HUNSINGER-So why do we still, can we just say it’s been re-visited and there’s no changes? MR. OBORNE-Yes, you can certainly re-affirm previous SEQRA Findings. That’s fine. MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. MR. OBORNE-There is an Unlisted SEQRA. MR. HUNSINGER-We don’t need to go through the Long Form again, is what I was? MR. OBORNE-No, not at all. MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. MR. OBORNE-Unless you care to. MR. HUNSINGER-No, that’s quite all right. That was the only question I had. Is there any questions, comments from the Board? In terms of the cross easement agreements, do we need to include those in an resolution for Site Plan approval as well? MR. OBORNE-I think that would be prudent. MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. MR. TRAVER-But we have it on the subdivision, and there wouldn’t be a site plan unless the. MR. HUNSINGER-Subdivision was approved. MR. TRAVER-Right, which includes the easement. MR. OBORNE-That’s true. If there are changes to the Site Plan in the future, you certainly would want to have that protected, though, I think. MR. HUNSINGER-I don’t think it hurts to be redundant. MR. WILKINSON-Not at all. MR. HUNSINGER-So there would just be the two conditions, the SPDES Permit, Notice of Termination and the approval of the cross easement agreements, and the light poles. MRS. STEFFAN-There’s actually three. MR. HUNSINGER-And the plans on the stormwater controls. MR. WILKINSON-Which I would like to discuss that. Since there is no physical alteration and they were previously approved with an as built submitted, I would like to talk about that being, if not waived, just taken off the table. There is no physical alteration, and the Site Plan’s remained as it was designed, as it was built, so I think, although it’s being protective, it’s going a little overboard in this case because I would have difficulty signing it. I would have to go back to the original engineer, because I didn’t design it, I didn’t see it installed, anything. MR. OBORNE-I think what the Town is looking for is that the current project, that the engineer, who’s sitting at the table, has no problem with the functionality of the system. MR. WILKINSON-And I’ve put that into the narrative as well. I can sign an affidavit that says under these conditions it functions as designed and adequately for the site, if that would be enough. MR. OBORNE-That is up to the Board at this point and how the Board feels about that. MR. WILKINSON-Because again, I’m not altering anything. MR. HUNSINGER-Did we get stamped, as built drawings? MR. OBORNE-I believe so. 24 (Queensbury Planning Board 02/23/2010) MR. WILKINSON-I believe so. MR. HUNSINGER-Yes. Okay. MR. WILKINSON-Because I think you’re covered. MR. HUNSINGER-Yes, I would tend to agree with you on that, but I’m just one person. MR. OBORNE-That’s fine, especially if you get that NOT in, too. That’s going to, that closes that whole thing out. MR. WILKINSON-Correct, that closes that whole thing out. MR. HUNSINGER-Yes. MR. WILKINSON-So that would be my suggestion, or request. MR. HUNSINGER-That you provide an affidavit? MR. WILKINSON-If that’s something that you need, but I feel that the as builts, as long as the as builts are provided and stamped, that they should provide everything, because there’s no physical change to the site. MRS. STEFFAN-So that’s what this is. MR. HUNSINGER-Yes. MR. WILKINSON-But if you want an additional affidavit for something, another assurance. MR. HUNSINGER-I see a lot of nodding heads. So it sounds like we need to take it out. Okay. Because we have as built, stamped drawings on file, and if we don’t. MR. WILKINSON-Well, you can put that in there, that provided there are as built, stamped as built drawings. I think there are, I’ve seen them, but I don’t know if Staff has seen, you know, verified it. MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. MR. WILKINSON-But there has been permanent CO’s issued, which to me, as a commercial site, there has to be an as built and certification done. MR. OBORNE-I am convinced that there is, certainly. MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. Once again, we do have a public hearing on this project. Is there anyone in the audience that wants to address the Board? Any written comments? MR. OBORNE-No, sir. MR. HUNSINGER-I will open the public hearing. PUBLIC HEARING OPENED MR. HUNSINGER-And let the record show that there were no comments provided. I will close the public hearing. PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED MR. HUNSINGER-And I will entertain a motion. MRS. STEFFAN-Okay. I’ll make a motion. MOTION TO APPROVE SITE PLAN NO. 10-2010 BABAJANI & MAMA, LLC, 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 a modification to an approved site plan with a 25 (Queensbury Planning Board 02/23/2010) change to lot configuration. Changes to an approved site plan require Planning Board review and approval. 2)A public hearing was advertised and held on 2/16 & 2/23/2010; and 3)The Planning Board has provided a written recommendation to the ZBA on 2/16/2010; and 4)The requirements of the State Environmental Quality Review Act have been considered and the Planning Board adopted a SEQRA Negative Declaration on 2/16/2010; and 5)The ZBA approved the variance request on 2/17/2010; and 6)This application is supported with all documentation, public comment and application material in the file of record; 7)MOTION TO APPROVE SITE PLAN NO. 10-2010 BABAJANI & MAMA, LLC, Introduced by Gretchen Steffan who moved for its adoption, seconded by Stephen Traver: According to the resolution prepared by Staff. We have re-visited the State Environmental Quality Review Act and re-affirmed our prior finding. 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)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 c)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 d)If applicable, Item d to be combined with a letter of credit; and e)The Sanitary Sewer connection plan must be submitted to the Wastewater Department for its review, approval, permitting and inspection; and f)The applicant shall submit a copy of a NOI [Notice of Intent] SWPPP [Stormwater Pollution Prevention Plan] & NOT [Notice of Termination]. g)The applicant shall submit a copy of a NYS SPDES [State Pollution Discharge Elimination System] h)If curb cuts are being added or changed a driveway permit is required. A building permit will not be issued until the approved driveway permit has been provided to the Planning Office. i)This is approved with the following conditions: 1.That the cross easement agreement, once finalized, must be reviewed by the Town of Queensbury Counsel and approved. 2.That the light post located at the southern entrance of Lot Two, which is damaged and leaning and resulting in unnecessary glare, be fixed. 3.That applicant will submit a Notice of Termination to the Department of Environmental Conservation for the open SPDES permit. 26 (Queensbury Planning Board 02/23/2010) rd Duly adopted this 23 day of February, 2010, by the following vote: AYES: Mr. Jackoski, Mr. Schonewolf, Mr. Sipp, Mr. Traver, Mrs. Steffan, Mr. Hunsinger NOES: NONE ABSENT: Mr. Krebs MR. WILKINSON-Thank you for your time. MR. HUNSINGER-You’re all set. Thank you. The only other business we had is the earlier discussion about a Special Meeting for Schermerhorn’s project. Now that members have had a few minutes to think about that, what’s the opinion of the Board? MR. TRAVER-I think it makes sense. MRS. STEFFAN-Yes. I think, you know, even though there appear to be, there are a couple of items on that night that probably won’t take a long time, but our past experience on the length of the public hearings, and currently this is at the end of the agenda. So I think it would probably be in our best interest and the public’s best interest if we put them on a Special Meeting. MR. SIPP-Yes. I would say gauging the public outcry last time, as it is at the end of the agenda, we would be here a long time. MR. HUNSINGER-Absolutely. th MR. TRAVER-Yes, what about the 18? thth MR. HUNSINGER-Yes, I mean I was going to suggest either the 18 or the 25. MR. JACKOSKI-Can we maybe poll who’s going to be here in March? Because I know th I’ve been asked to sit in March, but I’m not here the 18. So, I’m a little concerned about that. I made all my travel plans for non Tuesdays. MR. SCHONEWOLF-I’m not here all month, and neither is Don. MR. HUNSINGER-I was going to say, I think there was just two, right? MR. SCHONEWOLF-Yes. th MR. HUNSINGER-But are you available the 25 and the 11th? Well, Don and Paul are the ones that are going to be out in March. So I guess we were asking, Steve said he ththth would not be available on the 18 . So what if we do it on the 25? The 25 of March? th Okay. So we’ll have a Special Meeting on the 25 of March to consider the Schermerhorn Site Plan 11-2010. Is there anything else we want to try to accomplish on that evening or just that one item? MR. SCHONEWOLF-Well, there might be by the time you get to that evening. MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. MR. OBORNE-One item? MR. HUNSINGER-One item. MR. OBORNE-Okay. What that does is, on this first meeting, I’m going to move up a smaller project so we can get through, because I have one bump on there, LaFleche, and it’s a boathouse. It cannot be expedited, though. So I could put a recommendation for that. I’d like to get that going. MR. HUNSINGER-So it’s just a recommendation to the Zoning Board? th MR. OBORNE-It’s just a recommendation on the 16, what I would do. MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. MR. OBORNE-I’ll shoot that to you tomorrow. 27 (Queensbury Planning Board 02/23/2010) MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. MR. OBORNE-All right, and if I don’t hear from you, I’ll assume that it’s fine. MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. MR. OBORNE-And we’ll move forward. MR. HUNSINGER-Sounds good. MR. OBORNE-All right. MR. HUNSINGER-Any other business to be brought before the Board? I’ll entertain a motion to adjourn. MOTION TO ADJOURN THE QUEENSBURY PLANNING BOARD MEETING OF FEBRUARY 23, 2010, Introduced by Paul Schonewolf who moved for its adoption, seconded by Donald Sipp: rd Duly adopted this 23 day of February, 2010, by the following vote: AYES: Mr. Sipp, Mr. Traver, Mr. Jackoski, Mrs. Steffan, Mr. Schonewolf, Mr. Hunsinger NOES: NONE On motion meeting was adjourned. RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED, Chris Hunsinger, Chairman 28