The URL can be used to link to this page

2010.07.20 (Queensbury Planning Board 7/20/10) QUEENSBURY PLANNING BOARD MEETING FIRST REGULAR MEETING JULY 20, 2010 INDEX Site Plan No. 14-2010 Steven & Christine Johnson 1. Tax Map No. 289.11-1-23 Site Plan No. 28-2010 Leslie Grasso 2. Tax Map No. 226.19-1-39 Site Plan No. 34-2010 Capital Region Properties 4. Tax Map No. 252.-1-75.1 Site Plan No. 42-2010 David Ehmann – Rock Garden Farms 22. Tax Map No. 226.15-1-13 Site Plan No. 46-2010 Susan Dougher 28. Tax Map No. 274.17-2-9 Subdivision No. 9-2010 Greg Garafalo 33. PRELIMINARY STAGE Tax Map No. 308.11-1-49.2 FINAL STAGE Subdivision No. 8-2005 Mountain Hollow H.O.A. 39. MODIFICATION Tax Map No. 300.-1-19 Site Plan No. 45-2010 Hudson Headwaters Health Network 50. Tax Map No. 309.13-2-31 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 7/20/10) QUEENSBURY PLANNING BOARD MEETING FIRST REGULAR MEETING JULY 20, 2010 7:00 P.M. MEMBERS PRESENT CHRIS HUNSINGER, CHAIRMAN GRETCHEN STEFFAN, SECRETARY STEPHEN TRAVER DONALD SIPP PAUL SCHONEWOLF DONALD KREBS STEVEN JACKOSKI, ALTERNATE LAND USE PLANNER-KEITH OBORNE STENOGRAPHER-MARIA GAGLIARDI MR. HUNSINGER-I’ll call to order the meeting of the Town of Queensbury Planning Board, Tuesday, July 20, 2010. Thank you for your patience for us starting a few minutes late. We just watched a presentation from the Lake George Water Keeper. Our first item on the agenda is thth approval of minutes from May 18 and May 25, 2010. Would anyone like to make a motion? TH MOTION TO APPROVE THE QUEENSBURY PLANNING BOARD MINUTES OF MAY 18 TH AND MAY 25, 2010, Introduced by Gretchen Steffan who moved for its adoption, seconded by Stephen Traver: th Duly adopted this 20 day of July, 2010, by the following vote: AYES: Mr. Traver, Mr. Krebs, Mrs. Steffan, Mr. Jackoski, Mr. Sipp, Mr. Hunsinger NOES: NONE ABSTAINED: Mr. Schonewolf MR. HUNSINGER-I notice our mics are working way better this evening than they were last month. MRS. STEFFAN-Yes. MR. HUNSINGER-Our next item on the agenda is an Administrative Item. Tabling consideration. ADMINISTRATIVE ITEM: SITE PLAN NO. 14-2010 STEVEN & CHRISTINE JOHNSON FOR FURTHER TABLING CONSIDERATION MR. HUNSINGER-What’s the status, Keith? MR. OBORNE-My anticipation is they’re going to withdraw that Site Plan at this point, and what my recommendation would be, to table them to September at this point, and if they come in and withdraw it, I’ll just remove it from the agenda in the future. MR. HUNSINGER-Would it be appropriate to deny without prejudice? MR. OBORNE-I haven’t received anything yet. They have not gotten their variances. MR. HUNSINGER-Right. I knew that’s what they were waiting for. MR. OBORNE-Yes. stth MR. HUNSINGER-So table it to a September meeting, the 21 or the 28? MR. OBORNE-Sure. MRS. STEFFAN-Okay. I’ll make a motion to table. 1 (Queensbury Planning Board 7/20/10) MOTION TO TABLE SITE PLAN NO. 14-2010 STEVEN & CHRISTINE JOHNSON, Introduced by Gretchen Steffan who moved for its adoption, seconded by Donald Krebs: st To the September 21 Planning Board meeting. Submission for any new materials would be th August 15. th Duly adopted this 20 day of July, 2010, by the following vote: MR. HUNSINGER-I would just add, for the members of the public, if you’re here for a public st hearing on that item, the public hearing will be tabled until September 21 as well. AYES: Mrs. Steffan, Mr. Krebs, Mr. Traver, Mr. Schonewolf, Mr. Sipp, Mr. Hunsinger NOES: NONE ABSTAINED: Mr. Jackoski SITE PLAN NO. 28-2010 FRESHWATER WETLANDS 2-2010 SEQR TYPE TYPE II LESLIE GRASSO AGENT(S) NACE ENGINEERING OWNER(S) LINDA DE LAURA ZONING WR LOCATION SOUTH END OF FOREST ROAD APPLICANT PROPOSES CONSTRUCTION OF A 3,085 +/- SINGLE FAMILY DWELLING WITH ATTACHED GARAGE. DISTURBANCE WITHIN 100 FEET OF A WETLAND REQUIRES BOTH SITE PLAN REVIEW AND FRESHWATER WETLANDS PERMIT REVIEW BY THE PLANNING BOARD. CROSS REFERENCE BP 2010-056 WARREN CO. PLANNING 5/12/2010 APA, CEA, OTHER L G CEA, APA WETLANDS LOT SIZE 0.34 +/- ACRES TAX MAP NO. 226.19-1-39 SECTION 179-9-010, CHAPTER 94 MR. HUNSINGER-We received a letter dated today asking that we table it to a later date. Is there anyone here, member of the audience that wanted to comment on the project? Do we want to accept public comments? MR. SCHONEWOLF-No. MRS. STEFFAN-No, because we’re going to table it. There are a lot of changes, based on the documentation, there are a lot of changes that need to be reviewed. MR. HUNSINGER-Yes. DAVE KLEIN MR. KLEIN-Excuse me, we’ve gone to a lot of expense to prepare for tonight. The applicant. MR. HUNSINGER-Can I get you on the record, please? MR. KLEIN-Sure. MR. HUNSINGER-Or at least on the mic. MR. KLEIN-Thank you. I’m Dave Klein with North Country Engineering. My clients have gone through a lot of expense to prepare for tonight, and I know the applicant has requested that it be tabled, but I’d like to say a few words, not go through a lengthy presentation. The applicant was thst supposed to submit his re-submission by June 15. It didn’t come in until the 21 of June. They got on to the docket anyhow, so I would appreciate, you know, the same consideration to be heard tonight. MR. HUNSINGER-Yes, and just so you understand what happened when we tabled it the last time, we’ve tabled it to a date specific. So even if they didn’t submit any new information, it would have been on this evening’s agenda, and as Mrs. Steffan just commented, there is still a lot of information missing. We did get some new information this evening. I don’t know what it is, but there may be dramatic changes to the Site Plan since you have reviewed it, and so I wonder if, did you have written comments? MR. KLEIN-I will reserve my written comments. I just have a few brief generic comments. MR. SCHONEWOLF-If we’re going to table it, I don’t know why we need to entertain comments at this time. MR. TRAVER-Yes, I agree. 2 (Queensbury Planning Board 7/20/10) MR. KLEIN-Excuse me. You know we’ve gone through a lot of expense to be here tonight. MR. HUNSINGER-Yes, I appreciate that. MR. KLEIN-And a lot of expense that the Town should have been doing and the applicant should have been doing. MR. HUNSINGER-Yes, no I appreciate that. What I’m hearing from the Board, though, is we’re going to table the public hearing along with the application. The applicant has not scheduled a tabling date. MR. OBORNE-Or requested one. MR. HUNSINGER-Did you have a date in mind, Keith? I mean, you obviously haven’t seen the submittal either since it came tonight. MR. OBORNE-I have not seen the submittal. That is correct. MRS. STEFFAN-Well, it’s September because they’ve missed the July deadline, and so they’re not going to be able to get on until September. MR. SCHONEWOLF-So I’d make it the last meeting in September because we don’t have a date. MR. OBORNE-What is the will of the Board shall be. MR. HUNSINGER-Are you available then, that evening? MR. KLEIN-I don’t have my calendar in front of me. MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. MR. KLEIN-You know, we’ve spent an awful lot of money going through this application. There’s a lot of areas that are deficient in the application, and the Town Zoning Administrator is telling the Town Engineer what to look at and what not to look at, and I don’t believe the Zoning Administrator is qualified to make those determinations, to tell the design professional what to look at, and consequently I came here last time, and I raised a bunch of questions about the wastewater system. Since there was a comment from the, a verbal comment from the head of Building and Codes that the applicant was proposing a compliant wastewater system, the Board chose to ignore all the comments and issues that I raised in their tabling motion. Consequently, on the new submission you’ll see they have a completely different wastewater system, and it’s still not Code compliant. There’s a lot of issues with this project that the engineer came through with one generic, benign comment on the wastewater system. We raised the issues that it was too close to the wetland. You need 100 foot separation for infiltration devices serving roads and driveways from the wetland, and they did send that back to the Town Engineer and now you’ve got 16 significant comments on the same application. My clients should not have to go through the expense of doing the applicant’s job, nor the Town’s job. The Town has the ability to charge the applicant to review, and an obligation to review the application and make sure it’s complete. If you take a look at even the Board’s comments, the applicant didn’t even address some of the Board’s comments. MR. HUNSINGER-No, we’re aware of that, yes. I appreciate your comments, Mr. Klein. MR. KLEIN-Thank you. th MR. HUNSINGER-I’ll entertain a motion to table this until September 28. Would anyone like to make that motion? MOTION TO TABLE SITE PLAN NO. 28-2010 AND FRESHWATER WETLAND 2-2010 LESLIE GRASSO, Introduced by Gretchen Steffan who moved for its adoption, seconded by Donald Sipp: th Tabled to September 28. th Duly adopted this 20 day of July, 2010, by the following vote: AYES: Mr. Sipp, Mr. Traver, Mr. Jackoski, Mrs. Steffan, Mr. Krebs, Mr. Schonewolf, Mr. Hunsinger 3 (Queensbury Planning Board 7/20/10) NOES: NONE th MR. HUNSINGER-We will obviously be re-opening the public hearing on the 28 of September, and if you want to provide written comments between now and then, for distribution to the Board, you can do that as well. MR. KLEIN-I appreciate that. I’m told the Board doesn’t get our written comments ahead of time. So I have, I’ve sent in several e-mails to Staff and they’re not forwarded on to the Board, which is very disappointing, because I expect the Board to be here, abreast of all the issues. You should have the information ahead of time. MR. HUNSINGER-Yes. We need to work on our distribution policy, but let me tell you this. If they are received prior to, well, if they’re in by a week before, they will be distributed to the Board. If they come in at the last minute, there’s just not time. We get, Staff packages our information the Friday before the meeting. MR. KLEIN-Okay. So I can expect that if they’re in a week ahead of time. MR. HUNSINGER-And if you have e-mails, you can, normally the routine is if there’s written comments received, they’re read into the minutes the night of the meeting. So they’re considered the night of the meeting, but if it’s more than just, you know, a page or two page, it will be distributed. MR. KLEIN-Okay. Can I e-mail all of the Board members? MRS. STEFFAN-You have to go through the Staff. MR. HUNSINGER-You have to go through Staff. MR. KLEIN-Okay, and they will distribute them. MR. HUNSINGER-Yes. Because that way they make sure there’s an official record in the file. MR. KLEIN-Okay. MR. HUNSINGER-And you can ask that it be forwarded. I mean, we appreciate e-mails. MR. KLEIN-I just want to re-iterate that my client is not an obstructionist. They’re trying to do the right thing. They see a lot that is not developable and somebody’s trying to develop it, and they’ve asked me to take a look at it. MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. MR. KLEIN-All right. MR. HUNSINGER-Thank you. MRS. STEFFAN-Thank you. SITE PLAN NO. 34-2010 SEQR TYPE UNLISTED CAPITAL REGION PROPERTIES AGENT(S) LITTLE & O’CONNOR; JARRETT ENGINEERING OWNER(S) ALAN GOLDSTEIN ZONING RR-3A LOCATION DUNHAM’S BAY RESORT 2999 STATE ROUTE 9L APPLICANT PROPOSES A 5,650 SQ. FT. OUTSIDE PATIO BANQUET AREA WITH COVERED BAR, SEATING AND SEASONAL TENT. PROJECT TO INCLUDE STORMWATER CONTROLS AND LANDSCAPING. COMMERCIAL EXPANSION IN THE RR ZONE REQUIRES PLANNING BOARD REVIEW AND APPROVAL. CROSS REFERENCE UV 23-08; NOA 2-08 WARREN COUNTY PLANNING 6/9/2010 APA, CEA, OTHER LG PARK CEA LOT SIZE 13.54 +/- ACRES TAX MAP NO. 252.-1-75.1 SECTION § 179-9-010 MICHAEL O’CONNOR & TOM JARRETT, REPRESENTING APPLICANT, PRESENT MR. HUNSINGER-Keith, whenever you’re ready to summarize Staff Notes, please. MR. OBORNE-Yes. Site Plan 34-2010, Capital Region Properties, doing business as Dunham’s Bay Resort. Requested action is commercial expansion in an RR zone. Location is 2999 State Route 9L. Existing zoning is Rural Residential Three Acre. This is an Unlisted SEQRA. Project Description: Applicant proposes a 5,650 sq. ft. outside patio banquet area with covered bar, seating and seasonal tent. Project proposes stormwater controls and landscaping. Commercial expansion of an existing use requires Planning Board review and Approval. As you are aware, 4 (Queensbury Planning Board 7/20/10) this was before the Board last month. It was tabled quickly with the turnaround date. The applicant has submitted revised documents. I will say, if you drop down to my additional comments, five and six are in particular of concern. I would like to say that the Planning Board may wish to direct the applicant to update the existing SPDES permit, and if the project is to be approved, Staff recommends that the final submittal indicate all revisions be included in the Site Plan, this includes the proper seating indicated, proper tent size, removal of covered bar, quantity of proposed plantings, patio section details correctly referenced and any other revisions the board may direct the applicant to submit, and with that I’d turn it over to the Board. MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. Thank you. Mr. Jackoski? MR. JACKOSKI-Mr. Chairman, just in the interest of fair disclosure, I have used some of the past agents that this current applicant is using. MR. HUNSINGER-Thank you. Good evening. MR. O’CONNOR-Good evening. MR. HUNSINGER-If you could identify yourselves for the record. MR. O'CONNOR-For the purpose of the record, I’m Michael O’Connor from the law firm of Little & O’Connor. I represent the applicant. With me is Allan Goldstein who is the principle of the applicant, and Tom Jarrett from Jarrett Martin Engineering who is the engineer for the project, and Mark Childs who is the operator or the manager of the facility. I think we’ve made extensive submittals and I think that we’ve answered the questions that you had at the last meeting. I would say that Tom did a nice job of trying to identify each of the existing systems, and give you an actual flow rate from each of the systems, and it’s my understanding that he believes that all the systems are sufficient at this point for the flow that’s given to them, except for the north lodge, and he’s in the process of preparing plans that will be submitted to Dave Hatin, to DEC and the Department of Health for the normal installation of a septic system. We’d ask for your approval of the application, subject to us getting those approvals at a later date, and we expect to get those in the very near future. I would make a couple of comments as to the submittals. On the letter of June 28, 2010, Tom Jarrett indicated, identified each of the systems, and then identified flow. We’ve looked at that, and Alan, trying to be as compliant as he can be, and make this as simple as he can, has decided that the north lodge system, which is the troublesome system, half of that flow comes from the ice machines because they were water cooled. He has taken out the ice machines, or in the process of taking out the ice machines, and they will be air cooled, which will reduce the flow on that system by 1,000 gallons. The ice machines give you a surprising amount of flow. He also has discontinued use of the laundry on the premises. Everything, even though that was just miscellaneous laundry that was done there, will be done off site. He has shut down and will discontinue use of the Crow’s Nest bathroom, which was also a contributor to that system. He also, he is going to make the urinals waterless urinals by the end of August, and he is going to put in low flow toilet receptacles that aren’t the urinal parts. So he’s doing quite a bit as far as amending the actual flow, as well as having Tom Jarrett design a system that will adequately handle the flow that’s there. As to the specific comments, Number One I think we’ve answered, and Staff has indicated that we have. Number Two really doesn’t call for a comment. Number Three I’d make a comment. We talked, last time we were here, about waivers, and I’ve, in writing, requested waivers. Some of the waivers that I’ve requested are limited. They weren’t full waivers. In particular, the waiver on parking, we submitted an additional map which showed the parking that would be created by the seating on the patio, and we asked for a waiver of any other analysis of parking on the site for existing uses. We asked for a waiver on traffic because everything that we’re doing is internal to the site. I presume or know that most of you have been up there, and within the ring of cabins is where we’re talking about building this patio. We’re not in any way interfering with existing traffic patterns that are on site. Staff elsewhere made a comment about the small area directly in front of the restaurant that has been, for the summer, turned into a seating area, probably three or four small tables there. It doesn’t interfere. There’s still two way traffic in front of that. It’s a waiting area for people that are going into the restaurant. We’d make that part of this application that’s on the map. Sewage disposal, I think we’ve adequately addressed that. Stormwater management, we addressed that in that we did ask for a limited waiver, asking that you would be satisfied with the impact of the new patio in any of the area that’s disturbed with the new patio and that’s what we have submitted to you. Landscaping we asked for a waiver on that. We’ve shown areas that will be landscaped when the patio is complete. If you’ve been up there, this property is very well landscaped now, particularly from the lake side of it. I don’t know what further detail you’d need. This is, in fact, an internal patio that has no impact on any of the adjoining owners, given the fact that it’s located where it’s located on the site. I think the applicant has proven that they have great care for the property and take care for the property, and we would ask that a waiver for any further information or requirements in the landscaping plan. The fifth and sixth, which Keith said would be the areas of most concern, we don’t have a 5 (Queensbury Planning Board 7/20/10) problem with updating the existing stormwater SPDES permit. In truth only one system probably is required to be listed on the SPDES permit, because it’s in excess of 1,000 gallons. The other smaller systems aren’t required, but I take it that by updating the SPDES permit is by listing the other systems and their quantity of water flow or water intake on those would be sufficient. We will do that with DEC. The last comment that we amend the plans to show all of the revisions that we had talked about here, and I have no problem stipulating that our presentation to you should be considered part of the application, and anything that we’ve said in our presentation, we acknowledge that we would be bound by, and can be considered as a condition to the approval. I know a couple of things that were specific, and one was removal of the covered bar area, and we indicated that. We will take that off. The other thing which probably is not even on the plans, and I don’t know if we’ve talked about it, but when we went to the Town Board and got the permission of the Town Board to use the port-a-johns, it was a limited time period put to it. When we did the analysis for the septic water, wastewater, we did not take any credit for those port-a-johns, and we will eliminate them from our plans. That way we don’t have to go back to the Town Board. We’ve adequately taken care of the wastewater, and they would come off the plans. As to, the other major change I guess is the patio platform is larger than the actual tent. It actually shows a tent with seating at it, which is in capacity of the existing tent. My recollection is that the existing tent is 30 by, 35 by 75, and according to the Fire Marshal, seating capacity on that is 150, and we will re-do the drawings, if you will, that shows that tent. That’s the intent that’s there now. That’s the intent that’s decided, or that’s the tent that they wish to use, but basically, unless you have other questions, or there are other issues, if you want, Tom can go over the work he’s done. I do note this, though. We need to go to Dave Hatin to get a permit to repair or replace part of that septic system, we need to go to DEC. We’ve said that we will go to DEC by the end of the month. We should have the plans completed by the end of next week, if not mid next week, and we also need to submit, I understand, Tom, to the Department of Health, and we will be doing that. So the septic system that’s being installed is the same as any other septic system installed in the Town. It’s subject to the Town Building Department review, in this case because it’s a commercial project, commercial property is subject to other agencies as well. So, again I’ll say I think that’s my comments. MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. MR. O'CONNOR-If you’ve got questions, I’ll be glad to try and answer them. MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. Questions, comments from the Board? MR. SIPP-Did you say you were eliminating the need for port-a-potties? MR. O'CONNOR-We’re eliminating them. We found that we didn’t actually have a need. It would have made it more convenient for the customers, probably, or the patrons, but because it caused some angst, if you will, the Town Board does not want, or doesn’t seem to want us to incorporate them on a permanent basis. So what we are doing is designing the septic water system so that we don’t need them, and we will eliminate them. They’re also an expense. They’re not serving anybody’s purpose and they cause a problem, we’ll take them off there. MR. SCHONEWOLF-There was a discussion last time about a revised plan. Is the plan that we got the latest? th MR. JARRETT-Yes. Having said that, I will tell you that we submitted plans on June 29 with th the, while we addressed remaining Staff comments, and those plans are dated June 29. The th last revision is June 29. I’m hoping you have those. MR. HUNSINGER-We do. MR. SCHONEWOLF-We do. MR. O'CONNOR-You raise a point that I missed, too, Mr. Schonewolf. There is an engineering report or review report here. There were two issues that they had. We have no problem complying with those two issues, and we will on the final plans comply with those. So there’s a signoff by, and actually in the letter there was a suggestion that you could approve this subject to our changing the final plan. MR. HUNSINGER-Other questions, comments from the Board? I think a couple of other members have already commented that, in your presentation, you addressed some of the questions, you know, one of my big questions was where you stood with the submittal with DEC, because that’s certainly more extensive and involved than anything we requested from you. MR. O'CONNOR-Yes. 6 (Queensbury Planning Board 7/20/10) MR. HUNSINGER-And I also just wanted to comment on, I commend you for installing the low flow toilets, but I’m kind of surprised that you didn’t already have them. MR. JARRETT-They were in the works, and it’s been accelerated. MR. HUNSINGER-Yes. Okay. ALAN GOLDSTEIN MR. GOLDSTEIN-We do have it in our other men’s room. There’s two urinals, and then there’s, a men’s room, two urinals, two toilets in the ladies room, and one toilet. Our other bathroom has waterless. So, it’s a matter of, I guess, expense. So they just expedited it. MR. HUNSINGER-Sure. Yes. Do you have any idea, Tom, what the reduction in flow will be as a result of all these changes? MR. JARRETT-Well, nominally, DEC allows a credit of 20% on the water saving fixtures, but some of the measures we’re taking are going to be more aggressive than that. MR. HUNSINGER-I would think so. MR. JARRETT-So I’m going to say it’s more than that. It might be anywhere 30% overall. That’s just a guess, but it’s going to be more than the 20%. MR. HUNSINGER-I mean, if you’re taking out a 1,000 gallon ice machine. MR. JARRETT-Right. MR. HUNSINGER-I mean, that’s pretty significant. MR. JARRETT-Very significant, especially for that system that we’re dealing with right now, that north system. MRS. STEFFAN-So are those changes reflected in the. MR. JARRETT-The report that we submitted to you? MRS. STEFFAN-Yes. th MR. JARRETT-No. The flow that you have listed in our letter, our letter of June 28, written to Craig, lists the north system as, on the plan it shows it as 2200 gallons a day, I believe, and what Alan was referring to, we would be subtracting at least 1,000 gallons a day from that figure, and actually I’m negotiating with the Department of Health and DEC right now to reduce it even further, based on some of the improvements we’re making and on some of the ways that we operate compared to what their standards are. So I’m hoping to get it significantly below that even. You’ll obviously get a copy of the updated design and it’ll break down what those flows are, and I can provide a cover letter that explains the difference between what’s in this report versus that design. That might be helpful for Staff and the Board. MR. O'CONNOR-Some of the changes, Mrs. Steffan, were made based upon the analysis as to sources. I think when Alan found out that his ice machines were producing almost half of that septic flow, and there was an alternative to use of other type machines, he decided it on his own that he would replace those machines, which was a decision that was made after Tom’s analysis. It’s on sheet, wastewater systems WW-1, and that can get updated as well as the other plans that we submitted, so that we will have an actual flow for what we will have there, as well as an actual showing of the smaller tent and the elimination of the port-a-johns and the elimination of the bar. MR. HUNSINGER-How about the south lodge, and I’m sorry if I didn’t hear you give that number, but on this plan you show 4800 gallons per day. MR. JARRETT-Right. That’s with everything operating, all the banquets, all the dining, all the rooms full, and Mike may wish to get into an explanation of how, or some diversity on this site that we need to think about. MR. HUNSINGER-Right. 7 (Queensbury Planning Board 7/20/10) MR. JARRETT-But that system is functioning fine based on the usage today. We didn’t see any evidence of any problem. So we’re going to manage that very judiciously, but in terms of some of the things that you mentioned, the low flow toilets and fixtures. MR. JARRETT-They will be having an impact on that system as well. MR. HUNSINGER-Yes, okay, but you don’t know what that impact would be? MR. JARRETT-Percentagewise? No because the new bathrooms that actually serve or go to that system were upgraded to water savers several years ago when Alan bought the facility. It’s the rooms in the lodge that go to that system where we’ll see the biggest impact. So I would say that’s probably closer to 20% overall. MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. MR. O'CONNOR-Probably, and I’ll try to think of an analysis and you may or may not agree with me. An analysis for the septic systems on this site is kind of like the parking lot down at the K- Mart. You, I don’t think, ever see that parking lot full, but I think it was built per standards at that time. This operation, their peak nights right now, and certainly they hope to improve them, but their peak nights right now are Saturday and Sunday, and they serve 40 to 50 dinners in the dining room. They have seating capacity for much, much more than that, but that’s the business that they do. That’s the wastewater that produce. Tom’s analysis, as to water flow, are per the DEC standards. We don’t have a good, we haven’t had a good history of actual water. We now are keeping track of our water by water meter, and we probably are going to show a substantially lower flow than what the DEC standards are. We used that once when we did the septic system for the Docksider. We actually metered everything, kept track of it on a regular basis, and were easily able to prove the actual water flows, although she had seating on the patio, seating on the inside, and you get into this a little bit. History in July, there was a wedding rdth on July 3 that had 138 people at it. There was a banquet on July 10 that had 61 people. That actually was inside. That wasn’t, the patio wasn’t used at all. There was a party that had 80 adults and 19, and that was outside. That was also on the tent. Now that probably is the max that you’re going to see there. They had 61 inside and 80 adults and 19 kids on the outside. MR. GOLDSTEIN-A point Mike asked us earlier. What percentage of those guests at the banquet have rooms. Mark estimated 70%. A lot of the people use their own bathrooms as opposed to using a public bathroom. A banquet, when it’s only X amount of feet away. I think that was your point, Tom, on that. MR. O'CONNOR-Yes. There’s duplication all over here. There’s duplication because people choose to either use the outside facilities or the inside facilities. There’s duplication because when you have a banquet, which puts the most people on the site, most of those people are staying there in rooms, if it’s a wedding or something of that nature. Maybe not if it’s a th retirement party for somebody local, but there’s an awful lot of duplication. I think on the 17 there were 78 people, and that was inside. So we really think that they have more than adequate wastewater facilities for this site. They had a particular system that failed. We actually find that the system failed because an unmonitored faucet was left on. It was left on, unfortunately, to the point that it allowed the solids to get out into the absorption area so that the absorption area is gone, and that’s what has to be replaced. So we have a lot of information. If you have questions, we’ll try and give it to you. MR. HUNSINGER-Any other questions, comments from the Board? MRS. STEFFAN-Public comment. MR. HUNSINGER-Yes. We do have a public hearing scheduled this evening. Could I get a show of hands on how many people wish to address the Board on this project? Two? Okay. Who would like to go first? Just so you know, Mr. Salvador, we did get copies of both of your letters that were submitted previous to this evening’s meeting. PUBLIC HEARING OPEN JOHN SALVADOR MR. SALVADOR-All right. Thank you. MR. HUNSINGER-And if you could try to keep your comments to three minutes. We’d appreciate it. MR. SALVADOR-I’ve prepared my comments. I’d like to read them into the record. 8 (Queensbury Planning Board 7/20/10) MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. How long will it take? MR. SALVADOR-My name is John Salvador. I’m a, as you know, former owner of this facility, and I am very familiar with the facility, at least up until 10 years ago when we sold it. First of all, I’d like to say good evening, Mr. Chairman, Ms. Steffan and gentlemen of the Board. Your project tabling resolution of June 15, 2010 very generously extended the submission deadline for this public hearing to Monday, June 28th, in order that the applicant, the Dunham’s Bay Resort, could address certain enumerated conditions, the very first of which is issues of zoning and land use will need to be investigated and clarified and/or resolved, specifically zoning versus use. On July 5, 2010 I corresponded with the Zoning Administrator inquiring as to what activity the Community Development Department was planning to undertake to investigate and th clarify the issue of zoning vs. use raised by this Board. On July 7 I received an answer indicating that the issue regarding zoning vs. use would be addressed in Staff Notes to the Planning Board. I trust the members of this Board have read Mr. Brown’s Memorandum of July th 7 in which he summarizes by saying the application in question was subject to the same review process and no use violations were found with the proposal. As such, the application was appropriately placed on an agenda for your review and consideration. No use violations had surfaced in the review process primarily due to the Town Board’s consent to the use of port-a- johns as comfort stations for the banquet party guests rather than more suitable facilities with, quote, indoor plumbing. Incidentally, there have been 4 outside banquet affairs at the resort with no sign of port-a-johns. The applicant’s port-a-john proposal appears to have been just a ruse – a classic deception! Why?? Where and what are these hundreds of frolicking guests th using to relieve themselves? Quoting from the transcription of your June 15 hearing – Mr. Jarrett-Actually we think the tent would relieve some of the pressure on the system that has currently failed. Mr. Traver-Because of the port-a-johns? Mr. O’Connor-Yes. Mr. Jarrett-No, actually the bathrooms that tend to be used by the people using the, in the tent, would be the rear of the Lodge. Where this system has failed is in the front of the Lodge. In the Spring of 2007 the Town’s Zoning Administrator responded to this applicant’s application for building permits for, among other things, locker room facilities adjacent to the indoor pool and the addition of a one bedroom suite on the third level by denying, on May 8, 2007, the after the fact building permit applications based on the following reasons – As referenced above, the Dunham’s Bay Resort complex is a pre-existing, non-conforming use within the RR-3 Acre zone. No expansion, enlargement of services or facilities, increase in intensity of use or facilities may occur without the granting of a Use Variance by the Town of Queensbury Zoning Board of Appeals. To date, no such approvals have been applied for or granted for your project. Also, I understand your intentions to include the completion of the locker room facilities adjacent to the indoor pool, the addition of a 1 bedroom suite on the third level and the addition of a 260 square foot walk-in-cooler adjacent to the existing kitchen all of which are located in the main lodge. The addition of a 1 bedroom suite (Bridal Suite), a 260 square foot walk-in-cooler, a pool facility and outdoor seating area constitute an expansion of the use and an enlargement of the facilities and shall be subject to a Use Variance prior to commencement. This letter will serve as a written notification of my determination and written notice to Stop Work on any areas identified as being subject to a Use Variance if any such work has begun. Presumably, the work did stop in 2007! However, the work must have commenced during the period when the Town Board was re-working the Zoning Ordinance in anticipation that the new ordinance would allow expansion and new uses previously prohibited. The Wastewater Systems Plan, WW-1, dated June 2010 prepared by Jarrett Engineering would seem to indicate that what was referred to as the Bridal Suite is now referred to as Main Lodge Room No. 226 and one designated as VIP. Whatever these additional units may be numbered or called, they represent an un-approved expansion of a non-conforming use without having obtained a Use Variance and subsequent building permits. Further in his letter of May 4, the Zoning Administrator speaks to the appearance of this property undergoing a conversion from seasonal use to year round use – While the conversion of the 24 seasonal use cottage units to 12 seasonal use cottage units does not, on the surface, appear to represent an expansion, should the conversion of the units include conversion from seasonal use to year round use, such a change will constitute an increase in the intensity of the use and be subject to a Use Variance prior to commencement. It is unclear to me, from the plans that you have submitted, if such seasonal year round conversion is planned for the cottage units. Please provide clarification on this matter. Of course, not only have the 24 Motel style units, when I say motel I mean bedroom and bath, been converted to 12 Suites which each now have cooking facilities, but the units appear to have occupancy year round. There is also no question that the indoor swimming pool and the restaurant are open for use and occupancy year round. The Applicant’s Stormwater Management Plans and Specifications do not meet the requirements of Town Code Chapter 147 for what must be considered a Major Project in a Critical Environmental Area long since established by a State Agency pursuant to ECL 43-0112. Some system details shown on Wastewater Plan WW-1 do not in all respects represent the approved design layout and process scheme for certain on site wastewater systems. All sources of drinking water supply should be mapped. This is important for the Health Department. Mr. Jarrett reports that it is the intention 9 (Queensbury Planning Board 7/20/10) of the current management to replace water cooled ice machines in favor of air cooled machines in a effort to insure water conservation. Originally, the ice machines and central air conditioning units were equipped with water cooled condensers. This scheme allowed the heat of condensation to be effectively recovered and returned to storage using extremely cold well water as a heat transfer medium. That cold well water spells efficiency. It sounds like the scheme has been changed to a, quote, once through system which should never have been used in the first place. With regard to the parking waiver, I think what you need on this parking plan are some section drawings, because I think you’ll find that it’s practically impossible to get a car in the orientation they show it, with the slopes that are present in that area. The applicant has spoken and the Board speaks of low flow toilets. What flow? There are three gallon low flow toilets and there are one and a half gallon low flow toilets. Now, we were required by the Health Department to conform to the three gallon flow, long time ago, long time ago, and to accomplish this we simply put bricks in the toilet tank to displace water, and it worked. Now I don’t know if the bricks are still there, but it sure does save a lot of money, if all you’re trying to accomplish is a low flow toilet. You see in your packet an e-mail from the DEC requiring what they require by the end of July for wastewater. Have you seen that e-mail? MR. HUNSINGER-Yes. MR. SALVADOR-You’ve seen that. That’s quite an extensive and detailed list, and I’m not sure what the DEC is pointing toward, but it could be that the site might be put under a total SPDES permit, not just one system. I don’t know. I don’t know how they’ll interpret that. There is already one SPDES permitted system on the site. That’s there, and that’s been designed for low flow toilets, and they’re in. They’re there. MR. HUNSINGER-I let you go way past your three minutes so you could read your letter. Thank you. MR. SALVADOR-I’m finished. I’d like to leave a copy of this for your record. MR. HUNSINGER-Thank you. MR. SALVADOR-If you have any questions, I’d be glad to answer them. MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. Thank you. Good evening. CHRIS NAVITSKY MR. NAVITSKY-Good evening. Chris Navitsky, Lake George Water Keeper. We feel that this is the opportunity to take a comprehensive review of this property and the uses on this property, and a chance to evaluate those. Obviously, right now there’s the upgrade of an existing system that is not compliant, and we feel that this is an opportunity to maximize water quality protection on the entire property. We feel that there, by Mr. Jarrett’s letter, that there are actually four systems that need a SPDES Permit, four systems over 1,000 gallons, and we were just wondering if that would be part of DEC review if those would also be incorporated. There’s references about the wastewater flows, and that there is duplication or replication in those numbers, and we can understand that, but systems must be designed for actual peak demands, and there is the possibility and the strong potential that there will be users there that are not staying, and that is why the systems do need to be sized to the maximum. Also, I feel it’s important for the Board to have all outside approvals prior to approval of the application. As was stated, there is redundancy or usage on the site. Seventy percent of the patrons are in hotel rooms. So how do we know which flows are being applied where from which users? So I think that all outside approvals should be obtained before approval of the application. I apologize. I was not at the June meeting. I did have a comment about the existing tennis court that acts as a banquet facility. Would that still remain as a potential second banquet facility and also be considered in wastewater flows, and I also feel that if there is, look at the parking and other items, that there also be additional stormwater management considerations. Thank you. MR. HUNSINGER-Thank you. Anyone else want to address the Board? Any other written comments, Keith, that weren’t distributed to the Board? MR. OBORNE-I know of none, but let me check. No. MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. So we will conclude, then, the public hearing for this evening. Any comments from members of the Board as a result of the public comment, questions of the applicant? MR. O'CONNOR-I have a couple of comments for the record, if might. 10 (Queensbury Planning Board 7/20/10) MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. MR. O'CONNOR-Again, you had a lot of stuff thrown on the wall by Mr. Salvador, as is his practice. I don’t speak for the Board. I don’t pretend to say what the Board thinks or not, but I would say that he was incorrect saying that the Board had a concern about the zoning or the use of the property or whether or not a variance was required. He threw that against the wall at the last meeting, and the Board, I think, indicated that Staff should check that out and see if there was a problem. Just to satisfy his question, not a question from the Board. I think Craig Brown answered the question, he answered the question very adequately, and what John wants to ignore entirely is that the zoning on this property was changed within the last couple of years. It was changed since the application was made to create the wedding suite, and some other small changes that were on the property, and it was made, the change was made specifically by the Town Board, knowing what the intention was, and that their feeling was that this business had been there for years and years, long before even Mr. Salvador. I won’t say that because I don’t know that, but I mean, for many, many years this business has been here, and they shouldn’t have to come in for a Use Variance every time they were going to change a structure on the property. The Town Board made that change, in that particular zone, and made this a permitted use. It affected this restaurant, which is like in the middle of a different area, and two or three other places like it in the Town, and I think it was very progressive, it was very forward thinking of the Town Board to do that. There was no scheme as to the port-a-johns. When we were here, we had the port-a-johns on the map. We showed them. We actually had a contract to have them placed there this winter, or this summer, but when we found that the Town Board really resisted them being part of the permanent plan, we withdrew them. Again, the applicant here has tried to be compliant, has tried to listen to the Boards and, you know, make the plan conform as much as possible, and still make it a viable plan for his operation of his business. The question about making the business year round, as opposed to seasonal, you know, maybe my understanding is different but I always thought that it was a year round operation, but I think as Mr. Navitsky said, or he inferred, you don’t get a credit when you design your stormwater or you design your wastewater system, even if you come in and promise that you’re going to be seasonal. You have to design your system for year round operation. There is no such thing as a seasonal wastewater system. So these designs are based upon a year round use, not seasonal use. Again, maybe a lot of those systems are going to be well rested during the winter months because of the nature of the patronage of the property, but we don’t take a credit for that. We don’t get a credit for that when we do the application. Whether or not there’s more than one system that’s required on the SPDES Permit. What we’ve said and we would make as a stipulation, we will list all of the systems, regardless of their size, on the SPDES permit when we submit the revised SPDES Permit to DEC. The issue of a banquet facility on the tennis court and addition to the banquet facility on the patio, I think we would have to visit MHU and ask Mr. Goldstein if he would like a second banquet facility. I don’t think he’s going to go through that. That’s not part of the plans. It’s not before you. We can speculate anything and everything, but it’s not part of it. As to waiting for all outside approvals before we go forward. That just delays. We acknowledge that we’re subject to them. We are going to apply for them. We have submitted to you actually information saying that we are required to submit to them. It’s not a question of doing it when we want. There’s actually a timetable set forth in there. So I think it would be unreasonable for you to do other than a conditional approval saying that we must get those approvals, and leave it at that. I don’t know if there was any question that was raised in the Board’s mind by any of the comments that were made that I should address other than those. MR. SIPP-Has DEC responded to you? MR. JARRETT-They have. As of today I’ve spoken to them, and we’re resolving some of the design parameters right now, and I should have those resolved by tomorrow. So our design will be wrapped up later this week or early part of next week. MR. SIPP-So we won’t know until the next meeting whether they approved it or not? MR. JARRETT-Well, they will be approving something. We’ll work out something and get an approval from them. We have to. MR. O'CONNOR-We’re under an order from them to do this, to put in a compliant system, per their design, per their approval process. MR. JARRETT-They’re not in disagreement with the design, the style we’re using. We’re just discussing the wastewater flows that are tributary to that system, the breakdown and how much savings we can achieve with the management changes we’ve made. MR. SIPP-Does the Lake George Park Commission have any? 11 (Queensbury Planning Board 7/20/10) MR. JARRETT-No, it’s strictly the Health Department, the Town and DEC that have jurisdiction. MR. HUNSINGER-Any other questions from the Board? MRS. STEFFAN-I guess I have a question for Keith. What does Staff need from this applicant? MR. OBORNE-It’s spelled out under my additional comments, the last two. MRS. STEFFAN-The last, okay. MR. OBORNE-Five and six. MRS. STEFFAN-So update the SPDES Permit and then you want final drawings that have all of these items in it. MR. OBORNE-Correct, and any conditions that you, if you’re going down that road, that you may require of the applicant. MRS. STEFFAN-The other thing is I notice in the Staff Notes, a little bit before that, you’re looking for fence details and planting schemes. Even though they’ve provided them, they’re unclear. MR. OBORNE-They are unclear, yes. MRS. STEFFAN-Okay. MR. OBORNE-And I’ve had discussions with Tom Jarrett on this, and he said he’d get a detail of the type of fence that they’re proposing. It’s more of like a paddock fence, as opposed to a split rail fence. That’s my understanding. Correct me if I’m wrong. MR. JARRETT-Well, it’s like a split rail fence, only it’s not split rails. It’s just wooden rails is what I think you plan on using. So it’ll be of that ilk, but that style type of fence. MR. OBORNE-And all I’m looking for is for them to land on something. MR. GOLDSTEIN-It’ll be a rustic atmosphere to kind of go in with the courtyard itself, as opposed to something that’s bright and shiny. MR. JARRETT-And then, with regard to plantings, we had species listed and locations. I guess it was numbers, quantities that we were lacking in Keith’s mind. MR. O'CONNOR-I did ask for a waiver on that, saying that we’ve indicated where we will do plantings, and we’ll do plantings that will be adequate. I don’t know if you need to specify numbers. MRS. STEFFAN-Well, that becomes an issue. That’s what I wanted to ask the Board next is about the waivers, because you’ve asked for several waivers. So we have to talk about that next. MR. HUNSINGER-Well, why don’t we go through the list. The first one was limited, I’ll use Mr. O’Connor’s term, a limited waiver on parking. MR. O'CONNOR-Correct. MRS. STEFFAN-Well, either you grant it or you don’t. MR. HUNSINGER-Well, they’ve provided parking information relative to the patio. They haven’t provided parking for the entire site. MRS. STEFFAN-And so if we want to have a complete plan, we really should have a parking scenario for the site, because once this plan is done, in my mind, it should be filed with the Town and that’s the deal. That’s how this operation is going to run, with the parking scenarios as laid out. MR. HUNSINGER-Are we comfortable with the parking information that was submitted? MR. SCHONEWOLF-Well, there’s two parts of that. You submitted a plan for 44 parking spaces for use of the tent. Do I assume that you’re going to continue to park cars the way you’ve been, 12 (Queensbury Planning Board 7/20/10) around the building when you have functions there during the winter? I mean, because that’s been a problem. There’s no doubt about it. MR. GOLDSTEIN-Functions for the winter, will we park the same way you’re saying? MR. SCHONEWOLF-Yes. How many spaces are you going to have for parking in the winter? Can you use the 44 in the back during the winter? MR. GOLDSTEIN-Yes. MR. SCHONEWOLF-Okay. So how many more do you have to go with that? MR. GOLDSTEIN-Well, I’ll repeat what I believe I said last meeting is these are the same people that’s inside the building would be outside. So for the winter they’ll be inside. We’ve had adequate parking without problem. MR. SCHONEWOLF-So the 44 spaces that are in the back for summer you’re going to use in the winter. Is that what you’re saying to me? MR. GOLDSTEIN-Yes. MR. SCHONEWOLF-And so you’re saying that you only need 44 spaces for that facility, and that’s where your waiver comes, why you’re asking for a waiver, is that correct? MR. O'CONNOR-I was asking for a waiver because I didn’t think we were upsetting any of the other parking except for maybe two spots out in the front turnaround area. MR. SCHONEWOLF-That’s my question. MR. O'CONNOR-And that was summertime only. Those things are temporary. They will be pulled out of there in the winter. We won’t have outside tables sitting on those two or three parking spots in the wintertime. So it’ll go back to the old parking in the front of the building, and that’s the only disruption or change. MR. SCHONEWOLF-Which is how many places? MR. O'CONNOR-Probably three. MR. GOLDSTEIN-No, it’s probably 10. MRS. STEFFAN-See, in my mind, just because we’re having this conversation and it’s very convoluted. MR. SCHONEWOLF-It’s not clear on the diagram. That’s my point. MRS. STEFFAN-Exactly. I think we need to have a parking plan, so that it can be submitted to the Town and we know what the parking plan is, and it’s carved in stone. There’s too much ambiguity for me to grant a waiver. How does everybody else feel about that? MR. TRAVER-I agree. MR. SCHONEWOLF-Yes. I think you need to do that. I mean, I’ve been to functions there and sometimes it’s a problem, sometimes it isn’t, and I just wanted to know and gaining 44 spaces in the back is huge, but did we lose all the ones on the side? MR. GOLDSTEIN-I think the firemen had a function charity, and we had over, probably 200 people there. MR. SCHONEWOLF-Yes, I was there. They were parked all up and down 9L. MR. GOLDSTEIN-But that was 200 or more people. MR. O’CONNOR-The tent or the patio doesn’t disrupt any on-site parking. It’s within those cabins. MR. SCHONEWOLF-Does it remove it though? Because you’ve got to get there. You’ve got driveways going down one side and you’ve got a gravel driveway going down the other side which is pretty much one lane. 13 (Queensbury Planning Board 7/20/10) MR. O'CONNOR-My understanding of that is the additional parking is off of that one lane, it’s not on that one lane. MR. SCHONEWOLF-Okay. MR. O'CONNOR-So it won’t disrupt that one lane, and Tom just verified to me that that’s correct. MRS. STEFFAN-But in my mind you still have to have parking for the site. Yes. You’ve applied, the basis of this particular Site Plan application is for an expansion, but it still doesn’t address, you know, once you apply for that, it opens up Pandora’s Box and the whole site, and so we’ve got some parking ambiguity, and so we’d like to have a parking plan. That’s what it sounds like to me. MR. SCHONEWOLF-That’s correct. MR. OBORNE-If I could state that they did show parking, compliant parking for the expansion. MR. HUNSINGER-They do, yes. MR. OBORNE-And what you’re looking for, and I’d like clarification, what you’re looking for is the existing, prior to the expansion, parking, is it compliant, and if not, show me a plan that is compliant. MR. SCHONEWOLF-Because it’s added to the other. MR. OBORNE-Right, well, irrespective of that, of the 48, I think they’ve taken care of that. They’ve shown where they’re going to do that. MR. SCHONEWOLF-Yes. I have no problem with that. MR. OBORNE-Right. MR. HUNSINGER-Is everyone in agreement on that? MRS. STEFFAN-A compliant parking plan. MR. HUNSINGER-Steve, Don? MR. KREBS-Well, I don’t know. I’ve been there many times, too, and never had any problems parking, so, excepted the situation where you have a very, very large group, 200. Most of the times I’ve been there there haven’t been more than 40 cars. MR. O'CONNOR-I guess my question is, how do you quantify what the compliant requirement is? Because you’ve got so many rooms. Those are pretty well defined, and that’s not an issue, but you’ve got all kinds of seating in different parts of that building. I really get lost as to, if you’re saying that, as part of our final submittal, submit a plan that shows all the parking on the site. MR. OBORNE-Based on the usages. MR. O'CONNOR-It’s not lined parking. MR. OBORNE-That’s true. MR. O'CONNOR-You try to park as many cars as you can there. I think honestly, from an applicant’s point of view, you hope that you’re crowded. You hope that the parking is crowded. It hasn’t been in the last four years. I mean, we can produce additional parking if we are fortunate enough to get the business and get what’s there. MR. SCHONEWOLF-I just want to know the number and locations of spots, not the 44, I know where that is. I just want to know what it is, because I’ve been there two or three times myself. I have trouble finding a place to park. That’s why I’m asking the question, how many parking spots do you have that add to the 44 which gives you the total? MR. O’CONNOR-Okay. If we sit down with Staff and we go through the building and go room by room as to what our uses are and then come up with a number. MR. SCHONEWOLF-That’s all. 14 (Queensbury Planning Board 7/20/10) MR. O'CONNOR-And show them on the final plan. MR. SCHONEWOLF-That’s all we need, because right now it’s kind of hanging out there. MR. OBORNE-Yes, it is gravel parking. It would be overflow, obviously, not where the cabin is, but there is a large gravel parking area where the hand is up through here. That was not part of their parking plan. So, I mean, I think there’s plenty of parking on site, just you want it shown. You can’t draw lines on gravel. MR. SCHONEWOLF-Also, what about, you know, at the cabins on the backside anyway, when I was there last, cars were parked right next to the cabins, on the lawn, and I even saw two where they must have been a family because they parked one car right behind the other. So it wasn’t like you could, if it was a lined parking lot, it wouldn’t work, but they didn’t seem to mind. MR. OBORNE-Quite frankly, I do not have much concern with that, just to get it on the plan is what it’s about. I think they have the room. MR. GOLDSTEIN-We’re on 13 acres. MR. OBORNE-Exactly. Exactly. MR. GOLDSTEIN-Plus we’ve got 117 adjoining it. MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. The other waiver requested was for traffic. Are there concerns with ingress/egress on the site? Okay. Stormwater. They did provide a stormwater for the expansion. Do we have other stormwater concerns? MR. TRAVER-And get an updated SPDES Permit. MR. HUNSINGER-Yes. MR. OBORNE-Stormwater and SPDES are two different issues. MR. HUNSINGER-SPDES is for the wastewater, not stormwater. We talked about this at the last meeting. Yes. MRS. STEFFAN-So do we grant the waiver for stormwater or not? MR. TRAVER-Yes. MR. HUNSINGER-Yes. I think we’re okay. All right. Landscaping. We talked a little bit about that a minute ago. We need quantities. MR. JARRETT-For enforcement purposes, we can provide a quantity on the final plan. MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. MR. JARRETT-And I can review that with Staff. MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. MRS. STEFFAN-And of course the lighting plan we did grant the waiver last week. We said we would grant the waiver on that. MR. HUNSINGER-Yes. Did you have anything else on your list, Gretchen? MRS. STEFFAN-Well, they asked for sewage disposal, but that’s not, we’re not granting that. We’ve asked for a wastewater plan. MR. HUNSINGER-Right, and then the other items we had of course are the two Staff comments and then the two engineering comments. What’s the feeling of the Board? MRS. STEFFAN-I would like them to come back with a final plan. There’s too much outstanding. MR. SIPP-DEC approval. MR. HUNSINGER-How do other members feel? 15 (Queensbury Planning Board 7/20/10) MR. KREBS-Well, I think if we have the conditions, that certainly the Staff aren’t going to give the approvals until they get the conditions met. MRS. STEFFAN-But I think there’s too many conditions to leave it up to the responsibility of Staff to do that. Keith, how do you feel about it? MR. OBORNE-I would rather have a clean, pristine plan wrapped up in a bow, but I would also like to have the applicant, for economic development purposes, have a Site Plan Review that’s approved. So my balance is that. I have to follow your lead. MRS. STEFFAN-Well, we can also give them the same courtesy that we did the last time, ad allow them to use their tent for those events that have been previously booked. MR. OBORNE-That would be fine. So they can continue to operate. MRS. STEFFAN-Right, and meet their obligations, but also be able to move this forward and meet their community obligations. MR. O'CONNOR-Why is this so confusing, because we have the other agencies involved? We’re talking about a septic system which we’ve gotten the flow down to 1,050 gallons, peak flow. That’s less than the flow on a lot of residential septic systems. That’s the outstanding issue. I really think you’re beating a dead horse, and I say that with respect. I understand your concerns, but DEC isn’t going to blink. The Department of Health isn’t going to blink, and Dave Hatin isn’t going to blink. You’re not going to approve the septic system. You’re not going to engineer the septic system. MR. KREBS-And you’re under a mandate from DEC to do that. MR. O'CONNOR-Yes. MR. HUNSINGER-Right. MR. O'CONNOR-And Dave Hatin. MR. GOLDSTEIN-Plus it’s costing us a lot of money to truck the fluids away, tremendous money. We’re trucking all the fluid, not just the sludge. MR. JACKOSKI-Well, I haven’t said much, but my thought is that if we could do it with conditions, that I’d move forward with that. MRS. STEFFAN-Then we’d put the Staff in a situation where they have to, they have all these outstanding items, and the applicant can continue to operate, unless we put other conditions in place. There are a lot of outstanding items. MR. O'CONNOR-Put a timetable on them. We could live with a timetable. We’ll come back if we don’t meet your timetable. We’re not talking about a blank check. We’re not talking about ad infinitum timetable. MRS. STEFFAN-What’s the difference between that and coming back with everything wrapped up? MR. O'CONNOR-Because if we meet the timetable, we won’t have to come back, and you get into a viscous circle. DEC typically wants to know if you’ve got local approval, and I’m not sure, on this application, if there’s a check box for that, Tom. MR. OBORNE-How many issues are outstanding, from the Town’s point of view? MR. HUNSINGER-Well, I think the big ones are the landscaping, and parking, which are clearly, you know, Site Plan issues. MR. OBORNE-Right, and I have no issue taking care of that with them. I’d prefer not to, obviously, but I really don’t have a huge issue with that. MR. HUNSINGER-I think in a lot of respects, because of the particular site, the compliant parking plan is just drawing on paper, you know, and I think a lot of the parking problems that you have with big events are that when people park cars themselves, they take up more space. I mean, I see it all the time on gravel, or grass parking lots. You take up a lot more space than you normally would on a paved parking lot where you have stripes. 16 (Queensbury Planning Board 7/20/10) MR. GOLDSTEIN-We try to do valet when we can. MR. HUNSINGER-Yes. MR. O'CONNOR-And I haven’t argued, but, you know, this site has some grandfathered rights. This site has been used, we’ve taken care of that additional parking that we might be creating, even though we think that that’s a lot of duplication, but if somebody, in all honesty, if somebody came, without the tent being there, came in and said we’ve got a complaint because of parking, I don’t think the Town really would have a leg to stand on. I mean, that’s been there since, Alan just said in my mind, 1911, parts of it has. Certainly some of it’s expanded. They’ve reduced the number of units in the last 10 years. They’ve made units more family oriented, but that doesn’t necessarily increase the parking, but I don’t want to argue that. I think we can show you the parking, if you think that’s a good thing for the Town to have on file. We will show you the parking that we have on-site, and I think we will work out with Staff as to what they think is required. MR. OBORNE-It’s really not what we think is required. It’s more what is required. MR. HUNSINGER-Right, yes. MR. SCHONEWOLF-There’s six items? MRS. STEFFAN-Yes. I’ve got that they need to update the SPDES Permit. They need to satisfy the engineering comments and obtain a signoff. They need to provide a new wastewater plan incorporating the new water saving fixture upgrades. They need to provide a compliant parking plan, specifically the number of spaces and location. They have to provide the final plans incorporating all revisions included in the Site Plan, which includes proper seating indicated, proper tent size, removal of a covered bar, the quantity of the proposed plantings, patio section details correctly referenced, and then it also includes fence details and planting scheme. So that, and then. MR. SCHONEWOLF-I don’t have a problem with it, if the rest of the Board doesn’t. I think that the Staff is well capable of handling that. MR. TRAVER-Well, I think one of our concerns was the burden that we’re placing on Staff, and the balance that Keith referenced earlier I think tipped a little bit in favor of moving forward, when I think I heard him say that he would rather not, but he thought he could handle what we were discussing. MR. OBORNE-Well, I can handle it. I would much rather you not do what you did last month with this application. That’s my major issue, especially going through this cycle as we move forward. MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. MRS. STEFFAN-Moving it up in the plan and giving short deadlines, and that kind of thing. MR. OBORNE-Exactly. Now, they can submit the plan, I can continue my work and four days later I can come to it, you know, and it’s not that I do it at my leisure. I do it when I can get around to it. MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. MR. TRAVER-Right. So I guess in my mind that makes me leaning toward a conditional approval. MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. If that’s where we’re headed, we’ll need a, I’m going to follow counsel’s, they’re not here, but they were at our last meeting, to have a motion to close the public hearing. At the last meeting, when counsel was here, they said that we should have a formal resolution to close the public hearing. MOTION TO CLOSE THE PUBLIC HEARING FOR SITE PLAN NO. 34-2010 CAPITAL REGION PROPERTIES, Introduced by Donald Krebs who moved for its adoption, seconded by Paul Schonewolf: th Duly adopted this 20 day of July, 2010, by the following vote: AYES: Mr. Traver, Mr. Krebs, Mrs. Steffan, Mr. Jackoski, Mr. Schonewolf, Mr. Sipp, Mr. Hunsinger 17 (Queensbury Planning Board 7/20/10) NOES: NONE MR. HUNSINGER-It’s a Short Form SEQRA was submitted by the applicant. MRS. STEFFAN-Okay. “Does the action exceed any Type I threshold in 6 NYCRR Part 617.4?” MR. HUNSINGER-No. MR. TRAVER-No. MRS. STEFFAN-“Will the action receive coordinated review as provided for Unlisted Actions in 6 NYCRR, Part 617.6?” MR. HUNSINGER-No. MR. TRAVER-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. KREBS-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. KREBS-No. MRS. STEFFAN-“C3. Vegetation, fauna, fish, shellfish or wildlife species, significant habitats, or threatened or endangered species?” MR. HUNSINGER-No. MR. TRAVER-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. KREBS-No. MRS. STEFFAN-“C5. Growth, subsequent development or related activities likely to be induced by the proposed action?” MR. HUNSINGER-No. MR. KREBS-No. MRS. STEFFAN-“C6. Long term, short term, cumulative or other effects not identified above?” MR. HUNSINGER-No. MR. KREBS-No. MR. TRAVER-No. MRS. STEFFAN-“C7. Other impacts (including changes in use of either quantity or energy)?” MR. KREBS-No. MR. TRAVER-No. 18 (Queensbury Planning Board 7/20/10) MRS. STEFFAN-“Will the project have an impact on the environmental characteristics that caused the establishment of a Critical Environmental Area?” MR. HUNSINGER-No. MR. KREBS-No. MRS. STEFFAN-“Is there or is there likely to be controversy related to potential adverse environmental impacts?” MR. HUNSINGER-No. MR. TRAVER-No. MR. HUNSINGER-Before you make a motion, though, I think we need to recognize the issue with DEC and the permits required from DEC, because we know there’s a known failure that’s being addressed by the applicant. MRS. STEFFAN-And that would be under C1. MR. HUNSINGER-Yes. MRS. STEFFAN-That’s why, I thought it was kind of odd. MR. HUNSINGER-Yes. MR. TRAVER-Isn’t our SEQRA review regarding the application, not the prior? I mean, aren’t we looking at? MRS. STEFFAN-It’s the application and all the information presented within it. MR. TRAVER-Yes. MR. HUNSINGER-Yes. I just think we have to acknowledge that it’s part of the application. It’s part of what they’re going through right now and that an additional permit is required and will be permitted, or, I mean, will be mitigated by the actions that DEC takes. MR. OBORNE-Okay. Can you do that language one more time? Because I have C1 as a yes. MR. HUNSINGER-Yes, and I think we’re just acknowledging, the existing failed septic tank and the need for a DEC and DOH permit and that any adverse environmental impacts will be mitigated by the actions taken by DEC and the Department of Health. MR. O'CONNOR-And Town permit. MR. OBORNE-I think I’ve got it. MR. O'CONNOR-You said DEC and DOH and Town. MR. HUNSINGER-And Town, yes, and I think once we have that on the record, we can make the Negative Declaration. MRS. STEFFAN-Are you done, Keith? MR. OBORNE-Yes. MRS. STEFFAN-Incorporating those comments, I’ll make a motion for a Negative Declaration. RESOLUTION WHEN DETERMINATION OF NO SIGNIFICANCE IS MADE RESOLUTION NO. 34-2010, Introduced by Gretchen Steffan who moved for its adoption, seconded by Donald Krebs: WHEREAS, there is presently before the Planning Board an application for: CAPITAL REGION PROPERTIES, 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, 19 (Queensbury Planning Board 7/20/10) NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED: 1. No Federal agency appears to be involved. 2. The following agencies are involved: NONE 3. The proposed action considered by this Board is Unlisted in the Department of Environmental Conservation Regulations implementing the State Environmental Quality Review Act and the regulations of the Town of Queensbury. 4. An Environmental Assessment Form has been completed by the applicant. 5. Having considered and thoroughly analyzed the relevant areas of environmental concern and having considered the criteria for determining whether a project has a significant environmental impact as the same is set forth in Section 617.11 of the Official Compilation of Codes, Rules and Regulations for the State of New York, this Board finds that the action about to be undertaken by this Board will have no significant environmental effect and the Chairman of the Planning Board is hereby authorized to execute and sign and file as may be necessary a statement of non-significance or a negative declaration that may be required by law. th Duly adopted this 20 day of, July, 2010, by the following vote: AYES: Mr. Krebs, Mr. Traver, Mrs. Steffan, Mr. Jackoski, Mr. Schonewolf, Mr. Sipp, Mr. Hunsinger NOES: NONE MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. Would you like to put forward a motion? MRS. STEFFAN-Okay. MOTION TO APPROVE SITE PLAN NO. 34-2010 CAPITAL REGION PROPERTIES, 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 5,650 sq. ft. outside patio banquet area with covered bar, seating and seasonal tent. Project to include stormwater controls and landscaping. Commercial Expansion in the RR zone requires Planning Board review and approval. 2. A public hearing was advertised and held on 6/15/10 tabled to 7/20/2010; 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. 34-2010 CAPITAL REGION PROPERTIES, LLC, Introduced by Gretchen Steffan who moved for its adoption, seconded by Stephen Traver: Doing business as Dunham’s Bay Resort. According to the resolution prepared by Staff. Paragraph Four A complies. Paragraph Four B, this was a Negative Declaration on an Unlisted Action. The applicant has requested waivers. The Planning Board has not approved all waivers, but will give them waivers for stormwater management, lighting plans, and traffic. a. Pursuant to relevant sections of the Town of Queensbury Zoning Code [Chapter 179-9- 080]], 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 if the application is a modification, the requirements of the State Environmental Quality Review Act have been considered, and the proposed modification[s] do not result in any new or significantly different environmental impacts, and, therefore, no further SEQRA review is necessary; and 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 20 (Queensbury Planning Board 7/20/10) 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. Waiver requests granted: stormwater mgmt., lighting plans & traffic; and g. 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 h. Engineering sign-off required prior to signature of Zoning Administrator. i. 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. j. The applicant must submit a copy of the following to the Town: 1. The project NOI (Notice of Intent) for coverage under the current NYSDEC SPDES General Permit or for coverage under an individual SPDES permit prior to the start of any site work. 2. The project NOT (Notice of Termination) upon completion of the project; and k. The applicant must maintain on their project site, for review by staff: 1. The approved final that have been stamped by the Town Zoning Administrator. These plans must include the project SWPPP (Storm Water Pollution Prevention Plan) when such a plan was prepared and approved; and 2. The project NOI and proof of coverage under the current NYSDEC SPDES General Permit, or an individual SPDES permit issued for the project. l. This is approved with the following conditions: 1.That the applicant will update their SPDES permit. 2.That the applicant will satisfy engineering comments and obtain a signoff. 3.That the applicant will provide a new wastewater plan incorporating the new water saving fixture upgrades. 4.That the applicant will provide a compliant parking plan, specifically the number of spaces and locations for parking. 5.That the applicant will provide final plans incorporating all revisions to the Site Plan, including proper seating indicated, proper tent size, removal of the covered bar, quantity of the proposed plantings, patio section details that are correctly referenced. This also includes fencing details and the planting scheme. th Duly adopted this 20 day of July, 2010, by the following vote: AYES: Mr. Traver, Mr. Sipp, Mr. Krebs, Mr. Schonewolf, Mrs. Steffan, Mr. Jackoski, Mr. Hunsinger NOES: NONE MR. JARRETT-Thank you. MR. HUNSINGER-You’re all set. You’re welcome. Good luck. MR. O'CONNOR-Okay. We thank you. MR. GOLDSTEIN-Thank you for your time and consideration. 21 (Queensbury Planning Board 7/20/10) SITE PLAN NO. 42-2010 SEQR TYPE UNLISTED DAVID EHMANN ROCK GARDEN FARMS AGENT(S) SAME AS APPLICANT OWNER(S) RICHARD CHASE ZONING WR LOCATION 120 LAKE PARKWAY APPLICANT PROPOSES TO REBUILD EXISTING SEAWALL “IN KIND”. SEAWALL IN A WR ZONE REQUIRES PLANNING BOARD REVIEW AND APPROVAL. CROSS REFERENCE SP 23-10, BP 10-144 WARREN CO. PLANNING 714/10 APA, CEA, OTHER APA WETLANDS, L G PARK CEA LOT SIZE 0.37 +/- ACRES TAX MAP NO. 226.15-1-13 SECTION 179-6-050 DAVID EHMANN, PRESENT MR. HUNSINGER-Keith, whenever you’re ready. MR. OBORNE-Note: Per the approval for the boathouse, Site Plan 23-2010 on this parcel, the following language applies to this project: a. That the applicant return with an application to be presented to the Planning Office within two months for the repair of the seawall to include shoreline buffering and an accompanying landscaping plan. b. That the entire site be completed, including the seawall repair and the shoreline buffering no later than October 31. Application is Site Plan 42-2010, David Ehmann for Richard Chase is the applicant. Requested action: Seawall in the Waterfront Residential zone require Planning Board review and approval. Location is 120 Lake Parkway. This is an Unlisted SEQRA. Project Description: Applicant proposes to rebuild existing seawall “in-kind”. Staff comments: On April 27, 2010, the Planning Board placed conditions on Site Plan 23-2010 in regards to the proposed seawall project and planting plan. See above. The existing stones from the seawall are proposed to be used as additional wave break and placed along the shoreline. The applicant has submitted a planting plan as well as a seawall design and phasing plan. What follows after that is what applies for seawalls on this. Site Plan Review. I am requesting that we get a turbidity curtain put into the lake, that be installed offshore and parallel to the shoreline to contain any potential turbidity during seawall replacement. Any new rock to be used should be washed of silt and dirt prior to delivery on site to prevent potential siltation. The applicant states in the project narrative that the stones in the existing seawall will be used as an additional wave break. Will the existing concrete cap be placed along the shoreline or taken off site? Please clarify, and for general information purposes, what is the interval for the weep holes? Final comments, have additional permitting agencies been contacted? Please clarify the timeframe that the site will be open and not stabilized? And with that I’d turn it over to the Board. MR. HUNSINGER-Thank you. MR. EHMANN-Good evening. MR. HUNSINGER-Good evening. MR. EHMANN-David Ehmann for Richard Chase. We’re looking to do exactly that, fix the seawall. It’s falling down. So your questions, all the concrete caps will be taken off site. The only thing going in the lake is the stones that are right there. They’re already there, the lake’s already washing them, you know, hitting them. So they’re just going to be put for a wave break so the new seawall doesn’t take the beating that the old one did. Weep holes are going to be about five feet roughly between them. He’s got 100 feet. So you’ll have over 20 one inch weep holes, just to let, so the groundwater doesn’t build up behind the wall and cause a new problem. As far as the curtain, that’s not, that was going to be done anyway. Anytime we do work in the lake there’s got to be something to protect, you know, just in case something gets stirred up. It shouldn’t happen that way. With all the stones there there shouldn’t be anything washing back into the lake obviously. MR. HUNSINGER-Anything else? MR. EHMANN-I don’t think so. MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. I’ll open it up for questions, comments from members of the Board. MR. KREBS-I’d comment that there’s already quite a bit of stone that’s helping, wash, when I went up and looked at it, and there’s quite a bit of trees along there, too. MR. EHMANN-And he has, he’s provided with your conditions on the boathouse, he has provided the drawing. He’s okay with that, and it is, it’s taken 12% of his usable space. He’s only got a quarter acre and we’re doing 15 feet all the way along it. So he’s okay with that. He’s got all the native plants that you requested. 22 (Queensbury Planning Board 7/20/10) MR. HUNSINGER-Yes. The presentation of the plantings was kind of interesting, and I really liked it, to be quite honest with you. It’s not as visual, but I thought it was real easy to follow. Yes. I thought that was real useful. MRS. STEFFAN-What about the other permitting agencies in the Staff Notes. Have other permitting agencies been contacted? I’m assuming so, and what’s your status? MR. EHMANN-Well, actually, I was under the impression that you guys had jurisdiction. So I guess I’ll be calling EnCon tomorrow morning. Are they the only other agency? MR. TRAVER-Well, maybe the Park Commission? MR. HUNSINGER-Yes, I was going to say, the Park Commission. MR. KREBS-The Lake George Park Commission, there’s already a permit on the face of the building. So they’ve gotten that permit. MR. EHMANN-And Molly’s fully aware. Molly was all for doing it the other way. MR. HUNSINGER-So you already got a permit from them? MR. EHMANN-I don’t have, it’s not issued, but I’m sure it would be real soon. So I guess the st only other question was, do we put a time limit on it by October 31, that would have to be pending they wouldn’t hold me up another month, because we’re closing in on that pretty quick. MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. MR. KREBS-But wasn’t there a Lake George Park Commission? MR. EHMANN-That’s for the dock and the boathouse. See, all this was going to happen at once, and then what I was originally doing was I was, to change, to make the seawall aesthetically pleasing with the new dock and the boathouse because there’s a bump out. I was going to straighten it a little bit, and we thought that that wouldn’t work, so I didn’t know that I would have to do another Site Plan Review for a repair. So we just changed it to a repair and I was going to do it exactly the same, and then I was informed at our last meeting I had to do another one. So here we are, but, you know, it’s looking to go forward. MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. MRS. STEFFAN-Keith, what other permitting agencies were you thinking about? MR. OBORNE-Lake George Park Commission. MRS. STEFFAN-Okay, and you said the interval of the weep holes was? MR. EHMANN-Five feet. MRS. STEFFAN-Five feet. MR. EHMANN-And I have provided drawings for, you know, the back of the wall. There’ll be, you know, crushed stone behind it. There’ll be filter fabric against the bank the whole time, and it even stays after I’m done, but we’re going to do it in three sections, so that the whole thing is not torn up at once. We’ll do them roughly 30, 35 foot at a time, and they shouldn’t be open for more than a day, I open it up and the next day it should be closed, but there will be, like I say, DOT approved fabric, you know, the really good stuff, very expensive. MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. Anything else from the Board? We do have a public hearing scheduled this evening. Is there anyone that wants to address the Board on this project? No takers? Any written comments, Keith? PUBLIC HEARING OPENED MR. OBORNE-No, sir. MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. Well, if there’s no comments. Is the Board ready to move forward? MR. SIPP-I have one question. MR. HUNSINGER-Go ahead, Don. 23 (Queensbury Planning Board 7/20/10) MR. SIPP-The Water Keeper can tell me. Is Meadow Rue all right for this area? CHRIS NAVITSKY MR. NAVITSKY-I believe it’s native. MR. SIPP-I just don’t have it listed in our, but I didn’t think it was invasive. MR. EHMANN-Is that a plant? MR. OBORNE-Yes. MR. EHMANN-I’m a stone guy. MR. EHMANN-I’m pretty sure that he contacted, is it the Lake George Association that recommends which plants? I think he was hand in hand with them to make sure that we were right on the money. MR. JACKOSKI-I just wonder, based on our presentation earlier this evening, Kathy had mentioned a two tiered turbidity situation. I just wonder, that’s a pretty rough area of the lake, and I just wonder if we should have that second tier of turbidity curtain in place, instead of just a single tier. MR. HUNSINGER-I wouldn’t even know what it was until this evening’s presentation. MR. JACKOSKI-Right, I know, timing of everything, right, but that’s a really rough side of the lake. MR. EHMANN-It is, and that’s kind of also why I’m asking for maybe a little bit more time because I’m thinking that after Labor Day if I started it would be a little bit better. MR. JACKOSKI-But if you have, I mean, Labor Day is in early September, and we’re saying October 31. It sounds like four days worth of effort? MR. EHMANN-That’s fine. MR. HUNSINGER-That still sounds like plenty of time. MR. JACKOSKI-Yes, that should be plenty of time. MR. HUNSINGER-Yes. Okay. MR. KREBS-Although you do have one advantage, and that is that that is a no wake area. MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. If the Board’s contemplating moving forward, I’d like to look for a motion to close the public hearing. MOTION TO CLOSE THE PUBLIC HEARING FOR SITE PLAN NO. 42-2010 DAVID EHMANN ROCK GARDEN FARMS, Introduced by Paul Schonewolf who moved for its adoption, seconded by Donald Krebs: th Duly adopted this 20 day of July, 2010, by the following vote: AYES: Mr. Jackoski, Mr. Krebs, Mr. Traver, Mrs. Steffan, Mr. Schonewolf, Mr. Sipp, Mr. Hunsinger NOES: NONE MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. Would anyone like to put forward a motion for approval? MRS. STEFFAN-It’s Unlisted, isn’t it? MR. HUNSINGER-I’m sorry, yes. It’s an Unlisted Action. MRS. STEFFAN-Okay. “Does the action exceed any Type I threshold in 6 NYCRR Part 617.4?” MR. HUNSINGER-No. 24 (Queensbury Planning Board 7/20/10) MR. TRAVER-No. MRS. STEFFAN-“Will the action receive coordinated review as provided for Unlisted Actions in 6 NYCRR, Part 617.6?” MR. HUNSINGER-No. MR. TRAVER-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. TRAVER-No. MRS. STEFFAN-“C2. Aesthetic, agricultural, historic, or other natural or cultural resources; or community or neighborhood character?” MR. HUNSINGER-No. MR. TRAVER-No. MRS. STEFFAN-“C3. Vegetation, fauna, fish, shellfish or wildlife species, significant habitats, or threatened or endangered species?” MR. HUNSINGER-No. MR. JACKOSKI-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. KREBS-No. MRS. STEFFAN-“C5. Growth, subsequent development or related activities likely to be induced by the proposed action?” MR. HUNSINGER-No. MR. SIPP-No. MRS. STEFFAN-“C6. Long term, short term, cumulative or other effects not identified above?” MR. HUNSINGER-No. MR. KREBS-No. MRS. STEFFAN-“C7. Other impacts (including changes in use of either quantity or energy)?” MR. TRAVER-No. MR. HUNSINGER-No. MRS. STEFFAN-“Will the project have an impact on the environmental characteristics that caused the establishment of a Critical Environmental Area?” MR. HUNSINGER-No. MR. KREBS-No. MRS. STEFFAN-“Is there or is there likely to be controversy related to potential adverse environmental impacts?” MR. HUNSINGER-No. 25 (Queensbury Planning Board 7/20/10) MR. KREBS-No. MRS. STEFFAN-Okay. Then I’ll make a motion for a Negative Declaration. RESOLUTION WHEN DETERMINATION OF NO SIGNIFICANCE IS MADE RESOLUTION NO. 42-2010, Introduced by Gretchen Steffan who moved for its adoption, seconded by Donald Sipp: WHEREAS, there is presently before the Planning Board an application for: DAVID EHMANN ROCK GARDEN FARMS, and WHEREAS, this Planning Board has determined that the proposed project and Planning Board action is subject to review under the State Environmental Quality Review Act, NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED: 1. No Federal agency appears to be involved. 2. The following agencies are involved: NONE 3. The proposed action considered by this Board is Unlisted in the Department of Environmental Conservation Regulations implementing the State Environmental Quality Review Act and the regulations of the Town of Queensbury. 4. An Environmental Assessment Form has been completed by the applicant. 5. Having considered and thoroughly analyzed the relevant areas of environmental concern and having considered the criteria for determining whether a project has a significant environmental impact as the same is set forth in Section 617.11 of the Official Compilation of Codes, Rules and Regulations for the State of New York, this Board finds that the action about to be undertaken by this Board will have no significant environmental effect and the Chairman of the Planning Board is hereby authorized to execute and sign and file as may be necessary a statement of non-significance or a negative declaration that may be required by law. th Duly adopted this 20 day of, July, 2010, by the following vote: AYES: Mr. Sipp, Mr. Traver, Mr. Schonewolf, Mrs. Steffan, Mr. Krebs, Mr. Jackoski, Mr. Hunsinger NOES: NONE MRS. STEFFAN-I just want to clarify, because I’ve got on the motion that there were waivers asked for, but I didn’t see them or note them. Keith, do you see any of those? I didn’t see any in my package. MR. OBORNE-You don’t have a boilerplate resolution? MRS. STEFFAN-I do, but it has a waiver request for stormwater, grading, landscaping and lighting. MR. OBORNE-Well, you’re not providing a waiver for stormwater, okay, because you’re going to request a turbidity curtain. MRS. STEFFAN-Right. MR. OBORNE-Landscaping either, so grading is not an issue. I would grant a waiver for that, and lighting’s not an issue. MR. SCHONEWOLF-Lighting’s not an issue. That’s on the dock. That’s not an issue. MR. OBORNE-Not an issue, not for the wall. MR. SCHONEWOLF-Not for the wall. 26 (Queensbury Planning Board 7/20/10) MR. OBORNE-Right. Unless, you’re not putting lights on the wall or anything. MRS. STEFFAN-So we’re granting grading and lighting waivers, but. MRS. STEFFAN-Okay. MOTION TO APPROVE SITE PLAN NO. 42-2010 DAVID EHMANN ROCK GARDEN FARMS, Introduced by Gretchen Steffan who moved for its adoption, seconded by Paul Schonewolf: 1. A site plan application has been made to the Queensbury Planning Board for the following: Applicant proposes to rebuild existing seawall “in kind”. Seawall in a WR zone requires Planning Board review and approval by the Planning Board 2. A public hearing was advertised and held on 7/20/2010; 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. 42-2010 DAVID EHMANN ROCK GARDEN FARMS, Introduced by Gretchen Steffan who moved for its adoption, seconded by Paul Schonewolf: For Richard Chase. According to the resolution prepared by Staff. Paragraph Four A complies. Paragraph Four B Negative Declaration. Paragraph Four D the Planning Board grants waivers for grading and lighting. a. Pursuant to relevant sections of the Town of Queensbury Zoning Code [Chapter 179-9- 080]], 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 if the application is a modification, the requirements of the State Environmental Quality Review Act have been considered, and the proposed modification[s] do not result in any new or significantly different environmental impacts, and, therefore, no further SEQRA review is necessary; and 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. Waiver requests granted: grading, lighting plans e. 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 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 obtain a permit from the Lake George Park Commission. st 2.The applicant stated the timeframe for completion will be October 31. That’s satisfactory to the Planning Board. 3.That the applicant will utilize a two tiered turbidity curtain to be installed offshore and parallel to the shoreline to contain any potential turbidity during seawall replacement, and to be tied to the shoreline on the ends of the turbidity curtain. 4.Any new rock to be used should be washed off of silt and dirt prior to delivery on site to prevent any potential siltation. The applicant has identified that the intervals for the weep holes will be five feet. 27 (Queensbury Planning Board 7/20/10) th Duly adopted this 20 day of July, 2010, by the following vote: AYES: Mr. Sipp, Mr. Traver, Mr. Krebs, Mrs. Steffan, Mr. Schonewolf, Mr. Jackoski, Mr. Hunsinger NOES: NONE MR. HUNSINGER-You’re all set. Good luck. MR. EHMANN-Thank you. MR. HUNSINGER-Thank you. SITE PLAN NO. 46-2010 SEQR TYPE II SUSAN DOUGHER OWNER(S) SAME ZONING WR LOCATION 122 SUNNYSIDE NORTH APPLICANT PROPOSES RE-VEGETATION. TREE REMOVAL WITHIN 35 FEET OF THE SHORELINE REQUIRES PLANNING BOARD REVIEW AND APPROVAL. CROSS REFERENCE AV 6-98, AV 61-97, BP 01-555, BP 98-228, BP 98-185 WARREN CO. PLANNING 7/14/2010 LOT SIZE 0.18 +/- ACRES TAX MAP NO. 274.17-2-9 SECTION 179-6-050 SUSAN DOUGHER, PRESENT MR. HUNSINGER-Keith, whenever you’re ready to summarize Staff Notes, please. MR. OBORNE-Yes. The applicant has been served with a Notice of Violation, Order To Remedy by the Town of Queensbury Code Compliance Officer Bruce Frank on June 1, 2010, see attached letter. The applicant has been directed to submit a re-vegetation plan for Planning Board approval. Application is Site Plan 46-2010. Susan Dougher is the applicant. Requested action: tree removal within 35 feet of the shoreline and subsequent re-vegetation requires Planning Board review and approval. Location is 122 Sunnyside North. Existing zoning is Waterfront Residential. This a Type II SEQRA. Project Description: Applicant proposes re- vegetation as a result of the removal of trees within 35 feet of the shoreline of Lake Sunnyside. Staff Comments: The applicant has submitted a planting plan that incorporates the planting of 2 Dwarf Alberta Spruce and 1 Euonymus adjacent to the shoreline. The Planning Board will have to ascertain if the planting plan is acceptable. The existing shoreline has little native vegetation remaining with the removal of the trees and as a result there are portions adjacent to the shoreline that may need stabilization due to the lack of cover. What follows are the Code references, and pretty much with that, I’m going to turn it over to the Board. MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. Thank you. Good evening. MS. DOUGHER-Good evening. I’m Susan Dougher. MR. HUNSINGER-Did you have anything else you wanted to add? MS. DOUGHER-Just that on the right of way next to my house there is an awful lot of mulch nw. The pine trees that were removed, which I’m sure several of you must have seen, the people that own them stumped them, and for the last couple of weeks it’s been filled with so much of the mulch from it that eventually it is going to create a negative impact on my property. Because my property is sort of on a hill running down, and this stuff is starting to blow away and I’m sure all the grass that’s under it is dead now. So I feel that that’s a new problem, which may impact my property, yet it’s somebody else, it’s my neighbor’s property. MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. Anything else? MS. DOUGHER-Not really, no. MR. HUNSINGER-Questions, comments from members of the Board? MR. KREBS-Well, I would just make one comment. When I was there today and looked at the vegetation along, on her property, there was, I thought from the amount of property, a paramount of vegetation, but if you go to the right of way, that whole hill has no vegetation at all on it. That’s going to be much more of a problem than anything that’s on her property. So, I don’t know how we get to people who have the right of way to put some kind of vegetation at the end, so that it doesn’t run into the lake, but that, basically once that bark blows away, there’s nothing except grass on that whole right of way, from the top of the hill on down. MS. DOUGHER-Well, I had to work for years to get the pine trees down that were damaging my house, and as you all know from the letter I sent, you know, once a piece of one struck me in the 28 (Queensbury Planning Board 7/20/10) head and I had to hire an attorney and go that route, just to reconcile that issue. So I don’t know how you’ll ever get these people to cooperate with anything. MR. OBORNE-And that’s not before you. What’s before you is her property. MR. SCHONEWOLF-That’s not our problem. It’s another part of the Town’s problem. MRS. STEFFAN-Okay. Well, I’m not hearing a lot of comment, so folks must be satisfied with it. Is that the case? MR. HUNSINGER-Well, I guess my only comment is, and I guess it really wasn’t clear to me where the seven trees were that were removed, but, you know, just a quick math, we took seven trees out, we’ve replaced it with three. MS. DOUGHER-Okay. That’s because several of the trees actually were growing up and intertwining around each other in a small little area. MR. HUNSINGER-Right. MS. DOUGHER-And that’s why it seems like it’s a lot of trees, but they were right smack next to each other in a couple of spots. MR. KREBS-And in fact, since I happened to be lucky enough to have Susan be able to take me and show me the ones, there were two that were almost in the water. I mean, they’re actually on the water edge, and then there were like three in a cluster, right in a garden, and the garden still exists. It’s just that the trees are removed. So that’s five out of the seven right there. MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. MS. DOUGHER-So the area is so small, it’s, one little corner of my property, it’s just so small that what I propose to plant will fill in a huge amount of it. MR. HUNSINGER-I’m just, you know, I mean, looking at the last project that we just reviewed, and, you know, looking at their planting scheme, you know, as opposed to this one, you know, it’s just. MR. KREBS-Yes, but theirs is large open space, in the last one. Okay. MR. HUNSINGER-Well, you’ve got 42 feet of lakefront, and the Code requires 15 feet of buffer, and, you know, there are some taller grasses, and then, you know, a few small trees, but, you know, you don’t have the four tiered system that the Code talks about. I just feel like, you know, we could add some bushes or something else to help bolster the landscaping plan. MR. KREBS-The problem with the Code, though, it’s like, if you look at the picture, this tree is huge, okay. The root base on that tree, which is next to her deck, and sits right behind where they cut down two of the trees in that garden, that tree has a huge root base. I mean, you know, we say three trees in a distance, Chris, but the problem is, you know, we’re talking about three inch trees versus, that’s got to be an 18 inch diameter tree. MR. HUNSINGER-Yes. I mean, I’m. MR. SIPP-You’re less than the 50 feet that you’ve got to fill in. You’ve only got 42 feet. So you count that as the one tree, and then some smaller ones in that area. None of what she has there is, Alberta Spruce is not, it’s an invasive species. On the other end where she’s got a Cherry tree and perennials, I don’t know what they are. MS. DOUGHER-There are a lot of bushes. MR. SIPP-But you need something in the center there. MS. DOUGHER-Can I make one comment, that these trees that were removed were on the far, farther side of the property. I didn’t remove anything from say two thirds of it. I didn’t touch it at all. So it is now what it was before. It was just really one, towards one edge of the property. MR. SIPP-Those pine trees that were cut. MS. DOUGHER-That’s different. That’s a different story. MR. SIPP-That’s different. 29 (Queensbury Planning Board 7/20/10) MS. DOUGHER-But those weren’t 35 feet from the water. MR. SIPP-Well, were they your trees? MS. DOUGHER-They were not my trees. MR. SIPP-The neighbor’s. MS. DOUGHER-Yes, I had to hire a lawyer to get them to let me remove the trees because they were so heavily damaging my house and property, and at one time, five years ago, one of them already took off the whole top of my house, and now as we stand I have almost $18,000 worth of damage to my house as we speak from them. So, that’s part of the reason why they were removed. MR. SIPP-Well, I think if she would get a buffer in there, I think we’re all set. MR. HUNSINGER-We do have a public hearing scheduled this evening. Is there anyone in the audience that wants to address the Board on this project? Can you identify yourself for the record. PUBLIC HEARING OPENED MARK LA FORNE MR. LAFORNE-My name’s Mark LaForne. Mr. Krebs, thanks for your comments tonight, because the trees that you saw that were down by the water, at what point do you not take a tree down when they’re going to probably affect your dock, your boat? I mean, these trees, as you can tell from the stumps I’m sure Mr. Krebs saw, they were going to go, soon. So now, from an insurance company standpoint, they’re going to come in and want those trees down anyway, and as Mr. Krebs saw, there is a great deal of vegetation pretty much on all Lake Sunnyside. She’s already planted some trees, like she said, and, you know, we don’t have a problem planting a few more, if you’d like, but anybody that’s been over there, it’s pretty dense. Like he said that big oak tree, those trees didn’t affect her view at all. She had a view, I think some people want to think that there was a problem, that she wanted to open up a view. She had a view. She’s got waterfront property, but I’m thinking, when you have trees that are going to affect your boat and your dock and stuff, at what point do you not take them down? Do you follow me? MR. KREBS-Well, in fact, I thought, too, those two trees that were right at the water’s edge could potentially be a problem for people in boats going by, because if they fell. MR. LAFORNE-Absolutely. MS. DOUGHER-They did, become a problem. Several swimmers were almost hit by the branches of the trees as they fell in the water because the trees were diseased and dead. MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. Thank you. MR. LAFORNE-Okay. Thanks. MR. HUNSINGER-Anyone else want to comment? Any written comments, Keith? Well, what do we want to do, people? MR. KREBS-I have no problem. MR. SIPP-Make a condition that she place, put a 15 foot wide buffer in there between her and the lake, with the appropriate plants. MR. HUNSINGER-Well, and then enforcement’s going to fall on Staff. MR. SIPP-Well, actually you could get away without getting into too much of a problem here because of that tree that remains. MR. HUNSINGER-Yes. MR. SIPP-Are you talking about the oak tree, the big, giant oak tree? I’m not sure what part of my property you’re talking about buffering exactly. 30 (Queensbury Planning Board 7/20/10) MR. SIPP-Between the lake water and 15 linear feet I front it. Start at the edge of the lake, measure out 15 feet, in that area should be trees, ground cover, small trees, bush, brush. MS. DOUGHER-Okay. Well, and in that section right now, then, I did plant the two spruce and a euonymus. The two spruce will take up, they’re 12 feet tall, they will grow to be 12 feet tall, and ten feet wide, each spruce, and the euonymus is going to grow to 10 feet tall and 8 feet wide. So as it stands, once they become mature, I’m going to have to trim them, because there just isn’t enough property there. MR. HUNSINGER-Yes. MS. DOUGHER-I mean, I can plant sea grass and stuff like that, if you’d like me to, but I don’t know what kind of tree I could put in that’s not going to grow back into each other, in that area. MR. SIPP-Maybe we should print up a number of handouts for people who are bewildered by. MR. OBORNE-Well, I would recommend that the Board set up a committee to design that. MR. HUNSINGER-Yes, I think that would be good. MR. SIPP-Because, I mean, I can go through the list and read them off, but that’s, you know, time consuming. MR. OBORNE-Yes. We don’t get too many enforcement actions on, you know, I mean, we do, don’t get me wrong. Obviously you can take down diseased and dying trees, after Bruce goes out and makes sure that they’re diseased and dying. Any other tree typically you have to come before the Board in order to take it out within 35 feet of the shoreline. That’s the Code. MR. SIPP-You can trim up a lot of these trees by taking off some of the lower branches and they’ll still survive, an oak tree would. MS. DOUGHER-The oak tree’s fine. MR. HUNSINGER-No, I mean, again, I think trees are okay, you know, the Code calls for four tiers, you know, large trees, then bushes, then ground cover. MS. DOUGHER-Okay. MR. HUNSINGER-And so it would be the bushes and ground cover that would need to be added to your plan. MS. DOUGHER-Okay. So I have two spruce, a euonymus. I can put in some ground cover. If you want another spruce in there, I’ll be happy to put in another spruce. MR. SIPP-Get some smaller, red tree, dogwood trees, they’ll grow anywhere, and they’re only five, six feet high. MS. DOUGHER-Smaller than the spruce? Are you talking about bushes? MR. HUNSINGER-Bushes, yes. MS. DOUGHER-Like a euonymus. MR. HUNSINGER-I’m not familiar with that. MRS. STEFFAN-Euonymus is a little tiny, it’s like a shrub and it’s got a little tiny leaf like that big. MS. DOUGHER-The euonymus is on your list. I picked from your list. MRS. STEFFAN-It’s a shrub. There’s a lot of landscaping on this property, and, you know, it’s got a tiered effect, there’s a lot of landscaping, there’s perennials, there’s, you know, deciduous trees. I think there’s a nice mix there. I just don’t know if I support digging it all up and putting in a buffer that big. The property is just not that big, and it’s naturalized, and I think it’s doing the work of filtering any kind of stormwater runoff from the time it gets to the higher part of the property and the lower part of the property. I don’t know if we’d be doing more harm than good. MR. HUNSINGER-Yes. MRS. STEFFAN-In the transition process. 31 (Queensbury Planning Board 7/20/10) MR. TRAVER-Yes, it’s certainly different than the low cut lawns that go right down to the water. I mean, this has clearly got, so there’s definitely buffering taking place. MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. I’m just pointing out what the Code requirement is. MR. TRAVER-Right. MR. KREBS-But the Code requirement also says keep it natural. MR. HUNSINGER-And it’s our discretion. MR. KREBS-Yes, right. MR. HUNSINGER-So if everyone’s comfortable with it. It’s a Type II Action. Would someone like to make a motion to close the public hearing? MOTION TO CLOSE THE PUBLIC HEARING FOR SITE PLAN NO. 46-2010 SUSAN DOUGHER, Introduced by Paul Schonewolf who moved for its adoption, seconded by Donald Krebs: th Duly adopted this 20 day of July, 2010, by the following vote: AYES: Mr. Traver, Mr. Krebs, Mrs. Steffan, Mr. Jackoski, Mr. Schonewolf, Mr. Sipp, Mr. Hunsinger NOES: NONE MRS. STEFFAN-Okay. MOTION TO APPROVE SITE PLAN NO. 46-2010 SUSAN DOUGHER, 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 re-vegetation. Tree removal within 35 feet of the shoreline requires Planning Board review and approval. 2. A public hearing was advertised and held on 7/20/2010; and 3. This application is supported with all documentation, public comment and application material in the file of record; MOTION TO APPROVE SITE PLAN NO. 46-2010 SUSAN DOUGHER, Introduced by Gretchen Steffan who moved for its adoption, seconded by Stephen Traver: According to the resolution prepared by Staff. Paragraph Four A complies. Paragraph Four B, this is a Type II action. Waivers requested in 4 G for stormwater, grading, landscaping and lighting are approved. This is approved with no conditions. a. Pursuant to relevant sections of the Town of Queensbury Zoning Code [Chapter 179-9- 080]], 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. If applicable, Item d to be combined with a letter of credit; and g. Waiver requests granted: grading, landscaping & lighting plans; and 32 (Queensbury Planning Board 7/20/10) 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 th Duly adopted this 20 day of July, 2010, by the following vote: AYES: Mr. Krebs, Mr. Traver, Mrs. Steffan, Mr. Jackoski, Mr. Schonewolf, Mr. Sipp NOES: Mr. Hunsinger MR. HUNSINGER-You’re all set. Thank you. MS. DOUGHER-Okay. Thank you. SUBDIVISION NO. 9-2010 PRELIMINARY AND FINAL STAGE SEQR TYPE UNLISTED GREG GARAFALO AGENT(S) VAN DUSEN & STEVES OWNER(S) SAME ZONING MDR LOCATION 375 LUZERNE ROAD APPLICANT PROPOSES A SUBDIVISION OF A 3.48 +/- ACRE LOT INTO TWO LOTS OF 1.74 +/- ACRES EACH. SUBDIVISION OF LAN D REQUIRES PLANNING BOARD REVIEW AND APPROVAL. PLANNING BOARD MAY CONDUCT SEQR REVIEW AND PROVIDE A WRITTEN RECOMMENDATION TO THE ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS. CROSS REFERENCE AV 33-2010, AD 3-2006, BP 07-333 LOT SIZE 3.48 +/- ACRES TAX MAP NO. 308.11-1-49.2 SECTION CHAPTER A-183 MATT STEVES, REPRESENTING APPLICANT, PRESENT MR. HUNSINGER-Whenever you’re ready, Keith. MR. OBORNE-Absolutely. Subdivision 9-2010 and Area Variance 33-2010 Applicant is Greg Garafalo. Requested action: Recommendation to the Zoning Board of Appeals concerning the relief requested in the variance application as well as the potential impacts of this project on the neighborhood and surrounding community. Location: 375 Luzerne Road The existing zoning is MDR, or Moderate Density Residential. SEQR Status Unlisted for subdivision Type II for Area Variance. You don’t have to worry about SEQR at this point. That’s not true. I back off that. Hang on. Project Description: Applicant proposes the subdivision of a 3.48 +/- acre parcel into two lots of 1.74 +/- acres. Staff Comments: The applicant proposes to create 2 lots from an existing 3.48 +/- acre parcel that front on Luzerne Road. Shared access off of Luzerne Road is proposed. Nature of Variance: Both lots will require area variances as follows: Lot size: Request for 0.26 acres of relief from the 2.0 acre minimum lot size requirement per §179-3-040 for both Lots 1 and 2. Road frontage: Request for 46 feet of relief from the 100 foot minimum road frontage requirement per §179-3-040 for both Lots 1 and 2. Note: The proposal calls for a shared access drive. Additional Comments: The applicant has requested waivers from submission of Sketch plan subdivision & grading for the proposed subdivision For SEQR purposes, the Subdivision proposal will require a Long Form. At this point what we have before the Board, you will have to grant a waiver for Sketch, open the public hearing, conduct your SEQR review, and then execute on your recommendation to the ZBA, and with that I’d turn it over to the Board. MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. Thank you. Good evening. MR. STEVES-Good evening. Matt Steves with Van Dusen and Steves, representing Greg Garafalo who’s at the table with me. Briefly this is property on the south side of Luzerne Road. If you look on the area map you’ll note basically where it is. It’s kind of at the easterly end of Saunders Road to the south of us. Mr. Garafalo bought this property in 2006. If anybody was familiar with the property, it was a house, older home that had a building permit for about 10 years before he bought it and it was never finished, CO was never granted. So the Town Building Department was ecstatic when Mr. Garafalo bought it and then finished the house up and ended up with a CO, and has subsequently tried to sell that and/or rent it. I believe he currently has it rented. He bought the property in order to clean that up. Back a few years ago he did an administrative two lot subdivision to break that house off so he could finance, get his, that building up to par, and be able to market that, and then was looking to do something down the road with the back of the property. At the time it was an SR-1 Acre zoning. Subsequent to that, it is now an MDR zone, which now requires two acres from the one acre. So what we propose to do is to try to minimize the amount of variance, we could have had one lot at two acres and the other one an acre and a half, and we said make them both consistent would be more in tune with the neighborhood there anyway to create them as both 1.75, share the driveway on the road, which has 108 feet of road frontage. So therefore only one new driveway on that property, break them off. In the back, the property is completely. Some nice sandy soils in that area, and then create two single family lots for sale. We do know we need a variance for this, obviously, for the lot size and the lot frontage on the road, but, like I say, we are sharing that driveway. We do have a letter from New York State DEC, Kathy O’Brien, that she has been 33 (Queensbury Planning Board 7/20/10) on the property and has witnessed no habitat for Karner blue or frosted elfin, or their habitat. Please do not hesitate to contact me. So we did have that letter in the file, and we let that be noted in the SEQR form, so that we can move forward, hopefully, with the SEQR tonight, so that we can get some type of a recommendation from this Board to move forward with the Zoning Board next week. MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. Questions, comments from the Board? MRS. STEFFAN-It’s an odd little configuration of lots. MR. TRAVER-Yes. These flag lots. We haven’t seen one of those in a while. MRS. STEFFAN-Yes. I know, and I know it has just enough road frontage, but we’re trying to discourage those. MR. OBORNE-I’d like to clarify for the Board that flag lots are not allowed in the MDR zone. However, that is something for the Zoning Board of Appeals to decide at this point. One of the parts of this application is, even though it’s 54 feet, it’s actually 108 feet, and I don’t mean to be twisting it around. The only reason that it’s 108 feet is because they’re sharing the driveway. So it makes it more palpable as flag lots if they’re sharing the driveway as opposed to coming out with two separate driveways. That’s the main reason why we don’t like flag lots. The Zoning Board of Appeals will have to bring that up next week. MR. STEVES-It’s because we’re trying to limit the driveways, absolutely, and we understand. We’ve looked at a couple of different scenarios, and I was discussing it briefly with Greg earlier. We could take that line and go perpendicular to the lot lines and create two nice little squares in the back, but if you look at the scale, the map of one inch equals sixty, the way that the two houses are proposed and to keep in conformance with the neighborhood out there, you’re looking at these houses and it’s a completely wooded lot, being separated by around 400 feet. If you look at the road frontage on Luzerne Road, most houses on Luzerne Road are not 400 feet apart. So we understand and we took a hard look at that in order to conform or to generate the best possible configuration I should say to allow for greater separation on these homes, and you’re looking at lots that are 1.74 acres and there are longer lots in this area. I do agree they’re kind of a bowling alley style lot, but most of them are fronted on the road, and the buildings are right close together, and as Keith had pointed out, the reason for not flag shaped lots by Code is to try to limit the driveway. We could only have one driveway proposed for the two houses. If we didn’t even go through subdivision, we could build one house out back and still have one driveway. So we understand that we’re asking for a variance, but we’re not asking for any additional driveways. MRS. STEFFAN-Well, certainly the Zoning Board will talk about the driveway situation. I can’t imagine sharing a driveway with someone, but, you know, that’s just me. MR. TRAVER-I can as long as they shovel the snow. MRS. STEFFAN-Well, I was going to say, what happens if somebody doesn’t do their part? So then you get into the whole neighbor feuding thing. MR. TRAVER-We’ve seen that happen. MR. STEVES-Well, there’s other ways to share a driveway at the road frontage. You can, you know, have two distinctive, separate driveways, but the asphalt is touching on each one, and as soon as you get onto the property, you (lost word) so that you each really have your own driveway to maintain the whole length. It’s just you have an extremely wide throat at the road. I mean, there are alternatives to that, but then, and it really depends on, you know, who the purchaser, if, you know, maybe it’s an extended family. You really don’t know. MRS. STEFFAN-Right. It could be relatives. Sure. MR. STEVES-And we understand that, and he understands that, but it really depends on who’s there, and we know. My kids take care of my driveway at home. MR. HUNSINGER-Other questions, comments from 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 project? Any written comments, Keith? PUBLIC HEARING OPENED MR. OBORNE-No. 34 (Queensbury Planning Board 7/20/10) MR. HUNSINGER-We do have someone, and if you could just identify yourself for the record when you, after you sit down. JIM LASHWAY MR. LASHWAY-Jim Lashway. 357 Luzerne Road. I live next door to, I’m trying to figure out where you’re putting this driveway. There’s only one driveway with a garage. So you’re going to go to the side of it? MR. HUNSINGER-You mean, in terms of a new driveway? MR. LASHWAY-Where is he going to put it? MR. HUNSINGER-Well, it’ll be in the woods. I mean, it’ll be in what is now woods. MR. LASHWAY-Yes, but I don’t have a map. MR. HUNSINGER-Do we have a drawing, Keith, up on the? Thank you. MR. OBORNE-This is not part of the subdivision at all. This parcel right here. MR. LASHWAY-That’s where he’s going to go with it? This is the other, right? All right. Okay. No problem. Got it. MR. HUNSINGER-Anyone else? And you said there were no written comments, Keith? MR. OBORNE-No, no written comments. MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. I always get confused when we do recommendations to the Zoning Board. We leave the public hearing open because they’ve got to come back here. MR. OBORNE-Exactly. You don’t want to have to re-advertise, because then they would have to incur that cost. MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. We do need to do SEQRA, which is a Long Form. Right? Correct? Any subdivision is a Long Form. MR. STEVES-That’s correct. MRS. STEFFAN-Well, I think, according to Keith’s directions, we need to grant a waiver for Sketch Plan first. MR. OBORNE-That is the first thing you require. MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. Thank you. Waiver for Sketch. I even wrote it down as you had mentioned it. MRS. STEFFAN-Okay. MOTION TO GRANT A WAIVER FROM SKETCH PLAN REVIEW FOR SUBDIVISION NO. 9- 2010 GREG GARAFALO, Introduced by Gretchen Steffan who moved for its adoption, seconded by Stephen Traver: th Duly adopted this 20 day of July, 2010, by the following vote: AYES: Mr. Jackoski, Mrs. Steffan, Mr. Krebs, Mr. Traver, Mr. Schonewolf, Mr. Sipp, Mr. Hunsinger NOES: NONE MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. Now we need to do SEQRA review. MRS. STEFFAN-Okay. Will the proposed action result in a physical change to the project site? MR. TRAVER-No. MR. HUNSINGER-Well, yes. 35 (Queensbury Planning Board 7/20/10) MR. KREBS-Yes. MR. HUNSINGER-Yes. Remember our attorney said we should always say yes. MR. KREBS-Yes. MR. TRAVER-Well, but on the Site Plan, but isn’t this, are we doing the SEQRA? MR. HUNSINGER-This is subdivision. MR. OBORNE-It’s an Unlisted Action, but it’s required by law that you have to go through the Long Form. MR. TRAVER-No, I wasn’t questioning that. My question was, is there a physical change to the site by creating a subdivision? MR. STEVES-At some point that will generate that. MR. HUNSINGER-At some point there will be because there’ll be houses. MR. TRAVER-Okay. I thought that was Site Plan. MR. HUNSINGER-Well, they won’t come back for Site Plan. MRS. STEFFAN-Well, the criteria, the examples under this particular question, any construction on slopes 15% or greater, a 15 foot rise per 100 foot of length, or where the general slopes in the project area exceed 10%. Construction on land where the depth to the water table is less than 3 feet. Construction of paved parking area for more than 1,000 vehicles. Construction on land where bedrock is exposed or generally within 3 feet of existing ground surface. Construction that will continue for more than 1 year or involve more than one phase or stage. Excavation for mining purposes that would remove more than 1,000 tons of natural material (i.e., rock or soil) per year, construction or expansion of a sanitary landfill, and construction in a designated floodway. MR. HUNSINGER-Well, obviously we don’t have any of those, but there are going to be two houses built. So we’d say yes, there is going to be a change. Two single family homes will be constructed. The impacts are small to moderate. MRS. STEFFAN-All right. MR. TRAVER-And I’ll amend my respond to yes from no. MRS. STEFFAN-Okay. Will there be an effect to any unique or unusual land forms found on the site? MR. HUNSINGER-No. MR. TRAVER-No. MRS. STEFFAN-Will the proposed action affect any water body designated as protected? MR. HUNSINGER-No. MR. TRAVER-No. MRS. STEFFAN-Will the proposed action affect any non-protected existing or new body of water? MR. HUNSINGER-No. MR. KREBS-No. MRS. STEFFAN-Will the proposed action affect surface or groundwater quality or quantity? MR. HUNSINGER-No. MR. TRAVER-No. 36 (Queensbury Planning Board 7/20/10) MRS. STEFFAN-Will the proposed action alter drainage flow or patterns, or surface water runoff? MR. HUNSINGER-No. MR. TRAVER-No. MRS. STEFFAN-Will the proposed action affect air quality? MR. HUNSINGER-No. MR. KREBS-No. MRS. STEFFAN-Will the proposed action affect any threatened or endangered species? MR. HUNSINGER-No. Thank you for the letter. MRS. STEFFAN-Will the proposed action substantially affect non-threatened or non- endangered species? MR. HUNSINGER-No. MR. TRAVER-No. MRS. STEFFAN-Will the proposed action affect agricultural land resources? MR. HUNSINGER-No. MR. TRAVER-No. MRS. STEFFAN-Will the proposed action affect aesthetic resources? MR. HUNSINGER-No. MR. TRAVER-No. MRS. STEFFAN-Will the proposed action impact any site or structure of historic, pre-historic or paleontological importance? MR. HUNSINGER-No. MR. KREBS-No. MRS. STEFFAN-Will the proposed action affect the quantity or quality of existing or future open spaces or recreational opportunities? MR. HUNSINGER-No. MRS. STEFFAN-Will the proposed action impact the exceptional or unique characteristics of a critical environmental area? MR. HUNSINGER-No. MR. TRAVER-No. MRS. STEFFAN-Will there be an effect to existing transportation systems? MR. HUNSINGER-No. MR. KREBS-No. MRS. STEFFAN-Will proposed action affect the community’s sources of fuel or energy supply? MR. TRAVER-No. MR. HUNSINGER-No. MRS. STEFFAN-Will there be objectionable odors, noise, or vibration as a result of the proposed action? 37 (Queensbury Planning Board 7/20/10) MR. HUNSINGER-No. MR. TRAVER-No. MRS. STEFFAN-Will the proposed action affect public health and safety? MR. HUNSINGER-No. MR. KREBS-No. MRS. STEFFAN-Will the proposed action affect the character of the existing community? MR. HUNSINGER-No. MR. KREBS-No. MRS. STEFFAN-And is there, or is there likely to be, public controversy related to potential adverse environmental impacts? MR. KREBS-No. MRS. STEFFAN-Then I’ll make a motion for a Negative SEQRA declaration. We did note that there were some comments on Question One, but small to moderate impact. RESOLUTION WHEN DETERMINATION OF NO SIGNIFICANCE IS MADE RESOLUTION NO. 9-2010, Introduced by Gretchen Steffan who moved for its adoption, seconded by Stephen Traver: WHEREAS, there is presently before the Planning Board an application for: GREG GARAFALO, and WHEREAS, this Planning Board has determined that the proposed project and Planning Board action is subject to review under the State Environmental Quality Review Act, NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED: 1. No Federal agency appears to be involved. 2. The following agencies are involved: NONE 3. The proposed action considered by this Board is Unlisted in the Department of Environmental Conservation Regulations implementing the State Environmental Quality Review Act and the regulations of the Town of Queensbury. 4. An Environmental Assessment Form has been completed by the applicant. 5. Having considered and thoroughly analyzed the relevant areas of environmental concern and having considered the criteria for determining whether a project has a significant environmental impact as the same is set forth in Section 617.11 of the Official Compilation of Codes, Rules and Regulations for the State of New York, this Board finds that the action about to be undertaken by this Board will have no significant environmental effect and the Chairman of the Planning Board is hereby authorized to execute and sign and file as may be necessary a statement of non-significance or a negative declaration that may be required by law. th Duly adopted this 20 day of, July, 2010, by the following vote: AYES: Mr. Sipp, Mr. Schonewolf, Mr. Jackoski, Mrs. Steffan, Mr. Krebs, Mr. Traver, Mr. Hunsinger NOES: NONE MRS. STEFFAN-Okay. We need to make a recommendation to the Zoning Board of Appeals. We have two options. Number One is the Planning Board, based on limited review, has not identified any significant adverse impacts that cannot be mitigated with the current project 38 (Queensbury Planning Board 7/20/10) proposal, or our second option, based on a limited review, we’ve identified the following areas of concern. Any concerns? MR. TRAVER-No. MRS. STEFFAN-All right. Then I’ll introduce a resolution. MOTION TO MAKE A RECOMMENDATION TO THE ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS FOR AREA VARIANCE NO. 33-2010 FOR GREG GARAFALO, Introduced by Gretchen Steffan who moved for its adoption, seconded by Stephen Traver: Whereas, the Town of Queensbury Zoning Ordinance, per Section 179-9-070 J 2 b. requires the Planning Board to provide a written recommendation to the Zoning Board of Appeals for projects that require both Zoning Board of Appeals & Planning Board approval; and Whereas, this project does require both Zoning Board of Appeals & Planning Board approval, the following recommendation is hereby provided to the Zoning Board of Appeals; and Whereas, the Planning Board has briefly reviewed and discussed this application, the relief request in the variance application as well as the potential impacts of this project on the neighborhood and surrounding community, and found that: MOTION TO MAKE A RECOMMENDATION TO THE ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS FOR AREA VARIANCE NO. 33-2010 FOR GREG GARAFALO, Introduced by Gretchen Steffan who moved for its adoption, seconded by Stephen Traver: According to the resolution prepared by Staff. The Planning Board selects Option One. The Planning Board, based on limited review, has not identified any significant adverse impacts that cannot be mitigated with the current project proposal. th Duly adopted this 20 day of July, 2010, by the following vote: AYES: Mr. Traver, Mr. Sipp, Mrs. Steffan, Mr. Schonewolf, Mr. Krebs, Mr. Jackoski, Mr. Hunsinger NOES: NONE MR. STEVES-Thank you. MR. HUNSINGER-Good luck. Thank you. SUBDIVISION NO. 8-2005 MODIFICATION SEQR TYPE UNLISTED MOUNTAIN HOLLOW H.O.A. AGENT(S) NACE ENGINEERING OWNER(S) SAME AS ABOVE ZONING RR-3A, SR-1A LOCATION WEST MOUNTAIN ROAD APPLICANT PROPOSES MODIFICATIONS TO AN APPROVED SUBDIVISION IN ORDER TO ADDRESS EXISTING AND PROPOSED IMPROVEMENTS TO THE SITE THAT WERE NOT PART OF THE ORIGINAL APPROVAL. MODIFICATIONS TO AN APPROVED SUBDIVISION REQUIRE PLANNING BOARD REVIEW AND APPROVAL. CROSS REFERENCE SP 46-03, SB 16-03, SB 17-02, AV 22-02, AV 52- 01, AV 36-05 LOT SIZE 26.15 ACRES TAX MAP NO. 300.-1-19 SECTION A-183 JON LAPPER, REPRESENTING APPLICANT, PRESENT; MICKIE HAYES, PRESENT MR. HUNSINGER-Keith, whenever you’re ready. MR. OBORNE-Subdivision 8-2005, Modification. This is Mountain Hollow Homeowners Association. Requested action: Subdivision review for modifications to a stormwater control structure. Location: Western Reserve Trail Moderate Density Residential is the existing zoning. The SEQRA Status is Unlisted. The Planning Board must make a SEQRA determination concerning this application. Project Description: In January of 2009, the applicant proposed modifications to an approved subdivision in order to address existing stormwater issues with a modification to an approved site plan. Specifically, the stormwater basin was proposed to be enlarged to increase the water storage capacity from approximately 8 acre feet to approximately 14 acre feet. Further, an inflow gauging weir will be installed near the stream inlet along with a pond level gauge in the main pond. The plan further called for record keeping associated with the weir to include a “locked weather proof enclosure”; said record keeping to be provided by a competent person designated by the HOA. Staff Comments: The following are observations, over time, from Bruce Frank, Code Compliance Officer with further observations from the Land Use Planner, which is myself, Keith Oborne. One, The weir appears to allow water to bypass along the sides of the structure. Over time this could compromise the 39 (Queensbury Planning Board 7/20/10) effectiveness, intent, and purpose of this structure. Two, The gauge associated with the weir has recently been reattached. Was this gauge reattached at the correct elevation? Please clarify. Three, The weather proof enclosure is missing. It has also been observed to not having the required record keeping materials inside of said enclosure when on-site. Further, the enclosure was to be locked and access for town personnel to be provided. To date this has not occurred. Four, The plan calls for one opening in the fence by the weir; two have been observed. Five, At one point there where two pond level gauges in place and the elevations were observed to be different by 0.5 feet, or six inches. Verification of the elevation of the remaining gauge should be ascertained through professional survey methods. Six, Bank stabilization appears to be lacking with the observation that a less than ideal vegetative cover has been obtained. Areas of bank failure and rill erosion have been observed. Seven, Upstream drywells silted over. These structures are not functioning properly and will need the required bi-annual maintenance performed. Eight, SWPPP will need to be revised to reflect the change in pond capacity and other proposed changes. Nine, The following components will need to be submitted: a. Sign- off from all affected parties to indicate that no permits are required for the proposed Emergency Action Plan. This includes the City of Glens Falls, Warren County DPW, Town of Queensbury Highway Department and any other involved agencies and individuals. b. Western Reserve HOA acknowledgement and agreement to the EAP. c. Complete subdivision map outlining originally approved and proposed conditions as per Craig Brown letter of February 17, 2010 (see attached). With that, I’d turn it over to the Board. MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. Thank you. Good evening. MR. LAPPER-Good evening. For the record, Jon Lapper and Mickie Hayes. As you all recall, there was a flood that happened here when we got that rainstorm in February of 2008. All the water stayed on the site, but it had to be pumped across West Mountain Road to dissipate it into the Glens Falls Watershed. So we came back to the Board at that point and proposed making the pond substantially larger, but then ultimately it couldn’t be made quite as large as had been proposed because of concrete that they found at the bottom when they got into it, but I think it’s 13 rather than 14 acre feet, so it was close, and at that point the Board said we want you to have this emergency action plan that would call for the ability to pump the water across West Mountain Road if that ever happened again. That was something like a 200 year storm, and it was, when you get rain when the ground is frozen. So it’s not something that happens often, but obviously if it happened once, it could happen again. The problem was just that, to get the permission from the City water shed, the water and sewer board, was something that was just discretionary, and we didn’t get attention, even though we sent a lot of letters. Ultimately, so that’s really what we’ve been waiting for. We did get a letter in June, finally, which you don’t have, which is the City’s indication that they will approve it. They asked for some engineering information, which the project engineer, Tom Nace, is putting together. I’ll just hand this out to you, but it’s the first time, I mean, it’s just funny in terms of the whole process that says, “Dear Mr. Hayes: I represent the Glens Falls Water and Sewer Commission. I’m responding to your letter of September 23, 2009, requesting permission to discharge stormwater into the City’s watershed in an emergency. So this is dated the end of June, and it references a letter from September. So that’s what, you know, it’s been somewhat frustrating, but on the other hand, all that matters is that they’re indicating that they’re willing to approve it, subject to them reviewing some more information. So let me hand that up and one to Keith, and so that’s good news, and I think that probably if we come back in September I would expect that we would have their approval, based upon that letter. Most of the other items that Keith mentioned in the Staff Notes are items that, according to Mickie, have been recently completed. Fixing the fence, grading, seeding. Mickie has called Bruce Frank to ask him to come out and re-inspect, and we think that his next report will show that that work is substantially done. You want to just talk about the record keeping and the fact that that keeps getting stolen? MR. HAYES-I’ve had a conversation with, Mickie Hayes, by the way. We’d left a message for Bruce Frank because he wanted him to come and inspect any of these issues that he had wanted resolved, specifically, being that it’s a very large site, if he had any erosion issues or any other issues he could specifically point out to us what he wants done to clean up the list that he had here, so it actually wouldn’t be a matter of our opinion. Whatever he wants done, we’ll take care of it for him. So hopefully we’ll get him out there in the next couple of days and he can tell us exactly what things are to his satisfaction and what isn’t, and any questions he had could be answered and done in any fashion he wants done, or whoever else was in charge for Queensbury. MR. LAPPER-Could you just react to Number Three? MR. HAYES-We do have the logs at the shop of the water flow. There was a mailbox type thing which it never had a lock on it. (Lost words) put a lock on it, but it’s been removed twice by somebody. So we put another one up today. This is our third enclosure. So it’s, so I guess we’ll 40 (Queensbury Planning Board 7/20/10) have to fasten it down with chains or whatever we’ll have to do, whatever Bruce wants us to do for that is fine. MR. HUNSINGER-Anything else? MR. LAPPER-That’s pretty much it from us, but we see there are a number of neighbors here. So we’ll listen to them. MR. HUNSINGER-I mean, you know, the biggest question I had was, you know, I mean obviously that event in 2008 was, you described it as a one, 200 year storm. Is the larger pond working better than the smaller one? I mean, we haven’t had a 200 year storm since then, but. MR. HAYES-Obviously the capacity has been increased by millions of gallons of water, and the perc rate’s increased because a lot of the concrete was broken up, which created a, almost like a liner for a pool I would say. The perc rate was terrible, especially on the left side, but obviously you have to, over time, the weather is beyond anybody’s control. So whatever still has to be monitored over this period of time, subject on approvals, because the truth is nobody can say for sure that any pond, when you don’t have any outlet, could totally be, I mean, that’s still, based on, obviously the capacity, it’s gigantic versus what it was, but is that, the long and short is nobody can sit here and say specifically I can’t answer that and say I think it’s fine and it’ll be great, but that’s just me saying that, and that’s why you’ve got to monitor to see what actually is going in and out, because there is no outflow. It’s just perc. MR. HUNSINGER-Well, what have the recordings shown? MR. HAYES-It shows basically there’s spikes, obviously, in the Spring, and then the water level came out to just below 270, which is three feet below the, which we basically had an excess capacity of close to two million gallons versus what they would say, hey, we’d have to pump the pond, and according to precipitation rates of basically slightly above average, the conditions, like Jon was saying, when you have the snow and stuff, there’s other areas. How big is the pond when it goes into, so it’s going to take years of information, because how big is the pond when it starts the season, versus the flow, too. MR. HUNSINGER-Right, sure. MR. HAYES-Because this year the pond is getting smaller and smaller. So going into the season, there’s probably going to be, which creates a, aesthetically that’s not a great thing because it’s a sand based pond. The thing looks like a beauty, when it’s full, the lake is awesome. I wish it stayed like that, but the sand based nature of the thing, it dissipates quickly, then it becomes almost like an unsightly puddle, and there’s really nothing you can do about that. MR. HUNSINGER-Right. MR. LAPPER-You talked about having no outfall, but that’s what the emergency action plan calls for. MR. HAYES-Right, exactly. That’s what the pumping, but like I said, (lost words) whenever you have an outflow, a natural outflow, you can always guarantee (lost words), but that’s the long and the short it. MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. Other questions, comments from the Board? MR. KREBS-Well, one of the things I was looking at James Lapan’s, who’s the attorney for the Glens Falls Water and Sewer Board, it says that this is revocable by the Board at any time, permission to take the excess flow. MR. LAPPER-We would just have to live with that, because the City watershed, it’s a City watershed. I mean, in some ways, it’s riparian rights, it’s, the water comes down the mountain and it would go into Halfway Brook if West Mountain Road wasn’t there. So this plan is just to pump it into a culvert that goes under the road and into the watershed property. As Mickie told me, even at the worst, it didn’t leave the site. So, I mean, it was still contained in 2008 until they pumped it. Hopefully there’s a capacity and they’ll keep logging it, but, you know, there should be no reason why the City would revoke it. MR. OBORNE-If I could comment on that, and I agree with what you’re saying, but the proposed emergency action plan proposes that it uses an existing pipe going underneath West Mountain Road, adjacent to Potter Road, which is not Glens Falls property, and you haven’t approached that individual, and I would highly suggest that you do so, to be honest with you. If you look on 41 (Queensbury Planning Board 7/20/10) the map up top here, it’s this property right here. This is the Glens Falls watershed property. This is not. This is privately held property. Just for clarification. MRS. STEFFAN-So the City doesn’t own that piece? MR. OBORNE-No. MR. HAYES-Our plan was, talking in conversations with the traffic people, is the fact, because they preferred we went through a culvert that’s underneath the road, and (lost words) we laid the pipe across West Mountain Road and we pumped that down, which if we had to do that we could do that right across to the watershed property which we did last time. MR. OBORNE-Right. Your EAP, or Emergency Action Plan, does not state that, though. It states it to be coming out on the Lands of Borgos. MR. HAYES-Okay. MR. OBORNE-So, right there. That’s Steven Borgos, and if you go cantilevered across the road. I was out there today looking at the. MR. HAYES-So the County drainage goes onto Borgos’ property? MR. OBORNE-Yes. MR. HAYES-That’s fun for them. So that we could just change our Emergency Action Plan and pipe it across. Obviously they wouldn’t be excited about having the water pumped onto their property, much less all the water from West Mountain now going onto their property. MR. LAPPER-It has to get into the watershed property. MR. HUNSINGER-Any other questions, comments from the Board? We do have a public hearing scheduled this evening on this project. Is there anyone in the audience that wants to address the Board? We have a few people. Who would like to be first? Yes, sir. If you could identify yourself for the record when you sit down, and make sure you speak into the microphone. We tape the meeting, and then the meeting is used to transcribe the minutes. So that’s the purpose of that microphone. PUBLIC HEARING OPENED BILL BERGMANN MR. BERGMANN-My name is Bill Bergmann, and I own the last site on Western Reserve Trail, right out next to West Mountain Road, and I understand, although I wasn’t here at the time, that my foundation was used as a pumping site. Water was pumped into my foundation and I guess pumped someplace else, but I’m concerned. I’m not an engineer, so I really don’t know what to expect, and I don’t think there’s anybody here that’s 100 years old, or 200 years. So to say that you get a 100 year storm, you know, it could only be a 50 year storm, and my concern as to what’s going to be done. When, and I know that they did make the reservoir area bigger, but what’s going to happen when that fills up? That’s all. Okay. MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. Thank you. Anyone else? Good evening. JOANNE BORGOS MRS. BORGOS-Good evening. Hi, everybody. I’m Joanne Borgos. Needless to say, it’s my husband and my’s property that we thought would be affected, and obviously if that’s going to change, our feelings would change. Our concern is that we absolutely do not want any stormwater pollutants on our property, as I think most of you would understand. So that position, I think, would be pretty solid. I don’t know what the mitigation’s going to be. The proposal seems not very durable. I’m not an engineer either, but I’d like to see them be able to mitigate, because it needs to be done on their own property in some way. That probably is going to be very costly, and that’s not my concern. My concern is just to express the fact that in no way do I want any of the stormwater runoff on my property. Okay. Thank you, and one other comment I wanted to make. Just, we had received this notice last Thursday, and actually didn’t pay much attention to it, only because I thought, and I think Steve thought the same, probably a widened driveway or something like that, not a big deal. So in the future I’d just request that perhaps a little more description on the notice that goes out so that the adjacent homeowner has some idea what the problem’s going to be. I had no idea what that meant. 42 (Queensbury Planning Board 7/20/10) MR. OBORNE-Duly noted. MR. HUNSINGER-Yes, thank you. MRS. BORGOS-Thank you very much. MR. KREBS-Joanne, I have a question. Does that pipe bring sewer water or stormwater onto your property now? MRS. BORGOS-It goes down to a ditch, which would be County property, I think, and it would go along West Mountain Road to a point, then the terrain or the land or whatever you want to call it goes up high, and at that point, it would start to go into our property. Okay. Thank you very much. MR. HUNSINGER-Thank you. STEVE BORGOS MR. BORGOS-Steve Borgos, 289 Potter Road. MR. HUNSINGER-Good evening. MR. BORGOS-Good evening. I let my wife go first, and she can sum it up in two minutes. I’ll probably take two and a half, but I won’t go twenty. I’m concerned, as my wife is, that we really don’t want the extra stormwater being pumped across. It’s not a natural thing. It would be coming out of a pond that is filled with nobody knows what’s there. We know it’s not all trees and sand for sure. You asked a question about how the stormwater currently comes through. We’ve lived there three and a half years now. We’ve owned the property about 10. I’ve cleaned the ditch many times that leads from the culvert pipe down along West Mountain Road. It’s got more trash than the landfill, and we’ve taken that over and over and over again. It does go, we walked out there today. It goes about 200 feet south on West Mountain Road, then it hits the high rise and, and at that point it gets diverted across our property, and across our walking trail inside, down into a wetland that we own, then onto the City wetland, and we don’t want that to happen. From a practical perspective, it looks like about 1200 feet of piping would be needed to take it from the pond, north on West Mountain Road to its discharge, and at that point the property owner has no concern because it all becomes our problem, and it would be flooding and through. I’m concerned about the pipe being laid there in the wintertime, when this is most likely to occur, with snow and ice along the road. Right now it’s easy say we’ll put a pipe there. When they have snow and ice there, it’s not going to be easy to lay the pipe. It’s not going to be easy to plow the road with the pipe there. The high probability that the plow will break the pipe, bend the pipe, then it floods all of West Mountain Road, and that’s not a good situation. As proposed, the pumps would not be permanently installed. It would require having somebody get a hold of the pump. These are going to have to be big pumps to pump that kind of water, tremendous volume and the eight inch pipe. Who’s going to have the pumps? Who’s going to control it? What’s going to be set up to ensure that happens? Who’s going to be sure the culvert under West Mountain Road is always clear? Go up there and look right now, it’s hard to find it. What’s going to be happening in the winter? If the snow and ice goes into that trench all winter long and it’s frozen, when the water comes through, there’s no place to go. It’s going to back up onto Potter Road and flood the entire intersection. Impractical. I guess those are the things, but with all these things considered, I think the best approach may have been answered by the letter from the City tonight. If they’re willing to allow that water to go on the watershed, and I wouldn’t favor that, but if they’re willing to do it, why not just dig a big retention basin of some sort near the outlet of the pond, and put it right under West Mountain Road, right straight across the City land? It doesn’t bother anybody then. It’s inexpensive. It’s a one time thing. put in big culvert pipes and it’s all over with, and it keeps it out of this man’s cellar. Okay. Thank you. MR. HUNSINGER-Thank you. Anyone else? Good evening. DON THERRIAULT MR. THERRIAULT-How are you? My name is Don Therriault. I am right next to Bill, which is 15 Western Reserve Trail. I had some comments prepared, but Mr. Borgos stole my thunder. So I appreciate the great summary. I just want to echo everything he said. Just from a lack of knowledge, I have one question for the Board, and that is, in terms of the details of the so called emergency plan, where do I find that? MR. HUNSINGER-Well, it’s on file at the Town. 43 (Queensbury Planning Board 7/20/10) MR. THERRIAULT-So I can see? MR. OBORNE-Yes. You can come down to the Planning Office, as my Administrative Assistant to get you the file and you can view the file. MR. THERRIAULT-Well, maybe I can direct this one follow up question to that. In 2008, and there was a flood in 2008, but I think that there was also some additional lot of problems there. I could be wrong, but I believe that there was. In those instances, the water was pumped, if I recollect, pretty much by some small pumps that were gas powered. Is that part of the plan going forward? MR. OBORNE-That would be something you’d have to ask the applicant or look at the file, to be honest with you. I think the pumps are significantly larger than what was used before. I mean, they’re rated at 2,000 gallons a minute, I believe, is what the plan calls for. I have not seen the pumps. MR. THERRIAULT-Sure. You know, there was some discussion here about a 200 year rain and so on and so forth. Okay. Fair enough. To an extent, I mean, that’s a large amount of water, and this doesn’t take a matter of hours to pump out. It takes a matter of days and 24 hours a day, and pumps can be pretty loud, you know, particularly for, not my property, but the next property over. So I would wish the appropriate comments would be sent along to the appropriate people relative to what is also being done about noise abatement. Okay. Thanks. MR. HUNSINGER-Thank you. Yes, sir. Good evening. KELLY CARTE MR. CARTE-Good evening, Ladies and Gentlemen. My name is Kelly Carte. I own the property immediately to the south of the project here. I’m not going to get into much of the emergency pumping plan because I don’t think that any pumping plan like that, removing the water from the property, is a correct solution to this. The Planning Board, the planning subdivision minutes clearly state that, one of the tenants in there, is that a project would not allow anymore water to be discharged from the land after the project is done than would be discharged before the project was completed. In other words, the native state of the land and the water situation on it is to be maintained. Just for, if you’ll allow me, Mr. Chairman, I know that you, and I think Mrs. Steffan, were the only ones that were on the Board at the time this project was begun, about seven or eight years ago. If you’ll allow me a little time, I just want to give the rest of the members a little bit of background on this, because this situation there is a self-imposed hardship. From the very beginning, all of the neighbors tried to tell the Board members and the applicant by extension that the situation of the water on this property was much more extensive than what they were allowing for. Their engineer did what they wanted them to and proposed in the initial guidelines or initial proposal for this, that the pond be made smaller. The pond, the initial pond, was about three acres in size and never flooded across the road. It, once or twice in 30 years or so, flooded the back yard of my house and went over onto Applehouse Lane into the basements of a couple of the people, the other neighbors over here, at that point in time, but it never ran anywhere. That water that went into the pond never left the pond, but they wanted to propose making the pond smaller, down to about an acre in size, and the engineer that they had at the time said that that would be perfectly fine, that the water level, the mean water level, would only raise nine inches in a 100 year flood, 100 year rain storm, only raise it nine inches, which we knew was ridiculous, but they were allowed to do that. They buried concrete all along the north side of the pond there, broke up a bunch of concrete and threw it on the edge of the pond. They knew very well that the south side of the pond had concrete feet thick there because they tried to dig there in several spots. They were going to put their septic system in that location, and so they tried to dig there about seven or eight different places and hit concrete in every one of them, down about, you know, six inches or a foot under the topsoil. It had been buried there for years and it went down, you could clearly see on the side of the pond, it went down eight or ten feet. So to say that they couldn’t expand this pond, when they said that they were going to make it larger, and now come back and say that they hit concrete there, of course they hit concrete. They knew the concrete was there to begin with. The situation, the whole situation on this is that they bought their own propaganda. They bought their own engineer’s propaganda on this thing as to what the water level would be. They wanted it that way because they got a couple of more houses in there. They got permission to build a couple of more because now they had buildable acres instead of a pond on the site. They built the foundations of the rental units too low. I mean, they said, okay, well if the water’s only going to go up this high, we’re going to build these things here. The pond has flooded at least three times. It flooded the basements of those buildings when they were under construction. It flooded the basements of those buildings when a couple of people had occupied them. They came back. They knew darn well that this was going to be a problem. They came back to the Board and asked the Board for permission to sell those as condos, as townhouses, rather than renting 44 (Queensbury Planning Board 7/20/10) them, which is what they originally wanted to do, but the original project was a rental. They came back and wanted to sell them, push this thing off on somebody, make it somebody else’s problem not theirs. To the Town Board’s credit, they made them continue to be responsible for this for a period of time. I don’t know, I’ve heard five years, seven years, whatever, but to say that they can somehow take care of this, now that they’ve got the two houses, the two more houses on there, now they’re going to come back and make the pond back to the size that it originally was. To say that the runoff situation is, the pond is going to take care of it, the pond is not taking care of the water that is running across my back yard and into my neighbor’s. About, out of that seven or eight years this project has been going on, four or five years we’ve had water running across my back yard, and I never had any water from that project before. I will admit that there’s water that comes off my property, which is acreage in behind there’s, and it runs into a pond, the low area more or less behind my house. In the ten, eleven years that I’ve lived there, that water never ran across into the neighbor’s backyard, until their project was under construction and since it’s been completed. There is about a 20, I mean, this is just an estimation, but a definite, you can see water running off their property, and it’s adding 20 or 25% to the problem that I already have of water coming down through there. So they’re not taking care of that, and to let them pump water across West Mountain Road when they did that in 2008. They had an eight or ten inch line across the road for, I don’t know, it was a day or day and a half. All the neighbors had to take a three or four mile detour around there because we couldn’t drive across the road and anybody else that was going up and down there had to detour. So, to say that that would be any kind of a fix on it is ridiculous. As I said, I don’t know, I don’t care what they do with the water. There was no problem with the water running into that pond before they did this subdivision. There’s a problem now because they built the foundations of these buildings too low, and whatever they have to do to contain it on site, as the Town’s Subdivision regulations state, it must be contained on site, is fine with me, but to let them do this, in any way, shape, or form is ridiculous, and I don’t understand why. I’m sure that the City of Glens Falls, if given the background on this situation, instead of just, we have an emergency, can we use the watershed, you know, in an emergency, of course, they being a good neighbor, they may very well say, okay. It’s not an emergency. It’s like shooting yourself in the foot and then going into the emergency room and then saying I’ve got an emergency here. You’ve got to see me first. They shot themselves in the foot. MR. HUNSINGER-Thank you. MR. CARTE-Okay. Thank you. MR. HUNSINGER-Anyone else? Yes, sir. TIM OLESKY MR. OLESKY-My name’s Tim Olesky. I live at 13 Applehouse Lane. It’s the street just one street south of the Hayes project. It’s kind of, I’m more or less asking for help, and giving some advice here to the Board this evening. I sat here 20 years ago, under Steve Borgos’ regime, asking for help back then, and I’ve gone through five Town Supervisors looking for help. Our whole street has been inundated with water, over my 20 years that I’ve lived there. We’ve become prisoners in our homes. Certain times of the year we can’t leave because things were never done correctly. Tonight, this is just one more example of them coming here, unprepared, not knowing that Steve Borgos owned that property, piece of property. Shame on them, and my advice to you is, you know, they predicted a 100 year storm. They said they were going to protect the Karner blue property on a corner of their property and the wild lupine. That didn’t happen. What else isn’t going to happen? And what’s it going to take to finally fix it correctly? So, my help, the help I’m asking for is, do it the right way this time, please. MR. HUNSINGER-Thank you. Anyone else? Yes, ma’am. CLAUDIA COPELAND MS. COPELAND-My name is Claudia Copeland. I live at 28 Mountain Hollow Way. I’m one of the people that suffered the flood back in 2008. I moved in in 2007, right in the fall, and when I moved there, the water was not that high. It was a very beautiful, you know, look out from your back yard. In 2008, we had a lot of snow. It filled up fast. I had come home to let my dog out and I noticed that it was pretty high, and there was a lot of water on the concrete patio that I had on my back yard. When I notified some of the maintenance guys that were still there, when he was clearing the brush away, and that tried to help the water from going inside my basement, he had hit the breach way to cause the flood to come in to my house. My concern is that I like living there, but I’m fearing the tragedy of the water coming back into my house. It all came in, and there was no way for it to go back out. Basically, I ran a pipe or a hose up through my stairs and out through my living room to go out the front door to try to get the water out as fast as I could. I had a lot of stuff that got ruined that did not get replaced. I also fear down my deck, and I’ve 45 (Queensbury Planning Board 7/20/10) mentioned this to the Hayes Group, is starting to bow, and I go out there a lot, and I feel as though that was water damage that hasn’t been replaced, and now they’ve constructed, you know, with the seeding and stuff, but they also knocked down a lot of trees, and it doesn’t look nice at all. There’s no trees that surround the fence area. There’s no bushes that have been planted, and it’s tall grass that hasn’t been mowed since they put it down. So it would have looked a little bit nicer if they put, you know, trees that they’ve knocked down, instead of just knocking them down and burying them under more sand or concrete that they planted. So that’s my fear, and like the other people that spoke, I would like help. I like where I live. I live by myself, and it was very difficult to try to get the water out, and I do have a severe mold allergy, and it felt like trying to get help of getting that water out and getting things fixed in the house was not helpful. So that’s all I have to say. MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. Thank you. MS. COPELAND-Thank you. MR. HUNSINGER-Anyone else? Yes, ma’am. KERRY GIUMARRA MRS. GIUMARRA-My name’s Kerry Giumarra. I live at 38 Western Reserve Trail, just the last house on the street next to the fence and pond, and I commend all of what people have said. I agree and did all of it, and just want to speak, really, on the aesthetics of the property. When they say they’ve grown grass, I’m guessing that they’ve probably taken a couple of handfuls of grass seed and thrown it. It’s really weeds. It looks very unkempt and it’s not very attractive to look at at all. It is a very, I’d say, pricy neighborhood that we’re in and we all take care of our properties really well and are pleased with the neighborhood that we’re in. So it’s unfortunate that the pond looks the way it does. I think that the new size of the pond has been an improvement, and I trust that you guys and these folks here will continue to speak about the Emergency Action Plan, but just the way that things are done. They needed to fill in, I’m guessing for your meeting tonight, some of the fencing that had come down, and we’d seen some concrete, and they went and dug new soil and just kind of like left it all dug out, up against trees. So it’s not even like they tried to do it nicely. It’s a really pretty place and it could be really pretty if people could take care of it, and I think the neighbors there want it to be that way, and I just hope that the Hayes, when this project is completely done, that it’s left a way that we can maintain. MR. HUNSINGER-Anything else? MRS. GIUMARRA-No. MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. Thank you. MRS. GIUMARRA-Thank you. MR. HUNSINGER-Anyone else? Good evening. JOHN CANNON MR. CANNON-Good evening. My name is John Cannon. I live at 24 Applehouse Lane, and I was also a victim of that 2008 flood and the pond, but I’m on Applehouse Lane. So I can sympathize with the lady that had her basement flooded, but the water came from down West Mountain into my septic tank, and from my septic tank it came up the shower in my basement, and I had to call the fire department to try to pump it out. I had to get somebody from the septic company to come and start pumping out my septic tank in the middle of the night. MR. HUNSINGER-Wow. MR. CANNON-So, and I always have this concern, is this going to happen again, and, you know, they’re talking about fixing the problem, about the overflow of the water in the pond, but I think originally we were talking about, the water’s coming down West Mountain, and they want to capture the water there before it hits the pond, and maybe divert it into a separate sewer system. So, I think that’s a proposal that maybe we should look into, and I also notice that they did pump the water into this gentleman’s, before he purchased the house, pumped the water into his foundation, for weeks, and weeks, and weeks, and it’s a shame. So, that’s it. MR. HUNSINGER-Thank you. Anyone else? Good evening. EDWARD MACARI 46 (Queensbury Planning Board 7/20/10) MR. MACARI-Yes. Good evening. My name is Edward Macari. I live next to the gentleman that just spoke. I share, I’m a next door neighbor. So the water, during that flood, the water came through the yard along both of our, you know, between our houses. I couldn’t get out of my driveway. It was very high, the water, and it did damage to my driveway. I have potholes there. I’ve got, my in-ground pool, I’ve got wrinkles and damage in that pool, and I haven’t fixed this stuff yet because I don’t know what they’re going to do with the situation. I think it would be good maybe to, maybe one way was to go underground from the back where Mr. Carte was and take it underground piping, over to Lester or something like that, but I hope they resolve it, and I don’t like what they were saying, The Hayes Group, about that Emergency. It was very inconvenient, you can’t drive there if there’s a problem, because they’ve got the hoses stretched across, and I would be against something like that, too. I think it has to be a permanent type of a fix to it, I believe. So, that’s all I’ve got to say there. MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. Thank you. MR. MACARI-Thanks. MR. HUNSINGER-Anyone else? Yes, ma’am. Good evening. DANIELLE HARRIS MS. HARRIS-Good evening. My name is Danielle Harris. I live at 19 Mountain Hollow Way. I was actually one of the first residents that moved into the townhouse association, and I just wanted to ask of the Board, you know, I also echo all of the comments that were made here today, and I want to ask of the Board to please hold this applicant to correcting this issue in the best way that you guys can because you guys can, because none of us are engineers or, you know, can potentially come up with a solution to the issue, but I can say that my experience with both how the property was constructed and how obviously the property is maintained from the aesthetic point of view has been a bunch of short cuts left and right with how they conduct their business. So if you guys could possibly do us that favor, to hold them accountable, that’s all I would ask them. MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. Thank you. MS. HARRIS-Thank you. MR. HUNSINGER-Anyone else? MR. CARTE-Could I just have one second? I would like to point out on the map that’s up there, for the Board members and for the other members. If I could have 30 seconds, sir. I wanted to point out on the map what the nature flow of the water is, because I think it’s kind of confusing for these people that aren’t familiar with this project at all here, as to exactly what we’re talking about and where these people live. MR. HUNSINGER-Take the mic with you. MR. CARTE-Okay. The water comes down off the mountain up here, and originally, this picture is of the original pond. It’s an aerial photograph from probably about 10 years ago. So this is not what the pond looks like now. This is what the pond looked like before this project was on here, and it comes down off the mountain in several areas, and it comes down at about here, and it makes almost a 90 degree bend, and at this point it’s quite high in elevation, and it drops down here, going into the pond, and they have made the pond come around here like this. It still drops down. If you saw, if you were over there, you could see that it’s quite a drop. It goes down here. Before it makes this bend, what I was talking about and what my neighbors were talking about, this is my house right here. These are the other two houses from the last two guys that spoke. This is Mr. Olesky’s house across the way. The natural flow of the water from here is down across my back yard, across between this way, between their two houses, and into, there’s a pipe, there’s a catch basin here that catches, it was in the wrong location. It’s since been moved up here like this, but it catches the water, and directs it underneath into a pipe that goes down under Lester Drive, but the year in question, there was so much water coming in here that it flooded the backyard of his house, I guess some damage to the pool, and always I’m running, in the Spring, running sump pumps continuously. I have three sump pumps running continuously in my house, and Mr. Olesky, I know, has several sump pumps running. The problem is that there is more water that comes down off of, this is my property. It comes down off my property and goes into this area also. There has only been, according to a neighbor that was there before I lived there, there was only once or possibly twice in like 25 or 30 years that there was enough water running off the mountain from my property to affect the Applehouse Lane, to run across Applehouse Lane. In the seven or eight years that this project has been in 47 (Queensbury Planning Board 7/20/10) operation, four or five of those years have had water running across my backyard and into their backyards here. So, they’re not catching all the water, going in the pond, that used to go into the pond. Some of the water is now being diverted to join with the water that comes off my property, run across my house and cause these problems here, okay. MR. HUNSINGER-Thanks. MR. CARTE-Thank you. MR. HUNSINGER-Anyone else? Okay. We’ll conclude the public hearing for this evening. Do you have any comments, after listening to some of your neighbors? MR. LAPPER-Yes. Plenty. Again, for the members of the Board who weren’t here when this project started, this property looked like an industrial wasteland, and I think everyone who lives in Queensbury knows what this was. When Mickie and his brother Jamie bought the property, it was a former concrete plant, where they had just left piles of concrete, old concrete mixers, tires, it was a dump. So when they came, they knew it was an ambitious project to clean this up, expensive project, and the density and everything, what they built there. I mean, it’s lovely when you drive through. The references to keeping stormwater on your site is in terms of additional impermeability, of course, and what we’re talking about here is riparian rights of water coming down the mountain, which generally doesn’t happen except in a storm event. Obviously it happens sometimes, but it has nothing to do with Applehouse Lane. When this all came up, after that flood, the Town Board authorized the Town Engineer to go do a study of Applehouse Lane, and that exists somewhere and they determined that it wasn’t coming from this site. It was coming off the back of the mountain. I think Mr. Carte referenced that from his property. So some of this stuff is coming from the Glens Falls watershed, coming down the mountain, and the Emergency Action Plan is only to be used in this rare case where the pond gets to the top, and obviously there’s a lot more capacity than there used to be. The reason why it was proposed by the County that it go West Mountain Road to use the culvert was just to avoid having to hold up traffic if there’s an emergency, and obviously in emergency situations people are inconvenienced, what are you going to do? But it would be better if it could go under West Mountain Road. There’s probably a minor change to the plan where either you have a pipe going under the culvert and along the right of way until you get to the stream. The intention is not to go through the back of the Borgos’ property. It has to get into the stream to get into Halfway Brook Reservoir. So, you know, obviously we’ll have the engineer take a look at that to see an alternative to make sure it’s within the County right of way and then the watershed property, but the idea is not to hold up traffic. It’s not to be doing this, except in a rare event when it can’t be contained on site, and hopefully that won’t be often, but if it needs to be done, it needs to be done, and that’s why you have to have an Emergency Action Plan, but none of this is going to help Applehouse Lane. I mean, if the same water that’s coming down the mountain is inundating those properties and also Mr. Carte’s property, I mean, that needs to be looked at, but separate from this project. Did you want to comment on any of the points, Mickie? MR. HAYES-The Applehouse Lane thing is, I grew up in Queensbury as well. I know there’s been a lot of problems there in the past, and I know it’s been passed from one administration to the other, and what happens is I imagine when you don’t have a big rain event, that nothing happens for a few years, so it gets forgotten about, but it’s a recurring problem. I know for the people on Applehouse Lane have suffered a long time there for that, and I know Dan Ryan of VISION Engineering did a thing, and they asked us if we would participate, helping them to alleviate some of the water that comes across, Kelly said comes across his land, and which comes off the City’s, but we’d cooperate any way they want to to alleviate any problem they would have on Applehouse Lane from water that doesn’t have anything to do with our property. We’d be glad to work with anybody who wants to try to alleviate that problem, because that problem will show up there again, because it did, when our flooding happened, they had the flooding for the very same reasons from all the, whatever, 1,000 acres that’s draining down through there. Kelly’s property, it goes across Kelly’s property. I know Kelly did some filling when he built his house and diverted some water, but besides that, it’s still all forest there. We have not done anything with that part of the property. The trees are the same trees that were there. It’s the water that’s coming across as the result of a large water shed that probably will have to be addressed some day to alleviate Applehouse’s problems. MRS. STEFFAN-Mickie, wasn’t there, didn’t you guys put something up on the hill? Didn’t you cut a road up there, or there was supposed to be a park? MR. HAYES-Yes, when Dan did the study, we probably should get a copy of the study. They did a study about that whole region. There’s a couple, they, different three point, they did a complicated thing. It’s beyond what I understand. I’m just talking as a layman, but they had where the water channels this way. They had it broken down into zones and where the water goes onto Applehouse, where they did all those studies to try to maybe do a project down the 48 (Queensbury Planning Board 7/20/10) future to help alleviate their problem because of the water that goes down Applehouse. Applehouse is actually in a different floodplain than our property, but it’s all coming from the top of the mountain, and it was all done with topos and scientifically and the Town paid for that. That was through the Town Board tried to, because Applehouse Lane has obviously had major, they’ve built berms, they dry wells. There’s always been problems there. MRS. STEFFAN-Right. There’s been a couple of issues on West Mountain Road, you know, along that whole stretch. MR. HAYES-And then the road flooded down the street, and that was another, remember when the road washed out, that same year, and it was a different floodplain. So that’s something, I guess, the Town Board already has information and a study done about that. MR. HUNSINGER-Any other questions, comments from the Board? Sir, we concluded the public hearing. Did you have something quick? AUDIENCE MEMBER-I didn’t hear, I mean, they’re back up and making their comments on it, and I disagree with one of the comments that Mr. Hayes just, some of Mr. Hayes’ comments. MR. HUNSINGER-That’s fine. We’re about to table the application. So the public hearing will be held open again, and you’ll be able to comment at the next meeting. AUDIENCE MEMBER-Thank you. MR. HUNSINGER-Yes. MR. KREBS-What about, you know, how much difficulty would it be to put a pipe underneath? MR. HUNSINGER-I was thinking the same thing. MR. LAPPER-Well, part of the problem is the topography. If you look at where the stream is, it’s not right across, because if you look right across the street from West Mountain, I was there last week checking it out. The elevation is high. So you need to go north a ways. Obviously we leave here tonight knowing that we want to avoid the Borgos property, but you have to go north to get to where that stream channel, where the topography works, but, you know, obviously we’ll go back, talk to the engineer, and come back with a modification of that plan, and then we’ll go talk to the City about it, and then we’ll come back and talk to you. MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. MR. KREBS-Yes, because it would seem to me that if you could do that and bring it to the water shed property from the other direction, bringing it down. MR. LAPPER-Yes, that may be possible. MR. KREBS-That bringing it to the Brook, they’re not going across Borgos’ property, because that might help alleviate the problem. MR. HUNSINGER-How long do you think it’ll take to get some of the information? MR. LAPPER-I would think if you table it until September, we’ll probably be a lot farther along. MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. Anyone else have a comment? Would anyone like to put forward a tabling motion? MRS. STEFFAN-So I’m trying to remember if there were comments from the engineer on this one. MR. HUNSINGER-Yes. I don’t remember Staff, engineering comments, either. MRS. STEFFAN-Keith, were there engineering comments on that? I don’t remember one? MR. OBORNE-There will be, though. MRS. STEFFAN-Right, going forward. Because obviously they don’t have a lot of information. That was identified in your Staff Notes. I actually thought we would table this a lot earlier than this. All right. 49 (Queensbury Planning Board 7/20/10) MOTION TO TABLE MODIFICATION TO SUBDIVISION NO. 8-2005 MOUNTAIN HOLLOW H.O.A., Introduced by Gretchen Steffan who moved for its adoption, seconded by Donald Krebs: th Tabled to the September 28 Planning Board meeting. Submission deadline for materials will th be August 16. So that the applicant can satisfy the Staff Notes dated July 20, 2010. th Duly adopted this 20 day of July, 2010, by the following vote: AYES: Mrs. Steffan, Mr. Krebs, Mr. Traver, Mr. Jackoski, Mr. Schonewolf, Mr. Sipp, Mr. Hunsinger NOES: NONE MR. HUNSINGER-And for members of the audience, just, again, the public hearing was held th open. We will take public comment again, on September 28. You’re also welcome to submit written comments to Staff if you have written comments. Is your e-mail address on the Town website? MR. OBORNE-No. I’d suggest any written comment actually be dropped off in my office or mailed to 742 Bay Road. MRS. STEFFAN-And what is the date that submissions need to be received by you for them to be included in the Planning Board member’s packets? MR. OBORNE-Well, we need to discuss that. We have not discussed that. AUDIENCE MEMBER-What’s the gentleman’s name and title? MR. HUNSINGER-Keith Oborne. MR. OBORNE-I’ll give you my card. MR. HUNSINGER-The public hearing will be noticed in the newspaper, but the public will not get anything in the mail. AUDIENCE MEMBER-Thank you. MR. HUNSINGER-You’re welcome. You’re all set. Thank you. MR. LAPPER-Thank you. MR. HAYES-Thank you. SITE PLAN NO. 45-2010 SEQR TYPE UNLISTED HUDSON HEADWATERS HEALTH NETWORK AGENT(S) JONATHAN LAPPER, B P S R RICHARD E. JONES ASSOCIATES OWNER(S) CAREY REAL ESTATE DEV. CORP. ZONING CLI LOCATION SW CORNER OF CARY & CORINTH ROADS APPLICANT PROPOSES 8,052 SQ. FT. HEALTH CENTER WITH ATTACHED 3,016 SQ. FT. PHARMACY AND ASSOCIATED SITE WORK. HEALTH RELATED FACILITIES IN THE CLI ZONE REQUIRE PLANNING BOARD REVIEW AND APPROVAL. CROSS REFERENCE SP 23-99 WARREN CO. PLANNING 7/14/2010 LOT SIZE 24.02 +/- ACRES TAX MAP NO. 309.13-2-31 SECTION 179-9-010 JON LAPPER & RICHARD JONES, REPRESENTING APPLICANT, PRESENT MR. HUNSINGER-Whenever you’re ready. MR. OBORNE-Site Plan 45-2010, Hudson Headwaters Health Network is the applicant. Requested action: This is a Site Plan Review for a health related facility in a CLI zone. Location is southwest corner of Carey Road and Corinth Road Existing zoning, as mentioned, CLI. SEQRA status is Unlisted. Project Description: Applicant proposes 8,052 sq. ft. Health Center with attached 3,016 sq. ft. Pharmacy and associated site work. Staff Comments: The proposed Health Center and Pharmacy to be situated on an existing 24.02 acre parcel situated in the Carey Industrial Park according to TOQ GIS. The actual size of the parcel is 2.91, 2.99 to be honest with you, and I’ll discuss that a little bit later. Please Note: Town Board resolution 169, 2010, approved on April 19, 2010, allows for Health Related Facilities to be a permitted use by site plan review in the Commercial Light Industrial (CLI) zoning district. Oakville sandy loam, fine sand. The ubiquitous soil in the area is present. Site Plan Review. Again, application, the parcel area used to determine the permeability and Floor Area Ratio are incorrect. Stormwater management report, parcel area referenced under the Existing Condition heading will need to be 50 (Queensbury Planning Board 7/20/10) updated. Soils references also incorrect. See above. What follows is Site Plan Review. I will say that there are quite a few issues on the property, or on the Site Plan, not on the property at this point, but I will just jump down to my additional comments. Final plans should be sealed by a licensed professional engineer. Building colors should be discussed. Staff believes the colors will match the existing HHHN building to the west. Additional landscaping along Carey Road should be explored. Fire Marshal comments attached. Attached is the response and updates to application materials associated with incorrect acreage submitted by applicant, and you should have gotten those in your packet. I did request that from Mr. Jones, in order to gain clarification to the Board. It really doesn’t affect anything but the overall site and maybe portions of the SWPPP which will have to be updated to reference that. It is, I believe, a 2.99 acre parcel, and not a 24 acre parcel, and the reason for that is the County has not updated the GIS for the Commercial Light Industrial areas. They only update it once something gets built. So you’ll see, when and if this gets approved, that that will actually be updated on the GIS, and with that I’d turn it over to the Planning Board. MR. HUNSINGER-Thank you. Good evening. MR. LAPPER-Hi. For the record, Jon Lapper with George Purdue from Hudson Headwaters and Richard Jones, the project architect. I’m just going to start out with some general comments, and then Dick and I will go through all of the Staff Notes. In general, this is adjacent to the new Hudson Headwaters office building, which I think has been very well received in the Town. So this was, Dick designed this to compliment that facility. The architecture is somewhat different in color, but complimentary so that it won’t look the same, but the landscaping is complimentary. I mean, many of the features of that site work well on this site. From Hudson Headwaters standpoint, they have two nearby health clinics, on Aviation Road and on Broad Street in Glens Falls, that are very over utilized. There’s a real demand for this, and they were able to access some Federal stimulus dollars to pay for not all but a portion of this facility. So it’s a really good opportunity for them. There’s a real need in the Town. There’s not a lot of medical services in the Exit 18 corridor. So there’s a lot of positives here, and I think that, Keith said there were a lot of issues, and I think a lot of these are really simple issues. There were some things like the height of the pole was on one page but it wasn’t on the other. Of course it’s 18 feet. I mean, the engineer indicated that he didn’t get the calculations for the stormwater, but somehow the Staff must have forgot to send it to him. Because that was all submitted, so we just want to go through it, point by point, and show you that what’s really left is very simple, and hopefully we could wind up with a conditional approval conditioned on engineering signoff, and we hope that we can make you comfortable with that when we’re done. So with that, let me turn it over to Dick. MR. JONES-Good evening. What I’d like to do is basically go through Staff Notes and comments one by one. In reference to the Site Plan, the application, as Keith had stated, we had indicated the wrong square footages on our tabulation sheet on SP-1. Basically had submitted the survey which had the correct square footages and acreage. We had done a copy of the deed which indicated the correct square footages and acreage. When we computed our area, with a computer, there’s a small area along the bottom side of the property that sits between this parcel and the parcel to the south of this site. That was incorporated into the square footages when they did the computation using the computer. With that it was brought into the table which was then utilized for all of the percentages and everything else. MR. LAPPER-But you’re so far over on permeability that is. MR. JONES-Yes, we’re way over on permeability for the site. We’re, I think, close to 60% permeable. We did, at the request of Keith, provide him with a clarification on that last week, which basically addressed the site acreage. It addressed the sheets in the application that needed to be changed as well as the tabulation sheet on Drawing SP-1. It also changed references in the Stormwater Management Report. Those types of things were all addressed as part of that clarification. Item Two, the soil reference. The Windsor Series soils that were referenced, when we had done the original site for the Hudson Headwaters office building, approximately three years ago, the civil engineer that we utilized in his report had indicated Windsor Soils, I’ll be very honest with you. We did not, we utilized the soils information that was in that report for our new one, and did not take a look at the soils maps, and Keith is correct. It is an Oakville soil. The types of soils, the Oakville and the Windsor, are very similar in that they’re both highly permeable soils. Basically it does not impact the infiltration or the drainage or the perc rates on this property. They are identical to what basically is next door for the Hudson Headwaters office building. In reference to the next one, Drawing SP-1, Items One, Two, and Three are all in reference to the signage that we had indicated on our Site Plans or on our building elevations. We had indicated a freestanding sign at the corner of the intersection of Corinth and Carey Roads, which that little finger is actually a part of our project site, which is a little bit strange in that it wraps around an existing rental property which sits on Corinth Road. We had indicated a monument sign there. We had indicated a directional sign by the entrance 51 (Queensbury Planning Board 7/20/10) into the property, and then we had shown an alternate location for a possible monument sign up in the corner, which would be the, I guess the northwest corner of where that little inset property is. Our clarification to Keith is that we are going to do one monument sign. It will be on the corner of the property, adjacent to the Carey Road/Corinth Road intersection. We will keep the directional sign at the entrance into the property. That we would like to keep. As far as the signage on the building, we had done the building elevation with the options of where signage could go. The Hudson Headwaters entrance would have one sign, which is currently what’s shown. The pharmacy entrance, it basically has a tower on the entry corner of the building. It has two facades, and we’ve put an entry, or a sign on both, as an option. Only one of those elevations would receive signage. Again, it’s basically a clarification of the fact that we are showing alternate locations but we are only looking for one sign for each tenant, one freestanding sign on the site and the other freestanding sign is basically a directional sign at the entrance drive. MR. LAPPER-So a variance wouldn’t be required. MR. JONES-No, no variances would be asked for, none are required. We’re not asking for anything above and beyond what is allowed by the signage code. MR. OBORNE-But you’ll update the plan? MR. JONES-Yes, we will. The, Item Four, the Type B buffer. When I met with Keith in the pre- application or pre-submission meeting, we had talked about that. It was my understanding that because it was a rental property, it was a commercial use, and I did not realize that there was actually a separation required in reference to a buffer between those uses. In regard to that, we really do not want to add landscaping along those areas because we have infiltration drainage along both the south and the west property line adjacent to that property. We really don’t want to install a fence. We don’t feel that that would be an attractive alternative, and I think what we would be looking for would be a waiver in regard to that. Item Five, the Staff recommends a two to three foot berm. This is the same comment that had come up when we were doing the Hudson Headwaters office building on the opposite site. The property that fronts Corinth Road in this general area is all part of our storm drainage infiltration system. We have infiltration areas that are starting along what would be parallel with Corinth Road and going to the two corners where we have catch basins as part of that. If we start putting a berm in that area, two to three feet high, it fills that 10 foot buffer between the property line and the edge of the pavement, and does not allow us to basically complete the installation of the portion of the storm drainage that would be required with the swales in that area. So we really don’t want to do that, and the landscaping that we’ve proposed is basically identical to the landscaping that we utilized on the Hudson Headwaters office building and basically we staggered rows of trees with the deciduous that are located, I think, at the two ends and one in the center. So it basically mimics what we have on the opposite side of the property for the other building. MR. LAPPER-It’s also worth pointing out that the upright Junipers that he’s proposed would have the impact of a berm because, you know, they’re a few feet high, right in front of where the cars are. So not only will it compliment the site next door, but it will provide some sort of a buffer without impacting the stormwater drainage plan. MR. JONES-Item Number Six, yes, we did mislabel the plants that are on the plan. They are correctly noted on the schedule, and there are 19 of them, and they are the VB. MR. HUNSINGER-I’m sorry, what are they? MR. JONES-They’re actually VB. MR. HUNSINGER-VB. MR. JONES-VB, yes. MR. SIPP-What’s that? What is VB? What kind of plant? MR. JONES-VB? They are American Vibernum. Item Number Seven, the proposed interconnect. When we were actually under construction for Hudson Headwaters, as part of the approved Site Plan, we had shown a dumpster at the southern most connection point, the proposed future connection point. When we actually got into the completion of the project and were looking for our Certificate of Occupancy, we had a meeting with Bruce Frank at that point. The Hudson Headwaters group was utilizing a cleaning service that basically took away the trash every night. There was no need, at that point, for a dumpster. We had a letter with clarification to Bruce Frank stating that we were not going to be installing it, and that was the rationale why because the trash was being taken off every night. So in reference to that 52 (Queensbury Planning Board 7/20/10) connection, it’s a wide open area of pavement that we would be connecting to. We would not have to re-locate a dumpster enclosure and dumpsters for the Hudson Headwaters office building. MR. HUNSINGER-So, just to clarify, the interconnects would be built? MR. JONES-Yes, they would. MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. MR. JONES-It’s a very integral part of what we’re doing for access between their office building and the Health Center itself. GEORGE PURDUE MR. PURDUE-Just to correct you. Since you’ve been there we have put a dumpster there, because the cleaning service couldn’t handle it all. So there is a dumpster there. We’re going to have to figure out what to do. MR. LAPPER-That dumpster will be eliminated. MR. PURDUE-We don’t create a lot of trash. It’s an office building. I think we can use whatever. MR. JONES-Well, we have two dumpsters shown on our property, on the proposed, right. MR. LAPPER-On the new proposed. So eliminate it from the older site and put it on the new site. MR. JONES-We could do that, yes. MR. LAPPER-But it won’t be where it’s located. MR. JONES-No, and I’m glad you pointed, I did not realize that. MR. PURDUE-Sorry. MR. JONES-Okay. Item Number Eight, parking. We did ask for additional parking above and beyond what is allowed by the Zoning Ordinance, and in reference to that, we did have in our project narrative, in Paragraph Two, we did have an explanation of that, and just to read that out of my narrative that was submitted as part of the original submission, parking has been provided to accommodate the two proposed uses with an increase above the allowed amounts specifically for the Health Center usage. It has been found that the average number of spaces per patient is based upon 2.5 times the number of exam rooms in the Health Center. This Health Center would require 50 spaces alone, just for the patients, as there are 20 exam rooms. Plus we need additional parking for Staff. So that’s why we’re asking for some parking which is above and beyond the allowed requirements by the Zoning. MR. LAPPER-I want to just point out that that comes from experience with Hudson Headwaters because they operate so many clinics in the North Country, and obviously we don’t want people parking on the grass, but, since, as Dick said, it’s approximately 60% permeable anyway, it’s not like you’re creating a problem with site development, but they really do need those spaces for this use. Medical clinic’s a pretty intense use for parking. MR. JONES-The stop sign at the intersection of Carey Road, in looking at the exit drive coming from the main parking area near the building, it certainly does make sense to probably have a stop sign at that intersection, just because of the length of the exit drive going from the parking out. It certainly gives someone a lot of ability to increase their speed. Whether they would stop or not, that’s another question. Drawing SP-2, again, Item One is in reference to the freestanding sign. That one is one that we are not proposing to install. Item Two, again, that was basically the change in the acreage, and in reference to the soils and the bio retention basins, give you a little background. The site that we designed for the Hudson Headwaters office building, the storm drainage system that was provided and installed there functions very, very well, and it’s set up in a system of swales and drainage areas where we have the ability to basically have water accumulate. We have raised grates on all of the drywells that are installed in the corners along the perimeter of the property, and we have areas that allow sedimentation of any material before it’s actually incorporated into the drywell structure. Along with that, we have a drywell, or an infiltration trench along both the south of their existing building and we’re proposing it along the south, some along the back side of the property for the rental property which sits on the corner and along on the property intersection between the proposed building 53 (Queensbury Planning Board 7/20/10) and their existing site, and again, these types of trenches, you’re able to basically infiltrate and filter through the stone and the fabrics that are there. We have an interconnect pipe that basically is a level type pipe that runs between all of the structures on the site, so if one becomes potentially overloaded, it has the ability to basically equalize itself and flow through the entire system, just like we did on the other side of the property. So the system functions very well, and to basically look at bio retention basins with the grass areas that we have around our catch basins and the infiltration trenches we certainly have the ability to filter infiltrating water in a very positive fashion. Drawing SP-3, pole mounted fixtures, can’t exceed 20 feet. On our submission for our fixture cuts, we had indicated that it is 18 foot for the pole. So we are below the 20. Drawings A-1, there were no issues with. Drawing A-2, again, this is the signage on the exterior facades of the building. It’s our intent to provide one sign for each tenant and one only. It’s just a question of whether we put it on the Corinth Road side of the tower for the pharmacy or the Carey Road side of the pharmacy tower. Additional comments, or, I’m sorry, lighting plan. Pole heights need to be determined. As I indicated, they are indicated as being 18 feet, and it is on the fixture cuts. The horizontal illumination appears excessive. When you look at our lighting level plan, there are hot spots under the poles, and there’s hot spots at the entrances. They generally exceed the allowed levels. They do not exceed the, I know you used to have a ratio. I think it was 4.3 to 1. MRS. STEFFAN-It used to be 4 to 1. MR. JONES-And generally we’re in that range. The lighting that we’re proofing is no different than what we have for the site next door for the Hudson Headwaters office building, and the site lighting over there functions very, very well. They are all cut off fixtures. They’re 18 foot poles. We’re looking at identical fixtures for the poles, identical fixtures on the buildings, identical fixtures in the soffit areas. Even the light bollards along the walks are identical to what we have. With any type of fixture you get a hot spot, and that’s why I think it’s important that you have the ability to have the ratio of, you know, 4.3 to 5 to 1, in that range. Because you will have hot spots. MR. HUNSINGER-Yes. It was interesting. I mean, I looked at the lighting plan before I saw the Staff comment, and there are some hot spots. You would almost expect every, and it’s mostly underneath the A labeled lighting poles. There didn’t seem to be any kind of consistency. The highest reading under one pole would be 4.9, but then under other poles you see 7.3, you know, 5.7. MR. JONES-Yes, and I think part of that has to do with the type of fixture pattern. Some are roadway type. MR. HUNSINGER-Well, aren’t all the A fixtures the same? MR. JONES-They’re the same fixture, but the throw may be different on the fixture. It may be a forward throw or it may be an elongated throw, depending upon where they’re located on the site. MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. MR. JONES-So that has an impact on the fixture, and the light level. Each, if you look at the fixture cut package. MR. HUNSINGER-Yes, there was nothing to suggest that not all the A’s were the same on the luminare schedule. MR. JONES-Yes. If you go to where it says distribution, you’ll see it has three different types of distribution. One is asymmetric, the R-2. R-3 is an IS type 3 asymmetric, and then the R-4 is a forward throw with a sharp cut off. So, depending upon the location on the site, it may have a different type of distribution, and that will either increase or decrease and elongate or elongate in the other direction the throw that you’re looking at on the fixtures. MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. MR. JONES-What you attempted to do, or what you attempt to do, is where you have them adjacent to a property line, you try to do a forward throw to keep them away from the property line behind you. When you have them more located in the center of the parking lot, you tend to go more to an asymmetric Type Two or an asymmetric Type Three, to get a longer throw this way. MR. HUNSINGER-So even though they’re all labeled as A, there’s different types of A’s. 54 (Queensbury Planning Board 7/20/10) MR. JONES-Yes, and I think you’ll find that true in just about any fixture, when you look at any fixture on a site. Typically what you look at with a roadway type fixture is more of an elongated throw, because they’re looking at lighting the road, because they want to be horizontal or parallel to the roadway, and we have a few of those on the site, plus we have some that are asymmetric, dependent upon their location. I think now we can. MR. LAPPER-We didn’t ever get the Fire Marshal letter. MR. JONES-No, we didn’t. There was no copy of that attached to the e-mail that we had received with the comments. We’re not even sure what those comments were. MR. HUNSINGER-There were no comments. MR. OBORNE-These are for the Planning Board more than anything, but you have a signoff. MR. LAPPER-We’re comfortable with that. MR. HUNSINGER-What about building colors? MR. JONES-Well, I have some things here that I’ll hand out. MR. HUNSINGER-So how representative is this? MR. JONES-It’s very close. MR. HUNSINGER-It also answered my other question which was what’s the materials. MR. JONES-Yes, and I apologize. The elevations that were provided as part of the submission were labeled, but when the elevations were brought up to the eight scale, the text wasn’t. So it was a little difficult to read without a magnifying glass, and I apologize for that, but basically what you’re looking at is the basic color scheme that we would be looking for on the building. When we had done the original office building, we had utilized vinyl sidings in a horizontal and vertical pattern, doing like a wainscot around the base of the building, with the verticals and then the horizontal above that. We had done pre-finished window units, and asphalt shingled roofs. We had done vinyl trims, and then, excuse me, at the entries or the focal points on all of the major elevations where we had the gables for entrances, we utilized an Eifs or a dryvit material, and I don’t know if you’re familiar with that terminology or not. It’s a, it’s like a plastic material with insulation with a stucco type coating on it, okay, and it comes in hundreds of colors. So we utilized that in a basic color scheme that was earth tone colors, a little more toward the lighter colors with the siding, actually probably a tannish beige with a little bit of a yellow tint to it. When we looked at this building, again, we were looking at a single story wood frame structure. We wanted something that would relate to the, basically the character of the neighborhood. There’s a lot of single family homes in there. We have the Hudson Headwaters office building next door. So we were looking at something, again, that was single story, basically wood framed asphalt shingled roofs, and with this one, what we’re looking to utilize are more cement board sidings, which are actually pre-finished and natural stone veneer. The natural stone veneer would be on the entry tower for the pharmacy, and basically the columns or the pilasters that frame all of the entries into the building. We utilized it in the front area for what is actually the lobby for the inside, the waiting room for the Health Center as well, but basically we’d like to do dark browns on all of the trim for the building. This would be the PVC brackets, the window trims, any applied trim to the building, the fascias, that type of thing. The vertical siding would be a medium brown tone, again complimented by the dark brown trims, and then the shingle areas, which basically are acting as linears above all of that area, and into the gable areas, would be basically a light tan color, and the cement board sidings, what we’re finding is that the vinyl does not hold up to the abuse that they do receive, and the cement board sidings now we’re able to basically specify them with a seven year warranty on the finish before anything has to be re-finished. I know when we did the Queensbury Family Health, which is 10 or 11 years now, the materials had faded, and what we’re finding is that the darker vinyls really fade very, very quickly, and at some point in time they’re going to need to be re-finished, and I’m not sure, I know that you can paint the vinyls. I’m not sure what kind of life expectancy you can get on that, but at least with the cement board sidings, we have something that is extremely durable, will take abuse, and we anticipate a lot of people coming in and out of these buildings. We’ve got traffic driving around it. We have a drive up for the pharmacy on the back side which would be the west side of the building. So we’re looking at something that’s basically going to take abuse and is easy to re- finish and has a life on the finish itself. With the colors and the materials that we’re proposing, we feel it’s a building that compliments what has been done in the neighborhood, and certainly is something that adds to the roadway and the basic infrastructure that’s being built along Corinth Road. We think of it as a nice transition from Corinth Road to the industrial areas behind. The thing that kind of bothers me about industrial zones, especially in the Town, is that 55 (Queensbury Planning Board 7/20/10) the industrial can go right out onto Corinth Road, and I think this is a nice opportunity to keep it back because there still are a lot of single family residences that existing along Corinth Road, and they will continue to exist along Corinth Road. So that’s the building exterior. With regard to Paragon Engineering, just to give you a little background. When we did the original building for Hudson Headwaters, for their office building, Paragon Engineering actually did the stormwater design for that property for us. So with that in mind we felt it was reasonable to utilize that as a basis of design, which we did, and working with our engineers, basically we came up with a system that is very, very similar to what was done the first time, has the same type of capabilities, and infiltration type requirements, and basically will perform in the same manner. With regard to his comments, general comment, the SWPPPS permit. When you actually read Chapter 147-6, it’s in reference to the Lake George Park requirements, I understand what he’s asking for, and I know that the Planning Board has requested it from other applicants. We are not opposed to providing that to the Town, and we would certainly do that. As part of our submission originally we did do an NOI, which indicated that we’re going to do it. It’s just that it has not been completed yet, and part of it would be the basis of having a design that we could finish it with, and we feel we do have that design in place. MR. LAPPER-So that could get submitted to the engineer. MR. JONES-Yes, it could, and certainly we would need that as part of our application process even just for a building permit in the Town, because we would have to have that in place for our inspections and notifications to DEC. With regard to Sheet SP-1, he’s referring to the plantings that exist, or are proposed, I should say, right here to the east of the parking lot, we’re looking at for the Health Center. I know one of the comments from Keith was adding additional landscaping to what would be the east side adjacent to Carey Road. We have indicated some street trees out near Carey Road. It would be our intent to alleviate any potential problems with the drainage system, that those be moved into this general area, which would be on the back side, we would basically move all of this planting forward, which I think would alleviate some of the questions from Keith in reference to additional planting. MR. SIPP-Isn’t that the snow pile area? MR. JONES-We would still have a sufficient area there for snow as well. We have snow pile areas all along the south side of the property. We have them on the corners of the property as well. MR. LAPPER-We would just be pushing those plants in front of the drainage basin. MR. JONES-Right. MR. LAPPER-Closer to the road to address Keith’s comment. MR. JONES-And then we would have, we would actually have snow piling area in front of the plantings at that point. MR. SIPP-What’s the height of those plants? MR. JONES-The small trees are 24 to 36 inches, and the deciduous I think are, I want to say eight or ten feet tall. Those are birch clumps in that area, and we would be doing that as basically a planting bed. MR. SIPP-They were mislabeled, and I couldn’t figure out a height for them, labeled AB and VB. MR. LAPPER-There’d still be room for snow storage, because they’ll be right next to the basin, just in front of the basin. MR. JONES-The silt fence is shown on SP-1, and basically the layer was printed on that one, and it should be on SP-2. It is on the original, or the site layout drawing instead. On Sheet SP- 2, the 499 contour is mislabeled, and in reference to the understanding of the grading, once it is labeled correctly, it will then be able to direct the drainage as indicated or as required. MR. HUNSINGER-So what should it be? MR. JONES-It should be, I think 499 actually should wrap, and I think that it tends to dead end at the drive area. MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. MR. JONES-Basically the drainage, the way the drainage works on the property. 56 (Queensbury Planning Board 7/20/10) MR. HUNSINGER-The contour is not drawn correctly. MR. JONES-Yes. MR. HUNSINGER-I read that to mean that the label was incorrect, not that the contour was labeled wrong. MR. JONES-Yes. The way, everything is basically set up on, everything is basically designed as sheet drainage on the site. We’ve broken it into eight distinct areas. There’s one on each corner. There’s one on what would be the west side of the property. There’s one on this corner. There’s one on the back or the south side. There’s a large one here on the east side. We have a small area here for collection of anything that’s running off of the roadway and the property on the front side, and our final, our eighth area is here on the front side as well. Basically they’re all set up as sheet flow. We have a system of drywells in the corners, drywells for collection and drywells out near the road. We then have a series of infiltration trenches along what would be the west side, the property between the two buildings, along the south side, along the area to the south of the little inset property, and along the west portion of that property as well. The drywells are in depressed areas for collection. The grates on each are raised above grade by six inches so we have a collection area, as I said before, to settle out contaminants and that type of thing. These are all grass lined areas. This is a gravel trench with, everything has interconnecting piping, as I had indicated before, similar to the system that we had done for the office building, but basically, as I said, everything is sheet flow, and everything is maintained on site. Nothing leaves the site as an undeveloped site, and nothing is leaving the site as a developed site. We have enough permeable area. We’re way above the permeability requirements for the site itself. The last comment in reference to the stormwater report, copies th of the report were submitted with our application that went in on, I think June 15 for the entire project, which had all the calculations, and I think we submitted additional copies with that clarification last week. We had incorporated the changes in the site area and everything else. MRS. STEFFAN-Well, the engineer is going to have to sign off on that anyway. MR. OBORNE-Well, I can assure you it was forwarded. I don’t know what happened to it when it got to Clark’s office. MR. HUNSINGER-Well, it wasn’t in my copy. There’s three pages of narrative, two pages of narrative, and then the NOI. MR. OBORNE-No, I reviewed it. Yes, there’s no SWPPP, though. MR. HUNSINGER-No, I’m saying there were no computations on my copy. MR. JONES-Yes. We had the narrative plus the NOI, and then we had, we had a full set of computations. MR. OBORNE-I mean, I have them right here. MR. HUNSINGER-You have your, you have them on your copy? They weren’t in my copy either. MR. JONES-And basically the design was based on I believe a one, ten, twenty-five, fifty, and one hundred year storm. MR. OBORNE-As required. MR. HUNSINGER-That’s what you said in the narrative. MR. JONES-Yes, there we go. MR. HUNSINGER-I mean, I wouldn’t know if the computations were right anyway. MR. SIPP-I’d like to see you put in those test pit results. You don’t have any results. You’ve got them marked where you took the tests. MR. JONES-There’s actually test pits that were done as part of the original subdivision map. MR. SIPP-Yes, but that’s over to the west, right? 57 (Queensbury Planning Board 7/20/10) MR. JONES-Well, actually this subdivision did have test pits on it, and I do have, here we go. This is the original subdivision map which had all kinds of test pit information on it. We did not put any of that information on. We, subsequent to this, we have received our actual soil boring logs for the site (lost words) construction on the site, which give the types of soils, the depth to water and everything else. MR. SIPP-Well, could those be included? MR. JONES-They certainly could. I have a full report on that. MR. LAPPER-How deep is the groundwater? MR. JONES-I want to say. MR. OBORNE-You’re not even going to hit groundwater there. MR. JONES-Yes, well, we did, as a requirement of the Building Code, you have to do one that’s at least 50 feet deep for the seismic class on the building, and let me see if I can find that one. Typically they went to 17 feet with no water. MR. OBORNE-That’s why bio filtration would be ideal for this location. MR. SIPP-Is there sewer out there yet? Is there sewer being proposed for that area? MR. JONES-No. MR. SIPP-No, not yet. MR. JONES-No, it stops basically at Stewarts. MR. LAPPER-Some day. MRS. STEFFAN-Yes, Carey Road was proposed as an industrial development. Nothing really happened, yes. It just kind of stalled. MR. JONES-One boring went to 51 and a half feet, and it says groundwater was measured at 17 foot 8, 17.8 feet after the samples were taken. So it was basically the hole filled up with water after the boring. So to say where the water table is, I’m not sure. I’m sure it’s well in excess of 30 feet. MR. OBORNE-Could I respond to a couple of things, if the Board would entertain them? MR. HUNSINGER-Absolutely. MR. OBORNE-147 is Town wide. It’s not just Lake George Park drainage area. In 147-6 it is required that over a disturbance of one acre, SWPPP is required. MR. JONES-Well, we’re not disagreeing with the SWPPP. I think what we’re saying is that as part of a Site Plan Review submission, it’s not the type of thing that’s normally done. It’s part of the permitting process for it. MR. OBORNE-Right, but the Town does require it, though. MR. JONES-Okay. MR. OBORNE-That’s all. The Town requires it. Also, bio filtration and bio retention basins, in these soils, as a trained geologist, I’m telling you would be beneficial. You have over an acre of hard surfacing, and a request for over an increase of 100% of parking, because of automobiles. Automobiles secrete what is known as non-point source pollution, and in those non-point source pollutions are volatile organic compounds. Grass is not going to filter that. Well sorted sands are not going to filter that. You need to put in a mechanism to filter it, and I understand why they don’t, and I totally understand that. It is a cost issue, but there is zero filtration going on on this site. There’s a lot of infiltration, don’t get me wrong. There’s tons of infiltration, but there really sin’s a lot of filtration, and that’s all. It’s something that’s going to take a while to get, I think engineers and architects to understand or for applicants to do, and I do understand it’s an uphill battle. It always has been. So typically what you do is you put different size materials in. You also have a vegetative mechanism in there also. So that’s my two cents. You know where I come from with that. So this is just beating the same old drum I always beat. That’s the only two issues I had with this. 58 (Queensbury Planning Board 7/20/10) MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. Questions, comments from Board members? MR. TRAVER-Well, there’s a lot of material that needs to be, I mean, it’s not really even a complete application. We have a couple of proposals for a sign location but not a plan. We have, you know, I mean, I think we’re going to need to see a completed, reviewed plan. MR. HUNSINGER-How do other members feel. MR. LAPPER-If there’s any way you could see to a conditional approval, Hudson Headwaters would, they really need to get this thing in the ground in September, and, as Dick had said, obviously there are issues that have to get addressed, but we’ve gone through all of them with the Board tonight on the record. It’s pretty simple stuff, even though there’s a bunch of things. MR. TRAVER-It’s simple stuff but there are a lot of mistakes in the application, incorrect information put on the plan, and I’m just concerned that, you know, I think the next submission is going to need to be reviewed, because of that. MR. LAPPER-What if it was conditioned on Staff and on the engineer, would that be possible? MR. HUNSINGER-Well, we lean on Keith a lot. MR. TRAVER-Yes. MRS. STEFFAN-And the list is pretty substantial. MR. TRAVER-I mean, we’ve discussed this situation before with applications where we have this huge number of items, and it’s not for, I mean, it’s not happening on our end. I mean, there are a lot of these things on the list, if you go through where the wrong soil was put down or. MR. LAPPER-I don’t think any of them were policy issues. It’s really just the clarifications that Dick made tonight. Obviously there’s some corrections, but I don’t know that it would require the Board to look at them and make any decisions. The pole height was on one sheet, it should have been on a separate one, but it’s not going to change. MR. SIPP-Are we going to connect these two properties? MR. LAPPER-Yes. MRS. STEFFAN-This is the list that I have. To correct the square footage number, and then correct the permeability and the Floor Area Ratio calculations. On the stormwater management, they’ve got two issues that were identified in the Staff Notes, parcel area referenced under existing conditions will need to be updated and then soil reference has to be changed. Then, they have to update the signage plan with a Code compliant plan. They need to correct the plantings notation. See Item Six on Drawing SP-1. They have to reflect the proposed dumpster changes on the plan. From what I heard and the lack of the feedback on the Planning Board, I was assuming we would grant the additional parking spaces, but that we wanted the applicant, at least I did, based on Keith’s observation, that the applicant will add bio retention basins for stormwater management in place of what was proposed. The pole mounted fixtures will be 18 feet in height. Final plans will be sealed by a licensed professional engineer. Building colors submitted are acceptable, and the applicant would have to address any outstanding engineering comments, which included, they would have to provide the stormwater narrative, which would mean they’d have to provide the stormwater report, I’m sorry, the SWPPP application, and so they would have to obtain an engineering signoff to get that. So that’s the list. It’s very extensive. I was writing the best I could. There’s so many things with the sign that I just put a Code compliance on the sign plan. So that’s, there’s a lot of outstanding issues. MR. OBORNE-If I could ask the applicant a question. MRS. STEFFAN-Sure. MR. HUNSINGER-Sure. MR. OBORNE-What is the reason that it has to get in the ground in September? Are you going to lose funds because of that? MR. LAPPER-Yes. If the project is not completed and everything and everything spent by next June, they have to give the money back that they haven’t spent. So it’s really, in terms of getting the building permit. 59 (Queensbury Planning Board 7/20/10) MR. JONES-And, you know, part of our dilemma, too, Keith, is that when we established the criteria for the building program for both the Health Center, which is funded through the grant, the pharmacy portion is being funded through a bank loan, if I’m correct. With regard to the budgets that were established, it did not include anything for bio retention, and we were looking at a public monies project that has to be bid with separate prime contracts, prevailing rate, the whole thing, and I’m not trying to dish off and shuck our responsibility, but we’re working under very tight budget constraints. We have a lot of requirements that are being put on us by State Department of Labor, Federal Labor Standards, Federal guidelines for the requirements of everything that has to be complied with with Davis Bacon. So there’s a lot of criteria that has to go into this thing, which really does impact the budget. MRS. STEFFAN-Which is fairly outrageous considering how the Federal government operates. MR. JONES-Yes, I know, and the checklist is just enough to choke a horse, so, you know, I don’t want to put our problems on you guys, but that’s one of the reasons that I’m hesitant with the bio retention. MR. OBORNE-The reason I asked the question is I would be, and I would offer this to the Board, willing to shoulder some of the burden, if, in fact, of the review, if, in fact, there is a justifiable reason as to why this has to be broken in September. MR. PURDUE-One of the challenges that Hudson Headwaters faces is bringing doctors to this area, and we have doctors who we’ve recruited, who are going to be showing up, who we have no place for, and that’s a real pressure for us. We end up cramming them into health centers without enough exam rooms to be productive. We run losses. We’re really a not for profit, capital N on not. So, that’s a real challenge for us. MR. TRAVER-I mean, with all of that, I mean, wouldn’t it have made sense to check the application? I mean, a lot of these issues are really just a matter of looking it over and saying, well, that’s not right, let me make that correct. That information is missing. Let’s see, we’ve got to decide where we want that sign. We have to have a plan, not a proposal of. It just seems. MR. JONES-To defend the signs, what we were looking at is, we weren’t saying we were going to provide them all. We were showing locations that were alternative locations for signage, and, you know. MR. TRAVER-Right, but we’re not looking for a list of possible locations. We’re looking for your plan. MR. JONES-Right, but we’re not looking for a sign permit right now. That’s the thing. We’re looking for a Site Plan Review approval, and I realize that, as part of that, you asked for signage information, but it’s really sometimes premature in regard to what is actually there, and to show a sign, at this point, with potential tenants, I mean, we have a tenant coming in for the pharmacy, and we’re, at this point, not indicating who it is, at their request, but it’s the type of thing where you try to do it in a general fashion, and I know you guys want it to be very specific, and it’s difficult to do that, at some point in time. MR. HUNSINGER-Well, it just needs to be Code compliant. MR. LAPPER-You’re saying the tenant might come in and say they’d rather have the sign over here rather than over there. MR. JONES-Right, and we’re not sure which elevation they want it on, on the tower. MRS. STEFFAN-Well, then they can come back for a modification. That’s an easy thing to do, but if we provide you with an opportunity to do things that are outside of our parameters, then we end up in a situation where we’ve got a problem. MR. JONES-Right, and we’re certainly not asking you to do things that are outside of that. MR. LAPPER-There’s nothing that you’ve mentioned on your list that we can’t immediately do. MR. HUNSINGER-Yes, I mean, they’re not huge issues, but the cumulative effect of the number, you know, human error being what it is, the likelihood of there being a mistake, again, or, you know, something missed, you know, it’s a long list. 60 (Queensbury Planning Board 7/20/10) MR. TRAVER-That was certainly one of my concerns. I mean, based on what I’m seeing of the performance of this initial, preparation of this initial thing. I mean, what if there’s another round of these errors and so on? Then where are we if we don’t have further? MR. LAPPER-Then we won’t get a signoff from Keith and the engineer. MR. JONES-Yes, and, you know, we can’t put this thing out to bid until we have that signoff. So, I mean, the onus is on us to get it done. MR. HUNSINGER-Have you prepared the bid packages yet? MR. JONES-We’re in the process, right now, of doing that. We’re in construction documents. We’re at about 70 to 75% on that. MRS. STEFFAN-It sounds to me like the will of the Board is it gets tabled. MR. HUNSINGER-That’s what I’m thinking, what if we bring them in in August? MRS. STEFFAN-Well, this is exactly what Keith didn’t want. He didn’t want us to expedite something. MR. SCHONEWOLF-Well, we didn’t do anything else yet. MR. OBORNE-It always seems to be tied with Mr. Lapper. MR. LAPPER-But it’s just a coincidence. MR. HUNSINGER-But it’s really not new material, I mean, yes, it has to be reviewed, but it’s really not new material. MR. OBORNE-My suggestion, if you’re going to do that, condition an approval, then, and I’ll shoulder the burden, and Clark will shoulder the burden, and we’ll take care of this, as opposed to having to do that deadline deal all over again. Because it’s going to get in front of you. You’re going to be bumping somebody else off again, where we’re at 22 now again. MR. HUNSINGER-For August? MR. OBORNE-Yes. MR. LAPPER-Keith, we really appreciate your offer. Thank you. MR. OBORNE-Well, it hasn’t been accepted yet. I do agree that a lot of these are, for lack of a better term, ticky tack. There is a perception that this was not looked over with a fine tooth comb, I mean, I agree with that. MR. HUNSINGER-But not on the Town’s, right. MR. OBORNE-No, due diligence wasn’t, again, followed to the tee, and again, human factors in there. For this particular project, and this is, again, this is just from me, is that this is a not for profit, which I think influences quite a bit of my thinking at this point. MR. HUNSINGER-Well, the other problem is, though, you know, from a Board perspective, we review a plan and we see three pages of Staff Notes and engineering comments, and my mindset is, okay, I’m not going to need to make a decision on whether or not a Type B buffer, whether or not I want to require that because I know they’re going to be coming back, and I want to hear the argument for why they’re not going to put one in first, before I make up my mind, and then I want to go out and look at the site again, and consider the comments that have been made this evening. So a lot of it is, you know, when we see a list this long, we’re almost pre- disposed, at least I am, that we’re not going to approve this tonight. So it’s like you have two burdens that you’re bringing forward tonight, you know, not just this long list, but now you have to convince us that, you know, and I think that’s just how we’ve reviewed these projects, and I know I’m not the only one because we’ve said that before with other applicants. Does that make it easier to make a decision? I don’t know. My preference would be to have, and I know it’s more of a burden for Staff, but I guess I don’t quite understand the trade-off, but, you know, my preference would be to have you come back in August, so we can look at this again, but I don’t know if that’s more work or if, you know, 15 conditions and things to review on the back end. MR. OBORNE-It’s a wash, to a certain extent. I think to be proactive is where I was coming from, more than anything. I have to do an extra set of Staff Notes now, if you were to do that, 61 (Queensbury Planning Board 7/20/10) which is not the end of the world, of course, because they’re already made and it’s as simple as saying, complete, addressed and all that other good stuff, but that’s, my offer is still out there. That’s all. MR. HUNSINGER-And I’m not trying to sway the Board by my comments either, because I know you’re going to have your own opinions. MR. KREBS-Yes, I mean, we have a difference of opinion. We’ve discussed this before, I wrote to Keith relative to situations like this, I personally would like to see the whole cycle lengthened so that things could get resolved with the engineer and with Staff prior to coming to the Board meeting, okay. Keith doesn’t agree with me on that, but. MR. OBORNE-It still comes back to due diligence by the applicant. MRS. STEFFAN-Right. MR. OBORNE-That’s the bottom line. MR. KREBS-I agree, but the problem is, if they don’t do the due diligence, and you review it, and there are all these problems, then we shouldn’t put it on the agenda. MR. TRAVER-I agree. MR. OBORNE-I don’t start my review under after the agenda is completed. So this is, you guys are coming in the middle of an issue between Staff and the Planning Board. MR. LAPPER-We understand. MR. HUNSINGER-Which I think will go forever. It’s the nature of the process. It’s no reflection on you. It’s the nature of the process. MR. OBORNE-Absolutely, absolutely. MR. TRAVER-I think it should be noted, too, that we talk about issues when there are apparent problems or problems with timing, and we don’t talk about all the positives in the system that enable us to handle all these applicants. MR. HUNSINGER-That’s true. MR. TRAVER-So you notice when there’s an issue, as opposed to, you know, we take it for granted when things work so well. MRS. STEFFAN-Okay. Let’s make a decision. It’s ten after eleven. Are we tabling it, or are we tabling it to a September date so that they can address Staff Notes, or are we doing a conditional approval? MR. JACKOSKI-I guess, I haven’t spoken on this one yet, either. My thought is, if Keith’s got to go through it and review it anyway, to do additional Staff Notes, he just did what we would want him to do for the conditional. So, why delay it? I mean, it’s a not for profit. There’s jobs involved for the community. I think there’s funding issues. I’m kind of leaning toward a conditional. I agree with you, but then I think, Mr. Lapper, I’m saying, I don’t think we want to be lenient going forward with incomplete and inaccurate applications. I think you need to make sure your applications are really well thought out and correct, that there is a long list here, but I also understand the sense of urgency. MRS. STEFFAN-And I really never thought we’d spend this much time on it, because I was ready to put a tabling motion in place when you got here. MR. JACKOSKI-I think I leaned over to Chris once and said we’re going to table this anyway, right? And he shrugged, but we’re trying to give you the amount of time that’s needed. MR. LAPPER-We appreciate that. MR. SIPP-I think you’re right there, because the thing that I don’t like about it is we set precedent. MR. JACKOSKI-I know, and I think I’m saying to Mr. Lapper, you know, hey, we need them to be cleaner. 62 (Queensbury Planning Board 7/20/10) MR. TRAVER-We’ve talked about this problem again, and again and again. MR. HUNSINGER-Well, one thing about this Board is we make sure we never set precedent. We always make sure there’s all kinds of unique reasons why do stuff. MR. JACKOSKI-I mean, Keith, you know, tonight, should this conditional or not, I mean, you’ve offered two major concessions for you and your staff, and I think that shows a major willingness upon the half of the Staff and the Town for these guys to take on this extra burden. It’s a lot of extra work for these guys. So we thank you. MR. SCHONEWOLF-I can look at both sides of it. On one side, and not being nasty, but it’s somewhat of a sloppy application because there is so much stuff hanging out there. Is it important? Not terrifically. And Keith’s going to get it one way or the other. On the other hand, this is probably one of the more important project’s that’s come through here in the last few months, at least as far as the Town is concerned, and what it’ll do for the Town, the jobs and everything else, and I don’t want to needlessly hold it up just because I want to try to teach you how to put a program together because you guys already know how to do it. It just didn’t quite get done this time. So I would go along with a conditional approval because you are who you are and you’re going to do what you’re going to do, and your track record is pretty good out there. MR. KREBS-Well, I’m willing to go along with a conditional approval, and I would just, I said to her that I would just put down, you need to get Staff approval and engineer approval. MR. OBORNE-The bio retention, too? MR. HUNSINGER-I’ve heard compelling reasons why they can’t do that. MR. KREBS-For the application the way it is. MR. HUNSINGER-I’m just shocked that because you’re taking stimulus money, it has to be Federal wage rates and State wage rates. MR. JONES-It has to be separate primes, the whole bit. MR. HUNSINGER-That’s huge. MR. JONES-You guys probably never reviewed projects that are public monies projects MR. HUNSINGER-Well, I used to. MR. SCHONEWOLF-Well, a lot of not for profits are, yes. MR. HUNSINGER-Well, we do have a public hearing scheduled the evening. I will open the public hearing. Let the record show there’s no one in attendance. Any written comments, Keith? PUBLIC HEARING OPENED MR. OBORNE-No. MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. I think I heard at least four members say they want to move on the conditional approval. So I will seek a motion to close the public hearing. MOTION TO CLOSE THE PUBLIC HEARING FOR SITE PLAN NO. 45-2010 HUDSON HEADWATERS HEALTH NETWORK,, Introduced by Donald Krebs who moved for its adoption, seconded by Paul Schonewolf: th Duly adopted this 20 day of July, 2010, by the following vote: AYES: Mr. Jackoski, Mrs. Steffan, Mr. Krebs, Mr. Traver, Mr. Schonewolf, Mr. Sipp, Mr. Hunsinger NOES: NONE MRS. STEFFAN-Okay. SEQRA. “Does the action exceed any Type I threshold in 6 NYCRR Part 617.4?” MR. HUNSINGER-No. 63 (Queensbury Planning Board 7/20/10) MR. SIPP-No. MRS. STEFFAN-“Will the action receive coordinated review as provided for Unlisted Actions in 6 NYCRR, Part 617.6?” MR. HUNSINGER-No. MR. KREBS-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. TRAVER-No. MRS. STEFFAN-“C2. Aesthetic, agricultural, historic, or other natural or cultural resources; or community or neighborhood character?” MR. HUNSINGER-No. MR. KREBS-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. TRAVER-No. MR. KREBS-No. MRS. STEFFAN-“C5. Growth, subsequent development or related activities likely to be induced by the proposed action?” MR. TRAVER-No. MR. KREBS-No. MRS. STEFFAN-“C6. Long term, short term, cumulative or other effects not identified above?” MR. HUNSINGER-No. MR. TRAVER-No. MRS. STEFFAN-“C7. Other impacts (including changes in use of either quantity or energy)?” MR. TRAVER-No. MR. KREBS-No. MRS. STEFFAN-“Will the project have an impact on the environmental characteristics that caused the establishment of a Critical Environmental Area?” MR. HUNSINGER-No. MR. KREBS-No. 64 (Queensbury Planning Board 7/20/10) MRS. STEFFAN-“Is there or is there likely to be controversy related to potential adverse environmental impacts?” MR. HUNSINGER-No. MR. KREBS-No. MRS. STEFFAN-I’ll make a motion for a Negative Declaration. RESOLUTION WHEN DETERMINATION OF NO SIGNIFICANCE IS MADE RESOLUTION NO. 45-2010, Introduced by Gretchen Steffan who moved for its adoption, seconded by Donald Krebs: WHEREAS, there is presently before the Planning Board an application for: HUDSON HEADWATERS HEALTH NETWORK, and WHEREAS, this Planning Board has determined that the proposed project and Planning Board action is subject to review under the State Environmental Quality Review Act, NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED: 1. No Federal agency appears to be involved. 2. The following agencies are involved: NONE 3. The proposed action considered by this Board is Unlisted in the Department of Environmental Conservation Regulations implementing the State Environmental Quality Review Act and the regulations of the Town of Queensbury. 4. An Environmental Assessment Form has been completed by the applicant. 5. Having considered and thoroughly analyzed the relevant areas of environmental concern and having considered the criteria for determining whether a project has a significant environmental impact as the same is set forth in Section 617.11 of the Official Compilation of Codes, Rules and Regulations for the State of New York, this Board finds that the action about to be undertaken by this Board will have no significant environmental effect and the Chairman of the Planning Board is hereby authorized to execute and sign and file as may be necessary a statement of non-significance or a negative declaration that may be required by law. th Duly adopted this 20 day of, July, 2010, by the following vote: AYES: Mr. Sipp, Mr. Schonewolf, Mr. Jackoski, Mrs. Steffan, Mr. Krebs, Mr. Traver, Mr. Hunsinger NOES: NONE MRS. STEFFAN-Two questions. So we’re not going to go with the bio retention basins. MR. HUNSINGER-No. MRS. STEFFAN-And do we have to put a notation on the interconnect, or is that in the plan? MR. HUNSINGER-Well, it’s shown on the plan. MR. LAPPER-Yes, it’s shown on the plans. MR. JONES-Yes, both interconnects are shown. MR. OBORNE-Yes, I think some language stating that the refuse will be shared by the two properties. Because then you don’t have to go back for a Site Plan modification for the other one. MR. LAPPER-That’s great, if Gretchen heard that. 65 (Queensbury Planning Board 7/20/10) MRS. STEFFAN-I didn’t. I’m doing two things at once. MR. OBORNE-Is to condition the approval, one of the conditions being that the applicant states in writing that the refuse will be shared by the two properties. MR. JONES-I’ll put that on there. MR. OBORNE-Okay. That’s fine. MRS. STEFFAN-Shared by both buildings? MR. OBORNE-Shared by both properties. MR. SCHONEWOLF-Properties. MR. LAPPER-This and the adjacent office building. MR. SCHONEWOLF-Does that include the bio stuff, too? MR. OBORNE-Well, that’s up to them. MRS. STEFFAN-That’s probably good if they’re going to lease the pharmacy to someone else. Okay. I’ll make a motion. MOTION TO APPROVE SITE PLAN NO. 45-2010 HUDSON HEADWATERS HEALTH NETWORK, Introduced by Gretchen Steffan who moved for its adoption, seconded by Donald Krebs: 1 . A site plan application has been made to the Queensbury Planning Board for the following: Applicant proposes 8,052 sq. ft. Health Center with attached 3,016 sq. ft. Pharmacy and associated site work. Health related facilities in the CLI zone require Planning Board review and approval. 2. A public hearing was advertised and held on 7/20/2010; 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. 45-2010 HUDSON HEADWATERS HEALTH NETWORK, Introduced by Gretchen Steffan who moved for its adoption, seconded by According to the resolution prepared by Staff. Paragraph Four A complies. Paragraph Four B is Negative. The applicant has asked for a landscaping waiver from the Type B Landscaping buffer on the lands between the Hudson Headwaters proposed building and the A.C. Rental Homes. We are granting that. a. Pursuant to relevant sections of the Town of Queensbury Zoning Code [Chapter 179-9- 080]], 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 if the application is a modification, the requirements of the State Environmental Quality Review Act have been considered, and the proposed modification[s] do not result in any new or significantly different environmental impacts, and, therefore, no further SEQRA review is necessary; and 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 66 (Queensbury Planning Board 7/20/10) f. Waiver request granted: Type B Landscaping buffer on the lands between the Hudson Headwaters proposed building and the A.C. Rental Homes. g. 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 h. Engineering sign-off required prior to signature of Zoning Administrator. i. 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. j. The applicant must submit a copy of the following to the Town: 1. The project NOI (Notice of Intent) for coverage under the current NYSDEC SPDES General Permit or for coverage under an individual SPDES prior to the start of any site work. 2. The project NOT (Notice of Termination) upon completion of the project; and k. The applicant must maintain on their project site, for review by staff: 1. The approved final plans that have been stamped by the Town Zoning Administrator. These plans must include the project SWPPP (Storm Water Pollution Prevention Plan) when such a plan was prepared and approved; and 2. The project NOI and proof of coverage under the current NYSDEC SPDES General Permit, or an individual SPDES permit issued for the project. l. This is approved with the following conditions: 1.The applicant address and satisfy Staff Notes with the exception of the bio-retention basins, and also that the applicant will address the engineering comments and obtain a signoff. 2.The applicant will also provide Site Plan boring results, and regarding the changes to the dumpster plan, the applicant will state in writing the refuse will be shared by both properties. 3.Also the building colors that have been submitted are acceptable to the Planning Board, and the Planning Board also grants additional parking spaces proposed to 89. th Duly adopted this 20 day of July, 2010, by the following vote: MR. OBORNE-Could I make a suggestion? MRS. STEFFAN-Yes. MR. OBORNE-I think a blanket address Staff Notes and engineering notes should suffice. MR. TRAVER-So then that would include the bio retention. MR. OBORNE-No. I understand the bio retention and the waiver. It is understood that the Board did not go for that. I understand that, and in fact you could say address Staff Notes with the exception of bio retention. MR. KREBS-Yes. MR. OBORNE-Something along those lines. That doesn’t work for me, but. MR. HUNSINGER-And building colors, because they did provide those. MR. LAPPER-Yes. MR. OBORNE-Yes, I mean, as I go down this, it’s going to be bam, bam, bam. MR. JONES-Do we need a waiver for the parking? MR. LAPPER-For the extra spaces. 67 (Queensbury Planning Board 7/20/10) MRS. STEFFAN-You don’t need a waiver. You just need us to acknowledge that it’s okay with us. MR. HUNSINGER-You just need us to approve it. MR. JONES-Okay. MR. OBORNE-I apologize. MRS. STEFFAN-It’s not your fault. MR. HUNSINGER-It is a very nice looking building. MR. LAPPER-And you know what they did next door, and this will compliment it. MRS. STEFFAN-Okay. AYES: Mrs. Steffan, Mr. Krebs, Mr. Jackoski, Mr. Schonewolf, Mr. Sipp, Mr. Hunsinger NOES: Mr. Traver MR. LAPPER-Thanks everyone. MR. HUNSINGER-Thank you. Good luck. MR. PURDUE-Thank you very much. MR. HUNSINGER-You’re welcome. Is there any other business to come before the Board this evening? MR. HUNSINGER-If there’s no other business, I’ll entertain a motion to adjourn. MR. OBORNE-I just want to bring up, before you do that. MR. HUNSINGER-Sorry. MR. OBORNE-I’m sorry. You were stating something about maybe putting some type of a piece of paper together to hand out to applicants for your four tiers, or something along those lines. MR. HUNSINGER-Yes, right. MR. OBORNE-Maybe a committee, that would be a suggestion. MR. HUNSINGER-Isn’t there existing information, though? Don’t you have stuff downstairs? MR. OBORNE-Yes, absolutely, but Don was getting to where it’s a boilerplate. I think that’s where he was going with that. MR. SIPP-You’ve got four pages to that whole section. MR. SCHONEWOLF-Yes, I was going to say, it’s just Section 7 and. MR. SIPP-And it would be very helpful, because, as it was tonight, she didn’t know from beans. MR. OBORNE-And most people don’t. MR. HUNSINGER-Didn’t the Lake George Association or somebody do a nice little drawing that we could hand people? Wasn’t there a brochure, we could just take their name off it. MR. KREBS-I think there is. I’ll have to look. MR. TRAVER-Yes, there is, and they kind of come and go. They come out in different formats. MR. OBORNE-Talk amongst yourselves. MR. KREBS-In fact, he gave us a whole stack, and I think one of those things was what was to be planted. So I’ll look for it and bring it next week. 68 (Queensbury Planning Board 7/20/10) MR. HUNSINGER-I just don’t want to hand out to the public something from, you know, the Water Keeper to make it sound like we’re endorsing. MR. TRAVER-Well, that’s what I was going to say. We’ve had a concern, I mean, if the Town has a list, let’s give them the Town list. MR. HUNSINGER-Exactly. MR. SIPP-179, that’s not the Water Keeper’s list. MR. HUNSINGER-Yes, that’s our list. MR. SIPP-Put that, 179-8 something or other. It’s those four pages which give you alternates for wet, dry, big, small. It would be, I think, helpful. MR. OBORNE-One other issue, and it is an issue, is public comment. What do you want to do? MR. HUNSINGER-Well, we talked about this last month. MR. OBORNE-I’m going to tell you what I don’t want. I would say I’m going to inform you what I don’t want, is I am not going to forward you public comment as it comes in. Because that’s, I can have Pam and Sue doing that all the time. MR. TRAVER-I think as well we’d have to control the format of it, if we’re going to somehow have a mechanism through the Town, that the public can comment, I think rather than let people submit whatever they want, because otherwise we’re going to have posters and we’re going to have, you know, all kinds of information that may, you know, it almost, I think, would have to require perhaps another ad hoc committee, but we’d have to come up with like a form or something that could be available at a meeting that someone, if you want to submit comment and have it be part of the submission, it has to conform to the following guidelines. It can’t be more than 1,000 words. It has to be, whatever, whatever we come up with, but, I mean, we couldn’t just take it raw, I don’t think. MR. OBORNE-Another thing is, if you want it going out with Staff Notes, Staff will, the Town will have to provide those copies, unless the applicant’s providing those copies. MR. HUNSINGER-No, I agree. MRS. STEFFAN-I’m nervous about limiting public comment. I mean, that’s part of the, you know, this is a democratic society and people have freedoms, and we are. MR. HUNSINGER-We’re not limiting public comment. We’re just saying. MR. TRAVER-We’re not limiting public comment. We’re giving them an extra ability to choose to also submit something that’s included with the packet. In addition to what has traditionally been public comment. MRS. STEFFAN-See, I think anybody should be able to provide us with, if they’re going to, as long as they meet the deadline, if the Staff receives it, we should get it. We get letters from many people, some who were here tonight. MR. HUNSINGER-Some people are sophisticated enough, they look us up in the phonebook and send it to us. MR. TRAVER-Yes, at least. I think that we have an existing public comment policy that not everybody likes, but it’s, there’s precedent for it and it works. I mean, we’ve never had an article 78, as far as I know, or there’s never been whatever. So what we’re doing is we’re not restricting public comment. We’re offering people an additional avenue to make comment to the Board, by saying if you want to follow this, you know, here’s the procedure you can follow with, you know, so many words or however we decide, if we decide to do it, here’s a form you can fill out. Get it in to the Town by, you know, the second week of the month or whatever it is. If you want it not only, any comment will be part of the record, but if you also want it to go out as part of the packet, then it has to be X, Y, and Z and we’ll give you this additional ability that you don’t, as a resident, you don’t currently have. MRS. STEFFAN-But the difficulty with that is just the same difficulty that Keith has. If an application deadline, for example, the September meetings, the application deadline is August th 16. So the application comes in, and if we give the public the same deadline, then they can’t even review the package before they submit comments. So most comments are going to come 69 (Queensbury Planning Board 7/20/10) in a week before the meeting, when it’s posted in the newspaper, and then people’s interest gets peaked. So in my mind, as long as the document gets to Staff before the Staff Notes go out, then it’s reasonable to forward it with the package. MR. HUNSINGER-That’s what I think, too. MRS. STEFFAN-After that, it’s unreasonable. MR. OBORNE-I think keep it simple is the way to go. MR. SCHONEWOLF-You’re just building an audience of troublemakers if you do what you, you know, if you let them come in later after the public notice. MRS. STEFFAN-And, you know, it happens so infrequently in my mind, we’ve had a couple of higher profile situations lately. So we have gotten more public comment, but in the past, how often has it happened? I mean, we don’t get a ton of public letters. MR. TRAVER-I think that that timing is good, but I would still recommend that we have, that we specify the format, if it’s going to go out in Staff Notes. MR. OBORNE-Well, I think we need to flesh this out a bit more, and when you get to the point where it’s fleshed out, I would prefer a resolution to that effect. MR. HUNSINGER-Yes. No, well, what I had suggested last month was we include it in our Policies and Procedures. MR. OBORNE-Absolutely. So that may be a workshop. MR. HUNSINGER-Yes, and post those on the Internet, you know, on the Town’s website, you know, so that people can look it up and know this is the policy. MR. OBORNE-Absolutely, and I know it’s 11:30 now, it’s probably not the time to really be trying to flesh anything out, but I did want to get it on the radar screen, even though I know it’s on the radar screen, but let’s get it closer to the center. MRS. STEFFAN-Well, it’s an issue for you guys. You’re juggling enough. MR. HUNSINGER-Yes. You’re caught in the middle, and it’s like you can’t win right now. MR. OBORNE-I want to be able to point to something and say, hey, it’s right there. MR. KREBS-Here’s the policy. Yes. I agree. MR. HUNSINGER-I agree. MRS. STEFFAN-I also think, as a Planning Board, we need to do a better job. If we believe that an application has to be tabled, if we’re doing our prep, and we’re coming into the meeting and believing that an application should be prepped, should be tabled, we need to put a motion forth and just extinguish it, because we shouldn’t be here until 11:30 at night. MR. JACKOSKI-I think this is a great example, because I did lean over to Chris during this one, this last one, and said we’re going to be tabling. My inclination was this was going to get tabled based on what was going on. So do we go through all of that, or do we cut them off at the pass? MR. TRAVER-That’s the problem. MR. HUNSINGER-That’s the thing. Yes. MR. TRAVER-If we jump on it and say, well, let’s table it, then the applicant is going to say, look, I got my staff together and I came to this meeting because I expected to be heard. Now you’re not going to let me explain, have an answer, and we go through two hours of, you know, here’s what I didn’t do and here’s why I didn’t do it, and now you’re going to help me complete my application. MR. OBORNE-I think you have to allow them to do that. I think that that’s the problem. MR. TRAVER-Yes, once they get to this room. MR. OBORNE-But for them to come in and give you a piece of paper is totally different. 70 (Queensbury Planning Board 7/20/10) MR. KREBS-Do you allow a guy from the public to come in and do what that guy did tonight and say, say he’s representing a client when he really isn’t? I think that’s completely out of line. I would have shut him right down. Because he’s not representing a client. The customer wasn’t even here, the client wasn’t here, because he wanted to table it. MRS. STEFFAN-But how do we know that? MR. TRAVER-Yes, I mean, that’s not our job. MR. SCHONEWOLF-We asked him last time when he was here who he was representing, and he refused to tell us. AUDIENCE MEMBER-He’s representing the guy that has the land all the way around that and wants that. MR. SCHONEWOLF-No, he’s not. I’m not sure he is. MR. HUNSINGER-We shouldn’t be talking about that. MRS. STEFFAN-We shouldn’t be talking about that application. MR. KREBS-I don’t think you should be able to do that. If you come up here, you can ask questions, you’re a member of the public, but if you come and say, if I come up and say I’m representing somebody, I’m lying to you guys, and that’s not. MR. OBORNE-I guess just to get focused a little bit more, I mean, just to get back on track as far as public comment, how do you want me to handle it this cycle until we codify it? Do you want me to go ahead and send out any public comment that’s associated with the Planning Board in my Staff Notes? MR. HUNSINGER-If it comes in in time then you can include it with Staff Notes, yes. MRS. STEFFAN-If it comes in before the Staff Notes go out, I think it should be included. MR. OBORNE-Could you do me a favor and slam a resolution out that effect, real quick, just saying, for this cycle, this cycle of August, any public comment that comes in, please send out with the Staff Notes. MR. HUNSINGER-Well, I think what we ought to do is make that the policy until we come up with a more definitive policy. I’ll make a motion. MOTION THAT, UNTIL THE PLANNING BOARD COMES UP WITH A MORE DEFINITIVE POLICY, THAT ANY PUBLIC COMMENTS IN LETTER FORM THAT COMES INTO THE OFFICE BEFORE STAFF NOTES GO OUT THEY BE INCLUDED WITH THE BOARD PACKAGE, Introduced by Chris Hunsinger who moved for its adoption, seconded by Gretchen Steffan: th Duly adopted this 20 day of July, 2010, by the following vote: MR. TRAVER-Point of discussion. We don’t even have a definition for public comment, and I think we’re setting up a dangerous precedent here, because if we accept somebody’s public comment, and then we have somebody else send in public comment that includes something that we decide isn’t public comment, but is rather some media format, or some material that we decide is not really part or maybe it’s inconvenient to include it. MR. OBORNE-How about in letter form, then. MR. HUNSINGER-Public comment, letter form. MR. TRAVER-That’s better. MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. Point well taken. Thank you. AYES: Mr. Traver, Mr. Krebs, Mrs. Steffan, Mr. Jackoski, Mr. Schonewolf, Mr. Sipp, Mr. Hunsinger NOES: NONE 71 (Queensbury Planning Board 7/20/10) MR. HUNSINGER-I’ll entertain a motion to adjourn. MOTION TO ADJOURN THE QUEENSBURY PLANNING BOARD MEETING OF JULY 2010, Introduced by Stephen Traver who moved for its adoption, seconded by Gretchen Steffan: th Duly adopted this 20 day of July, 2010, by the following vote: AYES: Mrs. Steffan, Mr. Krebs, Mr. Traver, Mr. Jackoski, Mr. Schonewolf, Mr. Sipp, Mr. Hunsinger NOES: NONE On motion meeting was adjourned. RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED, Chris Hunsinger, Chairman 72