Loading...
2010.11.16 (Queensbury Planning Board 11/16/2010) QUEENSBURY PLANNING BOARD MEETING FIRST REGULAR MEETING NOVEMBER 16, 2010 INDEX Subdivision No. 8-2005 Mountain Hollow HOA 1. FOR FURTHER TABLING Tax Map No. 300.-1-19 Site Plan No. 28-2010 Leslie Grasso 2. FOR FURTHER TABLING Tax Map No. 226.19-1-39 Site Plan No. 39-2010 Inwald Enterprises 3. FOR FURTHER TABLING Tax Map No. 227.17-1-16 Site Plan No. 68-2010 Adirondack Retirement Specialists 4. ZBA RECOMMENDATION Tax Map No. 296.20-1-55 Special Use Permit No. 64-2010 Matthew Sokol 6. ZBA RECOMMENDATION Tax Map No. 301.8-1-17, 18 Site Plan No. 70-2010 9099 Corporation 10. ZBA RECOMMENDATION Tax Map No. 296.17-1-38 Subdivision No. 14-2010 Michele McKee 14. SKETCH PLAN Tax Map No. 303.20-1-10 Subdivision No. 7-2009 Ernest Burnell 16. Freshwater Wetlands 4-2010 Tax Map No. 271.-1-21 Site Plan No. 50-2008 French Mt. Forest, LLC 20. Tax Map No. 265.-1-28 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 11/16/2010) QUEENSBURY PLANNING BOARD MEETING FIRST REGULAR MEETING NOVEMBER 16, 2010 7:00 P.M. MEMBERS PRESENT CHRIS HUNSINGER, CHAIRMAN GRETCHEN STEFFAN, SECRETARY THOMAS FORD DONALD KREBS PAUL SCHONEWOLF DONALD SIPP STEPHEN TRAVER LAND USE PLANNER-KEITH OBORNE STENOGRAPHER-MARIA GAGLIARDI MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. I’ll call to order the meeting of the Town of Queensbury Planning Board on Tuesday, November 16, 2010. The first item on the agenda is approval of minutes th from September 21, 28, and 30. Would anyone like to make a motion? APPROVAL OF MINUTES September 21, 2010 September 28, 2010 September 30, 2010 MOTION TO APPROVE THE MINUTES OF THE QUEENSBURY PLANNING BOARD STTH MEETING OF SEPTEMBER 21, 28, AND 30, 2010, Introduced by Thomas Ford who moved for its adoption, seconded by Stephen Traver: th Duly adopted this 16 day of November, 2010, by the following vote: AYES: Mr. Traver, Mr. Krebs, Mrs. Steffan, Mr. Ford, Mr. Schonewolf, Mr. Sipp, Mr. Hunsinger NOES: NONE MR. HUNSINGER-We have three items under Administrative Items. ADMINISTRATIVE ITEMS: FOR FURTHER TABLING CONSIDERATION SUBDIVISION 8-2005: MOUNTAIN HOLLOW HOA TABLED TO 11/16/10; APPLICANT REQUESTING TO BE TABLED TO DECEMBER 2010 MR. HUNSINGER-The applicant has asked to be tabled to December. MRS. STEFFAN-Keith, do you have the materials for that? MR. OBORNE-I have nothing. I would prefer, or advise the Board, to table it to January at this point. MR. HUNSINGER-Yes, because they missed the deadline. Okay. Let’s see. I don’t have the January calendar in front of me. MRS. STEFFAN-I did. thth MR. HUNSINGER-Either the 18 or the 25 would be the normal meeting dates. MR. SCHONEWOLF-What day do you want? MR. OBORNE-I have no preference whatsoever. 1 (Queensbury Planning Board 11/16/2010) MRS. STEFFAN-Okay. Then I’ll make a motion. MOTION TO TABLE SUBDIVISION NO. 8-2005 MOUNTAIN HOLLOW HOA, Introduced by Gretchen Steffan who moved for its adoption, seconded by Stephen Traver: West Mountain Road [Tax Map ID 300.-1-19] 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. On 7/20/2010 the application was tabled to 9/28/2010; and On 9/28/2010 the application was tabled to 11/16/2010; and MOTION TO TABLE SUBDIVISION NO. 8-2005 MOUNTAIN HOLLOW HOA, Introduced by Gretchen Steffan who moved for its adoption, seconded by Stephen Traver: th Tabled to the January 18 Planning Board meeting. Deadline for any new materials submitted th will be December 15. th Duly adopted this 16 day of November, 2010, by the following vote: AYES: Mr. Traver, Mr. Sipp, Mr. Ford, Mrs. Steffan, Mr. Schonewolf, Mr. Krebs, Mr. Hunsinger NOES: NONE MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. The next one is Site Plan 28-2010. SITE PLAN 28-2010: LESLIE GRASSO TABLED TO 11/16/10; NO NEW INFORMATION SUBMITTED MR. HUNSINGER-No new information was received, Keith, anything from the applicant? MR. OBORNE-No, no new information was received, and, as with previous applications, if you could direct Planning Staff to send a letter to inform the applicant that if materials are not th submitted by December 15, that the Board will deny without prejudice. MR. HUNSINGER-We didn’t do that previously? MR. OBORNE-No, you did not. MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. MR. SCHONEWOLF-There’s a problem with the purchase of the lot. MR. HUNSINGER-Yes. No, I know there’s some issues there. So would anyone like to move that? MOTION TO TABLE SITE PLAN NO. 28-2010 LESLIE GRASSO, Introduced by Gretchen Steffan who moved for its adoption, seconded by Thomas Ford: South end of Forest Road [Tax Map ID 226.19-1-39] The applicant proposes construction of a 3,085 +/- sq. ft. 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; and On 5/18/2010 the application was tabled to 7/20/2010; and On 7/20/2010 the application was tabled to 9/28/2010; and On 9/28/2010 the application was tabled to 11/16/2010; and To date no new information has been submitted on behalf of the applicant; and 2 (Queensbury Planning Board 11/16/2010) MOTION TO TABLE SITE PLAN NO. 28-2010 AND FRESHWATER WETLANDS 2-2010 LESLIE GRASSO, Introduced by Gretchen Steffan who moved for its adoption, seconded by Thomas Ford: th Tabled to the January 18 Planning Board meeting. Submission deadline for new materials th would be December 15. If no new materials are received by that date, the Staff is directed to send a letter to the applicant letting them know that we will deny without prejudice. th Duly adopted this 16 day of November, 2010, by the following vote: AYES: Mr. Ford, Mr. Schonewolf, Mr. Sipp, Mr. Traver, Mr. Krebs, Mrs. Steffan, Mr. Hunsinger NOES: NONE MR. OBORNE-If I could, just to make sure that the Board is aware, I’m going to send that letter out tomorrow. MR. HUNSINGER-Right. MR. OBORNE-Not after I receive any materials. MR. HUNSINGER-Understood. MR. OBORNE-Okay. MRS. STEFFAN-Okay. AYES: Mr. Ford, Mr. Schonewolf, Mr. Sipp, Mr. Traver, Mr. Krebs, Mrs. Steffan, Mr. Hunsinger NOES: NONE MR. HUNSINGER-The next one is Site Plan 39-2010. SITE PLAN 39-2010: INWALD ENTERPRISES [P B RECOMMENDATION TO ZBA ND FOR 2 VARIANCE REQUEST] TABLED TO 11/16/10; NO NEW INFORMATION SUBMITTED MR. HUNSINGER-I see no new information. MR. OBORNE-No new information. We have been in contact with the applicant and the applicant’s agent and they are preparing documentation. So I don’t think a letter to the form of th what Leslie Grasso’s was is warranted at this point, but a January 18 tabling would be. MRS. STEFFAN-Okay. MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. MOTION TO TABLE SITE PLAN NO. 39-2010 INWALD ENTERPRISES, Introduced by Gretchen Steffan who moved for its adoption, seconded by Donald Krebs: 38 Gunn Lane [Tax Map ID 227.17-1-16] Site Plan: Applicant proposes to construct a boathouse with sundeck accessed by handicap access ramp above two existing docks. Area Variance: Accessory structure > 100 square feet within shoreline and sideline setbacks. Planning Board to provide written recommendation to the Zoning Board of Appeals; and On 6/24/2010 the application was tabled to 8/17/2010; and On 8/17/2010 the application was tabled to 9/28/2010; and On 9/30/2010 the applicant was tabled to 11/16/2010; and To date no new information has been submitted on behalf of the applicant; and MOTION TO TABLE SITE PLAN NO. 39-2010 INWALD ENTERPRISES, Introduced by Gretchen Steffan who moved for its adoption, seconded by Donald Krebs: 3 (Queensbury Planning Board 11/16/2010) th Tabled to the January 18 Planning Board meeting. Submission deadline for new materials is th December 15. th Duly adopted this 16 day of November, 2010, by the following vote: AYES: Mr. Krebs, Mrs. Steffan, Mr. Traver, Mr. Ford, Mr. Schonewolf, Mr. Sipp, Mr. Hunsinger NOES: NONE MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. The next three items are Planning Board recommendations to the Zoning Board of Appeals. PLANNING BOARD RECOMMENDATION TO ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS: SITE PLAN NO. 68-2010 SEQR TYPE II ADIRONDACK RETIREMENT SPECIALISTS AGENT(S) ETHAN HALL, RUCINSKI HALL ARCHITECTS OWNER(S) JAY K. WASSERMAN ZONING CI LOCATION 351 BAY ROAD APPLICANT PROPOSES RENOVATIONS TO FORMER DENTAL OFFICE FOR NEW USE AS PROFESSIONAL OFFICE. SITE PLAN: EXPANSION OF OFFICE USE IN THE CI ZONE REQUIRES PLANNING BOARD REVIEW AND APPROVAL. AREA VARIANCE: RELIEF REQUESTED FROM FRONT, REAR AND TRAVEL CORRIDOR SETBACK REQUIREMENTS. FURTHER, RELIEF REQUESTED FROM DRIVE AISLE WIDTH REQUIREMENTS. CROSS REFERENCE AV 57-10 WARREN CO. PLANNING 11/10/2010 LOT SIZE 0.19 +/- ACRES TAX MAP NO. 296.20-1-55 SECTION 179-9 JON LAPPER & ETHAN HALL, REPRESENTING APPLICANT, PRESENT MR. HUNSINGER-Keith, do you want to summarize Staff Notes, please. MR. OBORNE-Absolutely. Site Plan 68-2010 and Area Variance 57-2010, Adirondack Retirement Specialists. Requested action is a recommendation to the Zoning Board of Appeals concerning the relief requested in the variance application, as well as potential impacts of this project on the neighborhood and surrounding community. Location is 351 Bay Road, it’s Commercial Intensive zoning. It’s a Type II SEQRA. Project Description: Applicant proposes renovations to former dental office for new use as professional office. Expansion of office use in the CI zone requires Planning Board review and approval. Staff comments: The site is located on the corner of Bay Road and Glenwood Avenue west of Lowes. The applicant proposes to reconfigure traffic flow on site to include dedicated parking for staff accessed off of Bay Road to with client parking accessed off of Glenwood Avenue. An increase in permeability is proposed as well as new landscaping. Two entrances are planned and it is these structures that require setback relief from the Zoning Board of appeals. Further, a wheelchair lift is proposed for the northern entrance. Nature of the Area Variance is as follows One, travel corridor setback- Request for 52 feet 9 inches of relief for the proposed southern vestibule and 32 feet 0 inches relief for the proposed northern entrance. Front setback, same, request for 52 .9 inches of relief for the proposed southern vestibule and 45 feet 2 inches of relief proposed for the northern entrance as per Section 179-3-040. Rear setback-request for 2 feet 6 inches of relief for the proposed northern entrance. Four, Drive Aisle Width-request for 10 feet 6 inches of relief for the western drive aisle and 9 feet 6 inches of relief for the eastern drive aisle, and finally, relief requested for the expansion of a non-conforming structure. I’ll skip over Site Plan Review because we’ll hit that up on Thursday. Additional Comments: Just for informational purposes, the parcel is located in excess of 300 feet from Halfway Brook. The applicant has requested waivers for stormwater management and grading. As a reminder to the applicant, all new lighting must be downcast and cutoff. Fire Marshal comments attached, and with that I’d turn it over to the Board. MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. Thank you. Good evening. MR. LAPPER-Good evening, everyone. For the record, Jon Lapper and Ethan Hall. Before we get started, I understand there is some demolition going on at Exit 19 which we’re all responsible for, and I know Dan Stec stopped calling me every day asking when it was going to start. So that was a good sign. It’s all positive. We hope that you see this application tonight as a simple one, as we do. It’s a pre-existing, nonconforming situation. The entire building is within the 75 foot Bay Road Travel Corridor setback, which means that you can’t do anything without a variance. When Dr. Wasserman operated his business here for all this time, it was a very busy office, with a lot of parking, and this particular use, financial planning, is the opposite, where there would probably be two clients there at any time, small staff. So really low traffic generator, kind of the only type of business that you could get onto this site. What we tried to do, well, Ethan completely re-did the architecture. It’s just a very tired, dated building, but also removing that old entrance onto Bay Road, which was obviously built when Bay Road was not a 4 (Queensbury Planning Board 11/16/2010) five lane thoroughfare on this side, east side facing Lowes, and this whole project is really just to add this handicap ramp for the entrance from the parking lot for their clients. We tried to look at the traffic situation and cut off so there’s not a cut through on both sides. We do need to retain both curb cuts because it’s such a small site, and we’re only, we’re proposing seven spaces, but right now cars can drive through to cut the intersection and go through the parking lot and that won’t be possible after the parking lot is cut down. In terms of stormwater, by removing the entrance on the Lowes side and the stairs on the other side, it’s actually less impermeable than it is now. So it’s being improved, and also Ethan reduced the size of the curb cut. Right now it’s wide open onto Bay Road as well. So the design is that the employees only would use the two spaces on the Bay Road side, and the customer, clients would use the other side, and there is shared pavement with the mailing center next door onto Glenwood. So that’s really it. We didn’t have a lot to work with, but we really are just trying to modernize it, upgrade it, and make it work on this site. Let me hand it over to Ethan to go over some of the details. MR. HALL-Thanks, Jon. It’s really, as Jon said, it’s a really tight lot. The 75 foot front yard setback on both Glenwood Avenue and Bay Road pretty much make this an unbuildable lot, as it stands. The existing building has a set of stairs that come off the back which are 14 foot 11 inches off of the rear yard, and there is an existing front porch which is no longer utilized, and would not intend to be utilized. The sidewalk doesn’t connect or anything. So it’s our intent to pull that off and not try and attract any attention to the Bay Road side of the building. That having been said, the nature of their business, they do have elderly people that come to the office quite often and they need to have a handicap accessible building. That’s the reason for us having to put this addition on the back of the building, and we’re pretty much just squaring off the rear corner to do that. As we do that, we’re going to put the handicap lift in, a set of stairs in, and an entry way, and currently there’s a shed roof off the back of that building that sheds towards the Mailings Made Easy building. It’s our intent to put a trussed roof over the top of that and make it into a hipped peak that’s more in keeping with the hip roof that’s on the main building and try and keep the architecture matching. At the same time we would take the building and add some additional siding materials to it, similar to what I’ve got shown here. There would be an update of horizontal siding on the bottom. We put a freeze board at the story line which would line up with the new roofline, and then the upper portion of the building would be shakes of some sort to kind of break that feel up. There’s not a whole lot we can do with the building but we’re just trying to modernize it a little bit and get rid of the eight inch aluminum siding and bring it at least somewhat closer to what is exemplary. MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. Questions, comments from the Board? MR. TRAVER-What, if any, stormwater management is going on on the site currently? MR. HALL-Everything right now runs down that front entry, the driveway into Bay Road, and it’s collected in the Bay Road storm basins. Everything else on the back of the site. It’s just a flat site, runs off onto the grass on the sides of the drive aisles. By adding this, by taking and making the curb cut smaller, we reduced the amount that’s going out that way, and we’re cutting off the overall drive through area. So we’re adding impervious surface in there. So we stop a lot of that that’s running down through there out onto the Bay Road corridor. Give it a chance to get into the ground at that area. MR. TRAVER-Thank you. MR. HUNSINGER-So is there a curb that defines the parking areas, then? MR. HALL-Proposed? MR. HUNSINGER-Yes. MR. HALL-It’s just the edge of the blacktop. It’s not, there won’t be any raised areas. It’s just, we’re taking away, it’s a straight shot through. We’re going to cut that off, put plantings in the middle so that there’s no chance of being able to just drive right straight through it anymore. MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. MR. FORD-This is a positive plan. I like the looks of it. I think it’s a nice improvement for that site. Good job. MR. SCHONEWOLF-It’s the best you can do with what you’ve got. MR. HUNSINGER-Any other questions or comments from the Board? 5 (Queensbury Planning Board 11/16/2010) MRS. STEFFAN-I have a couple of Site Plan recommendations, but they’ll be Thursday night. Nothing for the Zoning Board. MR. HUNSINGER-Would anyone like to put forward a recommendation? MOTION THAT THE PLANNING BOARD MAKES A RECOMMENDATION TO THE ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS, FOR AREA VARIANCE NO. 57-2010 FOR ADIRONDACK RETIREMENT SPECIALISTS, Introduced by Gretchen Steffan who moved for its adoption, seconded by Thomas Ford: Whereas, the applicant has submitted the following: Applicant proposes renovations to former dental office for new use as professional office. Site Plan: Expansion of office use in the CI zone requires Planning Board review and approval. Area Variance: Relief requested from front, rear and Travel Corridor setback requirements. Further, relief requested from drive aisle width requirements; and 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 THAT THE PLANNING BOARD MAKES A RECOMMENDATION TO THE ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS, FOR AREA VARIANCE NO. 57-2010 FOR ADIRONDACK RETIREMENT SPECIALISTS, Introduced by Gretchen Steffan who moved for its adoption, seconded by Thomas Ford: According to the resolution prepared by Staff. The Planning Board, based on a limited review, has not identified any significant adverse impacts that cannot be mitigated with the current project proposal. th Duly adopted this 16 day of November, 2010, by the following vote: AYES: Mr. Ford, Mr. Schonewolf, Mr. Sipp, Mr. Traver, Mr. Krebs, Mrs. Steffan, Mr. Hunsinger NOES: NONE MR. LAPPER-Great. Thank you. MR. HUNSINGER-You’re all set. MR. HALL-See you Thursday. MR. HUNSINGER-Before I introduce the next item, Site Plan 64-2010, the applicant is a member of the Warren County Board of Supervisors, and as an employee and department head, I report to the committee that he serves on. So to avoid any appearance of any impropriety, I will abstain from any discussion on this item, and Brad is going to take my seat on the Board for the discussion, and I will turn the floor over to Mr. Traver. SPECIAL USE PERMIT NO. 64-2010 SEQR TYPE II MATTHEW SOKOL AGENT(S) MATTHEW F. FULLER, ESQ. OWNER(S) DONALD & LUCYNA SOKOL ZONING NC LOCATION 340 AVIATION RD., SOKOL’S PLAZA APPLICANT PROPOSES A FOOD SERVICE USE IN AN EXISTING SHOPPING PLAZA. SITE PLAN: FOOD SERVICE USE IN THE NC ZONE REQUIRES A SPECIAL USE PERMIT AND PLANNING BOARD REVIEW AND APPROVAL. AREA VARIANCE: RELIEF REQUESTED FROM MINIMUM PARKING SPACE AND PERMEABILITY REQUIREMENTS. CROSS REFERENCE BP 2010-460, AV 58-10 LOT SIZE 1.3 & 0.87 +/- ACRES TAX MAP NO. 301.8-1-17, 18 SECTION 179-9, 179-10 MATT FULLER, REPRESENTING APPLICANT, PRESENT; MATT SOKOL, PRESENT MR. TRAVER-Thank you, Mr. Chairman. MR. OBORNE-Acting Chairman, would you like me to read in the notes for the record? 6 (Queensbury Planning Board 11/16/2010) MR. TRAVER-Yes, thank you. MR. OBORNE-Special Use Permit 64-2010 and Area Variance 58-2010. Applicant is Matthew Sokol. Requested action is the same as before. It’s a recommendation to the Zoning Board of Appeals. Location is 340 Aviation Road. Existing zoning is NC or Neighborhood Commercial. It’s a Type II SEQRA. Project Description: Applicant proposes Food Service Use in an existing shopping plaza. Food Service Use in the NC zone requires a Special Use Permit and Planning Board review and approval. Staff comments: The proposal calls for a 44 seat restaurant/bar with outside seating. The applicant is requesting waivers from the following: Lighting, location of utility systems, stormwater plans, topography, landscaping, land use boundaries, perc rates, waste plans, and snow removal requirements. Nature of Area Variance are as follows: Permeability-Request for a reduction from an existing permeability of 22.4% down to 20.6% or an additional 1,782 square feet of impermeable surface. Note: This variance is specifically for the proposed future parking spaces located to the northeast. Minimum Parking-Request for parking space amount minimum requirements. The site requires, according to Code, 126 spaces, existing is 97 plus 11 future spaces if needed. Total request is for 18 spaces. What follows is Site Plan Review, and just pretty much additional issues with comments. I will say, for clarity purposes, you’re dealing with the applicant proposing 11 additional parking spaces but not installing them until we can figure out how the site’s going to work. They may not need to install them, but they may need to install them. So we went ahead and advised them to go ahead and submit that plan, and with that I’d turn it over to the Board. MR. TRAVER-Thank you. Good evening. For the record, Matt Fuller from Fitzgerald Morris, and I’m here with Matt Sokol. Keith summarized it, I think, pretty well. The idea here is to use some currently vacant space, not all the vacant space, but some of the currently vacant space in the plaza, for a food service establishment. Just a little bit of background. Many of you know the plaza. The Sokol family has owned and operated that plaza since 1974. I won’t tell you how that lines up with me being here. About that same year I was born. Don’t use it against me. From then until now obviously Queensbury has changed and especially that side of Town. Started out with 4,000 square feet back then and moved it up to 11,000, and then in the early 80’s added the retail space that you see there. Through this time, like a lot of small markets, they’ve competed with the Wal-Marts, the Price Rites, Price Choppers, Hannafords. Right across the street Stewarts coming right into their backyard, but I think with this side of Town, when I look at it, you know, west of the Northway, the majority of the Town’s housing stock is west of the Northway, but the majority of our food service is east of the Northway. So, you know, when Matt first approached me with the idea and we got talking about it, I was actually a little enthusiastic because I think they’re going to do quite well there. That got us into coming down and meeting with Keith and Craig, and talking about the plaza and the project. Tenants have come and gone in there for years. They’ve got some good stable tenants, but they’ve had vacancies like any plaza, and now with the current Code, when you come back for a new tenant like that, you need Site Plan approval and you’ve got to meet the new zoning, and one of the things that we got kicked right into was the parking, and Keith summarized that well. The intent right now is certainly not to add parking. That’s the hope, but I think a good comment that Keith and Craig had is let’s take a look at it, and if the use of the plaza and the parking use grows, and you do have an opportunity to add spaces, show them where you could add them. That, of course, kicked us over into permeability. You add impervious surface, you need a variance for that. So we were betwixt and between. So what we’ve done is taken the plaza, evaluated the space that’s there, the Sokols Market, the bank, the pizza plaza, the hair salon, and even the vacant retail space. We used what would be the most aggressive or the highest requirement for the parking in that zone, with the retail space, and showed that, and that’s what we did the calculations on, to deal with the variances, because we don’t want to have to come back, if they get a new tenant, then we don’t have to come back for variances every time. We may need Site Plan approval, but we won’t have to deal with variances every time, so that the data that we’ve presented, and the numbers that Keith gave you, do take that into account, the retail space, which I think, again, is one of the higher requirements in that zone. So that leaves us with the parking variances that we need. I think I can flip that over. We also gave you a proposed layout, for the Special Use Permit, of the actual space itself. This is kind of how it’s going to look in here, with the dining area, bar seating area, small kitchen to the back here, bathrooms to Code, and there’s a cement pad that’s out behind it, pad area that could seat outdoor seating in the summer, in the warm months. Obviously it’s not intended to be year round out there. We’re not going to try to cover it with anything to make it year round. So that’s the intent out there. We also did an informal parking study, but actually I think a pretty good one. They asked me what I they thought we should do. I said, take a look at it for a week, you know, let’s get an idea really of what the parking is, get somebody out there at different times of day, snap some shots and do some parking counts, and I think that gives you a pretty realistic, and anybody that’s been in there during the day knows that your times ebb and flow with spaces in there. So, again, I think that this use is complimentary, certainly to that side of Town. I think it’s going to be successful. I’ll probably be there myself, and I think that, overall, parking behind the plaza here along Dixon and then the parking out front along Aviation should be satisfactory. As far as the variances 7 (Queensbury Planning Board 11/16/2010) requested, that’s really because there’s no exterior improvements or changes. We’re not looking to, they did that a couple of years ago. You may remember when they refreshed and upgraded the facades out there. The planting areas that are in there now, along Aviation Road broke that up, so that people weren’t just cutting in and out like they used to. So those improvements are there, and exterior wise, again, not looking to make any improvements in that regard, and if I’ve missed anything or you’ve got any questions. MR. TRAVER-I noticed in your package you talk about the use of the existing parking. Much of it is daytime, and therefore when this business would be operating, there’d be a lot more available parking. I think that’s a good point. I also noticed that you’re advocating for a permanent Special Use Permit, and you should probably be aware that this Board doesn’t often issue those. Not to say that we wouldn’t, but in the Staff comments, there’s a reference to two employees associated with the restaurant needing parking. That seems a little small, does it not? MR. SOKOL-No, I can probably address that. One of my partners, if you will, has 20 years experience in the bar/restaurant, and he feels very comfortable with being a cook, if you will. He’s going to have a little frialator back there, an oven. Nothing fancy like having a chef just yet. We’re only dealing with a matter of 1100 square feet. MR. TRAVER-Right, and 44 seats, I think. MR. SOKOL-And 44 seats. So, our intent is to utilize him in the kitchen area, as well as having a wait staff. MR. TRAVER-Okay. So, I mean, if you have him, you have, say, a bartender and you have somebody waiting tables, I mean, that’s already up to three. MR. SOKOL-Tops three. Exactly. MR. FULLER-And I think the other idea Matt and I talked about, too, is that one of the employees, at times, is going to come from Sokols. So when the Market’s closed and down for the night, an employee from there will come down. MR. TRAVER-So somebody will already be parked there that’s going to be, yes. Okay. MR. FULLER-But, yes, it’s a fine line. MRS. STEFFAN-Well, and sometimes part-time staff gets dropped off and they don’t have a car in the parking lot. MR. TRAVER-Right. MR. FULLER-And with that neighborhood, too, but, yes, no, we caught that question. MR. TRAVER-Okay. Thank you. Any other members of the Board have anything? MR. FORD-For the eating area, do you anticipate any noise abatement program? I notice you have a dinning area. MR. FULLER-Is there a typo on there? That’s the teacher right there, the educator letting us know we have a typo. MR. FORD-I assume it’s probably a dining area as opposed to a dinning area. MR. SOKOL-Yes, it is. MR. FULLER-Yes, no dinning areas. No indoor entertainment or anything like that. We had that discussion with Craig. You’ve crossed the line into other uses when you do that. So that’s, you know, it’s a simple eating establishment really. MRS. STEFFAN-Well, certainly the package that you put together was helpful, because you even put a menu in there. So, you know, you’ve provided all the big picture information I think we need to make a decision. Certainly we’re making a recommendation to the Zoning Board tonight, but, you know, I happen to think that it’s a great use for that site. Since the daycare center went out, you know, the lot has been pretty empty. Certainly the last week I have been looking at traffic. I go by there several times a day, and I’m not worried about the parking. Certainly you’ve got a plan for future parking, if you need it, but I don’t think you’re going to need it, and even with 40 seats or up to 50 seats, most people will go in a group. A family of four will 8 (Queensbury Planning Board 11/16/2010) maybe go together. That’s one car, and so I just don’t think the parking issue is going to be an issue at all. MR. OBORNE-Well, do keep in mind that the Code does state it’s one per four chairs. You brought up about the timing of different uses. You know, certainly the pizza shop will be open until mid evening, nine or so, and the hair salon, maybe the liquor store closes later hours during the week, but the bank and the supermarket I think are the big ones that, you know, would tend to cause the in and out parking, and I think the hours just complement one another with that plaza. I mean, it’s, instead of having vast amounts of parking, it’s complementary to utilizing the existing parking, which I think more plazas need to do. BRAD MAGOWAN, PLANNING BOARD ALTERNATE MR. MAGOWAN-Well, you have all the parking up on Dixon Road, too, and as many times as I’ve been up and down that road, I’ve never seen that completely full, even when the daycare was there. MR. FULLER-Right. I think that’s where you’re going to see the employees, for a lot of the uses in the plaza. If it does start to fill up, encourage them to use that back parking and then the front stay open for patrons, of all the businesses, not just the theirs. MR. FORD-I think you’re going to find that it’ll meet a real need in that area of the community. MRS. STEFFAN-And there’s plenty of vacant space next door it looks like. MR. SIPP-Where is the proposed snow removal? Where’s the area for the snow removal that may or may not be needed? MR. SOKOL-Well, with last year’s winter obviously we didn’t have to worry about it as much, but off here is usually where everything gets plowed. I have, in the past, with extreme snowfalls, especially two years ago, when we had dumped on Valentine’s Day, it was three feet. I actually had to have some removed. I have a pay loader, a gentleman who works for me, who takes that away as well. As soon as it becomes an issue, we have it taken away, but this area over here, pushed out as far, there are some rock barriers in between our place and Dr. Burkich’s. So once that gets filled up, we usually have it taken away, or they just load it up higher. MR. SIPP-Are you planning any further landscaping? MR. SOKOL-Not in that area. MR. FULLER-Not a lot of exterior changes, again, but the parking is solely so that we can accommodate additional spaces if we need them. MRS. STEFFAN-Well, and I certainly think all the façade changes that they made a few years ago just made the center look great. I mean, it improved that section of Town remarkably. MR. MAGOWAN-Yes, the only concern was, like I said, you know the feeling is, you know, once the snow gets so high, you know, having the septic system over there, is where you’d be pushing the snow, and it looks like you’ve got it right out there at the end, and that comes off of those three corners or Suzanne’s the proposed and the vacant? MR. SOKOL-Suzanne is the only one that is on that one. MR. MAGOWAN-On that one? Okay. And then the other one right behind it, along the hedgerow. Along the property line, you have another existing septic system. MR. SOKOL-There are actually two of them over here. One is in the concrete area, and then there’s another one in the play mulch area. So there are actually two back there. The one back here is mostly for the daycare center and the restaurant, proposed restaurant if you will, and then the other one in the mulch area drains actually all of these, and there is no snow that goes over here, nothing gets piled up over in the back of this area. MR. MAGOWAN-Yes. No, I was more worried up there, you know, for the future parking spaces, you know, because that would just be a little bit more further in, you know, over. MR. SOKOL-Right. MR. MAGOWAN-But I don’t think really parking would, I don’t see a huge issue at all. 9 (Queensbury Planning Board 11/16/2010) MRS. STEFFAN-Well, and those are Site Plan issues as well. We’ll talk about those on Thursday. MR. TRAVER-And we’re actually not addressing the Special Use Permit tonight, is that correct? MR. OBORNE-That’s correct. All you’re here for is a recommendation to the Zoning Board of Appeals. MR. TRAVER-Okay. Anyone have any other questions or concerns related to the relief that they’re asking for for our recommendation to the Zoning Board? Okay. MRS. STEFFAN-So I’m not hearing that there’s any issues related to the ZBA decision. MR. TRAVER-Nor am I, right. MRS. STEFFAN-Okay. Well, then I’ll make a recommendation. MOTION THAT THE PLANNING BOARD MAKES A RECOMMENDATION TO THE ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS, FOR AREA VARIANCE NO. 58-2010 FOR MATTHEW SOKOL, Introduced by Gretchen Steffan who moved for its adoption, seconded by Thomas Ford: Whereas, the applicant has submitted the following: Applicant proposes a Food Services Use in an existing shopping plaza. Site Plan: Food Service Use in the NC zone requires a Special Use Permit and Planning Board review and approval. Area Variance: Relief requested from minimum parking space and permeability requirements; and 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 THAT THE PLANNING BOARD MAKES A RECOMMENDATION TO THE ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS, FOR AREA VARIANCE NO. 58-2010 FOR MATTHEW SOKOL, Introduced by Gretchen Steffan who moved for its adoption, seconded by Thomas Ford: According to the resolution prepared by Staff. The Planning Board, based on a limited review, has not identified any significant adverse impacts that cannot be mitigated with the current project proposal. th Duly adopted this 16 day of November, by the following vote: AYES: Mr. Magowan, Mrs. Steffan, Mr. Sipp, Mr. Schonewolf, Mr. Krebs, Mr. Ford, Mr. Traver NOES: NONE MR. TRAVER-Okay. We’ll see you Thursday. MRS. STEFFAN-We’ll see you Thursday. Did the Planning Board read the engineering comments that we got this evening? MR. OBORNE-Yes, that’s, I do have a few handouts there, obviously, and one is the engineering comments, which I got late and could not get them out to you. So they’re before you now, the three projects. MRS. STEFFAN-Okay. SITE PLAN NO. 70-2010 SEQR TYPE II 9099 CORPORATION AGENT(S) MELISSA LESCAULT OWNER(S) HIP YAU LING & OTHERS ZONING CI LOCATION 909 STATE ROUTE 9 APPLICANT PROPOSES A CHANGE IN USE FROM A RESTAURANT TO A RETAIL USE. SITE PLAN: RETAIL USE IN A CI ZONE REQUIRES PLANNING BOARD REVIEW AND APPROVAL. AREA VARIANCE: RELIEF REQUIRED FROM NUMBER OF PARKING SPACES DRIVE AISLE WIDTH REQUIREMENTS. CROSS REFERENCE AV 59- 10 (Queensbury Planning Board 11/16/2010) 10 WARREN CO. PLANNING 11/10/2010 LOT SIZE 1.41 +/- ACRES TAX MAP NO. 296.17- 1-38 SECTION 179-9 MELISSA LESCAULT & LUCAS DOBIE, REPRESENTING APPLICANT, PRESENT MR. HUNSINGER-Keith, whenever you’re ready to summarize Staff Notes. MR. OBORNE-Yes. Site Plan 70-2010, Area Variance 59-2010, 9099 Corporation. Again, this is a recommendation to the Zoning Board of Appeals. Location 909 State Route 9. Existing zoning CI or Commercial Intensive. This is a Type II SEQRA. Project Description: Applicant proposes a change in use from a restaurant to a retail use. Retail Use in a CI zone requires Planning Board review and approval. Staff comments: The proposal is located in what was the Flower Drum Song Restaurant on the corner of the State Route 9 and Weeks Road. The applicant proposes to modify the building to house a Wine and Liquor store. The applicant proposes two modifications concerning traffic; one will be to close the northern most curb cut fronting Route 9 to control site ingress and the other will be a proposed 27 foot wide interconnect with the Wal-Mart ring road to funnel traffic to the traffic light. This inter-connect was approved as part of Site Plan 25-2003, the Wal-Mart expansion. I do want to make light of this following comment. A letter from Wal-Mart indicating their intent to complete or allow the completion of the portion of the inter-connect on their lands should be submitted prior to construction. Nature of the Area Variance . We’re looking at two. One is drive aisle width- Request for 3.1 feet of relief for the northeast parking lot approach, and two is minimum number of parking spaces-Request for a reduction of 11 spaces; 35 are require, 24 are proposed, as per 179-4-090. Additional comments: New York State Department of Transportation sign-off for proposed right-of-way work should be submitted prior to the issuance of a building permit. Again, signage should be code compliant. Engineering review is attached, and again, I want to emphasize, a letter from Wal-Mart indicating their intent to complete or allow the completion of the portion of the inter-connect on their lands should be submitted prior to construction. With that, I’d turn it over to the Board. MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. Thank you. Good evening. MS. LESCAULT-Good evening. Melissa Lescault from McPhillips, Fitzgerald & Cullum, and I’m here with Lucas Dobie from Hutchins Engineering. We’re here on behalf of 9099 Corporation, that is doing business as Monty’s Discount Wine and Liquor, and also present is the property owner, Monty Liu. As you’re aware that this property was the Flower Drum Song Restaurant, and the applicant is seeking to change the current use of that property to a wine and liquor discount store. There are absolutely no structural changes that is being proposed with respect to this project. We are not planning on proposing any additional impervious surfaces with respect to this project. Basically as the site exists, the parking area is in non-conformance. It may actually allot for a grandfathered number of parking lots that would be according to Code. However, their separation distances do not qualify pursuant to your Code. So we have proposed a plan that allows for 24 parking spaces, pursuant to the square footage of this building, we’re supposed to have 35 parking spaces. So we’re here seeking a variance for those 11 parking spaces. As you know, your Code requires a nine foot wide parking space, as well as a 20 foot deep parking space. So we have one variance for that 24 parking spaces, and then the second variance that we’re requesting is for the separation clearance distance when you back and reverse out of the parking spot to the next distance, which is, in our case, a curb cut, not, because it’s backing up into a car. So I’m just going to go through our map for you. So, on our site, we have, this is the structure. This is Route 9. Over here is Wal-Mart. We’re proposing 15 new spots right here, one parallel space here, three spaces here, and then we’ve got two handicap spaces right here with basically a loading zone here for the handicap spot, and then these three spaces right here are new as well. So, when you count all the orange, we’ve got 24 spots, okay, and we need the 35. What I’ve done is I’ve highlighted in blue the handicap area. What I would like to do is call your attention to the fact that this is the ramp to the structure. So it could be possible, I guess if you wanted to move our handicap spaces over here. However, because of the loading right here, the ramp for the handicap spaces, we’d prefer to keep it on this side of the building because of the slope of the property. If we were to move it down here, then you’d have to actually go up slope to have access for handicap accessibility. So, with that, our separation clearance distance here to this curb is 19.5 feet, okay, and you need 24 feet. So we’re shy four and a half feet with respect to that one, and then with respect to this space here, it’s 20.9 feet. So we’re 3.1 feet with respect to that clearance distance. Again, it’s backing into a curb. It’s not backing into additional parking, which I think is one of the concerns that you have with respect to your Code and that’s why there’s such a great distance. That is with respect to just the parking. There are obviously other things that we’re doing with respect to this site, which we can go into detail with you on, but I didn’t know if that would, you know, we’d wait until Thursday with respect to that. I’ll briefly mention, we are closing off an entrance here from Route 9, and then opening an interconnect with Wal-Mart, but I’ll go into detail with that. If you want us to go into detail tonight we can. I would like to just 11 (Queensbury Planning Board 11/16/2010) briefly go over the balancing test with you. The variance will not have a detriment, obviously, to any of the nearby properties. It does abut Wal-Mart, which is a highly commercial property. There’s significant parking there. It is along Route 9. So there is heavy traffic. I don’t think that granting a variance for 24 spots will make a difference with respect to the neighborhood in that area. The alternatives, we don’t feel it’s going to be necessary to have more than 24 spots with respect to this site. It would be great for the liquor store if they needed more than 24 spots. However, we would like to keep the green space that sits behind the structure, so as to not increase the impervious area of that parcel. With respect to an alternative for the clearance width, I did go over that with you, as to why we like to keep that handicap accessibility spots to the, along the Route 9 corridor there, because of the fact that we’d like them to have to go down slope as opposed to up slope to get to that ramp for the access to the building. Are these variances substantial? Well, with respect to the demand of more than 24 spots for this particular use, I don’t believe it’s realistic that we’ll have a demand of more than 24 spaces. I also don’t believe that a 19% variance with respect to the clearance distance is substantial as well. So I think that they’re diminimus variance requests. Will the variances have an adverse effect on the physical or environmental conditions? Actually we believe we’re improving the condition of this property in order to bring it into more compliance as opposed to the current situation which actually has a distance of eight feet between each parking space. So, from our opinion, we’re actually bettering the situation for that project, for that site. Is it self-created? Yes, again, you could look at this that it is self-created. However, we do feel as though it is an improvement to the property site, and that it will be more conforming, as opposed to less non-conforming. So that would complete my presentation with respect to this. Certainly if you have any questions on the site, feel free to ask myself or Lucas. MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. Questions, comments from the Board? MR. SCHONEWOLF-Well, I would just make sure that you hear what Keith said about the ring road. We’ll need to have that in writing. We’re not doing too good with ring roads this year. So we’d like to get that one down. MS. LESCAULT-Okay. MR. HUNSINGER-Do you anticipate any problems with Wal-Mart? MS. LESCAULT-You know what, we haven’t reached out to Wal-Mart, but let me address that. I do know that a few years back, in their Site Plan Review, and I don’t know if the Board remembers this. I remember it obviously because we’ve looked at the plans. In their plans, it says that they are conditioned, upon their approval, to grant this property access. So certainly if they’d denied it we’d have a very interesting situation with Wal-Mart, but we’re definitely going to reach out to them and recognize that that would be a condition for our approval. MR. OBORNE-If I could expand on what Melissa’s saying. She’s 100% correct. It is part of a condition of the Site Plan, it was on the Site Plan. It wasn’t necessarily a condition of approval, but it’s on the Site Plan. The only issue that Community Development has is to make sure that Wal-Mart is on board to allow you to work on their property. That’s really the issue. If they don’t want that interconnect, they have to come back for Site Plan Review, then. They have to modify their Site Plan if they’re not going to allow that interconnect. MR. HUNSINGER-Yes. We kind of put Wal-Mart through the ringer on that site, and they made some major concessions with Ray Supply, and so I would imagine that they would try to avoid that again. MR. OBORNE-I would hope. MS. LESCAULT-Well, I’m actually hoping that our proposal will entice them. MR. HUNSINGER-Yes. MR. FORD-Do you have an anticipated time for reaching out to them as you say? MS. LESCAULT-Actually, Monty’s going to go tomorrow. MR. FORD-I was hoping you would say that. MS. LESCAULT-No, actually we did discuss that and he’s going to reach out to a manager that he knows there to get me in contact with someone who’s, you know, that I can communicate with on this. MR. FORD-Thank you. 12 (Queensbury Planning Board 11/16/2010) MR. HUNSINGER-Other questions, comments? MR. KREBS-I like the idea of going into the ring road and coming out at the traffic light. I think that’s important. MRS. STEFFAN-Yes, I think that’ll make it much easier, and it is, you know, it’s going to be difficult. Unfortunately our cars keep getting bigger. So the, you know, the variance that you need, it’s difficult. The turning radius is difficult if you’ve got a big truck or if you’ve got big, long car, but, you know, it is the nature of the situation, and, you know, for smaller cars, no big deal, but for a bigger car, they may have a little more trouble turning around, but again, it’s not that they’re going to be backing into another parking space. It’s going to be a curb. So there’s a little more freedom than you would have if it was another parking space. So I could be okay with it. MR. KREBS-Plus the fact I’ve never gone back by Mohan’s when there’s been more than like three or four cars. MRS. STEFFAN-Just holidays. MR. HUNSINGER-I was going to say, you haven’t been there on the holidays. MR. KREBS-On average. That’s what I said, when I go to Price Chopper, I don’t notice. MR. HUNSINGER-Exactly. Well, I think the advantage of this site is, you know, a couple of years down the road, you’re very successful, you have the ability to add more parking on site and come back for Site Plan modification if you need to. So there is some back up ability in that respect. MR. KREBS-And if you look at Monty’s other projects, I’m sure there’s adequate parking, because he’s not going to turn a customer away. MR. HUNSINGER-Any other questions or comments from the Board? I do have Site Plan questions that we can talk about Thursday. MS. LESCAULT-Okay. That’s fine. MR. HUNSINGER-Tree plantings especially, but I’m not hearing concerns from the Board about the number of parking spaces. MRS. STEFFAN-I guess I would just like to say, when you come back on Thursday, I would like to go through the Staff Notes item by item, because there’s a lot of outstanding questions that we have to answer, so we’ll probably go through those one at a time. So if you’re prepared to answer all those, we’d be in a much better place. MS. LESCAULT-Okay. MRS. STEFFAN-Okay. So as far as the Zoning Board recommendation, I’ll put forth the recommendation. MOTION THAT THE PLANNING BOARD MAKES A RECOMMENDATION TO THE ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS, FOR AREA VARIANCE NO. 59-2010 FOR 9099 CORPORATION, Introduced by Gretchen Steffan who moved for its adoption, seconded by Stephen Traver: 909 State Route 9 [Tax Map ID 296.17-1-38] Whereas, the applicant has submitted the following: Applicant proposes a change in use from a restaurant to a retail use. Site Plan: Retail Use in a CI zone requires Planning Board review and approval. Area Variance: Relief required from number of parking spaces drive aisle width requirements; and 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 13 (Queensbury Planning Board 11/16/2010) 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 THAT THE PLANNING BOARD MAKES A RECOMMENDATION TO THE ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS, FOR AREA VARIANCE NO. 59-2010 FOR 9099 CORPORATION, Introduced by Gretchen Steffan who moved for its adoption, seconded by Stephen Traver: According to the resolution prepared by Staff. The Planning Board, based on a limited review, has not identified any significant adverse impacts that cannot be mitigated with the current project proposal. th Duly adopted this 16 day of November, by the following vote: AYES: Mr. Traver, Mrs. Steffan, Mr. Krebs, Mr. Ford, Mr. Schonewolf, Mr. Sipp, Mr. Hunsinger NOES: NONE MRS. STEFFAN-Okay. We’ll see you on Thursday. MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. Good luck. Yes. MONTY LIU MR. LIU-Thank you. MR. HUNSINGER-You’re welcome. SKETCH PLAN REVIEW: SUBDIVISION NO. 14-2010 SKETCH PLAN SEQR TYPE UNLISTED MICHELE MC KEE AGENT(S) DARREN MC KEE OWNER(S) KATHLEEN & TERRY MARCANTONIO ZONING CM LOCATION 11 HIGHLAND AVENUE APPLICANT PROPOSES SUBDIVISION OF A 9.63 +/- ACRE INTO TWO LOTS OF 1.0 +/- ACRES AND 8.63 +/- ACRES. SUBDIVISION OF LAND REQUIRES PLANNING BOARD REVIEW AND APPROVAL. CROSS REFERENCE NONE FOUND LOT SIZE 9.63 +/- ACRES TAX MAP NO. 303.20-1-10 SECTION CHAPTER A-183 DARREN MC KEE, REPRESENTING APPLICANT, PRESENT MR. OBORNE-Subdivision 14-2010 for Michelle McKee, requested action is a Sketch Plan Review. 11 Highland Avenue is the location. This is in the CM zone, Commercial Moderate. SEQRA Status is N/A at Sketch. Parcel History: There has been none found. Project Description: Applicant proposes to subdivide a 9.89 +/- acre parcel into two residential lots ranging in size from 1.0 to 8.63, and they’re actually not two residential lots. Staff comments: The applicant proposes, again, to subdivide. The residential use exists on the parcel with the proposed one acre lot to be utilized for a car lot with office and resulting 8.89 acre lot to continue as residential, and here, again, we’re here for Sketch Plan, and I’d turn it over to the Board at this point. MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. Good evening. MR. MC KEE-How are you? I’m Darren McKee, agent and husband of Michelle McKee, who’s the owner of the business, and Tony Marcantonio, the current owner of the property. So we’re looking to subdivide this property into two parcels, one to be 8.89 acres, the other to be 1, which would meet the subdivision requirements for lot size. Basically what was stated, we want to put a car lot there. Currently at 473 Dix Avenue and looking to purchase this property and move the car lot to that location. At this point, we don’t think there’s any issues as far as subdivision, problems, as far as we may look at, no need for any variance. I have additional comments here given to me, or mailed to us recently, which are some, you know, ingress and egress of the proposed site there at the intersection. As you may have seen before, it’s right at the corner of, kind of at the corner of Highland and Dix. Speaking with DOT, they’ve recommended moving the entrance to that property all the way to the, if you’re facing the property to the left side of that, up Dix Avenue. Actually I have a map done that shows the proposed entrance, but that moves it to the far left of the property, and allows for a much safer entrance and exit of that property. MR. HUNSINGER-So when you say left, you mean west? MR. MC KEE-That’s correct. 14 (Queensbury Planning Board 11/16/2010) MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. MR. MC KEE-Yes. I’m sorry. There’s been some, or the necessity of having the wetlands delineated, we’re in the process of getting that set up through Bill Rourke, who is the surveyor on the property, and so that will be taken care of here very shortly. Also endangered species documentation and so forth that needs to be taken care of which will be done as well. So, pretty basic from my standpoint anyway, subdivision application. So if there’s any other questions or anything, or if Terry’s got anything else. MR. HUNSINGER-Questions comments from the Board? I had a very general question. When we look at the tax map that you submitted, are all of those small lots, individual lots that are shown? Across Dix Avenue, 117, 116 and 115, are those separate lots? TERRY MARCANTONIO MR. MARCANTONIO-Yes, let me introduce myself. Terry Marcantonio. My wife and I, Kathleen, have just recently purchased this property and I do have the full sized scale survey here from Mr. Rourke, and it’s 9.4 acres total. I mean, granted they’ve etched in those little lots, but the 9.4 is the whole, all of it, and there’s a paper, I believe a paper street called Rainville Road that’s not existing, it’s there but obviously not being paved or anything, but it’s there, and it’s all one piece, 9.4. Any questions? MR. HUNSINGER-So were those lots previously subdivided? MR. MARCANTONIO-No, not that I’m aware of. I’ve spoken to Mrs. Powers, Natalie Powers, they were the prior owner, and she was, no subdivision or anything that I’m aware. I’ll be glad to speak to her again, and go from there, but I don’t believe so. I believe it’s all one parcel. MR. HUNSINGER-Yes, actually that one shows it as one. MR. MARCANTONIO-Yes. MR. OBORNE-I think those are ghosted in, is what there is. The paper street is obviously to access those lots, an expansion of that neighborhood, but I’m sure they ran into some issues there, ledge or something, who knows. MR. MARCANTONIO-It’s an interesting story, because my wife is good friends with the Powers family, and they go back to the history of the home and the lot and the usage of many years ago, and she’s bringing up some history books on the house and it’s interesting, it’s a nice project. It’s a good piece of property. I think it’s going to be something that’s going to be an eyeful eventually and I hope you see that. Thank you. MR. HUNSINGER-Yes. Questions, concerns? I mean, obviously we’ll have the same concern that DOT and Staff did about the line of sight and the access, and, you know, ingress and egress. MR. OBORNE-And I will say that buffering issues may come into play because you’re dealing with a retail use, car lot in this case, and the property to the east is a residential use, so that is a Type C buffer, that’s a 50 foot buffer, and you’re going to have to mull that over, too, as a Board. MR. HUNSINGER-Were you aware of that, the buffer requirement? MR. MARCANTONIO-Yes. No, I’m aware of the buffer requirement. If anyone on the Board has gone by the property, I mean, you’ll see it’s pretty well grown up and between that house, and of course I’ll honor their privacy. I’m sure I would, as if I lived there myself, and I’m very aware of that. MR. HUNSINGER-Sure. Okay. MRS. STEFFAN-I’m just, I’m in agreement with the DOT that the access had to be moved down. That “Y” intersection is a blind turn, and so it’s, the visibility is very poor there. So, that’s really the only recommendation. They have to, you know, the Staff Notes are comprehensive in that there’s some things that we need, certainly to review for Site Plan, but that area is just becoming very commercial. MR. MARCANTONIO-If I may make a note, I don’t know if any of the members have been by the property. We’ve cleaned that up because of that. We’ve gone into the driveway, you know, cleaned up the house, and if you’ve gone by the property and see the brush has been cleaned up and removed, that’s for the safety of coming out that driveway. We’ve noticed that, because 15 (Queensbury Planning Board 11/16/2010) many people, and a high majority seem to come through that, that stop area. They don’t really stop where they’re supposed to, and then they’re looking the other way. So we cleaned up that fence up in front of that home. I’m going to light that home up, too, from the outside, so people will, that’ll open up that whole corridor, and fortunately, you know, as I talked to Mrs. Power she unfortunately was telling me all the different accidents down the road and all this, and I said fortunately we haven’t had any, and we will not have any, because we’ll clean that up, light it and get some lighting in there, and people will stop where they’re supposed to. MR. HUNSINGER-Anything else from the Board? I guess we’re all set for this evening. MR. MARCANTONIO-Thank you. MR. HUNSINGER-You’re welcome. MRS. STEFFAN-Okay. We’ll see you when you submit your plans. OLD BUSINESS: SUBDIVISION NO. 7-2009 FINAL STAGE FRESHWATER WETLAND 4-2010 SEQR TYPE UNLISTED ERNEST BURNELL AGENT(S) NACE ENGINEERING OWNER(S) SAME AS APPLICANT ZONING RR-3A LOCATION 419 STATE ROUTE 149 APPLICANT PROPOSES SUBDIVISION OF A 34.22 +/- ACRE LOT INTO 4 LOTS RANGING IN SIZE FROM 3.0 TO 21.06 +/- ACRES. SUBDIVISION OF LAND REQUIRES PLANNING BOARD REVIEW AND APPROVAL. CROSS REFERENCE AV 43-10 LOT SIZE 34.22 +/- ACRES TAX MAP NO. 271.-1-21 SECTION CHAPTER A-183 TOM CENTER, REPRESENTING APPLICANT, PRESENT MR. HUNSINGER-Whenever you’re ready to summarize Staff Notes, Keith. MR. OBORNE-Sure. Just a note for the Board, Paragon Engineering comments are part of your handout tonight. Subdivision 7-2009, Ernest Burnell is the applicant. This is Final Stage Subdivision review. This is an Unlisted. A Neg Dec was approved on 8/24/2010. This is in the RR-3A zone and the location is 419 State Route 149. Again, Project Description: Applicant proposes subdivision of a 34.22 +/- acre parcel into four residential lots ranging in size from 3.0 to 21.26 +/- acres. What follows is soils and Staff comments. I believe the Board is pretty much up to speed on this one, being that we did the Long Form a couple of months ago. The only issues I believe would be to have a condition of approval stating that Site Plan Review is required for these lots, and from there any engineering issues certainly can be worked out, and with that I’ll turn it over to the Board. MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. Thank you. Good evening. MR. CENTER-Good evening. MR. HUNSINGER-If you could identify yourself for the record. MR. CENTER-Tom Center, Nace Engineering, applicant’s engineer. This is Mr. Ernest Burnell, the owner of the parcel. MR. HUNSINGER-Did you have anything else to add? MR. CENTER-We’ve looked at the Staff comments and the engineer’s letter, his comments, in particular the two that regard the 25 year design storm stormwater management. I believe we’ve provided the Stormwater Pollution Prevention control plan for the erosion and sediment control for the site, and as we talked in previous meetings, and I believe in the, talking with Mr. Nace, in the preliminary, having each individual lot come back for Site Plan Review, I believe the best place to address the stormwater management for the driveway portions and the homes is during the individual lot stormwater development. That way we’re not going through an exercise for the main driveway of, you know, linear feet of infiltration trench or ponds, and the road may not go there. If all these lots are coming back, we would have no problem with a condition that when it comes back for individual lot Site Plan Review. Providing that documentation is very easy to do. We’ve got good soils. We know we’re away from the, you know, wetlands, any issues that are there that would preclude us from taking care of the stormwater, and that’s probably the best place to do it in the individual lots when we know exactly where these houses and the driveways are going, and we can address the 25 year design storm and do it, you know, once. MR. FORD-It makes sense to me. 16 (Queensbury Planning Board 11/16/2010) MR. HUNSINGER-Yes, I mean, I was a little surprised with the letter that came back from Paragon. I mean, my comments, when we were here for Preliminary, is that there were some minor engineering comments, and they didn’t seem to be real consistent with the August. MR. CENTER-There’s some new and old Code issues, some multiple layers within the stormwater, when you get through it, and the Stormwater Pollution Prevention Plan. When you get into residential lots only and disturbance less than five acres, you don’t have to get into the water quality controls and the stormwater. You have to just provide for erosion and sediment control. So that’s what this SWPPP in particular addresses erosion and sediment control. The individual lots will address the stormwater issues for the driveways, the houses, and there’s no Town road also. So there’s not a huge disturbance of land, and stormwater to manage. It’s more or less a wider residential driveway for emergency access, and that. So there’s some new Code issues that we’re still working out between everybody. MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. One of the Staff comments is regarding the 50 foot radius of slopes equal to or greater than 15%, and what we had talked about, as a condition of approval, is to state that, you know, no homes shall be constructed within 50 feet of a 15% or greater slope, and then of course it would be verified during Site Plan Review. MR. CENTER-Exactly. Yes, sir. MR. OBORNE-Mr. Chairman, if I could comment. MR. HUNSINGER-Yes, go ahead, Keith. MR. OBORNE-Just to recycle what Tom’s saying about the engineering comments, and I’m certainly not speaking for Clark. I’m not going to do that. MR. HUNSINGER-We won’t let you. MR. OBORNE-Thank you, but knowing how he ticks, to a certain extent, I think that if any plan is offering up a stormwater device, in this case an infiltration trench, you’d want to show the methodology, and I think that’s all he’s looking for is that you come up with the sizing. MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. MR. OBORNE-That’s all, and I just want to make that clear. MR. HUNSINGER-Yes. I think that helps make sense of the comments. MR. OBORNE-Right. MR. FORD-Thanks, Keith. MR. OBORNE-I didn’t want to leave him out, hanging out to dry. MR. HUNSINGER-Yes. MRS. STEFFAN-So individual Site Plan Review, though, for each lot, as it’s developed, will handle that issue. MR. OBORNE-If the Planning Board does not have any issue with what Mr. Center is saying, that’s fine, I don’t, either, to be honest with you, then there’s really no requirement for an engineering signoff on this, because you’re going to have to have an individual engineer signoff for each lot. Just keep in mind we’re doing a subdivision here, lines on paper. MR. HUNSINGER-Yes. Previously, though, we were only talking about Site Plan Review for Lots Two and Four, not all four of them. MR. OBORNE-Right, and he wants to see it for all four, at this point, is what his notes say. MR. CENTER-Two, three and four out of the four. Lot One is an existing. MR. HUNSINGER-Right. Lot One is existing. MR. CENTER-Lot One is existing. So it would be two, three, and four, so we’d be including one additional lot. 17 (Queensbury Planning Board 11/16/2010) MR. HUNSINGER-Yes. Okay. MR. OBORNE-Yes, I think the applicant, you don’t have a problem with that? MR. CENTER-No. MR. OBORNE-Okay. MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. MRS. STEFFAN-Chris, you said no homes will be constructed on slopes greater than, was it 15 or 20% you said? MR. HUNSINGER-No homes shall be constructed within 50 feet of 15% or greater slope, and that’s basically what Keith had said in his comments. MR. OBORNE-Well, a home can be constructed. They just have to come in for Site Plan Review. That’s the intent, is to have you all look closer at it, if it’s constructed near slopes of those magnitudes. MR. HUNSINGER-Right. MR. CENTER-So if we’re coming back for all of them, does that condition require that, if I’m reading you right, the Code says that if we construct a house within 50 feet of the 15% slope, you have to come to Site Plan Review. MR. OBORNE-That is correct. MR. HUNSINGER-SO I guess what you’re saying is that we don’t really need that condition because we’re requiring you to come in anyway. MR. CENTER-Is if we’re bringing all three of these lots back for Site Plan Review, then we can discuss those issues at the time, and we’ll have a better design of the house. We’ll know exactly what the folks want to build. We’ll know where it’s going. We’ll know what the stormwater issues are, and take it from there. MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. All right. Then I guess really the only special condition is Site Plan Review for each of the three lots. MR. CENTER-All three lots, Lots Two, Three, and Four. MRS. STEFFAN-There was a question on, in the Staff Notes, Page S-3, Number Three, proposed 50 foot wide future access located on Lot Three appears to be located through the leachfield. MR. CENTER-Right, and we’ve moved that. That was moved at Preliminary to the, it would be the south side of that parcel instead of the north side, if you look at, where it says Lot Three and then you go to the right, that 50 foot, that access is moved to the north side. It was here and it’s moved. We did that during Preliminary to address that comment, and that’s just interconnecting and the other projects. It’s really, there’s nothing in mind. That came up during Sketch, I believe. That was a condition during Sketch, I think, that was brought up. So all we did is we moved it over to the opposite side of the property line. MR. OBORNE-I still see it on here, though. I still see it. We’re talking Lot Three? MR. CENTER-Lot Three. You see the disturbance which is a double dashed line that goes around the parcel for that proposed house, but the 50 foot wide access, I can show you the final, these are the final ones. MR. OBORNE-Yes, I’m looking at S-2. I see what you did here. I was looking at S-2, it still shows it. MR. CENTER-S-2 is on the wrong one? Okay. The surveyor didn’t change it on this drawing. MR. OBORNE-Okay. I didn’t catch that. All right. MR. CENTER-When they updated the contours, that didn’t get moved over. So we’ll move that over. 18 (Queensbury Planning Board 11/16/2010) MR. HUNSINGER-Yes, you’ll need to correct the drawing on S-2. MR. CENTER-Yes, to match this. MR. HUNSINGER-Anything else? There’s no public hearing. This is Final. So if there’s no other comments or concerns, I think the only condition is to update the drawing. MRS. STEFFAN-And then Site Plan Review. MR. HUNSINGER-Right, Site Plan Review. MRS. STEFFAN-Okay. MOTION TO APPROVE FINAL STAGE SUBDIVISION NO. 7-2009 & FRESHWATER WETLANDS PERMIT NO. 4-2010 ERNEST BURNELL, Introduced by Gretchen Steffan who moved for its adoption, seconded by Stephen Traver: 419 State Route 149 [Tax Map ID 271.-1-21] A subdivision application has been made to the Queensbury Planning Board for the following: Applicant proposes subdivision of a 34.22 +/- acre lot into 4 lots ranging in size from 3.0 to 21.06 +/- acres. Subdivision of land requires Planning Board review and approval; and A public hearing was scheduled and held on 8/24/2010 & 9/30/2010; and This application is supported with all documentation, public comment and application material in the file of record; and MOTION TO APPROVE FINAL STAGE SUBDIVISION NO. 7-2009 & FRESHWATER WETLANDS PERMIT NO. 4-2010 ERNEST BURNELL, Introduced by Gretchen Steffan who moved for its adoption, seconded by Stephen Traver: According to the resolution prepared by Staff. Paragraph A complies. a)Pursuant to relevant sections of the Town of Queensbury Zoning Code [Chapter A-183], the Planning Board has determined that this proposal complies with the requirements as stated in the Zoning Code; and b)The requirements of the State Environmental Quality Review Act have been considered and the Planning Board has adopted a SEQRA Negative Declaration; and c)Final approved plans, in compliance with the Subdivision, must be submitted to the Community Development Department before any further review by the Zoning Administrator or Building and Codes personnel. The applicant must meet with Staff after approval and prior to issuance of Building Permit and/or the beginning of any site work. Subsequent issuance of further permits, including building permits is dependent on compliance with this and all other conditions of this resolution; and d)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 e)As-built plans to certify that the subdivision is developed according to the approved plans to be provided prior to issuance of the certificate of occupancy; and f)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 g) 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. 19 (Queensbury Planning Board 11/16/2010) h) This is approved with the following conditions: a) That Site Plan Review will be required for each lot as it is developed on Lots Two, Three and Four. b) The second condition is that the applicant will modify Drawing S-2 to match S-3 regarding Lot Three and the 50 foot wide future access. c) It is the opinion of the Planning Board that the outstanding engineering comments will be addressed during the Site Plan Review of each of the three lots as they’re developed. Duly adopted this 16th day of November 2010, by the following vote: MR. OBORNE-If you could make it clear on what, how you feel about the engineering comments. We just had a discussion about the engineering comments, and it seemed that Tom has a cogent argument that would, you know, preclude a signoff from the engineer. I don’t know what the Board wants to do with that, because it is part of the approval process that engineer’s signoff is required. MR. HUNSINGER-Well, our understanding is that the engineering comments will be addressed when we do Site Plan Review of each of the individual three sites. MR. OBORNE-If you could add that to your resolution, that would give direction to Clark to not worry about it. MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. MRS. STEFFAN-And how would you phrase this? MR. HUNSINGER-The outstanding engineering comments, it is the opinion of the Planning Board that the outstanding engineering comments will be addressed during the Site Plan Review of each of the three lots as they’re developed. Thank you, Keith. MR. OBORNE-You’re welcome. AYES: Mr. Traver, Mr. Krebs, Mrs. Steffan, Mr. Ford, Mr. Schonewolf, Mr. Sipp, Mr. Hunsinger NOES: NONE MR. HUNSINGER-You’re all set. Good luck. MR. CENTER-If I could just address the Board for just a moment in regards to the Poirier subdivision. We are currently working out some legal issues with the legal easement from the Twin Channels, that parcel, Big Bay. We’re down to one parcel crossing. Hopefully we’ll have that finalized in the next week or so. You’ll be receiving a letter basically requesting us to be th tabled to the January meeting, so that we could submit December 15 for the January meeting. So we’re going to ask that it be tabled for another month while we settle any legal issues there are with the easement access to that parcel. MR. FORD-Good luck. MR. HUNSINGER-Great. Thanks. MR. CENTER-Okay. Thank you. MR. HUNSINGER-We appreciate that. MRS. STEFFAN-And good luck, Mr. Burnell. MR. HUNSINGER-Yes, good luck. SITE PLAN NO. 50-2008 SEQR TYPE N/A FRENCH MT. FOREST, LLC AGENT(S) DENNIS PHILLIPS; HUTCHINS ENG. OWNER(S) FRENCH MT. FOREST, LLC ZONING LC- 10A LOCATION LAND LOCKED PROPERTY WEST OF FRENCH MOUNTAIN APPLICANT PROPOSES A TIMBER HARVESTING OF TREES 15” AND LARGER ON A MULTIPLE PARCELS TOTALING +/- 318 ACRES IN THE TOWN OF LAKE GEORGE & QUEENSBURY ON FRENCH MOUNTAIN. TIMBER HARVESTING IN THE LC-10A ZONE REQUIRES 20 (Queensbury Planning Board 11/16/2010) PLANNING BOARD REVIEW AND APPROVAL. CROSS REFERENCE N/A WARREN CO. PLANNING 12/10/08 APA, DEC, ACOE, OTHER APA LOT SIZE 167.31 +/- ACRES TAX MAP NO. 265.-1-28 SECTION 179-6-010C MELISSA LESCAULT & TOM HUTCHINS, REPRESENTING APPLICANT, PRESENT MR. HUNSINGER-Keith, whenever you’re ready. MR. OBORNE-I think the Planning Board remembers this application from two years ago. MR. FORD-Yes. MR. OBORNE-Site Plan 50-2008. It’s French Mountain Forest. It was formerly General Timber. Site Plan Review for timber harvesting is the requested action. Melissa, ask if they’ll accept that, first. MS. LESCAULT-I’m sorry. Will you accept my additional proposed findings of fact? They’ve just been updated from the last time that we submitted them. MR. HUNSINGER-I’m not sure I understand what it is. MS. LESCAULT-I’m sorry. Melissa Lescault. I’m the attorney for the applicant, French Mountain Forest, LLC. What I have done, in preparation for tonight, is my written submission, it’s basically my narrative, again, basically 95% of this has already been submitted in copies to our applications from Lake George, but I’ve just updated it to include, more specifically the things for Queensbury. I just wanted to hand it in to you as basically written comments of what I’m going to say verbally tonight. MR. HUNSINGER-What’s the feeling of the Board? MR. TRAVER-Well, if it’s a written version of comments. MRS. STEFFAN-As long as there’s nothing that we have to review, because we’re, our policy is we’re not accepting things the night of the meeting. We’re obviously not going to read it. MS. LESCAULT-Okay. MR. FORD-We’ll listen intently. MR. TRAVER-Yes. Why don’t we do this. Why don’t we hold the hand out of the materials until after her presentation, and see if we need it. MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. MS. LESCAULT-Okay. That’s fine. MR. HUNSINGER-Go ahead, Keith. Sorry. MR. OBORNE-I shall continue. Site Plan Review for timber harvesting is the requested action. The location is landlocked property on the west slope of French Mountain. Existing zoning is LC or Land Conservation 10 acres. SEQRA Status is Type I. Lead Agent Town of Lake George Planning Board. Project Description: Applicant proposes to harvest timber 15 inches and greater in diameter at breast height off of a 168 +/- acre parcel on the west slope of French Mountain. No clearing cutting proposed. According to the applicant, the initial plan was for the harvesting of timber of 14 inches and greater DBH, however, concerns with respect to the steepness of slopes and potential erosion issues as a result has given rise to an increase in the size of trees to be harvested. Staff Comments: This application was initially submitted for review on 11/15/08 and has been through several revisions to date. The environmental review, after a determination ruling concerning the designation lead agency status by DEC, was conducted by the Town of Lake George Planning Board and a SEQR Negative Declaration was issued on July 6, 2010. The applicant proposes to harvest approximately 138 acres of the 168. I do go on to state what was previously submitted, and in bold I’m going to read what I have written down. These calculations will need to be updated to reflect the increase in the diameter of trees to be taken on the land in the Town of Queensbury. Additionally, the existing and residual basal areas of the stand should be submitted for review in order to gauge the impact this will have on the parcel; percentages submitted is not an accurate representation of the harvesting operation. What I did receive today from counsel from the applicant, or was that from Kurt or was that from you? 21 (Queensbury Planning Board 11/16/2010) MS. LESCAULT-It was just my cover letter, Keith, but it was Kurt’s estimates. MR. OBORNE-Okay. Right, is before you also, and it talks about the DBH. I haven’t had any time to review that, just to let you know. MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. MR. OBORNE-To continue. The project also includes 150 acres on adjacent property in the Town of Lake George. Access to this parcel is from Bloody Pond Road, in the Town of Lake George, through other lands, and again, the proposal calls for harvested trees to be skidded to a landing in Lake George on upgraded old harvesting/skid trails as well as new trails. Soils follows. I think we’re pretty familiar with the soils here. I do want to bring to the attention, Page S-5, One, Two, and Three, if you haven’t read that already, it is concerned with post season wrap up, seasonal wrap up, and post harvest wrap up. We feel, as Staff, that those are important conditions that should be placed on this, if you deem this application worthy of approval. I will go to additional comments. The applicant may require a DEC Stream Crossing Permit. The Planning Board may wish to ascertain of the applicant if in fact this is a requirement. A DEC letter has been submitted for endangered species. You should have that attached. The Planning Board may wish to ascertain whether the applicant proposes to harvest the area on the southeastern most portion of the parcel south of the denoted no-cut zone. Best Management Practices for water quality should be incorporated, which I think the forester is incorporating that, and, again, timber harvest should be accomplished during winter and or dry periods to mitigate ground disturbance, and again, existing basal area and residual has been submitted. It was submitted this morning, and just a little background on the Town of Lake George. They have used and utilized the services of Dick Sipperly on this plan. He’s very familiar with this site. I think he was the driving force on increasing that size of residual basal area from 14 to 15, not residual basal area, but the size of the harvest, and I think that had to do with the slopes, and with that I’ll turn it over to the Board. MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. Thank you. Good evening. MS. LESCAULT-Good evening. Melissa Lescault from McPhillips, Fitzgerald and Cullum, and I’m here on behalf of French Mountain Forest, LLC, the property owner of this timber harvest project that’s proposed before you tonight. Also with me is Tom Hutchins, our engineer, and Kurt Kostinan is here. He is our forester for this project, and Bernice McPhillips who is the property owner is also present with us tonight. As you know, this project for Timber Harvest has evolved over the course of two years. We have received a Site Plan Review approval in the Town of Lake George. We’ve also received an environmental SEQRA Negative Declaration, as you know, in July of this past summer. Tonight we’re before you to receive an approval for the Site Plan Review with respect to the property that’s under your jurisdiction in the Town of Queensbury. The property, as you know, straddles both the municipalities of the Town of Queensbury as well as Lake George. It consists of 318.57 acres. It is also Bloody Pond Road, about 1,515 feet of the property are actually on Bloody Pond Road, and that how you’d gain access to this parcels, I say parcels because it’s multiple tax map parcels. The property, for the most part, is bounded on the north, the east, as well as the south by forest land property. The McPhillips family has owned this property since 1937. So, for 73 years, they have owned and maintained this property as forest land for almost a century, at least three quarters of which. With DEC approval, in 1974, as you’re aware, the property received a Certificate of Eligibility for forest land. That certification states, if you can bear with me for a second, that an applicant believes that these forest lands will produce a crop of marketable timber or pulp wood within 30 years, and to that end agrees to prevent grazing of the area by domestic animals, and by all reasonable means to protect the trees from damage by fire, insects and disease and to devote said lands primarily to the growth of forest products. Also the applicant agrees that in accordance with Section 480, they will notify the assessors no less than 30 days prior to any proposed harvest cutting of timber on this tract. So, as such, this property has been devoted to forest management with the State backed incentive to harvest the property after 30 years. This application started a few years back when the property was in this certification program for at least 34 years. So that’s why we are here tonight. As you know, or I’m going to remind you, that the APA has issued a letter of non-jurisdiction with respect to this harvest plan. So we did not need to get a permit from the Adirondack Park Agency because it does not meet their threshold for a clear cut. So I wanted to basically go over with you what the timber harvest plan is with respect to this property. Tom, can you flip to the Queensbury, the section that goes to the zoning. I think it’s S-3. Okay. Tom, can you just highlight where the Queensbury portion of the property is to the Board? MR. HUTCHINS-The Queensbury parcel is this almost triangular shape. MS. LESCAULT-Okay. That consists, that tax lot in the Town of Queensbury consists of 168 acres. Okay. As you can see in the cross section area, that is what we have as a no cut zone, 22 (Queensbury Planning Board 11/16/2010) and that’s because of the slopes on the property. So we have a no cut zone. The Staff Notes had asked that we come up with a calculation with respect to how much acreage that actually is for our tax parcel in Queensbury, Queensbury alone, and it’s 30 acres, okay. So we have 168 acres in Queensbury, of which 30 acres is a no cut zone. So we’re now down to 138 acres with respect to what our timber harvest management plan consists of. What we’re actually cutting is 9.3% of the trees that are in that zone, in that 138 acres. Now, I know you didn’t get a chance to receive this. I don’t know if Keith made copies. That’s part of what my submission was, was the estimates because we revised them. MR. OBORNE-You made copies in there. MS. LESCAULT-Okay, and they have them? MR. OBORNE-They have them. MS. LESCAULT-Okay, good. So basically our original figures had a cut at 14 inches DBH. When we went through the Lake George planning process, we actually conceded to a higher cut for aesthetic purposes. So we increased the DBH to 15 inches DBH, which changed our calculations. So now when you look at what the total trees are, from six inches or higher, with respect to the 138 acres that remain, we have 26,358 estimated trees, okay. We are only cutting from 15 inches above 9.3%. Your actual Code defines an extensive clearing in Queensbury at 50%, 15 inch DBH, as six inch. So we’re talking, we have 9.3, less than 10%. Whereas your Code actually talks about a 50% threshold. The residual basal area results in approximately 70 square feet per acre on average. The residual basal area is more than two times that what is required by the APA for a clear cut. They actually require that you have to have a residual basal area of 30 square feet, and we’re going to have 70. So we have more than two times that, and in your Code, I believe it is also 30 square feet from what I looked up today. So again we’re two times the amount, the residual basal area that’s required pursuant to the Code. I wanted to basically go over those with you because I know that the figures were incorrect when we originally submitted the application. So at this point, if you have any questions with respect to that, we can go over it, but what I actually would like right now is Tom to go through the sheets with respect to our harvest plan on the engineering, if that’s okay with you. MR. HUNSINGER-Yes. MS. LESCAULT-Okay. MR. HUTCHINS-Good evening, Board. I’ll be very brief. I just wanted to walk through the information you have in front of you, and the first sheet, S-1, is simply the layout of the parcel, the location relative to the Village of Lake George, the Northway. This is Bloody Pond Road, and again, this is, this portion and this portion of the parcel are in the Town of Lake George, and this portion is in Queensbury. Presently, there is access to the site off Bloody Pond Road right here. This is an abandoned, well, not abandoned. It’s an existing logging road that’s been there for years, and years and years, and that will be our primary up the hill access, and this map is similar, although it just has zoning classifications within the Town. Here we’re in LC-10A, in the Queensbury portion, and this defines, again, the area we’re going to hit, topography, the no cut zones. Again, it’s, the no cut zone total is 39 acres, 30 of that is in the Town of Queensbury, which is this area here, and that’s on the northerly most slopes facing Lake George, and it’s relatively steep. This is a rough layout of how we propose to access the site with equipment. Again, the primary up and down access will be the existing logging path or logging road that’s there. We’ve got temporary skid trails that are primarily across the slope, running across the contours, again, the up and down would be this, and across slope on the skid trails. Now, there are some exceptions to that. To get to certain areas, there’s a couple of sections that our skid trails get a little steep. In here it’s upwards of 20%, and there was another area, short section in here, I believe it’s upwards of 20%. The State Forestry guidelines recommends keeping them under 25%, which, in general we have. We’ve shown, we went through with Lake George and their Town Engineer, we went through a multi phase review on how we’re going to control erosion on these skid paths, and it’s fundamentally simple. You need to get the water off the skid path as quickly as you can, and that sounds simple, but it doesn’t. Depending on the field conditions, it can be difficult because the water likes to run down the road, and the longer the water runs down the road, the more damage it does. So, in forestry vernacular, they use water bars, they use diversion dips. All of these have come out of New York State’s Best Management Practices for Forestry Guide, and we’ve been through it with, both with Lake George’s engineer and their consulting forester. We’ve scheduled, based upon the average slope of each particular skid path, how many of these should be in, and how far apart they should be placed on an average basis, again, to be clarified in the field. These are a small classified stream that runs through this portion of the parcel. We do intend to cross it in this area, in the Town of Lake George. Yes, it will require a stream crossing permit from DEC, and 23 (Queensbury Planning Board 11/16/2010) we do not know, at this point, if we’re going to cross it in this portion. If we do, it depends on what’s in this little area. It looks like a little area, but it may be a two or three or four acres, and if there’s timber on it, we will likely apply for a stream crossing permit and harvest it. Again, these are just erosion control practices, layout schedules and notes. This is a detailed erosion control plan that it’s totally within the Town of Lake George, but it’s actually the reason I became involved in this project was to pull this together. It’s erosion controls around the header area. We went through a considerable process in Lake George with where we were going to locate the header, being where they skid the logs down to and the logs are cut up and loaded on trucks and then the trucks access out here. Log trucks would come as far as here, and the rest of it would be skidders, and we went through numerous iterations. Initially the project started with a header that was three acres in size. Now it’s just about a half an acre. The amount of equipment on the project has been scaled down. What did we start with? KURT KOSTINAN MR. KOSTINAN-We had like five or six skidders, now we’re like two or three. MR. HUTCHINS-Okay. So the amount of equipment o the project has been scaled down, and the header has been, we’ve been there in the field. We’ve been there with their engineer, with Board members. This has been surveyed, and it’s actually a permanent erosion control plan. It’s not sticks and straw. It’s rocks and walls, or rocks and culverts. So, it’s, there’s a fair amount of detail to it, and we’re, and again, it would be permanent. The header would be stabilized with vegetation, sediment trenches and ditches and rock check dams and all will remain permanently. The road would be re-stabilized, and the roads and all the skid trails will be re-stabilized after the harvest. There are provisions on here for seasonal wrap up. There are periods of the year where we will not be operating, mud season being the predominant one, and there is a seasonal wrap up schedule there, and there are permanent erosion control provisions for post harvest, which include inspection by our forester and the forester that is retained to oversee the project on behalf of Lake George. This is a 50 foot no cut area around both Bloody Pond Road and the residential. Actually when we get back here there are some residences, not that we’re in Lake. There are a number of residents here. We’ve got a 50 foot no cut buffer area around those area, those residents. Finally, this is just where we started with on the original landing and this is, again, in Lake George. This was the original landing area, then it was proposed to something like this, and then it was brought down to a half an acre, and that is the information you have in front of you, in drawing form anyway, and we’ll do our best to answer questions. MR. HUNSINGER-Questions, comments from the Board? It’s certainly a lot more detailed than what we had a year ago, the last time you were here. MR. TRAVER-Yes. MS. LESCAULT-It’s certainly evolved, I mean, since then. MR. HUNSINGER-Yes. MR. HUTCHINS-A lot’s gone into it. MR. SIPP-Would there be any winter operations? MS. LESCAULT-It will be, the harvest will actually take place non mud season. So it’ll be in the dry season as well as in the winter season. MR. SIPP-Yes, when the ground’s froze. MS. LESCAULT-Exactly. MR. SIPP-Yes. Is there a plan for the cleanup of the landing and the header? MR. HUTCHINS-Yes, there’s a plan for re-stabilization of the header with vegetation, and we decided, between Lake George’s engineer and I, that the actual stormwater controls that are there are permanent of nature and they can just remain, but the landing itself will be re- vegetated. MR. OBORNE-If I could interject. I mean, we’re here just for the lands in Queensbury, not anything to do with Lake George. It’s already been approved there, and some of the engineering comments did speak to the lands of Lake George which, for lack of a better term, are kind of off bounds, because they’ve already been approved. So if you could just look at it 24 (Queensbury Planning Board 11/16/2010) from the point of view of the 138 acres they’re proposing on timbering in Queensbury, and I think that would be wise. MR. TRAVER-Just to clarify the, I’m sorry, Keith, are you through? MR. OBORNE-I don’t know if Don was through. I’m sorry. MR. SIPP-Well, I’m concerned about the runoff down to, what is that road, Bloody Pond, which goes by an intermittent stream, which ends up in Lake George, and I want to make sure that we don’t get any oil, kerosene, anything like that. This is both hardwood and softwood you’re going to be cutting? MR. HUTCHINS-Correct. MR. SIPP-At 25 inches DBH. MR. HUTCHINS-Fifteen. MR. SIPP-Fifteen. MR. FORD-Fifteen. MR. SIPP-All right. That’s all. MR. FORD-I’ve got a concern. I thought that perhaps the change from 14 to 15 DBH was as a result of how long it’s taken the application to gain approval. I mean, we’re talking about the same trees. MR. HUTCHINS-The same trees. MS. LESCAULT-I was thinking about that as I was reviewing this as well, Tom. Over the course of two years it’s certainly gone two inches. MR. FORD-In terms of actual anticipated harvest of trees, how many are we talking about? MR. HUTCHINS-How many trees? MS. LESCAULT-Well, if you look at the schedule that was submitted to you, we are talking 2,457 trees, which, again, is 9.3% of the total trees that are above six inches DBH in that 138 acres. MR. OBORNE-What’s the basal area? MS. LESCAULT-The original basal area is 106 square feet per acre, and the residual post harvest will be 70 square feet per acre. MR. FORD-That’s where I was going with it. Thank you. MR. TRAVER-And just to address the harvesting operations again, this is going to be only in the winter time, is that correct? MS. LESCAULT-And the dry season. MR. TRAVER-Okay. So you’re proposing summer, working on this in the summer as well? MS. LESCAULT-Yes. Right, Kurt? MR. KOSTINAN-Yes, that’s correct. MR. OBORNE-Is that typically August? MR. KOSTINAN-Usually June, July, August. MR. OBORNE-Okay. MR. KOSTINAN-And then early September. Quite often it’s 90 degrees in early September. MR. OBORNE-And I think, and not to, if I may interject, is that when a forester sees weather patterns coming, they’re going to stop, ostensibly. So, typically that’s what a forester would do. 25 (Queensbury Planning Board 11/16/2010) MR. HUNSINGER-One of the questions from the engineer was what will happen with the tree debris? MS. LESCAULT-And actually I’m going to leave that to Kurt to talk about, because it actually helps out our erosion control, the way that we’re going to handle the, go ahead, Kurt. MR. KOSTINAN-I’m Kurt Kostinan, the forester. MR. HUNSINGER-It’s on Queensbury land as well as Lake George. MS. LESCAULT-Yes. It is. No, you’re absolutely correct. It is on both. MR. HUNSINGER-Yes. MR. KOSTINAN-Yes. The debris is called slash, and it’s the top of the tree that is non merchantable, what you cannot haul to the landing, and basically it’ll be cut down to knee level or lower, and essentially it helps distribute rainfall. When you have storms come in, rain will hit the branches. The velocity and the rate, the speed and the rate of rain coming down is what you want to slow down. The high speed of rain, you want to slow that down, so as it hits branches and whatever close to the ground it disperses, and you have like tens of thousands of little branches all through the woods which will divert water, it will slow water down. That type of thing, and it’s good for the forest. It’s good for nutrients in the future. Thirty years from now (lost words) or forty years, whatever it is, there’ll be more nutrients there and the trees grow faster. MR. SIPP-It’s also good for fire protection when you cut it closer to the ground. MR. KOSTINAN-Exactly. MR. SIPP-The snow gets wetter sooner and it breaks down quicker. MR. KOSTINAN-Exactly, and the State top lopping is, you know, three inches on softwood. So you have to do that, but all of it will be knee height and lower, and it helps the forest. MR. HUNSINGER-Are there any other issues under the engineering comments that you feel that you can’t address? I assume that you had reviewed those? MS. LESCAULT-Yes, we did. Tom, do you want to talk about it more? It’s more engineering comments from. MR. HUTCHINS-I think we have no issue with involving Queensbury’s Zoning Administrator or his designee in our start up and shut down meetings. I don’t think we have an issue with that. MS. LESCAULT-The one thing, I just want to comment on. Certainly this applicant has gone through a rigorous process with respect to this application, and we have absolutely no problem with the Town of Queensbury coming to review things, but can we just condition it so that it’s staff? So that we’re not paying for an outside, you know, forester. We have two foresters that are now on the property that are going to be overseeing everything, and we’re paying for our one that we are, we’ve hired, but we’re also paying for the one through the Town of Lake George. So we certainly do not object to Queensbury staff being on site and making that a condition of this. We would just like it that we don’t have to go out of pocket again and pay for someone else to also. That’s really our only concern. Otherwise, yes, we’re in agreement. Go ahead, Tom. I’m sorry. MR. HUTCHINS-Other comments. Kurt just hit Number Four. Number Five, and again, before, I will comment on them, but I think Five, Six and Seven are all on the erosion plan that we went through extensively with Lake George and their engineer, but as to, it’s not clear what’s permanent and what’s temporary, well, the thing that’s permanent is the sediment basin, and it’s indicated as being permanent and the rest of it will be stabilized. The diversion ditching, and I didn’t grade out the diversion ditch, but we stood there in the field and looked at it, and t he diversion ditch will function in that manner, and likewise with Seven, that’s, again, on the diversion ditch in Lake George. MR. HUNSINGER-Any 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? Were there any written comments, Keith? MR. OBORNE-No, sir. PUBLIC HEARING OPENED 26 (Queensbury Planning Board 11/16/2010) MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. I will open the public hearing. KIMBERLY FEENEY MS. FEENEY-I have one comment. MR. OBORNE-If you could come on up and state your name for the record, please. MR. HUNSINGER-Yes, if you could state your name for the record. MS. FEENEY-Sure. My name is Kimberly Feeney, and I’m from Queensbury, the property that borders this property, and how long are you talking about harvesting it for? Is it just for like how many period, one year period and then waiting the 30 years, or is it going to be over? MR. KOSTINAN-Yes. We’re looking at up to, approximately three years on this. MS. FEENEY-Okay. MR. KOSTINAN-But we want to get it done as fast as we can. We don’t want to be there for three years. MS. FEENEY-Okay. MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. Thank you. I know when you were here in the earlier meetings there was a lot of concern mentioned about the loss of income, you know, the longer reviews and the longer that the harvesting took place. MS. FEENEY-Yes. MR. HUTCHINS-But we also agreed, in Lake George, to scale down the amount of equipment and the amount of trucks that we had going in and out of there on a daily basis. MR. OBORNE-I believe you also were given a Use Variance, also, to harvest the lands that were not allowed to be harvested in the Town of Lake George. MS. LESCAULT-Yes, for a small portion of the property. MR. OBORNE-It is a small portion, absolutely. MS. LESCAULT-Yes. MR. HUNSINGER-I’m sorry, Gretchen. Did you have a comment you wanted to make? MRS. STEFFAN-Well, the comment that I have is there’s a couple of outstanding things. We just received the statistics from Kurt, and our Land Use Planner has not had the time to review those yet, and so, you know, based on how long we’ve waited for this process, I just, I don’t think I’d feel right approving it tonight. However, I know that your season is coming, and you probably need to get started in January, and so I was wondering if the Board might consider tabling this, so that they can come back at a December Planning Board meeting. That means we would push the window a little bit. Instead of submission deadline, which was two days ago, we could th give them until the 30. Well, next week’s Thanksgiving week. So if we gave them until the Tuesday after that to submit, they’ve got most of the materials here. There’s a few things that they I think will have to address based on Staff Notes, but then if they came back in the December meeting, we would have the Land Use Planner who had reviewed the statistics to make sure that they were okay, and we could satisfy the Paragon comments that were there, and then we could go forward, you know, knowing that all of the materials are in the package and it is complete. I don’t know how the rest of the Board feels. Keith, does that sound reasonable to you? MR. OBORNE-I think it’s reasonable. I think the engineering comments are easily taken care of, and from what I’ve seen so far, there hasn’t been really any glaring klaxons with what was submitted today, and with which I’ve only really given a cursory review at this point. I’m actually ambivalent either way, to be honest with you. If you want to table it, I have no problem, and if you want to approve it I really have no problem, to be honest with you. MR. KREBS-Rather than wait, I’d rather approve it with the condition that they comply to the, you know, get engineering signoff. MR. SCHONEWOLF-So would, I. 27 (Queensbury Planning Board 11/16/2010) MR. HUTCHINS-And we’d prefer that. MR. FORD-I’m for approval with condition. MR. SCHONEWOLF-So am, I. MRS. STEFFAN-Now what about all of the conditions, Keith, in your Staff Notes. You’ve got, you know, Page S-5 all those comments that, you know, should be on the drawings. Then the timber harvesting, you know, there should be notations. We can put conditions on those. We can define winter and we can define the dry seasons if we want to. It’s going to be restrictive for the applicant, though, and the other things, about the stream crossing permits. Obviously Mr. Hutchins addressed that, but do we want that on a drawing? I guess, I need to know what’s going to make the plan complete, so that when we give an approval, they’re ready to go and there are no questions. MR. OBORNE-From my point of view, S-5 is extremely important, from Staff’s point of view. That just gives us some compliance teeth, so to speak, and I don’t think the applicant has any issues with that, to be honest with you. MR. HUTCHINS-And we don’t have any problems with that. We don’t have a problem with. MR. OBORNE-I don’t think the applicant addressed one of my concerns, and that was on that upper reach, or lower reach, in this case, the southwestern portion on the other side of the stream, if that’s going to be harvested. It looks like it’s all softwood there, but. MR. HUTCHINS-And until we get there and inspect it and see what’s over there, we don’t know. If we have to, if we choose to go there, we will need to get a stream crossing permit, and every logger is aware that when he crosses a stream he needs to get a stream crossing permit. That’s our obligation with DEC, and we’re all aware of that. If we go there, we have to get a stream crossing permit. MR. OBORNE-I mean, those four acres there, I’m assuming it’s about four acres, somewhere around there, I mean, what does that, how does that skew your basal area? Does it? Probably not too much. I think the only concern I have is are you crossing that stream? MR. HUTCHINS-And the answer is we don’t know yet, but if we do, we have to, we are crossing that stream, further downstream. MR. OBORNE-I know you are. MR. HUTCHINS-We know that. MR. OBORNE-That’s the Lake George property. MR. HUTCHINS-Right. MR. OBORNE-Right. MR. HUTCHINS-If we cross that stream, we need to get a stream crossing permit and we’re aware of that. MR. OBORNE-And that’s fine. I don’t have much of an issue with that. MRS. STEFFAN-That’s really their obligation. We don’t have to govern that or we don’t have to oversee that. MS. LESCAULT-Right. MRS. STEFFAN-They know they have to do that. Okay. MR. KREBS-Right. That’s DEC. MR. HUNSINGER-The question that I have is you had prepared those documents to pass out to the Board. Is there anything in there that we have not already discussed? MS. LESCAULT-No. Absolutely everything that is in here right now is, you’ve already actually received the bulk of it. It’s the property history. The narrative with respect to the 480 Application Certification which is already in your file. The only thing that has changed on here are the 28 (Queensbury Planning Board 11/16/2010) calculations. I extrapolated the 14 inch DBH, and put in the calculations for the 15 DBH, which I went over with you in detail. That’s the only difference. th MR. HUNSINGER-Is that the same information that’s on this November 16? MS. LESCAULT-Yes, exactly. MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. MS. LESCAULT-I attached those same calculations to the back here as well. MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. MRS. STEFFAN-Okay. How about the DEC Best Management Practice for Water Quality should be incorporated and followed during the harvest. Is that a given or does that have to be a condition? MR. HUTCHINS-It’s on our plans that’s submitted, and we’ve committed within the application. MS. LESCAULT-Yes, that we would comply with those Best Management Practices. MRS. STEFFAN-Okay. MS. LESCAULT-And that’s both for Queensbury as well as Lake George. That was part of the application process with them, too. MRS. STEFFAN-Now, do we have to limit the, it’s dry season, dry period and winter. Are we going to allow the applicant that discretion, do we regulate it? How does the Board feel? MR. KREBS-Well, I think you have to let them have their discretion because there are going to be years that you’re going to have more snow and more runoff in the Spring. So it’s going to be a later time, and other times you don’t have any snow and you don’t have any runoff. So it’s going to be an earlier time. MR. SCHONEWOLF-Yes, unless you know what the weather’s going to be. MR. KREBS-Yes, unless you can predict the weather, which I can’t. MR. HUTCHINS-And there are times during July that it may be wet. MR. OBORNE-Yes. I agree. I think it’s variable, and I do think that the post season harvest wrap up is the key. I really do. That those are stabilized and correctly installed. MR. FORD-Good point. MR. HUNSINGER-And of course we do have it in the plan that Staff and the engineer will be (lost word). One of the questions that I had, and we had had some discussion in the past about, you know, the Town engaging an engineer or an expert or a specialist when we needed one. Now if Dick Sipperly is representing the Town of Lake George, what’s the comfort level for the Town of Queensbury? I mean, if we were to say, I mean, is there a way for us to more formalize our interests with him as well, is I guess what would be my question. MR. OBORNE-I think that that’s something that it would be logical to pursue. I can’t answer that at this point. I would have to talk to Tom Jarrett, and I would have to talk to Dick Sipperly. MR. HUNSINGER-Because, I mean, he’s going to be there representing the Town of Lake George. MR. OBORNE-Correct. MR. HUNSINGER-So I think it’s conceivable that there may be an instance where maybe the Town of Queensbury’s isn’t being represented. MR. SCHONEWOLF-Because it’s different from Lake George’s? MR. HUNSINGER-Well, I don’t know. I want to have the discussion. That’s why I wanted to bring it up. 29 (Queensbury Planning Board 11/16/2010) MR. OBORNE-I was under the impression that he was funded by Lake George. I did not know he was funded by the applicant. So that’s another. I was totally under the impression that Lake George was picking up the tab on that. MS. LESCAULT-Yes. MR. OBORNE-They’re not. You are. MS. LESCAULT-We are. Yes, no, no, no, believe me. MR. OBORNE-Right, and it’s on the lands in Lake George only that we’re talking about that he’s being paid for, and I don’t really have, I don’t know what their agreement is. MR. HUTCHINS-I don’t know what their agreement is. MS. LESCAULT-You know, I’m going to be honest with you. It would be my understanding, with respect to this project, considering that Queensbury is upslope, he’s going to be reviewing what’s going on upslope as well, because anything that happens upslope it going to affect down slope, down gradient on this project. So if there’s any concern that something has gone wrong or astray upslope, he’s going to have to actually review it and comment, because it’s going to affect the down slope portion of Lake George. That certainly would be, I mean, tell me if I’m wrong, Bernice. AUDIENCE MEMBER-That’s very logical. MR. HUNSINGER-So there’s really no way to separate. MS. LESCAULT-I don’t know that you necessarily, I mean, I’m not going to say that you shouldn’t also consult with him. However, I think that part of his project, in reviewing this entire timber harvest management project, is going to also entail seeing what’s going on, because it’s interconnected. It’s not as if you have, I mean, your skid trails are crossing all over. I don’t see how he can just review Lake George property and not also look at Queensbury. MR. FORD-I see the logic in that. MR. HUNSINGER-Yes. MR. FORD-I just want to make sure Queensbury interests are served. MR. OBORNE-Well, I think to a certain extent Queensbury’s interested are tied to the Code Compliance department, staff. MR. HUNSINGER-Sure. MR. OBORNE-We do have a Staff member who is quite knowledgeable on the forestry issues, that would be Bruce Frank, and that’s one of the reasons why I wanted those S-5 comments on there, because I know that, I consult with him. MR. HUNSINGER-And of course if he’s not comfortable with something that’s going on, he’s going to alert enforcement. MR. OBORNE-He’ll let everybody know, absolutely. MR. HUNSINGER-Yes. So I think we’re being protected by that way. MR. OBORNE-I think to a certain extent. I mean, I do like the fact that you do have a forester, you know, going up and down the slopes. I think that that’s, but that’s an assumption. That’s an assumption, that’s not a given. MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. Well, like I said, I wanted to have that discussion to make sure that we all understood, you know, exactly how this was going to play out. MR. FORD-Good. Helpful. MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. So I don’t know if we heard from a majority of the Board that they were comfortable moving forward. MR. TRAVER-Yes, I think so, with those conditions. 30 (Queensbury Planning Board 11/16/2010) MR. SCHONEWOLF-Yes. MR. HUNSINGER-And you said there were no written comments, Keith? MR. OBORNE-No, no written comments, no. MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. I will close the public hearing. PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED MR. HUNSINGER-SEQRA was conducted by the Town of Lake George. So there’s no SEQRA considerations for us. The only thing left is a motion, and, I mean, there are obviously a number of conditions, Staff comments, and of course engineering comments. MRS. STEFFAN-Are there any waivers that they asked for? MR. OBORNE-Lighting, landscaping. MR. HUNSINGER-Well, I think the only Staff comments to satisfy are the ones on Page S-5. Is that fair? MR. OBORNE-Yes. Absolutely. MRS. STEFFAN-And also that the timber harvest should be accomplished during winter or dry periods to mitigate the disturbance. That’s very broad and general, to satisfy the Staff concerns. MR. HUNSINGER-And then engineering signoff. MRS. STEFFAN-So I can just ditch the waiver? MR. OBORNE-Yes. I don’t think you need, I think we can handle it internally. MRS. STEFFAN-All right. I’ll make a motion. MOTION TO APPROVE SITE PLAN NO. 50-2008 FRENCH MT. FOREST, LLC, Introduced by Gretchen Steffan who moved for its adoption, seconded by Thomas Ford: Land locked property west of French Mountain [Tax Map ID 265.-1-28] A site plan application has been made to the Queensbury Planning Board for the following: Applicant proposes a timber harvesting of trees 15” and larger on a multiple parcels totaling +/- 318 acres in the Town of Lake George & Queensbury on French Mountain. Timber Harvesting in the LC-10 zone requires Planning Board review and approval. A public hearing was advertised and held on 11/16/2010; and This application is supported with all documentation, public comment and application material in the file of record; MOTION TO APPROVE SITE PLAN NO. 50-2008 FRENCH MT. FOREST, LLC, Introduced by Gretchen Steffan who moved for its adoption, seconded by Thomas Ford: According to the resolution prepared by Staff. Paragraph A complies. The waiver requests do not apply. 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)Final approved plans, in compliance with the Site Plan, must be submitted to the Community Development Department before any further review by the Zoning Administrator or Building and Codes personnel. The applicant must meet with Staff after approval and prior to issuance of Building Permit and/or the beginning of any site work. Subsequent issuance of further permits, including building permits is dependent on compliance with this and all other conditions of this resolution; and c)As-built plans to certify that the site plan is developed according to the approved plans to be provided prior to issuance of the certificate of occupancy; and 31 (Queensbury Planning Board 11/16/2010) d)The Sanitary Sewer connection plan must be submitted to the Wastewater Department for its review, approval, permitting and inspection; and 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; and f)Engineering sign-off required prior to signature of Zoning Administrator; and g)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; and h)This is approved with the following conditions: 1. The applicant will obtain an engineering signoff. 2. That the timber harvest will be accomplished during winter and/or dry periods to mitigate ground disturbance. 3. The applicant will also incorporate the notes that are on Staff comments Page Two, under Page S-5, Items One, Two and Three regarding temporary erosion control, seasonal wrap up, temporary erosion control seasonal wrap up and then permanent erosion control post harvest, and will include the language denoted in bold. th Duly adopted this 16 day of November, 2010, by the following vote: AYES: Mr. Ford, Mr. Traver, Mr. Krebs, Mrs. Steffan, Mr. Schonewolf, Mr. Sipp, Mr. Hunsinger NOES: NONE MR. HUNSINGER-Good luck. MS. LESCAULT-Thank you very much. MR. HUNSINGER-Thank you. MRS. STEFFAN-Congratulations. MR. HUNSINGER-Before we consider adjournment, Mr. Sipp has an item to bring up, that he’s passing out. Wow, look at this. MR. SCHONEWOLF-They’re in color, too. MR. KREBS-I have mine, Don, thank you. MR. HUNSINGER-More details. More information. Wow. MR. SCHONEWOLF-This is good, Don. MR. FORD-Well done. MR. TRAVER-Terrific. MR. HUNSINGER-Did you have anything you wanted to add with this, Don? It looks pretty thorough. MR. SIPP-I think we went through the handwritten one last time, last meeting. Mr. Krebs took it upon himself to do a little typing and a little e-mailing back and forth, and we got to a point where it’s pretty easy to read and I hope understandable. What I’m intending to do is by the second page here, is when an applicant comes in, being new, it is a little bit different operation and try to simplify it by giving him some lists which will give him a quick summary of why buffers are beneficial and then on the next page, three different types of plant combinations for three different types of soil and water conditions, and then you go into what we had in the hand drawn one, and as I said, Mr. Krebs did a wonderful job in putting this together in much more readable form. 32 (Queensbury Planning Board 11/16/2010) MR. FORD-Good teamwork. MR. SIPP-Now hopefully, if I go to Florida, I’m going to produce a booklet which will take every one of the plants in that, there’s 60 some odd plants, I think, that I label there, and give it a picture and a run down as to soil type, soil drainage, so forth. The problem arises is that you can’t get the same size picture off the Internet for each plant. So at one forest supply, or supply house you’ll get a picture like this and then on some of them you get a picture like that. So it’s difficult, but we’ll work through it as best we can. BRAD MAGOWAN, ALTERNATE MR. MAGOWAN-Photo Shop, Don, Photo Shop. MR. SIPP-Well, you’ve got to cut them out and print it out. MR. MAGOWAN-Only teasing you though. MR. SIPP-Hopefully this will make this shoreline buffer a little more attractive and explain it somewhat in a simpler way, so people know what’s going to happen. MR. HUNSINGER-Great work. Now, I think the intent is to hand these out. Is there any review or approval or anything that we should do before? MR. OBORNE-Yes. I talked to Craig about it. He is the Zoning Administrator, and he has to sign off on this, absolutely, and it looks like a good tool to me. MR. HUNSINGER-Yes, me, too. I just want to make sure, because there’s always liability issues and other concerns. MR. OBORNE-I’ll discuss this with him. When the time comes, you’ll probably need to make a formal resolution to adopt that. MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. MR. OBORNE-So that’s where we’re at at this point. MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. MR. SIPP-There are some other regulations that could be applied to this, and one of them is a diagonal cut through the buffer zone where you have a lot of water, and if you put it straight through, you’re going to have water running through it. If you put it through on a 45 degree angle, you’ll get much more water stoppage. If you slow water down, it can’t carry as much material with it. The old adage is if you increase the speed of the water, you’ll increase its carrying capacity by the increase of speed. So if you go from two miles an hour to four, you’ll also, you square the increase. MR. HUNSINGER-Right. It’s a geometric progress. MR. SIPP-Four times as much. So the idea is to slow water down. MR. HUNSINGER-It looks great. Thanks for all the work, Don. MR. KREBS-Don, by the way, too, I took all those feet off of there. So I’ll send you that. MR. SIPP-I could not open that e-mail. MR. KREBS-Okay. I’ll send you another one. MR. HUNSINGER-Is there any other business this evening? Would anyone like to make a motion to adjourn? MOTION TO ADJOURN THE QUEENSBURY PLANNING BOARD MEETING OF NOVEMBER 16, 2010, Introduced by Gretchen Steffan who moved for its adoption, seconded by Donald Krebs: th Duly adopted this 16 day of November, 2010, by the following vote: AYES: Mr. Krebs, Mr. Traver, Mrs. Steffan, Mr. Ford, Mr. Schonewolf, Mr. Sipp, Mr. Hunsinger 33 (Queensbury Planning Board 11/16/2010) NOES: NONE MR. HUNSINGER-Just a reminder, we’re here Thursday night. MR. FORD-Thursday night. MR. HUNSINGER-But not next week. MR. OBORNE-We will have two Board meetings next month. MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. I was going to ask you what the agendas looked like for December. MR. OBORNE-It’s full. MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. MR. OBORNE-Both of them, certainly six and six. MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. On motion meeting was adjourned. RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED, Chris Hunsinger, Chairman 34