The URL can be used to link to this page

2011.01.20 (Queensbury Planning Board 01/20/2011) QUEENSBURY PLANNING BOARD MEETING FIRST REGULAR MEETING JANUARY 20, 2011 INDEX Subdivision No. 8-2005 Mt. Hollow H.O.A. 1. REQUEST TO TABLE Tax Map No. 300.-1-19 Site Plan No. 28-2010 Leslie Grasso 2. REQUEST TO TABLE Tax Map No. 226.19-1-39 Site Plan No. 39-2010 Inwald Enterprises 3. REQUEST TO TABLE Tax Map No. 227.17-1-16 Site Plan No. 5-2011 Douglas & Muriel Cherry 4. ZBA RECOMMENDATION Tax Map No. 289.14-1-7 Site Plan No. 69-2010 James Kalock 8. ZBA RECOMMENDATION Tax Map No. 289.9-1-77 Site Plan 1-2011 Aftab Sam Bhatti 13. ZBA RECOMMENDATION Tax Map No. 302.5-1-51, 52, 52.13 Site Plan No. 2-2011 Great Escape Theme Park 16. ZBA RECOMMENDATION Tax Map No. 288.20-1-20 Subdivision No. 15-2010 A2000/Adirondack Tire 18. PRELIMINARY STAGE Tax Map No. 296.13-1-24 Site Plan No. 81-2010 Andrew Spath 20. Tax Map No. 240.5-1-9 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 01/20/2011) QUEENSBURY PLANNING BOARD MEETING FIRST REGULAR MEETING JANUARY 20, 2011 7:00 P.M. MEMBERS PRESENT CHRIS HUNSINGER, CHAIRMAN DONALD KREBS STEPHEN TRAVER DONALD SIPP PAUL SCHONEWOLF STEPHEN JACKOSKI, ALTERNATE BRAD MAGOWAN, ALTERNATE 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 a special Thursday night edition, if you will. The first item on the agenda is approval of thth minutes from November 16 and November 18, 2010. Would anyone like to make a motion? MOTION TO APPROVE THE QUEENSBURY PLANNING BOARD MINUTES OF NOVEMBER 16, AND NOVEMBER 18, 2010, Introduced by Brad Magowan who moved for its adoption, seconded by Stephen Traver: th Duly adopted this 20 day of January, 2011, by the following vote: AYES: Mr. Traver, Mr. Krebs, Mr. Magowan, Mr. Jackoski, Mr. Schonewolf, Mr. Sipp, Mr. Hunsinger NOES: NONE MR. HUNSINGER-Keith, I meant to ask you before we got started. Do we need to do anything formally or officially because we cancelled the meeting on Tuesday and just adjourned it until this evening? MR. TRAVER-I think we did it already. MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. MR. OBORNE-I don’t see anything, no. MR. HUNSINGER-All right. We have three Administrative Items on the agenda. ADMINISTRATIVE ITEMS FOR FURTHER TABLING CONSIDERATION SUBDIVISION 8-2005 MT. HOLLOW HOA, TABLED TO 1/18/2011, NO NEW INFO SUBMITTED MR. HUNSINGER-They have not submitted any new information. MR. OBORNE-No, they haven’t at this point, and it’s pretty much crickets. I think we probably need to maybe direct Staff to send a letter, ascertain what the situation is going on. MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. MR. MAGOWAN-We are coming to our melting season. MR. OBORNE-Exactly. We’ve got some snow pack coming. MR. HUNSINGER-Yes. Okay. Well, so we don’t know what we’re tabling it to. MR. OBORNE-Yes, I guess we should table it out to March at this point. MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. MR. SCHONEWOLF-March is a good month for it. 1 (Queensbury Planning Board 01/20/2011) MR. HUNSINGER-First or second meeting, does it matter? MR. OBORNE-No. th MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. Well, the first meeting is the 15. So would someone like to make a th motion to table it to March 15, and to direct Staff to send them a letter saying that if we don’t receive new information, that they’d be in jeopardy of having us deny without prejudice. MR. SCHONEWOLF-So moved. 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. MOTION TO TABLE SUBDIVISION NO. 8-2005 MT. HOLLOW H.O.A., Introduced by Paul Schonewolf who moved for its adoption, seconded by Steven Jackoski: 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 On 11/16/2010 the application was tabled to 1/18/2011; and MOTION TO TABLE SUBDIVISION 8-2005 MT. HOLLOW HOA, Introduced by Paul Schonewolf who moved for its adoption, seconded by Steven Jackoski: th Tabled to March 15. Staff is directed to send a letter stating that is the Planning Board does not receive new information, the applicant would be In jeopardy of having the Planning Board deny without prejudice. th Duly adopted this 20 day of January 2011, by the following vote: AYES: Mr. Jackoski, Mr. Schonewolf, Mr. Sipp, Mr. Magowan, Mr. Krebs, Mr. Traver, Mr. Hunsinger NOES: NONE SITE PLAN 28-2010 LESLIE GRASSO, TABLED TO 1/18/2011, NO NEW INFO SUBMITTED MR. HUNSINGER-They also have not submitted any new information. Any discussion with the applicant at all, Keith? MR. OBORNE-No, I haven’t heard anything from the applicant. I did talk to the engineer in passing and he does not anticipate any change to this current situation at this point. So, again, I guess we may want to send a stern letter. MR. HUNSINGER-Yes. MR. SCHONEWOLF-I think his problem is that he can’t buy the lot, because it’s the same guy that came before us before, that doesn’t have the title. MR. OBORNE-Well, I don’t know about that. I’m not sure what the situation is at this point. No new information has been submitted. MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. Well, this will be the fifth time we’re considering a table. MR. SCHONEWOLF-Well, send them the same kind of letter saying cease and desist. MR. HUNSINGER-Yes. Okay. Would you like to make that a motion? MR. SCHONEWOLF-The same as the last motion. Just change the names. MR. HUNSINGER-So we’ll table it to the same date? th MR. SCHONEWOLF-The same date, March 15. MOTION TO TABLE SITE PLAN NO. 28-2010 LESLIE GRASSO, Introduced by Paul Schonewolf who moved for its adoption, seconded by Stephen Traver: 2 (Queensbury Planning Board 01/20/2011) 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 On 11/16/2010 the application was tabled to 1/18/2011; and To date no new information has been submitted on behalf of the applicant; and MOTION TO TABLE SITE PLAN NO. 28-2010 LESLIE GRASSO, Introduced by Paul Schonewolf who moved its adoption, seconded by Stephen Traver: Tabled to March 15. Staff is directed to send a letter stating that if the Planning Board does not receive new information, the applicant would be in jeopardy of having the Planning Board deny without prejudice. th Duly adopted this 20 day of January, 2011 by the following vote: AYES: Mr. Traver, Mr. Krebs, Mr. Magowan, Mr. Jackoski, Mr. Schonewolf, Mr. Sipp, Mr. Hunsinger NOES: NONE SITE PLAN 39-2010 INWALD ENTERPRISES, TABLED TO 1/18/2011 MR. HUNSINGER-Any information there, Keith? MR. OBORNE-Yes. We do have updated information. She actually has to come back for review before the Zoning Board because the as built survey indicated that the house was built a little bit closer than what was approved. So they, again, have to go through that whole process of recommendation, Area Variance, and then back to this Board for review. So at this point, this th particular Site Plan, I would request that you also send out to about March 15. MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. MR. OBORNE-Without a deny without prejudice on it because she does have everything in. MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. Anyone want to make that motion? MOTION TO TABLE SITE PLAN NO. 39-2010 INWALD ENTERPRISES, Introduced by Donald Krebs who moved for its adoption, seconded by Paul Schonewolf: 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 On 11/16/2010 the applicant was tabled to 1/18/2011; and Craig Brown issued a letter dated 12/21/2010; and MOTION TO TABLE SITE PLAN NO. 39-2010 INWALD ENTERPRISES, Introduced by Donald Krebs who moved for its adoption, seconded by Paul Schonewolf: 3 (Queensbury Planning Board 01/20/2011) th Tabled to March 15. th Duly adopted this 20 day of January, 2011, by the following vote: MR. JACKOSKI-Could we amend the motion to also have them send a letter, or no? MR. OBORNE-No, she has her material in. MR. JACKOSKI-Okay, great. AYES: Mr. Traver, Mr. Krebs, Mr. Magowan, Mr. Jackoski, Mr. Schonewolf, Mr. Sipp, Mr. Hunsinger NOES: NONE MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. We have four items, this evening, for recommendations to the Zoning Board of Appeals. PLANNING BOARD RECOMMENDATIONS TO ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS: SITE PLAN NO. 5-2011 SEQR TYPE II DOUGLAS & MURIEL CHERRY AGENT(S) DAN RYAN, VISION ENGINEERING OWNER(S) SAME ZONING WR [WATERFRONT RESIDENTIAL] LOCATION FITZGERALD ROAD APPLICANT PROPOSES CONSTRUCTION OF A SINGLE FAMILY HOME. SITE PLAN: CONSTRUCTION ON OR WITHIN 50 FEET OF SLOPES EQUAL TO OR GREATER THAN 15% REQUIRES PLANNING BOARD REVIEW AND APPROVAL. AREA VARIANCE: RELIEF REQUESTED FROM MINIMUM SETBACK REQUIREMENTS OF THE WR ZONE. PLANNING BOARD TO PROVIDE WRITTEN RECOMMENDATION TO ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS. CROSS REFERENCE BOH SEPTIC VARIANCE 35.2010, AV 1-2011 BP 2010-519 APA, CEA OTHER GLEN LK. CEA, 100 YR. FLOODPLAIN LOT SIZE 0.44 +/- ACRES TAX MAP NO. 289.14-1-7 SECTION 179-9, 179-6-060 DAN RYAN, REPRESENTING APPLICANT, PRESENT MR. HUNSINGER-Keith, whenever you’re ready. MR. OBORNE-Sure. Site Plan 5-2011, Area Variance 1-2011 for Douglas & Muriel Cherry. Requested action is a recommendation to the Zoning Board of Appeals concerning the relief requested in the variance application. Fitzgerald Road, Glen Lake is the location. This is in Waterfront Residential. This is a Type II SEQRA. We do have a septic variance pending for this th parcel that I believe is on the 24. The Project Description: Applicant proposes construction of a 2,052 square foot single family home within 50 feet of slopes equal to or greater than 15%. As indicated before, Board of Health approval will need to be realized prior to Site Plan approval. The nature of the variance is east side setback relief for 10 feet, which equates to 15% from the 20 foot side setback requirement for the WR zone. What follows is a brief plan review, and with that, I’d turn it over to the Board. MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. Thank you. Good evening. MR. RYAN-Hi. Dan Ryan with VISION Engineering. I’m here on behalf of Doug Cherry, the property owner. He regrets he’s not able to attend tonight. He does travel overseas for work, and is having me here to represent him. I guess what I’d like to do, we are here for a referral for a variance, and certainly it is important that this Board understand the project details in order to provide that recommendation. So I would like to walk through the project in not too extensive detail, but enough to familiarize you with the project, and help you get a better sense of what we’re doing and why, and if you have any questions, I’d be happy to answer those. MR. HUNSINGER-Great. MR. RYAN-Let’s start with the existing conditions. You were given a set of five Site Plan drawings, so if you want to refer to Drawing C-2, basically what we’ve provided is an existing conditions plan which helps you identify how the site sits today, as can be seen by survey and photography. I’ll give you guys a second if you need it. Like I was saying, as you can see by the topography provided, there are steep slopes, steep to moderate slopes on this property. Closest to the lake and the shoreline you have a section of land that’s in the range of 50 to 70% slope, with a flat area just up gradient from that, and proceeding to a real steep area somewhere in the upper two-thirds of that parcel, and flattening back out to 30 to 35% slopes, as you approach Fitzgerald Road. One other critical element, design element to this particular parcel is the fact that there are two existing access easements. You’ll notice there’s an existing hooked 4 (Queensbury Planning Board 01/20/2011) driveway that comes from the property to the west. That driveway accesses the Broome property. There’s also an access easement in the southeast corner, and that is to access the eastern property and on both of those are existing residences. What I don’t have on this survey, and I guess I just would like to point out, is the, and maybe Keith has an aerial photo he could pull up. There are adjacent properties, you can see that there’s a residence on both sides. Both of those residences are relatively close to the shoreline, and in particular the one to the east is relatively close to our eastern property line, and so that’s kind of part of the, I just wanted you to take note of that because it is part of the reasoning as to why we’re building farther away from the shoreline, to establish some privacy. The soils on the property are very well drained, course to medium sands. There are some cobbles and stone and gravel mixed in. We did test pits up in the area of our planned absorption field and stormwater mitigation trenches. No evidence of groundwater. No evidence of any kind of moisture whatsoever. Basically granular sand and gravel, as deep as we could possibly dig. Essentially what we’re doing is driving up from the shoreline to a knoll, and as you travel south, your grades shoot back down to a ravine. So we’re basically on this large sand and gravel mound. So we do have great soils for infiltration and absorption of runoff, and sewage effluent. The existing vegetation, if Keith, I guess, if you could go back to that aerial, I think it’s pretty evident to see that the site is well vegetated, with the exception of that intermediate area that’s relatively flat where the driveway was installed. That area is open and all gravel currently, and, other than that, most of the property is vegetated with both some underbrush and existing trees. You’ll notice on Drawing C-2, we did provide a, all of the trees that were larger than a four inch diameter, and those were all mapped out for the entire area where we’re planning to disturb, just so you would be clear as to what we’re interfering with and clearing related to the existing trees on site. I guess I’ll move into Drawing C-3, the proposed Site Plan. Basically, there were several design criteria, in meeting with our client on this particular project, some both related to site constraints and others personal preference. I would like to kind of describe how we arrived at the particular design you see in front of you. Being that this particular owner does travel overseas, this is planned to be a very light, lightly used seasonal use type residence. It is, although it says in the application 2,000 square feet, the footprint of the building and the house we’re proposing is 684 square feet. It’s 18 by 38. So a relatively small footprint for a single family dwelling. There are retaining walls that are going to be proposed on that area of the site we’re developing. That’s both to achieve stability of the grades on site to flatten those out, as well as an aesthetic value, in order to allow everything to work in that particular area. This owner had a preference to build farther from the shoreline, up on top of the hill. The main reason for that is, given his age, retirement age, he would prefer to enjoy the serenity and ambience of that area with views rather than being on the shoreline listening to water-skiers and also being relatively close to the neighbors. If he chooses to construct down on that flat area, he’ll be adjacent, directly to the neighbor to the east. So privacy and personal preference kind of drove him to want and to chose the location we provided, which is farther from the shoreline, which is probably not typical from what you’re accustomed to seeing, which is usually as close to the shoreline as they can possibly get. This particular design has a few benefits, which I’d like to kind of go into briefly. Number One, there is a shared access driveway which hooks down for the Broome property. By not building down on the flat portion, which we certainly could do without a variance, we eliminate the need to have a shared driveway constantly. I mean, this particular design, he’ll have his own driveway, his own parking situation. He may access that occasionally, but because there’s nothing planned down on the shoreline area, that will be eliminated to some degree. The other component that’s kind of beneficial here, and let’s speak from the lake standpoint, is all of the disturbance on this site is as far, we’re basically maximizing the distance to the shoreline. We’re providing both infiltration of stormwater and sewage, over 100 to 125 feet from the shoreline, with zero need for any infiltration or absorption of pollutants down near the lake. You’ll notice that the shoreline is not being disturbed. We’re not clearing any shoreline vegetation. That buffer is being maintained, and you’ll also notice on C-3, we’ve identified that gravel area, which I believe is approximately 3200 square feet. We’re planning to remove that gravel and re-vegetate that with something that will infiltrate and absorb runoff. So I think all of those are positive design aspects, in terms of keeping, being good stewards of the lake and protecting the lake. I said before, for personal reasons and personal preferences, we’re building farther from the shoreline. I think another particular benefit that’s a by-product of that decision is rather than having, from your shoreline view shed, rather than having a row of houses along the shore, you’ve now got a couple of houses you can see, but this one will be set back and will be nearly invisible from the lake itself. So we kind of break up that continuity of having row housing along the shoreline. So I think that’s certainly, from a view standpoint, a positive benefit. I think overall this particular design provides limited site disturbance. Total disturbance for this site’s about 5,000 square feet, which I think is pretty minimal considering we have over a half acre of land. In general, what we’ve tried to do is minimize the impact and address any concerns that might come about related to the construction on the slopes that we’ve proposed. Let me go into the house, I guess, a little bit. Keith, if you could pull up, there’s a file on there, I think it’s called exterior finishes. We have proposed some house, preliminary house drawings and floor plans. Originally there was going to be a combination of siding and stone. The owner’s preference at this time is to go for a more English style. He does have a home in England, and we would be 5 (Queensbury Planning Board 01/20/2011) mimicking a scenario with stone and brick, similar to what you see on the screen there. So this would be the entire finish of the exterior on all four sides. We’d be basically mimicking that scenario. So that’s a slight modification from what you have on the information in front of you. We are providing stormwater mitigation for the proposed improvement for the building. What we’ve done, since we are reducing impervious cover on the site, there’s a net reduction. So therefore no stormwater mitigation is required by Code, but we did provide enough volume storage to store the entire 25 year storm. You’ll see that there’s eaves trenches provided on both sides of the home, and that will be able to occupy 100% of that volume from the 25 year storm. So there will be no additional runoff from the residence itself related to that. We are going to, ultimately, if and when this does come back in front of this Board, request a couple of waivers. Because of the minor magnitude of this project, we’re going to be requesting waivers from stormwater submissions, landscaping and lighting, and if those are something you want to discuss in more detail, we’d be happy to review those as well. Basically, in general, I guess, to sum this project up, we feel we’ve done a good job of mitigating any concerns related to the slopes, related to the lake, shoreline vegetation. The area that we’re planning predominantly most of this construction is in the ten percent to thirty-five percent slope range. There will be some challenges with that, but we do plan, we have been retained by the owner to work closely with the contractor to ensure that this site is stable throughout construction, and we are planning all measures here during construction and design to ensure that we have no issues related to construction on those slopes. By the nature of this particular site, all of the construction will happen working from Fitzgerald Road down. So we’ll basically be working from above and excavating and providing those installations of those retaining walls. The retaining walls are proposed to be segmental style retaining walls. We feel that’s the best suited for this site, and allows us to backfill and reinforce those grades as we build the site. I do have one other slide. I guess, Keith, if you could pop open that profile. I guess for argument’s sake here, because when you think of steep slopes, I guess you can imagine, there’s anything from a vertical bluff to somewhat mild and moderate slopes. That’s a profile on a one to one scale of this particular site, and you can see the areas I’m talking about, where it’s 10 to 35% where the house is to the upper portions, steepens out to 80% and then flattens out to a 0 to 10% area, and then dips down to the shoreline on the left side of that screen. So that’s kind of a general depiction of a cross section through the site. I think when you look at it from this perspective, it doesn’t look as bad as it might sound, and I think certainly we feel that the design elements and things we’ve incorporated into this design will mitigate any of those problems. So that’s all I have for you today. I guess I wanted to try to be somewhat brief. I’d be happy to answer any questions you have. MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. Questions, comments from the Board? I think the visual makes it look worse than how it reads. MR. RYAN-Well, I think when people think of 80% slopes and stuff they don’t realize 100% slopes are 45 degree angle. So, you know, I think you’ve got to picture, I like to always provide a visual. It does help. MR. HUNSINGER-Yes. MR. SIPP-Is there anything planned for the area where the, on the south side where the swale and this is supposed to be improved and minimum of six inches depth and width and then the Eljen area drain? What’s the landscaping there? MR. RYAN-Basically what’s happening, I guess I could describe that area a little bit, and this is kind of part of the reason we’re going for a variance at the Town Board of Health. Number One, there is a separation issue from the well. It is required to be 200 feet, when you’re directly down gradient. We have 130 feet. It is a cased well. So we feel that’s adequate there. We did provide an Eljen system that’s a little closer to the property line to the south. The reason for that is the slopes, there’s almost basically a plateau as soon as you get to the property line where it’s flat and then starts to invert back to Fitzgerald Road. So there’s a knoll there that’s basically going to be trimmed down to flatten out the grades enough so that when we install the retaining wall we’ll have adequate, basically a more level playing field there for the Eljen system itself. I’m not sure of the exact question you want me to answer related to the corner, but essentially right now there’s limited vegetation in that particular area, a few small trees. That’s where the did the test pits and it was easily accessible with a small excavator, and we don’t plan to re-vegetate that other than grass, at this point. Anything that is off the property would remain, because we wouldn’t be impacting that. MR. HUNSINGER-Other questions, comments from the Board? MR. KREBS-If you’re going to use the piece of property, it’s certainly advantageous to have the housing and everything as far back from the water as possible. So that’s a real positive. 6 (Queensbury Planning Board 01/20/2011) MR. RYAN-I just would like to know, so that there’s, certainly there can always be fears about further expansion. We are at 20% impervious, the maximum is 25. So the most you could go without an additional variance if you want to do something in the future would be only an additional five percent impervious cover. So there is limited ability to do much more than what we’ve shown. MR. OBORNE-And I would add that if you were to do that, you’d have to come back for Site Plan Review currently as the Code is written for expansion of a non-conforming structure in a CEA. MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. Well, would anyone like to put forward a recommendation to the Zoning Board? We do have the sample recommendation in the package. MR. TRAVER-Yes. Let me see what I can do here. MOTION THAT THE PLANNING BOARD MAKES A RECOMMENDATION TO THE ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS FOR AREA VARIANCE NO. 1-2011 FOR DOUGLAS & MURIEL CHERRY, Introduced by Stephen Traver who moved for its adoption, seconded by Donald Krebs: Tax Map ID 289.14-1-7; Fitzgerald Road Whereas, the applicant has submitted the following: Applicant proposes construction of a single family home. Site Plan: Construction on or within 50 feet of slopes equal to or greater than 15% requires Planning Board review and approval. Area Variance: relief requested from minimum setback requirements of the WR zone. Planning Board to provide written recommendation to Zoning Board of Appeals; 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 MOTION THAT THE PLANNING BOARD MAKES A RECOMMENDATION TO THE ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS FOR AREA VARIANCE NO. 1-2011 FOR DOUGLAS & MURIEL CHERRY, Introduced by Stephen Traver who moved for its adoption, seconded by Donald Krebs: 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, we have found that the Planning Board, based on a limited review, has not identified any significant adverse impacts that cannot be mitigated with current project proposal during Site Plan Review. th Duly adopted this 20 day of January, 2011, by the following vote: MR. HUNSINGER-Are you going to get us revised elevation drawings? MR. RYAN-Yes. What I’ll do, assuming things go well next week with both the Town Board and the Zoning Board, we will re-submit any updates and modifications. There are a couple of minor modifications, and we’ll re-submit those, I guess it would be by, we’d be looking at February. MR. OBORNE-Yes, you’ll be on the February agenda. MR. RYAN-Okay. MR. OBORNE-Back to Site Plan, assuming that you get the DOH approval. If it’s okay with the Board, I could attach them to my Staff Notes. MR. HUNSINGER-That would be fine, yes. MR. RYAN-It would be basically one or two pages with some minor revisions. MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. MR. RYAN-I can do that. 7 (Queensbury Planning Board 01/20/2011) AYES: Mr. Krebs, Mr. Traver, Mr. Magowan, Mr. Jackoski, Mr. Schonewolf, Mr. Sipp, Mr. Hunsinger NOES: NONE MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. Good luck. MR. RYAN-Okay. Thank you. MR. HUNSINGER-You’re welcome. SITE PLAN NO. 69-2010 SEQR TYPE II JAMES KALOCK AGENT(S) CURTIS DYBAS OWNER(S) SAME ZONING WR [WATERFRONT RESIDENTIAL] LOCATION 336 GLEN LAKE ROAD APPLICANT PROPOSES RENOVATIONS AND ADDITIONS TO EXISTING THREE (3) BEDROOM HOME. SITE PLAN: EXPANSION OF A NON-CONFORMING STRUCTURE IN A CEA REQUIRES PLANNING BOARD REVIEW AND APPROVAL. AREA VARIANCE: RELIEF FROM SHORELINE AND SIDE SETBACK AND PERMEABILITY REQUIREMENTS, AND EXPANSION OF NON-CONFORMING STRUCTURE IN A CEA. PLANNING BOARD TO PROVIDE WRITTEN RECOMMENDATION TO THE ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS. CROSS REFERENCE AV 2-2011 WARREN CO. PLANNING N/A APA, CEA, OTHER GLEN LAKE CEA, 100 YR. FLOODPLAIN LOT SIZE 0.36 +/- ACRES TAX MAP NO. 289.9-1-77 SECTION 179-9, 179-13-010G CURTIS DYBAS, REPRESENTING APPLICANT, PRESENT MR. HUNSINGER-Keith, whenever you’re ready. MR. OBORNE-Site Plan 69-2010, Area Variance 2-2011, James Kalock before you for the same as the previous applicant, a recommendation to the Zoning Board of Appeals. 336 Glen Lake Road is the location. This is Waterfront Residential. It’s a Type II SEQRA. Project Description: Applicant proposes renovations and a 1602 square foot expansion of an existing 1565 square foot three bedroom home. As the Board knows, expansion of a non-conforming structure in a CEA requires Planning Board review and approval. The applicant has provided a compliant wastewater design to be installed in conjunction with this project. The applicant proposes to utilize the existing drywells on site to infiltration stormwater either by sheet flow or roof leaders directed to these devices. I do want to note that storage capacity is assumed and calculations are provided. There are waivers for stormwater, landscaping, grading and lighting, and topography. Nature of Area Variance: Shoreline setback relief request for 20 feet or 40% relief from the 50 foot shoreline setback requirement, west side setback relief request for 16.8 or 84% relief from the 20 foot setback requirement, permeability relief request for 836 square feet or 35.6% permeability relief from the 30% maximum requirement and relief for the expansion of a non-conforming structure. With that, I will turn it over to the Board. MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. Thank you. Good evening. MR. DYBAS-Good evening. Curt Dybas acting as agent for James Kalock. First I want to start off by saying, by looking at a lot of those numbers. They appear to be asking for moderate relief at best, but let me first get into it. Is we have a camp here that was, by the best of my knowledge from the deeds, was constructed around 1910. That is the 24 by 24 addition, which is what is situated 30 feet from the shoreline and 4.8 feet from the west property line. If that building is to remain, and it must be worked on, it’s not in the best shape at this point, any type of variance will be required for those setbacks. So though they appear very tight at the present, they will have to remain if that building is to stay there. Just a brief summation. We have a .36 acre parcel with 100 feet of shoreline and approximately, a little bit better than 200 feet of depth, which is a good sized parcel for Glen Lake. As Keith mentioned, we have modified the stormwater. There was an existing system, 1,000 gallon septic tank, and we have incorporated a new field, which would be constructed up by Glen Lake Road, and bring the system into current compliance as far as wastewater. There is currently two drywells on the property. The driveway area sheet drains into one. There are two retaining walls that are stone retaining walls that, short one’s across the bottom of the driveway and along the lakefront, or facing the lakefront, they’re over 50 feet away, that really doesn’t allow any water to get past those, and directs the flow back into the drywell. The house itself is, as I said, old. Mr. Kalock purchased it in 1986, from what I can tell was the original family ownership was passed down through and they owned it for about 80 years. The original building, as I mentioned, was built around 1910. There was a kitchen addition put on the eastern side that was about 14 feet wide. I figure that was put on somewhere shortly after World War II. The north addition, which is the back of the building, the previous owner, due to health reasons, constructed a 16 by 24 addition on the rear of the building because she could no longer, I believe, get to the second floor, and she 8 (Queensbury Planning Board 01/20/2011) incorporated a bathroom into that addition, and I assumed at that time the septic system was modernized around probably1980, around that time. After Mr. Kalock purchased the property, he’s made improvements to the inside of the house. it has remained pretty much as is. He installed new windows in a couple of places, but the shape of it has not changed, and to the best of my knowledge it has remained untouched for 25 years. He, at this time, is looking toward retirement, wants to make a more usable dwelling for a year round basis, and of course, living in the North Country, we all need a garage, and he came to me in August and we looked at two previous designs to the one that’s in front of you, and in both cases we constructed the garage to the left or the east, and there’s 100 feet of lakefront, as I mentioned, and he was thinking about it, and he said you’re going to block my view of the lake and also impact the view from the lake back onto the property. Also that addition that is on the north side of the building is fully constructed. The sill plates are below grade. The roof has got a great sag in it, and the recommendation is, without even getting into the lower portion of it, is to take it down and re- build it. That was part of the first two proposals that we prepared. Mr. Kalock came back and he said, well, if we’re going to tear that addition off, why don’t we incorporate the garage into that space, do a minimal visual impact on the site, and then minimal disturbance to the site, we can re-use the west foundation wall, obviously have to build others. The septic system is sitting out, just about where I think that’s a snow pile out there. I think it’s in that area right now. So we went back and re-configured the building and added a two car garage with a storage attic above, in the area of the addition, created a new entryway, because this entrance you walk down to get into this house. as you can see it’s set down in, and he desired a better directive entrance, and also, anyone who visited the site will notice that that north roof drains into some culvert device that drains underneath the addition and goes to where I don’t know, and no one can tell me where it goes to. So, by incorporating a new entrance and porch onto that, we’re allowed to address that runoff and direct it to the drywells, and keep everything behind the building from the lake. We are not changing the shoreline at all. We’re not touching it. We’re leaving whatever’s there, there. There’s a lot of natural growth, and we elected to leave that all intact. Not changing the driveway. We will clip a corner to build a garage, but we still have ample space to get in and out of the garage. So the removal of the north addition goes away, and we add back in. Now the numbers that you see, when you see the 1500 square foot three bedroom house, that is basically the remaining portion of the house, the original 1910 and 1950 addition, let’s call it. That’s the 1500 square feet two floors. Their house is currently a three bedroom house with that north addition on it. What we’re going to do is renovate the second floor and make a two bedroom house. There is a study downstairs in the house, which technically could be called a bedroom but it’s used for his study. He is in the import/export business. So that’s the original house. The 1600 square feet that you see, basically there’s about 320 square feet of habitable space. The remainder of it is the garage, the attic loft above the garage, which by the FAR ratios, I must include anything over five feet. Well, by New York State Code definition, five feet is not a habitable space, not by, if you look at the 50% rules and everything else, and we won’t get into that. The remainder of the 1600 square feet is covered porch, which is mainly the entry. So if you just say it’s 320 square feet of habitable space added to the 1500, you’re about an 1800 square foot two bedroom house, which, by today’s standards, I consider modest. So there is a lot of garage space, storage space built into this structure. We are planning on re-using the drywells. The calculations that you see in your packet are conservative. It still shows plenty of surplus, but the sizes of the drywells will be confirmed and can be inspected when we get into excavation on this site. There was comment that whoever went could not find the drywell off the northwest end of the addition. I did see it. There’s a leader that comes down and goes into the ground. This time of the year I don’t know if it would be visible, but that drains that basically north addition and a portion of the existing house roof. We would be handling over half, I think, of the existing and new house roof into drywells, and as far as the permeable area is concerned, the permeable, non-permeable area counts the driveway, but a lot of that driveway is already drained. At last a third to a half of it runs into the drywell right now. So it’s not really sheeting off onto the grass. It’s handled by the existing drywell. The setbacks are the setbacks. I mean, as long as the house stays there, there’s not much we can do, and as I said, we would be using that west wall for part of the garage addition. Also, we are changing the roof. Right now the roofline goes east/west. We will make, the roof is going to go north/south, and basically reducing that height of that gable end along the west property line. We would switch it around. We are going to re-frame the roof, because typical Glen Lake camp, the roof is framed with like one by four’s and one by six’s, and we’ll bring it up to current Code standards and also energy compliance. Questions? I think I’ve exhausted my. MR. HUNSINGER-Questions, comments from the Board? MR. TRAVER-There’s some questions in the, and I know this is with regards to the Site Plan, but there are some Staff comments about the drywell, sedimentation control measures to be used during construction. Do you have any comments regarding those comments? MR. DYBAS-Basically, as I mentioned, there’s two drywells there, and once we are on site with the equipment, we will confirm the condition, the size of the drywells and if necessary obviously 9 (Queensbury Planning Board 01/20/2011) have to replace them if necessary to bring them into compliance with whatever stormwater we have to handle, if they’re not per the assumption. As far as, you know, the erosion control, we’ll do the standard control fencing around the front of the building during construction and then obviously remove it upon completion. MR. TRAVER-Thank you. MR. SIPP-Is there any buffer area going to be between the lake and the structure? I know there’s natural growth there, but is there enough to meet 179-8? MR. DYBAS-I’m sorry I don’t have an answer for you on that. MR. SIPP-Well, when I saw it, there was a lot of snow on it. You couldn’t tell what was there. MR. OBORNE-When I visited the site, I took this picture here, and obviously there seems to be native plantings that seem to be volunteered there. They don’t seem to have a garden, a huge garden or anything along those lines. So, I don’t know if you want to get in there and start messing around. MR. SIPP-As long as it’s stable. MR. DYBAS-I have pictures that I’ve taken, I have with me, I can find them, that I took last late summer, and as Keith said, there’s a lot of native growth in there, particularly on the west side, and there’s two terraced areas. I don’t know if Keith has a picture. MR. OBORNE-Yes, I don’t, but I did notice them. MR. DYBAS-There’s two terraced areas to the west side, which are lovely. I mean, it would be a shame to even get into those. One of the advantages of not doing anything to the front of the building is that we don’t have to disturb any of the lakefront, probably within 60 to 65 feet I would guess. We’re not touching anything in that area. We’re not, it was one of the things that Mr. Kalock insisted on is that picture right there would be about where the new garage would have gone, and he did not want to disturb that view. I mean, when you pull in that driveway, there it is. You’re directly across from the previous parcel you’re looking at, and the view is phenomenal when you come down that driveway, particularly on a late autumn day. I mean, it’s just fantastic, and the snow, the ice isn’t there in the Fall. MR. HUNSINGER-How difficult would it be for you to identify some of the, I mean, obviously you’re not going to identify groundcover on the drawing, but you could certainly identify the trees that are along the shoreline. MR. DYBAS-I, you know, I can probably, I’m not an expert. I can probably have someone identify the trees. MR. HUNSINGER-Well, I’m just saying, you know, show it on the drawing. MR. DYBAS-Spot the drawings? MR. HUNSINGER-Yes. You don’t have to tell us what kind of tree it is, but. MR. DYBAS-I can probably spot them by measurement, triangulation measurement, off of the house. MR. TRAVER-The location and the caliper of the significant vegetation would be helpful. MR. HUNSINGER-Yes. MR. TRAVER-Just to judge the buffering that’s there. MR. DYBAS-How far back from the shoreline? MR. SIPP-Fifteen feet. MR. HUNSINGER-Yes. Fifteen feet. MR. KREBS-Fifteen. MR. SIPP-The buffer strip is supposed to be fifteen feet wide. 10 (Queensbury Planning Board 01/20/2011) MR. SIPP-I think you’re pretty close with what you’ve got there. Unless there’s poison ivy in there or something. MR. SCHONEWOLF-Yes, there’s probably poison ivy and poison oak. MR. DYBAS-To the west side I wouldn’t be a bit surprised. I can do that. As long as you don’t expect me to do it in the below zero weather this week. MR. HUNSINGER-No. MR. OBORNE-Does the Board desire to have those with Staff Notes or as a handout? There is a little snafu with this project, unfortunately, is they were actually slated for next Tuesday, but they’re not going to get their variance until next Wednesday. So they’re going to be put off until February, and, as such, that gives them a bit of time to get around to any concerns you may have, and, you know, you may want to direct them on how you want them to present any additional information. MR. HUNSINGER-Yes. MR. SIPP-The only thing I would say is the location of the septic system MR. OBORNE-It’s located. MR. DYBAS-I believe, I have it in the record somewhere. There was a drawing that was, I believe, approved or signed off by Mr. Hatin. MR. OBORNE-The proposed wastewater system is compliant, is my understanding. MR. DYBAS-Yes, my understanding also. MR. OBORNE-I’m sure the existing wastewater system will be decommissioned. MR. DYBAS-Yes, it will. The plan, as I mentioned, is they’re going to leave the existing pre-cast concrete tank and run a new field, you know, it’s about 200 feet back from the lake. MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. Any other questions, comments from the Board? I haven’t heard many comments about the variance requests, should I say concerns about the variance requests. MR. KREBS-Well, the house is there. MR. HUNSINGER-Yes. Exactly. MR. KREBS-So there’s not much you can do about some of the variances that are required by the existing building. MR. TRAVER-Yes, the only concerns I had were Site Plan issues, really. MR. KREBS-Right. MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. Would anyone like to make a recommendation, then? There is the. MR. TRAVER-I’ll make a recommendation. MOTION THAT THE PLANNING BOARD MAKES A RECOMMENDATION TO THE ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS FOR AREA VARIANCE NO. 2-2011 FOR JAMES KALOCK, Introduced by Stephen Traver who moved for its adoption, seconded by Donald Krebs: Tax Map ID 289.9-1-77; 336 Glen Lake Road Whereas, the applicant has submitted the following: Applicant proposes renovations and additions to existing three (3) bedroom home. Site Plan: Expansion of a non-conforming structure in a CEA requires Planning Board review and approval. Area Variance: Relief from shoreline and side setback and permeability requirements, and expansion of non-conforming structure in a CEA. Planning Board to provide written recommendation to the Zoning Board of Appeals; and 11 (Queensbury Planning Board 01/20/2011) 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 MOTION THAT THE PLANNING BOARD MAKES A RECOMMENDATION TO THE ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS FOR AREA VARIANCE NO. 2-2011 FOR JAMES KALOCK, Introduced by Stephen Traver who moved for its adoption, seconded by Donald Krebs: 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 the Planning Board, based on a limited review, has not identified any significant adverse impacts that cannot be mitigated with current project proposal through the Site Plan Review process. th Duly adopted this 20 day of January, 2011, by the following vote: AYES: Mr. Krebs, Mr. Traver, Mr. Sipp, Mr. Magowan, Mr. Schonewolf, Mr. Jackoski, Mr. Hunsinger NOES: NONE MR. HUNSINGER-Is there, before the applicant leaves the table, is there any other information that we would like to see in the Site Plan Review, other than identification of at least the large trees along the shoreline? MR. TRAVER-Well, we have these, there are these Staff comments that the applicant’s aware of, clarification of the drywells and so on. He’s indicated that they’ll take care of that and we’ll be looking at appropriate sedimentation control measures. Those are the only concerns that I had. MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. MR. KREBS-And we can put those in as requirements, as approval for the Site Plan. MR. SCHONEWOLF-Conditions of approval. MR. HUNSINGER-Yes. MR. MAGOWAN-Now do we want a location of the septic tank off of the addition? MR. OBORNE-The existing? MR. MAGOWAN-The existing, yes. You said you’re going to be using that, correct? MR. DYBAS-We’ll be using that. It should be located on a sketch that was part of a packet I do believe. It’s north of the corner of the garage. It’s on a site plan sketch I prepared on 10/15. MR. HUNSINGER-Yes, it is on there. MR. DYBAS-And there’s also a propane tank, buried propane tank out there. MR. HUNSINGER-Anything else? Is it okay if he submits that with Staff Notes? MR. OBORNE-Well, I see, I have a survey here that shows the existing septic tank. They’re going to re-use it, and that’s not going to be, the expansion is not going to conflict with that. MR. HUNSINGER-No, what we’d asked for is the location of the large trees. MR. OBORNE-Of the large trees. Okay. I thought you were on the septic. I apologize. MR. DYBAS-Now, just for clarification, 15 feet from the lake or 50 feet from the lake? MR. OBORNE-One five. MR. HUNSINGER-Well, I mean, you know, just looking at your site plan, between the lake and the retaining wall is almost 30 feet. 12 (Queensbury Planning Board 01/20/2011) MR. DYBAS-So anything in that slot? MR. HUNSINGER-Yes. That would be more than adequate. Just put a circle on the plan. MR. TRAVER-Buffering is a concern. So it’s to your advantage to represent the buffering that’s there, too, whatever width you want, but 15 is what we require. MR. DYBAS-Yes, okay. MR. HUNSINGER-We need to have a site plan that’s Code compliant. So if you can identify those, you know, we can make a determination that there’s other growth there, too. Then you’ll be all set. MR. OBORNE-And you would like that under separate cover to, as a separate sheet of paper at the next meeting, or how do you want to go about doing that? MR. HUNSINGER-Well, I mean, I don’t care how you actually submit it. It could be on the existing site plan just to identify the trees. MR. DYBAS-I will. MR. HUNSINGER-Or if you want to do it as a separate submission, that’s fine. MR. DYBAS-Okay. Thank you. MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. Thank you. SITE PLAN NO. 1-2011 SEQR TYPE II AFTAB SAM BHATTI AGENT(S) GARY HUGHES OWNER(S) SAME ZONING CI [COMMERCIAL INTENSIVE] LOCATION 543 AVIATION ROAD APPLICANT REQUESTS APPROVAL AFTER THE FACT FOR THE CONSTRUCTION OF A 120 SQUARE FOOT CANOPY AT MAIN OFFICE LOCATION. SITE PLAN: REVISIONS TO APPROVED SITE PLANS REQUIRE PLANNING BOARD REVIEW AND APPROVAL. AREA VARIANCE: RELIEF REQUESTED FROM FRONT SIDE SETBACK REQUIREMENTS AS WELL AS FLOOR AREA RATIO REQUIREMENTS. PLANNING BOARD TO PROVIDE WRITTEN RECOMMENDATION TO THE ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS. CROSS REFERENCE AV 3-11, AV 29-05, SP 12-04, AV 19-04, SP 20-03, AV 85, 55 & 25 OF 02 WARREN CO. PLANNING 1/12/11 LOT SIZE 2.19, 0.83 +/- ACRES TAX MAP NO. 302.5-1- 51, 52, 52.13 SECTION 179-9 GARY HUGHES, REPRESENTING APPLICANT, PRESENT MR. HUNSINGER-Keith, whenever you’re ready. MR. OBORNE-Site Plan 1-2011 and Area Variance 3-2011, Sam Bhatti doing business as Econo Lodge. Again, requested action is recommendation to the Zoning Board of Appeals concerning the relief requested. 543 Aviation Road is the location. CI, Commercial Intensive, is the existing zoning. This is a Type II SEQRA. Project Description: Applicant requests approval for the construction and completion of a 120 square foot canopy at main office location. Revisions to approved site plans require Planning Board review and approval. I just want to just, as a comment, although Floor Area Ratio has increased by 120 square feet, the permeability for the site will remain unchanged as the canopy was constructed over an impermeable surface, i.e. macadam. Nature of Variance: Travel Corridor relief – Request for 38.4 feet or 51% relief from the 75 foot Travel Corridor setback requirement, and front setback relief – Request for 38.4 feet or 51% relief from the 75 foot Front setback requirement. FAR relief, an additional 120 square feet for a total FAR of 42.90%. It is currently existing at 42.78%. Relief for the expansion of a non-conforming structure, and one plan review issue that did come up is the Fire Marshal comments which are attached, which I will now turn over to the Board. MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. Great. Thank you. Good evening. MR. HUGHES-Hi. I’m Gary Hughes. I’m the agent for Sam Bhatti of the Econo Lodge, and I guess, just referring to the narrative, Sammy did build a, or is in the process of building, without a building permit, a 10 by 20 canopy over the entrance to the Econo Lodge hotel. I believe a Stop Work Order was put on it, and because of the things that he wasn’t aware of, the Travel Corridor, the setback relief, the FAR relief, and the expansion of a non-conforming structure, he was unaware of that. As a result, he went ahead and did get a Stop Work Order on it. As you can see from the pictures in the application, it’s nearly complete. Of course with the Stop Work Order, we’re here to see if we can kind of move backwards, get our reliefs, and get permission to get a building permit. 13 (Queensbury Planning Board 01/20/2011) MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. Anything else? Questions, comments from the Board? MR. SCHONEWOLF-Is it 12 foot 6? Or 12 foot, is that what it is? MR. HUGHES-It is 12 feet right now. MR. SCHONEWOLF-It’s got to be 13 something. MR. HUGHES-I believe that’s true if you were going to go under it. I talked briefly with the Fire Marshal yesterday. I did not have a map. Sammy had my map, and if you refer to the survey map, there is a 27 foot distance between the edge of the framing and parking spot number 73, and then as you go up through there, it goes down to 24 feet. Again, I have not talked with the Fire Marshal on this, but in a lot of situations, one that I’m very aware of is McDonalds, they have a low clearance sign, and a lot of the drive through restaurants have those, for example a nine foot six clearance sign and they also have the area similar to this where they can go around with a minimum of 20 feet between parking and the building. So I would like to approach the Fire Marshal and get his feelings on that, on maybe perhaps that being a resolution to that problem. MR. HUNSINGER-Any other questions, comments from the Board? MR. SCHONEWOLF-Well, from the front of what you’ve built there out, do you have 20 feet? MR. HUGHES-No. We have 27 to the parking. MR. SCHONEWOLF-I know, but that includes the distance right to the building. MR. HUGHES-No. MR. SCHONEWOLF-No? MR. HUGHES-No. If you refer to the survey map in the plan, it’s out 10 feet, the structure, the roof structure is out 10 feet with a one foot overhang, and then it’s 27 feet from that steel frame to parking space 73, and as you can see, they’re all, they’re right in line. MR. SCHONEWOLF-All right. Then you better talk to him, because I, you obviously can get a fire truck in front of the building, because you’re just going to be in front of that, right? MR. HUGHES-No, there’s 27 feet of space, 20 is the. MR. SCHONEWOLF-I know. I said you’ve got room to drive a truck in there. MR. HUGHES-Yes. MR. SCHONEWOLF-That’s what, if the building’s on fire, he’s not going to drive it underneath that? MR. HUGHES-No. MR. SCHONEWOLF-I hope not. MR. HUGHES-No, they’d probably have to take care of that away from the building, probably almost out in the street, I would think. MR. SCHONEWOLF-Well, he’ll stay away from it because it’s probably going to fall down. So long as he’s got room to get the fire truck in front of the building. MR. HUGHES-Yes, sir, he does. MR. SCHONEWOLF-So I would check with him, and make sure he sees what we see. MR. OBORNE-And I would also suggest, if I may, to maybe get with the district fire chief also and see what his feelings are on it. If he’s comfortable with it, it’s probably okay. MR. HUNSINGER-Good advice, yes. Any other comments, concerns from the Board? That was my big issue. I mean, I saw that letter and I said, well, how can we even approve this, based on what the Fire Marshal is saying. 14 (Queensbury Planning Board 01/20/2011) MR. HUGHES-Sure. MR. HUNSINGER-But that’s not even relative to the Area Variance. That’s really a Site Plan issue. MR. OBORNE-Right. MR. HUNSINGER-Well, would anyone like to make a recommendation to the Zoning Board? MR. TRAVER-So we would be asking the applicant to clarify the concern reflected in the letter from the Fire Marshal. MR. HUNSINGER-Yes. MR. TRAVER-So that’s a concern. MR. HUNSINGER-That is a concern. Would that impact the Zoning Board, though, Keith? MR. OBORNE-I’m sorry, I missed that. Excuse me? MR. TRAVER-The concern to essentially get a signoff from the Fire Marshal on the height issue, I’m hearing as a concern. MR. OBORNE-Yes, absolutely. MR. TRAVER-Yes. Okay. MOTION THAT THE PLANNING BOARD MAKES A RECOMMENDATION TO THE ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS FOR AREA VARIANCE NO. 3-2011 FOR AFTAB SAM BHATTI, Introduced by Stephen Traver who moved for its adoption, seconded by Donald Krebs: Tax Map ID 302.5-1-51, 52, 52.13; 543 Aviation Road Whereas, the applicant has submitted the following: Site Plan: Applicant requests approval after the fact for the construction of a 120 square foot canopy at main office location. Revisions to approved site plans require Planning Board review and approval. Area Variance: Relief requested from front side setback requirements as well as Floor Area Ratio requirements. Planning Board to provide written recommendation to the ZBA; 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 MOTION THAT THE PLANNING BOARD MAKES A RECOMMENDATION TO THE ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS FOR AREA VARIANCE NO. 3-2011 FOR AFTAB SAM BHATTI, Introduced by Stephen Traver who moved for its adoption, seconded by Donald Krebs: 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, the Planning Board, based on a limited review, has identified the following area of concern: a. A letter from the Fire Marshal indicating that the height of the structure is inadequate, and we feel that the applicant should further pursue discussions with the Fire Marshal in order to get signoff on that issue. th Duly adopted this 20 day of January, 2011, by the following vote: MR. HUNSINGER-Keith had also suggested to you that you meet with the local fire chief. MR. HUGHES-Yes. MR. HUNSINGER-I don’t know if you need to do that before the ZBA meeting, but certainly we’d want to see that. MR. HUGHES-Yes, well, I definitely have time to do that. 15 (Queensbury Planning Board 01/20/2011) MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. AYES: Mr. Krebs, Mr. Sipp, Mr. Traver, Mr. Magowan, Mr. Schonewolf, Mr. Jackoski, Mr. Hunsinger NOES: NONE MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. You’re all set. MR. HUGHES-Thank you very much. MR. HUNSINGER-You’re welcome. Thank you. SITE PLAN NO. 2-2011 SEQR TYPE PREVIOUS FGEIS GREAT ESCAPE THEME PARK AGENT(S) H. THOMAS JARRETT ENGINEERS, PLLC; LEMERY GREISLER, LLC ZONING RC [RECREATIONAL COMMERCIAL] LOCATION 1172 ROUTE 9 APPLICANT PROPOSES A 665 +/- SQ. FT. EXPANSION OF EXISTING FIRST AID BUILDING TO MEET HIPAA REQUIREMENTS. SITE PLAN: CHANGE TO AN EXISTING SITE PLAN REQUIRES PLANNING BOARD REVIEW AND APPROVAL. AREA VARIANCE: RELIEF REQUESTED FROM SIDE SETBACK REQUIREMENTS OF THE RC ZONE. PLANNING BOARD TO PROVIDE WRITTEN RECOMMENDATION TO THE ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS. CROSS REFERENCE AV 5-11 WARREN CO. PLANNING 1/12/11 APA, CEA, OTHER NWI & DEC WETLANDS, GLEN LAKE CEA, 100 YEAR FLOODPLAIN LOT SIZE 237.64 +/- ACRES TAX MAP NO. 288.20-1-20 SECTION 179-9 BOB HOLMES, REPRESENTING APPLICANT, PRESENT MR. HUNSINGER-Keith, whenever you’re ready to summarize Staff Notes. MR. OBORNE-Site Plan 2-2011 and Area Variance 5-2011, Great Escape. Particularly this is the First Aid station, just behind the Bavarian Palace. Recommendation to the Zoning Board of Appeals concerning the relief requested in the variance application. 1172 State Route 9 is the location. This is RC, Recreation Commercial zone. It’s a Type II SEQRA. The Project Description: Applicant proposes a 665 square foot expansion of the existing First Aid building. The Planning Board to provide a written recommendation. The applicant proposes an expansion in order to better comply with Federal guidelines, see applicant’s narrative. Although a waiver has been requested for stormwater, the applicant is proposing to provide eave trenches to promote the permeability of roof water. Waivers have been requested for lighting, stormwater, landscaping. Nature of Area Variance: Side setback relief – Request for 13 feet or 65% relief from the 20 foot side setback requirement, and relief for the expansion of a non- conforming structure, and with that I’d turn it over to the Board. MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. Thank you. Good evening. MR. HOLMES-Good evening. Bob Holmes with Jarrett Engineers and I’m joined by Bob Culver, the Special Projects Manager for The Great Escape. As long as, from my history in dealing with The Great Escape, I think this is probably one of our modest applications that we have before the Board here. So we’re hoping this one could be pretty straightforward. As Keith had mentioned there, we’re just basically looking to double the size of the existing First Aid station that is located, if you’re on Round Pond Road, directly behind the Bavarian Palace, right adjacent to the property line. Really this is the recommendation for going to the Zoning Board is just because of the proximity of the existing building where we’re looking to expand, we will be encroaching on the side lot setback. MR. HUNSINGER-When did you take these pictures, Keith? MR. OBORNE-These are actually Bob’s pictures. MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. MR. HOLMES-We brought them. We came with them tonight. Just so we can kind of give you a little bit of a background. MR. HUNSINGER-I was wondering where the snow was. MR. MAGOWAN-And placed the leaves down, that’s perfect. MR. HOLMES-Actually just a little bit of a background in here, and this area, too, I’m trying to think, is going to kind of be to the west of the existing building. It’s actually going to pretty much 16 (Queensbury Planning Board 01/20/2011) occupy a space of a ride that has been recently re-located. This area here is actually a hard, compact gravel surface that we’re, we aren’t proposing to expand any impervious area because that’s already been compacted because of the existence of, or the previous existence of the ride, and that’s really the short and the sweet of it. MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. Questions, comments from the Board? MR. OBORNE-We searched the EIS high and low trying to avoid this and couldn’t find anything at all. MR. HUNSINGER-Yes, there’s no reference at all to First Aid stations. Yes. I even pulled out the old, I pulled out the old, I forgot what the document is called, which volume. MR. OBORNE-This associated with the EIS? MR. HUNSINGER-Yes, the short, you know. MR. OBORNE-The Executive Summary? MR. HUNSINGER-Yes. MR. HOLMES-I think, if I remember, from the EIS, it’s the whole issue that rides and other ride structures are covered under the EIS, but there’s some vague, only vagaries that allude to buildings and other structures. That’s really I think where it kind of ended up, and long conversations with Keith and Craig. This is why we’re before you tonight. MR. HUNSINGER-Sure. Any concerns from the Board? Anyone like to make a recommendation, then? MOTION THAT THE PLANNING BOARD MAKES A RECOMMENDATION TO THE ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS FOR AREA VARIANCE NO. 5-2011 FOR GREAT ESCAPE THEME PARK, Introduced by Stephen Traver who moved for its adoption, seconded by Brad Magowan: Tax Map ID 288.20-1-20; 1172 State Route 9 Whereas, the applicant has submitted the following: Site Plan: Applicant proposes a 665 +/- sq. ft. expansion of existing First Aid building to meet HIPAA requirements. Area Variance: Relief requested from side setback requirements of the RC zone. Planning Board to provide written recommendation to the Zoning Board of Appeals; 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 MOTION THAT THE PLANNING BOARD MAKES A RECOMMENDATION TO THE ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS FOR AREA VARIANCE NO. 5-2011 FOR GREAT ESCAPE THEME PARK, Introduced by Stephen Traver who moved for its adoption, seconded by Brad Magowan: 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 the Planning Board, based on a limited review, has not identified any significant adverse impacts that cannot be mitigated with current project proposal through Site Plan Review. th Duly adopted this 20 day of January, 2011, by the following vote: AYES: Mr. Magowan, Mr. Krebs, Mr. Traver, Mr. Jackoski, Mr. Schonewolf, Mr. Sipp, Mr. Hunsinger NOES: NONE MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. Good luck. MR. HOLMES-Do we have the record for a Great Escape project, now? MR. HUNSINGER-Possibly. 17 (Queensbury Planning Board 01/20/2011) MR. HOLMES-Thank you. MR. HUNSINGER-Yes, you’re welcome. Thank you. OLD BUSINESS: SUBDIVISION NO. 15-2010 PRELIMINARY STAGE SEQR TYPE UNLISTED A2000/ADIRONDACK TIRE AGENT(S) JONATHAN LAPPER BARTLETT PONTIFF STEWART & RHODES OWNER(S) CRIST REVOCABLE TRUST ZONING CI [COMMERCIAL INTENSIVE] LOCATION 1025 STATE ROUTE 9 APPLICANT PROPOSES SUBDIVISION OF 2.82 +/- ACRES INTO TWO LOTS OF 1.0 & 1.82 +/- ACRES. SUBDIVISION OF LAND REQUIRES PLANNING BOARD REVIEW AND APPROVAL CROSS REFERENCE SP 83-10, AV 66-10, SP 4-00, SV 3-00, SP 50-02, AV 92-04 WARREN CO. PLANNING N/A LOT SIZE 2.82 +/- ACRES TAX MAP NO. 296.13-1-24 SECTION CHAPTER A-183 STEFANIE BITTER, REPRESENTING APPLICANT, PRESENT MR. HUNSINGER-Keith, whenever you’re ready. MR. OBORNE-Preliminary Subdivision 15-2010, A/2000 Adirondack Tire is the applicant. 1025 State Route 9 is the location. We’re here for Preliminary subdivision. CI is the existing zoning. This is an Unlisted SEQRA. A negative declaration has already been accomplished by this th Board on December 16. Area Variance has been approved for this project. I think that the Board members are pretty much up to speed on what the applicant is requesting. They will be back for Site Plan Review at a later date, upon approval of a Sign Variance that is required for this project, and that should be a pretty quick review, but that being said, I should just turn it over to the Board at this point. MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. Thank you. Good evening. MS. BITTER-Good evening. Stefanie Bitter. I’m here this evening with Keith Crist for the subdivision that’s being proposed as we discussed last month during the recommendation review. The front parcel is currently occupied by Adirondack Tire. They have a lease, which they also have an option to purchase pursuant to this subdivision. Right now the property, in total, represents 2.82 acres. Lot One, which would be conveyed to Adirondack Tire, would be one acre in size, and Lot Two, which is where the existing storage units occupy, would be 1.82 acres. Last month during the recommendation we had discussed the fact that Lot Two wouldn’t have any frontage on Route 9 and would be accessed pursuant to an easement which would be entered into between the parties. Those variances were obtained. So we’re here this evening to discuss Preliminary subdivision review. In our application materials, we discuss that due to the fact there would be no physical changes to this property that we’re seeking a number of waivers. Those would include grading, lighting, erosion and stormwater, contours, landscaping and stormwater, but we did provide a letter from Tom Nace, who went to the property and inspected it to demonstrate that the stormwater is functioning. So that was part of our submission, but we feel that the property, with the two businesses, functions adequately with no problem. There’s little traffic issues. So there wouldn’t be any negative impact to the community with this subdivision request. MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. Anything else? MS. BITTER-No. MR. HUNSINGER-Questions, comments from the Board? MR. SCHONEWOLF-We covered them last time. MR. HUNSINGER-Yes. MR. TRAVER-Are the waivers, the waiver issue handled during Preliminary or Final? MR. OBORNE-You could handle them at Final. I think that would be fine, and there is an application in. You’ll see them next month. MR. HUNSINGER-Yes. Typically, Preliminary, there’s no conditions or. MR. TRAVER-Right. Okay. I’ll make a motion to approve Preliminary Stage. 18 (Queensbury Planning Board 01/20/2011) MR. HUNSINGER-Before we do that, we do have a public hearing. Is there anyone in the audience that wants to address the Board on this project? PUBLIC HEARING OPEN MR. HUNSINGER-Seeing how there are no commenters, Keith, any written comments? MR. OBORNE-No. MR. HUNSINGER-Seeing how there are no comments, we’ll close the public hearing. PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED MR. HUNSINGER-Now we can entertain a motion. MR. TRAVER-I’m sorry, I didn’t notice that. MR. HUNSINGER-Wait. SEQRA. MS. BITTER-We did that at the recommendation. MR. OBORNE-It was accomplished at the recommendation stage. MR. HUNSINGER-I’m sorry. Okay. We already did that. MR. TRAVER-Okay. MR. HUNSINGER-This is the one I gave you the SEQRA forms for. MR. TRAVER-Right. Right. Okay. MR. HUNSINGER-Forgetting that we had already done it for the recommendation. MR. TRAVER-I’ll try it again. MR. HUNSINGER-Try it again. MOTION TO APPROVE PRELIMINARY STAGE SUBDIVISION NO. 15-2010 A2000/ADIRONDACK TIRE, Introduced by Stephen Traver who moved for its adoption, seconded by Donald Krebs: Tax Map ID 309.6-1-69.1, 212 Sherman Avenue A subdivision application has been made to the Queensbury Planning Board for the following: Applicant proposes subdivision of a 2.82 +/- acres into two lots of 1.0 & 1.82 +/- acres. Subdivision of land requires Planning Board review and approval; and The Planning Board provided a recommendation to the Zoning Board of Appeals on 12/16/20; and The Zoning Board of Appeals approved the variance request; and A public hearing was scheduled and held on 12/16/2010, tabled to 1/18/2011; and This application is supported with all documentation, public comment and application material in the file of record; and MOTION TO APPROVE PRELIMINARY STAGE SUBDIVISION NO. 15-2010 A2000 / ADIRONDACK TIRE, Introduced by Stephen Traver who moved for its adoption, seconded by Donald Krebs: According to the resolution prepared by Staff. th Duly adopted this 20 day of January, 2011, by the following vote: AYES: Mr. Krebs, Mr. Traver, Mr. Magowan, Mr. Jackoski, Mr. Schonewolf, Mr. Sipp, Mr. Hunsinger NOES: NONE 19 (Queensbury Planning Board 01/20/2011) MS. BITTER-Thank you very much. MR. HUNSINGER-You’re all set. Good luck. Do you know when you’ll be submitting for Final? MS. BITTER-We submitted it this month. MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. So they’d be back in February? MR. OBORNE-Yes, so they’ll be in in February. MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. MS. BITTER-Thank you. MR. HUNSINGER-Thank you. SITE PLAN NO 81-2010 SEQR TYPE II ANDREW SPATH OWNER(S) SAME ZONING WR [WATERFRONT RESIDENTIAL] LOCATION 56 RUSSELL HARRIS ROAD APPLICANT PROPOSES EXPANSION OF EXISTING DWELLING BY RAISING FOUNDATION 18 INCHES, RAISING PORTION OF ROOF 18 INCHES AND INSTALLING A 167 +/- SQ. FT. DECK ADJACENT TO SHORELINE. EXPANSION OF NON-CONFORMING STRUCTURE IN A CEA REQUIRES PLANNING BOARD REVIEW AND APPROVAL. CROSS REFERENCE AV 67-10 WARREN CO. PLANNING 12/8/10 APA, CEA, OTHER L G PARK CEA LOT SIZE 0.22 +/- ACRES TAX MAP NO. 240.5-1-9 SECTION 179-9, 179-13-010G ANDREW SPATH, PRESENT MR. HUNSINGER-Whenever you’re ready, Keith, to summarize Staff Notes. MR. OBORNE-Site Plan 81-2010 for Andrew Spath. Site Plan Review for expansion of a non- conforming structure in a Critical Environmental Area. 56 Russell Harris Road is the location. Waterfront Residential is the zoning, and SEQRA status is a Type II. The AV 67-2010, has been approved, and should be attached, yes, it is, and that was approved back on December nd 22. To bring the Board up to date, applicant proposes expansion of existing dwelling by raising foundation by 12 inches and a portion of the second story by 18 inches, and further the applicant proposes a 167 square foot deck adjacent to the shoreline. Pretty much what follows is under my additional comments. The applicant states that no change to existing floor plans is anticipated. The shoreline buffering should be explored, but I think we had a pretty good conversation about that at the last meeting, that he’s not taking down any of the big trees at this point, but obviously you’re more than welcome to continue to talk about that, and as far as the septic system, the Planning Board has indicated that there is concern of environmental soundness of the system, and with that, I shall turn it over to the Board. MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. Thank you. Good evening. MR. SPATH-Good evening. Andrew Spath, property owner. MR. HUNSINGER-Did you have anything else to add? MR. SPATH-Yes. You guys expressed some concern about the septic system, so I contacted IBS Septic, and I had them do a test on it, do a dye test. They came last week and did it. I have the receipts for that, and the written referral from the technician. That’s what he wrote up on it. MR. HUNSINGER-Great. Thank you. MR. SPATH-In talking with him, showed him the system and inside the house and everything, and he seemed pretty content with the integrity of the system. He didn’t see any problems with it offhand. He was under the same impression I was. If there was a problem, it would be plainly visible because of the way the system’s set up on the property, and basically he came and they did a dye test. They put dye down the septic system, and then we ran the system for an hour, flushing the toilet and running the shower, because both of those go into the system, and he stayed around for an hour, waited for it to show up, and then he was there for another 20 minutes, half an hour after that, and he seemed pretty content with it. MR. MAGOWAN-Did he open the lid? MR. SPATH-This isn’t a septic tank. This is a cess pool. 20 (Queensbury Planning Board 01/20/2011) MR. MAGOWAN-It’s a cess pool, yes. So he did, I mean, there was no visual inside. I mean, is it a concrete or is it metal or? MR. SPATH-I believe it’s a concrete. MR. HUNSINGER-Any other questions? I know that was the primary concern from the last meeting. MR. TRAVER-Right. MR. HUNSINGER-I’m not that familiar with dye tests. Is that a, would anyone care to comment if that’s a long enough period of time to wait? MR. TRAVER-Well, fluorescein, it’s, typically they use a dye called fluorescein. It’s a dye that’s readily detectable and really penetrates, you know, tends to show up any kind of weakness in the system. I mean, many, many years ago when I did some research on Lake George with the Atmospheric Sciences Research Center, we actually did a survey of septics around the lake. We used fluorescein dye and it was, I mean, if there was any kind of serious contamination it would show up immediately, and the dye itself is harmless. So it’s a good way, under these circumstances, I think it’s probably the best test that could have been conducted. MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. MR. SPATH-Just don’t leave it in the toilet too long. My wife was upset. MR. HUNSINGER-I’m sorry, what’s that? MR. SPATH-The technician got some on the side of the toilet, didn’t notice it, and it stained the side of the toilet. MR. TRAVER-Yes. It’s a very aggressive. MR. SPATH-Yes, aggressive. I didn’t hear the end of that. MR. TRAVER-Fluorescein. MR. HUNSINGER-Any other questions, comments from the Board? We do have a public hearing scheduled this evening. I assume you’re here for the public hearing? CHRIS NAVITSKY MR. NAVITSKY-Well, the septic system was checked. That was our major concern. MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. All right. Were there any written comments, Keith? MR. OBORNE-No, sir. MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. Then if you don’t want to make comments on the record, then I’ll close the public hearing. MR. OBORNE-I’m sorry. Chris, you did send in comments. Did you want them read into the record? MR. NAVITSKY-Chris Navitsky, Lake George Waterkeeper. We did have concerns about the septic system. We support the comment that the Board had previously to have it checked, and we’re glad that that did. He also had comments that he wouldn’t be removing vegetation, even adding some, so we support that. The one question I did have, and I think it was a note on his drawings, is there is stormwater provided under the eaves of the structure, and the plans showed a proposed drain pipe under that. I just wanted to make sure that that wasn’t going to be short-circuiting the stormwater. MR. SPATH-No, that’s all existing. The stuff that’s in the plan, that’s all existing stuff. MR. NAVITSKY-Thank you. MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. Thank you. So there were no written comments, Keith? I’m sorry. MR. OBORNE-No. 21 (Queensbury Planning Board 01/20/2011) MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. Seeing that there are no other commenters, I will close the public hearing. Any other comments, concerns from the Board? Were there waivers requested? Okay. Would anyone like to put forward a resolution. MR. TRAVER-Yes. MOTION TO APPROVE SITE PLAN NO. 81-2010 ANDREW SPATH, Introduced by Stephen Traver who moved for its adoption, seconded by Donald Krebs: A site plan application has been made to the Queensbury Planning Board for the following: Site Plan: Applicant proposes expansion of existing dwelling by raising foundation 18 inches, raising portion of roof 18 inches and installing a 167 +/- sq. ft. deck adjacent to shoreline. Expansion of non-conforming structure in a CEA requires Planning Board review and approval The Planning Board made a recommendation to the ZBA on 12/16/10; and The ZBA approved the variance request on 12/22/10; and A public hearing was advertised and held on 1/18/2011; and This application is supported with all documentation, public comment and application material in the file of record; MOTION TO APPROVE SITE PLAN NO. 81-2010 ANDREW SPATH, Introduced by Stephen Traver who moved for its adoption, seconded by Donald Krebs: According to the resolution prepared by Staff. Paragraph A complies. 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)SEQR Type II, and, therefore, no further SEQRA review is necessary; and c)Final approved plans, in compliance with the Site Plan, must be submitted to the Community Development Department before any further review by the Zoning Administrator or Building and Codes personnel. The applicant must meet with Staff after approval and prior to issuance of Building Permit and/or the beginning of any site work. Subsequent issuance of further permits, including building permits is dependent on compliance with this and all other conditions of this resolution; and d)As-built plans to certify that the site plan is developed according to the approved plans to be provided prior to issuance of the certificate of occupancy; and e)If applicable, Item d to be combined with a letter of credit; and f)The applicant must maintain on their project site, for review by staff a. The approved final plans that have been stamped by the Town Zoning Administrator. g)This approval is granted on the condition that the applicant not remove any of the existing vegetation during the construction. h)This motion includes waivers for stormwater, grading, and landscaping. th Duly adopted this 20 day of January, 2011, by the following vote: MR. HUNSINGER-Well, we had talked about a condition about not removing any vegetation, as a result of the project. MR. SPATH-I have no problem with that whatsoever. MR. OBORNE-If you could add potentially a request from Mr. Spath to have a waiver for stormwater, grading and landscaping. I think that would set the record straight. AYES: Mr. Krebs, Mr. Magowan, Mr. Traver, Mr. Jackoski, Mr. Schonewolf, Mr. Sipp, Mr. Hunsinger NOES: NONE 22 (Queensbury Planning Board 01/20/2011) MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. You’re all set. MR. SPATH-Thank you very much. MR. HUNSINGER-Thank you. MR. KREBS-Do you want these drawings? MR. OBORNE-You’ll need to supply four to us eventually. So, you’ll get a letter in the mail showing you the protocol to close this out. MR. SPATH-Okay. MR. HUNSINGER-Is there any other business to be brought before the Board? Well, if there’s no other business, would anyone like to make a motion to adjourn? MOTION TO ADJOURN THE QUEENSBURY PLANNING BOARD MEETING OF JANUARY 20, 2011, Introduced by Paul Schonewolf who moved for its adoption, seconded by Stephen Traver: th Duly adopted this 20 day of January, 2011, by the following vote: AYES: Mr. Schonewolf, Mr. Sipp, Mr. Traver, Mr. Krebs, Mr. Magowan, Mr. Jackoski, Mr. Hunsinger NOES: NONE On motion meeting was adjourned. RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED, Chris Hunsinger, Chairman 23