The URL can be used to link to this page

2011.05.19 Queensbury Planning Board-May 19, 2011 QUEENSBURY PLANNING BOARD MEETING SECOND REGULAR MEETING MAY 19, 2011 INDEX Administrative Items: Page Site Plan 14-2010 Steven & Christine Johnson-tabled to 5/19/11 pending ZBA decision 1 Site Plan 17-2011 Randy Gross, New Beginnings Community Church-tabled to 5/19/11 2 Site Plan 20-2010 M & W Foods-requesting one year extension 3 Tabled Items: Site Plan 13-2011 David Kenny [288.12-1-19, 20] 4 Subdivision 4-2011 Patrick Geruso [301.20-1-37.2] 10 New Business: Subdivision 2-2011 Babajani & Mama [296.13-1-17] 12 Site Plan 26-2011 Edward & Philomena Vanputte [289.10-1-18] 15 Site Plan 11-2011 Cellco Partnership / dba Verizon Wireless [302.8-2-4] 24 Site Plan 6-2011 Inwald Enterprises [227.17-1-16] 29 0 Queensbury Planning Board-May 19, 2011 QUEENSBURY PLANNING BOARD SECOND REGULAR MEETING MAY 19, 2011 7:00 P.M. MEMBERS PRESENT CHRIS HUNSINGER, CHAIRMAN STEPHEN TRAVER, VICE CHARIMAN GRETCHEN STEFFAN, SECRETARY THOMAS FORD DONALD SIPP PAUL SCHONEWOLF WILLIAM MAGOWAN LAND USE PLANNER-KEITH OBORNE STENOGRAPHER-PAM WHITING MR. HUNSINGER-I’ll call to order the meeting of the Town of Queensbury Planning Board on Thursday, May 19, 2011. We have three administrative items on the agenda first. The first one is Site Plan 14-2010 Steven & Christine Johnson. This was tabled to this evening pending a ZBA decision. I understand from staff that last night the ZBA denied without prejudice and that is the same motion that you see before us. So if anyone would like to move that. Mrs. Steffan: RESOLUTION-SITE PLAN 14-2010 STEVEN & CHRISTINE JOHNSON A site plan application has been made to the Queensbury Planning Board for the following: Applicant proposes demolition of existing 1,198 +/- sq. ft. summer home and rebuild to a year round 2,110 +/- sq. ft. residence. Hard Surfacing within 50 feet of a shoreline requires Planning Board review and approval; and The Planning Board provided a written recommendation as required to the ZBA on 3/16/2010; and The Planning Board has tabled the application on the following dates pending a ZBA decision: 3/23/10, 5/20/10, 7/20/10, 9/28/10, 12/21/10, 3/15/11 tabled to 5/19/11; and To date the ZBA has not rendered a decision and the application has been tabled on 3/17, 5/19, 7/23, 8/18, th 10/27, 12/15/10 & 2/23/11; On February 23, 2011 the ZBA has tabled the application to their May 18 meeting MOTION TO TABLE AREA VARIANCE NO. 9-2010 STEVEN L. AND CHRISTINE M. JOHNSON, Introduced by Richard Garrand who moved for its adoption, seconded by Joyce Hunt: th 96 Hall Road – Glen Lake. Tabled to the first meeting in May, May 18. All materials will be th submitted by April 15 or deny without prejudice. rd Duly adopted this 23 day of February, 2011, by the following vote: AYES: Mr. Urrico, Mr. Clements, Mr. Underwood, Mr. Kuhl, Mr. Koskinas, Mrs. Hunt, Mr. Garrand NOES: NONE On May 18, 2011 the ZBA denied without prejudice Area Variance 9-2010; and Therefore let it be resolved, MOTION TO DENY WITHOUT PREJUDICE SITE PLAN NO. 14-2010 STEVEN & CHRISTINE JOHNSON, Introduced by Gretchen Steffan who moved for its adoption, seconded by Thomas Ford: According to the resolution prepared by staff. th Duly adopted this 19 day of May 2011 by the following vote: AYES: Mr. Traver, Mr. Magowan, Mr. Schonewolf, Mr. Sipp, Mrs. Steffan, Mr. Ford, Mr. Hunsinger NOES: None Mr. Hunsinger: The next one is Site Plan 17-2011 for Randy Gross. Did they not submit any new information? 1 Queensbury Planning Board-May 19, 2011 Mr. Oborne: They did not submit anything, however, the concerns of the Planning Board from the previous meeting i.e. the septic’s that were underwater that has been resolved actually quite quickly after the meeting in fact in about two days. Mr. Hunsinger: So they cleared open the drainage swale? KO: Yes they opened it up there was a big pile of stumps holding everything back and they basically breached that and everything ran out. Mr. Hunsinger: Okay KO: There is still a lot of standing water still a lot of open items on the site and Bruce is monitoring that as we speak and we’ll have a report for you once they get revised copies in of their site plan. Mrs. Steffan: So they’ve not indicated to you when that might be? KO: No they did not; I would recommend a tabling out to a date in July Mr. Hunsinger: I was going to say they have already missed the June deadline, so. Mrs. Steffan: Motion to Table-see below RESOLUTION-SITE PLAN 17-2011 RANDY GROSS A site plan application has been made to the Queensbury Planning Board for the following: Applicant proposes to modify location of the approved parsonage location, lighting, and parking. Modification to an approved site plan requires Planning Board review and approval; and A public hearing was advertised and held on 3/22/2011 tabled to 5/19/2011; and No new information was submitted by the 4/15/2011 deadline; and MOTION TO TABLE SITE PLAN NO. 17-2011 RANDY GROSS, Introduced by Gretchen Steffan who moved for its adoption, seconded by Paul Schonewolf: According to the resolution prepared by staff to the July 26, 2011 Planning Board, submission deadline for materials would be June 15. th Duly adopted this 19 day of May 2011, by the following vote: AYES: Mr. Sipp, Mr. Ford, Mr. Traver, Mr. Magowan, Mrs. Steffan, Mr. Schonewolf, Mr. Hunsinger NOES: None Mr. Hunsinger: Our next item is Site Plan 20-2010 M & W Foods. We have a letter in our package requesting a one year extension of their site plan. Mr. Oborne: I would like to add that on initiative of Pam Whiting gave a call to the applicant’s agent indicating to the agent that you were about to time out. And so we were able to at least get this document in so we could save it for another year, so they can take of that issue they have there. Mr. Hunsinger: It expires tomorrow, right? Mr. Oborne: That is correct. Mrs. Steffan: Is this Mr. Oborne: This is the KFC Mrs. Steffan: Oh has it been a year since we made the decision on that? Mr. Hunsinger: That’s what I thought when I read the resolution. Mrs. Steffan: This is the Kentucky Fried Chicken. See resolution below RESOLUTION TO APPROVE EXTENSION REQUEST FOR SITE PLAN 20-2010 M & W FOODS 1)A site plan application has been made to the Queensbury Planning Board for the following: Applicant proposes demolition of existing 3,730 sq. ft. KFC / A & W restaurant and construction of a new 3,276 sq. ft. KFC only building. Restaurant in a CI zone requires Planning Board review and approval. 2 Queensbury Planning Board-May 19, 2011 2)On May 6, 2011 a letter was received from the applicant’s agent requesting a one year extension of their approval to May 20, 2012; and 3)MOTION TO APPROVE EXTENSION REQUEST FOR SITE PLAN NO. 20-2010 M & W FOODS, Introduced by Gretchen Steffan who moved for its adoption, seconded by Stephen Traver: According to the resolution prepared by staff. It’s a one year extension. th Duly adopted this 19 day of May, 2011, by the following vote: AYES: Mr. Traver, Mr. Schonewolf, Mr. Ford, Mr. Magowan, Mr. Hunsinger, Mr. Sipp, Mrs. Steffan NOES: None Mr. Hunsinger: Before we get into our regular agenda there are copies of the agenda on the back table. There is also a handout for public hearing information. All of the remaining items do have a public hearing scheduled. The handout does describe how the public hearing proceed and we’ll get into more detail when we open the first public hearing. The first item, a table item is Site Plan 13-2011 David Kenny. Mr. Oborne: Staff Notes-See below APPLICATION: Site Plan 13-2011 APPLICANT: David Kenny – Adirondack Factory Outlet REQUESTED ACTION: New Retail Use in a CI zone requires PB review and approval LOCATION: 1468 State Route 9 EXISTING ZONING: CI-Commercial Intensive SEQRA STATUS: Type Unlisted PARCEL HISTORY: SP 25-05 Transient Merchant Operation Approved 5/17/05 SUP 60-04 Indoor amusement facility Approved 9/28/04 SP 18-99 Transient Merchant Operation Approved 5/17/99 WARREN CO. PB: 2/9/2011-Approved ENGINEERING REVIEW: 2/18/2011 Revised information forwarded to Vision Engineering on 4/20/11 Comments anticipated 5/13/2011 for 5/19/11 meeting PROJECT DESCRIPTION: Applicant proposes demolition of existing +/- 13,460 square foot mall [Reebok Outlet] and construction of a new +/- 55,295 sq. ft. shopping center. STAFF COMMENTS: The existing structure on site is in need of repair or replacement and the site is tired in general. The applicant proposes a modern design for the site with ample parking and interconnects with the property to the south which is also owned by the applicant. Stormwater in the form of catch basins and drywells are proposed as well as the extension of a 24 inch storm drain that provides a path for State Route 9 stormwater to the east of the property. There does appear to be grading on the property to the north as well as grading, stormwater controls and interconnects proposed for installation on the properties to the south. All three (3) of these properties will need to be added to this application with appropriate agreements in place for these actions. Specifically the following properties are affected 1.Grading and installation of a portion of retaining wall associated with the Lands of Ed & Ed T Enterprises, LLC. Tax parcel # 288.12-1-17 located directly north of project. Addressed and Complete. 2.Grading and the installation of drywells associated with the Lands of McCormack. Tax parcel # 288.12- 1-24 directly south and east of the project. Addressed. The Planning Board, as a condition of approval may direct the applicant to submit referenced agreement in written form concerning an easement for construction on the Lands of McCormack. 3.Grading and interconnect installation associated with the Lands of 1454 State Route 9, LLC. Tax parcel # 288.12-1-21 located due south of the Lands of McCormack. Addressed. Note: All three parcels must be part of this application as stated above. To date, an updated application has not been submitted. Soils: The predominant soils on site are Oakville loamy fine sand (OaA), 0 to 3 percent slopes. This soils unit is described as nearly level and gently sloping, deep, well drained coarse textured soils. As this project will be served by sewer, wastewater is not an issue concerning these soils. However, disturbed soils in general will 3 Queensbury Planning Board-May 19, 2011 need to be limed and have topsoil amendments as part of any landscaping, lawn plan and vegetative erosion control practices. Site Plan Review: Application (includes long form and draft NOI): 1.All properties within the scope of this project must be listed on the application and supporting materials with appropriate signatures and easements in place. None submitted. Elevation Drawings: 1.Per §179-7-050C (2), Route 9 North District Architectural Elements shall include timber frame structures with an “emphasis on an Adirondack Style”. As these elements can be considered subjective, the Planning Board must make a decision concerning the design submitted for review. As a reminder, the applicant was before this board late in 2010 for a concept review; the issue of design guidelines was not discussed. Page SP-1 1.No immediate issues. Page SP-2 1.Access to trash compacter appears problematic. Please clarify. Addressed but continues to appear problematic. 2.Is cardboard recycling proposed? Please clarify and if so provide a location for storage. Addressed and complete. 3.The two (2) dumpsters located along the south property line adjacent to the parking lot may have access issues. Please clarify or revise. Continues to appear problematic. If curbing is proposed access is still an issue; if curbing not proposed, approach should be clarified. Staff suggests the applicant take a closer look at locations and access for all three dumpster locations. Pages SP-3 and SP-4 1.No immediate issues. Page SP-5 1.Summit Ash not recommended due to potential future Emerald Ash Borer issues. Consult staff if not familiar with this potential infestation. Addressed and complete. 2.Crimson Pygmy Barberry (Berberis thunbergii) is considered invasive and is not an acceptable planting as per §179-8-040. Please revise. Addressed and complete. Page SP-6 1.All Site Lighting appears excessive when review against the code. Specific attention should be focused on store entrance lighting. Note: The applicant has requested a waiver for 23 foot tall light poles in order to increase light coverage and decrease the amount of light poles and fixtures needed. Pages SP-7 and SP-8 1.Dumpster enclosure details should be placed on one of these pages. Additional Comments: 1.Although this project is considered an Unlisted SEQR, the applicant has provided a Long Form. 2.The Planning Board must waive the requirement that lighting fixtures be 20 feet or less. The applicant is proposing 23 foot parking lot poles in order to reduce the amount of lighting poles on-site and increase coverage. 3.Pedestrian scaled feature are present on the site plan and should be lauded. MOTION TO TABLE SITE PLAN NO. 13-2011 DAVID KENNY, Introduced by Gretchen Steffan who moved for its adoption, seconded by Thomas Ford: th This is tabled to the April 19 Planning Board meeting. The Planning Board extends the submission deadline th for this applicant for any new materials to April 4, which is a Monday. This is tabled for the following issues: 1.That the applicant needs to address VISION Engineering comments of February 18, 2011 and obtain a signoff. Pending. 2.That the applicant needs to address Staff Notes. Partially addressed. 3.That the applicant needs to provide building façade samples, colors and materials to the Planning Board. Pending. 4.That the applicant will provide signage details. Location shown but details not submitted. Incomplete. nd Duly adopted this 22 day of February, 2011, by the following vote: AYES: Mr. Ford, Mr. Magowan, Mr. Sipp, Mr. Schonewolf, Mr. Krebs, Mrs. Steffan, Mr. Traver NOES: NONE Mr. Hunsinger: The floor is yours whenever you’re ready. Mr. Nace: I am in front of you a proposed sign panel or sign diagram that will be a ground mounted stone base timber frame and all of the colors didn’t come out quite right on the computer, it would be the same colors as 4 Queensbury Planning Board-May 19, 2011 we’re using in the structure itself with a light tan stone base, a dark wood frame and a intermediate tan green background. Mr. Ford: So that’s a more accurate representation than this. Mr. Nace: My computer just didn’t, they looked right on the screen, but the printer didn’t understand what the screen is saying. Mr. Hunsinger: So what would you call the reddish color that is shown on the building elevation? Mr. Nace: It’s just a dark brick red, all of the building façade will be EFIS system, do you have samples of the that Dave. It’s a foam with a colored finish on the face of it. I’ll pass it around. Mr. Ford: Thank you for bringing that in, that’s very helpful Mr. Hunsinger: Yes, that was one of my questions was if the elevation with color renderings. Mr. Nace: It’ll be actual stone on the lower face, and actual wood, stained wood for the framing, or the pseudo framing, it’s obviously a steel structure. We use this to make it look Adirondacky. And the panels, the red, and the tan greenish tan panels will be this, it’s called Stowe, I think the real name for it is efis. Mr. Hunsinger: You have four samples here. Mr. Kenny: What they do is blend the colors, those are samples the company has when we send them our color chart they’ll make the color, mix and match that exactly. Mr. Hunsinger: Like I’m looking at this reddish one called rose. Mr. Kenny: Those are samples that you go down and pick up. Mr. Ford: Did we put the dumpster issue to rest? Mr. Nace: The dumpster issue we will make one final adjustment based on Keith’s comment. The dumpster in back is accessible it’s a cardboard and it is accessible by straight in truck from the rear access road. These dumpsters in front though really Keith’s right, they need to be turned brought over toward the corner and made accessible for a truck coming straight in from the aisle here. So we’ll do that. Mr. Hunsinger: So that plan that you’re referencing did you already make that adjustment or no. Mr. Nace: No this was an additional adjustment that Keith is suggesting. These will need to be accessible straight in from the aisle. Mr. Traver: So there is three all together? Those two and then the cardboard? Mr. Nace: There is the cardboard and yes these two are just the incidental trash from the stores. Mrs. Steffan: Is that okay with the Planning Board? Mr. Hunsinger: Other questions comments from the Board? Mrs. Steffan: Let’s talk lighting. You had proposed taller fixtures. Mr. Traver: 23 feet I think. Mr. Nace: That’s correct, that’s what we have. Mr. Traver: The idea being that fewer would be required although we would have to accept them being higher than what we normally would. Mr. Nace: There are a couple of feet higher that what you would normally, and that really is so that instead of having two rows of lighting we can light everything getting a little bit higher we can light even the outer rows with one central row of fixtures. If we use a lower fixture we’d end up having to have two, one here in the middle and one on the outside. We did make some adjustments based on staff notes from before. We lowered the wattage and put fixtures under the canopy to reduce the light under canopy a little bit. Mr. Hunsinger: So the most current plan that shows the lower wattage, its dated 4/15? th Mr. Nace: Yes April 15 revision. Mr. Hunsinger: Because you still have some spots under the canopy that are over 13, over 12 5 Queensbury Planning Board-May 19, 2011 Mr. Nace: It all depends I mean if a spot falls right under a light it’s going to be high no matter what you do. This is how the grid spaces out with the lights. Mr. Hunsinger: Yes, because you’re only proposing 100 watt fixture Mr. Nace: Exactly, it’s not a very big fixture but you do no matter what you get a hot spot directly under the light. Mr. Hunsinger: How about the other question I had is on the back drive aisle to the north of the building, there are some spots that are 0.3, 0.5. I assume they would get some spill from the property next door and that wouldn’t be shown on your lighting plan? Mr. Nace: It’s not shown because we don’t know what those fixtures are. And again that’s just an access, any vehicles back there are going to have their lights on at night anyway and there is no parking back there so it’s not a pedestrian area. Mr. Hunsinger: Right. I’m happy with that answer. Mrs. Steffan: So how does the Planning Board, I know when they here last time I don’t think all the members of the board were here about the, you know so, the fixtures are a little bit higher than normal but as Mr. Nace identified there are less fixtures because they’ve raised them up so we just have to make a decision whether that’s okay. It’s not standard, it’s not code but. Mr. Traver: Yes, it’s the, it really is only a few feet and we are reducing the total number so it’s not a perfect solution but I think it’s worth the tradeoff myself. Mr. Ford: I have a question on it; from a distance I’ll pick 100 yards is that going to be brighter for a driver because of the increased elevation? Mr. Nace: No not really because they are all cut off fixtures that have a very sharp outer edge to the lighting, they don’t have a Mr. Ford: Even though there are fewer of them? Mr. Nace: Correct, it’s because of the type of the fixture that is used nowadays with the cutoff you don’t get the glare from a driver’s perspective interferes with their sight line. Mr. Ford: Greater direction down than out. Mr. Nace: Yes so that there is a sharp when you get out so far from the fixture there is a sharp cutoff where you just don’t get any more spill you don’t have that glare going out at a low angle everything is aimed down. Mr. Traver: But being a little bit higher there is a bigger cone at the bottom Mr. Nace: The other thing that having this one row of lights is an advantage for us is we’ve got a motel over here, the back of the motel and if we had an extra row of fixtures here even with forward throw cutoff fixtures there is some spillage out the back. And it would increase the intensity of light over toward the motel. So that’s another advantage. Mr. Ford: Thank you. Mr. Schonewolf: I know you don’t want to identify your tenants but it is all speculative or do you have some tenants? Mr. Kenny: It’s most speculative, we have tenants very interested, let’s put it this way, there is a lot of activity right now looking for real estate in the outlet industry. Mr. Hunsinger: That’s very encouraging Mr. Kenny: My son got an e-mail today, Mr. Kenny: It’s about the convention this week in Vegas and supposedly going to be the most productive and you know top industry people talking about how their calendars are full with every thirty minutes meetings from Sunday through Wednesday sometimes double stacked. And they haven’t seen it like that ever. Mr. Kenny: In years. Mr. Traver: Well that’s a good sign. Mr. Kenny: Now that plus everything is a little speculative when you’re in this business, they don’t sign the lease until right about now, the deals are pretty tough but it’s I think the opportunity is well the stores on the road are doing pretty well we are a good shopping destination so I think the area needs needs something new, 6 Queensbury Planning Board-May 19, 2011 refresher, it’s been the same buildings for quite a while so to bring new tenants in, the upper scale, you know some of the fashion tenants you need a new building. Mrs. Steffan: Well I think just the fact that Orvis moved to the big Basketville building that’s a nice draw and they’re doing very well. And Donna Karan came in to their location, Brooks Brothers is right there so now you’ve got some anchors to build on and of course Polo’s but it’s down a little ways but it gives you the anchors so that you’re marketability will be higher and certainly it’s a very beautiful design. Which I think it will attract some high end users. Mr. Ford: It’s helping to establish a very attractive standard. Mr. Kenny: If nothing else the existing building has to come down, that’s an eyesore. Mr. Hunsinger: So is the board okay with the lighting as proposed? Mr. Schonewolf: This will be good for the sales tax. Mr. Kenny: About $500,000. Mr. Schonewolf: Which is very important at the moment. Mr. Kenny: I told Dan, this will be reference point, Warren County actually has more sales tax from apparel clothing than Saratoga, we’re like, I think the number was Mr. Kenny: It was $145 or $140 between the two Mr. Kenny: About $143 million in Warren County, $140 in Saratoga, $150 in Vermont & Massachusetts, the Berkshires. $70 million of the sales tax in Warren County, apparel clothing comes from the outlet strip, more than half of it. Do we have the sales figures? Mr. Ford: It’s a destination. Mr. Hunsinger: No question. Mrs. Steffan: And the traffic is so bad they have to stop. Mr. Hunsinger: Exactly. Mr. Ford: But’s that a whole evening. Mrs. Steffan: There is a condition on the staff notes, item 2 it talks about the agreement in written form concerning an easement for construction on the lands of McCormack. What’s the status on that? Mr. Kenny: We work with John and he’s actually here tonight and we do have something from him allowing us to access and complete the site work on his property to be consistent with the plans. Mrs. Steffan: Give it to staff it will part of our approval process. We’re also going to ask that you submit a copy of the colored rendering to staff as we don’t have it file, we’d like to have that. So are we okay with the trash issue, the trash compactor, those are separated, is that okay? Are we okay the trash issue, the dumpster, the compactor? We’ve separated Mr. Traver: The revisions that he’s proposing in response to staff I’m fine with that. That should be reflected on the final plans. Mr. Hunsinger: Are there questions comments? Okay, we do have a public hearing scheduled this evening, is there anyone in the audience that wishes to address the board on this project? I’ll open the public hearing. There is no one interested in addressing the board, were there any written comments Keith? Mr. Oborne: I don’t believe so, no. Mr. Hunsinger: no written comments I will close the public hearing and let the record show that there were any comments made. Members ready to move forward on SEQR? They submitted a long form; I’m surprised that we need to do a long form Keith. Mr. Oborne: Well I think with the size of the project I think it was prudent. Mrs. Steffan: SEQR resolution-see below. SEQR RESOLUTION-SITE PLAN 13-2011 DAVID KENNY 7 Queensbury Planning Board-May 19, 2011 RESOLUTION NO. 13-2011 Introduced by Gretchen Steffan who moved for its adoption, seconded by Thomas Ford: WHEREAS, there is presently before the Planning Board an application for DAVID KENNY; WHEREAS, this Planning Board has determined that the proposed project and Planning Board action is subject to review under the State Environmental Quality Review Act, NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED: 1. No Federal agencies appear to be involved. 2. The following agencies are involved: NONE 3. The proposed action considered by this Board is Unlisted in the Department of Environmental Conservation Regulations implementing the State Environmental Quality Review Act and the regulations of the Town of Queensbury. 4. An Environmental Assessment Form has been completed by the applicant. 5. Having considered and thoroughly analyzed the relevant areas of environmental concern and having considered the criteria for determining whether a project has a significant environmental impact as the same is set forth in Section 617.11 of the Official Compilation of Codes, Rules and Regulations for the State of New York, this Board finds that the action about to be undertaken by this Board will have no significant environmental effect and the Chairman of the Planning Board is hereby authorized to execute and sign and file as may be necessary a statement of non-significance or a negative declaration that may be required by law. Duly adopted this 19th day of May, 2011, by the following vote: AYES: Mr. Traver, Mr. Magowan, Mr. Schonewolf, Mr. Sipp, Mr. Ford, Mrs. Steffan, Mr. Hunsinger NOES: NONE Mr. Hunsinger: I guess we could spend a minute and talk about the conditions. We had the condition of the color renderings to be submitted, the changes to the dumpster access. Is there anything else? Mr. Traver: The documentation of the properties were submitted this evening. Mrs. Steffan: Right I’ve got that condition, Chris the language for the dumpster I had final plans will reflect the trash compactor as presented. Mr. Hunsinger: How do we, the two dumpsters that straddle the southern interconnect the gates shall be rotated to provide proper access. I don’t know how you want to say that. Mrs. Steffan: I didn’t get that. Mr. Hunsinger: The two dumpsters that straddle the southern interconnect the gates shall be rotated to provide proper access, is that good enough Keith? Mr. Oborne: I think Tom and I are on the same page. Mr. Hunsinger: And you did actually provide the color renderings with the last submission and I forgot. Should we say that the sign colors should match the building? Mrs. Steffan: Mr. Oborne: I don’t know if you added the waiver for the lighting, I didn’t listen, I didn’t hear that. Mrs. Steffan: No one had any issues with the lighting. I didn’t hear anything. Chris asked questions but everybody seemed okay with that. Mr. Oborne: Then if you could put that in the resolution. Mrs. Steffan: Do we have to grant a waiver on that? Mr. Oborne: Oh yeah absolutely. Mr. Hunsinger: Yes because the poles are higher than code. 8 Queensbury Planning Board-May 19, 2011 Mrs. Steffan: Oh there it is. That’s okay; it’s right in the motion. Efficiency. Okay, we have the sign, the dumpster, we’re granting that waiver, then we’ve got the written agreement which they have with them tonight anyway. And we got sign-off from Vision so we’re good with that. Okay I’ll make a motion to approve-see below. RESOLUTION-SITE PLAN 13-2011 DAVID KENNY A site plan application has been made to the Queensbury Planning Board for the following: Applicant proposes demolition of existing mall [Reebok Outlet] and construction of a new 55,000 sq. ft. shopping center. New Retail Use in a CI zone requires Planning Board review and approval; and A public hearing was advertised and held on 2/22, 4/19 & 5/19/11; and This application is supported with all documentation, public comment, and application material in the file of record; MOTION TO APPROVE SITE PLAN NO. 13-2011 DAVID KENNY, Introduced by Gretchen Steffan who moved for its adoption, seconded by Paul Schonewolf: 1)Pursuant to relevant sections of the Town of Queensbury Zoning Code [Chapter 179-9-080]], the Planning Board has determined that this proposal satisfies the requirements as stated in the Zoning Code; and 2)The requirements of the State Environmental Quality Review Act have been considered and the Planning Board has adopted a SEQRA Negative Declaration; and 3)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 4)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 5)The Sanitary Sewer connection plan must be submitted to the Wastewater Department for its review, approval, permitting and inspection; and 6)Waiver request granted: 23 foot parking lot lighting fixtures in lieu of 20 foot requirement; and 7)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 8)Engineering sign-off required prior to signature of Zoning Administrator-see Vision Engineering comment letter dated 5/13/2011; and 9)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 10)The applicant must submit a copy of the following to the Town: a)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. b)The project NOT (Notice of Termination) upon completion of the project; and 11) 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. These plans must include the project SWPPP (Storm Water Pollution Prevention Plan) when such a plan was prepared and approved; and b)The project NOI and proof of coverage under the current NYSDEC SPDES General Permit, or an individual SPDES permit issued for the project. 12)This is approved with the following conditions: a.The applicant will submit a reference agreement in written form concerning an easement for construction on the lands of McCormack, more specifically regarding the grading and installation of drywells associated with the lands of McCormack, tax parcel 280.12-1-24 directly south and east of the project. 9 Queensbury Planning Board-May 19, 2011 b.Regarding the dumpster-final plans will reflect the 2 (two) dumpsters along the south property access. c.The applicant presented sign information which reflects a 12 foot monument sign and the sign as constructed will mirror the building facade which is drivet-siding, which is blended colors in earth tones and they will be reflective of the color rendering submitted previously. Duly adopted this 19th day of May 2011 by the following vote: AYES: Mr. Traver, Mr. Magowan, Mr. Ford, Mr. Sipp, Mr. Schonewolf, Mrs. Steffan, Mr. Hunsinger NOES: None Mr. Traver: Mr. Chairman I think it’s worth noting as well that this I believe was the first project where we sort of beta tested the concept of having them work with the engineering staff after a preliminary review and then coming back for a site plan and it’s seems to have worked extremely well. Mr. Hunsinger: Yes, I would agree. Thank you for bringing that up because I’d forgotten. Mr. Oborne: Now if we could get comments back and get that codified in the policies and procedures it would be greatly appreciated. Mr. Hunsinger: We keep forgetting to do that don’t we? Mr. Traver: At the same time recognizing that that wouldn’t necessarily be appropriate for every application but some projects like this this was a good example I think of a successful application of that principal. st Mrs. Steffan: Keith, can you put that on our agenda for our meeting of the 31 so that we are reminded we deal with it that night. Mr. Oborne: Sure Mr. Hunsinger: Under Old Business Subdivision 4-2011 Preliminary Stage for Patrick Geruso. Why don’t you come up to the table? Keith whenever you’re ready to summarize the staff notes. Mr. Oborne: See staff notes below APPLICATION: Subdivision 4-2011 APPLICANT: Patrick Geruso REQUESTED ACTION: Preliminary Subdivision review LOCATION: 34 Howard Street EXISTING ZONING: MDR-Moderate Density Residential (Mobile Home Overlay District) SEQRA STATUS: Type Unlisted – Negative Declaration approved 4/19/2011 PARCEL HISTORY: AV 16-11 Approved 4/20/2011 PROJECT DESCRIPTION: Subdivision: Applicant proposes subdivision of a 0.60 +/- acre parcel into two lots of 0.30 +/- acres each. Subdivision of land requires Planning Board review and approval. STAFF COMMENTS: The parcel currently has a pre-existing nonconforming one story wood framed house with a detached garage located to the northwest and a second detached garage located due south of the dwelling. The applicant proposes to remove the second garage to the south upon approval of the subdivision in order to create a vacant parcel. Applicant is requesting waivers from Sketch Plan review, grading, stormwater, E&S, and landscaping. Area Variance 16-2011 was approved by the Zoning Board of Appeals on 4/27/2011 [attached]. Application Protocol ? SEQR and PB recommendation Approved 4/19/11 ? Variance review Approved 4/20/11 ? PB Preliminary subdivision review 5/19/11 ? PB Final subdivision review TBD Mr. Oborne: With that I turn it over to the Board. Mr. Hunsinger: Okay thank you, is there anything that you wish to add? 10 Queensbury Planning Board-May 19, 2011 Mr. Lord: the only thing I didn’t have time to address at our first planning meeting was a matter of density which was brought up in the Zoning meeting the day after. I know we had the mobile home issue and the mobile home overlay district of which I don’t recall if Larry mentioned it in the planning meeting or he definitely mentioned it at the zoning meeting as far as talking to Councilman Brewer about that. And the only other issue was the density issue and I intend to research that on Howard Street that between Howard and Larry’s new development on Geneva Street that the maximum parcel size in his new development is ½ acre and we’ve sought, Pat sought to split a 0.6 acre parcel and from Sherman Avenue progressing up toward Geneva Street the lot sizes are approximately split in half between about 50% of the lots are 0.3 and less, 0.31 acre and less and that’s mainly on the lower half of Howard Street, closer to Sherman Avenue and they progress from 0.3 acres and above as you move forth toward Geneva Street and then Larry’s subdivision is as far as I know and what he had mentioned was ½ acre lots and all the new development on that end and that was the only other issue that was I had to add from the last meeting. Mrs. Steffan: I think the ZBA did a good job of addressing some of that, I mean they weighed and considered it, when they were considering your area variance and they expressed some of the issues that we had and felt that what you’re asking for is congruent with the neighborhood and the development that you’re proposing it within. And so I think that our consensus on the Planning Board at time we felt it was okay based on our recommendation so Mr. Traver: And I think that was confirmed when we drove through the neighborhood, again the other day we verified that. Mrs. Steffan: But we did a smaller Planning Board that night that you were here, the first night you were here, we have a full Planning Board this week does anybody have any issues with this subdivision? Mr. Hunsinger: No questions or comments from the Board? We do have a public hearing scheduled for this evening. Is there anyone in the audience that want’s to address the board on this project? Let the record show that there we no commenters. Keith are there any written comments? We did have back in April there I believe there were some written comments that were submitted. Mr. Oborne: Yes there was a petition submitted. Mr. Hunsinger: Yes which was already read into the record. Mr. Oborne: That was and there has not been any additional documentation received by the Planning Office. Mr. Hunsinger: Okay Mr. Lord: Just a matter of information I have spoken approximately 12 or 13 residents on the street that weren’t quite clear on what the intent was to subdivide and there was only one minor objection and that was based on prosperity’s sake where her family had previously owned the property and that was the last of her homestead so to speak and but my wife and family and I live on the street and it was amicable. But other than that is was misinformation as far as what was actually going to take place on the property or how many units would be built on the property. Mrs. Steffan: And I think there are a few people during the public comment period that identified that they weren’t quite sure what they had signed and so they felt very differently about their signature on the document. Mr. Oborne: If I could add for the board’s clarification the applicant is not intending on putting a mobile home on there, I didn’t know if all the board member were aware of that, it’s going to be a stick built house or a manufactured home. Mr. Hunsinger: Subdivision is a long form? Mr. Oborne: You completed it with the recommendation. Mr. Hunsinger: Since there were no commenters I will close the public hearing. Mr. Oborne: We do have final stage to go through so you probably want to keep that open unless you want the applicant the applicant will have to resubmit and pay for the advertising on that. So you can close the public hearing for the preliminary, I apologize. Mr. Hunsinger: Do we have a public hearing for final? It’s a separate. It’s too bad we couldn’t have done it one meeting. It’s just a two lot subdivision. Mr. Oborne: It’s odd when you have the zoning issues with it, I like to make sure we get through the zoning and do this correctly. Instead of being presumptuous Mr. Hunsinger: Sure Mrs. Steffan: I’ll make a motion to approve-see below. 11 Queensbury Planning Board-May 19, 2011 RESOLUTION-SUBDIVISION4-2011 PATRICK GERUSO A preliminary stage subdivision application has been made to the Queensbury Planning Board for the following: Applicant proposes subdivision of a 0.60 +/- acre parcel into two lots of 0.30 +/- acres each. Subdivision of land requires Planning Board review and approval. Planning Board provided a written recommendation to the ZBA on 4/19/2011; and ZBA approved the variance request on 4/20/2011; and A public hearing was scheduled and held on 4/19/2011 and left open for 5/19/2011; and This application is supported with all documentation, public comment and application material in the file of record; and MOTION TO APPROVE PRELIMINARY STAGE FOR SUBDIVISION 4-2011 PATRICK GERUSO, Introduced by Gretchen Steffan who moved its adoption seconded by Paul Schonewolf: According to the resolution prepared by staff. Duly adopted this 19th day of May 2011 by the following vote: AYES: Mr. Traver, Mr. Magowan, Mr. Ford, Mr. Sipp, Mr. Schonewolf, Mrs. Steffan, Mr. Hunsinger NOES: None Mr. Hunsinger: You’re all set. Do you have the application ready for final? Mr. Oborne: Not at this point, you might want to get a phone call quickly and get that going, it will probably be on the July agenda th Mrs. Steffan: I think if you get it in by the June 15 deadline you could be on the July agendas. Mr. Oborne: I’ll be in in the morning, give me a call. Mr. Hunsinger: The rest of the items are all under New Business. The first one is Subdivision 2-2011 Preliminary & Final Stage for Babajani & Mama c/o ATL Holdings, LLC. Mr. Oborne: This is our favorite sounding property in the Town; at least I’m speaking for myself. Staff Notes- see below. APPLICATION: Preliminary and Final Subdivision 2-2011 APPLICANT: Babajani & Mama, c/o ATL Holding, LLC REQUESTED ACTION: Preliminary and Final subdivision review LOCATION: 925 & 931 State Route 9 EXISTING ZONING: CI – Commercial Intensive SEQRA STATUS: Type Unlisted PARCEL HISTORY: AV 7-10 Approved 2/17/10 SP 10-10 Approved 2/23/10 SP 4-05 Red Roof Inn / Outback Steakhouse Approved 4/26/05 SP 61-09 Outback Steakhouse color change Approved 12/17/09 PROJECT DESCRIPTION: Applicant proposes to subdivide a 3.48 acre parcel into two parcels of 2.35 acres and 1.13 acres. STAFF COMMENTS: The parcel in question has a site plan approval for both the Red Roof Inn and Outback Steakhouse. Outback Steakhouse owns the structure but not the parcel that it is located on. The applicant wishes to subdivide the Outback parcel from the larger parcel. Site Plan Review: 1.Shared parking and snow storage arrangements must be formalized prior to final submittal. Note: Parking requirements and proposed site parking are as follows: ? Motel requirements : 1 space per room + 1 per employee 68 rooms = 68 spaces 11 employees = 11 spaces 12 Queensbury Planning Board-May 19, 2011 Total required = 79 spaces Proposed site parking = 79 spaces ? Restaurant requirements: 1 space per 4 seats + 1 per 2 employees 227 seats = 57 spaces 20 employees = 10 spaces Total required = 67 spaces Proposed site parking = 71 spaces Site parking for both uses are compliant as per §179-4-090 2.Light post located at southern entrance to lot 2 damaged and leaning resulting in unnecessary glare. Please clarify actions to remediate this situation. Complete. 3.Final Plans should be sealed by project engineer verifying that stormwater controls are adequate and functioning for both parcels. Pending. 4.Town records indicate an open SPDES permit. The Planning Board may wish, as a condition of approval, to direct the applicant to submit a Notice of Termination (N.O.T.) to the Department of Environmental Conservation. Pending Subdivision Review: 1.The applicant has requested a waiver from Sketch Plan, stormwater management, grading, landscaping and E&S control. Application Protocol: 2/16/10 Decision on request for waiver from Sketch Plan, Open public hearing, Conduct SEQR review, Recommendation to ZBA – Completed on February 16, 2010. 2/17/10 ZBA Review – See attached resolution of approval dated February 17, 2010 2/23/10 Preliminary & Final stage Planning Board review and Site Plan Review – Approved but not filed with county. 2/15/11 Site Plan 10-2010 Extension of approval to February 2012 2/16/11 Area Variance 7-2010 Extension of approval to February 2012 5/17/11 Preliminary & Final Stage Planning Board review Mr. Oborne: With that I’ll turn it over to the board. Mr. Wilkinson: My name is Clark Wilkinson with Paragon Civil Engineering representing the Babajani & Mama property which is currently under the ATL Holdlings Co. as they had repossessed and that was part of the issue that had occurred over past year. As you recall or may not recall I was here back in February of last year and did receive this subdivision approval, again, as part of a Chapter 11 agreement. This board approved this subdivision, we also got a site plan approval and the area variance as staff says and we have extended those approvals as well so they are still current and with the subdivision approval running out or expiring we made reapplication worked out the details of the language for the cross easement that was a condition of approval the first time, there shouldn’t be any conditions or at least the way I see it there shouldn’t be any conditions. And we’re here tonight to discuss the project again and ask for a re-approval or a new approval of our already approved project because the time did expire. So with that I’ll turn it over to the Board with any questions comments. Mr. Hunsinger: I guess the only question I would have right away is is there any difference between this application and the one that was approved a year ago? Mr. Oborne: I don’t think so. Mr. Wilkinson: No none at all. Mrs. Steffan: The parking issue there is just, it identified the restaurant requirements; the total required is 57 you proposed 71, is that different than the original plan? Mr. Wilkinson: No everything is exactly the same. Mrs. Steffan: Obviously I think there is ample parking on that site so it’s not a big deal. Mr. Wilkinson: Well the thing it all shared. Mr. Hunsinger: That’s the purpose of the cross easement agreements. Mr. Wilkinson: Correct, create the subdivision, and meet the setbacks for the buildings, both the buildings we couldn’t include enough parking with the Outback so they have to park and there is cross easements so both can use each other’s parking and access and everything else. Mr. Hunsinger: I hear lots of silence so are there any comments from the board, it’s pretty straightforward? We do have a public hearing scheduled for this evening is there anyone in the audience who wants to address the board on this project? Any written comments Keith? 13 Queensbury Planning Board-May 19, 2011 Mr. Oborne: No written comments. Mr. Hunsinger: We’ll open the public hearing and let the record show that there were no comments received. Would anyone like to put forward, oh SEQR, it’s unlisted; can we reaffirm the prior SEQR approval? Mr. Oborne: If you feel that there are no large changes of concern environmentally I think a reaffirmation would be appropriate. Mr. Hunsinger: There are no changes, and its already built so. So given that can we entertain a motion. Mrs. Steffan: We only have to do that on the final correct; we don’t have to that on prelim? Mr. Wilkinson: We’re asking for prelim and final tonight Mrs. Steffan: Right but we have to do the motions there are two separate motions? Mr. Oborne: Right, you can do it at preliminary, that’s when you’re supposed to do preliminary Mrs. Steffan: So I’ll put forth a resolution to approve preliminary stage subdivision 2-2011-see below RESOLUTION-SUBDIVISION 2-2011 BABAJANI & MAMA c/o ATL HOLDING, LLC A subdivision application has been made to the Queensbury Planning Board for the following: Applicant proposes subdivision of a 3.48 +/- acre parcel into two lots of 1.13 & 2.35 +/- acres. Subdivision of land requires Planning Board review and approval. A public hearing was scheduled and held on 5/19/2011; and This application is supported with all documentation, public comment and application material in the file of record; and MOTION TO APPROVE PRELIMINARY STAGE FOR SUBDIVISION 2-2011 BABAJANI & MAMA C/O ATL HOLDING, LLC, Introduced by Gretchen Steffan who moved its adoption seconded by Thomas Ford: According to the resolution prepared by staff. The Planning Board has revisited and reaffirmed the SEQRA findings of the Negative Declaration. Duly adopted this 19th day of May 2011 by the following vote: AYES: Mr. Sipp, Mr. Schonewolf, Mr. Traver, Mr. Magowan, Mrs. Steffan, Mr. Ford, Mr. Hunsinger NOES: None Mr. Hunsinger: I don’t think there are any conditions for final. Mrs. Steffan: Well just that it has to be sealed by licensed engineer and that they have to, they have an open SPDES permit so I’ll just put the language in there and then they can work it out. Mr. Hunsinger: It’s already there, we can say in accordance of the resolution by staff Mrs. Steffan: Oh it’s under g, Keith is that covered under g? Mr. Oborne: Excuse me? Mr. Hunsinger: We’re talking about the NOI and the Mrs. Steffan: The NOI with the open SPDES permit, is that covered under g in the final motion? Mr. Hunsinger: G & H Mr. Oborne: Yes, it should be, I don’t think I crossed it out on this one. Let me see if I can find it. That’s not appropriate it at this point, I believe a NOT has been filed, if a NOT has been filed then this is not an issue. So G & H should be struck. Mr. Hunsinger: Okay, I’m glad we asked the question. Mrs. Steffan: So the staff note does not apply the one that you have? Mr. Oborne: The engineer is here, and he would be the one that would know inexplicably 14 Queensbury Planning Board-May 19, 2011 Mr. Wilkinson: I believe a NOT was filed on that site, if not, I can make sure one is filed, it’s a simple piece of paper to submit to DEC, and that can be certainly in your motion. Mr. Oborne: Yes that makes sense to cover us. If a NOT has not been filed the applicant is required to do so. Mrs. Steffan: So we’re going to ditch that, we’re going to ditch h. And we are going to grant waivers for sketch plan, stormwater, landscaping and e & s control. Mr. Oborne: Yes Mrs. Steffan: All right, Clark do you think you’ve done that NOT? Mr. Wilkinson: I cannot find it; I think you should include it to be safe. Mrs. Steffan: I’ll make a motion to approve final stage subdivision 2-2011-see below RESOLUTION-SUBDIVISION 2-2011 BABAJANI & MAMA A subdivision application has been made to the Queensbury Planning Board for the following: Applicant proposes subdivision of a 3.48 +/- acre parcel into two lots of 1.13 & 2.35 +/- acres. Subdivision of land requires Planning Board review and approval. A public hearing was scheduled and held on 5/19/2011; 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 2-2011 BABAJANI & MAMA, Introduced by Gretchen Steffan who moved its adoption seconded by Stephen Traver: 1)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 2)The Planning Board has reaffirmed the Negative Declaration on SEQR; and 3)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 4)Waiver requests granted: sketch plan review, stormwater mgmt., grading, landscaping & E&S control; and 5)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 6)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 7)This is approved with the following conditions: 1) The applicant will submit a Notice of Termination to the Department of Environmental Conservation as the Town records indicated a SPDES Permit; 2) The final plans will be sealed by a project engineer verifying the stormwater controls are adequate and functioning for both parcels. Duly adopted this 19th day of MAY 2011 by the following vote: AYES: Mr. Magowan, Mr. Ford, Mr. Schonewolf, Mr. Sipp, Mr. Traver, Mrs. Steffan, Mr. Hunsinger NOES: None Mr. Wilkinson: Thank you for your time Mr. Hunsinger: You’re welcome. Our next item on the agenda is Site Plan 26-2011 Edward & Philomena Vanputte. Keith whenever you’re ready. Mr. Oborne: Staff Notes-see below APPLICATION: Site Plan 26-2011 APPLICANT: Edward & Philomena Vanputte 15 Queensbury Planning Board-May 19, 2011 REQUESTED ACTION: Hard surfacing within 50 feet of a shoreline as well as construction within 50 feet of slopes in excess of 15% requires Planning Board review/approval. LOCATION: 23 Jay Road West EXISTING ZONING: WR-Waterfront Residential SEQRA STATUS: Type II-no further action required ENGINEERING REVIEW: 4/15/2011, 5/13/2011 PARCEL HISTORY: BOH 24, 2010: Holding tank variance 9/13/2010 PROJECT DESCRIPTION: Construction of a 1,130 sq. ft. seasonal single family residence. STAFF COMMENTS: The parcel for this project is 0.10 acres in size and is one of the smaller parcels with frontage on Glen Lake and as a result the applicant is requesting multiple variances as denoted above. The parcel is currently vacant as the result of a fire and subsequent demolition. The proposal calls for holding tanks and relief has been granted for setback requirements by the local BOH (previously attached). Area Variance 17-2011 was approved on April 20, 2011 (copy attached) Additional Comments: 1.In regards to the comment in the narrative on permeability, comparing a 2 acre waterfront parcel to a 0.10 acre waterfront parcel is difficult to put into “perspective” and should be avoided in the future. Code states 75% permeability required yet project proposes 60.7%; lot size does not dictate proposed permeability, design does. Acknowledged. 2.The applicant has requested a waiver from test pit witnessing by the town; Planning Board does not have this authority. Note: The Town of Queensbury has had a Town Designated Engineer for year 2011 and should have been utilized as per Chapter 136, Appendix F. Addressed but not satisfactorily. High Groundwater Determination must be evaluated and certified by a qualified person approved by the local Board of Health. Application Protocol 4/19/11: PB recommendation to ZBA Completed 4/20/11: Variance Approval Completed 5/19/11: PB review Mr. Oborne: Item 2 of the staff notes, I spoke to the Zoning Administrator on this and it is a requirement that it needs to be witnessed at this point if the applicant does do a test pit it is in season now, they’re good to go, but that information needs to be submitted with the final plans if at all possible. And again that is up to the Planning Board if you want to condition that the approval. I know that also the applicant has not received from Chazen and you may want to have that discussion also. And with that I turn it over to the Board. Mr. Jarrett: Good evening Tom Jarrett of Jarrett Engineers and Patrick Vanputte. You have seen this project before and you submitted a recommendation to the ZBA, they followed your recommendation and approved thth the variances, the engineering received on May 17 have been addressed in a letter date May 18 that I think you have in your package in front of you. Boiling the comments down to very succinct issues it relates to stormwater management for the most part and frankly based on your town engineer’s recommendation since we cannot comply with setbacks on this property due to the size of the property we’re asking for a waiver from stormwater. That will virtually eliminate all the comments that you have in front of you. Just addressing Keith’s th issue with regard to test pits, that issue is addressed in this May 18 letter that you have in front of you. We did go out and do additional test pits about 1 week to 2 ½ weeks ago and we found groundwater a few inches higher that what we found in January and we’ve noted that in this letter. Mr. Ford: April you mean th Mr. Hunsinger: April 18 letter th Mr. Jarrett: May 18 letter when we did test pits. It was delivered yesterday to Craig, well that’s unfortunate so Mr. Hunsinger: Looks like a lengthy letter too. Mr. Jarrett: Well it’s not really that lengthy, we restated all the prior comments so you’d have them in front of you and I can summarize very quickly the test pit issue I think goes away once we resolve what we’re doing with stormwater so let’s hold that for a few minutes. The comments regarding stormwater are largely related to setbacks. We cannot make setbacks on this property, it’s too small, so frankly since the town engineer has recommended to you that we not build the stormwater devices as infiltration devices we’re asking for a waiver, we’ll delete them, that’s are only other option. We think you have jurisdiction to waive the setbacks the town engineer says no. I don’t think he knows but frankly the town attorney may have to weigh in on this. So we’re 16 Queensbury Planning Board-May 19, 2011 certainly willing to put stormwater management in, that’s why we designed it, but for example the chambers on the west side of the house which are designed to handle the site drainage on the roof are 40 feet from the well, the health department standards call for 50 feet we can’t make 50 feet, we’d be on, so we’d have to ask for a waiver, now the only thing we are willing to do and the town engineer is supportive of is the bled swale along the lakeshore and landscaping buffer that we’ve proposed which does provide stormwater treatment, not technically infiltration. He supports that, we’re planning to leave that, we do have that interface, that buffer between our development and the lake. And all the comments that Chazen has given you basically refer to those issues. Mr. Traver: With regards to the device, the stormwater device that is 40 feet from the well, if we give them for stormwater you could install that, correct? Mr. Jarrett: Yes, we would install it. Mr. Traver: And you would install it, because based on you’re, from an engineering standpoint you would prefer that that stormwater management device be there. Mr. Jarrett: Yes. We were, we think it had benefits, you’ll note from our discussion last month that we’ve provided a retention seal for the well, we’re going to dig up the well and put up bentinite seal around it so this precludes not an absolute preclusion but it minimizes the chances for contamination so we thought we had the best of both worlds. Mr. Traver: I’d say let’s have our cake and eat it to. Let’s give them the waiver and ask that they install the stormwater anyway. Mr. Hunsinger: I agree. Mr. Jarrett: If Keith would bring up the plan on the screen I think we can discuss, the two issues we’re talking about, one you may not want to grant a waiver for, it’s more problematic than the other, like the drywell under the driveway is the one I’m referring to. I don’t think the town engineer can support that one at all. The chambers on the west side of the house that you’re saying you’d prefer to grant a waiver for that’s an easier waiver to grant on your part, less of the health issue. What a presentation, that one, the PDF. If you’d go to drawing 3 Mr. Hunsinger: We need to bring in an extension cord Keith so you can get the protector further away from the screen so that we can see it. Mr. Jarrett: Move it back a little bit and enlarge it. There’s the house, there is Jay Road North, and the driveway, the drywell is proposed in the center of the driveway. The well is right there, the existing well it’s been there for a long time. We’re going to dig up around and put the seal around it so we prevent surface water from getting down around the casing. The drywell is directly up gradient from the lake, in line with the well going to the lake so that one’s, and it’s traffic runoff and it’s more contaminated that you’d find from off a roof so that’s the one you’ll want to consider more carefully, granting that waiver. Mr. Hunsinger: Well the logical question though if you don’t put that in where there runoff and contamination go. Mr. Jarrett: Let me come back to that question in one second. The chambers that I’m referring to now that you thought about granting waivers for are right there, cross gradient, in other words stormwater runoff is probably running toward the lake, most groundwater and surface is running toward the lake which is . . . groundwater is presumably moving toward Glen Lake and water in this area, groundwater in the area is surface water presumably moving toward Glen Lake so stormwater that’s infiltrated here will be unlikely to contaminate that well. It cross gradient we call it cross gradient, now it can go under the house theoretically it’s not likely to do that whereas this groundwater recharge from the drywell goes right down past the well toward the lake, tougher issue with regard to health issues. So that’s a different waiver. That versus this. Now the red swale that we propose along the lake is right here this landscaping, the treatment so we will put of these in if you grant both waivers for these two systems and put just this one if if you grant just this waiver. Mr. Traver: And the shoreline. Mr. Jarrett: Shoreline is going in anyway. Either way that’s going in Mr. Traver: It sounds like from the well contamination viewpoint it would wise to consider not installing the drywell under the driveway but installing the other one. Mr. Jarrett: Now the Chairman asks what happens to this runoff if we don’t put this drywell in. We’re using grass pavers so they are not technically called an infiltration but they are going to infiltrate some there so you would either let us put those grass pavers in which is a natural device or dictate that we get them out of there concerned about contamination. Mr. Ford: What kind of a casing do you have on that well? 17 Queensbury Planning Board-May 19, 2011 Mr. Jarrett: It’s a deep well, its 100 feet deep, steel casing, we don’t know the age of it. The well water, the static level of that well is close to that lake level which does tell me they may be connected. Mr. Ford: The condition of the casing, has that been examined. Mr. Jarrett: Hard to tell below grade, very difficult to tell, it’s in good condition what we can see. I don’t know if the family knows the age of that well Mr. Oborne: Have you had a water quality test? Mr. Jarrett: Not yet, we’re planning to have that done Mr. Vanputte: Not since we’ve purchased it which was 10 years ago. Mr. Hunsinger: So going back to the driveway if we are not so inclined to have you install the drywell you would still have the grade the way it’s proposed right? Mr. Jarrett: Yes and I would probably regrade the driveway to pass behind the house between Jay Road North and the house down toward the chamber system so it wouldn’t go directly toward the well. Maybe a minor change in grading but it would be Mr. Oborne: If you did that wouldn’t you get some treatment for the volatile organics coming out Mr. Jarrett: It might be the best compromise considering the concern that the town engineer has. I think the board’s concerns and our concerns about stormwater management largely met but we wouldn’t meet town standards quote unquote for rate of runoff. Mr. Schonewolf: Welcome to Assembly Point Mr. Sipp: It may be a related subject here is a landscaping and which you have put in some large trees, some small trees, some brush, but no groundcover? Mr. Jarrett: Actually we have groundcovers around to the side above these chambers and then down toward the lake on especially the periphery. Mr. Sipp: But what you have A which is the large trees and b which is brush Mr. Jarrett: I think we a note regarding groundcovers Mr. Sipp: Trees and shrub species may be substituted for what you have here or you put in practically all of the ones that are on the approved list. Not all of them, but you’ve got most of them. We you go to B under shoreline buffer you’ve got quite a few listed in there. I would wonder on some of them including the last one which it can eventually be a big tree-25 feet at maturity. Mr. Jarrett: I’m not an expert in that but I thought this species would grow primarily as a shrub and I often defer to you on that. Mr. Sipp: It could be smaller, but what I’m looking for is groundcover, Joe Pyeweed or something that would be 2 feet in height, you just have a & b. Mr. Jarrett: If you go to our landscaped wet swale on drawing D 2 we call out a wet meadow seed mix which is a mixture of all those types of plants, Joe Pyeweed and a number of other small perennials and D 2 where Mr. Sipp: I see, but that’s only rain gardens Mr. Jarrett: That’s correct; you’re talking about a round bed now in the general landscaping Mr. Sipp: You in theory following what the town plans is that you have to have 14 feet of buffering between your land and the lake there are in that 14 feet you’ll have to have a large tree, 2 or 3 shrubs for smaller trees and then a groundcover of various varieties. Mr. Oborne: We have a notation on here on C 3 typical vegetation low growing perennial groundcovers; it’s up on the screen. Mr. Jarrett: It also on the erosion control plan we called for groundcovers on the entire site Mr. Sipp It would nice to just list a Mr. Oborne: Could you provide a list of those groundcovers. Mr. Jarrett: Certainly. 18 Queensbury Planning Board-May 19, 2011 Mr. Sipp: This has got to be 15 feet wide. Mr. Jarrett: And I believe have shown that on our site plan. Mr. Sipp: You have shown you labeled a, which is the large trees and b which is the smaller trees, shrubs, let’s just throw a c in there which is come Joe Pyewood. Mr. Jarrett: Which Keith just suggested and we are willing to do, that’s right. Mr. Sipp: Because that area right there slopes down and if you don’t have the rain gardens I don’t think you’re going to manage that. Mr. Jarrett: I think the family wanted a little bit of a grass area in front of the deck as a play area, but the rest around the periphery we’d plant very low maintenance groundcovers that are not grass. We’ll specify that. Mr. Hunsinger: So if we’re looking at drawing C2 and you have the silt fence along shoreline to be installed, what is the distance? Mr. Jarrett: What are the distances from the lake for those silt fences? If you look at the scale down below one inch equals 10 feet so there is 3. Mr. Hunsinger: I was looking for the scale, now I see it. So you’re showing 15 feet. Mr. Sipp: You’ve covered the 15 feet but it’s just that we need some. Mr. Jarrett: We just need to specify some groundcovers on the property. Mr. Sipp: I mean put lilies in the trench, it’s useless, I mean you have to have some shrubs that are going to survive water, excess water. I was out there today and in the foundation on the bottom of the foundation there was water. Mr. Oborne: Absolutely. Mr. Jarrett: Ajugas, that kind of groundcover, Joe Pyewed has been suggested, that is very good one for wet conditions. Mr. Sipp: Is that lake level water? Mr. Jarrett: We believe it is, it’s very close, it may be slightly higher right now because it may not have equalized yet, but. Mr. Sipp: But right next to it, I mean there is a small patch of three feet by 2 feet and then right next to it there is nothing on the same forward wall. Mr. Jarrett: The same elevation? Mr. Sipp: Yes, it’s just a small are that you could say it was rainwater because we’ve had a few showers this week. Is the foundation going to be a slab? Mr. Jarrett: It’s a crawl space actually; we have to build above the flood elevations so below that is a crawl space Mr. Traver: You could always do one of our florizene dye test and see if it comes out. Mr. Sipp: Well that’s what was interested in making sure. Mr. Jarrett: We certainly can get more specific on that. Mr. Hunsinger: I think there is some confusion about what was being asked? Mrs. Steffan: Yes under that typical vegetation low growing perennial groundcovers, you have a couple of, are you not wanting grass? Mr. Jarrett: We want a patch of grass for a play area. But on the periphery on those slopes see where those contours start to get a little tighter we’re going plant with a low maintenance ground cover that is not to be grass? Mr. Sipp: You can also angle it right open so you can get it; you know what I mean, halfway through you cut through at an angle so that you have possible half coverage of what is coming down through there. Instead of being a 90 degree cut it down to a 45. Mr. Oborne: The shoreline is like this, then it’s like this. 19 Queensbury Planning Board-May 19, 2011 Mr. Sipp: In other words you get some buffering even when we’re leaving the opening. This way you’re just channeling Mr. Jarrett: We’re going to submit that detail with our plan to you. You have expertise on staff to look at that. Mr. Oborne: If the board wants to have a 45 degree access as opposed to a 90 degree access that’s fine, that’s up to the board. Mr. Hunsinger: I’m not sure what you mean. Mr. Oborne: Right now it’s at 90 degrees, the strip of grass going to the dock, what Don’s saying is if you angle that off to that 45 degrees and as that water coming down it’s not shooting down straight through to the lake, it has some blockage. Mr. Jarrett: We wanted in front of the deck a grass area for a play area, I’m not sure that works. But that’s why the buffer is built the way it is, to trap all that runoff before it gets to the lake. And by the way in between wet swale rain gardens you’ll notice there is two distinct rain gardens, in between there is a small hump, a small mound, the water cannot flow directly to the lake. Mr. Hunsinger: Right. So shed of either side. Mrs. Steffan: Okay folks because I have to write the motion I need language here and the thing I just wrote down is the strip of grass along the shoreline to be 45 degrees not 90 is that what we’re talking about? Mr. Oborne: Well I don’t think the applicant is wild about that because they already have in their design they have the hump in there to break the flow. Mrs. Steffan: So we’re leaving it along? Mr. Hunsinger: Well let’s talk about it. Mr. Traver: I think as designed with the hump I think the reason that we would want to consider changing the angle is to handle the stormwater but I think they’ve handled it by using this hump. So it isn’t necessary to make that change. Because they’d thought about that and built that design to buffer the flow the sheet flow or whatever by using that hump. Mr. Jarrett: By altering the rain gardens Mr. Sipp: In this whole area here you have groundcover [can’t transcribe] Mr. Jarrett: Well we were trying to enhance the shoreline by that buffer and that w Mr. Sipp: And that way with the groundcover you’ll see have the good view of the lake and it will soak up a lot of excess Mr. Hunsinger: So is he saying remove the hump? Mr. Jarrett: No I think he’s reasonably comfortable that a hump will do what he was talking about doing. Mrs. Steffan: The language I have has been crossed out. Mr. Hunsinger: What other issues does the board have? Mr. Sipp: Where is this septic system going? Mr. Jarrett: It’s a holding tank which was approved by the Town Board; it’s on the left side of the site in that back corner behind those chambers we talked about Mr. Sipp: Oh okay Mr. Traver: And I think we decided to not install the drywell under the driveway and use the grass pavers Mr. Jarrett: And we will regrade that area to drain behind the house Mr. Traver: But we are giving them a waiver from stormwater in order for them to install stormwater Mr. Hunsinger: We’re giving a waiver from stormwater, Mr. Traver: So they can install stormwater, you’re offering so we’re acknowledging your offer Mr. Ford: Because we’ve agreed to give you a waiver 20 Queensbury Planning Board-May 19, 2011 Mr. Ford: We’re acknowledging your offer, bring it in. Mr. Oborne: I still would suggest you obtain engineering sign-off on this, with the granting of that waiver, as Tom said, you’re going to remove a lot of the those issues, now with the DOH that’s totally different issue Mrs. Steffan: So we’re talking about granting a waiver from stormwater management on the west side Mr. Oborne: As designed Mr. Jarrett: If I could suggest you’re granting a waiver request for stormwater management, the we’re voluntarily offering to put chambers in on the west side if you grant a waiver for setback which is what our discussion is. Mrs. Steffan: Can we do that? Mr. Oborne: According to Sean you cannot grant a waiver for the setback, but you can grant a waiver from stormwater, I don’t what know the DOH actions were to be honest with you. Mr. Jarrett: I discussed with Sean that this is an existing site that is being redeveloped which I think reverts to town authority, he acknowledged my argument, Mr. Hunsinger: The DOH is the Town Board Mr. Jarrett: That would probably the worst case scenario that it would have to go to local BOH Mr. Oborne: Not necessarily the DOH, the town board doesn’t set the regulations for the DOH; there are certain regulations you have to follow and I Mr. Vanputte: If they grant us stormwater and we don’t put these in we’re going to have a problem. Mr. Oborne: If you get Sean’s sign-off on it if the argument is sound he’ll sign off on it. Mr. Jarrett: If your motion reads that you’re just granting the waiver then we don’t discuss the chambers at all. We’re telling you on the record we’ll put them in but that’s on our responsibility. Mr. Traver: And if we grant the waiver for stormwater the engineering sign-off would not include stormwater that would simply that. Mr. Jarrett: it would go away. Mr. Ford: DOH does not have to be involved? Mr. Oborne: Potentially the two engineers have to work that out Mr. Jarrett: Not if you grant the waiver and there is no stormwater involved. If you just grant a waiver they are not involved. If we put them in they are our responsibility. Mr. Traver: It’s the most unique way we’ve ever dealt with stormwater management that I can recall. Mr. Hunsinger: Yes, I would agree. Mr. Oborne: The simple resolution to this is to require an engineering sign-off, grant the waivers as a condition of approval, engineering sign-off is required. Mr. Jarrett: Also as one other condition we will specify groundcovers that will be used; we will give you that detail Mrs. Steffan: I don’t have to put that in the motion do I? Mr. Oborne: I would prefer that you did, if you could basically quality groundcover Mr. Jarrett: We don’t have to list all the species Mr. Jarrett: No we’re going to submit that in advance when we submit the site plan. Mr. Hunsinger: Yes, okay Mr. Jarrett: The code requires that anyway and it’s very general. Mr. Hunsinger: Okay any other questions comments from the Board? We do have a public hearing scheduled is there anybody in the audience that want’s to address the board on this project? I don’t see any takers, any written comments Keith? 21 Queensbury Planning Board-May 19, 2011 Mr. Oborne: May 13, 2011 Richard & Susan Rourke-letter on file Mr. Ford: I’ve still got concern about drinking water that well. Mr. Hunsinger: Do you have to have it tested before a certificate of occupancy? Mr. Jarrett: We will get it tested. I’m not sure we do but we’re going to run a very comprehensive test on it, not just bacteriological but a full range of chemical organic synthetic Mr. Hunsinger: Of course it’s Lake George not Glen Lake but they’ve taken water out of the lake they have to treat it, that’s their alternative or drill a new well Mr. Schonewolf: You’ve got three ways to do what you’re doing, do the test first then you’ll know what to do. Mr. Ford: That would be a good idea no matter what. Mr. Schonewolf: Then you can make your decision if you’ve got some problems there then treat them. Mr. Jarrett: We know we’re going to have to disinfect the well when we get done with construction Mr. Hunsinger: It’s been two years since it’s been used. Mr. Jarrett: Flush it out, disinfect it, test it when we’re well through the site construction Mr. Ford: When was the last time it was used? Mr. Vanputte: July 4, 2009 is when the fire occurred. Mr. Traver: Are we talking fireworks? Mr. Vanputte: No electrical. Mr. Hunsinger: Okay since there was only one public comment received I’ll close the public hearing and this is a Type Ii action. What we’re doing with the stormwater is granting a waiver for stormwater and the applicant has voluntarily has offered to put in the, I just want to make sure we get the right reference, the chambers on the southwest side of the house and then the drywell in the driveway will not be installed, the driveway will be pitched toward the southwest to drain toward the house and Jay Road. Mr. Jarrett: Between the house and Jay Road. Mr. Oborne: Do you have plantings in those swales? Mr. Jarrett: We have actually a number of shrubs Mr. Hunsinger: Are there any other conditions, that applicant will specify the groundcover in accordance with town code, with species provided in town code. What about the test pit? Mr. Jarrett: Moot point now because we don’t have any stormwater. Mr. Hunsinger: Is test pit information required even though there is no stormwater? Mr. Oborne: If you’re waiving the stormater requirements I don’t see any real reason to have the test pits Mr. Hunsinger: Well it is specified in code, is that something we can waive? Mr. Jarrett: If you have stormwater. Mr. Hunsinger: And your wastewater is a holding tank. Mr. Oborne: That’s right; the wastewater is a holding tank. I had this discussion with the Zoning Administrator, this is under the auspices of wastewater, Chapter 136 and it’s not under zoning but I understand Craig’s position, he states a test pit is a test pit as such. I can’t disagree with him on that whatsoever so I don’t know how you want to proceed with that, its’ a requirement. I don’t think he’s going to come off it; he’s going to ask for those. Mr. Jarrett: Well we’ve done test pits; it’s in the letter you haven’t seen yet. We have more than a two foot vertical separation underneath those chambers we propose on the west side Mr. Hunsinger: And so now that it’s within season you can simply provide the information. Mr. Jarrett: Which I did in that letter. 22 Queensbury Planning Board-May 19, 2011 Mr. Traver: And I think to we can too require a sign-off between the engineers Mr. Oborne: The issue is witnessing, it’s not the fact that he did or did it correctly, it’s witnessing. Mr. Jarrett: And we did a second batch though in the period when they don’t need to be witnessed. Mr. Oborne: Fabulous. And I’ll state for the record and I’ll probably get in trouble for this I think the whole witnessing thing is a waste of time, I really do, but that’s a whole other story. Mr. Jarrett: It was done for a reason; it needs to be taken up by the Town Board Mr. Hunsinger: Okay Mr. Oborne: And that reason is no longer prevalent Mr. Hunsinger: But not that you’re in season you don’t have it witnessed so the information you have submitted yesterday but Keith didn’t get, we didn’t get it. Mr. Jarrett: I hand delivered it to Craig yesterday and he acknowledged it by phone but apparently he’s sick. Mrs. Steffan: So do we have to put a condition on that issue. Mr. Hunsinger: I don’t think so an engineering sign-off don’t think so Mr. Traver: The condition is that it needs to get a sign-off Mr. Hunsinger: Yes, and engineering sign-off. Mr. Jarrett: When Chazen gets our letter they need a copy of these minutes or at least some synopsis so they can put it in context. Mr. Oborne: They’ll get a copy of the resolution and all that. You are changing the plan considerably with the drywell being removed and everything being pitched but the board sees that is much better scenario Mr. Jarrett: They’re going to know now how to look at that letter Mrs. Steffan: So we tabling this to July Mr. Hunsinger: I thought we were approving it with these conditions, conditional approval Mrs. Steffan: Okay, I’ll make a motion-see below RESOLUTION-SITE PLAN 26-2011 EDWARD & PHILOMENA VANPUTTE A site plan application has been made to the Queensbury Planning Board for the following: Applicant proposes construction of a 1,130 sq. ft. single family residence. Hard surfacing within 50 feet of a shoreline as well as construction within 50 feet of slopes in excess of 15% requires Planning Board review and approval. Planning Board provided a written recommendation to the ZBA on 4/19/2011; and ZBA approved the variance request on 4/20/2011; and A public hearing was advertised and held on 5/19/2011; and This application is supported with all documentation, public comment, and application material in the file of record; MOTION TO APPROVE SITE PLAN NO. 26-2011 EDWARD & PHILOMENA VANPUTTE, Introduced by Gretchen Steffan who moved for its adoption, seconded by Stephen Traver: 11)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 12)Type II, no further SEQRA review is necessary; and 13)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 23 Queensbury Planning Board-May 19, 2011 14)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 15)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 16)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 17)This is approved with the following conditions: 1)The Planning Board grants waivers for stormwater; the applicant has voluntarily agreed to install chambers on the southwest side of the house. Further, the applicant has agreed to take out the driveway drywell and pitch the driveway to the southwest which will allow it to drain between the house and Jay Road. 2)The applicant will qualify ground cover in accordance with Town Code species list; 3)The applicant will obtain an engineering sign-off. th Duly adopted this 19 day of May 2011 by the following vote: AYES: Mr. Magowan, Mr. Sipp, Mr. Schonewolf, Mr. Ford, Mr. Traver, Mrs. Steffan, Mr. Hunsinger NOES: None Mr. Traver: Mr. Chairman it’s interesting earlier this evening we had an application that was an excellent model for proposed option of having the engineer sign-off before they come before us. I think the applicant we just dealt with is an excellent example of when not to do that. Two different types. Mr. Hunsinger: The next item is Site Plan 11-2011/FWW 2-2011 Cellco Partnership dba Verizon Wireless. Keith Mr. Oborne: I believe the board is well versed with this application. Staff Notes-see below. APPLICATION: Site Plan 11-2011 / Freshwater Wetlands 2-2011 APPLICANT: Cellco Partnership dba Verizon Wireless REQUESTED ACTION: Telecommunication Towers requires Planning Board review and approval LOCATION: 89 Everts Avenue EXISTING ZONING: CLI-Commercial Light Industrial SEQRA STATUS: Type Unlisted ENGINEERING REVIEW: 4/22/2011; 5/13/2011 PARCEL HISTORY: SP 2-09 Office expansion Approved 1/20/09 AV 86-08 Setback relief Approved 12/30/88 AV 10-07 Wetland setback relief Approved 2/21/07 SP 5-07 Office expansion Approved 2/27/07 PROJECT DESCRIPTION: Replacement of existing 182 +/- sq. ft. guyed AM radio tower with new shielded 180 +/- sq. ft. guyed AM tower capable of supporting multi-carrier use. Further, a 360 +/- sq. ft. Verizon Wireless Service facility to be constructed. STAFF COMMENTS: Currently there exists a 182 foot guyed radio tower with support structures that are slated for removal. The applicant proposes access from the existing asphalt parking to the south of the office with a dedicated gravel drive to the proposed site. The majority of the parcel contains NWI wetlands. The applicant proposes temporary disturbance within the wetlands to remove existing guy wires and install proposed guy wires and anchors. Total permanent disturbance to the wetland is 2,561 square feet and encompasses the area in which the equipment compound will be sited as well as the access road to the compound. Temporary disturbance for both the removal of existing guy wires and anchors as well as placement of new guy wires and anchors is proposed. Total parcel area is 4.35 acres. Area Variance 21-2011 was approved on April 27, 2011 (copy attached). Additional Comments: 1.Removal upon Termination language located in Section 2, page 6 and Section 9. 2.Visual EAF Addendum located in Section 7. 24 Queensbury Planning Board-May 19, 2011 3.Care should be taken to minimize wetland disturbance to the greatest extent practicable. 4.Telecommunication Tower is an allowable use in the CLI zone. Application Protocol: ? Provide written recommendation to ZBA Completed 4/26/11 ? Zoning Board of Appeals review Decision Completed 4/27/11 ? PB review-TBD Pending Mr. Oborne: With that I’ll turn it over to the board. Mr. Cusack: Michael Cusack an attorney for the applicant and with me tonight is Jean Frawley from Tectonic Engineering. I think our names are on the paperwork in front of you. I think the notice and materials in your packet summarize the project adequately. There are no substantial changes that resulted from the zoning board review, we’re keeping everything where it’s currently proposed to keep in compliance with the sign-offs we have from federal and state on wetlands and the essence of the project is to replace structurally inadequate tower with a new AM tower the radio station will continue to use for their current operations, and co-locating Verizon Wireless equipment on that tower at a lower point so that we can broadcast our fourth generation and third generation services to the Quaker Road area of Queensbury. Mr. Schonewolf: How far does it go out from the tower approximately based on that height? Mr. Cusack: I would ballpark everything these days at about on a mile radius. We use to build to 5 miles radius, a 10 mile radius but those days are over, the tower heights have come down substantially, the number of users within the circle has come so high that we have to control how far our signal goes. Mr. Traver: It can go substantially go further though can it not? Mr. Cusack: It can, the service that’s there now is very fragmented but it’s coming from miles and miles away and if you were to look on a meter as you call down Quaker Road you would see that some of your call our facilities in Hudson Falls which we call Hudson Falls and Kingsbury, some of it’s coming from Exit 18, it’s all fragmentary, that’s the problem as the networks grows when those site are serving the population toward that is close to those that sites, it’s not available to go out as far and help remote areas. Mr. Traver: There is actually an android application called antenna that you can run that uses Google maps and it will show you where you are currently connected, it’s kind of interesting to see it jump around but I say that obviously it’s line of site bit I have not infrequently been up to the middle to the northern part of Lake George up in the Narrows and so on and get a weak but usable signal and that’s got to miles from Mr. Cusack: There are some sites that have been built up in Lake George within the last 2 or 3 years, it’s still not good, it’s still fragmented, jean Marie is working on that area every day and it’s a very big initiative. If you’re near water the signal is going to skip, it’s going to bounce; it’s going to go very far. The issue usually is your phone getting back to that tower miles away when the battery is small enough to fit on a device that fits into your pocket, the uplink is the limiting factor, the antenna’s don’t usually have a hard time seeing the user, it’s usually on the down link it’s usually the user up linking back that breaks the call. Mr. Traver: And that’s reflected in the, the difference between distance internet access versus telephone access. I can get internet way up there when sometimes I can’t make a phone call. At first I was how can this be and then I thought about it a little more, but it’s interesting. Mr. Cusack: its real time, and the internet, its packet based you can miss a couple of times you can phishing until the packets are through when it voice in the packets, it’s Mr. Magowan: That’s why you can get texts in a metal building where you can’t call. Mr. Cusack: Correct, because it will keep trying. But if I’m saying the words I’m saying now and they don’t come through to you you hear nothing or garbled it doesn’t work but if I say it and then it comes through three minutes later it’ll get through. Mr. Hunsinger: Since we’re talking about this can we look at these maps on tab 6, pages 5 & 6. Mr. Cusack: We certainly can. Mr. Hunsinger: Page 5 is the existing coverage and it’s kind of deceiving because if you look at this it looks like there is no service on Quaker Road but in fact there is. Mr. Cusack: What they’re doing is they are running the coverage at the top of the map, you’ll see a number it says GF north coverage Meg 78 dbm which is decibels per milliwatt squared, that’s a scientific measurement of a certain quality of coverage that would work in a vehicle as well as in a building and the in building part is the higher part to make and so what Verizon is finding is if they don’t build in suburban areas to this standard that the network doesn’t perform correctly so even though you’re getting service that service that you’re getting as you know from using it, is not reliable, it patchy sometimes it works great and sometimes it’s not working at all 25 Queensbury Planning Board-May 19, 2011 and that’s literally a function of the distance between the blue spots, those blue spots are our existing cell sites right now that are operating in this area, and they have been serving this area as faithfully as possible for 10 20 years, there hasn’t been a lot of development on the network but as we transition from the year 2000 to rdth presently over to the 3 & 4 generation digital technologies that we’re using and as the devices have gotten smaller, smaller and smaller the battery issue I mentioned on earlier the sites just can’t stretch, they can’t go as far, and at the location that’s in downtown in Glens Falls now on top of the CNA building we’re actually running out of spectrum. There are so many people on that site you could be over in Hudson Falls and pulling signal from that site there are so many people on it that when it’s busy which is about 60% of the day the signal is not usable if you’re out in those areas and that’s why it’s very much depends on what time of day you’re there whether the site works or not. We’ve done everything on those sites to add internal equipment and channels and antennas to upgrade what we can on those sites. We’re at the point now where we have to go out and spend real money and put new sites in the ground. Mr. Schonewolf: When you site a tower what’s the optimum capacity that you can provide in that area? What are you looking to do? In Florida it was Verizon that at certain parts of the day you couldn’t make any calls, the system was overloaded. Mrs. Frawley: Yes, Florida is very like that in certain areas, they give us a ring, it’s all based on calls dropped, people actually call into, they call Verizon too saying our coverage is horrible. They know it has to be improved so they’ll look or they have to drive test around with special equipment to see where calls are losing or whatever, who is making more calls in what areas based on that they’ll give us a search ring of an area we’ve got to get something in there and based on that that’s where we come in myself and try to find the best location for it that satisfies everybody. Mr. Schonewolf: Because it all on the direction, it’s all circular. Mr. Cusack: More or less. Mr. Hunsinger: One of other that confused me is that years ago it didn’t matter too much it didn’t matter who your carrier was because you would roam so it’s obviously different now than it was can you. Mr. Cusack: It’s a little bit of a mini tutorial but I’ll do it as quickly as I can. In the old days a cell site ran off analog technology which was basically one call per channel. A cell site was typically loaded with approximately 45 channels so what would happen was that if 45 people were on that cell site at the same time you got network busy or if you were driving into that area you couldn’t hand off to the side because it was full you got dropped call. So on the analog system everyone was using analog radio it’s the same as a two walkie- talkie, a police radio, I don’t want to say it’s unsophisticated but it’s a little more of a basic technology, it’s easy to share. Mr. Traver: Longer range though Mr. Cusack: Longer range because of the power, in that network we were 500 watts on the downlink and you had on your car you had a three watt booster kit that was screwed into the floor of your car with an external antenna so you had a really reliable uplink and what happened was it covered a wide are but it was capacity st poor, so they invented digital, how many calls can we jam into one channel so the 1 generation of digital you st hear 1 g, 2g, 3g,1 generation, the digital, took it too about 10 calls per channel so then your 45 channel cell tower had extended life, it just grew to a 450 call cell tower and then the explosive growth that occurred combined with the devices changing, because when you went to digital technology that’s when people had to surrender their 3 watt kits, they only worked in analog mode, they didn’t work in digital because it overcomes it basically disrupts the digital balance of the signals if you boost the unit the handset. It’s very very complicated, th by now we’re up to 4 generation, I’m just going to skip right ahead, we have a lot more capacity rich situation but the number of devices coming on are basically doubling tripling within families, people have multiple devices; all trying to access the system at once, and even though there is differences between a voice call and a data call as we were talking about a few minutes ago it’s all data now, even your voice call is scrambled data, it comes in 0’s, its broken down, its encrypted, and its sent over and assembled on the other line as your voice so the person can understand what you’re saying. The real time component to touch on what Mr. Magowan was touching on before is what upsets the balance, if it’s a voice call it’s still got to be able to occur in real time or it sounds junky. Mr. Hunsinger: It’s actually been a very long time since we’ve sited a tower. Mr. Oborne: We did one last year on West Mountain Road. Mr. Hunsinger: That was the first one in a long time. Mr. Schonewolf: The same thing happened with tv when we went from analog to digital Mr. Oborne: But I will say what upsets the balance though is people who drive and talk on the phone and I was wondering if Verizon has any plans to mitigate that issue. Mr. Cusack: On what 26 Queensbury Planning Board-May 19, 2011 Mr. Oborne: On driving, talking, and texting. You definitely have the capability to do it with the GPS and the shut off. Is there anything along those lines being done Mike? Mr. Traver: You mean if the device is moving it would be cut off? Mr. Oborne: Yes. Mr. Traver: So that means I wouldn’t be able to use my phone in my boat. Mr. Oborne: Then I don’t know what to tell you. Mr. Cusack: The phone function works, what’s being eluded to are technologies under development particularly for younger drivers to disable texting and data functions, your facebook functions your twitter functions Mr. Traver: So then my GPS program wouldn’t work Mr. Cusack: it would work, that would still work. Mr. Oborne: There is a switch, you can do that now with some of these devices, it’s like automatic Mr. Traver: One the programs I use now is called Copilot that downloads real time traffic data so I’d lose that. Mr. Cusack: No you’d lose devices that limit specific applications, like text messaging, Facebook, and twitter. What Keith is referring to is even though it is illegal there is a tendency particularly among younger driver population to continue texting and do other things. Mr. Traver: Really, I’m shocked. Ms. Frawley: They haven’t got enough tickets yet. Mr. Oborne: Thank you. Mr. Cusack: Don’t text and drive, that’s the only thing I’ll say, there are minutes being generated. Mr. Hunsinger: We’ve asked you questions about technology we haven’t asked you any questions about the site. Except according to the federal regulations we have to take into consideration the propagation maps as to where we site these. Even though it’s not a site plan regulation it is related. Other questions comments from the Board? Mr. Schonewolf: What’s your timetable? Mr. Cusack. The radio station owners are going to do a bunch of regulatory paperwork if this is approved tonight, they have to go to the federal authorities and get their permissions straightened out with the FCC to take down the old tower and straighten everything out, they’ve already done a lot already I’d say they have another 4-6 weeks to go, in the meantime there is an 8 week fabrication lead time for the steel to build the tower at the factory. So I would say that they be at this probably towards the middle or end of the summer. It’s a 6 week construction timeframe ordinarily but I think I said last time we’re including 2 extra weeks because of the extra step of taking down the old tower that’s involved here. Mr. Hunsinger: I mean quite frankly I personally see it as a win win. The Town Code does talk about locating cells on existing facilities and I think, we had heard at the prior meeting that the AM tower was in need of repair and upgrading so it sounds to me like a win win. We do have a public hearing scheduled this evening, does anyone want to address the Board. Are there any written comments Keith? Mr. Oborne: No sir. Mr. Hunsinger: I’ll open the public hearing and show that no comments were received. It’s an unlisted action, is it a short form or a long form? Mr. Oborne: What I’m going to have to do is research this. Mrs. Steffan: I’ll make a motion-see below SEQR RESOLUTION-SITE PLAN 11-2011 CELLCO PARTNERSHIP D/B/A VERIZON WIRELESS RESOLUTION NO. 11-2011 Introduced by Gretchen Steffan who moved for its adoption, seconded by Donald Krebs: WHEREAS, there is presently before the Planning Board an application for CELLCO PARTNERSHIP D/B/A VERIZON WIRELESS; and 27 Queensbury Planning Board-May 19, 2011 WHEREAS, this Planning Board has determined that the proposed project and Planning Board action is subject to review under the State Environmental Quality Review Act, NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED: 1. No Federal agencies appear to be involved. 2. The following agencies are involved: NONE 3. The proposed action considered by this Board is Unlisted in the Department of Environmental Conservation Regulations implementing the State Environmental Quality Review Act and the regulations of the Town of Queensbury. 4. An Environmental Assessment Form has been completed by the applicant. 5. Having considered and thoroughly analyzed the relevant areas of environmental concern and having considered the criteria for determining whether a project has a significant environmental impact as the same is set forth in Section 617.11 of the Official Compilation of Codes, Rules and Regulations for the State of New York, this Board finds that the action about to be undertaken by this Board will have no significant environmental effect and the Chairman of the Planning Board is hereby authorized to execute and sign and file as may be necessary a statement of non-significance or a negative declaration that may be required by law. Duly adopted this 19th day of May, 2011, by the following vote: AYES: Mr. Traver, Mr. Ford, Mr. Schonewolf, Mr. Sipp, Mrs. Steffan, Mr. Magowan, Mr. Hunsinger NOES: NONE RESOLUTION-SITE PLAN 11-2011 & FRESHWATER WETLANDS 2-2011-CELLCO PARTNERSHIP D/B/A VERIZON WIRELESS A site plan application has been made to the Queensbury Planning Board for the following: Applicant proposes replacement of existing 182 foot tall guyed AM radio tower with a new shielded 180 foot tall AM tower capable of supporting multi-carrier use. Further, 360 +/- sq. ft. Verizon Wireless Service facility to be constructed. Telecommunication Towers requires Planning Board review and approval The Planning Board provided a written recommendation to the Zoning Board of Appeals on 4/26/2011; and The Zoning Board of Appeals approved the variance request on 4/27/2011; and A public hearing was advertised and held on 5/19/2011; and This application is supported with all documentation, public comment, and application material in the file of record; MOTION TO APPROVE SITE PLAN NO. 11-2011 & FRESHWATER WETLANDS 2-2011 CELLCO PARTNERSHIP D/B/A VERIZON WIRELESS, Introduced by Gretchen Steffan who moved for its adoption, seconded by Stephen Traver: 1)Pursuant to relevant sections of the Town of Queensbury Zoning Code [Chapter 179-9-080]], the Planning Board has determined that this proposal satisfies the requirements as stated in the Zoning Code; and 2)The requirements of the State Environmental Quality Review Act have been considered and the Planning Board has adopted a SEQRA Negative Declaration; and 3)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 4)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 5)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 6)Engineering sign-off required prior to signature of Zoning Administrator; and 28 Queensbury Planning Board-May 19, 2011 7)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 Duly adopted this 19th day of May 2011 by the following vote: AYES: Mr. Traver, Mr. Ford, Mr. Schonewolf, Mr. Sipp, Mr. Magowan, Mrs. Steffan, Mr. Hunsinger NOES: None Mr. Hunsinger: The next item on the agenda is Site Plan 6-2011 for Inwald Enterprises Mr. Oborne: Staff notes-see below APPLICATION: Site Plan 6-2011 / Area Variance 7-2011 APPLICANT: Inwald Enterprises REQUESTED ACTION: Modification of an approved site plan requires Planning Board and approval LOCATION: 38 Gunn Lane EXISTING ZONING: WR-Waterfront Residential SEQRA STATUS: Type II-no further review required WARREN CO. PB: 3/9/2011- No County Impact PARCEL HISTORY: SP 39-10: Boathouse/ Sundeck with ramp Pending AV 45-10: Setback relief for 697 sq. ft. Boathouse/sundeck w/ access ramp Pending AV 26-10: Side setback relief for 697 sq. ft. boathouse/sundeck Approved 6/23/10 BP 09-384: 1,150 sq. ft. residential addition, 1092 sq. ft. residential alteration and 2 fireplaces AV 68-08: Side setback relief for expansion of an N/C structure. Approved 11/19/08 SP 38-08: Expansion of a N/C structure in a CEA Approved 8/18/09 PROJECT DESCRIPTION: Applicant proposes modification to approved site plan. Modifications include a change from expansion of a nonconforming structure to total rebuild. STAFF COMMENTS: The applicant is before this board as a result of an inspection of the property by the Zoning Administrator on December 13, 2010 (previously attached). The applicant was given relief from the side setback requirement and also for the expansion of a non-conforming structure in 2009; relief granted was less than existing conditions (area variance 68-08 resolution previously attached). Area Variance 7-2011 was approved on 4/27/2011 (copy attached). New Comments in Bold Plan Review: Survey: 1.No immediate issues Application: 1.Site Development Data page will need to reflect the correct calculation of paved, gravel and/or other hard surfaces; calculation provided severely under represented. The Planning Board may, as a condition of approval, require this update for final sign-off. Page S-1: 1.Applicant should confirm if previous wastewater system has been located and decommissioned. 2.Wood deck/stairs not located on plan. Note: To be removed as directed by the ZBA. Page S-2: 1.No immediate issues Additional Comments: 1.It should be noted that this application is considered an expansion of a non-conforming structure as the existing garage was not demolished unlike the unattached single family dwelling. Demo permit not obtained by applicant nor required at this stage. 2.See attached letter dated 12/21/10 from C. Brown. 3.See previous AV 68-08 approval resolution. 4.See previous SP 38-08 approval resolution. 5.Waivers requested for lighting, stormwater and grading. 29 Queensbury Planning Board-May 19, 2011 Application Protocol ? PB First recommendation to ZBA Completed 2/15/11 ? PB Second recommendation to ZBA Completed 4/26/11 ? Area Variance 7-2011 Approved 4/27/11 ? Site Plan Review Pending Mr. Oborne: Something that is not on your site plan is the patio that has been constructed above and beyond you may want to inquire as to what the intentions are. Mr. Hunsinger: Thank you, good evening Ms. Bitter: Stefanie Bitter on behalf of the applicant together with Bill Springnether and Lee Horning. As Keith described and as the board is aware and circumstances that brings us here this evening is because of the house’s construction. The house was completed in December; the original variances that were issued in 2008 were for the house that was existing to be connecting to the existing garage with such it provided for an 863 sq. ft. addition which would connect the two and a 400 sq. ft. screened in porch. During construction when Mr. Horning first lifted the house and discovered it was not structurally sound for the construction to continue that way, there were issues with the floor, the foundation was crumbling, the exterior walls were not sized to code. As you remember the house sat on site for 16 months and with conversations that Mr. Horning had with the town it was determined that the alternative would be to proceed with the full construction of the home which incorporated that addition and the screened in porch which was later turned into a 4 season room. What brings us here tonight is that the variances for this construction were granted last month with the caveat that we remove the platform in the rear of the house, which was just an exterior door, or ingress and egress in the rear and we made that concession. And we’re here this evening to talk about site plan. I don’t have anything to add about the porch, the three of us were unaware, the screened in porch or the stone patio. We’re not aware that that stone patio was there or the circumstances surrounding it. Mr. Oborne: Really, you haven’t been on the site recently? Ms. Bitter: No, not since last July Mr. Oborne: Really, I’ll have to refresh your memory Mr. Hunsinger: Well I was waiting to see the pictures Mr. Oborne: I’ve got to find it; this will be like trying to find the SEQR for the last one Mr. Hunsinger: Questions from the board while we wait for the pictures? Ms. Bitter: We have applied for a demo permit relative to that little platform just so you’re aware. Mr. Hunsinger: I imagine that it’s not a very difficult process just to replace the door with a window. Mr. Horning: What we’re going to do is dismantle the door, take the hardware right off it, take the handle off and seal it shut and use it as a fixed window unless she decides on a different type window but that’s the easiest thing to do. So the door is unusable. Mr. Oborne: So this area here, it’s on the plan for the boathouse Mr. Ford: So you’re going to have an unusable door as opposed to walling it in and putting in a window Mr. Horning: It’s more expensive that way. I’m taking the door completely out. Mr. Ford: No you’re leaving it. Mr. Horning: No we taking the hardware right off and seal it shut, it’ll be a fixed window. Ms. Bitter: It’s not as if it’s going to be seen from surrounding neighbors Mr. Traver: When you say seal it shut can you explain that a little further Mr. Horning: I take the hinges right off it; I take the handle right off it, Mr. Traver: So now you’re going to have a hole in the door where the handle was? Mr. Horning: I’ll fill it in and paint over it put the door back in put molding around it, like a fixed window. You cannot open it. Mr. Traver: You’re going to screw through the jamb right into the door take the sill out Mr. Horning: No I’m going to leave that all right there just put the door back in there 30 Queensbury Planning Board-May 19, 2011 Mr. Traver: so it could potentially be use at some point as a door? Mr. Horning: If you took it apart and put the hardware back on it yes Mr. Traver: I would rather see the door removed and replaced with a wall and a window, so it would remove that possibility. A door there without hardware is still a door. Mr. Oborne: They would have to get a building permit to do that, to put a door in and put a landing in but I hear your concern, they could replace it and move on Mr. Traver: Well I mean it’s still a door. I mean I understand what they’re advocating but a door is still a door. Mr. Oborne: My understanding is they’re going to replace the door with a window, that’s what the zoning board directed them to do. Mr. Ford: That’s not what they said they were going to do. Mr. Oborne: Well that’s what they need to do. Mr. Traver: What they’re proposing is removing the hardware from the door because the door happens to have a window in it Mr. Oborne: That won’t fly. Mr. Ford: The door remains without the hinges and the handle Mr. Horning: I think I asked you that question Keith whether that would be possible. We’re sealing this, even if I ordered a fixed window it would look just like this size and everything Mr. Oborne: All I know is the Zoning Board directed you to remove the door and replace it with a window. Mrs. Steffan: It’s says right in their motion – in approving this motion the applicant will remove the door which seems to be the crux of the problem and replace it with whatever they want. But you suggest a window and in doing so will also take out the platform altogether and we strongly suggest that the Planning Board consider some vegetation in front of that area also to shield it further. Ms. Bitter: We’re going to do whatever the Zoning Board tells us to be in compliance with the variance. Mr. Horning: I just brought this up to be a quick remedy it wasn’t our intention to put the door back in there, because the window takes several weeks to order and this was the quickest way to get her into the house without too much trouble. Mr. Oborne: I think I see what you’re saying; eventually you’re going to have to put a window in there. The applicant is trying to get a co for the house that’s the whole issue, you go ahead and Mr. Ford: If they’ve taking the hinges and the handle off and seal it, you unseal it put the hinges back on, the handle back on and you’ve got a door with a patio Ms. Bitter: Not a platform, there’s no steps, there is a 3 foot drop Mr. Oborne: That is not the intent of that resolution, it was a specific in the resolution to remove the door, regardless, get rid of the door, the intent is to close that up there is no entry. Mr. Spring nether: There is an egress too and having a fixed door there as a window there is no potential unless you want to throw something through it to in case of emergency so a window would be a safer solution. It’s on the first story. Mr. Traver: So if we make the removal of the door and we can make that a condition of approval. The door and the patio. Ms. Bitter: The platform gets removed Mrs. Steffan: Their plan says entry door, deck, and stairs to be removed as per zoning board condition of approval so the site plan we will approve says that they are removing the door Mr. Ford: Where I think we heard in the motion is they could put up whatever they wanted Mr. Oborne: No no they didn’t say that, the reason why I said they why they could put a wall there or glass Mr. Schonewolf: Replace it with whatever they want, but they’ve got to remove the door and it also said you suggested a window. 31 Queensbury Planning Board-May 19, 2011 Ms. Bitter: I apologize for the confusion. Mrs. Steffan: Because that motion is through the ZBA we don’t have to reiterate? It’s going to happen Mr. Oborne: You might want to do it to sleep better at night. Mr. Ford: I like sleeping better at night. Ms. Bitter: Right because it’s going to be on the plan, the site plan, it’s going to be a final note Mr. Hunsinger: Well yes it already is it says entry door, deck, and stairs to be removed as per zoning board condition of approval, so you’re all set as far as I’m concerned Mrs. Steffan: The stone walkway is on the plan Mr. Hunsinger: Yes, when did that get on the plan because I don’t remember that, although I could have walked on it and not noticed. Mr. Oborne: My concern is not specifically with what’s shown there and I apologize I was mistaken, I was reviewing site plan for the boathouse which has a patio off of that area there and it has not been installed yet is my understanding, and I don’t know if those are the pavers for it right there, I haven’t been on the site for 3 weeks and that is when these pictures were taken, these were taken about a month ago with that it’s not depicted on that site plan but it is depicted on the site plan for the boathouse. And I just wanted to bring that to your attention because you’re going to be seeing the boathouse next month eventually you’ll be seeing the boathouse. And I want to get the Planning Board out in front of that to see if there were any issues with a patio extending off of there. Mr. Schonewolf: Does the patio connect the walk to the boathouse. Mr. Oborne: Yes, eventually because there is another walkway that comes off the patio that goes to the boathouse. Mrs. Steffan: Well in this particular situation because of the need for handicapped access I understand why they want to do that, I’m a little concerned of the pitch of the storm walk Mr. Schonewolf: So I don’t have a problem with the way it is there right now because you’ve got to bring the second part of it in and we’ll talk about it. Mr. Oborne: And that’s fine, if you’re comfortable with what’s represented here that’s fine just keep in mind when you come back for the boathouse you’ll see the patio there. Mr. Schonewolf: I understand that’s the safest way to go for a handicapped person; you don’t want to be walking on the ground there. Ms. Bitter: There is no way; it’s a very tough grade Mr. Hunsinger: On Tuesday we were given a sample of pervious pavers did you bring it back because I think the intention was to talk about it tonight. He put it in the closet, smart man. Mr. Oborne: Pervious pavement, I’m not sure what they plan to do with that, I’m pretty sure, they are not permeable pavers at this point because you have the stone trench Mr. Springnether: We’re moving on with the site plan if everyone is comfortable with discussing something that is not being shown right now. Going back to the access ramp for the boathouse you asked if we’d use permeable pavers. What we’re now proposing is to use solid stone pavers with gaps between them to allow water to infiltrate in between the stones. That’s the way permeable pavement has been designed forever until about three years ago Mr. Ford: So they’ve come up with new techniques for permeable pavers so why would you discount that Mr. Springnether: Because it doesn’t meet the aesthetic of the home. Now we’ve also included the infiltration trench on the downhill of the slope of the walkway so the walkway would have a cross pitch allowing the water any water that doesn’t infiltrate in between the stones run off the into an infiltration trench and infiltrate into the ground there. Mr. Ford: The composition similar to the one in front of Keith would be aesthetically compatible. Mr. Springnether: No the existing walkways are all flagstone walkways and that is essentially an asphalt product. Mr. Oborne: You can get different colors. 32 Queensbury Planning Board-May 19, 2011 Mr. Traver: Well I think it’s environmentally compatible, and we’re dealing with a CEA so I think we need to, and I think we had discussion before about permeable pavers but that’s on the other site plan so let’s wrap what we’re talking about tonight. Mr. Hunsinger: I agree Mr. Traver: But keep in mind you’ll be on notice you’ll have one Planning Board member at least that will want to stick to the discussion of permeable pavers with gaps in between. Mr. Ford: May that two. Mr. Hunsinger: Now back to the house. I think the ZBA kind of took care of things for us. Mr. Traver: I think the only concern I have is that the applicant came in representing that there some confusion about that I don’t know if the rest of the board feels that’s that handled and there will be an after construction inspection or whatever even in the absence of a formal complaint I think that would be fine. Mr. Hunsinger: So the walkway that goes around the door that’s being removed do we want to talk about that tonight. Oh there is no walkway. Ms. Bitter: It’s that platform right there that’s going to be removed. Mr. Hunsinger: So what was that picture you just had up Keith? Mr. Hunsinger: That’s on the northern side of the house. Okay I’m sorry. I could have sworn when we were there because we walked around to that side door and I don’t remember seeing any walkways so this must have been put in recently. Mrs. Steffan: We have a couple of issues applicant should confirm if the previous wastewater system has been located and decommissioned. Mr. Springnether: Yes it has. Mrs. Steffan: Keith do you need documentation on that? Mr. Oborne: It was located under the driveway. Mr. Horning: It was located underneath the middle addition between the existing house and garage and it went north south underneath the driveway Mr. Oborne: Did you fill it with sand or did you remove it? Mr. Horning: Removed it. Mr. Oborne: I don’t need any documentation. Mrs. Steffan: Okay so the wood deck and stairs is not an issue because the ZBA made it a condition. But the one thing we do need per a condition of approval site development data page will need to reflect the correct calculation of paved gravel. Mr. Oborne: Yes and I think that’s not going to be settled until we get the boathouse settled upon because we don’t know exactly what that permeability is going to be so that’s fine. What I can do when it get landed upon I can put it in the file. Mr. Hunsinger: Okay, in terms of there is going to be open items on the site plan that are related to the boathouse Ms. Bitter: That’s right; we still have to return for the boathouse. Mr. Springnether: It will be two months because we have go to the zoning board still. Mr. Hunsinger: Alright we do have a public hearing scheduled tonight, there is no one left in the audience so will not hear any personal comment. Keith are there any written comments? Mr. Oborne: No sir. Mr. Hunsinger: I’ll so I’ll open the public hearing and let the record show there were no comments received, I’ll close the public hearing. This is type II action no further SEQR review is required unless there are some issues that we identify. With that I’ll entertain a motion on the site plan. Mrs. Steffan: It says here that waivers were requested for stormwater management, grading, and lighting. Is that correct are you still looking for those 33 Queensbury Planning Board-May 19, 2011 Ms. Bitter: The house is already constructed. Mr. Oborne: And just to expand on that lighting it residential, grading has been approved previously and there has not been any changes to that, stormwater from what was previously approved has been made more robust with the enlargement of the rain gardens, five times the size they were originally. Mr. Hunsinger: Since we’re on that shot and I know we’re not really talking about that tonight I have a concern and we were looking at it when we were out there the other day the soil was brought up around those fir trees or arborvitaes on the right. Just concerned that may have damaged them Mr. Horning: They were located; they were about 5 feet to the south Mr. Oborne: That’s were that easement was, and you planted them in the easement Mr. Horning: We had permission to move them over 5 feet. Mrs. Steffan: I’ll make a motion to approve-see below RESOLUTION-SITE PLAN 6-2011 INWALD ENTERPRISES A site plan application has been made to the Queensbury Planning Board for the following: Applicant proposes modification to approved site plan – SP 38-2008 [8/18/09]. Modifications include a change from expansion of a nonconforming structure to near total rebuild. The Planning Board provided a recommendation to the Zoning Board of Appeals on 4/26/2011; and The Zoning Board of Appeals approved the variance request on 4/27/2011; and A public hearing was advertised and held on 5/19/11; and This application is supported with all documentation, public comment, and application material in the file of record; MOTION TO APPROVE SITE PLAN NO. 6-2011 INWALD ENTERPRISES, Introduced by Gretchen Steffan who moved for its adoption, seconded by Stephen Traver: 1)Pursuant to relevant sections of the Town of Queensbury Zoning Code [Chapter 179-9-080]], the Planning Board has determined that this proposal satisfies the requirements as stated in the Zoning Code; and 2)Type II, therefore, no further SEQRA review is necessary; and 3)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 4)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 5)Waiver requests granted: stormwater mgmt., grading, lighting plans; and 6)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 7)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 8)Approved with one condition: the site development data page will need to reflect the correct calculation of paved graven and/or other hard surfaces. Duly adopted this 19th day of May 2011 by the following vote: AYES: Mr. Magowan, Mr. Schonewolf, Mr. Ford, Mr. Sipp, Mr. Traver, Mrs. Steffan, Mr. Hunsinger NOES: None Ms. Bitter: Thank you very much. Mr. Hunsinger: Thank you. Is there any other business to be brought before the board this evening? Mr. Oborne: On the Cellco application did you approve the Freshwater Wetlands application 34 Queensbury Planning Board-May 19, 2011 Mr. Hunsinger: Yes, we did st Mrs. Steffan: I just want to note that you were going to add an agenda item to the 31 so we can look at that procedural issue for the Planning Board. Mr. Oborne: The engineering, yes I have it right here. That’s a general discussion that can be brought up at any time by the chairman. Mrs. Steffan: But if it’s on the agenda we’re going to get staff notes but you can just submit that document to the group in their packet and thereby Mr. Oborne: I’ll take care of that right now. Mr. Ford: Motion to Adjourn TH Mr. Hunsinger: MOTION TO ADJOURN THE MEETING OF MAY 19, Introduced by Thomas Ford seconded by Gretchen Steffan who moved its adoption: Duly adopted this 19th day of May 2011 by the following vote: AYES: Mr. Sipp, Mr. Schonewolf, Mr. Ford, Mr. Magowan, Mr. Traver, Mrs. Steffan, Mr. Hunsinger NOES: None Meeting adjourned 35