Loading...
01-24-2012 (Queensbury Planning Board 01/24/2012) QUEENSBURY PLANNING BOARD MEETING SECOND REGULAR MEETING JANUARY 24, 2012 INDEX Subdivision No. 8-2005 Mountain Hollow H.O.A. 1. UPDATE Tax Map No. 300.-1-19 Site Plan No. 3-2010 Irene Marshall 3. TABLING Tax Map No. 289.14-1-28 Site Plan No. 79-2011 James Keller, Countryside Veterinary Clinic 4. Tax Map No. 303.8-1-6 Site Plan No. 1-2012 William Threw 9. Special Use Permit No. 11-2012 Tax Map No. 309.17-1-7, 13 Site Plan No. 2-2012 William Threw 10. Tax Map No. 309.17-1-12 Special Use Permit No. 4-2012 J & D Marina 10. Tax Map No. 240.5-1-26 Special Use Permit No. 3-2012 Robert L. Perkins 14. Tax Map No. 308.16-2-4.1, 4.4 Special Use Permit No. 6-2012 Diane Matthews 21. Tax Map No. 239.16-1-2 Site Plan No. 10-2012 Tim Heenan 26. Tax Map No. 226.8-1-4 DISCUSSION ITEM Cottage Hill Development, Baybridge & 29. Gentry Lane Ext. THESE ARE NOT OFFICIALLY ADOPTED MINUTES AND ARE SUBJECT TO BOARD AND STAFF REVISIONS. REVISIONS WILL APPEAR ON THE FOLLOWING MONTHS MINUTES (IF ANY) AND WILL STATE SUCH APPROVAL OF SAID MINUTES. 0 (Queensbury Planning Board 01/24/2012) QUEENSBURY PLANNING BOARD MEETING SECOND REGULAR MEETING JANUARY 24, 2012 7:00 P.M. MEMBERS PRESENT CHRIS HUNSINGER, CHAIRMAN DONALD KREBS, SECRETARY PAUL SCHONEWOLF DONALD SIPP STEPHEN TRAVER BRAD MAGOWAN DAVID DEEB LAND USE PLANNER-KEITH OBORNE STENOGRAPHER-MARIA GAGLIARDI MR. HUNSINGER-I'd like to welcome everyone and I'll call to order the meeting of the Town of Queensbury Planning Board on Tuesday, January 24, 2012. For members of the audience, there are copies of the agenda on the back table. There's also a handout for public hearing procedures. Several of our projects do have public hearings scheduled this evening. If you plan to speak at a public hearing, you might want to familiarize yourself with the procedures. We'll talk about it in more detail when we get to our first public hearing. We have two administrative items to start off the meeting. ADMINISTRATIVE ITEMS: SUBDIVISION 8-2005 MOUNTAIN HOLLOW HOA: UPDATE JON LAPPER, REPRESENTING APPLICANT, PRESENT MR. HUNSINGER-We have an update. Keith? MR. OBORNE-It's all on the applicant at this point. They'll update the Board. MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. All right. Good evening. MR. LAPPER-Good evening, everyone. For the record, Jon Lapper and Tom Nace. It's taken us a while, but we now have, on the emergency management plan, in the event that the pond ever needed to be pumped out again, we had to go to Warren County for crossing West Mountain Road and then the City of Glens Falls Water and Sewer Board for the outfall, and we now have a permit from the County to bore under the road. It was determined that a permanent bore would be better than a temporary, worry about closing the road situation like happened three years ago. So the permit was issued and two weeks ago the City of Glens Falls executed an agreement with the City of Glens Falls entered an agreement with the applicants for installing and outflowing into the water shed property. So we'll make a re-submission to formally submit the plan. Tom has it tonight, and we'll just show you very briefly, and get right back on your agenda and get the directional bore done and that'll be that. So it's taken a while to get the approvals, but we got them. TOM NACE MR. NACE-Very briefly, it's the same plan that you've seen before. We're providing for ground mounted or portable pumps to be brought in and connected with the suction lines in the pond. They'll discharge to a short distance of above ground hose and into our underground pipe, which is going to be directional bored across part of the site and across West Mountain Road. It'll terminate on the far side of West Mountain Road in a pit that can be accessed to hook on fire hoses brought above grade to discharge back into the watershed property, in a riprap apron. That's it in a nutshell. MR. OBORNE-Yes, I would add that there are more components to this plan that need to be addressed for the Board, and the applicant is working on that. MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. So is there any additional information that needs to be submitted at this point in time? I'm just trying to figure out what date to table. 1 (Queensbury Planning Board 01/24/2012) MR. LAPPER-Keith had sent me a copy of a Staff Notes from May that had a few items. I think a lot of them were addressed at the last meeting, but we want to just, it's been so long, we'll just check. It was about final grading and seeding, you know, a little erosion after the construction of the pond, fencing, you know, pretty minor stuff, but Tom will prepare a response letter. I know that we need to get the directional bore done as soon as possible, just because, just in case. So there were just a handful of minor items for Tom to check into. MR. KREBS-One of the items were the holes that have been created. MR. HUNSINGER-Yes, the sinkholes. MR. KREBS-That we worry about for children. So just make sure that that's one of the items that you need to cover. MR. NACE-Okay. MR. TRAVER-Yes, there's pretty significant, they're almost like sinkholes really. MR. HUNSINGER-Yes. MR. TRAVER-They're quite something. MR. NACE-Have you seen them personally? MR. TRAVER-I almost fell into one. MR. KREBS-They're on the south end of the pond. MR. NACE-On the south end. Okay. I know where you're talking about, then. MR. KREBS-I've seen them up towards the hill in the back. MR. NACE-Okay. I know exactly where you mean. MR. OBORNE-Yes, you see there's exposed concrete, because you've got these big blocks of concrete. MR. NACE-Yes. I think that's where he's tried to take out some of the concrete and he hasn't gotten it all, hasn't been able to. MR. HUNSINGER-Table this to February, or was there additional information that needs to be submitted? MR. OBORNE-Well, I think there's additional information that needs to be sent. I believe the Zoning Administrator sent the applicant a notice that the close of business today was when all items were to be submitted for the potential of a February meeting, but with that, that has past and we haven't received anything, and it's what it is, and I think I would prefer March, to be honest with you. If the applicant wants to petition for February, they can do so if they wish to. MR. LAPPER-We'll get everything right in and we can talk about it. I guess its weather dependent. MR. HUNSINGER-So a March meeting date's okay for you? MR. LAPPER-Hopefully. The worst case, if they had to pump, they could still pump above ground. MR. HUNSINGER-I mean, would you be able to do the boring before spring anyway? MR. LAPPER-Yes, it can happen immediately. MR. HUNSINGER-Really? You can bore through frozen ground? MR. NACE-Sure. MR. HUNSINGER-Wow. Okay. MR. LAPPER-Not that that's an issue this year. 2 (Queensbury Planning Board 01/24/2012) MR. HUNSINGER-Yes. Good point. If there's no snow, there's no runoff. MR. OBORNE-I think that a March 20th meeting would be fine if, there may be some movement on that boring immediately, and with that, I'm sure that can be worked out if need be. MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. Would anyone like to make a motion to table this to the March 20th Board meeting with a submission deadline of February 15 th. RESOLUTION TABLING SUBDIVISION NO. 8-2005 MOUNTAIN HOLLOW H.O.A MOTION TO TABLE MODIFICATION TO SUBDIVISION NO. 8-2005 MOUNTAIN HOLLOW H.O.A., Introduced by Donald Krebs who moved for its adoption, seconded by Brad Magowan: Tabled to the March 20, 2012 Planning Board meeting with a submission deadline of February 15th Duly adopted this 24th day of February, 2012, by the following vote: AYES: Mr. Sipp, Mr. Schonewolf, Mr. Deeb, Mr. Magowan, Mr. Krebs, Mr. Traver, Mr. Hunsinger NOES: NONE MR. NACE-Okay. Thank you. MR. HUNSINGER-We'll see you in a couple of months. SITE PLAN 3-2010 IRENE MARSHALL MR. HUNSINGER-Is there any update on that? MR. OBORNE-There is. There has been an agreement on the boundary line adjustment. We'll be moving forward with that. During my application review this past week there are some inconsistencies with the Site Plan for Marshall that I would like to have taken care of at this point. We wanted to get them on a February meeting, but the application's not complete. So the Staff driven resolution states a date in February. I would like you to push it to March 20th also, if at all possible. MR. SCHONEWOLF-That would be the 15th time it's in front of us. MR. OBORNE-Yes and you're probably going to see quite a few different issues with this. You have the lot line adjustment that triggers some Area Variances for Mozal, and also for Marshall, and then you have a subdivision modification that needs to be taken care of, then you have a site plan for Marshall on top of that, but we want to do it all part and parcel, all at the same time. MR. HUNSINGER-Sure, okay. So table this to March 20tn? MR. OBORNE-Please. MR. HUNSINGER-And we have a draft resolution prepared. Would anyone like to move it? RESOLUTION TABLING SITE PLAN NO. 3-2010 IRENE MARSHALL A site plan application has been made to the Queensbury Planning Board for the following: Applicant proposes removal and replacement of stairs / deck. Further, applicant proposes a new 216 sq. ft. deck adjacent to shoreline. Hard surfacing within 50 feet of a shoreline, removal of vegetation within 35 feet of a shoreline and expansion of a non-conforming structure in a CEA requires Site Plan review and approval; A public hearing was advertised and the application was scheduled and/or tabled on the following dates: 2010-1/26, 3/23, 5/20, 6/15, 8/17, 10/19, 12121; 2011-3/15, 5/20, 6/21, 9/27/11 & 11/17/11 tabled to 1/24/2012; The applicant submitted information by the 1/17/12 deadline for February as required; MOTION TO TABLE SITE PLAN NO. 3-2010 IRENE MARSHALL, Introduced by Paul Schonewolf who moved for its adoption, seconded by Donald Krebs: Tabled to the March 20, 2012 Planning Board meeting. 3 (Queensbury Planning Board 01/24/2012) Duly adopted this 24th day of January, 2012, by the following vote: AYES: Mr. Krebs, Mr. Traver, Mr. Magowan, Mr. Deeb, Mr. Schonewolf, Mr. Sipp, Mr. Hunsinger NOES: NONE MR. HUNSINGER-And of course it was implicit that we were moving the resolution that Staff had prepared. Next on the agenda is a tabled item. TABLED ITEM: SITE PLAN NO. 79-2011 SEAR TYPE II JAMES KELLER, COUNTRYSIDE VETERINARY CLINIC AGENT(S) ETHAN HALL OWNER(S) JAMES KELLER ZONING NR- NEIGHBORHOOD RES. LOCATION 270 QUEENSBURY AVENUE APPLICANT PROPOSES A 1,867 SQ. FT. ADDITION TO EXISTING VETERINARY CLINIC. EXPANSION OF A BUSINESS AND LACK OF SITE PLAN REVIEW IN THE PAST SEVEN YEARS REQUIRES PLANNING BOARD REVIEW AND APPROVAL. CROSS REFERENCE SV 6-12; VAR. 316; NOA 3-09 WARREN CO. PLANNING 12/14/11 APA, CEA, OTHER DEC WETLANDS LOT SIZE 10.32 ACRES TAX MAP NO. 303.8-1-6 SECTION § 179-9 JON LAPPER & ETHAN HALL, REPRESENTING APPLICANT, PRESENT MR. HUNSINGER-Keith? MR. OBORNE-Yes. The Board should be familiar with this plan. This is Site Plan 79-2011 for James Keller, doing business as Countryside Veterinary Clinic. This is a Site Plan Review. The location is 270 Queensbury Avenue, and the existing zoning is Neighborhood Residential. This is a Type II SEQRA. Project Description: Applicant proposes a 1,867 sq. ft. one story addition, interior renovations and parking reconfiguration to existing Veterinary Clinic. As the Board is aware, this application was tabled back in December with a few, was it December? It was December, with some conditions on that tabling. What follows are my Staff Notes. With that, the applicant certainly can give you an update on the Site Plan at this point, and with that, I do turn it over to the Board. MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. Thank you. Good evening. MR. LAPPER-For the record, Dr. Keller, the applicant, Jon Lapper and Ethan Hall. You sent us home with a list of items to amend, and we believe that we made all the changes. This is the case where we have the neighbor next door that had concerns. So we relocated the driveway, the existing driveway away from that neighbor's property, so that all the construction is in the back, and now the access point will be away from his property line. Ethan found cutoff light bulbs as he said he would so that the fixtures should be compliant and we submitted an application to the Zoning Board for the sign so that everyone felt that even though we could put it in a compliant location, it would mean removing some trees that would be better left. So the application that we're asking you to approve has it in a compliant location, but we have an application pending to the Zoning Board to ask them to let us keep it where it is so the trees can stay. Those are the highlights. Ethan, do you want to go over the specific changes? MR. HALL-Sure. I can kind of go through the list that Keith had provided. We put a dumpster enclosure at the back of the property around the enclosed dumpster location. We showed the area of construction fencing to keep the public from wandering around the back or driving around the back during construction, as they are going to remain open during construction. We indicated on the map where the snow storage locations will be. The location of the handicapped access parking space is indicated. The downcast lighting, we added, provided that cut sheet for you. The Sign Variance, as Jon mentioned, we have the erosion and sediment control notes that Keith was talking about, and then we have the area around the back, or around the side of the building where we took away the driving. That will become a lawn area, as opposed to a driving area. So there'd be a lawn space between this space and the neighbor's house. MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. Anything else? MR. HALL-I think that takes care of everything that was on the. MR. HUNSINGER-Questions, comments from members of the Board? MR. KREBS-Well, I did take a drive over there, and I didn't even feel the existing lighting created any problems because just measuring with my eyes it looks like 20 to 25 feet off the edge of the 4 (Queensbury Planning Board 01/24/2012) driveway was where the lights came down and beyond that at night it's dark. So I don't even know if there's a need for a change in the lighting. MR. SCHONEWOLF-I agree with that. This is a 24 hour operation sometimes, correct? JAMES KELLER DR. KELLER-Correct. MR. SCHONEWOLF-So you've got sheriff's cars or a dog control officer's coming in there all times of the night, and, you know, you've got to be able to see where you're going. DR. KELLER-Correct. MR. SCHONEWOLF-So I don't think lighting's an issue. MR. HUNSINGER-What's the wattage of the fixtures currently? Because I know you propose 40 watt. DR. KELLER-I believe they're either 40, somewhere between 40 to 60 cfl's, which is a 13 watt, I guess. MR. MAGOWAN-Fluorescent ones, right? DR. KELLER-Correct, the cfl. MR. HALL-They're the cfl's, yes. Basically it's a 40 watt equivalent bulb. MR. HUNSINGER-So you're really not reducing the light itself. You're just putting a cut off on it. MR. HALL-Yes. The bulb itself, instead of having the curly cue like you normally see it's got a shield on the bottom of it. MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. MR. HALL-It's built right into the bulb. MR. HUNSINGER-Yes, I know what you mean. MR. HALL-It kind of looks like the standard bulb, but that shield just kind of cuts stuff off so that it's not broadcasting down as much. It's really; it's just a bulb that screws in. MR. MAGOWAN-They put out a little bit more heat. MR. HALL-A little bit. It's an exterior fixture and it's a pretty good size globe. So, I mean, we'd just as soon leave them the way they are. MR. MAGOWAN-Yes. I've driven past there because I do a lot of work down the road, too. So, you know, I keep looking up there. I always thought it looked dark, and then you put up the lights and I thought it looked, you know, great, and I mean, I feel for the neighbor, but then I looked up at the neighbor's house, too, and I was looking at the small size windows and if it was an issue, I was thinking if it was an issue if possible extending maybe the hedge down a couple, you know, trees at the height of the window just to block off some of the light. Something I was thinking. DR. KELLER-I would tell you honestly, just like you had mentioned, if you go by at night, his house, literally, with my lights on, is in darkness. It does not pass. MR. MAGOWAN-Like I said, I didn't see the house except for the lights coming out of their windows. It's not like the house was lit up with a, you know, a mercury vapor or something. DR. KELLER-Right. MR. MAGOWAN-And I like the ambience going up. It's more inviting than coming up, especially at night, because that is long, dark driveway. It always has been, and I like the changes that you've made. 5 (Queensbury Planning Board 01/24/2012) MR. HUNSINGER-Any other questions, comments from the Board? We do have a public hearing scheduled this evening. Is there anyone in the audience that wishes to address the Board on this project? PUBLIC HEARING OPEN MR. HUNSINGER-The purpose of the public hearing is for members of the public to provide comment to the Board. If there's no one interested, any written comments, Keith? MR. OBORNE-Yes, there is. I'll put it into the record. MR. HUNSINGER-Go ahead. MR. OBORNE-This is comments on Queensbury Site Plan application number 79-2011, resubmission date 12120111 for 270 Queensbury Avenue, prepared by Andrew J. Allison, AIA, adjoining landowner of 262 Queensbury Avenue. "General Comments: The recent resubmission documents for the above referenced project addressed two specific items of concern raised during the first open public meeting. Specifically: 1.) The exterior driveway and sign lights and their current noncompliance with the dark sky regulations of the code. 2.) The required 50' Type 'C' buffer between our two properties Item 1. The resubmission indicates that the applicant is going to replace the existing CFL bulbs with "reflector CFL bulbs to cut off the light spill. The applicant was requested to provide specifications on the existing tamping, this was not provided. The existing fixtures each have three CFL bulbs, of which the wattage is unknown at this time. I have provided specifications on a similar light fixture (See attachment 'A'). While not the exact fixture in place, this fixture has typical specifications for three lamp post mounted fixtures. These fixtures can accept tamping up to 100W incandescent bulbs, three for each fixture. The CFL equivalent is a 26W CFL. The specific bulb proposed is not specified, therefore I assume this a bulb similar in nature to a 'par' lamp or spotlight where the glass is shielded on the sides and the light is focused to the end of the bulb. This won't meet the requirements for dark sky compliant fixtures nor does the application meet the requirements for submission. The existing lamp sockets are in the bottom of the light fixture, therefore this type of bulb will direct the light up, rather than down. This is the opposite of dark sky compliant. The use of cut off bulbs does not make the 'fixture' dark sky compliant, which is the requirement of the Code. (Section 179-6-020-D) The application does provide specifications for the fixture or the tamping, nor does it provide illumination levels for the proposed lighting layout as required by Section 179-6-020-F. For the convenience of the board and the applicant I have provided specifications on a post mount retrofit dark sky compliant fixture (See attachment 'B'). The existing three lamp fixture could be removed from the post and this fixture could be placed directly on the existing post, maintaining all the existing wiring and the post. This fixture would satisfy Article 6 of the Code and supply ample lighting for the applicant. Item 2. The resubmission addresses the required 50' Type 'C' buffer by removing the existing gravel driveway and replacing with grass planting. This does not meet the requirements of a Type 'C' buffer, and does not attempt to mitigate the visual and noise impact of the establishment. There are several issues regarding this that should be considered: The revised plan C-2, dated 12/16/2011 still does not show the location of the existing landscaping in proper relation to the property line. This plan indicates the landscape buffer is on the property line, it is not it is located on the 262 Queensbury Avenue side of the property line. The site plan also misrepresents the existing edge of gravel paving on the existing parking lot. See attachment 'C' for actual location. The existing landscaping is at the end of its useful life and no longer provides and adequate buffer. The cedar hedgerow is barren up to about 8' and provides no noise or visual buffer. The fence line is old and rotten and is falling down. The row of mulberry trees are old and beginning to fall down and are barren up to 12' high, providing no visual or noise buffer These existing landscape elements should not be considered a portion of the required landscape buffer because they are not on the applicant's property. If considered part of the buffer, then the burden of upkeep to the landscape buffer becomes my responsibility, not the applicants. This is not in compliance with the Code. The applicant should be directed to install a Type 'C' buffer to the greatest extent possible. For the convenience of the planning board and the applicant I have provided a sketch showing the actual location of the existing hedgerow and the implementation of a buffer that would satisfy the intent of a Type 'C' buffer. (See Attachment D') In order to satisfy my particular concerns, the applicant could also install his own fence to mitigate the noise and visual impact in lieu of a more expensive landscape buffer. For the convenience of the board and the applicant I have provided a sketch showing how that could be implemented. (See Attachment 'E') The applicant's intention to provide a grass strip is well intended to reduce the use around this end of the property but does not meet the requirements of the Code. Consideration of the existing hedgerow as part of the buffer does not meet the requirements of the Code and puts an undue burden of cost of upkeep for the buffer on me, not the applicant. I specifically request the following: The planning board requires the applicant to change out the existing light fixtures for dark sky compliant fixtures, submit the required specifications, and plans showing the illumination levels. As required by Article 6 of the code. The planning board 6 (Queensbury Planning Board 01/24/2012) requires the applicant to actually survey the area, and show the existing hedgerow in the exact location with respect to the lot line. As required by the Code. The planning board requires the applicant to provide a 50' wide Type 'C' buffer to the greatest extent. Practicable as required by Article 8 of the Code. Additionally the use of the second floor was raised as a concern during the last meeting. This item has still not been addressed. I request the following considerations on the part of the Planning Board that the Planning Board requests the applicant to explain the intended use for the second floor. The plans currently indicate a new access stair to the second floor. This area is currently and has always been used for storage. The current plan seems to indicate there are intentions for further expansion on the second floor. Our main concern is that this space would be converted to additional kennels. The identification of the use of this space should be a condition of the approval and further condition should be enforced negating the use of this space as kennel space. The proposed revisions are still not compliant with the Code and the proposal puts undue burden on the adjacent land owner. This is in violation of Article 179-1- 020-A Purpose and Objectives of the Zoning code which states. . Sincerely, Andrew J. Allison and Laura Carusone, 262 Queensbury Avenue" MR. SCHONEWOLF-What's the date on that letter? MR. OBORNE-The date is 1120112. MR. SCHONEWOLF-Okay. Wasn't the same person here and stated all those things? MR. OBORNE-That is correct. MR. SCHONEWOLF-We've been through this, and that neighbor doesn't like the fact that you're in business. MR. OBORNE-That's all I have, Mr. Chairman. MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. Thank you. MR. LAPPER-Most importantly this is a certified survey. The hedgerow is right on the property line, and it shows, and we have a letter from Matt Steves. This was an actual survey. MR. HUNSINGER-Well, with all due respect to the neighbor's comments, you know, the practical issue at this point is, with that existing hedgerow the way it is, if you wanted to put some plantings on your side of the property line. MR. LAPPER-He wouldn't see it. MR. HUNSINGER-Well, they'd die. They wouldn't get any sun. MR. LAPPER-And Dr. Keller doesn't want to be looking at a fence on his side because the existing shrubs are much more attractive than a wooden fence, and there is a wooden fence that's on the neighbor's property. So when he said it's in disrepair, it's his fence. MR. SCHONEWOLF-And I think you have a good plan, and it's safe to get in and out of there, which is what my concern was. DR. KELLER-Correct and it will, right now that exists as a complete circle around the hospital's drive. We're eliminating that half. So there's not even, there won't be any traffic between that side of the building and his property, other than, you know, foot traffic. MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. MR. LAPPER-Dr. Keller asked Ethan to do everything that the Board asked last time. He's certainly trying to be a good neighbor and trying to be responsive to the Planning Board, and we think this is a much better plan than where it was a month ago. MR. SCHONEWOLF-So do 1. MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. One last try, anyone that wanted to speak at the public hearing? I will close the public hearing. I think the only really outstanding issue is whether or not we're going to require them to change out the light fixtures. Where some members had said they didn't think it was necessary. I guess personally if we have an easy way to make the fixtures Code compliant, we ought to try to do that, but I'm only one person. I don't know how the rest of the Board feels. 7 (Queensbury Planning Board 01/24/2012) MR. KREBS-Well, from my observation, you know, I drove up. I did not see more than 20, 25 feet of light, and it was snow on the ground. So you could see the light even better, and nowhere near the property line. MR. MAGOWAN-Yes, it's not like they're a parking lot light 20 feet up in the air. MR. KREBS-Right. MR. HUNSINGER-Right. MR. MAGOWAN-And I personally think, when all the lights are on at the airport, too, I mean, there's a lot of light flow over there. So like I said, I don't, I like it. It's a little different, you know, than the norm, and I understand that, but on the other hand, too, it's such a long way up there and it's just a square building, and I kind of, I like the look. It kind of softens it. It's a warm entrance. MR. HUNSINGER-Well, I don't think they're really changing the brightness. They're just changing it so that it's all cut off. MR. MAGOWAN-No, but, the only reason I don't like the reflectors is that, One, they're, I don't even know if you can get them in fluorescent, now. I mean, and they're basically an incandescent bulb which is going to be obsolete soon anyway. MR. HALL-They do actually make that bulb in a reflector. It's just that the bottom part. The one note that was in the letter from the neighbor, it said that it, you know, it directed the light up, and I'll agree with that. Keith had a picture up there before. It does direct the light up, but we have actually a black shield that sits on top of it. So the dark sky issue that he brings up, it's got a shield over the top of it, and so, I mean, it's not like we're. DR. KELLER-It's just part of the lamp. MR. OBORNE-1 can get an image of it if you want me to. MR. MAGOWAN-1 mean, the only thing I could suggest is maybe, if we end up letting you keep them in that, you know, the next time you buy them, they do make softer colors, you know, like a warmer color, but otherwise, to me, I like it. MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. Would anyone like to put forward a motion? This is a Type II SEQRA. So no SEQRA review is necessary unless there's an issue that's been identified by the Board. RESOLUTION APPROVING SITE PLAN NO. 79-2011 JAMES KELLER A site plan application has been made to the Queensbury Planning Board for the following: Applicant proposes a 1,867 sq. ft. addition to existing Veterinary Clinic. Expansion of a business and lack of site plan review in the past seven years in a NR zone requires Planning Board review and approval; A public hearing was advertised and held on 12/15/2011 tabled to 1/24/2012; This application is supported with all documentation, public comment, and application material in the file of record; MOTION TO APPROVE SITE PLAN NO. 79-2012 JAMES KELLER, COUNTRYSIDE VETERINARY CLINIC, Introduced by Donald Krebs who moved for its adoption, seconded by Paul Schonewolf: As per the resolution prepared by Staff. 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 with the requirements as stated in the Zoning Code; 2) Type II-no further SEQRA review is necessary; 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. 8 (Queensbury Planning Board 01/24/2012) Subsequent issuance of further permits, including building permits is dependent on compliance with this and all other conditions of this resolution; 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; 5) Waiver requests granted: stormwater mgmt., grading, landscaping, & lighting plans. Duly adopted this 24th day of January, 2012, by the following vote: MR. HUNSINGER-Dave has mentioned the lights. I mean, my feeling is the lights are in the plan. So if you approve the plan as stated, that includes changing the lights. So if you don't want them to change the lights, I think you need to say that specifically. Sorry to complicate it. MR. TRAVER-1 think the change they're proposing is positive, in that it keeps the original character. It does address the spillage. MR. KREBS-It's not a major thing to just change. MR. HUNSINGER-Just change a light bulb. Yes. Okay. AYES: Mr. Schonewolf, Mr. Sipp, Mr. Deeb, Mr. Magowan, Mr. Krebs, Mr. Traver, Mr. Hunsinger NOES: NONE MR. HUNSINGER-You're all set. Good luck. DR. KELLER-Thank you. MR. HUNSINGER-We have several items under Old Business this evening. OLD BUSINESS: SITE PLAN NO. 1-2012 & SPECIAL USE PERMIT 11-2012 SEAR TYPE UNLISTED WILLIAM THREW AGENT(S) HUTCHINS ENGINEERING OWNER(S) SAME AS APPLICANT ZONING CLI-COMM. LIGHT INDUSTRIAL LOCATION 369 BIG BAY ROAD PROPOSAL CALLS FOR A BOUNDARY LINE ADJUSTMENT BETWEEN THE NORTHERN AND SOUTHERN LOTS AS WELL AS COMBINING THE NORTHERN LOT WITH EXISTING WESTERN LOT IN ORDER TO PROMOTE SITE COMPLIANCE AND SEPARATE OWNERSHIP; RESULTING COMBINED LOT SIZE TO BE 9.18 ACRES. FURTHER, APPLICANT PROPOSES A 9,600 SQ. FT. WAREHOUSE, RELOCATED 4,500 SQ. FT. QUONSET HUT, SAWMILL AND FIREWOOD OPERATION, AND EQUIPMENT STORAGE YARD. NEW USES AND NEW CONSTRUCTION PROPOSED FOR THE PROPERTY REQUIRES REVIEW AND APPROVAL FROM THE PLANNING BOARD. CROSS REFERENCE AV 1 & 2-12, SP 2-12, NOA 3-10, SP 80-90, SP 67-89, BP 07-753, 246, 229, 00- 631, 96-720, 89-410 WARREN CO. PLANNING 1/1112012 LOT SIZE 3.14 & 5.5 ACRES TAX MAP NO. 309.17-1-7, 13 SECTION § 179-9 MR. HUNSINGER-And this has been tabled to the March 20th Board meeting. MR. OBORNE-That is correct, and that is at the behest of the applicant. The applicant's counsel has requested a March 20th, and the reason is there's too many engineering comments that they could not turn it around fast enough. MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. Is there anyone here in the audience that wanted to address the Board on this project? Okay. We will leave the public hearing open to March 20th. Would anyone like to make that motion? RESOLUTION TABLING SP 1-2012 & SUP 11-2012 WILLIAM THREW Tax Map ID 309.17-1-7, 13 A site plan application has been made to the Queensbury Planning Board for the following: Proposal calls for a boundary line adjustment between the northern and southern lots as well as combining the northern lot with existing western lot in order to promote site compliance and separate ownership; resulting combined lot size to be 9.18 acres. Further, applicant proposes a 9,600 sq. ft. warehouse, relocated 4,500 sq. ft. Quonset hut, sawmill and firewood operation, 9 (Queensbury Planning Board 01/24/2012) and equipment storage yard. New uses and new construction proposed for the property requires review and approval from the Planning Board. The PB provided a written recommendation to the ZBA on 1/17/2012; the ZBA approved the variance requests on 1/18/2012; A public hearing was advertised for 1/24/2012; The applicant's agent has requested to be tabled to 3/20/2012; MOTION TO TABLE SITE PLAN NO. 1-2012 & SPECIAL USE PERMIT NO. 11-2012 WILLIAM THREW, Introduced by Paul Schonewolf who moved for its adoption, seconded by Donald Sipp: Tabled to the March 20, 2012 Planning Board meeting. Duly adopted this 24th day of January, 2012, by the following vote: AYES: Mr. Sipp, Mr. Schonewolf, Mr. Deeb, Mr. Magowan, Mr. Krebs, Mr. Traver, Mr. Hunsinger NOES: NONE SITE PLAN NO. 2-2012 SEAR TYPE UNLISTED WILLIAM THREW AGENT(S) HUTCHINS ENGINEERING; MICHAEL J. O'CONNOR OWNER(S) SAME AS APPLICANT ZONING CLI- COMM. LIGHT INDUSTRIAL LOCATION 369 BIG BAY ROAD PROPOSAL CALLS FOR A BOUNDARY LINE ADJUSTMENT BETWEEN THE NORTHERN AND SOUTHERN LOT TO PROMOTE SITE COMPLIANCE AND SEPARATE OWNERSHIP; RESULTING LOT SIZE FOR SOUTH LOT TO BE 1.91 ACRES. FURTHER, APPLICANT PROPOSES TO RELOCATE EXISTING 4,500 SQ. FT. QUONSET HUT TO NORTHERN PARCEL AND CONSTRUCT A 6,000 SQ. FT. VEHICLE REPAIR FACILITY. CROSS REFERENCE AV 1 & 2-12, SP 1-12, SUP 11-12, NOA 3-10, SP 80-90, SP 67-89; BP 07-753, 246, 229, 00-631, 96-720, 89-410 WARREN CO. PLANNING 1/1112012 LOT SIZE 2.2 ACRES TAX MAP NO. 309.17-1-12 SECTION § 179-9 MR. HUNSINGER-And he has made a similar request to table this to March 20th. Would anyone like to move that? RESOLUTION TABLING SP 2-2012 WILLIAM THREW A site plan application has been made to the Queensbury Planning Board for the following: Proposal calls for a boundary line adjustment between the northern and southern lot to promote site compliance and separate ownership; resulting lot size for south lot to be 1.91 acres. Further applicant proposes to relocate existing 4,500 sq. ft. Quonset but to northern parcel and construct a 6,000 sq. ft. vehicle repair facility. The PB provided a written recommendation to the ZBA on 1/17/2012; the ZBA approved the variance requests on 1/18/2012; and A public hearing was advertised for 1/24/2012; and The applicant's agent has requested to be tabled to 03/20/2012; and MOTION TO TABLE SITE PLAN NO. 2-2012 WILLIAM THREW, Introduced by Donald Sipp who moved for its adoption, seconded by Donald Krebs: Tabled to the March 20, 2012 Planning Board meeting. Duly adopted this 24th day of January, 2012, by the following vote: AYES: Mr. Krebs, Mr. Traver, Mr. Magowan, Mr. Deeb, Mr. Schonewolf, Mr. Sipp, Mr. Hunsinger NOES: NONE SPECIAL USE PERMIT NO. 4-2012 SEAR TYPE II J & D MARINA, LLC AGENT(S) LONNY CHASE, CHASE ENGINEERING OWNER(S) JOHN MATTHEWS, THALIA CHASE ZONING WR-WATERFRONT RESIDENTIAL LOCATION 2546 RT. 9L WARNER BAY APPLICANT PROPOSES CHANGES TO THE EXISTING MARINA OPERATIONS TO INCLUDE THE RE- POSITIONING OF MOORINGS TO ACCOMMODATE LARGER BEAMED BOATS; RESULTING SLIPS DROP FROM 80 TO 75 TOTAL. A SPECIAL USE PERMIT IS REQUIRED 10 (Queensbury Planning Board 01/24/2012) TO BE REVIEWED AND ISSUED BY THE PLANNING BOARD FOR SUCH IMPROVEMENTS. CROSS REFERENCE AV 3-12, BP 04-964 WARREN CO. PLANNING 1/1112012 APA, CEA, OTHER APA WETLANDS, L G PARK CEA LOT SIZE 3.99 ACRES TAX MAP NO. 240.5-1- 26 SECTION § 179-9, 179-10 JOHN MATTHEWS & THALIA CHASE, REPRESENTING APPLICANT, PRESENT MR. HUNSINGER-Keith? MR. OBORNE-Yes. Special Use Permit 4-2012, J & D Marina. Site Plan Review is the requested action. 2546 State Rt. 9L is the location. Waterfront Residential is the zoning, and this is a Type II SEQRA. Project Description: Applicant proposes changes to the existing marina operations to include the re-positioning of moorings to accommodate larger beamed boats; according to the applicant resulting slips drop from 80 to 75 in total. What follows is Staff Comments, and most of my Staff comments deal with the actual machinations of a Special Use Permit. Staff is asking that we get a term of validity for this use, which basically means, and I'm sure the Board is aware of this, you either have a permanent special use permit; temporary special use permit or renewable special use permit, and there are general criterias that follow with this. The applicant did receive their Area Variance from the Zoning Board of Appeals last week, and they're here before you seeking approval for their new Special Use Permit, and with that I'll turn it over to the Board. MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. Thank you. Good evening. MRS. CHASE-Good evening. MR. HUNSINGER-If you could identify yourselves for the record. MR. MATTHEWS-John Matthews, owner of Castaway, J & D Marina. MRS. CHASE-And Thalia Chase, owner of Castaway Marina. MR. HUNSINGER-Did you have anything you wanted to add or comment on? MR. MATTHEWS-Not really unless there's questions. MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. MR. MATTHEWS-We haven't changed anything. MR. HUNSINGER-1 will open it up for questions, comments from members of the Board. Would anyone like to comment on the term of validity, permanent, temporary or renewable? MR. TRAVER-Yes, I was going to ask about that. I mean, I know that we have some marina types that are really almost residential versus commercial in nature, and I wondered, and I couldn't find anything in my notes about what the practice has been in the case of a commercial operation, or for the length of time. I know with the more residential types we've made them time limited. In as much as this is a commercial, and any change to the facility would trigger another review. MR. HUNSINGER-Site Plan Review, yes. MR. TRAVER-So, I mean, my sense, I guess, would be to make it permanent. MR. HUNSINGER-Any other comments from the Board? MR. KREBS-Well, plus the fact the Marina has been there for as long as I can remember, and, you know, so it's permanent. MR. TRAVER-Well, my only concern was, if something were to change, would we have another look at it? This use could be permanent and yet if he changes, we would have another look at it. MR. HUNSINGER-Yes. Do you recall, Keith, were there any, using the term that Mr. Traver used, commercial marinas, that we approved either a renewable or a temporary Special Use Permit? MR. OBORNE-1 can't recall in the four years I've worked for the Town. I don't recall. MR. HUNSINGER-Yes, I couldn't either. 11 (Queensbury Planning Board 01/24/2012) MR. OBORNE-They're far and few between to begin with. They don't come before this Board too often. MR. HUNSINGER-Yes, well when the, I think this was all triggered by the Lake George Park Commission, and we had a flood of these Special Use Permits several years ago, but we, you know, now we only get one or two a year. MR. OBORNE-Yes and it had to do with the private properties. A lot of them had to do with the private properties, absolutely. A preponderance of those, sure. MR. HUNSINGER-Yes, but all of the marinas were required to come in for Site Plan Review, Special Use Permits. MR. OBORNE-I'm not sure if all of them came in for it, but. MR. HUNSINGER-They were supposed to. MR. OBORNE-Yes. MR. HUNSINGER-And I agree. I think, you know, most of the Class A marinas we granted a permanent use. MR. KREBS-Because as Steve pointed out, if they're going to do something different in the future, they're going to have to come back for Site Plan Review again. MR. HUNSINGER-Right, yes. Okay. We do have a public hearing scheduled this evening. Is there anyone in the audience that wants to address the Board on this project? We have a couple of people that want to come. If you would give up the table please. Again, the purpose of the public hearing is for members of the audience to provide comments and information to the Board. I would ask that, when you address the Board, that you state your name for the record. We do tape the meeting. So speak clearly into the microphone. We do tape the meeting and the tape is used to transcribe the minutes. With that, go ahead. PUBLIC HEARING OPENED JOHN SALVADOR MR. SALVADOR-My name is John Salvador. I'm a resident in North Queensbury, and I operate a marina on Dunham's Bay. I brought this fact to the attention of the Zoning Board. Part of this approval includes the location of what we call mooring stakes. Mooring stakes have never been regulated. The definition of a mooring stake appears in our Town Code under the title of a pile, and it's erroneous because a mooring stake is a freestanding stake, and a pile is not. The Lake George Park Commission does not regulate mooring stakes. The DEC used to have a definition of a pile in its regulations and it was defined as fill, and it was only regulated if the cross section was greater than a square foot. I'm concerned that the Town is beginning to creep into this area of approving a mooring stake. I have reason to move and install mooring stakes on a regular basis, and I have never had to get a permit for it, from anyone, the DEC, the Town, the Park Commission, anyone. It is frequently that we have to do this to facilitate the mooring of boats, repair, due to ice damage. So I want to make that point clear. I don't want a precedent to be set that we're beginning to regulate the location of a mooring stake. Secondly, there's a great debate going on as to whether or not the Town has jurisdiction in this area. It is known that the waters where the Castaway Marina is located are in the Town of Bolton. That's on your tax maps, and it's a failure of our Town to include it on the zoning map. They just do not want to address that. It happens to be the centerpiece of a number of lawsuits that are pending in State Supreme Court, and I think I've mentioned this to you before, and whether or not it's in the Town of Bolton or the Town of Queensbury, towns do not have jurisdiction on the navigable waterways. That has the purview of the State, and that's why we have the Lake George Park Commission, and the Lake George Park Commission regulations, no requirement that the Town give a permit on the navigable waterway. It's not a requirement of the Park Commission. Thank you. MR. HUNSINGER-Thank you. If I may just comment on your comment about setting a precedent, I would agree with you that I don't feel that we're setting a precedent here, and I would long contend that any action that this Board takes is not precedent setting because the nature of our approvals are based in the actual site plan and the very specific location and use and purpose of the project being reviewed. So that's just, for what it's worth, my comment on your, I agree with you. 12 (Queensbury Planning Board 01/24/2012) MR. SALVADOR-But it's what Staff will use in the future. Okay. We apply for permits, that's what they will use. MR. HUNSINGER-Possibly. Sir, did you want to address the Board? AUDIENCE MEMBER-1 may have confusion. Is this located at Castaway's or in Dunham's Bay? MR. OBORNE-Castaway. AUDIENCE MEMBER-Yes, no comment. MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. Any other comments? Anyone in the audience? Any written comments, Keith? MR. OBORNE-Yes. I do have public comment. RE: Area Variance J & D Marina, Warner Bay, Number 3-2012 Linda McCollister, 103 Seelye Road, Cleverdale, NY "I am writing to inform you of my concern and anger how this Area Variance for J&D Marina has been handled by the Town of Queensbury. You only sent notices to property owners within 500 feet from the Marina. I know this is the general rule, but under the circumstances, with a commercial business, my neighbors and I feel we should have been informed. As tax payers to Queensbury, myself and many others in Warner Bay, as well as people on Pilot knob in Warner Bay should have been informed of this variance that J&B Marina, a commercial business, are requesting. We are the people who are directly affected by what happens at this Marina and feel strongly that we needed notification of any changes the Marina was going to make. I went to the Zoning Meeting last week because one neighbor told me of the request of J&D Marina. Mr. Mathews explained his plans to make minor changes to his docks and reduce the number of boats from 80 to 75. I can only say that I am very disappointed that more people in the area of Warner By were not informed. The boards need to raise the footage required for any commercial business. We, as Tax Payers, who provide you your Salaries, deserve this notification of such projects. Linda McCollister 1/23/2012 I am unable to attend this Meeting on Tues. Jan 24, 2012" Let me check to see if there's anymore, and there is not, Mr. Chairman. MR. SCHONEWOLF-Just as a question. Keith, this was noticed, wasn't it? This was public noticed. MR. OBORNE-This was noticed, and in General Municipal Law it states that noticing is 500 feet. MR. SCHONEWOLF-That's right. MR. OBORNE-So we did do that. MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. All right. If there are no other comments, I will close the public hearing. PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED MR. HUNSINGER-And I will entertain a motion for approval. The only thing that we need to do special, in terms of the Special Use Permit, is to state whether or not the term is permanent, temporary, and renewable on Item Six of the draft motion prepared by Staff. RESOLUTION APPROVING SUP #3-2012 J & D MARINA, LLC Tax Map ID 240.5-1-26 A site plan application has been made to the Queensbury Planning Board for the following: Applicant proposes changes to the existing marina operations to include the re-positioning of moorings to accommodate larger beamed boats; resulting slips drop from 80 to 75 total. A Special Use Permit is required to be reviewed and issued by the Planning Board for such improvements. The PB provided a written recommendation to the ZBA on 1/17/2012; the ZBA approved the variance requests on 1/18/2012, and A public hearing was advertised and held on 1/24/2012; and This application is supported with all documentation, public comment, and application material in the file of record; 13 (Queensbury Planning Board 01/24/2012) MOTION TO APPROVE SPECIAL USE PERMIT NO. 4-2012 J & D MARINA, LLC, Introduced by Donald Krebs 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 with the requirements as stated in the Zoning Code; 2) Type II, no further SEQRA review is necessary; 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; 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; 5) Waiver requests granted: stormwater mgmt., grading, landscaping & lighting plans; 6) Resolution requires the following term of validity: Permanent. Duly adopted this 24th day of January, 2012, by the following vote: MR. MATTHEWS-There was a statement on one of the questionnaires that they specify the time at which the project is to be done. Now you haven't mentioned anything about that, but our plan was to try and do it on the ice this winter, but there is no ice yet. So it may not get totally done this year. So if there is some sort of limitation put in your packet. MR. HUNSINGER-Well, the standard is any time a resolution is adopted by this Board, it continues for a period of a year. So if the project was not started within the period of a year, then you would have to come back and ask for an extension. MR. MATTHEWS-Okay, but if we do start it this spring and can't finish it until next year at this time, or February. MR. OBORNE-As long as you start it and you pull any building permits that are associated with this. MR. MATTHEWS-And then renew it. MR. OBORNE-You're fine. MRS. CHASE-Okay. Thank you. MR. MATTHEWS-Thank you. MR. HUNSINGER-Yes, you're welcome. AYES: Mr. Schonewolf, Mr. Sipp, Mr. Traver, Mr. Krebs, Mr. Magowan, Mr. Deeb, Mr. Hunsinger NOES: NONE MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. So the key is to get your building permit pulled, and you'll be all set. MR. MATTHEWS-Thank you. MR. HUNSINGER-Good luck. You're welcome. NEW BUSINESS: SPECIAL USE PERMIT NO. 3-2012 SEAR TYPE II ROBERT L. PERKINS AGENT(S) MARK REHM, ESQ. OWNER(S) NDC REALTY, LLC ZONING CLI-COMM. LIGHT INDUSTRIAL LOCATION 315 CORINTH ROAD & 26 CAREY ROAD APPLICANT PROPOSES MODIFICATION TO AN APPROVED SITE PLAN TO INCLUDE ADDITIONAL PAVING ALONG THE WAREHOUSE APPROACHES TO REAR OF SITE AS WELL AS NEW PAVEMENT ASSOCIATED WITH FRONT OVERHEAD DOORS. FURTHER, 14 (Queensbury Planning Board 01/24/2012) ACCOMMODATION TO INCLUDE TREE CLEARING AND HARD-SURFACING FOR THE STORAGE OF UP TO 51 TRAILERS LOCATED TO THE SOUTH AND EAST ON THE PARCEL. FINALLY, THE PLACEMENT OF AN ADDITIONAL TRANSFORMER AND BOLLARDS PROPOSED TO THE EAST. CHANGES TO AN APPROVED SITE PLAN REQUIRE PLANNING BOARD REVIEW AND APPROVAL. CROSS REFERENCE SP 64-11, SP 57-11, SP 7-11, SUB 10-10 WARREN CO. PLANNING 1/1112012 LOT SIZE 6.39 & 2.23 ACRES TAX MAP NO. 308.16-2-4.2 SECTION § 179-9 JON LAPPER, TOM NACE & MARK REHM, REPRESENTING APPLICANT, PRESENT MR. HUNSINGER-Keith? MR. OBORNE-Yes. I just informed the applicant's agents that they are up. So they should be in momentarily. MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. MR. OBORNE-Special Use Permit 3-2012 for Robert Perkins. This action is Site Plan Review because of changes to an approved Site Plan. 315 Corinth Road and 26 Carey Road is the location. CLI is the zoning. SEAR Status is a Type 11. Warren County Referral is 1/1112012, and that was a No County Impact. Actually that was a No Action taken. I apologize. Project Description: Applicant proposes modification to an approved site plan to include additional paving along the warehouse approaches to rear of site as well as new pavement associated with front overhead doors. Further, accommodation to include tree clearing and hard-surfacing for the storage of up to 51 trailers located to the south and east on the parcel is proposed. Finally, the placement of an additional transformer and bollards proposed to the east. Changes to an approved site plan require Planning Board review and approval. What follows, again, is a dissertation on Special Use Permits especially associated with this type of use. Site Plan Review. I do have some concerns with the snow storage. If we can get some clarification on how that's going to work if there's 51 trailers there. I'd like that. Ten trees, and I believe its 11 trees, have been removed without approval. The applicant is offering six yews facing Corinth Road as replacement. The Planning Board may wish to discuss the potential for more plantings. There is also a dirt road along the rear of the eastern warehouse. That should either be decommissioned or placed on the plan. Clarification would be appreciated. Sign details should be clarified. My opinion, for what it's worth, and my recommendation, is that if you are to approve this, you should give it a one year approval to see how the actual use fits with the property at this point, and if they need to come back and adjust certain issues that may arise, we're not quite sure, I do believe that that should be considered, and again, that's just my opinion, and with that, I'd turn it over to the Board. MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. Thank you. Good evening. MR. REHM-Good evening. MR. HUNSINGER-If you could identify yourselves for the record. MR. REHM-Sure. Mark Rehm, attorney for the applicant. MR. NACE-Tom Nace, Nace Engineering. JEFF DAVIS MR. DAVIS-Jeff Davis. I'm representing Perkins Recycling. MR. LAPPER-And Jon Lapper, co-counsel. MR. REHM-We went over the, as you know, we had an approved Special Use Permit previously, and because the trees have come down, the 11 trees, and plus for reasons, we had purchased the property. We had, once we did purchase the property, we had determined that we needed certain items adjusted. Once you move in, and you start construction, there are changes that are sometimes necessary. So we've submitted the new application, submitted the new Site Plan. We have read through the Planning Board notes. I think we can clarify, I'll clarify some of the items that I'm qualified to, and Tom Nace will hit the engineering aspects. First I might add, for this, this applicant is spending an awful lot of money, time, resources in improving this. So I really ask and urge this Board to consider making this a permanent Special Use Permit. As soon as the trees came down, we found out that it was wrong, we immediately addressed the issue, and certainly there was no intent. Because this is an industrial site, we had just done what we thought was correct and it was incorrect. So anyway, we're here to modify the permit. The snow storage issues seems that at least according to the applicant, 15 (Queensbury Planning Board 01/24/2012) during the summertime, which is at its peak, there'll be, there's 51 spaces, approximately 50 trailers will be stored there, as compared to the winter when there'll be 40 approximately there. So we can move and maneuver those trailers in such a manner as to accommodate for the snow storage areas denoted on the plan. I think we'll have to take it from a practical level there. When we need to move things we will. We'll put them in those snow areas, if there isn't enough snow storage that is accessible without moving the trailers, but we think we should have certainly enough space to deal with the snow. The trees, what we had done, in proposing the yew trees towards the entrance, and Tom will point them out to you, is we really sought to screen the site as much as possible from Corinth Road, which is the public thoroughfare that people would look in. I think if any of the Board members have been by the site, you can see quite a bit of site work was done. The entranceway has been done very nicely, look a lot better in the springtime when things are allowed to blossom, bloom, etc., but I think what the goal is is to make this site pleasing to the eye for the public, and just to make it clear, the public won't be going into the site. Again, I want to urge to the Board that this isn't a recycling center where people will go in with any regularity. It's going to be self-contained. If anything, they'll be entering to the front area which is the office space that we had talked about in the prior permit and has been approved. The dirt road, I believe, it's not noted on the plan, but we've, from what I can figure it, it is to the eastern side of the smaller warehouse, and that was simply just some construction vehicles driving over and other vehicles driving over that site to do some work on that side. Certainly will not be used, is not intended to be a road of any sort, from here on out. Just as a practical matter, that's where some construction vehicles had to go. The sign plan has been approved. There is a permit on record now, as of November 9t", for the signage. What they propose to use is the same location. They're going to do some stonework around the base, just for your knowledge, they're going to do some cleaning up of the existing signage, you know, and that will be done in the spring. I guess, you know, once the weather had changed, and although it has been a mild winter, the conditions didn't allow for us to do what we wanted to with the sign, and there are some other items that we need to get in place before getting the sign up. The last note, we have modified the plan. I guess there was some inconsistency with the dialogue that I like to put on the covering letter in the plan. The gravel in the back was intended to allow for the trailers to park in the rear and allow for more swing and the ability to maneuver towards the rear of the site in order to get the trucks in and out, etc. Now, on the plan here that we have tonight that's been modified to show those spaces moved back. I think, in the end, you know, from our standpoint, it's a pretty good project. I think we've tried to comply to the best of our ability with the rules and regulations of the Town. We ask for this to be approved tonight in a permanent manner. I'll leave the engineering to Tom Nace. MR. NACE-Okay. The engineering comments, the first comment really needs no response. The second one is what Mark was addressing with the 10 foot gravel apron that was shown in the back of the site that appeared to have no purpose. That was a drafting error that we forgot to move the trailer parking back with the gravel onto the 10 foot gravel strip, and that's for the purpose of allowing adequate circulation of tractor trailers to access the loading docks in the building, and to also access the storage area. Comment Number Five, the engineer was asking that we put a note on the drawings that this new paved area be graded so that it drains to the infiltration trench, which we've done. There was also a question about the soil testing. We're out in good Queensbury sands. We're only 30 feet away from where we did testing for the other infiltration trench. I have no reason to expect anything different than what we found, and his last comment was regarding the proximity of the infiltration trench to the edge of the building. I don't know whether he realized it was a slab on grade building. So there's really no issue as far as having the infiltration trench right up against the foundation wall. There's no need for waterproofing because there's no basement to waterproof against, and that's all I had. MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. Anything else? I'll entertain questions, comments from members of the Board. MR. MAGOWAN-Yes. I have the trailers, 51 of them. MR. DAVIS-There's 51 trailers at a maximum, 10 or more, 10 or 11 of which would be short-term rentals that we use in the summer. Our business is somewhat seasonal. We service paper mills. We actually take their waste paper and process it, re-process it and market it, and paper mills generally take shutdowns in the summertime so we need more trailers. What we do is we spot trailers at the various mills and then switch them on a regular basis. So we may have six, eight, ten trailers at any given mill at any given time, and in the summertime, there'll be more at the mill than there are at our facility, but the business, 40 or 41 of them are ours that we own, and at any given time 20 of those could be gone. Most of our recycling is commercial where we service industries. We also receive paper from transfer stations in the area. So it isn't just anyone coming in with a trunk load of paper. Although that does happen occasionally, and we accept it, but we usually take it in in larger volumes and 90% of it probably comes in in 40, 45 and 48 foot vans. 16 (Queensbury Planning Board 01/24/2012) MR. MAGOWAN-But the facility that you're coming from, how did you store 51 there? MR. DAVIS-There was a lot of room there. We leased 5.1 or 5.3 acres from Warren County and we used half of that large parking lot down by the old Ceiba Geigy plant. So there was certainly plenty of room. MR. MAGOWAN-Now, you're going to store these. So how do you pull these, you back them all in? MR. DAVIS-Right. MR. MAGOWAN-And then you've got to pull each individual one out to unload or reload or to move? MR. DAVIS-Exactly. Yes. MR. MAGOWAN-When you first came to us, I'm trying to remember how many you proposed to, because I remember, I know we talked about the recycling, that you were going to have trailers, but I didn't know that, I don't remember 51 of them. MR. DAVIS-1 don't think we talked about a specific number. I do remember the conversation that night, and like I say, it can vary from 20 to 51, depending upon how many we have at our various suppliers. MR. MAGOWAN-I do like what you did to the front. MR. DAVIS-Thank you. MR. MAGOWAN-I still hate that metal signpost out there, but I think we something on it and a little stone base it will look a little bit better. MR. DAVIS-Well, you see where it's located now. MR. MAGOWAN-I have to say the front of it really looks, you really did a nice job and now that that big ugly pine it out over there, even though I hate to see trees cut down, but that big one out near the road on the other side, it really, the whole front, but is see the visual, 51 trailers, I mean, it's going to look like a truck stop, you know I'm saying, and these aren't like, all like brand new with aluminum wheels and, you know, fancy colors and stuff like that. I just, that's a lot of trailers. MR. DAVIS-Well, it's a lot of trailers, but if you look at the print, they're spread out pretty well over the site, and, you know, they certainly aren't brand new, but they aren't ready to be junked yet either. MR. LAPPER-This is also an important ancillary business for the paper industry as their main customer. So that's really what it's about. MR. MAGOWAN-I understand. The maximum, you're saying, is 51 trailers. Like I said, I was looking at it and I'm like, wow, that's a lot, and I don't remember talking about that when we went for the original site plan. Can anybody else help me on this one? Do you remember anything? MR. SCHONEWOLF-I don't think it's an issue. MR. MAGOWAN-All right. MR. OBORNE-It was brought up in Staff Notes at the time, I do believe, and we didn't quite know what we were going to do, and that was, the impetus of that was going to their existing site and there are a lot of trailers and I asked counsel to check into that, with this new incarnation and change to the site plan, and we added it to it. MR. MAGOWAN-Okay. MR. HUNSINGER-Other questions, comments from the Board? MR. KREBS-Well, I was just going to comment that I think that whatever we do I think it should be a renewable permit and it should last for five years, and one of the reasons I say that is that if the ownership changes and you don't get, have to have it renewable, this person may be an absolutely perfect businessman in Town and do everything right, decide, three years from now, to sell the business. You make it permanent you could have a new occupant or owner of the 17 (Queensbury Planning Board 01/24/2012) building and that person may not be as responsible. So if you give them a five year renewable permit, five years coverage is a reasonable space to cover the cost of the improvements, but at the same time it gives us some control. I don't know how the rest of the Board feels on that. MR. TRAVER-Well, I would agree except for your one. I think that, you know, it is a change to the site. There are some questions about things like snow and traffic and so on. So I think I agree with you in principle, but I think initially we take a look at after one year and then go with something longer. MR. LAPPER-Would it be possible to go one year as a temporary, to prove they did everything right and then consider permanent, because it is a permanent use, and they're making a major investment. It's important for them for financing, for a lot of reasons, to have it as a permanent use, but we also understand there's a credibility issue because of the trees. So I'd suggest that we'll look at it after it's constructed and you can verify that everything's right and then at least have that discussion to consider at that point whether it could be permanent. MR. HUNSINGER-How's the Board feel about that? MR. SCHONEWOLF-I think it's a good idea. MR. HUNSINGER-So you'd come back to the Board, you'd have to, if it's a temporary. MR. LAPPER-Yes, but to have it up front so that hopefully they can get a permanent at that point. MR. HUNSINGER-Sure. Does it seem agreeable to everybody? Okay. Any other questions, comments from the Board? MR. KREBS-And then we'll make another decision as to whether it's temporary or permanent in a year. MR. HUNSINGER-Any other questions, comments from the Board? We do have a public hearing scheduled this evening. Is there anyone in the audience who wants to address the Board on this project? We have at least one person. I don't know, ma'am, if you were here before when I talked about the purpose of the public hearing? Okay. So if you could just identify yourself for the record. PUBLIC HEARING OPENED KIMBERLY WELLS MS. WELLS-Hi. My name is Kimberly Wells, and this is my husband Matthew Lahey. We actually live at 21 Merritt Road, which is, our backyard actually faces this lot, and our concern is that, as the Board has indicated, 51 trailers, that's going to create a lot of noise for myself and my husband and also our neighbors. Our street has, I think, six houses on that road, and since we've moved in there, there've been a lot of change to that one whole lot. I mean, it was initially a large lot. Now it's broken up into four individual lots, and when we first moved, well, I've lived there for seven years, but he's lived there all of his life, and the initial us of that building was kind of self-contained, and since the lot has been broken up, we've noticed that there's a lot more noise coming from that site, and our concern is is that with the moving and changing of trailers and also the look of 51 trailers, because literally if you look out our back sliding glass door, you see the site. There's, it's pretty open. It's an open clearing to that specific site. So it's definitely going to affect our property. It's going to affect our view. It's going to affect, I think, our property value, having to look at 51, 20 to 51 storage containers, as you indicated probably are not nice looking, and again, since this parcel has been broken up, we've noticed a lot of new lights that have been included in not just this site, but I don't think any have been included in this particular site, but at least the electrical company, which creates light into our property. For instance, just two weeks ago when there was a snow storm, we had lights beaming into our bedroom because they were clearing snow. So that's an issue to us, and we'd like that to be addressed. TIM LAHEY MR. LAHEY-1 think also an issue is that the power is actually probably on in the place with the lights out back of this actual unit or this lot. Whereas in the years past it's been vacant and there has been no floodlights out in the back. MS. WELLS-So we would encourage the Board not to approve this plan, certainly because it does affect not only our property, but also everyone on the street, with all of the noise that's going to be created and certainly the look. I would agree with you that the front of the property 18 (Queensbury Planning Board 01/24/2012) looks good now, but it's the back portion that we're concerned about and it causing havoc in our daily lives, as far as living. MR. HUNSINGER-Has there been any vegetation in the rear that's been altered or changed since the new occupants? MS. WELLS-With the electric company there was. There was a number of trees removed with the electric company. I have not noticed any new vegetative changes in the back, as far as the new, this part of the parcel here. MR. LAHEY-Like you commented, the street view's great, but behind it, even with the electric company, they've got all sorts of pipes, racking, the backup lights as early as 5:30, 6:00 in the morning, and just the light in, you know, the street view looks great, but out back it isn't very pleasant. MR. OBORNE-If I could comment. MR. HUNSINGER-Yes. MR. OBORNE-The electric company is coming up for Site Plan Review next month. You will be noticed on that, and I think you'd have a lot more power or luck with that review, because it's specific to that lot, and I think you might be able to get some satisfaction. MR. MAGOWAN-It's on the Merritt Road border, that side there. MS. WELLS-Merritt Road borders the electrical, it's that whole street right there on the left hand side of the big parcel. MR. OBORNE-So you're right here where the arrow is? MS. WELLS-Actually, we're the next one right there. MR. OBORNE-This one. MS. WELLS-So looking out our back door, you see the entire back of the site, and it's not pleasant looking. MR. LAHEY-No, you can see it's pretty open. MR. HUNSINGER-I have to admit. I was surprised at how close the houses were when I was out there for site visits. MR. MAGOWAN-So you guys have been lucky, because it's been vacant for so many years. MR. LAHEY-I've lived there previously, and it is better than Northern Distributing and even the Saratoga Eagle. MR. TRAVER-Is that a zoning boundary, the road where those houses are that's industrial on one side and residential on the other? MR. OBORNE-I believe it's MDR. It's Moderate Density Residential. MR. TRAVER-Interesting. MR. MAGOWAN-And you say it's better than when Distributing was there, or? MR. LAHEY-Yes, well, I'm not sure. I hope these places aren't going to be running 24 hours, but Northern Distributing used to have an evening shift. I'm not sure if, Saratoga Eagle took over and they eliminated the evening shift, but the trucks used to run all night when I was a kid. MR. HUNSINGER-Anything else? MS. WELLS-1 think that's it. MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. Thank you. MS. WELLS-Thank you. 19 (Queensbury Planning Board 01/24/2012) MR. HUNSINGER-Anyone else want to comment on this project? Do you have any written comments, Keith? MR. OBORNE-1 don't believe so, but again, as always, let me check. I do not see anything. MR. HUNSINGER-Did you have any comments in response to some of the neighbor concerns? MR. LAPPER-They're not an adjacent use. I mean, we were talking, if they were adjacent, we would say, we could buy them a fence, but they're really adjacent to Green Mountain Electric. So it's really, you know, in terms of buffering there's nothing that we can really do on this site because there's an industrial use in between this use and their property. So I think that their comments are valid, but it's probably, as Keith said, for next month's meeting with their neighbor. MR. REHM-Yes. I'd like to also add, you know, similar to the last time, you know, we did get into the hours of operation. Certainly not a 24 hour operation. I believe its seven to three thirty, give or take, during the day. You know, we've tried to address the fact of noise. Most of the operations are inside. Yes, there is some moving around of vehicles, but certainly not to the extent probably that was there before with Northern Distributing and other entities. They had a lot of trucks shuffling in there at all times, but this is a contained use during regular business hours, and even, you know, it should provide for at least a better use of the property than previous. MR. MAGOWAN-And what about the truck trailer moving and stuff like that, is that seven to three thirty, too or are there other people going to be bringing trailers in, you know, when they? MR. DAVIS-We operate our plants seven to three thirty. Now we do make some pickups occasionally when a truck may come in after those hours, just an occasional truck, but the main activity is from seven a.m. to three thirty, five days a week. MR. MAGOWAN-1 mean, you mainly haul the trucks, and you know trailers. MR. DAVIS-It's our people that haul them. MR. MAGOWAN-Okay. So occasionally they may have to run over late, because I know you like to scale them all, document all that stuff coming in. MR. DAVIS-Yes, exactly. MR. MAGOWAN-So I understand that. MR. TRAVER-And should a truck come in after your business hours, would I be correct in understanding that it basically would be parked until the next day that you had normal operations before anything could be processed? MR. DAVIS-Yes. It would be our people and they could go over the scales. They know how to operate that, but they'll just park it and go home themselves and then somebody during the day will move it in and out. MR. TRAVER-Okay. Thank you. MR. HUNSINGER-Any other comments from the Board? MR. SCHONEWOLF-I was going to make a motion for a Special Use temporary permit. MR. HUNSINGER-Yes. First let me close the public hearing. PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED MR. HUNSINGER-And with that I'll entertain a motion. RESOLUTION APPROVING SUP 3-2012 ROBERT L. PERKINS Tax Map ID 308.16-2-4.2 A site plan application has been made to the Queensbury Planning Board for the following: Applicant proposes modification to an approved site plan to include additional paving along the warehouse approaches to rear of site as well as new pavement associated with front overhead doors. Further, accommodation to include tree clearing and hard-surfacing for the storage of up 20 (Queensbury Planning Board 01/24/2012) to 51 trailers located to the south and east on the parcel. Finally, the placement of an additional transformer and bollards proposed to the east. Changes to an approved site plan require Planning Board review and approval. A public hearing was advertised and held on 1/24/2012; This application is supported with all documentation, public comment, and application material in the file of record; MOTION TO APPROVE SPECIAL USE PERMIT NO. 3-2012 ROBERT L. PERKINS, Introduced by Donald Krebs 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 with the requirements as stated in the Zoning Code; and 2) Type II SEQRA, no further 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) Waiver requests granted: stormwater mgmt., grading, landscaping & lighting plans; 5) Resolution requires the following terms of validity: Temporary term for one year, renewable after that; 6) Engineering signoff. Duly adopted this 24th day of January, 2012, by the following vote: AYES: Mr. Traver, Mr. Krebs, Mr. Magowan, Mr. Deeb, Mr. Schonewolf, Mr. Sipp, Mr. Hunsinger NOES: NONE MR. HUNSINGER-Good luck. MR. REHM-Thank you. MR. HUNSINGER-You're welcome. SPECIAL USE PERMIT NO. 6-2012 SEAR TYPE II DIANE MATTHEWS AGENT(S) JOHN P. MATTHEWS OWNER(S) SAME AS APPLICANT ZONING WR-WATERFRONT RESIDENTIAL LOCATION DUNHAMS BAY APPLICANT PROPOSES TWO (2) SLIP CLASS A MARINA. MARINA IN A WR ZONE REQUIRES A SPECIAL USE PERMIT. CROSS REFERENCE LGPC WARREN CO. PLANNING 1/1112012 APA, CEA, OTHER APA WETLANDS, L G PARK CEA LOT SIZE 0.29 ACRES TAX MAP NO. 239.16-1-2 SECTION § 179-ARTICLE 10; 179-5-060 JOHN MATTHEWS, REPRESENTING APPLICANT, PRESENT MR. HUNSINGER-Keith? MR. OBORNE-This is similar to what we were discussing earlier. This is a one lot, one slip or two slip "I" Dock. Special Use Permit 6-2012 for Diane Matthews. Requested Action is a Special Use Permit in a WR zone. Dunham's Bay is the location. Waterfront Residential is the existing zoning. Type II is the SEAR. Warren County Referral, again, no action was taken. Project Description: Applicant proposes a two slip Class A Marina with the placement of a 40 foot by 4 foot dock centered on the parcel. What follows, again, is the Special Use Permit general criteria, and you would need to state a term of validity for this application. One minor issue on my part is what type of dock is it? Is it a stake dock, floating dock? But with that, I'd turn it over to the Board. MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. Thank you. Good evening. If you could identify yourselves for the record. 21 (Queensbury Planning Board 01/24/2012) DIANE MATTHEWS MRS. MATTHEWS-Diane Matthews. MR. MATTHEWS-John Matthews. Owners. MR. HUNSINGER-Did you have anything else that you wanted to add? MR. MATTHEWS-Well, it's the first time we've been here. So what we're proposing to do is utilize the property by renting the dock space that's there, that's been there. We used to own the dock. We used to own the lot, and we owned the property next door and we sold the property next door and kept the lot and we tried several times to sell the lot and haven't had any takers, and we find that now with the economy the way it is, it would be best to rent the space that we have on the dock. In the past I've allowed friends and people to use it and family and what not, and at present we plan to keep the lot in lieu of the fact that my daughter and her husband and family live nearby and someday when they have a boat or their children get bigger and they want a place to go and have a picnic on the lake, it'll be there for them. MR. HUNSINGER-There was a Staff question about what type of dock would be constructed. MR. MATTHEWS-It's going to be a wood stake dock. MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. Is there anything else? MR. MATTHEWS-Well, I've provided the plot plan, and I show the parking that they require and the distances from the lake, and basically there was a house on the lot right on shore. Prior to us buying it it burnt down, and there was a big pile of rubble there and what was left of a foundation. We cleaned that all up so it was nice looking. So, other than that, we want to maintain the status of the property. We are part of; we share the road coming down. We just had a pretty expensive bill for re-paving the road which was, a portion of it was ours, and we'd like to keep it maintained. So this is part of the process. MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. Questions, comments from members of the Board? MR. TRAVER-Well, we have the one same issue again, in terms of the, assuming we will be moving to an approval, we need to talk about the term. On the one hand it is essentially an extension of the commercial operation, obviously, but it is, evidently, something that is going to be used at some point for private purposes. So I don't know if permanent is appropriate, but maybe relatively long term. MR. MATTHEWS-Can I make a comment there? It's really; it's not an extension of the commercial operation. It's private, and we will manage it privately, but we, as owners of Castaway, are allowing our tenants to use the facilities there. So that's. MR. TRAVER-Understood. Thank you. MR. HUNSINGER-Other questions, comments from the Board? Okay. We do have a public hearing scheduled this evening. Is there anyone in the audience that wants to address the Board on this project? We have at least one person. Good evening. PUBLIC HEARING OPEN SALVATORE ERVOLINA MR. ERVOLINA-Good evening. My name is Salvatore Ervolina, and I'm an adjacent property owner at 11 Grey Ledge's Drive, immediately adjacent to the property. As John mentioned, one of the concerns that I have, it's a very narrow road and it's shared by several people, and I guess my biggest concern is as a commercial facility concerned about different people using the dock over time. In the past, as people have been there and they've been constant, and I'd hate to see different people coming in a number of times, not renting for the season I guess is what I'm trying to say is, you know, that people keep changing, and that, I think, would disrupt the neighbors, myself and the other neighbors on either side. There's also a concern of parking, and, you know, how many cars would be there. It's a narrow lot and beyond two or three cars it gets pretty tight in there. So those are some of my concerns, and I don't know if there'd be any way to somehow limit use of the property through, you know, long term lease or something like that, and rental. What I'd hate to see is somebody there for one week and then, you know, stay there for summer vacation. They come there for a week, and then they leave and somebody else comes. I think that would be very disruptive. So that's one of my main concerns. 22 (Queensbury Planning Board 01/24/2012) MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. Thank you. Anyone else? Mr. Salvador? JOHN SALVADOR MR. SALVADOR-Again, my name is John Salvador. I'm a resident on Dunham's Bay and operate the Marina at the base of the bay. I think we should not overlook the fact that this is a new use. This Class A Marina doesn't exist. It's not like all the others you've permitted with Site Plan Review, they've existed and you've tried to get them to conform to the Code. This is a new use, and as a new use, I want to point out the fact that they should be applying for a Use Variance. A Special Use Permit is not a substitute for a Use Variance. There's case law on that that I'd like to bring to your attention. The burden of a proof of an owner seeking a Special Use Permit is lighter than on an owner seeking a variance since unlike a variance New York State law recognizes that in Special Use Permit situations the underlying use is expressly allowed, and the case is Westchester Day School vs. the Village of Mamaroneck. We allow Class A Marina in a residential zone with a Special Use Permit. That is a conditional use that is not expressly allowed. It's allowed on a condition, and there's a difference, and they should be obtaining a Use Variance. This is a very small vacant lot. It's a vacant lot, and our Code requires that before you have an accessory use, you must have a principal use on a lot. This dock, this marina, these are accessory uses, and therefore not allowed unless the principal use is there. It's a substandard lot in a Waterfront Residential zone, and a primary use is not in place. The application for a Class A Marina permit represents a new, non-permitted use in a Lake George CEA, that's Critical Environmental Area, and that may not qualify for a Type 11 SEQRA. In a Critical Environmental Area, in an APA wetland, we're calling it a Type 11 action and I don't know how Town gets to this APA wetland. That ought to really have us concerned. I checked with the Town Building Department. There have been no building permits issued on this site. The existing facility that's there, the dock has never been permitted. The Assessor's Office has a record that this structure that was on the lake measured 14 feet by 11 feet. That is not a boat dock. The limit on the width of a pier is eight feet. So it was nonconforming in that respect. I think it was just probably a swimming raft, and that didn't need a permit. A couple of more points. As a Class A Marina, they've got to have some kind of a name. It's a commercial undertaking. You don't just call it by your name unless you're operating as a sole proprietor, but the Assessor will then, is obligated to assess the property in accordance with the way it's being used. Regardless of the zoning, it's the way it's being used, and so what we allow on this lot, if we allow a commercial undertaking, we should be careful in that respect. That's all I have. MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. Thank you. Anyone else? Did you have any written comments, Keith? MR. OBORNE-No written comments. MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. If the applicant would like to come back up. Can you comment on whether or not there's been a dock permit issued for that site? MR. MATTHEWS-1 have never, I have re-used the dock that was there when I bought the property. There was a platform on the shoreline, which is probably the last time the Assessor was there was back in the 80's, and that was that wide, and each year we had put in a narrower section to go out nowhere near 40 feet, to accommodate a boat or two boats. Temporary, stake dock. MR. HUNSINGER-And how long? MR. MATTHEWS-It's been registered with the Park Commission, and it was, had a sticker on it every year. MR. HUNSINGER-How long have you owned the lot? MR. MATTHEWS-Since 1984, 1 believe. MR. TRAVER-And when was the fire that destroyed the building that was there? MR. MATTHEWS-Previous to that, probably in the late 70's, maybe. MR. SCHONEWOLF-Well, it's obvious the Park Commission considers it a dock. I mean, there's nothing illegal about it. MR. MATTHEWS-No, and I'm really, if I had applied to the Park Commission and/or the Town to put one boat on the dock, I would need a Class B permit. I could get that from the Park Commission and I wouldn't have to deal with the Town, but not having, being able to put a principal residence on the site or a building at this time and date, without going through 23 (Queensbury Planning Board 01/24/2012) substantial loops with septic and everything else, I would like to be able to use both sides of the dock. I mean, that's, it's not a commercial operation. There's not going to be the sale of any goods on the property. There's no power on the property. It's just a dock, and an area for people to have their picnic and those who I have allowed to use it over the years we've had absolutely no problem with them. They've been very neat and tidy, and that's the way we intend to do it. It will not be a transient operation. If somebody decides to use it, it will be for the season, and once we get somebody there, they love it so much because it's so private they're there forever. The only reason that I have gone this route now is because the ice totally destroyed what was there and I decided it was time to put in a halfway decent dock. MR. DEEB-So, John, when you lease it, you're going to lease it for the season? MR. MATTHEWS-Yes, oh yes. I don't have time to monkey around for. It would be from April until September or October, and it would be one person, not half and half. I mean, I'd leave it empty before I went through the rigmarole of trying to split it up by the week. MR. SCHONEWOLF-So you could still build it for one boat and get it. MR. MATTHEWS-1 know. MR. SCHONEWOLF-And if somebody stops by and parks on the other side of it and doesn't stay. MR. MATTHEWS-Well, just about every dock or house on the shoreline utilizes one of their sides of their dock as a Class A Marina, a Class B Marina. So I'm really not doing anything different than anybody else is. MR. HUNSINGER-Right. MR. MAGOWAN-You say you're going to rent it out to one person. MR. MATTHEWS-No, I'd like to use both sides. MR. MAGOWAN-Both sides. MR. MATTHEWS-And it could very well be that that same person has two boats. MR. KREBS-Spending my summers on the lake a lot, I have rented the same dock from the same people since '03 and I wouldn't want to give it up, you know, and there are a zillion people on Lake George who have a dock with two rentals on it. Okay. So this is not an unusual situation at all. MR. SCHONEWOLF-It's more common than anything else. MR. KREBS-Right. MR. HUNSINGER-Any other questions, comments from the Board? Mr. Salvador, you already had an opportunity to speak. Was there something new that you wanted to add? MR. SALVADOR-Yes. MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. I didn't close the public hearing. I'll allow it. MR. SALVADOR-As a Class A Marina, they're required to furnish restrooms, plural, restrooms plural, open at all times. The presumption is that these restrooms are on the premises. It's not realistic to assume, as it's listed there in the Staff Notes that their clients are going to leave that location, get in a car, drive over to the Castaway Marina and use a toilet. Two o'clock in the morning? It's just not realistic to assume they're going to do that. The pump out, they're going to take their boat all the way over to the Castaway Marina? That's a lot of gas. Not realistic. Trash, garbage facilities. They're supposed to furnish that. Including recycling. That all should be on the site plan. It's just not realistic to approve this project on those conditions. Thank you. MR. HUNSINGER-Thank you. MR. SCHONEWOLF-If we had a restroom for every dock, we'd have (lost words) restrooms. MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. Any other questions, comments from the Board? 24 (Queensbury Planning Board 01/24/2012) MR. TRAVER-1 recall a, I don't remember the name, but I think there was a Class A Marina, I'm thinking on Harris Bay, and they got a letter from Harris Bay Yacht Club that they could use their facilities, as I recall. I don't recall the name and I think that we have, this is not unique in that sense. MR. HUNSINGER-Right. MR. SCHONEWOLF-That was the one to the right of Harris Bay as you come out. Don, you remember that. MR. TRAVER-Right. Because when we did a site visit that morning we saw deer on the property. MR. SCHONEWOLF-That's exactly right. That's right. MR. HUNSINGER-Yes. MR. SCHONEWOLF-And in fact the guy that owns it who's name escapes me at the moment, I forget. Ray Kraft. MR. MAGOWAN-That's like right next door you could practically walk across the weeds on that one. MR. SCHONEWOLF-That's right. MR. KREBS-I mean, the great majority of boats today on Lake George, and boats have grown in size, all have their own facilities on board, and you do, and I'm sorry if you don't want to spend the gas to go around the corner to Castaway you can go right across the bay and you can get it pumped out for a fee. So it's not going to be impossible for a boat user to handle that. MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. Is the Board ready to move forward? MR. SCHONEWOLF-Yes. MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. I will close the public hearing. PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED MR. HUNSINGER-And entertain a motion. MR. TRAVER-The only other clarification is the term. MR. HUNSINGER-Right. MR. TRAVER-And we haven't really discussed that. MR. HUNSINGER-No. MR. TRAVER-And the facility immediately next door we issued a permanent. I think this is, and the applicant pointed out this is private. So I would say let's not make it permanent, but some reasonable shorter term. MR. KREBS-Five year renewable. MR. TRAVER-That works for me. MR. SCHONEWOLF-Yes, that's okay. MR. HUNSINGER-Is that agreeable? MR. MATTHEWS-Well, yes, either that or with our family Iifespan or something like that, but what's involved in a renewal? MR. KREBS-Usually you just have to come before the Board again and get approval. If there's been no adverse effects. MR. HUNSINGER-Provided there's no issues or concerns. 25 (Queensbury Planning Board 01/24/2012) MR. TRAVER-Yes, for example, that would be another opportunity for public comment. If this action created some issue in the neighborhood and it didn't work out, then that would be something that we'd want to take into account, or if you changed your plans for the property in some way. That kind of thing. MR. MATTHEWS-No objection. MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. RESOLUTION APPROVING SUP 6-2012 DIANE MATTHEWS Tax Map ID 239.16-1-2 A site plan application has been made to the Queensbury Planning Board for the following: Applicant proposes two (2) slip Class A Marina. Marina in a WR zone requires a Special Use Permit. A public hearing was advertised and held on 1/24/2012; and This application is supported with all documentation, public comment, and application material in the file of record; MOTION TO APPROVE SPECIAL USE PERMIT NO. 6-2012 DIANE MATTHEWS, Introduced by Donald Krebs 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 with the requirements as stated in the Zoning Code; and 2) Type II SEQRA, no further 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, landscaping & lighting plans; and 6) Resolution requires the following term of validity: Renewable for five (5) years. Duly adopted this 24th day of January, 2012, by the following vote: AYES: Mr. Traver, Mr. Krebs, Mr. Magowan, Mr. Deeb, Mr. Schonewolf, Mr. Sipp, Mr. Hunsinger NOES: NONE MR. HUNSINGER-You're all set. Good luck. MRS. MATTHEWS-Thank you. SITE PLAN NO. 10-2012 SEAR TYPE II TIM HEENAN OWNER(S) SAME AS APPLICANT ZONING WR-WATERFRONT RESIDENTIAL LOCATION 400 CLEVERDALE ROAD APPLICANT PROPOSES REPLACEMENT OF A 696 SQ. FT. DOCK WITH 535 SQ. FT. SUNDECK WITH LIKE SIZE DOCK WITH SUNDECK. FURTHER APPLICANT PROPOSES A RECONFIGURATION OF ACCESS STAIRS TO DOCK AND THE ADDITION OF A REMOVABLE 29 SQ, FT, STAIRS FOR WATER ACCESS. SITE PLAN REVIEW REQUIRED FOR DOCKS WITH SUNDECKS IN WR ZONE AS WELL AS HARD SURFACING WITHIN 50 FEET OF THE SHORELINE. CROSS REFERENCE BP 11-601 WARREN CO. PLANNING 1/1112012 APA, CEA, OTHER APA, L G PARK CEA LOT SIZE 0.33 ACRES TAX MAP NO. 226.8-14 SECTION § 179-9 TIM HEENAN, PRESENT 26 (Queensbury Planning Board 01/24/2012) MR. HUNSINGER-Keith? MR. OBORNE-Yes. Site Plan 10-2012 for Tim Heenan. This is docks for sundecks. Requires Site Plan Review. 400 Cleverdale Road, Waterfront Residential is the existing zoning and this is a Type 11 SEQRA. Project Description: Applicant proposes replacement of 696 sq. ft. dock with 535 sq. ft. sundeck with like size dock with sundeck. Further, applicant proposes a reconfiguration of access stairs to dock and the addition of a removable 20 sq. ft. stairs for water access. Site visit has confirmed that the boathouse has been removed from the site as per BP 2011-601 cited above. The visit also confirmed a densely vegetated shoreline in the vicinity of the proposed new boathouse. The Planning Board may wish to ascertain if any of the existing vegetation is slated for removal and if so to what extent, and what follows is some comments by me. The boathouse is right at the 16 foot mark above the mean high water mark, but it does meet the requirements, and as designed appears to show no facilities for sleeping, cooking or sanitary facilities, and due to topography in this case a land bridge to the sundeck is proposed as it was previously existing, and with that I'd turn it over to the Board. MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. Thank you. Good evening. MR. HEENAN-Hi. MR. HUNSINGER-If you could identify yourself for the record. MR. HEENAN-I'm Tim Heenan, the owner. MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. Did you have anything you wanted to add? No, just unlike some of the other folks here I don't like the ice because the old dock got damaged by the ice and I'm just replacing what was there. That's really the only location, given the site, it's on the point, so it's really the only location I can put a dock. So we took down the damaged dock and we're replacing it. Want to replace it with basically the same configuration, other than stairs a little bit different. MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. Anything else? MR. HEENAN-In terms of the comment on the vegetation, we don't plan on knocking any trees or anything else down, and don't think we have to. I'm as concerned about the erosion as anyone since my property's literally on the edge there. MR. HUNSINGER-Sure. Yes. Okay. I'll open it up for questions, comments from the Board. MR. TRAVER-That was going to be my question on the vegetation. MR. MAGOWAN-Now you feel the eight inch schedule galvanized piping there is going to do better with the ice? MR. HEENAN-That's the hope. That's the hope, is that the pile dock will work. MR. HUNSINGER-Well, I notice your neighbor has bubblers. MR. HEENAN-Yes. MR. HUNSINGER-Are you planning to do that as well? MR. HEENAN-Yes. Light bubblers. If you don't you get the jacking of the piles up and down is what I understand. So we'll do light bubblers around the piles, just so the ice can as he said go around the piles. MR. HUNSINGER-Yes. MR. SCHONEWOLF-Sometimes it works and sometimes it doesn't. MR. HEENAN-I hope it works. MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. Any other questions, comments from the Board? We do have a public hearing scheduled this evening. Is there anyone in the audience that wants to address the Board on this project? PUBLIC HEARING OPEN 27 (Queensbury Planning Board 01/24/2012) MR. HUNSINGER-Any written comments, Keith? MR. OBORNE-No written comments. MR. HUNSINGER-1 will open the public hearing, and if there are no commenters, I will close the public hearing. PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED MR. HUNSINGER-And let the record show no comments were received. This is a Type II SEAR. The only thing I would comment on is we have had instances in the past where people presented projects that were within the Code and then built projects that were beyond the Code. So I would just caution you not to do that. MR. HEENAN-No, we fixed the project to get in Code and we will keep it as we fixed it. MR. HUNSINGER-Great. MR. HEENAN-No problem there. MR. HUNSINGER-Would anyone like to make a motion? RESOLUTION APPROVING SP 10-2012 TIM HEENAN Tax Map ID 226.8-1-4 A site plan application has been made to the Queensbury Planning Board for the following: Applicant proposes replacement of 696 sq. ft. dock with 535 sq. ft. sundeck with like size dock with sundeck. Further, applicant proposes a reconfiguration of access stairs to dock and the addition of a removable 20 sq. ft. stairs for water access. Site Plan review required for docks with sundecks in WR zone as well as hard surfacing within 50 feet of the shoreline. A public hearing was advertised and held on 1/24/2012; and This application is supported with all documentation, public comment, and application material in the file of record; MOTION TO APPROVE SITE PLAN NO. 10-2012 TIM HEENAN, Introduced by Donald Krebs whom 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 with the requirements as stated in the Zoning Code; 2) Type II, no further SEQRA review is necessary; 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; 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; 5) Waiver requests granted: stormwater mgmt., grading, landscaping & lighting plans. Duly adopted this 24th day of January, 2012, by the following vote: AYES: Mr. Traver, Mr. Krebs, Mr. Magowan, Mr. Deeb, Mr. Schonewolf, Mr. Sipp, Mr. Hunsinger NOES: NONE MR. HUNSINGER-You're all set. There you go. Good luck. 28 (Queensbury Planning Board 01/24/2012) MR. HEENAN-Thanks. MR. OBORNE-Tim, you'll get a letter in the mail and it'll give you direction. MR. HEENAN-Thank you. MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. The next item on the agenda is a discussion item for Cottage Hill Development, Baybridge Drive & Gentry Lane Extension. DISCUSSION: COTTAGE HILL DEVELOPMENT, BAYBRIDGE DRIVE & GENTRY LANE EXTENSION 188 UNIT TOWNHOME STYLE RESIDENTIAL UNITS MICHAEL BORGOS & TOM JARRETT, REPRESENTING OWNER, PRESENT MR. HUNSINGER-Keith? MR. OBORNE-Yes. Well, there's not much too really give to you here because all I got was a one sheet document that was, with not a lot of detail. I'll have to leave it up to the applicant to describe; actually he's not an applicant. There's no application at this point, but up to the landowner to describe what's going on. MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. Good evening. MR. BORGOS-Good evening. I'm Michael Borgos, the attorney agent for the owner. I'm here with Tom Jarrett, the engineering on the project, and the owner, Dan Valente, who's the developer, builder. We would like to talk to you gentlemen today about the scope of this project. What's been presented to you I think is just the one plan that Tom has in front of him here, the single page. Essentially it's 188 units on this site. Multi-family. This is what was originally known as Phase III of Baybridge. Some of you may have been in Town long enough to remember when Phase I was built by Dan's parents back in the mid 1980's. Phase 11 followed and this is the completion of that original plan essentially, but a little bit of an adjustment made for the changes in zoning. I think there have been two over the years, and changing economies. The multifamily seems like it's the most appropriate economically viable use for the property now. I think it's a nice plan that Tom and Dan have come up with to utilize this 28.8 acre site. It's at the rear of the Baybridge which is accessed by Gentry Lane and Dorlon Drive and many people will know it from where it intersects on Bay Road with Walker Lane. It abuts the rear of the properties along Country Club Road to the west and some of the undeveloped properties to the south. There is an access road that is connecting Gentry Lane and Baybridge Drive. We believe that will be an enhancement for the Town plows. Right now they have to stop and turn around. So this will be a drive-thru for them. The parking areas for the units are going to be private and they'll be maintained privately. I'll let Tom talk about some more of the details of the project and fill you in on what he's been thinking. MR. JARRETT-Thanks, Mike. Good evening. Our project, as Mike said, we want to introduce this project as a multi-family rental off Baybridge Drive, 28 acres, gross acres, 24 and a half acres net after wetlands and road right of way are subtracted. Keith has the project on the screen in front of you and you can see that the loop road coming off Gentry and Baybridge would be proposed as a Town road, whereas the loop through the rental units itself which is the upper left corner of the project, will be privately owned as part of the housing units. We propose a walking path through much of the property, especially along the wetland corridor along the west edge of the property, and it would terminate in a gazebo and about three and a half acres of green space at the northern end of the property. This project is within the Queensbury sewer district. We're already a member of that district, paying for that service. It's in the water district already. We've done test pits to know that stormwater management is feasible on this property, and frankly we look forward to putting details together to come back to you for Site Plan Review, but we thought we'd introduce it and get some feedback from you. MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. Anything else? MR. JARRETT-No, we'll entertain questions. MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. Questions, comments from the Board? MR. SIPP-Are these all going to be rental units? DAN VALENTE 29 (Queensbury Planning Board 01/24/2012) MR. VALENTE-Initially they would all be rental units, at least based on what's going on right now with the economy. They are being designed in a manner that eventually, if I feel it's a more salable item that I can convert everything to a single townhouse style and sell them. They'll be designed as townhouses right now anyway. MR. HUNSINGER-So would there be garages? MR. VALENTE-Some will have garages and some won't. Right now it looks like, in a typical eight unit building, we would have the end units being three bedrooms with a garage, and then the inner units would be two bedrooms without a garage. MR. JARRETT-That rendering on the screen is close to what Dan's proposing. He's going to spruce it up a little bit, and some of the garages on the interior would probably be deleted, right? MR. VALENTE-Yes, we're working through our design, where obviously that was extremely preliminary, but they will have a little more character than what you typically see as far as apartments go. I'm looking for; it's not going to be a high end. It's not going to be a low end, but it is going to be a nice, tastefully done style building, and you'll see that has much more character. It won't be just a box with an entryway. Each townhouse or unit would have its own separate entrance, and there'll be, like I said, a little more character to the buildings, and we're working through that now. I don't want to get too far into it until I know we, what direction we're heading here. MR. MAGOWAN-You don't feel, if the market does change and you make it, you know, marketable like the townhouses, like in the other phase that's there, that a garage would be a plus? MR. VALENTE-Well, absolutely, I mean, but there's also, you know, what's the marketplace right now? What's it look like for the next 10, 15 years, and, you know, the market's just not there. I mean, it's going to take a while for this, for our industry to come back around. Every industry has its ebbs and flows and it's going to take a while I think. That's my view. MR. TRAVER-With that in mind, would there be a phasing to the construction or would you build the entire project? MR. VALENTE-It probably would be set up. I would like to build it out in one continuous phase. So I'd like to start in one progression and work my way right through it. MR. JARRETT-We wouldn't formally propose phasing, but it would take a while for him to build out, depending on how the economy moves and how they sell. MR. MAGOWAN-Or rent. MR. JARRETT-Excuse me, rent. Freudian slip there, rent. MR. KREBS-Well, I certainly see, as baby boomers get a little older and some of us that are a little before the baby boomers, there's going to be more and more demand for this type of housing, because people just don't want to spend the money to maintain a full home on their own, and they want the camaraderie of having people their age group, etc., in the same area. So I think it has good potential. I think we can see from Amedore and from now The Michaels Group, certainly they're a little more high end than where you want to be, but they're certainly marketing the product and it's selling, in a very, very difficult market. MR. SIPP-The walking path would be similar to the one you have out on Bay Road? MR. JARRETT-Probably. We're considering alternate materials, but likely that, yes. It seems to have worked out very well, and that path is frequently used. So we think it's a pretty good mix. MR. SIPP-It's a good idea. The loop road you said is not going to be a Town road? MR. JARRETT-The main loop connector between Baybridge and Gentry would be Town, proposed as a Town road, but the internal roadways would be privately owned. MR. SIPP-You would maintain it? MR. JARRETT-Yes. The main road obviously would then be plowed by the Town and it would give them a full loop to go around, as Mike said, but the internal roads would be plowed by Dan. MR. SIPP-Are you close to any wetlands on the southern end? 30 (Queensbury Planning Board 01/24/2012) MR. JARRETT-On the southern end? Yes, you go beyond our property line by, well, probably a little over 100 feet or more it's wetland. That corridor that goes along the west edge then turns to the east, toward the east. So it's not that far from the southern end of the property. MR. SIPP-In other words, there's trees and brush on this lot right now. MR. JARRETT-Yes. MR. SIPP-They would remove from all of that, or leave a buffer zone in between? MR. JARRETT-We plan on leaving as much of the tree cover as we can. The internal portion of the site right now is meadow. It's not really all tree, but the perimeter where we have trees we're going to try and preserve those as best we can, especially within that, you'll notice we have a 75 foot setback from the wetland that we're maintaining, as requested by DEC. We need a permit from this Board to be developing within 100 feet of the wetland, but the setback we're maintaining per DEC negotiations is 75 feet, and that would be preserved as vegetation. Most of its meadow right now. MR. MAGOWAN-That southern portion, how far are you off of the, you've got those three (lost word) units; how far are you off that property line there? MR. JARRETT-At the setback, which is 25 feet, I believe. What we've done is try to preserve some space in the center. It almost looks like a common. We're going to have some stormwater management in there and some landscaping and the walking path would go through there. We may even loop that path a little bit more. So we think it'll be a nice privacy buffer in the units, and give us a good chunk of green space on that southern end. MR. HUNSINGER-You mentioned that you had access to Glens Falls sewer. MR. JARRETT-We've already purchased that capacity when the commercial subdivision was developed. MR. HUNSINGER-And there's sufficient capacity to service it? MR. JARRETT-Yes. MR. KREBS-And it's also on public water, too. MR. JARRETT-Yes. MR. HUNSINGER-Natural gas? MR. VALENTE-Yes. It's about as clean a subdivision I think as you're going to see in this day and age right now. We don't need any, we meet every requirement that I know. MR. HUNSINGER-How about traffic on Bay Road in particular? MR. JARRETT-That's been the subject of considerable discussion on our part. We've solicited a traffic study for this project. As you know, when Dan developed Fairfield we went through a traffic study then. The light or traffic management at Bay Road was not warranted at that stage. In fact, it was suggested that Willowbrook would probably warrant it before Fairfield would. This project we're studying now, we will come back to the Town with recommendations. They will be coordinated with the study that's going to be undertaken by the County on Bay and Cronin. So we'll come back with a comprehensive review of Bay Road and our project and see what it looks like. MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. Other questions, comments from the Board? MR. MAGOWAN-Baybridge Drive, is that right across from the Willows, Rich's places? MR. JARRETT-Yes. Exactly. That intersection was aligned. MR. KREBS-Yes. Right next to it on the left is where the dental office is MR. JARRETT-That's part of Fairfield. MR. MAGOWAN-So they're going to be doing a study down at Bay and Cronin. 31 (Queensbury Planning Board 01/24/2012) MR. JARRETT-And our study will be for this project, but they will be coordinated together. MR. MAGOWAN-And then we have one coming up here, too, right? MR. JARRETT-That could be. MR. OBORNE-That is another discussion. MR. VALENTE-Okay, because I know Creighton Manning, I was told that Creighton Manning is going to be contracted, I believe, by the County. MR. OBORNE-Because it is a County road, so, yes, absolutely. MR. VALENTE-Right, to do that study on Cronin and Bay. I don't know if they're. MR. OBORNE-1 don't think they're involved on this corner here. MR. VALENTE-Okay. Well, Creighton Manning's who we used for the Fairfield part, initially, which they did take into consideration some of the development in the back at that time. We didn't know exactly what we were going to do. So obviously this one's going to be updated, but it's nice that they're going to have the coordination. They'll be able to look at all the impact of what we're doing with the Cronin intersection, too, and if that gives us relief enough down here, you know, we don't know. MR. JARRETT-That's a good point. We did let Creighton Manning know about the zoning and the proposal here. Didn't know when it was going to happen but we gave them a horizon, and they did look at that in the initial study, and they'll update that with this new study. MR. VALENTE-1 think we've tried to protect everybody the best we could. I mean all the people that back up off of Country Club are quite a distance away from us. There's a big swale between us. I don't see that they're really going to be impacted much. They'll have some visual of the buildings obviously. I've isolated that three and a half acres to the north to protect as many people as I can to that side. I thought that was a nice green space area. Baybridge, Baybridge is Baybridge. I mean, that was always intended to be developed at some point. Everybody was aware of that, and we'll do what we can to protect them, too, you know, we've always been around here. We've been around, second generation builder in this Town, and we've always looked out for everybody in the community, and I'm going to continue to do that to the best I can, you know. We're not looking to hurt anybody, but we also want to be able to do what we have the right to do also. MR. HUNSINGER-So what's your target market? You've made several comments about the current market and future markets. What's your target customer for this project? MR. VALENTE-Well, I mean, as far as a rental goes, you're saying as far as the rents maybe? MR. HUNSINGER-Well, what's the demographics? MR. JARRETT-I don't think we're necessarily going to get a young demographic. I think Mr. Krebs has identified we're probably going to get maybe pre-assisted living type people that just want to bail out of a big house. That's kind of what we're thinking right now, but we'll see what the market brings. MR. BORGOS-That's subject to change. In my practice I see a lot of people who are putting their house on the market, looking to see if they can sell it and if they get lucky and find a buyer, then they're going to want to stay somewhere, still be a part of the community, before they make a more permanent decision. MR. JARRETT-We're seeing a lot of snowbirds that want to go south and then have a rental up here so they don't have a lot of responsibility. MR. VALENTE-And I've heard a lot of comments, like Mr. Krebs has said, you know, that everybody, same thing, you know, we want to downsize and simplify, and, you know, as momentum picks up with the economy and then, like I said, I can always convert. That's kind of my thought process. Right now initially I'm not in that direction, but. MR. KREBS-But who knows when he gets 188 rentals coming up, he may decide not to. 32 (Queensbury Planning Board 01/24/2012) MR. VALENTE-Well, anybody that knows me knows I'm not a huge fan of rentals, to be honest with you, but unfortunately that's the direction you go at the time and we'll make the adjustments as needed. MR. MAGOWAN-That area in the north, wasn't that, it came off of the Ruth trust there, wasn't that like forever, supposed to stay wild? Was that something that I heard years ago? MR. VALENTE-There was never any, that was part of the Ruth Dorlon trust that I had purchased from her when their estate, there was never any restrictions or deeds, you know, deeded in to that parcel. No. MR. MAGOWAN-Yes, I thought it had something to do with the Baybridge that you needed more green space there for forever wild. MR. VALENTE-No, that's me doing. MR. MAGOWAN-Or maybe I shouldn't say forever wild but. MR. VALENTE-No. I mean, I'm sure if there were other people sitting here you'd have buildings stacked up back there, you know. I'm just trying to leave some nice space. It's a beautiful parcel. It's a nice place, a nice space back there. If you've ever walked back there, it's nice and quiet. MR. BORGOS-It's our goal to come back to you with a formal application in March. We're (lost words) the Staff to discuss that, but while we're all here today, is there anything that you anticipate, Mr. Chairman, that you'll be requiring? I want to make it as complete as possible in the first round. MR. HUNSINGER-Sure. Yes. Well, you know, I think you heard a couple of comments, traffic being one, and it sounds like you're planning to address that. The wetlands of course. What other thoughts jump off? MR. TRAVER-1 think this might be also a good project to have them work out much of the engineering in advance. There's, you know, a lot of stormwater, a lot of issues. It might save some tablings, move things along a little easier if we did some of that. MR. JARRETT-Just submit it to the engineer before we come back to you? MR. HUNSINGER-Well, Keith can kind of walk you through that process, but we have developed a review process where you would come to the Planning Board first for, you know, site plan issues, and then it wouldn't come back to us until the engineering was resolved, and basically what that does is, you know, eliminates the back and forth, you know, coming before us six times. That way, you know, you get the engineering issues resolved, then come back to the Board and we'd do site plan. MR. OBORNE-Yes, the Board's giving you that option. MR. VALENTE-That would be great. MR. HUNSINGER-Yes and we can certainly talk about that further when you have the formal submission. MR. JARRETT-So this discussion tonight would constitute that early review by the Planning Board. MR. HUNSINGER-No. MR. JARRETT-We'd need another meeting? MR. OBORNE-You'd need a full application. MR. HUNSINGER-Yes, you'd need a full application. MR. JARRETT-Okay. The only right I would like to reserve is there are issues that come up during the engineering reviews, engineering design that sometimes are really planning issues that the Board should weigh in. MR. HUNSINGER-Absolutely, yes. 33 (Queensbury Planning Board 01/24/2012) MR. JARRETT-So we may want the right to come back to this Board and resolve and mediate those issues. MR. HUNSINGER-Sure. MR. TRAVER-It's not intended to slow you down, quite the opposite. MR. JARRETT-Technical issues are no problem, but if there's some planning issues that we would want this Board to weigh in on as opposed to. MR. TRAVER-Absolutely. MR. HUNSINGER-Yes. MR. OBORNE-Yes, typically that's front ended with this process, that you would come to the Board with your application, including engineering, and the Board would give you that direction, once that formal application is in, and then you don't see them again until engineering is flat. MR. JARRETT-That's what I'm saying, I may want to introduce an intermediate meeting to come back to this Board if there's issues that can't be resolved with engineering. MR. OBORNE-That's strictly up to you. MR. HUNSINGER-Absolutely no problem. MR. JARRETT-But other than that we have no objection to what you're. MR. KREBS-In actuality it should take significantly less time for you because the other way, we read the report, you come to the meeting, we have all these issues that haven't been answered, and then it means that we have to table the situation and wait another two months, and so this way it's much quicker. MR. JARRETT-Well, we concur with that. MR. TRAVER-(lost words) something in the engineering required a change in basic design for some reason, but you're going to anticipate that in your initial design. So, I wouldn't expect that would happen unless you run into some unforeseen. MR. SIPP-When will this traffic study be done? MR. VALENTE-We should have it before, they tell me it will take about three to four weeks I think we'll have it. Three weeks I think he told me. MR. BORGOS-So we'll have it as part of the original application. MR. VALENTE-Yes. MR. TRAVER-Yes, that's going to be probably an issue that we'll have to consider for SEQRA, so it would be important to get that in. MR. JARRETT-We anticipated that, yes. Now, wetlands were mentioned, Mr. Chairman. Anything specific, or did you just want to pay attention to wetland impacts? MR. HUNSINGER-Well, I mean, you'd already identified that there's some wetland issues. MR. JARRETT-Right. We need a permit from you to be developing within 100 feet of it. MR. HUNSINGER-Yes, just be prepared. MR. JARRETT-Nothing specific at this stage? MR. HUNSINGER-Yes. MR. JARRETT-Okay. We have letters from the DEC and the Corps which we'll provide to you in our application. MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. MR. OBORNE-You're not planning on filling any wetlands? 34 (Queensbury Planning Board 01/24/2012) MR. JARRETT-No, no disruption or no disturbance of wetlands. MR. OBORNE-No filling. MR. JARRETT-No disruption, no disturbance, no filling, no excavation. MR. OBORNE-Okay. Did you say draining? MR. JARRETT-No draining either. MR. HUNSINGER-What else would the? MR. TRAVER-Does this application, do we think this application, in the initial review, warrants a special meeting, because of maybe public comment? MR. HUNSINGER-Well, we've got a full house tonight. MR. TRAVER-Yes, but we don't have any plan. MR. HUNSINGER-Right. MR. TRAVER-So I'm just wondering if, you know, we go to the initial discussion, then we do the engineering and follow up at the next phase when they have a plan to present to us and the public, would that be worth allotting significant time, perhaps even a special meeting, to provide, it's just a thought. MR. KREBS-Are we going to have any public comment tonight? MR. HUNSINGER-There's none scheduled. Not for discussion. MR. TRAVER-And there really isn't anything to comment on since there isn't any. MR. HUNSINGER-There's no application. MR. TRAVER-But there certainly will be, once something is, you know, we put pen to paper, and then there'll be something to discuss. MR. BORGOS-Mr. Chairman, when would you intend to schedule that public hearing? Would it be at the initial meeting or? MR. HUNSINGER-It would be at the initial meeting, yes. MR. TRAVER-At least at the initial meeting, maybe beyond, but the initial discussion will be the impact of your initial application obviously, for both us and the public. So that's probably when the greatest amount of discussion and detail, you know, and review of design and so on would take place. Once we get beyond that, then you're talking engineering and, you know. MR. BORGOS-From a predictability standpoint, we love the idea of a special meeting. It makes it most convenient for the neighbors who want to comment to come as well, because you know when you're going to start, as opposed to nights where you have a big agenda for it. MR. HUNSINGER-Right, sure. MR. BORGOS-So we'd be happy to do that. MR. VALENTE-We'd love to get, sooner than later, the comments. MR. HUNSINGER-Sure. MR. VALENTE-So we can try to address whatever concerns there are. MR. HUNSINGER-We know on a couple of other projects, one specifically, where the applicant held a special meeting with the neighborhood, you know that's totally outside the scope of anything the Town was involved with. MR. VALENTE-1 had a brief meeting with the homeowners association, just the Board, before I had filed anything to the Town. 35 (Queensbury Planning Board 01/24/2012) MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. MR. VALENTE-But I initially did try to get the ball rolling from that aspect, and I'm more than willing to sit down with them at any time. MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. So is it your intention to submit a completed application for the February deadline for a meeting in March? MR. JARRETT-Dan's intention, yes. My intention is I think it's going to be tight, based on traffic study and other issues that need to be designed, but he's going to push me, tomorrow morning he's going to push me for that deadline. MR. HUNSINGER-Yes, well, I mean, we'll certainly know when the application comes in in advance of our February meetings, and then at that point we can decide if we want to have a special meeting or not in March. MR. JARRETT-Absolutely. MR. HUNSINGER-In any event, the standard notification is any time there's an application filed, all property owners within 500 feet of the applicant would get a notice in the mail. All projects are publicly noticed in the newspaper, but of course you would have to read the legal ads in order to catch that. So that's really not a very predictable process. MR. JARRETT-We'd be glad to give the Association a heads up as to when the meetings are. MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. Well, the Association would get it anyway. MR. JARRETT-Yes, so they'll be able to disseminate that information to their members. MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. MR. JARRETT-We're not trying to hide anything. Let's get it done. MR. HUNSINGER-Yes. I'm just trying to give the public the process so that they understand. Is there anything else about the public comment period, Keith that would be worth mentioning? MR. OBORNE-1 mean, everybody within 500 feet, as you stated, will be noticed. MR. HUNSINGER-Yes. MR. OBORNE-Also the agendas are on line at Queensbury.net. Obviously you can access that information there also, and I'm available for any discussion also, as Town Staff. MR. JARRETT-Great. Thanks for your time tonight. We appreciate the input. MR. HUNSINGER-You're welcome. Thank you. Okay. If I could call the meeting back to order. MR. OBORNE-All right. Just a quick discussion about Queensbury Partners. At this point you have a letter in front of you from Matt Fuller. I don't see Matt Fuller here. I guess as a proxy for him, and I'm not trying to promote this application, they would like to have the opportunity to have a discussion item in February. MR. HUNSINGER-Well, we had a conversation. I kind of expected them to be here this evening. MR. OBORNE-Same here. MR. HUNSINGER-Yes, okay. MR. OBORNE-1 was told that he was going to be here, but. MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. Well, I mean, I'm certainly willing to give them time at our, either February meeting. MR. OBORNE-Well, the Planning Board is aware that the Zoning Board of Appeals basically said no to the majority of the zoning issues that were presented. MR. HUNSINGER-Right. Yes. 36 (Queensbury Planning Board 01/24/2012) MR. OBORNE-And they want to come back to you and have a discussion on how to proceed, and get a little bit more feedback at this point. MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. MR. OBORNE-So that's where we're at with this application. MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. I did, apparently at a Town Board workshop last night; there was another alternate that was presented. MR. OBORNE-That is correct. MR. HUNSINGER-And I understand that they would be approved at the next Town Board meeting. MR. OBORNE-That was my understanding also. MR. HUNSINGER-That would be very welcome, in advance of the spring flight of several of our members. MR. OBORNE-Yes. Several of our members for many, many weeks. MR. HUNSINGER-Yes. Is there any other business to come before the Board this evening? MR. OBORNE-1 know of no more business at this point. MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. MR. OBORNE-Obviously we have a planning conference tomorrow and to all those who are going to that, I'll see you there in the morning and probably sitting at the table. MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. Would anyone like to make a motion? MR. SCHONEWOLF-I make a motion we adjourn. MOTION TO ADJOURN THE QUEENSBURY PLANNING BOARD MEETING OF JANUARY 24, 2012, Introduced by Paul Schonewolf who moved for its adoption, seconded by Stephen Traver: Duly adopted this 24th day of January, 2012, by the following vote: AYES: Mr. Traver, Mr. Krebs, Mr. Magowan, Mr. Deeb, Mr. Schonewolf, Mr. Sipp, Mr. Hunsinger NOES: NONE On motion meeting was adjourned. RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED, Chris Hunsinger, Chairman 37