Loading...
03-20-2012 (Queensbury Planning Board 03/20/2012) QUEENSBURY PLANNING BOARD MEETING FIRST REGULAR MEETING MARCH 20, 2012 INDEX Subdivision No. 8-2005 Mt. Hollow H.O.A. 2. Tax Map No. 300.-1-19 Site Plan No. 77-2011 Bear Pond Ranch/French Mt. Bear Pond 3. Tax Map No. 278.-1-77, 13 Subdivision No. 8-2008 Christine Mozal & Donald Marshall 5. MODIFICATION Tax Map No. 289.14-27.1, 27.2 & 28 ZBA RECOMMENDATION Site Plan No. 3-2010 Donald Marshall 9. ZBA RECOMMENDATION Tax Map No. 289.14-1-28 Subdivision No. 1-2011 VMJR Companies 11. PRELIMINARY STAGE Tax Map No. 303.11-1-4, 303.15-1-25.2 FWW 1-2011 Site Plan No. 1-2012 William Threw 15. Special Use Permit No. 11-2012 Tax Map No. 309.17-1-7, 13 Site Plan No. 2-2012 William Threw 26. Tax Map No. 309.17-1-12 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 03/20/2012) QUEENSBURY PLANNING BOARD MEETING FIRST REGULAR MEETING MARCH 20, 2012 7:00 P.M. MEMBERS PRESENT CHRIS HUNSINGER, CHAIRMAN DONALD SIPP STEPHEN TRAVER BRAD MAGOWAN GEORGE FERONE, ALTERNATE DAVID DEEB, ALTERNATE MEMBERS ABSENT THOMAS FORD LAND USE PLANNER-KEITH OBORNE STENOGRAPHER-MARIA GAGLIARDI MR. HUNSINGER-I'll call to order the Town of Queensbury Planning Board on Tuesday, March 20, 2012. For those members of the audience, there are copies of the agenda on the back table, along with a handout for public hearing process. The first item on the agenda is approval of minutes from January 17th and 24th, 2012. Is there a motion? APPROVAL OF MINUTES January 17, 2012 January 24, 2012 MOTION TO APPROVE THE QUEENSBURY PLANNING BOARD MINUTES OF JANUARY 17TH AND JANUARY 24TH, 2012, Introduced by Donald Sipp who moved for its adoption, seconded by Brad Magowan: Duly adopted this 20th day of March, 2012, by the following vote: AYES: Mr. Magowan, Mr. Traver, Mr. Sipp, Mr. Deeb, Mr. Ferone, Mr. Hunsinger NOES: NONE ABSENT: Mr. Ford MR. HUNSINGER-We have three Administrative Items this evening. The first one is a meeting date change for our second June meeting. ADMINISTRATIVE ITEMS: MEETING DATE CHANGE: 2ND JUNE MEETING MR. HUNSINGER-Is the 21St available, Keith? What's the conflict? MR. OBORNE-It's either or. I believe it's a Primary. MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. That's right. We had talked about that last month I believe. MR. OBORNE-Yes. The Board of Elections will be using this room, and as such our regular scheduled meeting on the 26th is not happening. MR. HUNSINGER-Yes. MR. MAGOWAN-Do we need it? MR. OBORNE-Yes. MR. TRAVER-Unfortunately I'm going to be out of town both days. 1 (Queensbury Planning Board 03/20/2012) MR. OBORNE-Well, we need to at least have the date taken care of. It's no matter to me. The 28th is a Thursday. MR. TRAVER-So is the 21St MR. OBORNE-So is the 21St. So they're both Thursdays. So do you want to have two meetings in one week or do you want to split it out? MR. HUNSINGER-Anyone have a preference? MR. TRAVER-Just to let the Chairman know, I am unavailable on both those alternate dates. MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. We can have one of the alternates sit in. MR. OBORNE-Yes. MR. HUNSINGER-Yes. Do I hear, does anyone have a preference at all? MR. MAGOWAN-I say bang them both out in the first week. MR. HUNSINGER-That would be my inclination. Does that cause difficulty for Staff? MR. OBORNE-No, none whatsoever. MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. Do I hear a motion, then, for the 21St? RESOLUTION RE: JUNE PLANNING BOARD MEETING DATE CHANGE MOTION TO CHANGE THE SECOND PLANNING BOARD MEETING IN JUNE TO JUNE 21sT FROM THE ORIGINAL DATE OF JUNE 26T", Introduced by Stephen Traver who moved for its adoption, seconded by Brad Magowan: The Planning Office has been notified by the Queensbury Center Coordinator that the Board of Elections will be using the Queensbury Center on June 26th-our regularly scheduled 2nd Planning Board meeting. Therefore, the 2nd Planning Board in June is re-scheduled for June 21. Duly adopted this 20th day of March 2012, by the following vote: AYES: Mr. Magowan, Mr. Sipp, Mr. Traver, Mr. Ferone, Mr. Deeb, Mr. Hunsinger NOES: None ABSENT: Mr. Ford SUBDIVISION 8-2005: MT. HOLLOW H.O.A. -FOR FURTHER TABLING CONSIDERATION MR. HUNSINGER-I thought after the update last month that they would be ready. No? MR. OBORNE-You and me both. I have reached out to Mt. Hollow counsel. I have not received any indication as to when they're going to be submitting the emergency action plan nor the updated site plan associated with Mountain Hollow H.O.A. With that I will try again once more. I will say, although this is not an excuse, there's no imminent issues with flooding, you know, for that, but it is an outstanding site plan that needs to be adjusted as well as the subdivision aspect of it. MR. HUNSINGER-Right. MR. TRAVER-Do you have a suggestion as to a tabling date? MR. OBORNE-I would table it out, at this point, being that the deadline has already passed, table it out to two months from now, so to May at this point. MR. TRAVER-May. Okay. MR. OBORNE-Either meeting. I would go with the earlier one. MR. HUNSINGER-May 15tH MR. TRAVER-Okay. 2 (Queensbury Planning Board 03/20/2012) RESOLUTION TABLING SUB # 8-2005 MT. HOLLOW H.O.A. MOTION TO TABLE MODIFICATION TO SUBDIVISION NO. 8-2005 MOUNTAIN HOLLOW H.O.A., Introduced by Stephen Traver who moved for its adoption, seconded by Donald Sipp: On January 24, 2012 this application was tabled to March 20, 2012. No new information was submitted; therefore this will be tabled to Tuesday, May 15, 2012 with a submission deadline of Monday, April 16, 2012. Duly adopted this 20th day of March, 2012, by the following vote: AYES: Mrs. Sipp, Mr. Deeb, Mr. Magowan, Mr. Ferone, Mr. Traver, Mr. Hunsinger NOES: NONE ABSENT: Mr. Ford MR. HUNSINGER-The next Administrative Item is Site Plan 77-2011 for Bear Pond Ranch. SITE PLAN 77-2011: BEAR POND RANCH/FRENCH MT. BEAR POND - FOR FURTHER TABLING CONSIDERATION MR. HUNSINGER-Is there any update there, Keith? I know we're waiting on the APA to act, right? MR. OBORNE-We may be able to get an update from counsel. MR. HUNSINGER-Sure. MICHAEL O'CONNOR MR. O'CONNOR-Okay. Thank you. For the record, I'm Michael O'Connor from the law firm of Little & O'Connor. We're still putting together the application that we need for the APA. We hope to have it filed by April 15th, and I'm not sure what the timetable will be after that. They have 15 days to say whether the application's complete or not complete. Typically you always get a notice of incompletion, and then we have to respond to that. We have had the visual preliminaries with them and we have submitted to them sites that we are going to have visual simulations prepared from, and they've agreed to that list of sites. Actually I think we have 10 sites, maybe even a little bit more than that, and that's in the process of being done. MR. HUNSINGER-So are you going to do a balloon test or? MR. O'CONNOR-No, no. We're doing computer simulation. MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. So then that would be available to us when you come for site plan review. MR. O'CONNOR-Yes. I don't even think, I would think, if you want, try and table this to May 15th. We would have enough material so that you could have some input at that point, because there is no SEQRA. This is going to be, you're coordinating your efforts with APA. MR. HUNSINGER-Right. MR. O'CONNOR-And I don't know how they expect the Board to do that. We deal mainly with APA staff at this point. So they don't actually go to a public process until we actually have an application that's complete. Truthfully I've never done an application where we're getting permits and like this. I guess probably, I take that back. I've done it in Fort Ann a couple of times. We work on our application, in Fort Ann what we've done, and gotten pretty much conceptual approval or approval from the local board, but not with a formal motion, and then APA takes their final action. So that may be the process that we've got to do here. MR. OBORNE-Yes. I mean, my understanding is that they'll do the environmental review, obviously. Don't forget, this is bifurcated between two towns, and our portion is the upper portion, Queensbury, and this is under the auspices of site plan review. That's about it. So they'll take care of the environmental aspect of it. Now obviously that doesn't preclude you from having concerns or sending a letter to the APA with your concerns to help them along, but until that happens, we won't be sending anything. 3 (Queensbury Planning Board 03/20/2012) MR. O'CONNOR-We're also in the process of revising the site plan part of the application in the Town of Lake George. We've stepped back as to the global things that we foresee some time way down the road on the site. So we've tried to simplify it and basically it's going to be an application for the zip line, and some improved property, or parking on the property, and an improved ring road for traffic movement, and that'll be at, we've taken off the table the, or are taking off the table the festival areas, and that's where we're going. MR. TRAVER-Question. You mentioned, I think, that you were preparing an application or you had prepared an application for the APA. MR. O'CONNOR-Yes. MR. TRAVER-You sent that in, and then it sounded like you were saying that a fairly typical procedure for them is to look it over and then send you a notice what is incomplete about your application? MR. O'CONNOR-Yes. MR. TRAVER-And then you respond to make sure that to their satisfaction it's complete, and then you're heard? MR. O'CONNOR-Yes. MR. TRAVER-Thank you. Interesting. MR. O'CONNOR-We've had a pre-application meeting with them. MR. TRAVER-Okay. MR. O'CONNOR-And they had their engineers there. They had environmental, two or three environmental people there, and they had an attorney and the lead project, project lead. MR. TRAVER-1 ask only because we've, from time to time, we've had similar issues with incomplete applications, and it sounds like they, or at least that's one way of dealing with it. MR. O'CONNOR-Yes, well, Staff makes that determination. MR. TRAVER-Right. MR. HUNSINGER-And they don't limit it to just one. MR. O'CONNOR-One incomplete. MR. HUNSINGER-Yes. MR. O'CONNOR-Unfortunately, no, they don't. MR. HUNSINGER-Exactly. That was the point I wanted to get across. I mean, they'll send you the incomplete notice and say we need, you know, X, Y, and Z. You give them X, Y, and Z then they say A, B, and C, too. MR. TRAVER-They come up with something else. MR. OBORNE-We don't do that here. MR. TRAVER-No, of course not. MR. HUNSINGER-Never did that. MR. O'CONNOR-1 have a subdivision in Fort Ann right now that they actually signed off on, like I said, everybody is happy, but you've got to go back and get the Lake George Park Commission approval. You've got to get the Army Corps approval, and who else, Tom, and somebody else, and as we've gotten those people's final approvals, they tinkered with it. So we sent it all in and said, here it is, everybody's happy. Well now we want to take a second or third or fourth look. I forget what it was, and they're in the process now of looking at how we tinkered with it on that 10 lot subdivision. MR. OBORNE-That'll teach you to tinker. 4 (Queensbury Planning Board 03/20/2012) MR. O'CONNOR-Well, but the boards asked. MR. TRAVER-But these are the same individuals looking at it. MR. O'CONNOR-Yes, but I mean, if the boards, you know, you ask for something specific and we say yes, we will do it, then that re-generates the review process to the point that it's like running around the barn sometimes. MR. HUNSINGER-Sometimes, yes. MR. TRAVER-Interesting. Thank you for that information. MR. O'CONNOR-So I would ask, if you would, table it to your May meeting. We should have something on your table in plenty of time before your May meeting for you to look at. MR. TRAVER-May 15, 1 think you suggested. MR. O'CONNOR-May 15th is fine. RESOLUTION TABLING SP # 77-2011 BEAR POND RANCH MOTION TO TABLE SITE PLAN NO. 77-2011 BEAR POND RANCH / FRENCH MT. BEAR POND, Introduced by Stephen Traver who moved for its adoption, seconded by Brad Magowan: On January 17, 2012 this application was tabled to March 20, 2012. No new information was submitted; therefore this will be tabled to Tuesday, May 15, 2012 with a submission deadline of Monday, April 16, 2012. Duly adopted this 20th day of March 2012 by the following vote: AYES: Mr. Traver, Mr. Sipp, Mr. Deeb, Mr. Magowan, Mr. Ferone, Mr. Hunsinger NOES: None ABSENT: Mr. Ford MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. I was going to tell you not to go too far, Mr. O'Connor, because you're up next also. MR. OBORNE-No, unless you're representing Christine. MR. HUNSINGER-I'm sorry, I thought you were. My mistake. MR. O'CONNOR-I've had input before. My only comment is Christine Mozal is very happy with this plan. MR. HUNSINGER-Good. We have two items on the agenda this evening for recommendation to the Zoning Board of Appeals. PLANNING BOARD RECOMMENDATIONS TO ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS: SUBDIVISION NO. 8-2008 MODIFICATION SEAR TYPE UNLISTED CHRISTINE MOZAL/DONALD MARSHALL AGENT(S) THOMAS HUTCHINS OWNER(S) SAME AS APPLICANTS ZONING WR-WATERFRONT RESIDENTIAL LOCATION 99 FITZGERALD ROAD SUBDIVISION: APPLICANT PROPOSES A LOT LINE ADJUSTMENT INVOLVING A TOTAL OF 3 LOTS OF WHICH TWO LOTS ARE ASSOCIATED WITH A PREVIOUSLY APPROVED SUBDIVISION. MODIFICATION TO A PREVIOUSLY APPROVED SUBDIVISION REQUIRES PLANNING BOARD REVIEW AND APPROVAL. VARIANCE: RELIEF REQUESTED FROM SIDE SETBACK AND LOT SIZE REQUIREMENTS OF THE WR ZONE. CROSS REFERENCE AV 10-12, SP 3-10, AV 4-10, AV 70-08, AV 77-98, SP 34-91 APA, CEA, OTHER GLEN LAKE CEA, NWI WETLANDS LOT SIZE 1.01, 2.42 & 0.14 ACRES TAX MAP NO. 289.14-27.1, 27.2 &28 SECTION CHAPTER A-183 TOM HUTCHINS, REPRESENTING APPLICANT, PRESENT;DONALD MARSHALL, PRESENT MR. HUNSINGER-Keith? MR. OBORNE-Yes. Both the applicant and Staff certainly are hoping for closure on this issue. It's been an ongoing thing since 2008, actually that's not true, since 2010, for Marshall, but this is, the first step is, we'll try to walk you through this, is a recommendation to the Zoning Board of 5 (Queensbury Planning Board 03/20/2012) Appeals, and what we have is a lot line adjustment to begin with, to get everybody, not necessarily compliant, but more compliant, because the lot line's running right through the house, and we want to go ahead and take care of that. So I'll start with that one. This is a recommendation to the Zoning Board of Appeals. It's 99 Fitzgerald Road. The residential district is Waterfront, and this is an Unlisted or reaffirm a previous SEQRA Findings from '09. If you remember Mozal had a subdivision back in '09. With that follows the Parcel History. Project Description for subdivision: Applicant proposes a lot line adjustment involving a total of 3 lots of which two lots are associated with a previously approved subdivision. Modification to a previously approved subdivision requires Planning Board review and approval. Variance: Relief requested from side setback and lot size requirements of the WR zone. Staff Comments: This boundary line adjustment is associated with property owned by Donald Marshall and Christine Mozal and stems from the project to remove and replace stairs and decks on the Marshall property. Currently the west property line bisects the existing dwelling on the Marshall parcel and the existing shed is located totally on the Mozal parcel. That shed is Marshall's shed. It is the intent of this boundary adjustment to have all structures not encroaching on the lands of Mozal and placed within the boundary of the newly adjusted parcel. Nature of the Area Variances. First for Mozal - East side setback - what follows is a request for 15.9 feet of relief from the 20 foot side setback requirement. Again, east side setback for Mozal - Request for 15.4 feet of relief from the 20 foot side setback requirement, and what these have to do is with the deck located nearest the shoreline and the deck located to the south respectively. Lot size (Mozal) - Request for 0.99 acre of relief from the 2 acre requirement of the WR zone for proposed Lot 1 of the subdivision. Lot size for (Marshall) -_Request for 1.86 acres of relief from the 2 acre requirement of the WR zone for proposed lot associated with the lands of Marshall. Additional Comments: What follows is basically what's going on with the square footage and all that, and it wasn't a strict, straight square footage for square footage change. So if it was it may have been a little bit easier, but it wasn't, and density calculations should be considered. We're certainly not requiring it but it should be considered, and with that I'd turn it over to the Board. MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. Thank you. Good evening. MR. HUTCHINS-Good evening, Board. My name is Tom Hutchins. I do business as Hutchins Engineering, Queensbury. With me is property owner Donald Marshall. I believe most of you are familiar with this. We've been here. We were here in November, and the Marshalls were here, or we were here in September. The Marshalls had been here before that. This started with the Marshall's wanting to make an improvement to their property to replace a set of stairs that sorely need to be replaced and to make an improvement with the deck. They had been to the Zoning Board and had some variances at that time. When it came back to the Planning Board some issues came up, some significant issues with the existing boundary. Mr. Marshall has owned this property since 1967, and it's relatively apparent that the intention of the original subdivider was not to run the line through the camp, and what we have done is come up an adjustment with, in cooperation with the neighbor, that attempts to fix this property line issue to the best we can, and it essentially takes the yellow line on that map is the existing line, and you can see where it runs right through the Marshall's camp. It takes the line that is not perpendicular with the lake nor the road, which is always confusing in property line, and it essentially squares it up, but it actually squares it (lost word). So we're getting all of the Marshall's property within the metes and bounds of their parcel, and we're doing that in an adjustment to our, or in order to do that it requires an adjustment to the Mozal subdivision which was done two years ago. So, we have also designed a replacement septic system for the Marshalls. It has been to the Town Board for a variance to install holding tanks and that's been approved. That was done in November 21, 2011. So we have most of the things lined up here. What we're here for tonight is ask for your support for the variances necessary for both the Marshall parcel, which is a very small parcel, and the Mozal parcel. That variance is necessary because of the property line adjustment, and it gets a little closer to Mrs. Mozal's deck, and the Mozals are in agreement with the Marshalls, and we think this plan works and we really want to do this. So we'd ask for your support. Mr. Marshall, anything to add to that? MR. MARSHALL-That's fine. MR. HUNSINGER-Questions, comments from members of the Board? MR. MAGOWAN-I think you did a very good job on that line. MR. MARSHALL-Okay. MR. TRAVER-Yes, that was certainly a complicated adjustment to be made. MR. MAGOWAN-Yes, you didn't have too many options. MR. HUTCH INS-Christine's happy with it. 6 (Queensbury Planning Board 03/20/2012) MR. HUNSINGER-No other questions or comments from the Boards? What we're asked to do this evening. I'm sorry, Don. MR. SIPP-Will there be any removal of trees, plants in order to move this line? MR. HUTCHINS-In order to move the line? No. To move the line it's paper. The line is a paper exercise. Now we'll be back, assuming we get these variances, we'll be back before you for next week with Site Plan Review, and modification of the approved subdivision, because you can't modify the subdivision until we have the variances, I believe. MR. HUNSINGER-Right. MR. HUTCHINS-So we'll be back next week with the details of the improvements, and subdivision modification. MR. HUNSINGER-We're drawing lines on the paper. We have a public hearing scheduled, Keith? MR. OBORNE-For a recommendation, if this is an Unlisted, yes, you would have one. MR. HUNSINGER-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? PUBLIC HEARING OPEN MR. HUNSINGER-1 will open the public hearing. I see no takers. Any written comments, Keith? MR. OBORNE-No written comments. MR. HUNSINGER-So we leave the public hearing open until next week. MR. OBORNE-Yes. You certainly could do that. Absolutely. MR. HUNSINGER-All right. MR. OBORNE-We probably should go ahead and execute on SEQRA, although that is not necessary at this time. MR. HUNSINGER-That's what I was just going to say. MR. OBORNE-Okay. It is an Unlisted action. So if you feel comfortable moving ahead and getting SEQRA out of the way, that's fine. MR. HUNSINGER-Well, we have to do SEQRA before the Zoning Board can take action. MR. OBORNE-Not necessarily. MR. TRAVER-My notes say affirm SEQRA. Did we do SEQRA already? I don't remember. Did we do SEQRA once before on this? MR. OBORNE-You did do SEQRA once before on the lot line, yes, on the subdivision. That's what we're asking is for reaffirmation of that. MR. TRAVER-Okay. MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. MR. OBORNE-At this point. Unless you feel that there are, as a result of this application, there are additional environmental issues. MR. TRAVER-Okay. Well, I'll make a motion. MOTION TO REAFFIRM THE EARLIER PLANNING BOARD SEQRA NEGATIVE DECLARATION IN THAT THE APPLICATION BEFORE US HAS NO ADDITIONAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS THAT NEED TO BE ADDRESSED REGARDING SUBDIVISION NO. 8-2008 CHRISTINE MOZAL & DONALD MARSHALL, Introduced by Stephen Traver who moved for its adoption, seconded by Brad Magowan: 7 (Queensbury Planning Board 03/20/2012) Duly adopted this 20th day of March, 2012, by the following vote: AYES: Mr. Sipp, Mr. Deeb, Mr. Magowan, Mr. Ferone, Mr. Traver, Mr. Hunsinger NOES: NONE ABSENT: Mr. Ford MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. Now we can consider a recommendation to the Zoning Board. MR. TRAVER-Yes. Does anyone have any concerns that they feel that we need to pass along to the ZBA when they hear this? Other than the information that's already going to be before them? MR. HUNSINGER-1 don't think so. I didn't hear any. MR. MAGOWAN-They didn't have too many options. MR. TRAVER-Right. No, I agree. I'm just asking. All right. RESOLUTION RE: ZBA RECOMMENDATION FOR AV 10-12 MOZAL & MARSHALL The applicant has submitted an application for the following: Subdivision: Applicant proposes a lot line adjustment involving a total of 3 lots of which two lots are associated with a previously approved subdivision. Modification to a previously approved subdivision requires Planning Board review and approval. Variance: Relief requested from side setback and lot size requirements of the WR zone; The Town of Queensbury Zoning Ordinance, per Section 179-9-070 J 2 b. requires the Planning Board to provide a written recommendation to the Zoning Board of Appeals for projects that require both Zoning Board of Appeals & Planning Board approval; and The Planning Board has briefly reviewed and discussed this application, the relief request in the variance application as well as the potential impacts of this project on the neighborhood and surrounding community, and found that: MOTION TO MAKE A RECOMMENDATION ON BEHALF OF THE PLANNING BOARD TO THE ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS FOR AREA VARIANCE NO. 10-2012 & SITE PLAN 3- 2010 FOR CHRISTINE MOZAL & DONALD MARSHALL: Introduced by Stephen Traver who moved its adoption, seconded by Brad Magowan; and The Planning Board, based on a limited review, has not identified any significant adverse impacts that cannot be mitigated with the current project proposal. Duly adopted this 20th day of March 2012 by the following vote: MR. HUNSINGER-Point of discussion. This is just for the. MR. TRAVER-The line adjustment. MR. HUNSINGER-The subdivision, yes. MR. TRAVER-Right. MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. AYES: Mr. Sipp, Mr. Deeb, Mr. Magowan, Mr. Ferone, Mr. Traver, Mr. Hunsinger NOES: NONE ABSENT: Mr. Ford MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. You're all set. MR. HUTCHINS-Okay. Does that meet our obligation for both these applications? MR. OBORNE-That does as far as your area variances associated with the lot line adjustments. MR. HUTCHINS-Okay. 8 (Queensbury Planning Board 03/20/2012) MR. OBORNE-Now you still have to go through the next application which is Donald's portion of the application. MR. HUTCHINS-Okay. MR. HUNSINGER-Yes, that's why I wanted to make that point of clarification before we took the vote. MR. HUTCHINS-Okay. SITE PLAN NO. 3-2010 SEAR TYPE II DONALD MARSHALL AGENT(S) HUTCHINS ENGINEERING OWNER(S) DONALD MARSHALL ZONING WR-WATERFRONT RESIDENTIAL LOCATION 101 FITZGERALD ROAD EXT. SITE PLAN: APPLICANT PROPOSES REMOVAL OF 130 SQ. FT. OF EXISTING STAIRS AND REPLACEMENT WITH 320 SQ. FT. OF STAIRS, LANDINGS, AND DECKING. FURTHER A 23 SQ. FT. ACCESS LANDING AND STAIRS TO BE REMOVED AND REPLACED ON THE WEST SIDE OF STRUCTURE. APPLICANT HAS RECEIVED ZBA APPROVAL FOR A 116 SQ. FT. DECK ALONG SHORELINE (AV 4-2010), TOTAL SQUARE FEET OF NEW STAIRS, LANDING AND DECKING EQUATES TO 456 SQUARE FEET. HARD SURFACING WITHIN 50 FEET OF SHORELINE, REMOVAL OF VEGETATION WITHIN 35 FEET OF A SHORELINE AND EXPANSION OF A NONCONFORMING STRUCTURE IN A CEA REQUIRES PLANNING BOARD REVIEW AND APPROVAL. VARIANCE: RELIEF REQUESTED FROM SHORELINE AND SIDE SETBACK REQUIREMENTS OF THE WR ZONE. FURTHER RELIEF REQUESTED FOR THE EXPANSION OF A NONCONFORMING STRUCTURE IN A CEA. CROSS REFERENCE AV 9-12, SUB 8-08M, AV 4-10; BP 06-572 APA, CEA, OTHER GLEN LAKE CEA, NWI WETLANDS LOT SIZE 0.14 +/-ACRES TAX MAP NO. 289.14-1-28 (289.14- 1-27.1, 27.2, 28) SECTION § 179-9 TOM HUTCHINS, REPRESENTING APPLICANT, PRESENT;DONALD MARSHALL, PRESENT MR. HUNSINGER-So the Site Plan 3-2010 is a separate item before the Board this evening for Donald Marshall. Keith? MR. OBORNE-And it is confusing, and if you have any questions, give me a call. Site Plan 3- 2010, Donald Marshall, again, this is a recommendation to the Zoning Board of Appeals. Keep in mind that you had already issued a recommendation for this and you had already approved this, but the nature has changed. So now we need to go through the process. MR. HUNSINGER-Because the lot lines changed. MR. OBORNE-Because the lot lines changed, exactly. MR. HUNSINGER-So we need the paperwork to catch up with reality. MR. OBORNE-Exactly. So this is 101 Fitzgerald Road Extension. Waterfront Residential is the zoning. This is not an Unlisted SEQRA. This is a Type II SEQRA. That is a typo on that and I apologize for that. Project Description: Site Plan: Applicant proposes removal of 130 sq. ft. of existing stairs and replacement with 320 sq. ft. of stairs, landings, and decking. Further a 23 sq. ft. access landing and stairs to be removed and replaced on the west side of structure. Applicant has received ZBA approval for a 116 sq. ft. deck along shoreline (AV 4-2010), total square feet of new stairs, landing and decking equates to 456 square feet. The reason that you're going to Site Plan Review is for hard surfacing within 50 feet of a shoreline, removal of vegetation within 35 feet of a shoreline and expansion of a nonconforming structure in a CEA. Variance: Relief requested from shoreline and side setback requirements of the WR zone. Further relief requested for the expansion of a nonconforming structure in a CEA. As previously mentioned, the applicant had received approval for the deck proposed along the shoreline; please see attached resolution A.V. 4-2010. The proposed property line adjustment does not affect this approval; So the deck along the shoreline, this property line adjustment had no issues whatsoever with this deck. It is the stairs and decking associated with access to the house that we're looking at only. The applicant has received approval for a holding tank from the Town B.O.H. on 11/21/11, see attached. What follows is the nature of the area variances. Shoreline - Request for 40.5 feet of relief from the 50 foot shoreline setback for the stairs leading to the shoreline. East side setback - Request for 13.8 feet of relief from the 20 foot setback requirement of the WR zone for landing associated with stairs leading to the shoreline. West side setback - Request for 17.9 feet of relief from the 20 foot side setback requirement of the WR zone for the landing and stairs associated with west side access to camp. Permeability - Request for 8.5% or an additional 519 sq. ft. of permeability relief from the 25% requirement of the WR zone. Resulting permeability equates to 33.5%. Expansion of a Non-conforming 9 (Queensbury Planning Board 03/20/2012) structure - The Zoning Board of Appeals must approve this request. As far as the Site Plan goes, I have no issues whatsoever. There's erosion and sedimentation control taken care of and there's a holding tank, and with that I'd turn it over to the Board. MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. Thank you. Good evening. MR. HUTCHINS-Good evening. MR. HUNSINGER-Did you have anything else that you wanted to add? MR. HUTCHINS-Very briefly. The only, just to clarify, the reason why we're, these variances were approved the last time they went through the Zoning Board. The reason we're back asking for variances on this particular site is because the boundary line moved and is now closer to that deck. MR. HUNSINGER-Right. MR. HUTCHINS-So, with that, same explanation as before. MR. TRAVER-So again it's essentially a line on a map, not a change to the proposal. MR. HUTCHINS-Right. The proposal remains the same. The deck remains the same. MR. MAGOWAN-This is a year round house? MR. HUTCHINS-No. MR. MAGOWAN-I'd hate to shovel those steps. MR. HUTCHINS-No. MR. HUNSINGER-Any other questions, comments from the Board? We do have a public hearing scheduled for this application this evening. Is there anyone in the audience that wants to address the Board on this project? PUBLIC HEARING OPEN MR. HUNSINGER-I'll open the public hearing. I don't see any takers. Any written comments, Keith? MR. OBORNE-No. MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. It's a Type II SEQRA so no further SEQRA review is necessary unless there's an issue that we identify. So with that, I'd entertain a recommendation. RESOLUTION RE: ZBA RECOMMENDATION FOR AV 9-2012 DONALD MARSHALL The applicant has submitted an application for the following: Site Plan: Applicant proposes removal of 130 sq. ft. of existing stairs and replacement with 320 sq. ft. of stairs, landings, and decking. Further a 23 sq. ft. access landing and stairs to be removed and replaced on the west side of structure. Applicant has received ZBA approval for a 116 sq. ft. deck along shoreline (AV 4-2010), total square feet of new stairs, landing and decking equates to 456 square feet. Hard surfacing within 50 feet of a shoreline, removal of vegetation within 35 feet of a shoreline and expansion of a nonconforming structure in a CEA requires Planning Board review and approval. Variance: Relief requested from shoreline and side setback requirements of the WR zone. Further relief requested for the expansion of a nonconforming structure in a CEA; The Town of Queensbury Zoning Ordinance, per Section 179-9-070 J 2 b. requires the Planning Board to provide a written recommendation to the Zoning Board of Appeals for projects that require both Zoning Board of Appeals & Planning Board approval; and The Planning Board has briefly reviewed and discussed this application, the relief request in the variance application as well as the potential impacts of this project on the neighborhood and surrounding community, and found that: MOTION TO MAKE A RECOMMENDATION ON BEHALF OF THE PLANNING BOARD TO THE ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS FOR AREA VARIANCE NO. 9-2012 & SITE PLAN 3-2010 FOR DONALD MARSHALL: Introduced by Stephen Traver who moved its adoption, seconded by Donald Sipp; and 10 (Queensbury Planning Board 03/20/2012) The Planning Board, based on a limited review, has not identified any significant adverse impacts that cannot be mitigated with current project proposal. Duly adopted this 20th day of March 2012 by the following vote: AYES: Mr. Sipp, Mr. Deeb, Mr. Magowan, Mr. Ferone, Mr. Traver, Mr. Hunsinger NOES: NONE ABSENT: Mr. Ford MR. HUNSINGER-So I assume this is before the ZBA tomorrow night, as well. MR. HUTCHINS-Yes. MR. HUNSINGER-And you're coming back next week. MR. HUTCHINS-And we'll be back next week. MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. Great. Good luck. OLD BUSINESS: SUBDIVISION NO. 1-2011 PRELIMINARY STAGE FWW 1-2011 SEAR TYPE I VMJR COMPANIES AGENT(S) MJ ENGINEERING OWNER(S) FOREST ENTERPRISE MGMT. ZONING CLI-COMM. LIGHT IND. LOCATION QUAKER RD./QUEENSBURY AVE. SUBDIVISION: APPLICANT PROPOSES SUBDIVISION OF AN 84 +/- ACRE PARCEL INTO FIVE (5) COMMERCIAL LOTS RANGING IN SIZE FROM 6.49 ACRES TO 29.78 ACRES WITH 10.69 +/- ACRES PROPOSED AS OPEN SPACE. FURTHER, EXTENSION OF QUAKER RIDGE BOULEVARD TO ACCESS MAIN PARCEL PROPOSED. SUBDIVISION OF LAND REQUIRES PLANNING BOARD REVIEW AND APPROVAL. FRESHWATER WETLANDS: PROPOSED CONSTRUCTION WITHIN 100 FEET OF WETLANDS [GREAT CEDAR SWAMP] REQUIRES PLANNING BOARD REVIEW AND APPROVAL. CROSS REFERENCE SP 65-10, SP 49-10 APA, CEA, OTHER DEC, ACOE LOT SIZE 6.39& 84 +/- ACRES TAX MAP NO. 303.11-1-4, 303.15-1-25.2 SECTION § CHAPTER A-183 MR. HUNSINGER-And when we walked in this evening we received a copy of the e-mail request from the applicant asking that it be tabled to our April 17th meeting. Is there anyone here in the audience that was here for the public hearing on that this evening? Okay. We will open the public hearing and leave the public hearing open. PUBLIC HEARING OPEN MR. HUNSINGER-Did you have anything else that you wanted to add, Keith, relative to the discussion? MR. OBORNE-Just that VMJR's people need to coordinate with themselves on a date to come on up to the Town and discuss the outstanding issues that relate to engineering and my Staff Notes update. At this point in time, I just want to state for the record that the Staff Notes at this point in time are basically historical in nature and they show you exactly what has happened over time. MR. TRAVER-Or what has not happened. MR. OBORNE-Or what has not happened. Correct. MR. TRAVER-Right. MR. OBORNE-And moving forward from this point in time I will continue to add to those notes, just so that it's in the record, but you will be receiving updates instead. MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. MR. OBORNE-And I will focus on that, at this point. We're whittling it down. I think we're getting there, but they need to coordinate with their folks and they'll give me a call and Craig and I and Mike Hill will sit down with them and go over, point by point, what needs to be done. 11 (Queensbury Planning Board 03/20/2012) MR. HUNSINGER-Okay, and I think that sit down meeting would be really helpful at this point. MR. OBORNE-Yes, let's hope so. We've already had one sit down meeting, and that went well, but at the same point, they did ask for the road waiver. MR. HUNSINGER-Right. MR. OBORNE-So, regardless of that, that's where we're at right now. They're looking for April 17th. I think that's a little bit ambitious, but that is what she asked for. MR. HUNSINGER-That was going to be my next question. Yes. MR. OBORNE-If they're not ready, they're not ready. MR. HUNSINGER-Well, do you have any feel for the ability to get that meeting together between now and April 17th? Because it's clear from the engineering comments that they submitted materials that have not yet been reviewed. MR. OBORNE-That is correct. MR. HUNSINGER-Do I don't have a problem tabling them to next month based on the submission that has not yet been reviewed. MR. OBORNE-Right. MR. HUNSINGER-But the question is if you can get that meeting in between now and then. MR. OBORNE-Yes, I'm confident we can. MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. MR. OBORNE-If not, they're going to be put on as an administrative item at that point. MR. HUNSINGER-Yes. MR. OBORNE-They have to satisfy these notes. MR. HUNSINGER-Right. MR. OBORNE-And these outstanding issues. MR. TRAVER-With that in mind, I notice that there's still no proposal for the road connecting to Queensbury Avenue. MR. OBORNE-And that is also part of the update, and that is true. MR. TRAVER-And understanding the next step, as I understand it, in our process is SEQRA review, at least that's what the applicant is seeking and it seems the logical step. Would it be, it doesn't appear to me that there's any way that we can conduct SEQRA without at least a proposal for this road, since we made it a requirement for the variance, for the road length, that any development of any kind on Phase I would require that road. Therefore, in order to consider the development under SEQRA for Phase, even, and even if we talk about separating Phase I from Phase 11 for SEQRA purposes, the road, unambiguously, needs to be connected with that Phase I development, is my understanding. MR. OBORNE-1 cannot disagree with you on that point. MR. TRAVER-Okay. In that case would there be value in including in the tabling resolution that as part of the material to be submitted and reviewed in tandem with Staff be a proposal for that connector road, so that we have something to review and can move this project forward? MR. OBORNE-When you mean a proposal for the connector road, do you mean having it flat with the County as to its location? MR. TRAVER-Well, I understand that there are ongoing negotiations for that? MR. OBORNE-Yes. 12 (Queensbury Planning Board 03/20/2012) MR. TRAVER-And my feeling, as far as SEQRA purposes is concerned, is that a proposal for a, if you will, a road design, absent an agreement with the County, can be proposed so that we can conduct SEQRA. If later on they need to find out, based on that agreement or other factors such as the wetlands or whatever that that road design needs to be changed we can re-visit SEQRA as we've done with other applications, but absent even a proposal, how can we even consider SEQRA is my question. So I'm wondering if, in order to help this project forward, we require, as part of them getting back on the agenda to be re-heard, that some kind of a proposal for that connector road be included for SEQRA purposes. MR. OBORNE-Similar to the Sketch Plan they showed you back in '09 or 2010, they actually had a road out there. MR. TRAVER-Yes, although it wasn't a road that met the requirements that we talked about. It was, you know. MR. SIPP-Well, it's got to be, some private landowner has got to let them get out to Queensbury Avenue. If it hasn't happened by May 15th, there's no sense in them coming in. MR. TRAVER-Right. MR. SIPP-Because that road cannot be established until they get a firm approval or a right of way across the person's private land, there's no sense going any further. MR. TRAVER-Right, and I understand their position is they can't, they're resistant to presenting a design for the road because they don't have an agreement, but yet they're presenting us with a proposal for a subdivision and they don't have an agreement on that either. So if they can propose a hypothetical subdivision, I submit that they can propose a hypothetical road. MR. OBORNE-I think you may want to put that, hypothetically speaking, in the motion, absolutely, as a condition of tabling if the Board feels that that is necessary, absolutely, and any other issue that you see fit. MR. HUNSINGER-And just to further elaborate on that, I know this is Steve's thinking, is it makes it easier for us to move forward with SEQRA if there's something concrete, even if it may change, even knowing that it may change. MR. OBORNE-You know, that's one of many issues that you need to consider before moving forward with SEQRA on this particular project. I mean, you also have the avigation easement. You also have the obstruction evaluation, which I believe for the record was not properly done, but nevertheless, they'll probably argue against that. MR. HUNSINGER-Yes. I also just wanted to throw out, for the benefit of the Board, I did have a couple of conversations today with Town Counsel, with Mike Hill, and during the second conversation he offered to meet with the Board before the meeting, or, you know, whatever, just to answer some general questions that we might have about the SEQRA process, the whole issue about segmentation, and I just kind of want to throw it out there, you know, if people are willing, certainly counsel's willing to come in a few minutes early before the meeting that we table it to to talk about those things. MR. TRAVER-Absolutely. That would definitely have some benefit, although again, it's my feeling and of course only mine at this point, that the segmentation issue is a moot point because when we gave them the variance we connected that road. So that, I don't see how there's a segmentation involved, at this point. MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. MR. TRAVER-But, again, that's only. MR. HUNSINGER-Well, it might be helpful to get counsel's opinion on that, yes. MR. TRAVER-Absolutely. It always is, sure. MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. So do we feel comfortable tabling it to the April 17th meeting as requested by the applicant? MR. TRAVER-Well, I mean, if we do condition it upon a revised plan, including that road, in your earlier comments, Keith, you pointed to the Staff Notes which talk about a route for that road, and the reasoning behind it, and I'm wondering now if, you know, it may seem like a delay, but 13 (Queensbury Planning Board 03/20/2012) ironically we may be moving this project finally forward if we actually wait beyond April to give them time to have a complete application, so that we can move forward. MR. OBORNE-1 agree. MR. TRAVER-Because this, I mean, it's my feeling that this project has been unnecessarily delayed because we've had to keep tabling it and tabling it and tabling it because we haven't gotten enough information to. MR. OBORNE-Yes. You last saw the project in January. MR. TRAVER-So what would be realistic, do you think, assuming that the applicant agrees that they want to move forward and they meet with you in a timely fashion and they submit the plans. May? MR. OBORNE-1 would prefer, and this is me, and if the Board's comfortable, I would prefer April 17th. MR. TRAVER-Okay. MR. OBORNE-Because that gives them a lit fuse, so to speak. It would at least get them moving and would keep it also on my radar screen to make sure I keep hitting them up for, let's go, let's go, let's move. MR. TRAVER-Certainly. Okay. So then for our tabling motion, we would have two conditions, I'm thinking, at this point, one being that a meeting be held at their earliest convenience with the Planning Department and Staff to address engineering and Staff comments, and, two, that before the application is, reappears on our agenda, that a design for the connector road to Queensbury Avenue be submitted for SEQRA purposes. MR. OBORNE-Yes. I think that's fabulous. I think, speaking to the first one, I think you may want to give them a drop dead date. If they don't meet with us by a certain time, they're going to be put on as an Administrative Item and tabled out to May. MR. TRAVER-Okay. MR. OBORNE-And let me look at the calendar here. We've got Thursday prior. I think that's pushing it. MR. HUNSINGER-1 was going to say, I would say. MR. TRAVER-Yes, I mean, considering that they might have to modify their application, based on the results of that meeting. MR. HUNSINGER-1 was going to say by the end of March. MR. TRAVER-I'd almost like to come to that meeting myself, just to be there and participate. MR. OBORNE-How about Friday the 6th of April? MR. HUNSINGER-That's what I was just going to suggest. MR. TRAVER-Friday, April 6m MR. OBORNE-A meeting no later than Friday the 6th of April must be scheduled. MR. TRAVER-Must be held or must be scheduled? MR. OBORNE-Must be held. MR. TRAVER-Okay. RESOLUTION TABLING SUB # 1-2011 & FWW 1-2011 VMJR COMPANIES A subdivision application has been made to the Queensbury Planning Board for the following: Subdivision: Applicant proposes subdivision of an 84 +/- acre parcel into five (5) commercial lots ranging in size from 6.49 acres to 29.78 acres with 10.69 +/- acres proposed as open space. Further, extension of Quaker Ridge Boulevard to access main parcel proposed. Subdivision of land requires Planning Board review and approval. Freshwater Wetlands: Proposed 14 (Queensbury Planning Board 03/20/2012) construction within 100 feet of wetlands [Big Cedar Swamp] requires Planning Board review and approval; A public hearing was scheduled and held on 4/26, 5/31, 7/26, 9/20 11/15/11; 1/17/12, Tabled to 3/20/2012; This application is supported with all documentation, public comment and application material in the file of record; MOTION TO TABLE PRELIMINARY STAGE SUBDIVISION NO. 1-2011 & FRESHWATER WETLANDS PERMIT NO. 1-2011 VMJR COMPANIES, Introduced by Stephen Traver who moved for its adoption, seconded by Brad Magowan: Tabled to the Planning Board's meeting of April 17th with the following two conditions: 1. That the applicant arrange to conduct a meeting with the Planning Department and support staff no later than April 6th to address engineering and staff comments. 2. That a design for the connector road to the County Line Road be submitted with the application before it re-appears on our agenda for SEQRA evaluation purposes. Duly adopted this 20th day of March, 2012, by the following vote: AYES: Mr. Sipp, Mr. Deeb, Mr. Magowan, Mr. Ferone Mr. Traver, Mr. Hunsinger NOES: NONE ABSENT: Mr. Ford SITE PLAN NO. 1-2012 & SPECIAL USE PERMIT NO. 11-2012 SEAR TYPE UNLISTED WILLIAM THREW AGENT(S) HUTCHINS ENGINEERING OWNER(S) SAME AS APPLICANT ZONING CLI-COMM. LIGHT INDUSTRIAL LOCATION 375 BIG BAY ROAD & OFF EAGAN 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 & 2-12M 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 MICHAEL O'CONNOR & TOM HUTCHINS, REPRESENTING APPLICANT, PRESENT MR. HUNSINGER-Keith? MR. OBORNE-As previously stated, Site Plan 1-2012, Special Use Permit 11-2012, Area Variance 1-2012 for William Threw. Site Plan Review is the requested action. This is 375 Big Bay Road and off of Eagan Road. CLI is the existing zoning. SEQRA status is Unlisted for this. So you will be required to do SEQRA. Warren County Planning, actually, let me step back on that. You already accomplished SEQRA, I believe, on this. We're here for variances. No, I don't believe you have. I think you table this out, but I'll research that, though, Chairman. This has already been to Warren County Planning. There was no action in January. Project Description: Proposal calls for a boundary line adjustment between the northern and southern lots as well as combining the northern lot with existing south-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. Now the Special Use Permit is associated specifically for the sawmill and firewood operations. Staff comments: The sawmill and firewood operation are reviewed under the auspices of a Special Use Permit and will require the same level of review as Site Plan Review with the General Criteria for the following to be applied by the Planning Board, and what follows are the six criteria. Please note that on January 17, 2012, the Zoning Board of Appeals approved Area variance 1-2012, and that had to do with the lot size criteria for the sawmill. A stipulation of the approval offered by the applicant was that further expansion of the sawmill and firewood operation would not occur. The Planning Board may wish to consider this stipulation when reviewing the special use permit and site plan 15 (Queensbury Planning Board 03/20/2012) respectively. Updated plans have been submitted by the applicant's engineer. Changes from the previous plan include the following: 1. Stormwater designs, sizes and locations have been modified and have been reviewed by the Town designated engineer. 2. Vehicular entrance previously located on proposed property line, the preferred location to reduce vehicular conflict, now proposed in current location. 3. ZBA has approved the Sawmill acreage variance as previously discussed. What follows is soils, and what follows is also a Site Plan Review, which I'm sure Tom will get into, and furthermore, a letter from Town Counsel dated January 5t" concerning the junkyard use was previously attached, and hopefully you guys brought that forward with you, and Fire Marshall comments are also attached. If there's any questions, I'm here, and with that I'd turn it over to the Board. MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. Thank you. Good evening. MR. O'CONNOR-Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Again, I'm Michael O'Connor from the law firm of Little & O'Connor. I represent the applicant, and with me at the table is Tom Hutchins who is the engineer for the project, and in the audience is William Threw, and Jeffrey Threw, although I think we are speaking mostly of the property that William Threw will continue to own at this point on this part of the application. The second application includes the project, or is the project that Jeffrey is mainly involved in. As I understand it, Tom has gone through most of the engineering comments, thinks that he has either satisfied them or can satisfy them. As to the Staff comments, we would continue the stipulation that there would be no increase in equipment or use of the sawmill or the wood, firewood operation that's on the property. I think since the notes were written up and since we've submitted the application Keith has actually gone out and witnessed a sound test on the sawmill and it's a band saw. We've got a photograph that you can see. It's probably about as long as your table, maybe not that long. It's not a big operation and doesn't run continuously. Basically he saws up logs that he has taken off sites where he cleared into rough lumber and sells the rough lumber. The wood operation is in the back. It's underneath that little pole barn. If you've been to the site, you've seen it, and we plan on no expansion of that use. As to the other comments that I saw on here that I would respond to, on Page Two of the comments it says that you should consider perhaps specifically the southern parcel, which is the piece that goes off toward Eagan Road, and whether or not establishment of a low vegetative buffer for screening of the residential zone. We understand that the first hundred feet of that is to be left as is now except for all the equipment, if any is left there, is to be moved out of there. Most of those neighbors along that boundary already have a privacy fence, a six foot privacy fence. So I don't know what value there would be to adding some low vegetation screening. Our intention is to let that go natural, and probably won't take very long for it to reforest itself and provide some privacy. Those houses were built after this site was developed for its present use. In fact, Mr. Threw was the subdivider, if you will, of those lots and sold those lots off. Another note that I had was there's a question about whether or not the driveway, the common driveway should be relocated to the property line, as opposed to where it is set into Mr. Threw's lot, and I think the Staff's concern was that as you come in past the warehouses there are two or three handicap parking spots there, and whether people backing out of those parking spots would be in conflict with the tractor trailers that come into the site. In all the time that I've been involved in this, I don't know anybody that actually uses those handicap parking spots. That's a warehouse for raw materials for Encore paper company, Baled paper. There aren't many people that are handicapped that work within that facility, and obviously it's on site. If we have a problem with people we certainly can put up signs. The driveway where it is serves two different purposes. One, it allows us to maintain the screening from the road. If you drive by the site, there's a stand of trees that are out there. If we move that, we're going to have to clear some of those trees out, which we think is kind of counterproductive. The other thing is that some of the equipment that Jeffrey Threw services on his property is big equipment, and if they come in further to the north they can, it'll be a simpler traffic pattern to swing in behind the building. Most of his, or I guess all of his repair stalls and the entrances to them will be from the back of the building. So there's an internal traffic pattern for why it was placed where it was. There's a little bit of an environmental problem, or reason for it, and certainly probably thirdly there's a cost thing. We're trying to clean up a site that has been somewhat controversial. It's a site that's been used for a construction headquarters since 1985. There were some changes in the zoning which created some problems. Some of the permits or some of the uses that were permitted, there's a lot of work to be done on that site and we're hopeful, and if you've looked at that site, when I first started looking at it probably seriously maybe two years ago, the site has been improved significantly, and we hope to continue that. If we can get the approvals that we have before you on the table, we can then get building permits. We then can move the Quonset but to the back of the property. We can construct the warehouse that has been in pieces on the trailers throughout the back end of the property, and basically we've also said that we would create a fenced area for the remaining construction equipment. Much of the construction equipment Mr. Threw's in the process of trying to sell, but 16 (Queensbury Planning Board 03/20/2012) he has to ready it for sale. He was, at one time, probably one of the bigger excavators in the Town. Most of the subdivisions up by West Mountain and whatever were, roads were put in by him. He is not that active in that business, but he has all the equipment still. So he's really been working at trying to get rid of that equipment. I don't know what else you had specifically from Staff that I should address. I guess there was a question as to where would he put the logs that he is going to run through his sawmill. If you've been out there recently, there's a pile of dirt, and there's a boat on a trailer. That's where they're going to be. We can show that on a map. Part of the problem, I think, throughout this whole thing, is there's been nothing to hold compliance to or judge by. We've tried to delineate everything that we're going to be doing. There was a question about landscaping. I don't know if it was on this application or the next application. We aren't going to disturb anything out front. We're trying not to disturb anything out front. There is no visibility to anyone else in the rear of the property. If you go directly behind our property, it's pretty well forested. If you go to the north of the property, it's warehousing. There's an electrical warehouse or contractor's warehouse. If you go to the south of the property, you've got the Town's gravel pit and they're storage for their gravel or road materials, and you've got some residences, but they are going to be at the end of that three acre lot, and they have a privacy fence there already. There was also a question, I guess, as to how many trailers he will keep on site for storage, and I think it's approximately six. We can show that on a map. We can line them up on a map. I wanted to talk about if we lined them up so that the front end of the trailer was at the end of the 100 feet, so that they would be an internal set off for that buffer zone as much as anything else. That may be of some interest. I think that's it, unless you've got specific questions. MR. TRAVER-How would you describe the area that you're proposing for the log storage area, for purposes of a motion? You mentioned a dirt pile. MR. O'CONNOR-Okay. That's got to be taken out. MR. TRAVER-Right. MR. O'CONNOR-I mean this whole site has a great deal of grading to it. MR. TRAVER-Isn't it proximate to the mill itself? MR. O'CONNOR-Well, the sawmill itself is portable. MR. TRAVER-Right. MR. O'CONNOR-You hook it up to a pickup and it goes, and we can put it parallel to the sawmill. MR. TRAVER-Very good. MR. HUNSINGER-You made a comment that you felt you could address most of the engineering comments. MR. HUTCHINS-He did. MR. HUNSINGER-Yes, I know. MR. O'CONNOR-The non-engineer. MR. HUNSINGER-It's easy when you're not an engineer. MR. O'CONNOR-I'm good at that. MR. HUNSINGER-Can you walk us through some of the comments? MR. HUTCHINS-Yes. We started with, I don't know, 20, upper 20 something, and now we're down to 11 on this site. I'll get through these. Some of these are items I'm not going to say aren't required but they're things I don't necessarily agree with in this particular situation or application and I will probably have a discussion with the engineer on backing off on some of these requirements that he's asking for, for example, an infiltration device can't be within 25 feet of a building. MR. HUNSINGER-Right. MR. HUTCHINS-Well, in these soils, and with this type of building that are all slab on grade, they're warehouses, a number of, one nice way to deal with rooftop runoff is an infiltration trench 17 (Queensbury Planning Board 03/20/2012) where the water drips from the roof into a trench. Well, if that trench has got to be 25 feet from the building, then you can't do that. None of these are something we won't be able to overcome. If I've got to move the trench 25 feet from the building, then we'll move the trench 25 feet from the building, but I plan to have some, that kind of correspondence with the engineer. MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. MR. HUTCHINS-We've done it in the past. These soils are a little bit unique. They're not unique to Queensbury, but my opinion is they're unique to the people who wrote the design manual because they're all from Syracuse and there aren't soils out there that work like these soils. What we've shown here, there's an abundance of stormwater controls and I'm very confident it's adequate and it'll function well. What we did is similar to what we did at Parker and Hammond right over on Silver Circle on a little larger scale with some of these buildings. So I'm not concerned that we can't address these. MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. MR. HUTCHINS-Just exactly where it's going to end up I don't know. MR. HUNSINGER-Two of the comments that I did want to talk about tonight specifically are the comments from Sean Number Nine and Number Ten related to endangered species and then archeological resources and historic places, and you do have the letter from the wildlife biologist at DEC saying there are no known occurrences of rare State listed animals or plants, but they say they recommend a comprehensive filed survey, or I shouldn't say they recommend. They said a comprehensive field survey has not been conducted, and then the outstanding issue question is on archeological resources. MR. O'CONNOR-My comment on that is this site is 95% developed, if not better than that. I think that that is a total, it's a checklist type review, necessity to put an applicant through is a total waste of money here. There's nothing that's shown on any of the State screens that there is any endangered species or habitat on that site. You're talking $2500, send somebody out to walk and say, gee, this site's all paved. I don't see any habitat, and that's foolish, and I think it's within your jurisdiction to say, on a case by case basis, whether it's necessary. When we saw this on the first engineering letter, I knew I had the endangered species letter. We had sent something to SHPO, just as a matter of course, they had never responded. I called them. They couldn't find anything on it, so I re-sent it to them, and last week I called SHPO, Phil Pereze I think is his name, he says we're 13th on the pile, and that he will get to it, but again, I don't know. Everything within a certain distance of the Hudson River I think will hit that list, but when you explain to him the fact that it's been totally developed, they say, that's all that they're concerned about. They're looking for virgin land, native, you know, land that hasn't been developed to see whether or not there's something on it that should be preserved. I really think that, I don't mind if you want to condition it upon us getting a clearance letter from SHPO. I am 99.9999% that we will get that. I don't see that that's a problem. That doesn't cost the applicant $2500. If I had to send somebody out, Steve Overand or somebody like that, that's another $2500. 1 mean, we do this all the time. We've created an industry in and of itself of consultants, some of whom don't add anything to projects, and probably we've also, I'll include lawyers in that industry as well, folks. MR. TRAVER-Well, it might be easier, and based on your presentation this evening, do you not feel that you can convince the Town Engineer to remove that comment, rather than having to obtain a letter? Because we're going to want an engineering signoff. MR. HUTCHINS-The Town Engineer is essentially writing the verbiage that's in the stormwater permit that we are proposing to operate under. MR. TRAVER-Right. I guess what I'm wondering, Mr. Chairman, if we require an engineering signoff and they have discussion with the engineer regarding comment 10, maybe they could provide that letter to him and he could sign off on the engineering. MR. O'CONNOR-Has that been in all his comment letters at this point? MR. OBORNE-Yes, as well it should be. I'm just looking at this. I mean, there are no known occurrences of rare or State listed animals or plants, significant natural communities, or other significant habitats, on or in the immediate vicinity of these parcels. I mean, and I can't speak for Sean, but I think that he would show a little bit of leniency on that, especially if he visited the site. I think this is pretty straightforward, to be honest with you. SHPO needs to be, they'll issue their letter eventually. I mean, they certainly will, but it's a requirement. 18 (Queensbury Planning Board 03/20/2012) MR. O'CONNOR-It's a requirement if there's a reasonable expectation that you would find something. Typically what we've always done on the Long Form EAF is answer no if we didn't think there was anything, and that used to be the standard. MR. HUNSINGER-Right. MR. TRAVER-Yes. MR. OBORNE-Our standards have increased. MR. O'CONNOR-State agencies have now developed that on any State project you have to have SHPO signoff, but I don't think I, in the towns that I practice in, the towns haven't required that. The towns will still take an applicant's answer that there is nothing on there unless they know of something. MR. OBORNE-But it is a requirement of the soil, you have to have that to get general coverage under SPDES. MR. O'CONNOR-My suggestion on that is that if you can make it conditional and then we will get one. We can't get a building permit until we do that. MR. OBORNE-1 absolutely 100% support that. MR. TRAVER-Okay. So then if we condition this on engineer's signoff, they're going to have to satisfy that to the engineer's satisfaction. MR. OBORNE-Fair enough. MR. O'CONNOR-The other comment that I didn't make, and I don't know if you're done, Tom, or if you're done asking him engineering questions. The other comment was the Staff asked that we coordinate with the Town Counsel the common easement, and we'd stipulate to that. We have no objection to that. MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. MR. SIPP-What about the Item Three, 50 foot Type C buffer required for commercial use and residential use, the buffer requirements as of 179-8-070? MR. O'CONNOR-Well, as I said, there are some trees that are back there that are on our side of the fence, fairly full grown trees. That area that has been cleared was cleared before the single family homes. I don't know if there's a grandfathering issue there or not, but basically we will not go into that area. That's my suggestion. MR. SIPP-Now, as I remember it, they're up 30 feet in the air. MR. O'CONNOR-Yes. MR. SIPP-And what's down below? MR. O'CONNOR-They have a six foot privacy fence along the back line, on their property. MR. SIPP-On their property line. MR. O'CONNOR-On their property, on the residential lots that are built along Eagan Road. The Town has a six foot privacy fence along the back of its property on the west end, and they have stone, I don't know what you call it, barricade along the side of the, Jersey wall along the bare side. MR. OBORNE-Yes. Specifically, the nature of that comment is they definitely have a buffer, but as you see, I mean, you can see through it to the houses there, and that's the nature of that. Now this area is going to be graded down and it's going to open up a little bit more also, and I'm not looking for, nor am I allowed to tell you to do this, is some low growth, something low growth so it'll grow up a little bit over time, and give a little bit of a view shed relief, specifically view shed relief. MR. O'CONNOR-The greatest relief would be all the equipment that you see in there is going to be moved, and is going to be enclosed. MR. OBORNE-Be enclosed, that's true, too. 19 (Queensbury Planning Board 03/20/2012) MR. O'CONNOR-It's either going to be junk, off site, or it's going to be enclosed, and that's a great improvement for what they have. MR. SIPP-Yes, definitely. What about a noise evaluation? Was there ever any noise studies done? MR. O'CONNOR-The only thing that's on the site that would create noise, other than, you know, a construction operation is allowed on that site. The only thing that was separate from that was probably the sawmill, and Tom, you went up and did sound studies on that. Keith witnessed those. MR. OBORNE-I did. MR. O'CONNOR-I think it's not much louder than a lawnmower. MR. OBORNE-Yes, actually the engine itself for the sawmill is louder than actually the logs being sawed. MR. HUNSINGER-Really? MR. OBORNE-There was absolutely no change whatsoever in the sound. MR. TRAVER-The band blade is a lot quieter than a circular. MR. OBORNE-It's not a circular. It's a band. MR. O'CONNOR-And in the past they've had much larger sawmills on that site. Three years ago or four years ago there was a sawmill run off the back of a chasse of a truck that had a blade that was about this high, and. MR. OBORNE-I would have loved to have seen that. MR. SIPP-Were any studies done on the boundary line? The neighbors were here. MR. HUTCHINS-Well, as far as relative to sawmill noise? MR. SIPP-Yes. MR. HUTCHINS-What we did, I mean, we didn't do an incredibly formal study. We took sound level readings at various distances from the sawmill, and, I mean right next to the sawmill it's like 92 decibels, and as you get out 100 feet it's 74. At 200 feet it's 66. At 200 feet it's really kind of hard to tell it from some of the background noise, if there's a truck or something you wouldn't be able to tell the difference. I mean, it sounds like a lawnmower engine or a diesel, a small diesel tractor engine. MR. SIPP-Yes, but that's right up next to it. I'm more worried about, I'm concerned about the neighbors in their backyard having this sound. MR. O'CONNOR-The only neighbors that are there are the neighbors that are along Eagan Road. MR. HUTCHINS-It's over 600 feet. MR. O'CONNOR-There's about 600 feet. Every time you double the distance you lose three decibels. So you start at 50 feet, according to the DEC, and you get your reading, and then every time you double that distance you decrease it by three, and I think Tom's reading at 200 feet was 66. You can double that once, 63, you can probably get it down to about 60, which is probably less than the ambient noise from the Northway that runs on the east side of this property. MR. SIPP-Yes, the east side. MR. HUNSINGER-Not to diminish or dismiss some of these discussions, but I think the fact that there's no one here, none of the neighbors are here, you know, really kind of speaks volumes about their concerns about visual impacts and noise impacts, because we did have a few people come at the first meeting and they asked a few questions, and, I don't know do we have any written comments, Keith? 20 (Queensbury Planning Board 03/20/2012) MR. OBORNE-Let me check the file. I didn't see any. MR. HUNSINGER-1 mean, obviously if it was a problem for the neighborhood I think the neighbors would be here and be voicing concern. MR. O'CONNOR-Honestly the site still looks like World War 11. MR. HUNSINGER-Yes. MR. O'CONNOR-Mr. Threw might not like me saying that, but I mean there's piles here and piles there, but the improvement to the site, since we've been doing this for the last three years, is significant. There was as much material out by the side of the big warehouses as there was in the back. That's all been cleaned up. The only reason, if you went out recently, the portable sawmill was brought out there for convenience sake so that he could repair it, so that he could have it operating so that he could listen to it, but that goes in the backyard, and purposely placed that as far away from that Eagan Road property as we can. MR. HUNSINGER-Any other questions, comments? MR. MAGOWAN-That sawmill, that's not an eight hour operation anyway. MR. OBORNE-But I would like to caution, though, that this doesn't preclude this operation being picked up by somebody else. MR. HUNSINGER-Right. MR. O'CONNOR-We've stipulated that we would not increase the equipment. I very seldom do it, would you accept hours of operation nine o'clock until four o'clock? BILL THREW MR. THREW-Yes. MR. O'CONNOR-If you want to put hours of operation in there nine a.m. until four p.m., that's, you know, as he said that's not his big business. MR. TRAVER-All right. So, let's see, what I have so far, no further expansion of the firewood and sawmill operation. Operation to be restricted to nine a.m. to four p.m., no more than six trailers on the property. Log stockpile parallel to the mill. Engineer's signoff. MR. HUNSINGER-And then Town Counsel review and approve the deed language for the easement. MR. O'CONNOR-On easements. MR. HUNSINGER-We do have a public hearing scheduled this evening. Is there anyone in the audience that wants to address the Board on this project? PUBLIC HEARING OPEN MR. HUNSINGER-Actually the public hearing was left open from the last meeting, and you checked a few minutes ago. Any written comments, Keith? MR. OBORNE-There were no written comments. MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. Is the Board comfortable moving forward? MR. OBORNE-And I will say SEQRA has not been accomplished. MR. HUNSINGER-Has not? Okay. Are you sure? Wouldn't we have had to approve SEQRA in order for it to go before the Zoning Board? MR. OBORNE-No. MR. TRAVER-Yes, I thought we did, too. MR. OBORNE-If it was a Type I SEQRA it would be different. This is an Unlisted SEQRA. MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. 21 (Queensbury Planning Board 03/20/2012) MR. TRAVER-So would that be Long Form or Short Form? MR. OBORNE-We have a Short Form on file for this. That is what was given to us by the applicant. I'm not sure if you would require a Long Form or not. MR. HUNSINGER-What's the feeling of the Board? Short Form okay? MR. TRAVER-Anyone object to using the SEQRA Short Form? MR. MAGOWAN-I don't object. MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. Run with the Short Form. MR. TRAVER-"Does the action exceed any Type I threshold in 6 NYCRR Part 617.4?" MR. HUNSINGER-No. MR. SIPP-No. MR. TRAVER-"Will the action receive coordinated review as provided for Unlisted Actions in 6 NYCRR, Part 617.6?" MR. HUNSINGER-No. MR. SIPP-No. MR. TRAVER-"Could the action result in any adverse effects associated with the following: C1. Existing air quality, surface or ground water quality or quantity, noise levels, existing traffic patterns, solid waste production or disposal, potential for erosion, drainage or flooding problems?" MR. HUNSINGER-No. MR. SIPP-No. MR. TRAVER-"C2. Aesthetic, agricultural, historic, or other natural or cultural resources; or community or neighborhood character?" MR. HUNSINGER-No. MR. SIPP-No. MR. TRAVER-"C3. Vegetation, fauna, fish, shellfish or wildlife species, significant habitats, or threatened or endangered species?" MR. HUNSINGER-No. MR. SIPP-No. MR. TRAVER-"C4. A community's existing plans or goals as officially adopted, or a change in use or intensity of use of land or other natural resources?" MR. HUNSINGER-No. MR. SIPP-No. MR. TRAVER-"C5. Growth, subsequent development or related activities likely to be induced by the proposed action?" MR. HUNSINGER-No. MR. SIPP-No. MR. TRAVER-"C6. Long term, short term, cumulative or other effects not identified above?" MR. HUNSINGER-No. MR. SIPP-No. 22 (Queensbury Planning Board 03/20/2012) MR. TRAVER-"C7. Other impacts (including changes in use of either quantity or energy)?" MR. SIPP-No. MR. HUNSINGER-No. MR. TRAVER-"Will the project have an impact on the environmental characteristics that caused the establishment of a Critical Environmental Area?" MR. HUNSINGER-No. MR. SIPP-No. MR. TRAVER-"Is there or is there likely to be controversy related to potential adverse environmental impacts?" MR. HUNSINGER-No. MR. SIPP-No. MR. TRAVER-Then I'll make a motion that we find a Negative SEQRA review. RESOLUTION WHEN DETERMINATION OF NO SIGNIFICANCE IS MADE RESOLUTION NO. 1-2012 & SUP 11-2012, Introduced by Stephen Traver who moved for its adoption, seconded by Donald Sipp: WHEREAS, there is presently before the Planning Board an application for: WILLIAM THREW, and WHEREAS, this Planning Board has determined that the proposed project and Planning Board action is subject to review under the State Environmental Quality Review Act, NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED: 1. No Federal agency appears to be involved. 2. The following agencies are involved: NONE 3. The proposed action considered by this Board is Unlisted in the Department of Environmental Conservation Regulations implementing the State Environmental Quality Review Act and the regulations of the Town of Queensbury. 4. An Environmental Assessment Form has been completed by the applicant. 5. Having considered and thoroughly analyzed the relevant areas of environmental concern and having considered the criteria for determining whether a project has a significant environmental impact as the same is set forth in Section 617.11 of the Official Compilation of Codes, Rules and Regulations for the State of New York, this Board finds that the action about to be undertaken by this Board will have no significant environmental effect and the Chairman of the Planning Board is hereby authorized to execute and sign and file as may be necessary a statement of non-significance or a negative declaration that may be required by law. Duly adopted this 20th day of, March, 2012, by the following vote: AYES: Mr. Sipp, Mr. Deeb, Mr. Magowan, Mr. Ferone, Mr. Traver, Mr. Hunsinger NOES: NONE ABSENT: Mr. Ford MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. Would anyone like to put forward a motion? I think we have the conditions taken care of. MR. OBORNE-If I may? The firewood operation and the sawmill operations are under the auspices of a Special Use Permit. One thing that you have to do is you have to give a term of validity for these operations, and there are three terms of validity. One is permanent, temporary, 23 (Queensbury Planning Board 03/20/2012) or renewable. So if you feel, you know, you want to give it a test run on some of these uses under the Special Use Permit only, not the overall general Site Plan, you may want to think about a renewable or a temporary. If you have no issues, I suggest you go with a permanent. MR. O'CONNOR-With the stipulation that we're not going to increase the equipment and we're going to have hours of operation, I think you're pretty well protected. MR. TRAVER-Yes, because if there are changes. MR. O'CONNOR-We'd have to come back. MR. TRAVER-Then it would trigger another review. MR. O'CONNOR-Yes, and they aren't significant operations. I would ask that it be permanent, with the conditions. MR. TRAVER-I don't have an objection to that. MR. HUNSINGER-Any members object? MR. TRAVER-To a permanent Special Use Permit? MR. HUNSINGER-It was interesting when we were talking about this project the last time, with respect to the Special Use Permit with the logging operation. I was trying to remember the discussion from the Comprehensive Land Use Plan for why we stipulated such large acreage for sawmills, and I think the discussion was fairly simple. We kind of said, well, you're only going to have one if it's like out in the middle of the forest. MR. TRAVER-Right. Yes, I remember that. MR. HUNSINGER-You know, and we never really thought about, well, somebody might want to put one in an industrial site. I mean, that really makes more sense to me anyway, that you would put it in an industrial site rather than a. MR. O'CONNOR-Most of the sawmills, even the bigger sawmills, are in industrial sites. We've all read about the one that's over in Kingsbury. MR. HUNSINGER-Right. It's across the line. MR. O'CONNOR-Not making a lot of people happy. There's Meads that's up on a couple of those roads. I mean, there are people that are in business to run a sawmill. MR. HUNSINGER-Well, there's a couple up on 149, you know, mostly in Fort Ann. MR. O'CONNOR-They may all be grandfathered. MR. TRAVER-There's one over on, what is it, Vaughn Road, Mead or whatever. MR. HUNSINGER-Yes. MR. O'CONNOR-Mead is over on Vaughn Road. MR. DEEB-Well, Mike, what objections would you have to renewable? MR. O'CONNOR-The expense of coming back here. MR. HUNSINGER-They'd have to come back before us. MR. O'CONNOR-Doing an application. MR. MAGOWAN-Could we put a stipulation in that, you know, only to be used by Bill Threw? MR. HUNSINGER-I don't think that's enforceable. MR. O'CONNOR-I don't think you can do that. You either make it temporary or you make it for a set period of time or you make it permanent. MR. OBORNE-What we've done in the past is we've made it temporary, two year, three year, and if there are no issues, you come back, bam, you make it permanent, is typically how it would 24 (Queensbury Planning Board 03/20/2012) go, especially with marinas and the like. Again, if you have limited issues, if you want to have the applicant come back, okay, and I'm not espousing any of the three, but typically what this Board has done is done a temporary with a two year, or even a one year, and if there's been no problems or anything you give them a permanent. MR. DEEB-The expense wouldn't be stifling, then, if you did it that way? MR. OBORNE-No, it would be whatever the Site Plan Review fee is, and just resurrect this. MR. O'CONNOR-Can you do it by letter or do you have to do the whole application, 18 copies and six colored balloons? Two trees, I mean, you're going to sell off two trees so that you can get the application before you. MR. HUNSINGER-See we need to all have laptops and we could do, yes. MR. TRAVER-Right. MR. OBORNE-It's whatever you're comfortable with. MR. MAGOWAN-It's a small operation. I don't a problem going permanent. MR. HUNSINGER-Yes. I mean, my feeling is it's been there for a long time, and again, you know, we had a couple of neighbors at the first meeting and they had a couple of questions, but they didn't have any major concerns. MR. TRAVER-Well, and we're putting some conditions, I mean, what I would say to your concern about the five year, we are putting some not insignificant conditions on the operation, you know, one option would be we could make a motion and then there's discussion following the motion. If you, based on what you hear, if you feel that it really needs to be less than permanent, I mean, that's one way to proceed. MR. DEEB-If you're comfortable with it, then that's fine. MR. HUNSINGER-Any other comments, concerns that haven't been expressed? Okay. MR. TRAVER-Okay. Well, I'll make a motion to approve. RESOLUTION APPROVING SP # 1-2012 & SUP # 11-2012 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 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 The PB provided a recommendation to the ZBA on 1/18/2012; the ZBA approved the variance request on 1/19/2012; A public hearing was advertised and held on 1/24/2012 tabled to 3/20/2012; and This application is supported with all documentation, public comment, and application material in the file of record; MOTION TO APPROVE SITE PLAN NO. 1-2012 & SPECIAL USE PERMIT 11-2012 WILLIAM THREW, Introduced by Stephen Traver who moved for its adoption, seconded by Brad Magowan: 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) The requirements of the State Environmental Quality Review Act have been considered and the Planning Board has adopted a SEQRA Negative Declaration; And with the Approval there are; 25 (Queensbury Planning Board 03/20/2012) 3) Six (6) conditions; 1. That the operation be restricted to the hours of 9:00 a.m. and 4:00 p.m. 2. That no further expansion of the firewood and sawmill operation will occur. 3. That no more than six trailers will be located on site at any one time. 4. That the log storage area will be parallel and in the vicinity of the sawmill. 5. That Town Counsel sign off on the deed language. 6. That there be an engineering signoff and the proposal for the Special Use Permit that it be issued on a permanent basis. 4) 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; 5) 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; 6) Engineering sign-off required prior to signature of Zoning Administrator; 7) The applicant must submit a copy of the following to the Town: a) The project NOI (Notice of Intent) for coverage under the current NYSDEC SPDES General Permit or for coverage under an individual SPDES prior to the start of any site work. b) The project NOT (Notice of Termination) upon completion of the project; 8) The applicant must maintain on their project site, for review by staff: a) The approved final plans that have been stamped by the Town Zoning Administrator. These plans must include the project SWPPP (Storm Water Pollution Prevention Plan) when such a plan was prepared and approved; b) The project NOI and proof of coverage under the current NYSDEC SPDES General Permit, or an individual SPDES permit issued for the project. Duly adopted this 20th day of March, 2012, by the following vote: MR. O'CONNOR-The hours of limitation, Mr. Traver, were for the sawmill operations? MR. TRAVER-Yes. MR. O'CONNOR-Okay. MR. HUNSINGER-1 just want a point of clarification. I had actually talked to Staff about this. It's implicit in the motion that it is based on the draft resolution prepared by Staff? I just want to make sure that we're in agreement that it is. MR. TRAVER-Sorry. MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. That was the only clarification that I had. Any further discussion? Everyone clear on what we're voting on? Okay. AYES: Mr. Sipp, Mr. Deeb, Mr. Magowan, Mr. Ferone, Mr. Traver, Mr. Hunsinger NOES: NONE ABSENT: Mr. Ford MR. HUNSINGER-One down, one to go. 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 26 (Queensbury Planning Board 03/20/2012) 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 MICHAEL O'CONNOR & TOM HUTCHINS, REPRESENTING APPLICANT, PRESENT MR. HUNSINGER-1 don't know if we really need to go through all of the Staff comments again, Keith. If you could just maybe point the clarification of how this one is different than the one we just approved. MR. OBORNE-Well, as you know the Quonset hut's going to be moved to the back parcel. So that's going to be removed and there's going to be a new warehouse installed there. I did speak to Dave Hatin about any wastewater issues. He had no issues whatsoever. It's such a minor use with wastewater, and compared to the previous application this one should be a little clearer, to say the least. MR. HUNSINGER-Yes. MR. OBORNE-There was rumor that, and it's just rumor at this point, that the towing operation is looking for a different location and will be vacating these premises in the future, but that has yet to happen. So clarification on that point may need to be forthcoming, and beyond that, this is an Unlisted SEQRA. Some of the stormwater designs have changed, and the parking appears compliant, and that's really all we have. It is a heavy equipment repair facility, and that's the short and abridged version. I'd turn it over to the Board. MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. Thank you. Good evening. MR. O'CONNOR-Okay. Mr. Chairman, again, for the purposes of your record, I'm Michael O'Connor from the law firm of Little & O'Connor. I represent the applicant, and Tom Hutchins is the engineer for the project. With us is also William Threw and Jeffrey Threw. The only comment I'd make, I guess, relates to the history of the towing business. I think the rest of it is fairly simple. We actually went, once, to the Zoning Board, and asked for an interpretation, lost that appeal that we made, and it had to do with dismantling cars to the extent that they took the aluminum wheel rims off cars and the catalytic converters off cars and then sold it separately. That was a third party that operated on that. It's been a problem since I started working on this file. I'm told that the fellow will be off the property by the end of April this year. He is looking actively for another site. I did once start a, I gave a notice of eviction, and withdrew that while we're running through this process. The operation that is there is separate from that. Jeffrey Threw runs the heavy truck or heavy equipment repair center, but I had a problem at the Zoning Board and I would still have a problem if you took too broad a brush with this business about not having more than one unregistered automobile on site, because he has clients that actually bring to him unregistered, new vehicles where he's going to switch bodies to it, and he might have more than one there or he might have a truck that they take off the road and want the body taken off so that they can put it on a new chasse. I mean, and I said at the Zoning Board I would be happy to stipulate to get an agreeable definition with the Town Attorney so that we're not in violation of the junkyard law, but an understanding that this is his type of business operation. I don't think that section that we're having all the problems with was drawn for the purpose of regulating somebody that was actually in the repair business, and that's, I think, the only question I had on the whole, all the comments. I think we've answered the question about the, it'll have its own, how it'll have an entrance to the property. It'll come through the other property, and we'll get an easement and it'll be approved by the Town Attorney. MR. TRAVER-Well, that would only be two then, unlicensed vehicles. You have a truck that has, you're moving a body from one, hypothetically moving a body from one. MR. O'CONNOR-Last time we had a meeting there were four there. There was the beer distributor. That's one of your big clients, and they were changing part of their fleet. I can't tell you how many. MR. TRAVER-But they would be registered, would they not? MR. O'CONNOR-Not necessarily at the time when they're brought there. They're towed there. MR. DEEB-Usually how long does it take to do a swap like that? JEFFREY THREW 27 (Queensbury Planning Board 03/20/2012) MR. THREW-A couple of weeks. It depends on the criteria. MR. DEEB-Well, I'm just wondering if we put a time limit on it, or say, look. MR. OBORNE-Get Jeff on the record, if we could. MR. THREW-1 mean, some people might buy a vehicle with intentions down the road to buy a vehicle, it's unregistered, they don't want to register it until whatever body they put on it. MR. DEEB-So you'll store it on your property? MR. THREW-Right. MR. TRAVER-Yes, and could you state your name for the record, please. MR. THREW-I'm Jeff Threw. MR. DEEB-I'm just trying to think of a way to rectify this. MR. TRAVER-But again we're not, to clarify, we're not talking about vehicles under repair. We're talking about unregistered vehicles. So how many unregistered, I mean, if somebody is bringing in, somebody buys a new truck and they want to move the body from one to the other, both of those vehicles are not going to be registered. At least one of them is on the road, right? MR. THREW-Sometimes. MR. TRAVER-Sometimes, and if it isn't on the road, would it not even be registered? I mean that just, it seems to me unreasonable to have. MR. O'CONNOR-Put a condition on that we satisfy the attorney that our proposed use does not violate the Junkyard law. MR. OBORNE-That's the intent of my comment is that it doesn't violate the Junkyard law. That's the intent. We know that he's doing heavy equipment repair, swapping out and all of that. Those aren't junk vehicles. He's not junking them. He's not cutting them up. MR. TRAVER-Right. MR. OBORNE-There has been some issues on the site. My thinking was, after talking to Craig, was to, and Dave Hatin, was to have maybe a silver bullet type condition for that one use, and that would have taken care of that, but this is not directed towards Mr. Threw. It's directed towards his tenant. MR. TRAVER-Right. MR. OBORNE-For the record, I'd state that. MR. O'CONNOR-If you want state in there that you understand that this does not give approval for somebody to dismantle vehicles for the purpose of junking them, I have no problem with that. MR. TRAVER-Well, I think if we just, I mean, that's a detail that perhaps we don't need. I think if we just say that you're not in violation of the junkyard law, and you feel that you can satisfy the Town to that effect, then. MR. O'CONNOR-I am. MR. OBORNE-I think that's fine. MR. DEEB-I need to play Devil's advocate here for a second. That if, and I know you wouldn't do this, but I'm just thinking, if somebody needed to store a truck that wasn't registered. I mean, you certainly could bring it there and leave it and potentially you could say in the future be worked on, but it would just be actually stored there for a while. I'm just saying, I'm not saying you'd do it. Do you understand what I'm driving at? MR. THREW-Yes, but space is (lost words). MR. DEEB-That's a good answer. That's what I'm looking at, and as far as the tenant goes, there was no concrete evidence that he, he said he should be gone by the end of April, but there's nothing stipulated that he will be gone. 28 (Queensbury Planning Board 03/20/2012) MR. O'CONNOR-If he's not gone by April 15t", we will commence a, I actually expect that he'll be gone before then, but I want to give enough lead time that I'm not on too short a schedule. MR. DEEB-Okay. MR. O'CONNOR-If he's not gone by April 15t", I will commence an eviction action. BILL THREW MR. THREW-You don't have to. He's already agreed to leave by then because we've got to move him out to move that building. MR. O'CONNOR-He's in the Quonset hut. MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. MR. O'CONNOR-He's in the Quonset hut. MR. TRAVER-Agreeing to it and doing it are two different things. So, but it's in your interest that that be taken care of, and we have the junkyard law issue taken care of. MR. OBORNE-And I would stipulate that if you're going to put that condition of the junkyard law that it's Chapter 102, as defined in Chapter 102, under the term junkyard, and it's actually incredibly specific. MR. O'CONNOR-No, it's not. MR. OBORNE-It's unbelievably specific. It is crystal clear. MR. HUNSINGER-Site Plan issues. Can you talk about lighting a little bit? MR. O'CONNOR-What lighting are you going to put on the new addition? MR. HUTCH INS-Building mounted and shielded downcast. MR. HUNSINGER-So we can stipulate that any lighting would be Code compliant? MR. HUTCHINS-Yes. MR. HUNSINGER-Do we need to put that into a motion? MR. TRAVER-That they comply with the Code? MR. OBORNE-Well, they didn't give any details on any lighting, correct? MR. HUNSINGER-Right. MR. OBORNE-And did you ask for a waiver from lighting? I can't recall. I don't think you did. MR. HUTCH INS-Implicitly I think we did. MR. HUNSINGER-Yes. I don't know if there were any. MR. OBORNE-So in lieu or in absence of a waiver, certainly say any proposed future lighting to be Code compliant. MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. MR. OBORNE-I would suggest you do that. MR. HUNSINGER-That puts it on the record. MR. OBORNE-That is correct. MR. HUNSINGER-Makes sure that the applicant's aware of it. So, okay, so it's really not redundant, I guess, is the question. MR. OBORNE-It's not, no. 29 (Queensbury Planning Board 03/20/2012) MR. HUNSINGER-We had some engineering comments like the last project. MR. HUTCHINS-Less of them, much less of them. MR. HUNSINGER-Yes, much less. Yes. Do you see anything that are going to cause problems? MR. HUTCHINS-No. One test hole they're saying wasn't deep enough. There was a 12 foot deep hole, and that was as deep a hole as I ever want to go in. The table, I'll verify with him what he's saying on the table, and endangered species and SHPO. MR. HUNSINGER-Yes, similar. Yes. MR. O'CONNOR-Okay. We have no problems with the condition that we get engineer's signoff. 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 MR. HUNSINGER-Any written comments, Keith? MR. OBORNE-No written comments. MR. HUNSINGER-Let the record show that there were no members of the audience or written comments received. So I will close the public hearing. PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED MR. HUNSINGER-This is also an Unlisted action. They submitted a Short Form. Whenever you're ready. MR. TRAVER-"Does the action exceed any Type I threshold in 6 NYCRR Part 617.4?" MR. HUNSINGER-No. MR. SIPP-No. MR. MAGOWAN-No. MR. TRAVER-"Will the action receive coordinated review as provided for Unlisted Actions in 6 NYCRR, Part 617.6?" MR. HUNSINGER-No. MR. SIPP-No. MR. MAGOWAN-No. MR. TRAVER-"Could the action result in any adverse effects associated with the following: C1. Existing air quality, surface or ground water quality or quantity, noise levels, existing traffic patterns, solid waste production or disposal, potential for erosion, drainage or flooding problems?" MR. HUNSINGER-No. MR. SIPP-No. MR. MAGOWAN-No. MR. TRAVER-"C2. Aesthetic, agricultural, historic, or other natural or cultural resources; or community or neighborhood character?" MR. HUNSINGER-No. MR. SIPP-No. 30 (Queensbury Planning Board 03/20/2012) MR. TRAVER-"C3. Vegetation, fauna, fish, shellfish or wildlife species, significant habitats, or threatened or endangered species?" MR. HUNSINGER-No. MR. SIPP-No. MR. TRAVER-"C4. A community's existing plans or goals as officially adopted, or a change in use or intensity of use of land or other natural resources?" MR. HUNSINGER-No. MR. SIPP-No. MR. TRAVER-"C5. Growth, subsequent development or related activities likely to be induced by the proposed action?" MR. HUNSINGER-No. MR. SIPP-No. MR. TRAVER-"C6. Long term, short term, cumulative or other effects not identified above?" MR. HUNSINGER-No. MR. SIPP-No. MR. TRAVER-"C7. Other impacts (including changes in use of either quantity or energy)?" MR. SIPP-No. MR. HUNSINGER-No. MR. TRAVER-"Will the project have an impact on the environmental characteristics that caused the establishment of a Critical Environmental Area?" MR. HUNSINGER-No. MR. SIPP-No. MR. TRAVER-"Is there or is there likely to be controversy related to potential adverse environmental impacts?" MR. HUNSINGER-No. MR. SIPP-No. MR. TRAVER-Then I'll make a motion that we find a Negative SEQRA. RESOLUTION WHEN DETERMINATION OF NO SIGNIFICANCE IS MADE RESOLUTION NO. 2-2012, Introduced by Stephen Traver who moved for its adoption, seconded by Brad Magowan: WHEREAS, there is presently before the Planning Board an application for: WILLIAM THREW, and WHEREAS, this Planning Board has determined that the proposed project and Planning Board action is subject to review under the State Environmental Quality Review Act, NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED: 1. No Federal agency appears to be involved. 2. The following agencies are involved: NONE 3. The proposed action considered by this Board is Unlisted in the Department of Environmental Conservation Regulations implementing the State Environmental Quality Review Act and the regulations of the Town of Queensbury. 31 (Queensbury Planning Board 03/20/2012) 4. An Environmental Assessment Form has been completed by the applicant. 5. Having considered and thoroughly analyzed the relevant areas of environmental concern and having considered the criteria for determining whether a project has a significant environmental impact as the same is set forth in Section 617.11 of the Official Compilation of Codes, Rules and Regulations for the State of New York, this Board finds that the action about to be undertaken by this Board will have no significant environmental effect and the Chairman of the Planning Board is hereby authorized to execute and sign and file as may be necessary a statement of non-significance or a negative declaration that may be required by law. Duly adopted this 20th day of, March, 2012, by the following vote: AYES: Mr. Magowan, Mr. Sipp, Mr. Deeb, Mr. Traver, Mr. Ferone, Mr. Hunsinger NOES: NONE ABSENT: Mr. Ford MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. Conditions? MR. TRAVER-1 have not in violation of the junkyard law as described in Chapter 102. Any lighting to be Code compliant. Engineer's signoff. MR. HUNSINGER-Anything else? Okay. MR. TRAVER-I'll make a motion. RESOLUTION APPROVING 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 recommendation to the ZBA on 1/18/2012; the ZBA approved the variance request on 1/19/2012; A public hearing was advertised and held on 1/24/2012 tabled to 3/20/2012; This application is supported with all documentation, public comment, and application material in the file of record; MOTION TO APPROVE SITE PLAN NO. 2-2012 WILLIAM THREW, Introduced by Stephen Traver who moved for its adoption, seconded by Brad Magowan: 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) The requirements of the State Environmental Quality Review Act have been considered and the Planning Board has adopted a SEQRA Negative Declaration; And with the Approval there are three (3) conditions: 1. That the operation not be in violation of the junkyard law as described in Chapter 102. 2. That any lighting be Code compliant. 3. That the applicant obtain an engineering signoff. 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 32 (Queensbury Planning Board 03/20/2012) 4) As-built plans to certify that the site plan is developed according to the approved plans to be provided prior to issuance of the certificate of occupancy; and 5) The Sanitary Sewer connection plan must be submitted to the Wastewater Department for its review, approval, permitting and inspection; and 6) Engineering sign-off required prior to signature of Zoning Administrator; and 7) The applicant must submit a copy of the following to the Town: a) The project NOI (Notice of Intent) for coverage under the current NYSDEC SPDES General Permit or for coverage under an individual SPDES prior to the start of any site work. b) The project NOT (Notice of Termination) upon completion of the project; and 8) The applicant must maintain on their project site, for review by staff: a) The approved final plans that have been stamped by the Town Zoning Administrator. These plans must include the project SWPPP (Storm Water Pollution Prevention Plan) when such a plan was prepared and approved; and b) The project NOI and proof of coverage under the current NYSDEC SPDES General Permit, or an individual SPDES permit issued for the project. Duly adopted this 20th day of March, 2012, by the following vote: AYES: Mr. Deeb, Mr. Sipp, Mr. Magowan, Mr. Ferone, Mr. Traver, Mr. Hunsinger NOES: NONE ABSENT: Mr. Ford MR. O'CONNOR-Okay. Keith, do we need a separate resolution approving the boundary line adjustment as shown on the map? MR. OBORNE-1 don't think that's necessary. MR. O'CONNOR-You don't think it's necessary. Okay. All right. MR. HUNSINGER-You're all set. Good luck. MR. O'CONNOR-Okay. Thank you very much. MR. HUNSINGER-You're welcome. We had a request by Queensbury Partners to come before the Board this evening. Good evening. MATT FULLER MR. FULLER-Good evening. For the record, Matt Fuller, and I'm here with Dan Galusha with Queensbury Partners across the street, and as I said to Mr. O'Connor as I was walking up to the table, for the record on the Special Use Permit, woof, woof. I do believe the Planning Board never grants permanent Special Use Permits. I'll remember that, Mike. MR. HUNSINGER-But it's not precedent setting because every project's unique. MR. FULLER-That's right. MR. TRAVER-And we can't set a precedent anyway because we're not an adjudicative body. MR. HUNSINGER-Exactly. MR. FULLER-That's right. Thanks for having us and hearing from us tonight. We have been back and forth and we've been meeting ourselves, as you last recall we were here in December for the recommendation to the ZBA. We went to the ZBA. That didn't go well. The ZBA was concerned with the process and things and what we've done, we haven't been just sitting back. The last couple of months we've really poured through both the plan to see if we could back things off to kind of still accomplish what the Planning Board and my clients have worked, I think we've all worked here collectively on it to try to get that goal accomplished with less variances, and I think the reality is if you're going to want to create that center that we've, the village type look that we've got, the variances are part of the equation, and so an idea that has actually been in my mind for a long time, and I've talked about it on and off with Staff and I know there's 33 (Queensbury Planning Board 03/20/2012) concerns both ways about it, but we'd like to go to the Town Board and ask them to allow PUD's in the office zone. Now that's going to get the first reaction that it is going to which is hold on, this is an Office zone, be careful what you're doing, but in the residential PUD part of the Code you need a minimum of 30 acres. We've got 30 acres. The thing with the residential PUD is it does allow some flexibility by the Town Board to allow lesser acreage if the Town Board deems it, you know, fit with the standards, etc., and my idea to deal with that issue, because I see that head on as an issue, is to not allow it in the Office zone. Say you have to have a minimum of 30 acres, or some acreage that the Town Board believes is prudent for the Office zone. I can see the reasoning behind the 30 acres on the residentials because of the mixed uses and things and the setbacks that you want to build with that harmony, but I think, you know, to the ZBA's defense, is that would take an application that we've worked with the Planning Board on from being laid at their feet. Because let's face it, the variances are the live or die for that project, as we've come up with it, and, you know, we talked about it after, I can see some of the points that they were raising. If it was a Use Variance I would 100% agree with them, but an Area Variance is always that balancing test, you know, the benefit versus the detriment. So I understand where they were coming from. I didn't agree with all the comments, but it is what it is, and, you know, we did go back and ask for another joint meeting and the Zoning Board was not interested in that. That's completely their purview. I don't want to hold it against them. That's just like your discretion, they have their discretion and I wouldn't ever get upset with them rendering that opinion. So that's our idea is to go back to the Town Board and there are some provisions in that part of the zoning that would allow, density would still have to be adjusted. We'd have to do some work on the density numbers. So it's not like it's this we get everything. I mean, we've looked at that. We'd have to tailor some things down, but I think that is the reasonable approach. It's not a guarantee because it's still PUD zoning. We'd have to go back to the Town Board. We'd have to be back here. The Town Board ultimately rules on the PUD for a particular project, but it comes on the Planning Board recommendation. So in terms of SEQRA, you know, the engineering of the project, we would see it unfolding like that, like a full blown Site Plan with the PUD review to set those standards for that development, and, you know, one of the other things that I think is going to come out, again, initial reaction, is well hold on, what other land does this impact? It's the Office zone. You can't make it project specific. We get that. That's spot zoning. We're not talking about that at all. I went through every parcel that's in the Office zone, even the new ones that were passed last month, and there are a couple of pieces that would get you, the way the Code reads is contiguous acres. So you could have, you know, two parcels come together or three or four, however many, and so I looked at that, you know, where are areas where there are similar ownership now or a potential that somebody with money could come in and buy up adjoining lots, and a good majority of the Office zone is already developed. Not all of it, I don't want to mislead anybody. There are a couple of pieces. There's one out behind Walker Lane, and adjacent to the Valente development down Bay, and actually as I was driving in tonight it's a big part of the wetland. There's that wetland back there that comes in behind those properties over to Glenwood, and the other big piece is the former Wiswall property that Dr. O'Connor owns now by The Landing right there that is 30 acres and I represented the family on selling that to Dr. O'Connor and Schermerhorn was previously on that with a contract, and did some due diligence in looking at developing that parcel and ran into the depth to groundwater and bedrock. So there are some, I know, some environmental limitations over there on that piece. Other than that 30 acres in the Office zone is very, I won't say impossible, it's difficult to find. There are some pockets over near Southwestern Ave doesn't even come close to 30 acres. I think Luzerne Road had a couple of other ones that were, there was one up on Gurney. Mr. Schermerhorn owns that piece up there. That's about nine acres, but it's being developed now. So, you know, just really, we did take a hard look at it. We went through page by page of the Ordinance to see, okay, what, how can we do this without you know, giving up the zoning as it were. Because that's going to be the argument is you're giving up the zoning. It's not. It still has to come back here for a full blown review. We already know that the traffic is a big concern and we've worked on that. We're ready to come in with an engineered plan that's going to fix that intersection, and as we've represented, you know, we don't need a turning lane. We're going to do it anyway because it can help, it can only help. So, I mean, that's why I wanted to get in here is, you know, it is time, and before we made that effort, I wanted to come to the Board and say, okay, this is a way to accomplish the project that we've come up with, and we still think there's some design work left out there. That's, the last plan we had isn't the final. We'll tweak things and get into engineering and things like that, but I think that's the way to accomplish it that is, Number One, proper. It isn't some deal that gets cut or try to get the variances through a ZBA. There are a significant number of variances, and is legal. It's a legitimate process to go through the PUD process to come up with a project, especially a mixed use project which is what that residential PUD statute looks at is the mix of, and it's funny. You look at the percentages when you read the PUD. We line up with those percentages almost perfectly. It's a 20% rule on your residential commercial density. We line up with those percentages almost perfectly. It's a 20% rule on your residential to commercial density. We're actually under it by, what was it like 500 or 600 square feet. So, you know, again, it's not that we're trying to pigeon hole something in to find a way to get the project done, we just want to get going with an application, and applying for the variances isn't the way to proceed with that. 1 34 (Queensbury Planning Board 03/20/2012) think that's very clear. The ZBA made it clear to us that in that fashion they don't want to see it back. MR. TRAVER-It sounds, too, like what you're suggesting could potentially preserve a lot of the work that's already been done, which has some merit as well. MR. FULLER-Yes. DAN GALUSHA MR. GALUSHA-There's been a year of working with the Board. There'd been four or five years up to that point, you know, and Matt's talking about the legal aspects of it, but the logical aspects of it are not to go to the Zoning Board with all the variances. If the Planning Board truly wants this, and I think the Town Board wants it, then those should be the folks that should move this thing forward is how I look at it logically, if that's what's best for the Town. So, you know, you can say it any way you want, but that's. there's a vehicle here, I think, to get you there. MR. FULLER-Well, one of the good comments that somebody made, it might have even been the gentleman that's the alternate for the ZBA, said if you need this many variances, the zoning for that parcel doesn't work, and I sat there going, you hear arguments on applications all the time. MR. TRAVER-I think you made that comment a year or so ago when you first came in with a compliant proposal, and then we started talking about it and you said, well, you know, we could do something different, but the only way that's going to work is to get all of these variances. MR. FULLER-And they just kept creeping up. It's not a fault thing. It's just, it was planning and honestly there was 16 months of a PUD process, of a sketch PUD process that happened. So, we were talking about it and we want to do that. We want to go back and ask the Town Board, but I didn't want to blindside anybody. I didn't want to do it, I wanted to get back here and say, in concept we'd like to go start that process, go to the Town Board and say, hey, here's what we want to do. The Planning Board likes the project. There's no approvals, but we've come up with this project. We need to get into engineering and applications, and that's the way to do it. You can't do that with all the variances that we need at the ZBA. MR. GALUSHA-I think it's a little unfair. I mean, we went to the Zoning Board. We went through that whole process, but, you know, we have a large amount of money invested here that the interest payments keep ticking and the engineers and everything else. I mean, we followed that path with you folks, and, you know, I think it's unfair for us to have to keep going back to the zoning, well, would you be okay with this, would you be okay with that. I think there's a different vehicle here, and I think it lies within the planning and the Town Board, they're the people that run the Town, and if they feel strongly about the project, they should drive it along with us and move it forward. That's where I'm coming from. MR. SIPP-I think you're forgetting one segment of the population here. I've been besieged with phone calls about traffic, the number of children, kids that may inhabit this part. Stormwater management. What are you going to do with them? Are you going to dedicate the stormwater and road to the Town? Is that going to become Town property? MR. FULLER-It isn't. The project would stay consistent. MR. TRAVER-We don't have a plan. MR. FULLER-Well, in all those, everything you've rattled off are things we're going to get into in the review process. MR. SIPP-Wetlands, the distance from wetlands that you have. MR. FULLER-Yes. We met this week on those. MR. SIPP-You've also got to take into account the public is not very happy with this. I haven't had one positive phone call. MR. FULLER-It's hard to get the positives to come to a meeting. MR. HUNSINGER-I've had the opposite experience, if that helps. MR. FULLER-Me, too. It's hard to get them to come to the meeting, though. 35 (Queensbury Planning Board 03/20/2012) MR. GALUSHA-I'm not disputing what you're saying, but what I'm saying is we had a public meeting here that we called, and that we listened to people, and there's people that came to the Planning Board. There's people, you know what, there's one thing you've got to remember. Nobody's going to be 100% happy with any project. I honestly feel that there's not an outrage about what we're trying to do and move this thing forward, in my opinion, and there are traffic issues there, but they're traffic issues that exist now. MR. HUNSINGER-Exactly. MR. TRAVER-Yes. MR. FULLER-And that we can fix. MR. TRAVER-That's what I'm hearing is there's fear about, well, are they going to think about this and are they going to address that. We haven't got a plan. Once we get a plan and we can say here is how we're going to address all these things or. MR. GALUSHA-1 will say this. I brought up a very expensive sewer line so everybody could hook up on my dollar, without anything. I think that is I'm moving forward and doing my best in stepping forward and doing things for this project. I think that brings merit to the project, and I've worked with the Planning Board for a year now trying to do what they want to accomplish in moving forward. I think those things make a difference. I'm not driving this. The Planning Board, in a lot of aspects, has driven this project and I've tried to work with them to get here. We need to make the final step to move it forward. MR. FULLER-And like you said, get back to you with an application. Get into those things that, the stormwater. MR. SIPP-Yes, but I'm concerned about the wetlands that you've got there, and the stormwater, how are you going to accomplish this because either you've got wetlands or you've got roads, building sites, and there's not much in between, and if you put in 160 or so apartment units, how many kids is this going to generate, that the school is going to have to take care of? MR. FULLER-And that's the big one that people keep using is the school, and I went through it with the Town Board when the Town Board was adopting the zoning. I presented all the studies and all the information, enrollment's fall, and they don't, it's a stigma issue that apartments generate all these kids. They don't. It's not a drastic difference. It just isn't. MR. TRAVER-What increase in school tax revenue does it generate? MR. HUNSINGER-And enrollment's down at Queensbury. MR. FULLER-Yes. MR. SIPP-Enrollment's down, but if you put in the number of apartments that. MR. FULLER-Even if you said one kid an apartment, 160 kids K-12 in Queensbury School District? That's not a lot of kids. MR. SIPP-That's the thing nobody knows. MR. FULLER-Even if you said two, that's 300 kids. MR. DEEB-It depends on how big the apartments are, how many families. MR. GALUSHA-These aren't luxury apartments. MR. SIPP-You see, this is why you've got to get out there and move the public. Because last time that's what defeated. MR. FULLER-And we're prepared to do it, and we had the meeting. MR. SIPP-Yes, but that meeting was last summer. This has come forward since then. MR. FULLER-We dealt with it once, and we're prepared to do it again. MR. SIPP-The best thing you can do is to put a little pressure on the Zoning Board is to have the public understand what you're trying to do and how you're going to do it and what benefit it is to them. 36 (Queensbury Planning Board 03/20/2012) MR. FULLER-Yes. MR. SIPP-And when you sway some public opinion, then you may have reason to hope. MR. GALUSHA-Well, I think we've done a lot of things to do that. I mean, some of the things we've done throughout this process is more than I've seen other projects do at all. I believe that's true, correct? MR. HUNSINGER-No, I agree with you. That's why I'm nodding my head, and when had that joint meeting with the Zoning Board, there were some people there that commented, because they were upset that they had only found out about the meeting that evening and, you know, they were concerned that we were trying to end run the public participation process, and, you know, I think right from the beginning, you know, you've been very consistent, and I think we've gone along with you with that in saying, we're not trying to, we're trying to make this even more open and more transparent and more contributory than typically is done on a project, and, you know, I hope that we can continue in that vein with you on this, because it makes those issues go away. When people feel like they have a say to get their questions answered. MR. GALUSHA-(lost words) for a year now, and we haven't had an application, so everybody's had the perfect shot at talking about this thing. MR. HUNSINGER-Right, and I know Mr. Sipp said people have approached him with negative comments, but people have approached me with positive comments, after it was in the newspapers, you know, several months ago. I don't know, it wasn't like it was 100 people. I mean, it was like it was 100 people. It was like five to ten people, you know, come up to me and say, you know, I think that's a great idea. I'm glad to see that the Town's trying to do something different and creative. MR. GALUSHA-And you said it. I mean, this is a unique piece of property within your Town. I think you've got a very small shot and a window to do what you want to accomplish and we're willing to walk that path, but we've got to move forward. We can't just keep stumbling along, and we want to do it right. We want to do it above board and the easiest way it is for everybody to move forward. MR. TRAVER-Good. MR. GALUSHA-That's where we're coming from. MR. HUNSINGER-Yes. What's your timeframe? MR. FULLER-I'll walk out and approach the Town Board. I'll get a letter and get on for a workshop or even at a, maybe not a workshop, at a Town Board meeting, whatever the Town Board wants to do. MR. HUNSINGER-This goes to public perception, but one of the things that really bothered me was when the Town and the City were having the debates about the use of the watershed property, and the press in particular was trying to dictate what the intent was. Nobody went back to the Comprehensive Land Use Plan where the intent was clarified. I mean, we have the notes from all those meetings. I mean, I have them at home if we can't find them at the Town, but there was a reason why the PUD was limited to the following zones. I can't remember what they were, but there was a discussion, and, you know, a lot of times when we were putting together the Comprehensive Land Use Plan, there would, I mean, there was limited knowledge at the table when we talked about a particular issue. So we would deliberate and make a recommendation based on limited knowledge. So there may have been a flaw in the assumption for why we did not include, you know, office commercial property in the PUD, and again, I don't remember the discussion. So it might be worth just taking a look at that, because it might give you some insight when you go before the Town Board to say, well, you know, this is what, you know, the Comprehensive Land Use Planning Committee was thinking when they did not include, you know, office commercial in the PUD. It may not help you. I don't know, but I think it would be worth taking a look at that, and I don't think it would be an extensive amount of time to do that research. Stu Baker, on Staff, led the Comprehensive Land Use Planning Committee. So, I mean, Stu has access to those records and files and I'm sure he can put his fingers on them. MR. FULLER-Yes, we'll do that. MR. SIPP-1 didn't mean to intimate that they were all negative. There have been some positive with, but the negative. 37 (Queensbury Planning Board 03/20/2012) MR. FULLER-1 hear them, too. I hear both sides. MR. HUNSINGER-Yes. MR. FULLER-The school's the big one. I hear that a lot. MR. GALUSHA-But that's a, you know, we do apartments. We do. MR. FULLER-It's a red herring and I'll deal with it. MR. SIPP-Well, see, that's what they don't know. MR. GALUSHA-Facts and figures and that information is out there. It's, you know, we're trying to get to that point. We can't get there. We've done everything that we can do to try to get somewhere. MR. SIPP-And knowing a member of the Zoning Board, I think what they were a little upset is this was really the first time they were let into the area contest. MR. FULLER-And part of it is just the nature of the Zoning Board process, and actually I was at a legislative hearing two weeks ago, and one of the things I've said is you know what you need to do is amend the town law, village law, and city law to allow sketch review for ZBAs. They're not entitled. They can't do it because they're adjudicatory. You need to allow that. Times are different. It's 2012. The process has evolved. Allow it. MR. GALUSHA-1 can tell you this, the process, I mean, I look at this, here again, logically. If logically the Town Board, Planning Board and the Zoning Board is doing what's best for the Town, it gets very frustrating to understand why those folks can't talk and figure out a way to move something forward if that's what's in the best interest of the Town. That is a frustrating thing to do. It doesn't make absolutely any sense to me, but I know that's the rules you've got to play by. MR. HUNSINGER-And, you know, I think the whole school enrollment issue, you know, a few years ago that was a big issue, and I could understand it, and I don't know where the numbers are now because I don't have kids in the Queensbury School district, but two of my children graduated from Queensbury, and my oldest son's class had 240 students. Six years later it was at 400. 1 mean, that's huge. That was, you know, a 40% increase in the course of six years. Well now it's back. I think the last numbers I saw it's down in the 200's again. So, I mean, that's a gigantic swing, and, like I said, four, five years ago when you had these rising enrollment numbers there was a legitimate concern, you know, where's the end. Where's this going? MR. SIPP-Everybody's looking at apartments rather than trying to buy a house. You can't buy a house. MR. OBORNE-I would say that generally the process is going to be, you know, get an application in, obviously. The Town Board will more than likely ask for a recommendation from the Planning Board, input and a lot of it, and then it goes back, obviously. You have to figure out all those little nuts and bolts of this PUD. MR. FULLER-Before we can even do that, we just need them to allow PUD's in that zone, and that's on us to go make that pitch. MR. OBORNE-And Craig would be the first step, obviously. MR. HUNSINGER-So it's a change in the Town Code. MR. FULLER-It is. MR. HUNSINGER-Which requires a local law. MR. FULLER-And local law and a public hearing. MR. OBORNE-Absolutely. MR. FULLER-And we're ready to undertake that process. I just wanted to come in here and make sure that I'm not surprising anybody by, if that's, sounds like the roll we should do and I think that's the way to do it. 38 (Queensbury Planning Board 03/20/2012) MR. GALUSHA-1 guess I'll ask the question. Does that make sense from the Planning Board's point of view? MR. FULLER-Yes. MR. GALUSHA-In light of this project? MR. HUNSINGER-1 think it does. MR. TRAVER-Yes. I think to follow, it's an option that has been unmasked that we didn't think about before, and it preserves at least some of the work that's been done. It preserves the spirit of the design which we invested some time and discussion in. I think it only makes sense to explore it rather than go back and try to create something that doesn't require any variances, way back when we started, when maybe this would have worked. I mean, we'd always regret it. So let's at least try it. MR. GALUSHA-It's at least 50/50. MR. OBORNE-There's also no guarantee that the Town Board will pass the. MR. TRAVER-But if we don't at least try it, we'd never know. MR. OBORNE-Sure. MR. FULLER-Thank you. MR. HUNSINGER-You're welcome. Thank you for bringing us up to speed, yes. MR. FULLER-We will head down that path. MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. Good luck. MR. GALUSHA-We welcome your support. MR. FULLER-We'll be back. They'll be looking for a recommendation. MR. GALUSHA-Thank you, guys. MR. HUNSINGER-You're welcome. Do we have any other business to bring before the Board? MR. OBORNE-I'd like to bring just one thing, and I guess this is more for the edification of the alternate members. If there are any questions, contact me. If you're confused about anything, contact me, and the same with the Planning Board. All Planning Board members know that it's an open door to the Planning Office. You can come on in. We can go over plans. We can't talk major specifics on likes and dislikes, but certainly can present the plan as it is in the file, and any clarifications that you may need, give me a call or stop in. MR. HUNSINGER-Great. Thanks. Yes. MR. TRAVER-Yes, that works very well. I know we talked about, I don't know how serious we were, but we talked about, at the beginning of the meeting tablets for Planning Board members. Do we need to do anything formally with regards to that? MR. OBORNE-Did you ask that at the beginning of the meeting. I don't remember that. MR. TRAVER-Somebody was. MR. HUNSINGER-Someone said you'd be happy to forward our request to the Town Board. MR. DEEB-You said to write a letter. MR. OBORNE-That. Shoot me an e-mail. I'll send it. Just remember, in April there is the Planning Federation Conference also down in Saratoga Springs. MR. HUNSINGER-Right. Okay. MR. OBORNE-And credit for your, I'll discuss that with you. I'll shoot you an e-mail tomorrow. MR. TRAVER-The on-line stuff? 39 (Queensbury Planning Board 03/20/2012) MR. OBORNE-Yes. MR. HUNSINGER-George had a question where the site. MR. FERONE-Wasn't there an e-mail about some type of training that was going on in Lake George in April also? MR. OBORNE-I believe there was some training recently for. MR. HUNSINGER-Stormwater runoff or something. MR. OBORNE-Live in Place I believe recently, and stormwater runoff, I'm not sure about that, to be honest with you, but there is a stormwater conference that usually happens at Roaring Brook, and there is the Planning Federation Conference in April, which is a very good conference. MR. FERONE-Well, that's what I was going to say. I would look for recommendations from somebody like yourself as to what is good to go to and what may not be. MR. OBORNE-The Planning Federation Conference is perfect for the Planning Board, it really is, and the Saratoga County Planning Conference is also very good, but that was in January. MR. TRAVER-And the website is outstanding, too. MR. SIPP-What about the Water Keeper's one in April? MR. OBORNE-That's what it is. It's Water Keeper's at Fort William Henry. That's right. I think he finally landed on a date. MR. SIPP-Did he get a date? MR. OBORNE-Yes. Let me write this down. MR. SIPP-That's a good conference, because if you're interested in the Lake. MR. OBORNE-Space is limited on that one, I know that. MR. HUNSINGER-But that's specific to stormwater runoff, lake issues. MR. OBORNE-Yes, I think he had an itinerary, and then obviously it would be a lot with stormwater runoff. Low impact development is typically their bailiwick. MR. DEEB-Do I have to provide you with my on-line training certificate? Do you, I have to give that to you. MR. OBORNE-Yes, I usually give it to Pam. MR. DEEB-Because I know I printed it up but I just didn't do anything with it. MR. OBORNE-Just forward it to us or send it by mail. MR. DEEB-I can forward it or e-mail it. MR. OBORNE-Okay. That's fine. MR. HUNSINGER-If there's no other business, I'll entertain a motion to adjourn. MOTION TO ADJOURN THE QUEENSBURY PLANNING BOARD MEETING OF MARCH 20, 2012, Introduced by Stephen Traver who moved for its adoption, seconded by Brad Magowan: Duly adopted this 20th day of March, 2012, by the following vote: AYES: Mr. Sipp, Mr. Deeb, Mr. Magowan, Mr. Ferone, Mr. Traver, Mr. Hunsinger NOES: NONE ABSENT: Mr. Ford MR. HUNSINGER-Thank you, everybody. See you next week. 40 (Queensbury Planning Board 03/20/2012) On motion meeting was adjourned. RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED, Chris Hunsinger, Chairman 41