Loading...
07-24-2012 (Queensbury Planning Board 07/24/2012) QUEENSBURY PLANNING BOARD MEETING SECOND REGULAR MEETING J U LY 24, 2012 INDEX Site Plan No. 45-2011 Kelly Carte 1. EXTENSION Tax Map No. 300.16-1-3 Site Plan No. 9-2012 San Souci of Cleverdale 2. Tax Map No. 226.12-1-43 Subdivision No. 6-2012 Pierre Rawlins 3. PRELIMINARY STAGE Tax Map No. 308.12-1-8 FINAL STAGE Subdivision No. 4-2012 DKC Holdings 7. PRELIMINARY STAGE Tax Map No. 308.12-1-7.1 Site Plan No. 40-2012 Gregg Brown & Lizabeth Bitner 10. Tax Map No. 239.7-1-7 Special Use Permit No. 30-2012 Karen & Peter Bogert 14. Tax Map No. 227.17-1-55 Site Plan No. 38-2012 Cumberland Farms 18. Tax Map No. 309.14-1-80 Site Plan No. 44-2012 Maynard Baker 21. Tax Map No. 308.15-1-34 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 07/24/2012) QUEENSBURY PLANNING BOARD MEETING SECOND REGULAR MEETING JULY 24, 2012 7:00 P.M. MEMBERS PRESENT CHRIS HUNSINGER, CHAIRMAN DONALD KREBS, SECRETARY STEPHEN TRAVER DONALD SIPP PAUL SCHONEWOLF DAVID DEEB, ALTERNATE MEMBERS ABSENT BRAD MAGOWAN LAND USE PLANNER-KEITH OBORNE STENOGRAPHER-MARIA GAGLIARDI MR. HUNSINGER-I'll call to order the meeting of the Town of Queensbury Planning Board on Tuesday, July 24, 2012. The first item of business, we have an Administrative Item, but before we get to that, there was a request from Mr. Kelly Carte that was distributed to the Board via e- mail and then this evening was requested that we consider a one year extension on a site plan, and what I agreed to do was bring it up to the Board to see if the Board's willing to consider it. The issue is the one year expires on August 2nd. So tonight would be the only night that we could consider it within the timeframe before it expires. I thought it seemed reasonable, not precedent setting. MR. TRAVER-Sure. Well, let's hear what he has to say. MR. HUNSINGER-Mr. Carte, would you like to come up to the mic? We do have a copy of your letter, as well as the resolution from last year. KELLY CARTE MR. CARTE-Okay. I was not aware that there was a time limit to start this project, or I would have gotten this request in in the normal channel to get it on to tonight's meeting. I was made aware yesterday by Bruce Frank who spotted the fact that the thing was going to expire on the 1St, and the reason why I have not gotten started is because the Corps of Engineers has taken a year to determine whether or not there's any jurisdiction of this project on their part. I'm expecting a letter from them any time now, but they've made three site visits, and believe me, I have no idea what's taking so long on the thing, but there's two water courses on the property, one is a spring that starts on my property and pretty much ends on my property, soaks back into the ground. That one they're going to rule that they have no jurisdiction on that because the water never reaches navigable waterways. The other piece, water course, is a spring runoff channel, ditch, whatever you want to call it. It comes down the mountain and runs a couple, three months in the spring, and that one they take jurisdiction over because it does eventually reach the Hudson River via Clendon Brook and I'm going to be getting, in the approval from them, they're not going to let me put that course in 150 feet of culvert the way that I want to do it. He says I can put it in one section of culvert to be able to drive across there and it has to be a bigger culvert than what we had on the plan. So that's what's going to come back from him eventually, but the reason why I haven't done anything is because, you know, it's been a year on their part. MR. HUNSINGER-Any questions, comments from members of the Board? MR. TRAVER-Have you done any, in terms of preparing for the project, for example, have you put up the no clearing, there's some fencing or some plastic that was to be put up to mark no clearing area. Have you done anything in terms of moving the project along? MR. CARTE-I have done nothing other than getting approval from DEC, which was another thing that needed, APA, which I also have, and checked, one of the other things on there was something about the historical, just check the historical site from whatever, yes, but as far as physically doing anything, no, I have not done anything more on it. I could not, as far as, the majority of the thing is going to be dealing with the water, and this spring, as you know, with the amount of rain and stuff we had, I couldn't have done anything with the runoff thing anyway, it (Queensbury Planning Board 07/24/2012) was really, you know, cascading down there. This spring runs all the time anyway, but it's better to work on it in the latter half of the summer and fall when it's died down as much as possible. MR. TRAVER-Thank you. MR. HUNSINGER-Keith, is there any reason why this project would need to be warned or anything? MR. OBORNE-No, not for an extension. MR. HUNSINGER-1 mean, there's no issues with that is there? MR. OBORNE-No, and if there was obviously this request would go nowhere. MR. HUNSINGER-Right. MR. OBORNE-Wouldn't go anywhere, I should say. MR. HUNSINGER-Right. I just wanted to make sure. Any other comments or questions from members of the Board? Would anyone like to make a motion? MR. KREBS-Yes. MR. HUNSINGER-There's no formal resolution prepared. I mean, all we would be doing is extending the approval. MR. KREBS-Right. RESOLUTION EXTENDING SP #45-2011 KELLY CARTE MOTION TO EXTEND SITE PLAN NO. 45-2011 KELLY CARTE FOR ONE YEAR FROM THIS DATE, Introduced by Donald Krebs who moved for its adoption, seconded by Stephen Traver: Duly adopted this 24th day of July, 2012, by the following vote: AYES: Mr. Krebs, Mr. Traver, Mr. Deeb, Mr. Schonewolf, Mr. Sipp, Mr. Hunsinger NOES: NONE ABSENT: Mr. Magowan MR. HUNSINGER-You're all set. Good luck. MR. CARTE-Okay. Thank you, gentlemen. MR. HUNSINGER-You're welcome. ADMINISTRATIVE ITEM: SUP 9-2012 SAN SOUCI-TABLED TO JULY 24, 2012 MR. HUNSINGER-No new information? MR. OBORNE-No, there actually is new information. We did receive it this past submittal deadline. We did not receive it the previous submittal deadline for July, so that's why you don't have it on here right now. MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. MR. OBORNE-So what I'm requesting is a tabling to the 21St of August. MR. HUNSINGER-Obviously there's no one here representing the applicant. MR. OBORNE-Right. MR. HUNSINGER-The public hearing will also be kept open and extended to the date that we table it to as well. Would anyone like to move it? RESOLUTION TABLING SPECIAL USE PERMIT NO. 9-2012 SAN SOUCI OF CLEVERDALE (Queensbury Planning Board 07/24/2012) MOTION TO TABLE SPECIAL USE PERMIT NO. 9-2012 SAN SOUCI OF CLEVERDALE, Introduced by Donald Krebs who moved for its adoption, seconded by The applicant will be submitting information and we are going to view this information on the August 21St meeting. Duly adopted this 24th day of July, 2012, by the following vote: AYES: Mr. Traver, Mr. Deeb, Mr. Krebs, Mr. Schonewolf, Mr. Sipp, Mr. Hunsinger NOES: NONE OLD BUSINESS REQUIRING PUBLIC HEARING: SUBDIVISION NO. 6-2012 PRELIMINARY & FINAL STAGE SEAR TYPE UNLISTED PIERRE RAWLINS AGENT(S) VAN DUSEN & STEVES OWNER(S) SAME AS APPLICANT ZONING MDR-MODERATE DENSITY RESIDENTIAL LOCATION WEST & EAST DRIVE SUBDIVISION: APPLICANT PROPOSES SUBDIVISION OF A 0.71 ACRE PARCEL INTO TWO LOTS OF 0.37 AND 0.34 ACRES RESPECTIVELY. SUBDIVISION OF LAND REQUIRES PLANNING BOARD REVIEW AND APPROVAL. VARIANCES: LOT SIZE & ROAD FRONTAGE RELIEF. THE PLANNING BOARD SHALL PROVIDE A RECOMMENDATION TO THE ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS. CROSS REFERENCE AV 31- 12 LOT SIZE 0.71 ACRES TAX MAP NO. 308.12-1-8 SECTION CHAPTER A-183 MATT STEVES, REPRESENTING APPLICANT, PRESENT MR. HUNSINGER-Keith? MR. OBORNE-Yes. Subdivision 6-2012, Pierre Rawlins. This is Preliminary & Final, if the Planning Board chooses to do so. Location is West and East Drive. This is in the MDR zone, Moderate Density Residential, and this is an Unlisted SEAR. Warren County Referral was a yes, basically meaning that it was sent to Warren County. No County Impact was the result on that. Project Description: Applicant proposes subdivision of a 0.71 acre parcel into two lots of 0.37 and 0.34 acres respectively. The Highway Superintendent has commented on the proposed West Avenue extension. Please see attached memo. Waivers requested, Sketch Plan, landscaping, clearing plan, topography, erosion and sediment control and grading plan have been requested. Additional comments that follow is the location of leach fields on Lot One should be denoted. Endangered species and historic preservation documentation will be required for this proposed subdivision, and Matt will discuss that. Note: Because of the change in the way we landed on how the road's going to be extended, the actual location of the house and driveway may change a little bit, and Matt will talk about that also, and actually Area Variance 31-2012 was approved last week, and I believe you're familiar with this project, and I would turn it over to the Board. MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. Thank you. Good evening. MR. STEVES-Good evening. Matt Steves representing Pierre Rawlins on this application. As Staff has stated, we were here last week for the recommendation to the Zoning Board. We did obtain that variance at the Zoning Board. Subsequent to our meeting when we had a little bit of communications regarding how far to pave the road and we decided that 20 feet, and then I, on the Wednesday morning, got a hold of Mr. Travis. He wrote the letter saying that he would extend the road the 146 feet plus or minus to accommodate the 20 foot of pavement in front of this lot. He also stated that the pavement would be at the 20 foot mark north of our southerly lot line, but he would also create a little area there where he could push snow beyond the driveway as we discussed, so he's not plowing snow into the driveway. He has no issue with that whatsoever, and what he showed on there was your typical house and that it can conform. What Keith had mentioned about the house with the driveway being 20 feet, we are going to pull the driveway to the southerly end. He wants to do a raised style ranch with the driveway entering in the very southerly end, so it will actually work out perfect. So I have no problem showing the driveway located further south. When we did this, we didn't have a type of structure, but he has a made his determination on the type of home. So that works out great, and moving forward with the, I don't know if Keith had the aerial up there or not, but when it comes to two lots between East and West Drive, if you know the area, there's a few trees on the northerly end near Danville Lane in the Homestead Village Park, and a few to the west, but nothing really in the area where the proposed house is. It's his backyard that's currently there. When we were talking about endangered species and historic preservation, we did write a letter regarding that whole area, DKC property on the west side of West Drive, which is the industrial area, and to Department of Environmental Conservation back on June 14th, June 20th, (Queensbury Planning Board 07/24/2012) endangered species letter, we get it back that the Frosted Elfin butterfly is found in Oak, Savannah, and Pine Barren habitats. Much of the habitat has been lost, and that really, Keith read this, too, to make a long story short, that this rare species becomes dependent on management areas. So like that one acre we set aside, if anybody remember on the south side of what Farone is building on over there, west of the power lines on Sherman Avenue, and then we created that parcel in the back, and then subsequent to that I believe DKC or Clute Enterprises or Larry Clute in some entity created another entity on the end of that, and that was so they could have managed habitat, because they explain here in talking to Jed Hayden that if you don't have it managed, wildlife just eat it up and there's lots of other factors, but what he's saying is that it only becomes effective in highly managed, dependent areas. That was that letter we got back from that. As far as SHPO is concerned, the same date, the 14th of June, we sent a letter, that request form that SHPO has where you fill out the information on their request form. We sent in the letter with the request. We sent in copies of all the maps, and a copy of their, you know, what they would call sensitive areas where if it's outlined in the area, and that was on the same date, and as of today, we have not heard anything back, called their office a couple of times, left another message today with Nancy Todd from SHPO. She's the one that controls Warren/Saratoga Counties, and left a voice message to please call us back, we need to know what's going on, and we haven't heard anything back, and it's been well over the 30 days. MR. HUNSINGER-I was going to say, aren't they required to respond within 30 days? MR. STEVES-Thirty days. MR. HUNSINGER-Yes. MR. STEVES-And I'm not saying, I don't know. Every time we send in, if they have a major concern I usually have something back within two weeks. In this instance, I don't have anything back, so I can't answer that question. Looking at the area on this particular project, being for Rawlins, in an area where it's already, you're surrounded by the mobile home park, you're surrounded by lots on all sides, it's his current backyard, I'm not an expert in it, but in all the years I've been dealing with it, I can't see that there's any habitat there to worry about or any area that hasn't been currently disturbed for historic preservation, but that's my opinion, and I'm not trying to influence the Board. I just don't know, but I think if they had major concerns with this whole area, why didn't they respond back in the 30 days that they had to respond? MR. KREBS-In my visit, there was nothing but sand. MR. STEVES-You've got it. MR. KREBS-Okay. MR. STEVES-And like I say, it's frustrating for us as consultants because we try, we try, we try, but we can only push so hard. Like Mr. Carte was saying with the Federal government, a year to get stuff done. I don't know what to do. MR. DEEB-But you can't make any approval contingent on SHPO. MR. HUNSINGER-Could we make it contingent? MR. OBORNE-You can condition it, and that would not absolve the applicant from obviously having to obtain that. MR. HUNSINGER-Right. MR. OBORNE-You have to be comfortable with it. If you're not comfortable with it, I would table. MR. HUNSINGER-Yes. Right. MR. TRAVER-When you send these letters out, I'm just curious, do you, you know, do you send them like registered so you have some proof of the fact they were received? MR. STEVES-Yes. Like I say, we send it the same day when we send it to any State agency, we send it Certified Return Receipt. I know they got it. They acknowledge they have it. I think they have a file number, but I still don't have a response. So as far as, you know, Keith's comments, and whatever the Board, I have no problem, and my client has no problem. If you want to move it forward contingent upon that, I will, you know, he's not going to be doing anything for a few months, until the road's extended and he gets his financing in place, he's just going through his banking and stuff like that, I will tell them I have to have something to give to the municipality. (Queensbury Planning Board 07/24/2012) MR. OBORNE-And with that, I mean, to keep it clean, I would table. That would be my recommendation, pending that, unfortunately. MR. SCHONEWOLF-Well, nobody's getting hurt because he's not ready to start anyway. MR. STEVES-No, not really getting hurt. The only thing that holds us up slightly is your finance package is tied to having a lot to put it on. MR. OBORNE-So we could potentially table it out to next month if you care to. The application's in. The only thing we're waiting on is endangered species and archeology. MR. DEEB-Any way to expedite that waiting? MR. TRAVER-He's attempted to contact them and left a message. MR. STEVES-It's been over 30 days now and I still don't have an answer. So I'd hate to say that there's a way for me to expedite it. MR. TRAVER-It's probably vacation time. I mean, they're usually, I think our experience has been fairly good with them. They usually get back. MR. STEVES-Yes. I don't disagree with you at all. I usually have a response within, like I say, two weeks or so. MR. HUNSINGER-Yes. MR. STEVES-But I'm still waiting. MR. OBORNE-It's like Shovah. Shovah was pretty quick. MR. KREBS-Shall we table it until next month? MR. HUNSINGER-Yes, I mean, unless there's, I mean we're here, so we might as well address any questions, concerns that anyone might have. I mean, unfortunately we can't really get through SEAR without, and the funny thing is, you know, I've had a number of conversations with people recently about, you know, process and Planning Boards and, you know, the perception and the reputation that we drag our feet and take too long, and so many times, here we are waiting for other approvals to come in, you know, and we're hamstrung until that happens. It's unfortunate. MR. STEVES-1 agree. In my experience with this Board in particular, I've had no issue with that, and I think you do a wonderful job, and I understand the quandary it puts you in, just like it does me. I mean, they have 30 days, they don't respond, that doesn't mean there isn't something there, I just don't have an answer. MR. HUNSINGER-Right. MR. STEVES-So I have no problem with that whatsoever. MR. OBORNE-Is the Board okay with tabling it out to next month, until August? We do have one slot open in August, that would be on the second meeting on the 28th MR. TRAVER-Yes, the 28tH MR. HUNSINGER-Well, in the meantime, we do have a public hearing scheduled. Is there anyone in the audience who wanted to address the Board on this project? We do have at least one person. The purpose of the public hearing is for members of the public to make comments to the Board. I would ask that you identify yourself for the record. We do tape our meetings, and the tape is used to transcribe the minutes. So if you could identify yourself and then direct any of your comments to the Board. PUBLIC HEARING OPENED SCOTT ROWLAND MR. ROWLAND-Yes, my name is Scott Rowland. I live at 68 Wisconsin Avenue. I own property on West Drive. Who's paving the road? (Queensbury Planning Board 07/24/2012) MR. HUNSINGER-The Town is. MR. ROWLAND-The Town. MR. HUNSINGER-Yes, it's a Town road. MR. ROWLAND-How is he getting water? MR. OBORNE-It will be extended. MR. ROWLAND-Well, I mean, I had the road extended 40 feet for my piece of property, and the water line ends at the end of my property. MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. MR. ROWLAND-1 was just wondering how he was going to get water there. I mean, they're going to extend the road 146 feet plus you're talking 100, 200 feet of water line. MR. HUNSINGER-Yes, well, it's actually, it's a paper road that already exists. It's just not paved. They're going to pave it 146 plus or minus. MR. ROWLAND-That's not a paper road. That's a road by use. MR. HUNSINGER-Yes. MR. ROWLAND-1 mean, it took me two years to get 40 feet. MR. SCHONEWOLF-They'll probably pave it and put the water to a certain point. I don't know. I'm just guessing. MR. ROWLAND-1 mean, I'm just wondering why it took me two years to do the same thing that. MR. HUNSINGER-I don't know. I can't answer you. MR. ROWLAND-1 mean, I bought that piece of property there figuring that the road wasn't going to go any farther because it was a road by use and it can't go any farther. So, you know, basically that's what I'm here for. MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. Any other questions? MR. ROWLAND-No. MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. Anyone else? MR. KREBS-Sorry we can't answer it. MR. HUNSINGER-Any written comments, Keith? MR. OBORNE-No. MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. MR. STEVES-Okay. As far as the answer to the road, that is an ownership by the Town Highway Department. The Town owns that as a highway, whether it was taken by use or by dedication, it's a 50 foot wide parcel of land that extends northerly to the southerly end of Homestead Trailer facility, and Mike Travis, when I talked to him after say last week, I asked him if he would extend the pavement to accommodate the subdivision, and he said, yes, no problem, that he was anticipating paving in August or September, and I said okay, but we did go through the Town Clerk, and it is a Town road, and they own the Town road and they are going to extend within their right of way because we cannot. So they are going to do it. As far as the water, the same thing. They will extend the water line up to accommodate the tap to allow for this hook up. MR. SCHONEWOLF-And then they won't extend it any further until there's another one, right? MR. STEVES-No, there isn't any more property. This is the last parcel on West Drive. MR. SCHONEWOLF-They're not going to loop it? Okay. MR. STEVES-No. So that would be the end of it. (Queensbury Planning Board 07/24/2012) MR. ROWLAND-It took me two years to get 40 feet of blacktop for my property. MR. STEVES-1 have no idea. Maybe I was just lucky, but I got the commitment from him and he said he's going to be doing it in last August, early September. MR. KREBS-Yes, the road can't actually loop because you are right into the trailer park at the end. MR. STEVES-That's correct. The ownership ends at the north end of Mr. Rowland's property. MR. HUNSINGER-Any other questions or comments? Would anyone like to move the tabling motion? MR. KREBS-Yes. RESOLUTION TABLING SUB # 6-2012 PIERRE RAWLINS MOTION TO TABLE SUBDIVISION NO. 6-2012 PIERRE RAWLINS, Introduced by Donald Krebs who moved for its adoption, seconded by Donald Sipp: Tabled to the August 28th meeting. Duly adopted this 24th day of July 2012 by the following vote: AYES: Mr. Sipp, Mr. Schonewolf, Mr. Deeb, Mr. Krebs, Mr. Traver, Mr. Hunsinger NOES: NONE ABSENT: Mr. Magowan MR. STEVES-Thank you. MR. HUNSINGER-We'll see you in a month. Thank you. SUBDIVISION NO. 4-2012 PRELIMINARY STAGE REVIEW SEAR TYPE UNLISTED DKC HOLDINGS AGENT(S) VAN DUSEN & STEVES; NACE ENGINEERING OWNER(S) SAME AS APPLICANT ZONING CLI-COMMERCIAL LIGHT INDUSTRIAL LOCATION LUZERNE ROAD SUBDIVISION: APPLICANT PROPOSES SUBDIVISION OF A 15.21 ACRE PARCEL INTO 3 LOTS OF 3.52, 3.95 & 7.74 ACRES RESPECTIVELY. SUBDIVISION OF LAND REQUIRES PLANNING BOARD REVIEW AND APPROVAL. VARIANCES: ROAD FRONTAGE RELIEF FOR PROPOSED LOT 3. THE PLANNING BOARD SHALL PROVIDE A RECOMMENDATION TO THE ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS. CROSS REFERENCE AV 32- 12, SP 5-12, SIB 18-05, SP 10-04 LOT SIZE 15.21 ACRES TAX MAP NO. 308.12-1-7.1 SECTION CHAPTER A-183 MATT STEVES, REPRESENTING APPLICANT, PRESENT MR. HUNSINGER-Keith? MR. OBORNE-Yes, I think we're in a similar position here because I do not believe endangered or SHPO is in for DKC at this point, and this is a three lot Light Industrial subdivision off of Luzerne Road. We're at Preliminary right now. This is an Unlisted SEAR. Project Description: Applicant proposes subdivision of a 15.21 acre parcel into 3 lots of 3.52, 3.95, & 7.74 acres respectively. Highway Superintendent, again, has commented on the proposed West Avenue extension. It's the same road that Rawlins is on, so it actually, you're going to tell the story about this one, aren't you? So there's actually more road than meets the eye on this one. Again, endangered species and historic preservation inquiries have been submitted. As of to date signoff has not been received, and again, the Zoning Board of Appeals has approved the associated road frontage variance last week. I think the Board's familiar with this one also, and I shall turn it over to you. MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. Thank you. Good evening. MR. STEVES-Good evening. Again, Matt Steves representing DKC Holdings on this project. Again, briefly this was in front of you before. We went to the Zoning Board. I won't get into that too much, but the actual asphalt at the end of the road, we went out with Mr. Travis and measured it to where he says is the end of his maintenance road is 112 feet north of our property line, but just in case we had any issues, and we'd already submitted to the Zoning (Queensbury Planning Board 07/24/2012) Board, we got the zoning variance for the relief of the 100 feet. Even though it already exists because he's going to go in there and improve the rest of it anyway. So that's, it was just the, kind of take care of it while we're there. MR. OBORNE-Yes. I mean, the specific language is up to Town standards, you know, in quotations, and the road I guess you consider is not up to Town standards at this point in time, but there is asphalt under there. So it makes life a little easier. MR. STEVES-But that was taken care of. Now coming back to the subdivision, again, I won't spend too much time on it. We did get the letter from Jed Hayden about the endangered species. He did write back regarding DKC specifically. That's the one, again, they all went out the same day. We did get the endangered species back saying that they really need to be in highly managed areas, because of the fact of adequately managed populations of lupine. Feeding, however, there may be fewer than five viable in New York and this rare species has been highly management dependent. Again, so talking to him, and I can get some more definitive as they need managed control areas that they can fence it and control it and keep the deer and everything out, otherwise he said there's nothing there, and they're just disappearing and there's no way they can find them. A little bit of history on this, on the endangered species. When we went through and the storage facility was broken off of this parent parcel, which is now three more lots being broken off, we did have the SEAR and everything determined on that, and that's back when Marilyn Ryba was with the Town and she was doing all the Karner blue. At the time it was Karner blue, now it's the Frosted Elfin, and that all came into play when we were doing that subdivision and he was also, Mr. Clute was also working on Geneva Estates, and there was a couple of potential plants in that area for the blue lupine. So then he dedicated some area in the corner there behind, right there, another acre, and that took care of that, so that they had a management area, and that's what they want. I don't have the map with me, but at the time I actually walked with the State biologist and they found three plants in the entire property. So they said that that's no way to maintain a habitat if they wanted to maintain it. They just can't do it. So they would rather us give them some property in lieu of worrying about the rest of it, so that's what we did, but again, and I understand the Board's position, and I'm in the same. It's been six years. So we write another letter and we get the same thing, that it needs to be a managed area, and we already have one in place. We'll increase it if we had to, but they haven't even used all that yet, and as far as SHPO is concerned, the same thing. The 14th of June I wrote the letter. I have not received any data back, and we had the signoff from them on the previous application in 2006, but it's the same property. I don't know what we do. MR. HUNSINGER-Right, yes. Okay. Any questions, comments from the Board? MR. OBORNE-I would offer that if you are comfortable with increasing the load on the 28th of August to include this one, it would be a total of seven applications, that that's an option before you, and the two that Matt is dealing with would be pretty quick pending the submittal of those documents. MR. STEVES-Right, and it, and I don't want to put any pressure on the Board, but that would actually help in the case where I can get a tabling motion and I will fax it to them as soon as I have it and say we're still waiting. MR. HUNSINGER-Yes. MR. TRAVER-Yes, and by the way it's been more than 30 days. MR. STEVES-Correct. AUDIENCE MEMBER-May I ask a question? Where exactly is that located on Luzerne Road? MR. HUNSINGER-We'll give you an opportunity in a minute, ma'am, okay. Any other questions, comments from the Board? Are there any outstanding concerns other than the SHPO review? MR. SCHONEWOLF-Yes. The fact that they can hold everything up like that I think is pretty sad. MR. HUNSINGER-Yes. MR. STEVES-And I agree. Like I say, I completely understand and I'm in the same boat. I would rather table it as well, and see if we can force their hand, but what really gets me is that they had this before six years ago. I mean, if anything happened subsequent, I don't know. I think it would have been an easy file to read. (Queensbury Planning Board 07/24/2012) MR. HUNSINGER-The property that you set aside to manage the habitat, how is that, is that working well? Does anyone from the State come and monitor that? MR. STEVES-Yes. MR. HUNSINGER-They do? Do they come like every year? MR. STEVES-I think Keith may know more about that than I do because it was, Marilyn Ryba and Kathy O'Brien and the Town and the State got together and developed that whole. MR. OBORNE-Yes, and I think you're supposed to have a report submitted, I believe, but that would be under Craig's auspices. I don't see that come across my desk. MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. So there is, it does hit a tickler and somebody does follow up on it. MR. OBORNE-It appears to, yes. MR. STEVES-It is my understanding that's the case, but like said, I haven't, once it was handed over to the Town Board of Health to facilitate that, and the State to manage it, you know, we dedicated it to them for that reason. MR. HUNSINGER-My concern is we go ahead and everyone moves forward in best faith effort, and we go ahead and we say, hey, this is the right thing to do. We go ahead and we set it up. We can't get letters back from these people, how can we expect them to properly help manage the resource? MR. STEVES-Jed Hayden, to credit him, wildlife did respond back saying they need managed areas and that's what he's basically talking about. MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. MR. STEVES-And I agree, but he did, to date he has responded. MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. MR. STEVES-Because they know that they have the management area and that's what he's referring to. MR. OBORNE-Yes, Green Island, they seem to take their time. MR. STEVES-It's SHPO is the one that we're having the. MR. HUNSINGER-Yes, I'm sorry. I was getting the two offices confused and they aren't the same. So, I'm sorry, I shouldn't do that. Any other questions, comments from the Board? We do have a public hearing. Ma'am, if you want to come address the Board. If I could ask you to come up to the microphone, please. PUBLIC HEARING OPENED AUDIENCE MEMBER-No, I just wanted to know where it was on the Luzerne Road. MR. OBORNE-Do you see it right here? MR. STEVES-Do you see where the storage units are? AUDIENCE MEMBER-Yes. MR. STEVES-It's the property to the west of the storage units going north to Burnt Hills subdivision. It's outlined in the green. AUDIENCE MEMBER-So where would the road be coming out in that area? Where would? MR. STEVES-Luzerne Road. AUDIENCE MEMBER-So in other words it would be between Minnesota Avenue and MS. GAGLIARDI-Excuse me, ma'am, you really need to get on the mic. MR. HUNSINGER-We need to get you on the microphone, please, ma'am. (Queensbury Planning Board 07/24/2012) AUDIENCE MEMBER-That's all I've got to say. MR. HUNSINGER-Mr. Rowlands, did you want to address the Board? SCOTT ROWLAND MR. ROWLAND-Yes. Scott Rowland, 68 Wisconsin Avenue. This is just a three lot subdivision, right? MR. HUNSINGER-That's right. MR. ROWLAND-Two lots off Luzerne Road and one off West Drive, right? MR. HUNSINGER-Right. MR. ROWLAND-No roads? MR. HUNSINGER-No. MR. ROWLAND-No, okay. MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. Any other comments? I guess we'll do the same thing. We'll table until the 28th of August, and pending the SHPO review. Are there any other outstanding comments or questions that we'll need them to address? Okay. RESOLUTION TABLING SUB #4-2012 DKC HOLDINGS MOTION TO TABLE PRELIMINARY STAGE SUBDIVISION NO. 4-2012 DKC HOLDINGS, Introduced by Donald Krebs who moved for its adoption, seconded by David Deeb: Tabled to August 28tH Duly adopted this 24th day of July, 2012, by the following vote: AYES: Mr. Sipp, Mr. Schonewolf, Mr. Deeb, Mr. Krebs, Mr. Traver, Mr. Hunsinger NOES: NONE ABSENT: Mr. Magowan MR. STEVES-1 want to thank you for your understanding. MR. HUNSINGER-You're welcome. SITE PLAN NO. 40-2012 SEAR TYPE 11 GREGG BROWN & LIZABETH BITNER AGENT(S) BARTLETT PONTIFF STEWART & RHODES; MICHAEL BIRD, ADIRONDACK DESIGN OWNER(S) SAME AS APPLICANT ZONING WR-WATERFRONT RESIDENTIAL LOCATION 31 KNOX ROAD SITE PLAN: APPLICANT PROPOSES RENOVATION TO EXISTING 1,076 SQ. FT. ONE BEDROOM BOATHOUSE TO INCLUDE INSTALLATION OF HIP ROOF AND RECONFIGURATION OF LIVING SPACE RESULTING IN A +/- 786 SQ. FT. STUDIO WITH +/- 290 SQ. FT. SUNDECK. BOATHOUSE IN THE WR ZONES REQUIRES PB REVIEW AND APPROVAL. VARIANCES: HEIGHT AND EXPANSION OF A NONCONFORMING STRUCTURE RELIEF. THE PLANNING BOARD SHALL PROVIDE A RECOMMENDATION TO THE ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS. CROSS REFERENCE AV 33-12,AV 9-08, SP 14-07, AV 59-96, SP 44-92 WARREN CO. REFERRAL YES APA, CEA, OTHER APA, LGPC, LG CEA LOT SIZE 0.63 ACRES TAX MAP NO. 239.7-1-7 SECTION 179-9 MR. HUNSINGER-And unfortunately we're going to table this one, too. MR. OBORNE-Yes. There's quite a few tablings tonight. This application I believe the Planning Board is familiar with it. You did the recommendation last week. It went to the Zoning Board of Appeals. They tabled it pending a comment back from APA. With that said, I shall read in the project description. Applicant proposes renovation to existing 1,076 sq. ft. one bedroom boathouse to include installation of hip roof and reconfiguration of living space resulting in a +/- 786 sq. ft. studio with 290 sq. ft. sundeck. The main reason that it's tabled for is that this is a teardown re-build. So it's new construction at this point. That wasn't quite clear at the recommendation stage. It did come out at the Area Variance stage. There appears to be some movement in regards to a change to design, but we have not heard back from that. We will be (Queensbury Planning Board 07/24/2012) sending out to the APA an application with a requested letter for comments, and that's pretty much where we're at right now. You're in a holding pattern right now. MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. MR. OBORNE-And what I'm suggesting, obviously, is to table it out to September 261H Obviously you need to open the public hearing and really with that, if you have any other questions, I'm right here to answer them if you need it. MR. HUNSINGER-Is it realistic to expect to hear back from the APA in time for the September meeting? MR. OBORNE-1 think that reality and what we probably should do maybe are not, you know, joined at the hip. Realistically probably not, but just in case. STEFANIE BITTER MS. BITTERd think actually we might because we're also submitting a jurisdictional inquiry, and usually they respond within three weeks, three, four weeks. So that would bring us at least almost six weeks out. MR. OBORNE-Yes, no, it should be fine. I think September 26th is a prudent date. I think that's fine. MR. SCHONEWOLF-Did the owner change his mind to make it a teardown? Because he never mentioned that when I was there, and I don't think he mentioned that to anybody. MR. OBORNE-No, because what they're doing is they're going to install two caissons and then work off of them by taking down everything. They'll take down a section, my understanding, how it was explained to me, they'll take down a section in whole, and then build, take down another section in whole, re-build. So it's a complete teardown is what it is. MR. HUNSINGER-1 mean, I had asked that very specific question last week, how far they were going to tear down, and that was the answer. They said they would do, like, you know, a section at a time. MR. TRAVER-Except for the chimney, I guess, is going to remain. MR. HUNSINGER-Yes. MR. OBORNE-So it's considered new construction, and as such that opens up a whole other can of worms for the applicant. MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. For the applicant, yes. Okay, and so that discussion came out at the Zoning Board meeting. MR. OBORNE-Yes, it was clarified and Craig is definitely on top of this one. MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. All right. Is there anyone in the audience that wanted to address the Board on this project? Mr. Salvador? PUBLIC HEARING OPENED JOHN SALVADOR MR. SALVADOR-Good evening. For your record my name is John Salvador. I'm a resident in North Queensbury. It's unfortunate that the minutes of the Zoning Board meeting are not available for the record. However, there was quite a lengthy discussion, and many of these comments I'm making tonight I made to the Zoning Board and I could have made to your Board last week if you had had a public hearing. Basically, this is an accessory structure and does not qualify as a boathouse. There's no such thing as a one bedroom boathouse. The Town Code defines a boathouse. A boathouse is an accessory structure which has direct access to a navigable water body. It is used for storage of vessels and associated equipment, and does not have a bathroom or kitchen facilities and not designed or used for lodging or residency, and this structure has all of those. It is not a boathouse. There was talk at the Zoning Board meeting about this being a grandfathered structure. It can't be grandfathered unless it's legally existing. You must have had the permits to do everything you've done to have it there. It's only the fact that the Code has changed that makes it noncompliant or nonconforming, but you have always needed permission to occupy the public land on Lake George. That's always been the case, 11 (Queensbury Planning Board 07/24/2012) even before the DEC and the Park Commission, you needed to get permission to occupy the public land, and there's no evidence that these people ever had permission. There came a time in 1981 when it was required to register with the DEC all waterfront structures, docks, wharfs, moorings, etc., and there's no evidence that this structure was registered. Therefore, it is not a legally existing structure with regard to the Park Commission. My suggestion was to, if they're going to, they're planning to do some dismantling, is to bring the structure into conformance, that is make it a boathouse, get rid of those living quarters, and then come in for the variances you need, but you can't issue permission to expand a structure that is not legally existing. Also we have the issue going on now about the Town's jurisdiction on Lake George. That's a question. We have the question of, regardless of whether it's the Town of Queensbury, is it any Town that has jurisdiction? So those questions have to be answered, and there seems to be a lot of foot dragging going on with regard to resolving those issues, but in any case, there's no application before the Lake George Park Commission at the present time. I checked with that, and there's no evidence that this structure was ever legally permitted, even the living quarters, and, you know, it took a long time at the Zoning Board hearing to get the fact that they're going to reconstruct. This is not a renovation. This is new construction, all of it, and it's got to be reviewed as such. Thank you. MR. HUNSINGER-Thank you. Anyone else? MR. SCHONEWOLF-Keith, that water there, what Town is it in? MR. KREBS-Bolton. MR. SCHONEWOLF-No, that's in Dunham's Bay. That water's in Dunham's Bay. What town is it in? MR. OBORNE-You want me to answer that for the record? MR. SCHONEWOLF-The water. MR. OBORNE-The water? What town is it in? MR. SCHONEWOLF-Yes, because the water that surrounds that area up there has boundaries running through it. John knows that well, and I don't have the map, but I will have it. MR. OBORNE-And I can't answer that question because I don't have that map either, but we do have the Zoning Code that requires these be reviewed by the Planning Board, and that's really my only answer to that. MR. SCHONEWOLF-Yes, but my question is forget what the judge, you know, I understand that you're working with the judge to get that straightened out, but if that was in the Town of Bolton, which it very well may be, I don't know why we're messing with it. MR. OBORNE-I have no comment to that. MR. SCHONEWOLF-And I know you can't, but that's my comment. MR. SCHONEWOLF-And not only that, but, not only this structure, but many other structures that have living quarters or have places where you can gather enclosed, on the top of boathouses, have existed on Lake George for many, many years, and so if we're going to insist that these people not reconstruct this, and my understanding is they're going to eliminate the bedroom, right? MR. OBORNE-Yes. MR. SCHONEWOLF-Which means it's no longer living quarters if you don't have a bedroom. MR. OBORNE-That is a determination of the Director of Building and Codes, that's correct. MR. SCHONEWOLF-Okay. The point is that I can take you up on the lake and show you another dozen places around the lake that are configured the same way, and that were all built prior to the existence of zoning and State regulations. MR. OBORNE-Which makes it a legally nonconforming structure. MR. SCHONEWOLF-Right. MR. OBORNE-That's why you're here. (Queensbury Planning Board 07/24/2012) MR. SCHONEWOLF-Yes, and that is in the Town of Bolton, that water you're saying. So my comment does stand. I don't think we should even be messing around with the Town of Bolton, and that argument is raging up in North Queensbury, not just about building but about a lot of other things. It's got to be settled. MR. OBORNE-And I can't disagree with you, you know, with that, to be honest with you. I'd love nothing more than for that to be taken care of. MR. HUNSINGER-But until it does get settled, what do we do, right? MR. OBORNE-It's status quo. MR. SCHONEWOLF-It's not in our Town. MR. OBORNE-But it's status quo. MR. SCHONEWOLF-So how can you approve a project that's not in our Town? How does the Town of Queensbury have the power to approve a project in the Town of Bolton? They don't. It's that simple. MR. HUNSINGER-Is this something we should send to the Town Attorney? MR. SCHONEWOLF-You can send it to him, but the map's already been registered. MR. OBORNE-They're already in process of examining that, and Mark Schachner's involved in that. MR. SCHONEWOLF-Mark Schachner's involved in the other part of it over the water, but not this. This is a different subject. MR. OBORNE-You're right. MR. SCHONEWOLF-This is a different subject, that nobody in the Town has said anything about this. They've just hidden behind a tree, but the fact of the matter is we've got caught on it in the fire district argument and got caught on it by the fire commissioners from Bolton who told us to stay out of the water, okay. We had to go to the County to get permission to administer to patients on that water. MR. OBORNE-I see. MR. SCHONEWOLF-And I can just see some applicant that doesn't like what comes from this Board saying, hey, it's not your jurisdiction, and probably they're right. MR. OBORNE-I can't disagree. Until we get clarity on the subject. MR. SCHONEWOLF-Yes, and it's not yourjob to clarify it. MR. HUNSINGER-Interesting discussion. Did you want to make a comment on the record? MR. SALVADOR-What I've showed you here is a product of the Warren County GIS program, okay, and they have the Town boundary as it is legally existing, and as I said once before, the waters of Lake George are foreign to the Town of Queensbury. MR. HUNSINGER-How accurate are those, John, those maps? Usually with a GIS map they tell you plus or minus five feet, ten feet, you know. MR. SALVADOR-Well, there's a description of the boundary, and the Town of Bolton, the Town line of the Town of Bolton, runs along the east bank of Lake George. That's a definitive. MR. SCHONEWOLF-There is a place, John, if that went out further, where the outlet toward Long Island, there's a piece of water out there that's the Town of Lake George also. MR. SALVADOR-No, I've corrected that also. MR. SCHONEWOLF-You have? MR. SALVADOR-Yes.