Loading...
02-19-2013 (Queensbury Planning Board 02/19/2013) QUEENSBURY PLANNING BOARD MEETING FIRST REGULAR MEETING FEBRUARY 19, 2013 INDEX Special Use Permit No. 63-2012 Glens Falls Animal Hospital 1. Tax Map No. 296.19-1-14.1, 16, 17.1 Site Plan No. 8-2013 CRM Housing Development, Inc. 2. SEEK LEAD AGENCY STATUS Tax Map No. 302.9-1-28.1 Subdivision No. 8-2007 Ronald & Cynthia Mackowiak 3. MODIFICATION Tax Map No. 289.11-1-59.12, 289.11-1-33 ZBA RECOMMENDATION Site Plan No. 1-2013 Lori Florian 5. Tax Map No. 289.7-2-7, 10, 15, 16, 17, 24 Subdivision No. 1-2013 Hayes & Hayes 12. SKETCH & PRELIM. STG Tax Map No. 302.14-1-79.2 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. (Queensbury Planning Board 02/19/2013) QUEENSBURY PLANNING BOARD MEETING FIRST REGULAR MEETING FEBRUARY 19, 2013 7:00 P.M. MEMBERS PRESENT CHRIS HUNSINGER, CHAIRMAN DONALD KREBS, SECRETARY PAUL SCHONEWOLF DONALD SIPP STEPHEN TRAVER BRAD MAGOWAN GEORGE FERONE, ALTERNATE ZONING ADMINISTRATOR-CRAIG BROWN LAND USE PLANNER-LAURA MOORE STENOGRAPHER-MARIA GAGLIARDI MR. HUNSINGER-Good evening. Welcome to the Town of Queensbury Planning Board on Tuesday, February 19, 2013. First item on our regular agenda is approval of minutes from December 18th and December 20th, 2012. Is there a motion? MR. FERONE-So moved. APPROVAL OF MINUTES December 18, 2012 December 20, 2012 MOTION TO APPROVE THE QUEENSBURY PLANNING BOARD MEETING MINUTES OF DECEMBER 18Th & DECEMBER 20, 2012, Introduced by George Ferone who moved for its adoption, seconded by Stephen Traver: Duly adopted this 19th day of February, 2013, by the following vote: AYES: Mr. Sipp, Mr. Ferone, Mr. Krebs, Mr. Magowan, Mr. Traver, Mr. Hunsinger NOES: NONE ABSTAINED: Mr. Schonewolf MR. HUNSINGER-We have a couple of administrative items this evening. ADMINISTRATIVE ITEMS SUP 63-2012 GLENS FALLS ANIMAL HOSPITAL TABLED TO 2-19-2013- NO NEW INFORMATION SUBMITTED MR. HUNSINGER-We have received no new information. Has there been any discussion with the applicant? MR. BROWN-No. MR. MOORE-No. MR. KREBS-I think we should deny without prejudice. MR. SCHONEWOLF-Without prejudice. MR. HUNSINGER-We have a comment to deny without prejudice. What's the feeling of the Board? MR. TRAVER-Yes, my recollection of the discussion with the applicant the first time they were here was that what they were asking was clearly against regulations in that the intended use was not veterinary in nature but rather boarding. (Queensbury Planning Board 02/19/2013) MR. HUNSINGER-Is this your client, Mr. O'Connor? MICHAEL O'CONNOR MR. O'CONNOR-No. MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. I'm sorry. MR. O'CONNOR-We just have the same name. MR. HUNSINGER-1 take my pets there. MR. TRAVER-And I think that we discussed that at some length with the applicant and they left here with that. I'm not sure that they agreed, but I would assume, in view of the situation, that they've researched that and found that to be the case, otherwise it would have been fairly straightforward to return. I mean, we weren't asking for a lot of information. MR. HUNSINGER-Right. Okay. MR. TRAVER-So I would tend to agree. Let's get it off the agenda. MR. KREBS-Yes, I mean, they can always come back. MR. HUNSINGER-Sure. Absolutely. So do you want to make that in the form of a motion, Mr. Krebs? MR. KREBS-Yes. RESOLUTION DENYING WITHOUT PREJUDICE SUP # 63-2012 G.F. ANIMAL HOSPITAL A site plan application has been made to the Queensbury Planning Board for the following: Applicant proposes to board horses as an associated use with the Veterinary Hospital. Proposal to include the use of existing barn on adjoining lot and the creation of a 2.8 acre fenced paddock on a portion of two adjoining lots. Expansion of Veterinary Clinic in an Office zone requires Planning Board review and approval. A public hearing was advertised and held on 10/16/2012; tabled to 12/18/2012, and further tabled to 2/19/2013-public hearing left open. To date no new information has been received; therefore; MOTION TO DENY WITHOUT PREJUDICE SPECIAL USE PERMIT NO. 63-2012 GLENS FALLS ANIMAL HOSPITAL, Introduced by Donald Krebs who moved for its adoption, seconded by Stephen Traver: Duly adopted this 19t" day of February, 2013, by the following vote: AYES: Mr. Sipp, Mr. Schonewolf, Mr. Ferone, Mr. Magowan, Mr. Krebs, Mr. Traver, Mr. Hunsinger NOES: NONE MR. HUNSINGER-Our second Administrative Item is CRM Housing Development, Inc. SP 8-2013-CRM HOUSING DEVELOPMENT, INC. PLANNING BOARD TO SEEK LEAD AGENCY STATUS FOR PURPOSES OF SEAR REVIEW MR. HUNSINGER-And we were to Seek Lead Agency Status on that project. Are there any questions, comments from members of the Board? Anything Staff wants to add? MR. BROWN-Yes, maybe just a brief synopsis of why it's a Type I SEAR and what the project's about. Laura's got some news for you. MRS. MOORE-All right. Under summary remarks, Planning Board seeks Lead Agency Status for the development of 56 senior unit project that triggers the Type I because it's over 50 units without public sewer. After that the ZBA may accept the Planning Board's request for SEAR Lead Agency at their February meeting and then the Planning Board can provide their recommendation to the Zoning Board based on the project request for density relief. (Queensbury Planning Board 02/19/2013) MR. TRAVER-Yes, and I was going to say, we probably want to note for the record to acknowledge tonight that the Staff pointed out that although they, the applicant indicates that there are no, they did a visual inspection and there are no plant and animal species that are endangered and threatened that we should ask that they get confirmation from DEC, especially since it's indicated in that area that there may be some animals and plants in that area. So just a comment to assist the applicant in preparing their application. MR. HUNSINGER-Sure. MR. BROWN-Yes, at this time right now we've identified the Planning Board and the Zoning Board as involved agencies. So the goal is tomorrow night to have the Zoning Board consent to your, assuming what's going to be your request to be Lead Agency. So this applicant can come back to you in March and you guys can start doing the SEAR and the recommendation to the Zoning Board on the density variance, and at that time when you're doing SEAR, or when you're doing your SWPPP, because it comes out during the SWPPP review, too, you can talk about endangered species and the historic preservation stuff. So, yes, they know that they have to submit all that. This is just the first step to get the SEAR ball rolling. MR. TRAVER-Great. Thank you. MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. Any further discussion? Any questions from Board members? Would anyone like to put forward a resolution to seek Lead Agency Status? MR. KREBS-Yes. RESOLUTION SEEKING LEAD AGENCY STATUS RE: SP# 8-2013 CRM HOUSING DEV. WHEREAS, the Town Planning Board is in receipt of a Variance & Site Plan application for: Applicant proposes senior housing complex with 7-8 unit two story buildings on a private access drive. Each unit will have a 1 car attached garage. Multi-family in an MDR zone requires Planning Board review and approval. Planning Board may acknowledge Lead Agency Status; conduct SEAR and provide a recommendation to the ZBA; WHEREAS, the Planning Board of the Town of Queensbury has determined to begin an environmental review process under the State Environmental Quality Review Act (SEQRA), WHEREAS, the Planning Board of the Town of Queensbury has identified the project to be an Type I action for the purposes of SEQRA review pursuant to 6 NYCRR 617, WHEREAS, the Planning Board is the agency most directly responsible for approving the actions because of its responsibility for approving the land uses for the property, NOW, THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED, The Planning Board of the Town of Queensbury hereby indicates its desire to be Lead Agency for SEQRA review of this action and authorizes and directs the Zoning Administrator to notify any other potentially involved agencies of such intent. That Part I of the SEQRA will be sent to the following agencies [as identified in EAF]: Zoning Board of Appeals MOTION TO SEEK LEAD AGENCY STATUS IN CONNECTION WITH AREA VARIANCE NO. 5-2013 AND SITE PLAN NO. 8-2013 CRM HOUSING DEVELOPMENT, INC., Introduced by Donald Krebs who moved for its adoption, seconded by Brad Magowan: As per the draft provided by Staff. Duly adopted this 19th day of February, 2013, by the following vote: AYES: Mr. Sipp, Mr. Schonewolf, Mr. Ferone, Mr. Magowan, Mr. Krebs, Mr. Traver, Mr. Hunsinger NOES: NONE MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. Into our regular agenda. PLANNING BOARD RECOMMENDATION TO THE ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS SUBDIVISION NO. 8-2007 MODIFICATION SEAR TYPE UNLISTED RONALD & CYNTHIA MACKOWIAK AGENT(S) MICHAEL J. O'CONNOR, ESQ. OWNER(S) SHERWOOD ACRES CONSTRUCTION CORP. ZONING RR-3A, WR LOCATION OFF HALL ROAD, 9 GLEN (Queensbury Planning Board 02/19/2013) HALL RD., SHERWOOD ACRES SUBDIVISION SUBDIVISION: APPLICANT PROPOSES TRANSFERRING 0.59 ACRES FROM A 3.04 ACRE LOT MAKING THE 3.04 ACRE LOT NOW CONFORMING. FURTHER, A SPECIFIC CONDITION OF APPROVAL TO HOOK THE 0.59 ACRE PARCEL AS PART OF LOT C WAS REQUIRED AND PLACED ON THE FILED PLAT. SUBDIVISION MODIFICATIONS REQUIRE PLANNING BOARD REVIEW AND APPROVAL. VARIANCE: LOT SIZE RELIEF. PLANNING BOARD SHALL MAKE A RECOMMENDATION TO THE ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS. CROSS REFERENCE AV 4-2013, SB 1-1971 LOT SIZE 3.04 ACRES TAX MAP NO. 289.11-1-59.12, 289.11-1-33 SECTION CHAPTER A-183 MICHAEL O'CONNOR, REPRESENTING APPLICANT, PRESENT MR. HUNSINGER-Staff Notes? MRS. MOORE-My comments are the Planning Board is only asked to make a recommendation or comment about the Area Variance needed for lot size relief at this time. MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. Good evening. MR. O'CONNOR-Good evening. For the purpose of your record, I'm Michael O'Connor from the law firm of Little & O'Connor. I represent the applicants, and basically what we are trying to do is utilize a piece of Lot C of the Sherwood Acres subdivision. It was part of the Lot C that was approved by this Board. So we basically need a couple of things. We'll need a variance as to lot size, because when we separate that piece from Lot C, Lot C will not be three acres, and then we need to come back here for Site Plan approval, or for modification of the subdivision. This is a piece that's separated from the main parcel by a paper street that is actually owned by the Town of Queensbury. Some time ago I tried to get the Town of Queensbury to do something with the paper street and never got too far. Nobody had an interest in it. The parcel, if you do approve or we can get the variance and everybody approves it, will be attached to an existing parcel that is on Glen Lake. I almost think that the idea of land hooking it before was simply so that somebody wouldn't understand that to be a separate parcel that could be sold separate and distinct from everything else and have a home on it. It will be joined to other premises that are owned by Mr. and Mrs. Mackowiak that will allow them a better entrance to their lot which is on Glen Lake, and also allow them the potential for an area to improve their septic. It's as simple as that. It will have no impact, I don't think, on building on Lot C. It was not something that was going to be utilized as part of that construction project if there is a house built on Lot C. MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. Questions, comments from the Board? It seems like a lot to go through just for a, the Code's the Code, though. MR. O'CONNOR-Laura, it's nice to see you back here. MR. SCHONEWOLF-There's no plans to build on Lot C now, is there? MR. O'CONNOR-I don't know of any, no. That's owned by Sherwood Acres which is Danny Barber, and I don't think he builds on spec. If somebody came along and wanted to buy that lot and build a house I'm sure he would build it. MR. HUNSINGER-Wasn't there neighborhood opposition, too, to re-opening the Town road there? MR. O'CONNOR-I don't know why it never got off the ground. I truthfully don't. MR. HUNSINGER-Yes, I seem to remember there were some neighbors that, well, they certainly didn't want people to be able to drive through to Reardon Road. MR. O'CONNOR-And even that's very difficult because of the topographical features of that road. MR. HUNSINGER-Right. MR. O'CONNOR-I think as you go east on that there is a pretty good sized bank. So it really was a paper street, and I don't know, truthfully, when it was created or how it was created or why, but it was actually deeded to the Town. MR. HUNSINGER-Any other questions or comments from the Board? Would anyone like to put forward a recommendation? RESOLUTION RE: ZBA RECOMMENDATION FOR AV#4-2013 MACKOWIAK (Queensbury Planning Board 02/19/2013) The applicant has submitted an application for the following: Subdivision: Applicant proposes transferring 0.59 acres from a 3.04 acre lot making the 3.04 acre lot non-conforming. Further, a specific condition of approval to hook the 0.59 acre parcel as part of Lot C was required and placed on the filed plat. Subdivision modifications require Planning Board review and approval. Variance: Lot size relief. Planning Board shall make a recommendation to the Zoning Board of Appeals 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; 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. 4-2013 FOR RONALD & CYNTHIA MACKOWIAK, Introduced by Donald Krebs who moved for its adoption, seconded by Stephen Traver: As per the draft provided by Staff. The Planning Board, based on limited review, has not identified any significant adverse impacts that cannot be mitigated by the current project proposal. Duly adopted this 19th day of February, 2013, by the following vote: MR. BROWN-Are you picking Option A or B there? Probably you guys usually pick A? AYES: Mr. Traver, Mr. Krebs, Mr. Magowan, Mr. Ferone, Mr. Schonewolf, Mr. Sipp, Mr. Hunsinger NOES: NONE MR. O'CONNOR-We thank you. MR. HUNSINGER-Yes, you're welcome. MR. O'CONNOR-Do you have any concerns when we come back to you next week? We will come back to you for that subdivision modification, and I've worked out with Craig that we will put notes on the modified map, indicating that it's not to be used as a building lot. MR. HUNSINGER-1 think that was the biggest concern, yes. MR. O'CONNOR-Okay. MR. HUNSINGER-Great. Thank you. MR. O'CONNOR-Thank you very much. MR. HUNSINGER-You're welcome. We have two items under Old Business tonight. OLD BUSINESS REQUIRING PUBLIC HEARING: SITE PLAN NO. 1-2013 SEAR TYPE UNLISTED LORI FLORIAN AGENT(S) HUTCHINS ENGINEERING OWNER(S) SAME AS APPLICANT ZONING RR-3A RURAL & MDR LOCATION EAST SIDE OF TEE HILL RD., OFF MOON HILL RD. & OFF YORKSHIRE DR. APPLICANT PROPOSES TO REVISE BOUNDARY LINES OF SIX (6) EXISTING CONTIGUOUS PARCELS TO CREATE (5) BUILDING LOTS IN A CLUSTER LAYOUT WHICH WILL BE ACCESSED BY NEW PRIVATE ROAD. EXISTING HOUSE AND ACCESSORY GARAGE LOCATED AT 92 TEE HILL ROAD WILL BE RETAINED AS ONE LOT. DEVELOPMENT AND GRADING WITHIN 50 FEET OF SLOPES IN EXCESS OF 15% REQUIRES PLANNING BOARD REVIEW AND APPROVAL. CROSS REFERENCE AV 1-12, SP 51-10, SB 1-71 WARREN CO. REFERRAL JANUARY 2013 LOT SIZE 5.42, 6.39, 1.96, 1.34, 1.63, .70 ACRES TAX MAP NO. 289.7-2-7, 10, 15, 16, 17, 24 SECTION 179-3- 040(A)(2)(b) 179-6-060(A)(1)(a) LUCAS DOBIE, REPRESENTING APPLICANT, PRESENT MR. HUNSINGER-1 don't know, Laura, are you doing notes tonight? (Queensbury Planning Board 02/19/2013) MRS. MOORE-Yes. I just have the applicant has submitted the rain garden detail that was submitted from the original site plan submission. Updated plans have been forwarded to the engineer and the engineer has responded to those. The Fire Marshal has met with the applicant and has also provided comments, and that has been addressed on the revised plans. MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. Thank you. Good evening. MR. DOBIE-Good evening, Mr. Chairman and Board members and public. For the record, Lucas Dobie with Hutchins Engineering. We've worked on, we were here last month for our recommendation. Went to the Zoning Board. We got our variances that we needed, and here we are again to ask for your approval on the project and to answer any questions. Just briefly, the applicant, Ms. Florian, owns six parcels, three of which are landlocked and kind of unsightly, their configuration, and we're proposing to reconfigure them, build a 575 foot private road designed to the DEC low impact development as much as we can, and build five new single family homes with the intention of being 2,000 to 3,000 square foot of floor area on those, and we've got our SHPO signoff, our endangered species signoff, and as of last Friday I was down to one engineering comment, and we re-submitted that, so I'm confident we'll get through your Town Engineering review, and I'll keep it brief and be happy to answer any questions you may have. MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. Questions, comments from members of the Board? I probably should have said this for the record before I introduced the item I did at the last meeting, and that is just for the record, my wife is the owner of the property next door. I certainly have no interest in this project and don't feel that there's any inherent or potential conflict, but just for the record, I just want that to be noted. MR. SCHONEWOLF-I may have missed the Fire Marshal's reply, but in the, originally he said that the 500 feet was too long. How did you work that out? MR. DOB IE-Yes, thank you, sir. I did meet with the Fire Marshal, I think it was a week and a half ago, at our office to talk through that, and what the Fire Code says, or his interpretation that we came to, is if you exceed 500 feet in length you need a Fire Code approved turnaround, which we did on, it is Lot Four, the entrance to that driveway is designed at the 20 foot width for a 50 foot length, which is acceptable in the appendix of the Fire Code, and he was okay with that. That's included within our easement area, and there will be deed restrictions on that lot specifically pointing out that that has to be unobstructed. MR. SCHONEWOLF-There has to be no parking on the turnaround. MR. DOBIE-That's correct. MR. SCHONEWOLF-Is the fire chief aware of this, in this district? MR. DOBIE-Yes. Mr. Palmer? MR. SCHONEWOLF-No, the chief of the fire department. MR. DOBIE-I have not met with him, no, sir. MR. SCHONEWOLF-You might just let him know as a courtesy, that you're compliant. MR. DOBIE-Okay. And one other facet of that road length exceeding 500 feet, you need what's called a turnout where we widen the pavement section to 20 feet over a 50 foot length which we've done on the revised plans from Station 350 to 400, just to allow emergency vehicles to pass each other, should that ever occur. MR. HUNSINGER-I assume that the Town Engineer reviewed the rain garden plans? MR. DOBIE-Yes, he has, sir. MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. MR. DOBIE-I've added those onto each of the detailed sheets of the package that we re- submitted. MR. HUNSINGER-He didn't make any comments on them. That's why I asked the question. (Queensbury Planning Board 02/19/2013) MR. DOBIE-Right. His first round he had a few comments and we addressed those. They went away so I'm confident he's satisfied. MR. HUNSINGER-Yes. Okay. Well, if there's no 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-We left the public hearing open from the last meeting. Are there any written comments in the file? No? Well, if there are no public comments, I will close the public hearing. PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED MR. HUNSINGER-And let the record show that no comments were received. This is an Unlisted action. I believe it was a, we did SEAR before, right? Did we do SEAR before it went to the Zoning Board? LOU RUTA MR. RUTA-Sir, is it too late to make comment on this proposal? MR. HUNSINGER-No, I guess not. Well, you need to come to the microphone, sir. MR. RUTA-It's going to be a quick one. MR. HUNSINGER-It doesn't matter. We tape the meeting, and the tape is available on the Town's internet site, and plus the tape is used to transcribe the minutes. So if you could identify yourself for the record. MR. RUTA-I'm Lou Ruta. I live on Moon Hill Road, 663. I'm okay with this proposal that the lady's making. I'm okay with it, but I would like to see that speed limit dropped down to 25 on Tee Hill. The reason is I've been, a number of times, almost tailgated going to my house. MR. HUNSINGER-I've been passed on Tee Hill Road. MR. RUTA-Okay, and I would like to see, you guys have to do something about it. Drop the speed limit to 25 on Tee Hill where it goes down to Moon Hill. I don't have a problem on Moon Hill. It's 40 miles an hour, and maybe I should say something with that. Many a times I'm going in my driveway and guys have given me the finger as I'm turning in my driveway with my directional on. Forty miles an hour is kind of fast on Moon Hill for the people that are living on there. Now I would like to see something done about those two things. MR. HUNSINGER-1 couldn't agree with you more, and it's, well, I shouldn't comment during the public hearing, but I walk my dog every morning. MR. RUTA-1 see you there. I see you there. MR. HUNSINGER-On Moon Hill Road and on Tee Hill Road, and if I see someone going too fast, and I'll tell you, when you go out onto the road every single morning, it doesn't take you long before you know when people are going too fast, and I've had people flip me off, blow their horn, you name it, and it's always the people that are going too fast. MR. RUTA-Well, those are two things that maybe you should try to address and see what you can do about it. MR. SCHONEWOLF-You should take the speed limit thing to the Town Board, because they're the only ones that can change the speed limit. MR. HUNSINGER-Yes, we don't have any authority over the speed limit. MR. RUTA-Okay. The Town Board, then? MR. HUNSINGER-Yes, the Town Board, but one morning, just before eight o'clock, driving down Tee Hill Road, a young kid in a car passed me on Tee Hill Road, right before the hill on a double yellow line, and of course I caught up to him at the red light. He was going into ACC, it was five of eight. He was late for class. I mean, I just couldn't believe it. (Queensbury Planning Board 02/19/2013) MR. RUTA-Even in the summertime, the motorcycles, not the Harleys or whatever, it's these little Japanese bikes, I've seen guys go by 60, 70 miles an hour, on Moon Hill, in the summertime. MR. HUNSINGER-Yes. MR. RUTA-And I don't know where they're going, but they are really moving really fast. MR. HUNSINGER-Yes. MR. RUTA-For that road. Okay. I've said my peace. MR. HUNSINGER-Thank you. MR. RUTA-Thank you. MR. FERONE-I would say that, sir, I don't know how quickly you want to pursue this, but there is a Town Board meeting next Monday. MR. RUTA-Here? MR. FERONE-Here. MR. RUTA-What time? MR. FERONE-Seven o'clock. MR. RUTA-Okay. I'll try and do that. Thank you. Thank you for your cooperation. MR. HUNSINGER-Yes, you're welcome. Did anyone else want to comment? I'm sorry about that. Okay. MRS. MOORE-You do still need to do SEAR. MR. HUNSINGER-We still need to do SEAR. It's a Long Form. MRS. MOORE-It's a Short Form. MR. HUNSINGER-Short Form, I'm sorry. MRS. MOORE-Do you want a copy of one? I have one that I can share with you. MR. HUNSINGER-That's okay. Whenever you're ready. MR. KREBS-"Does the action exceed any Type I threshold in 6 NYCRR Part 617.4?" MR. HUNSINGER-No. MR. SCHONEWOLF-No. MR. KREBS-"Will the action receive coordinated review as provided for Unlisted Actions in 6 NYCRR, Part 617.6?" MR. HUNSINGER-No. MR. MAGOWAN-No. MR. KREBS-"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. FERONE-No. MR. KREBS-"C2. Aesthetic, agricultural, historic, or other natural or cultural resources; or community or neighborhood character?" 8 (Queensbury Planning Board 02/19/2013) MR. HUNSINGER-No. MR. SIPP-No. MR. KREBS-"C3. Vegetation, fauna, fish, shellfish or wildlife species, significant habitats, or threatened or endangered species?" MR. HUNSINGER-No. MR. TRAVER-No. MR. KREBS-"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. TRAVER-No. MR. KREBS-"C5. Growth, subsequent development or related activities likely to be induced by the proposed action?" MR. TRAVER-No. MR. SCHONEWOLF-No. MR. KREBS-"C6. Long term, short term, cumulative or other effects not identified above?" MR. TRAVER-No. MR. SIPP-No. MR. KREBS-"C7. Other impacts (including changes in use of either quantity or energy)?" MR. TRAVER-No. MR. HUNSINGER-No. MR. KREBS-"Will the project have an impact on the environmental characteristics that caused the establishment of a Critical Environmental Area?" MR. HUNSINGER-No. MR. TRAVER-No. MR. KREBS-"Is there or is there likely to be controversy related to potential adverse environmental impacts?" MR. HUNSINGER-No. MR. TRAVER-No. MR. KREBS-Okay. I'd like to make a motion for a Negative Declaration. RESOLUTION WHEN DETERMINATION OF NO SIGNIFICANCE IS MADE RESOLUTION NO. 1-2013, Introduced by Donald Krebs who moved for its adoption, seconded by Stephen Traver: WHEREAS, there is presently before the Planning Board an application for: LORI FLORIAN, 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 (Queensbury Planning Board 02/19/2013) 3. The proposed action considered by this Board is Unlisted in the Department of Environmental Conservation Regulations implementing the State Environmental Quality Review Act and the regulations of the Town of Queensbury. 4. An Environmental Assessment Form has been completed by the applicant. 5. Having considered and thoroughly analyzed the relevant areas of environmental concern and having considered the criteria for determining whether a project has a significant environmental impact as the same is set forth in Section 617.11 of the Official Compilation of Codes, Rules and Regulations for the State of New York, this Board finds that the action about to be undertaken by this Board will have no significant environmental effect and the Chairman of the Planning Board is hereby authorized to execute and sign and file as may be necessary a statement of non-significance or a negative declaration that may be required by law. Duly adopted this 19th day of, February, 2013, by the following vote: AYES: Mr. Traver, Mr. Krebs, Mr. Magowan, Mr. Ferone, Mr. Schonewolf, Mr. Sipp, Mr. Hunsinger NOES: NONE MR. HUNSINGER-1 think in terms of special conditions, the only real condition is our standard final signoff from the engineer. Is there anything else that anyone feels we need to include? MR. KREBS-Were there waiver requests for landscaping and lighting? MR. HUNSINGER-Landscaping and lighting. Yes. MR. KREBS-So those are the only other two. MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. MR. TRAVER-And we don't actually, in the latest packet, we don't actually have a signoff from the Fire Marshal. So we might want to make sure that that's. MR. SCHONEWOLF-Yes. MR. TRAVER-Is there? I didn't think so. MR. SCHONEWOLF-Well, he did. He just stated the Town Code, which he said, it's got to be a condition of approval that he meets the Town Code. MR. TRAVER-Well, it says the applicant, okay, after the discussion the applicant agreed to the turnout. So there is an e-mail in here from Mike saying it's been agreed to. So I guess that's sufficient. MR. HUNSINGER-But what he says on Item Four is that the revised drawing is provided prior to his signoff. So, yes. I don't know if we need to make a special condition. MR. TRAVER-Just Fire Marshal signoff I guess. MR. HUNSINGER-Yes. That's fine. MR. TRAVER-That was my comment. MR. HUNSINGER-Yes. Okay. Anything else? Okay. Whenever you're ready. RESOLUTION APPROVING SP # 1-2013 LORI FLORIAN A site plan application has been made to the Queensbury Planning Board for the following: Applicant proposes to revise boundary lines of six (6) existing contiguous parcels to create five (5) building lots in a cluster layout which will be accessed by new private road. Existing house and accessory garage located at 92 Tee Hill Road will be retained as one lot. Development and grading within 50 feet of slopes in excess of 15% requires Planning Board review and approval. The PB made a recommendation to the ZBA on 1/15/2013; the ZBA approved the variance requests on 1/16/2013; (Queensbury Planning Board 02/19/2013) A public hearing was advertised and held on 2/19/2013; This application is supported with all documentation, public comment, and application material in the file of record; MOTION TO APPROVE SITE PLAN NO. 1-2013 LORI FLORIAN, Introduced by Donald Krebs who moved for its adoption, seconded by Stephen Traver: 1) Pursuant to relevant sections of the Town of Queensbury Zoning Code-Chapter 179-9- 080, the Planning Board has determined that this proposal satisfies 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; 3) Waiver requests granted: landscaping & lighting plans; 4) The limits of clearing will constitute a no-cut buffer zone, orange construction fencing shall be installed around these areas and field verified by Community Development staff; 5) The Sanitary Sewer connection plan must be submitted to the Wastewater Department for its review, approval, permitting and inspection; 6) If curb cuts are being added or changed a driveway permit is required. A building permit will not be issued until the approved driveway permit has been provided to the Planning Office; 7) Engineering sign-off required prior to signature of Zoning Administrator of the approved plans; 8) Fire Marshal signoff required prior to signature of Zoning Administrator of the approved plans; 9) If required, 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 from Construction Activity" prior to the start of any site work. b) The project NOT (Notice of Termination) upon completion of the project; 10)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. 11) 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. 12)The applicant must meet with Staff after approval and prior to issuance of Building Permit and/or the beginning of any site work. 13) Subsequent issuance of further permits, including building permits is dependent on compliance with this and all other conditions of this resolution; 14)As-built plans to certify that the site plan is developed according to the approved plans to be provided prior to issuance of the certificate of occupancy; Duly adopted this 19th day of February, 2013, by the following vote: AYES: Mr. Krebs, Mr. Traver, Mr. Magowan, Mr. Ferone, Mr. Schonewolf, Mr. Sipp, Mr. Hunsinger NOES: NONE MR. HUNSINGER-You're all set. MR. DOB IE-Thank you very much for your time. (Queensbury Planning Board 02/19/2013) MR. HUNSINGER-You're welcome. SUBDIVISION NO. 1-2013 SKETCH & PRELIMINARY STAGE REVIEW SEAR TYPE UNLISTED HAYES & HAYES AGENT(S) NACE ENGINEERING OWNER(S) SAME AS APPLICANT ZONING NR-NEIGHBORHOOD RESIDENTIAL IHOD-INTERSTATE HIGHWAY OVERLAY DISTRICT LOCATION DIXON ROAD APPLICANT PROPOSES SUBDIVISION OF A 8.47 ACRE PARCEL INTO THREE (3) RESIDENTIAL LOTS CONSISTING OF A 7.44 ACRE LOTS WITH EXISTING DUPLEX APARTMENTS; TWO (2) NEW 0.51 ACRE SINGLE FAMILY LOTS. SUBDIVISION OF LAND IN A NR ZONE REQUIRES PLANNING BOARD REVIEW AND APPROVAL. CROSS REFERENCE AV 2-12, SP 80-10 LOT SIZE 8.47 ACRES TAX MAP NO. 302.14-1-79.2 SECTION CHAPTER A-183 TOM NACE, REPRESENTING APPLICANT, PRESENT; MICKIE HAYES, PRESENT MR. HUNSINGER-Laura, whenever you're ready to summarize Staff Notes. MRS. MOORE-The Planning Board is to review this three lot subdivision for Sketch and Preliminary, as well as complete the SEAR review using the Long Form. The Board may consider a condition requiring the Type B buffer be included on the subdivision plat and in the deeds. MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. Thank you. Good evening. MR. NACE-Good evening. For the record Tom Nace of Nace Engineering and Mickie Hayes, the applicant. I think you've seen this before. It went to the Zoning Board for a variance and that's been procured and now we're back for Preliminary and eventually Final. I'll be happy to answer any questions you have. MR. HUNSINGER-1 had a question. I was not sure what the Zoning Board meant by a three point turn capability on each individual lot, and I was hoping that somebody would be able to clarify that. MR. HAYES-1 think they were concerned that they didn't want anybody backing out onto Dixon Road. MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. MR. HAYES-1 mean that house is going to be quite a ways off, but they were concerned because obviously Dixon Road being a relatively busy road, I think that was the point of it. MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. MR. KREBS-So you're going to have a drive in and then. MR. HAYES-Maybe have like a couple of T, you know, so they can get, a K turn would probably be more accurate. Yes. MR. NACE-It shows on your plan that was submitted for Preliminary. It's been changed. MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. The Type B buffer, it seemed to me on your plan that you exceeded the requirements of the Type B buffer anyway, and so I wasn't quite sure what the comment was, why the comment was needed, but I wasn't at the Zoning Board meeting. So I didn't know if you had a comment on that. MR. HAYES-I'm not sure, to be honest with you, I'm not sure that everybody actually knows the definition of the buffers being, how clear that is to all the people. Like I said, you addressed that we wanted some buffering there, like we talked about that when we came here, and I think they, I don't know if they want to one up it or I don't know how you want to classify it, but I think it's pretty well buffered by what they show on the plan. MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. MR. HAYES-And it's houses to houses now, so where the person is in the rear, we agreed to buffer that as well. MR. HUNSINGER-1 mean, I certainly remember when the original development was before us there was a lot of comments from the neighbors about buffering and some fencing and obviously it's been resolved because no one has come to a recent meeting to voice any concerns. (Queensbury Planning Board 02/19/2013) MR. HAYES-Yes, for the last, from before, that obviously Craig's Staff comes out and you have to follow what you get approved for, they come and inspect to make sure, and we had seeded it and the berm and everything was done, and then we actually, what I told you before, we bought Podnorski's Nursery. So we actually added, we probably have triple the amount of shrubs that we agreed to, just because we have the access to them, to be honest with you. So to make the property nicer, but as far as all those issues, they were addressed before, to be honest with you, but certainly if anybody had an issue, we'd just take care of it. That's an easy way to solve things. MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. MR. MAGOWAN-Yes, I was going to comment that the foundations weren't even dry yet and there was nobody sitting out here. So I was pretty shocked. MR. HUNSINGER-Questions, comments from the Board? MR. SIPP-Some place I've seen a notation that all septic will be on site, all septic systems. MR. HAYES-Will be on their own individual lot. MR. SIPP-In one place here you've got, I can't find it quickly, only two feet to. MR. HAYES-Mottling? MR. NACE-That's right in the back of the lot (lost words). The test pit is not located in the area we're developing. It's back in the back portion of the lot that's remaining natural. MR. SIPP-And except for one small area you're 500 feet from the Northway. MR. NACE-That's what we were here at the Zoning Board for was to have a variance to have a residential subdivision less than 500 feet. MR. SIPP-Well, that's an EPA recommendation, the Environmental Protection Agency. MR. NACE-Well, that's one report, if I remember from the previous approvals, it was simply a report that was done by the EPA out on the west coast somewhere made that recommendation. MR. HUNSINGER-Any further questions or comments? We've got to do the public hearing. Okay. If there's no further questions or comments from the Board, we do have a public hearing scheduled this evening. Did any of you want to address the Board? Okay. The purpose of the public hearing is for interested parties to provide comments to the Board. I would ask that you state your name for the record and address any of your comments to the Board. PUBLIC HEARING OPEN RICK GARRAND MR. GARRAND-Rick Garrand, Dixon Court, Queensbury. I have a letter here from Mary Monthie. She asked that I read it into the record and present it to the Board. MR. HUNSINGER-Sure. MR. GARRAND-"To the Town of Queensbury Planning Board RE: Hayes & Hayes proposed subdivision: 1-2013, Dixon Road The buffer that was to be placed to the west of me has proven to be insufficient in many ways, especially the trees and such which were never properly cared for and have since died. If the Planning Board sees fit to approve this subdivision (even though many of us were left with the impression that what the Hayes & Hayes proposed before was the extent of the build out on this property, and no further would be proposed), I would request that since the requested parcel behind me will be privately owned, that the property deed include a 30 foot no-cut zone (no vegetation removal) along the parcel's eastern end (west of me) be included as a condition of approval. Thank you for considering, Mary K. Monthie, 1 Hughes Court Queensbury, NY" Basically what she's asking for is a 30 foot no cut zone. MR. HUNSINGER-So the trees that were planted there. MR. GARRAND-Most have died. MR. HUNSINGER-They died. (Queensbury Planning Board 02/19/2013) MR. GARRAND-Yes, and essentially there's almost no buffer there at all now. Mrs. Monthie basically can look out her window and see almost straight to the Northway, and she'd be the first to know if there was no buffer there. MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. Thank you. MR. GARRAND-Do I give this to the secretary? MR. HUNSINGER-You can leave it with Staff, yes. Did you want to comment, sir? DREW MONTHIE MR. MONTHIE-I'm Drew Monthie, and I'm actually Mary's son. MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. MR. MONTHIE-And I grew up right next to the property. Professionally I consult and design on, I design landscapes, and I can tell you there was pretty much no buffer put there after this project was approved, and the other question I would raise to this Board is if I'm not mistaken, isn't there an ordinance in Queensbury that prohibits building within a certain distance of the Northway which this project is right next to? MR. HUNSINGER-Well, that was the reason for the variance request to the Zoning Board. MR. SCHONEWOLF-Which was granted. Correct? MR. HUNSINGER-Yes. It was granted. MR. SCHONEWOLF-The same comments that you just made were made to the Zoning Board, right? MR. GARRAND-These comments? MR. SCHONEWOLF-Yes. MR. GARRAND-No, they were not. MR. MONTHIE-But I can tell you from visiting my mother and looking out the windows that there is pretty much zero buffer there. So I would concur with her that there needs to be a no cut zone and definitely more than a few pine trees planted back there. MR. HUNSINGER-So which lot is it that your mom owns? Because on this map there's three lots. MR. MONTHIE-Right there. She's on the corner of Hughes Court and Dixon Road. MR. HUNSINGER-Okay, and that's where the new plantings are proposed is closest to Dixon? MR. MONTHIE-Yes. So that's my comments. MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. Thank you. Were there any written comments, other than the one received this evening? MRS. MOORE-No. MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. MR. BROWN-And, Mr. Chairman, if I could while they're coming back to the table, I was at the Zoning Board meeting when all the buffers were discussed, and there was a lot of, you know, public concern about buffers and this is kind of a unique situation where you've got one developer doing two different types of development. You've got the duplex or the multi-family project, and then the single family, and believe it or not between those two types of developments there's a Type B buffer required. So that's the goal here is, and that's what the Zoning Board conditioned it, that a Type B buffer be along basically the back of the lots, if you will, between the single family and the multi-family project in the back, and along the easterly property along Mr. Monthie's mother's property. That's the Type B buffer that's required, and I don't think the buffer was supposed to extend that far for the multi-family project. Did it go all the way to the street, or was it just along the houses? (Queensbury Planning Board 02/19/2013) MR. NACE-Just behind the houses. MR. BROWN-Just behind, where the duplexes were. MR. NACE-Correct. MR. BROWN-So the reason there was no buffer behind the Monthie's property, because I don't think that was required in the last approval. MR. HUNSINGER-Right. MR. BROWN-This one will require it to go all the way to the street. MR. HUNSINGER-That's correct. Yes. MR. BROWN-Okay. MR. HUNSINGER-That's my recollection anyway. I don't know if you recall it differently. MR. HAYES-No, that's correct, and we haven't, Craig, if I agree with you on this, because we never planted any trees in the front portion. The front of this has never been developed. So this buffer will be planted when we do the project. There was never any buffering on the front. That's never been disturbed. MR. HUNSINGER-Yes, and as we were talking before about the Zoning Board not being familiar with the buffering, I mean, I couldn't tell you the actual requirements of the buffer. So, I mean, when I was reviewing the project I looked it up, you know, in the Code, and the Type B buffer is 20 feet wide, and it's three trees per 100 lineal feet and they have to be a minimum of six foot tall, and that's 179-8-070, and certainly it looks like you're showing 12 eastern white cedars between six and eight feet tall within 223 feet. So that would certainly satisfy the requirements of a Type B buffer. I mean, I don't know if you had anything else to add on that. MR. HAYES-No, I just think that the obviously the buffering, the real requirement is the buffering between, ironically, between the duplexes and the house, and we included it to go up because really you're not really, from Mrs. Monthie's property, it's nice and screened. Her and for the future residents of the other houses as well it's really, that's not really a requirement. That was actually an add on, really, because really those are single family to single family houses. So I guess the buffering's going to benefit her backyard situation and that person who would choose to buy that home. I guess they're both going to benefit from the buffer, and the duplex people and the people, so the buffering really is going to benefit our property that we own, Mrs. Monthie, and the person who's going to buy the single family lot in the front. So really I guess it's a win across the board. MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. MR. FERONE-Would you be looking to replace the trees that are dead that were indicated there were plantings that died already? MR. HAYES-There was no plantings put up there. We haven't done anything with the front part of the property yet. There's nothing planted there. It still looks like that picture right there in the front. MR. FERONE-Okay. MR. HAYES-Yes, so anything that dies on our own property we replace on the back portion of the buffer, but there hasn't been anything planted there yet. MR. FERONE-Yes. MR. HUNSINGER-And of course there's a requirement that if they die they have to be replaced. MR. HAYES-And the Town doesn't, I believe they do a field inspection and inspect that you do what you're supposed to. MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. I just want to make sure we do the sequence correct. I think before we review SEAR we need to review the Sketch Plan waiver. Would that be proper order? The applicant has requested a waiver for Sketch Plan Review, and there is a draft resolution in our package if anyone would like to move that. (Queensbury Planning Board 02/19/2013) RESOLUTION WAIVING SKETCH PLAN FOR SUB # 1-2013 HAYES & HAYES A subdivision application has been made to the Queensbury Planning Board for the following: Applicant proposes subdivision of a 8.47 acre parcel into three (3) residential lots consisting of a 7.44 acre lots with existing duplex apartments; two (2) new 0.51 acre single family lots. Subdivision of land in a NR zone requires Planning Board review and approval. MOTION TO WAIVE SKETCH PLAN REVIEW FOR SUBDIVISION NO. 1-2013 HAYES & HAYES, Introduced by Donald Krebs who moved for its adoption, seconded by Stephen Traver: Duly adopted this 19th day of February, 2013, by the following vote: AYES: Mr. Traver, Mr. Krebs, Mr. Magowan, Mr. Ferone, Mr. Schonewolf, Mr. Sipp, Mr. Hunsinger NOES: NONE MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. Next in order would be the SEAR review. I did not close the public hearing. I'll close the public hearing. PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED MR. HUNSINGER-And this, of course, is a Long Form, as Mrs. Moore had indicated. MR. KREBS-Will the proposed action result in a physical change to the project site? Yes. MR. SIPP-Yes. MR. HUNSINGER-Yes. Small to moderate. MR. KREBS-Small to moderate. MR. HUNSINGER-And which example would we pick? I think it would be, I think it would have to come under other impacts. MR. KREBS-Yes. MR. HUNSINGER-New construction on the property. MR. KREBS-Yes. MR. HUNSINGER-Is everyone comfortable with that? MR. TRAVER-Yes. MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. MR. KREBS-Will there be an effect to any unique or unusual land forms found on the site? MR. HUNSINGER-No. MR. KREBS-No. Will the proposed action affect any water body designated as protected? MR. HUNSINGER-No. MR. TRAVER-No. MR. KREBS-Will the proposed action affect any non-protected existing or new body of water? MR. HUNSINGER-No. MR. TRAVER-No. MR. KREBS-Will the proposed action affect surface or groundwater quality or quantity? MR. HUNSINGER-No. (Queensbury Planning Board 02/19/2013) MR. TRAVER-No. MR. FERONE-No. MR. KREBS-Will the proposed action alter drainage flow or patterns, or surface water runoff? MR. HUNSINGER-No. MR. KREBS-Will the proposed action affect air quality? MR. HUNSINGER-No. MR. TRAVER-No. MR. KREBS-Will the proposed action affect any threatened or endangered species? MR. HUNSINGER-No. MR. TRAVER-No. MR. KREBS-Will the proposed action substantially affect non-threatened or non-endangered species? MR. HUNSINGER-No. MR. FERONE-No. MR. KREBS-Will the proposed action affect agricultural land resources? MR. HUNSINGER-No. MR. TRAVER-No. MR. KREBS-Will the proposed action affect aesthetic resources? MR. HUNSINGER-No. MR. TRAVER-No. MR. KREBS-Will the proposed action impact any site or structure of historic, pre-historic or paleontological importance? MR. HUNSINGER-No. MR. TRAVER-No. MR. KREBS-Will the proposed action affect the quantity or quality of existing or future open spaces or recreational opportunities? MR. HUNSINGER-No. MR. TRAVER-No. MR. KREBS-Will the proposed action impact the exceptional or unique characteristics of a critical environmental area established pursuant to Subdivision 6NYCRR617.14? MR. HUNSINGER-No. MR. TRAVER-No. MR. KREBS-Will there be an effect to existing transportation systems? MR. HUNSINGER-No. MR. TRAVER-No. MR. FERONE-No. MR. KREBS-Will proposed action affect the community's sources of fuel or energy supply? (Queensbury Planning Board 02/19/2013) MR. HUNSINGER-No. MR. TRAVER-No. MR. KREBS-Will there be objectionable odors, noise, or vibration as a result of the proposed action? MR. HUNSINGER-No. MR. TRAVER-No. MR. KREBS-Will the proposed action affect public health and safety? MR. HUNSINGER-No. MR. TRAVER-No. MR. KREBS-Will the proposed action affect the character of the existing community? MR. HUNSINGER-No. MR. TRAVER-No. MR. KREBS-And is there, or is there likely to be, public controversy related to potential adverse environmental impacts? MR. HUNSINGER-No. MR. TRAVER-No. MR. KREBS-Then we will declare a Negative declaration for SEAR. RESOLUTION WHEN DETERMINATION OF NO SIGNIFICANCE IS MADE RESOLUTION NO. SUB 1-2013, Introduced by Donald Krebs who moved for its adoption, seconded by Stephen Traver: WHEREAS, there is presently before the Planning Board an application for: HAYES & HAYES, 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 19th day of, February, 2013, by the following vote: AYES: Mr. Traver, Mr. Krebs, Mr. Magowan, Mr. Ferone, Mr. Schonewolf, Mr. Sipp, Mr. Hunsinger 18 (Queensbury Planning Board 02/19/2013) NOES: NONE MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. We need to, that's right, we can only do Preliminary Stage. MR. NACE-You can give us Final if you want to. MR. HUNSINGER-1 don't think we can, though. Can we? MR. BROWN-I don't think we advertised it for Final. Sketch and Preliminary. MR. HUNSINGER-Yes, unfortunately not. Since it's Preliminary approval, there's really no conditions, other than the ones that are on the draft resolution. MR. KREBS-Right. MR. HUNSINGER-So unless there's any discussion, I'll entertain a motion. RESOLUTION APPROVING PRELIM STG. SUB # 1-2013 HAYES & HAYES A subdivision application has been made to the Queensbury Planning Board for the following: Applicant proposes subdivision of a 8.47 acre parcel into three (3) residential lots consisting of a 7.44 acre lots with existing duplex apartments; two (2) new 0.51 acre single family lots. Subdivision of land in a NR zone requires Planning Board review and approval. The PB made a recommendation to the ZBA on 1/15/2013; the ZBA approved the variance requests on 1/16/2013; A public hearing was scheduled and held on 2/19/2013; This application is supported with all documentation, public comment, and application material in the file of record; MOTION TO APPROVE PRELIMINARY STAGE SUBDIVISION NO. 1-2013 HAYES & HAYES, Introduced by Donald Krebs who moved for its adoption, seconded by Stephen Traver: 1. Pursuant to relevant sections of the Town of Queensbury Zoning Code-Chapter A-183, the Planning Board has determined that this proposal satisfies 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; 3. Waiver requests granted: stormwater mgmt., grading, landscaping & lighting plans; 4. Type B buffer as noted on Sheet 4 S-3 to be included on the final subdivision plat and in the deeds. Duly adopted this 19th day of February, 2013, by the following vote: AYES: Mr. Traver, Mr. Krebs, Mr. Magowan, Mr. Ferone, Mr. Schonewolf, Mr. Sipp, Mr. Hunsinger NOES: NONE MR. NACE-Thank you. MR. HUNSINGER-So you've already submitted for Final? MR. NACE-Yes, we did. MR. HUNSINGER-Is that in the queue for next month do you know? Okay. MR. HAYES-Thank you. (Queensbury Planning Board 02/19/2013) MR. HUNSINGER-Thank you. Good luck. Is there any other business to bring before the Board? MR. SCHONEWOLF-I move we adjourn. MOTION TO ADJOURN THE QUEENSBURY PLANNING BOARD MEETING OF FEBRUARY 19, 2013, Introduced by Paul Schonewolf who moved for its adoption, seconded by Donald Krebs: Duly adopted this 191h day of February, 2013, by the following vote: AYES: Mr. Schonewolf, Mr. Sipp, Mr. Traver, Mr. Krebs, Mr. Ferone, Mr. Magowan, Mr. Hunsinger NOES: NONE On motion meeting was adjourned. RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED, Chris Hunsinger, Chairman 20