Loading...
02-26-2013 (Queensbury Planning Board 02/25/2013) QUEENSBURY PLANNING BOARD MEETING SECOND REGULAR MEETING FEBRUARY 26, 2013 INDEX Site Plan No. 6-2013 Michael Cantanucci 1. Tax Map No. 239.12-2-70 Subdivision No. 8-2007 Ronald & Cynthia Mackowiak (Cont'd Pg. 17) 3. MODIFICATION Tax Map No. 289.11-1-59.12, 289.11-1-33 Site Plan No. 7-2013 Brittany& Megan Alexander 3. Tax Map No. 297.10-1-52 Site Plan No. 8-2013 CRM Housing Dev., Inc. 20. Tax Map No. 302.9-1-28.1 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 02/25/2013) QUEENSBURY PLANNING BOARD MEETING SECOND REGULAR MEETING FEBRUARY 25, 2013 7:00 P.M. MEMBERS PRESENT CHRIS HUNSINGER, CHAIRMAN BRAD MAGOWAN DONALD SIPP STEPHEN TRAVER DAVID DEEB, ALTERNATE GEORGE FERONE, ALTERNATE MEMBERS ABSENT PAUL SCHONEWOLF LAND USE PLANNER-LAURA MOORE STENOGRAPHER-MARIA GAGLIARDI MR. HUNSINGER-Good evening. I'd like to welcome everyone to the Town of Queensbury Planning Board on Tuesday, February 26, 2013. For members of the audience, there are copies of the agenda on the back table. There's also a handout for public hearing procedures. Most of our projects do have a public hearing scheduled tonight, and when we open the first public hearing I'll get into the details of how the public hearing is processed. We have an item for Expedited Review. EXPEDITED REVIEW: SITE PLAN NO. 6-2013 SEAR TYPE 11 MICHAEL CANTANUCCI AGENT(S) DENNIS MAC ELROY OWNER(S) SAME AS APPLICANT ZONING WR-WATERFRONT RESIDENTIAL LOCATION 39 BRAYTON LANE APPLICANT PROPOSES THE ADDITION OF A PERMANENT OPEN SIDED TIMER FRAMED ROOF STRUCTURE TO THE EXISTING DOCK STRUCTURE. THE PREVIOUSLY APPROVED CANOPY ROOF, SUPPORTED FROM THE BOAT LIFT, WILL BE REMOVED. BOATHOUSE IN A WR ZONE REQUIRES PLANNING BOARD REVIEW AND APPROVAL. CROSS REFERENCE SP 17-12, SP 42-11, SP 59-95, AV 70-97, AV 37-96, AV 63-95 WARREN CO. REFERRAL FEBRUARY 2013 APA, CEA, OTHER LG CEA, APA WETLANDS LOT SIZE 1.9 ACRES TAX MAP NO. 239.12-2-70 SECTION 179-5-060 DENNIS MAC ELROY, REPRESENTING APPLICANT, PRESENT MR. HUNSINGER-Good evening. MR. MAC ELROY-Good evening. I'm Dennis MacElroy from Environmental Design, representing Michael Cantanucci on this application for a dock modification. Property at 39 Brayton Lane on the easterly side of Assembly Point. This is an existing dock that in a boat slip currently had a boat lift with a canopy fabric roof structure. The owner would like to modify that dock to include a permanent roof structure, wooden structure with actually a slate roof in this case, matching the design of the house and what not. So I think the application provides an architectural rendering which gives you an idea of what the detail and look of what that would be. So if you have any questions, I'll certainly try to respond to anything that you have. MR. HUNSINGER-Questions, comments from members of the Board? MR. MAGOWAN-Well, I think it would look, really from the art rendering there, from the canopy, it's just such a beautiful spot up there, I think it would be a shame not to build it. MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. We do have a public hearing scheduled this evening. Is there anyone in the audience that wants to address the Board on this project? PUBLIC HEARING OPENED MRS. MOORE-1 do have one comment in the record. MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. Yes. (Queensbury Planning Board 02/25/2013) MRS. MOORE-This is addressed to the Queensbury Planning Board. It says, "I have no problem with the proposed plan outlined in the notice dated 2/19/13 from Don Krebs to install a permanent open sided timber framed roof to existing dock, signed in support thereof." And this is, I believe it's Michael Grasso, next door neighbor, 23 Rappaport Drive. MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. Thank you. If there are no other comments, I will close the public hearing. PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED MR. HUNSINGER-This is a Type 11 SEAR. So no SEAR review is necessary unless there's an item that someone identifies. With that, unless there's questions, I'll entertain a motion. RESOLUTION APPROVING SP #6-2013 MICHAEL CANTANUCCI A site plan application has been made to the Queensbury Planning Board for the following: Applicant proposes the addition of a permanent open sided timber framed roof structure to the existing dock structure. The previously approved canopy roof, supported from the boat lift, will be removed. Boathouse in a WR zone requires Planning Board review and approval. SEAR Type I I-no further action required; A public hearing was advertised and held on 2/26/2013; This application is supported with all documentation, public comment, and application material in the file of record; MOTION TO APPROVE SITE PLAN NO. 6-2013 MICHAEL CANTANUCCI, Introduced by Brad Magowan who moved for its adoption, seconded by Stephen Traver: According to the resolution prepared by Staff. 1) Pursuant to relevant sections of the Town of Queensbury Zoning Code-Chapter 179-9- 080, the Planning Board has determined that this proposal satisfies the requirements as stated in the Zoning Code; 2) Waiver requests granted: Topography, Erosion & sediment control, Stormwater plan, Grading/Landscaping, and Lighting; 3) Final approved plans, in compliance with the Site Plan, must be submitted to the Community Development Department before any further review by the Zoning Administrator or Building and Codes personnel. 4) The applicant must meet with Staff after approval and prior to issuance of Building Permit and/or the beginning of any site work. 5) Subsequent issuance of further permits, including building permits is dependent on compliance with this and all other conditions of this resolution; 6) 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 26th day of February, 2013, by the following vote: AYES: Mr. Traver, Mr. Magowan, Mr. Ferone, Mr. Deeb, Mr. Sipp, Mr. Hunsinger NOES: NONE ABSENT: Mr. Schonewolf MR. HUNSINGER-You're all set. Good luck. MR. MAC ELROY-Thank you very much. MR. HUNSINGER-Thank you. OLD BUSINESS REQUIRING PUBLIC HEARING: 2 (Queensbury Planning Board 02/25/2013) 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 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 MR. HUNSINGER-Laura, if you want to summarize Staff Notes, please. MRS. MOORE-Sure. The last item that occurred was the ZBA completed their review on application. So it's now before the Board under a subdivision, within the zone of Waterfront and RR-3A. MR. HUNSINGER-I'm sorry, we're going to check to see if Mr. O'Connor is here. MRS. MOORE-1 don't see him either. That's what I was wondering. AUDIENCE MEMBER-I'm actually from Mr. O'Connor's office. MR. HUNSINGER-I'm sorry. MRS. MOORE-Okay. AUDIENCE MEMBER-No, I'm not here. I'm just here to watch him. MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. AUDIENCE MEMBER-I know Mike is going to be here. MRS. MOORE-He's running behind. MR. HUNSINGER-If he's not in the lobby, maybe we'll, if he's not here, maybe we'll move on onto the next item and come back to him. He's not there. Okay. We'll come back to the Mackowiak project. The next one is Site Plan 7-2013. SITE PLAN NO. 7-2013 SEAR TYPE UNLISTED BRITTANY & MEGAN ALEXANDER AGENT(S) HUTCHINS ENGINEERING OWNER(S) SAME AS APPLICANTS ZONING MDR LOCATION 667 RIDGE ROAD APPLICANT PROPOSES CONVERSION OF A THREE (3) BEDROOM SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENCE INTO A SEVEN (7) BEDROOM BED AND BREAKFAST. BED AND BREAKFAST IN AN MDR ZONE REQUIRES PLANNING BOARD REVIEW AND APPROVAL. CROSS REFERENCE AV 60-09; BP 10-431, 04-531 WARREN CO. REFERRAL FEBRUARY 2013 TOM HUTCHINS, REPRESENTING APPLICANT, PRESENT MR. HUNSINGER-Wow, this is unusual. MR. MAGOWAN-Are they here? I don't see them. MRS. MOORE-They're not here either? MR. MAGOWAN-Are any of you Brittany or Megan? BRITTANY ALEXANDER MS. ALEXANDER-Yes. MR. MAGOWAN-Well, please, we're waiting for you. Don't keep us waiting, you know. That's not good. MR. HUNSINGER-It's all yours, Laura. Thank you. MRS. MOORE-Okay. Under Staff comments, all I have is Planning Board is to complete the SEAR review and this project is conversion of an existing dwelling to a bed and breakfast. (Queensbury Planning Board 02/25/2013) MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. Good evening. MS. ALEXANDER-Good evening. MR. HUTCHINS-I'm Tom Hutchins. I do business as Hutchins Engineering. With me are applicants Brittany and Megan Alexander, and the Alexander's propose to, not really construct a bed and breakfast, but convert an existing residence into a bed and breakfast, which we have five guest rooms, two owners, and there would be minimal changes to the structure itself, like a 200 square foot addition off the back side of the garage. There are some interior floor plan type changes, but site wise there would be minimal changes to the structure. This is at 667 Ridge Road. It's a 3.2 acre parcel. The issues site wise that we've identified I guess are parking and wastewater, which we've shown upgrades to each. We've shown compliant parking with five guest spaces and two owner spaces, as well as maintaining the integrity of the driveway, and we've shown an expansion of the existing wastewater system that was installed in 2003 1 believe, and that would be some of the tank would remain and the existing system would essentially (lost words). With that, we've kept it as minimal as we can to accomplish their goals and we're really excited about it. So we'll welcome your comments. Anything to add? MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. Thank you. MR. MAGOWAN-You don't have to be nervous. MR. DEEB-Are you guys going to live there? MS. B. ALEXANDER-Yes, we live there now. MR. HUNSINGER-Questions, comments from the Board? That was an interesting letter from the Department of Health. MR. HUTCH I NS-Department of Health, and that has to do with a, they have a secondary operation that they propose, making cupcakes for delivery and sale off-premises. There's no customers. There's no drive thru customers, and the Health Department has had some questions, primarily regarding the floor plan and how the kitchen interacts with guest spaces and such. We have met with the Health Department, subsequently, and I've discussed that with Craig and Craig's opinion was from a Queensbury zoning perspective that was a home occupation and it can belong with the bed and breakfast and obviously we have to work out the issues with the Health Department which we believe (lost words). MR. HUNSINGER-Yes, it was interesting. I don't think we've ever seen a letter, particularly of that detail, from the Department of Health before. MR. TRAVER-Yes, it kind of looks like the Town Engineer report. MR. HUNSINGER-Yes. MR. TRAVER-Yes, that's what I was going to ask about. You feel that you've worked out those issues. MR. HUTCHINS-We're going to get a letter, and of course if we can't work them out, then we can't do that part of the operation. MR. MAGOWAN-All for a cupcake. MR. DEEB-Have you ever done that before? MS. ALEXANDER-This is a new venture. MR. DEEB-It's a new venture. They were saying something about the kitchen walkway too close to the kitchen. MR. HUTCHINS-We have to isolate the cupcake kitchen from the guests. MR. DEEB-Which is different from the other kitchen. MR. HUTCH I NS-Correct. Right? MS. ALEXANDER-Right. The other kitchen is for guests. (Queensbury Planning Board 02/25/2013) MR. SIPP-Under the plant, small trees and large shrubs and so forth, you have listed a black ash, and ash is something we don't want. MR. HUTCHINS-I'm sorry? MR. SIPP-Ash is, any type of ash tree, which is now affected by a bore, which is transmitted by firewood or from tree to tree, and you've got, we don't have the number, which is another thing. MR. HUTCHINS-Okay. I'll verify that. I believe that was taken out of the book. I may be wrong. MR. SIPP-Well, it looks good in the way of landscaping, but there is the hazard, shall we say, that the more ash we plant the more they're going to (lost word). MR. HUTCHINS-So that would be less than desirable then. MR. SIPP-Yes. MR. HUTCHINS-Okay. We can certainly remove that. MR. HUNSINGER-What would you recommend, Don? MR. SIPP-Put in a few more oaks and maples. Whatever's growing there now, which you have some large. MR. HUTCH I NS-There's some large trees that we're being careful to try to avoid with the driveway so we can save them. MR. SIPP-Yes. MR. MAGOWAN-So in the resolution we'd recommend oaks and maples, remove the black ash. MR. HUNSINGER-Replace the ash with either an oak or a maple tree. Other questions or comments from the Board? MR. MAGOWAN-Was this house a bed and breakfast before, or was that the next one up around the bend a little bit more? MS. ALEXANDER-It was the ones, the next one, our next door neighbors, former next door, the white with the porch in the front. MR. MAGOWAN-Yes, the white house, yes, because they're both older homes. MS. ALEXANDER-Right. Exactly. They're both historic, and the Crislips used to live in the white home with the large porch in the front. They had a bed and breakfast there for years. MR. MAGOWAN-That's right. Yes. MR. HUNSINGER-1 didn't know that. MR. MAGOWAN-1 think it would be a great welcome to our community. MS. ALEXANDER-Excellent. MR. DEEB-And the plans look nice. MS. ALEXANDER-Excellent. Thank you. MR. MAGOWAN-And I would like to know where you're selling your cupcakes so we can try them out, too. MS. ALEXANDER-Absolutely. MR. MAGOWAN-We're here every third and fourth Tuesday of the month. MR. TRAVER-Yes, not every Tuesday. MR. HUNSINGER-We do have a public hearing scheduled this evening. Is there anyone in the audience that wants to address the Board? We do have a couple of people, if you wouldn't mind giving up the table. The purpose of the public hearing is for neighbors and interested persons to (Queensbury Planning Board 02/25/2013) provide comment to the Board. I would ask anyone wishing to address the Board to come up to the table and speak into the microphone. Please give us your name for the record. We do tape the meeting. The tape is on the Town's website for people to listen to. We also use the tape to transcribe the minutes. So if you could speak clearly into the microphone and address your comments to the Board. Good evening. PUBLIC HEARING OPENED CHRISTOPHER LYNCH MR. LYNCH-Good evening. My name is Christopher Lynch. This is my wife Maureen. I've owned adjacent property to this for, well, my family's had it for about 50 years. We've been living there since 1985. Now I wonder if any of you can understand why I'm not jumping up and down to have 10, 15 transients living adjacent to my property. Lights going on and off, full time business to boot. You probably think it's a great thing for the community. If you were a next door neighbor, perhaps not. I'm looking; first of all, the major comment is that the notice was sent out on a school week off. We just found out about it yesterday. We were overseas. Got back late night, early morning yesterday, and we have not had a chance to really review this. They've obviously had months and months to put this together with engineers, etc., and I honestly don't think it's fair, you know, to give us, you know, one day when we're still sitting here with jet lag putting us about five in the morning, so, and bronchitis, but I've just, in a quick view, like I say, I would ask the Board to postpone this, and we may end up retaining an attorney, you know, we just got a motorcycle repair shop next door and this single family area has been, for the 50 years that we've had the land, and, you know, we're fighting to try to keep it a single family sort of area, which it used to be. I find, in a quick view, a lot of the responses at best incomplete, at worst disingenuous. In Section G., Illumination, we're going to have on and off lights. It'll be about eye level to my bedroom, my children's bedroom also, on and off. I don't know exactly what it is, how it is. It doesn't really show on the plans what's going to be there for the parking area. I find this application incomplete on that section. There will be a loss of trees. I'm not really, I haven't had a chance, really, even to look at it and see how many trees are going to go down and what's going on. That really hasn't been addressed. Driving over there this evening, the boundary, shrubbery or whatever was discussed in these responses, I don't see it because I see the house. There is no boundary whatsoever. That's just a fact. So I think Section L we're also incomplete. Section Q is possibly the one I'm most interested in, percolation tests, and I put that together with the Department of Health, you know, this is an incomplete application because the Department of Health hasn't found on their septic system, but if you're at all aware of the geology in that area, there's a rock shelf, 30, 40 feet underneath the dirt, and it goes for about 400 feet because my previous house I had to drill through 400 feet of rock. So basically any problems, you know, with septic, percolation or runoff, whatever, where they say it's flat land, well, it's the nub of a hill that goes downhill that's just gravity. That's nature. So I really don't know what they're talking about, but we're very curious what the percolation tests were, saying that they were not needed. Again, maybe somebody can say that but not their next door neighbors. They pointed that septic system right at one neighbor, and again, there's a little "V" shift in there where the water goes, you know, the aquifer goes down, and we're next on the pecking list. So we're extremely interested in that, and I don't see any results. I don't see that they've done any percolation tests. Again, landscaping, the verbiage to save the character of the house, how do you take a single family house, turn it into a seven family, seven bedroom bed and breakfast with a full time business is saving the character of the house is just, that's part of the disingenuous part. It's just, you don't do that, and, quote, the intent of the project of a bed and breakfast is to maintain and enhance the existing property and to preserve its historic value. Hogwash. That's just false. The purpose of a bed and breakfast is the same thing as the purpose of a baking operation. It's to make money. If we're going to be honest, let's be honest. Okay. So, like I say, either incomplete or disingenuous. Perhaps even more is the public hazard. Does anybody know what they call that curve? MR. DEEB-Deadman's Curve. MR. LYNCH-Yes. They're sitting here bringing a bunch of tourists. How many accidents do you think are there a year? 10, 15? Hell, the son of the last bed and breakfast owner was killed on that stretch. People come around there like maniacs. We've got all the building. Again, I've been there for a long time. So I've watched it, but between Hiland and everything like that, it's like a racecourse in there. I've been living on my present property for 18 years. I've never seen a policeman on that little stretch right there, but I've seen a lot of accidents, and the idea of having a bed and breakfast on Deadman's Curve, and then saying it isn't a hazard to public safety, disingenuous, incomplete. Stupid. Stupid. Now, again, maybe we're just going to have a nice quiet little bed and breakfast and nothing will happen, we'll lose a bunch of trees and yadda, yadda, yadda, yadda. The house has been for sale for the last five years, or at least there's been a for sale sign out in front. Now I don't know what is going to happen six months from now or a year from now or two years from now or whatever, but again this is a profit making (Queensbury Planning Board 02/25/2013) venture, period. The heck with this hogwash about saving the historical character, yadda, yadda, yadda. If you want to save the character of this community, you leave it a single family residential area. It's a nice area. It has been for a very long time. We're in the process of bringing up a family there. I love it. It is what it is, but again, we are, as we see it right now, very opposed to this, and again, I just don't need a whole bunch of transients in there. The last one, I thought was very understated for any type of bed and breakfast there last time. We tried to be nice and say, well, okay, you're a neighbor. Let's try it, and it turned into a zoo and finally we came before the Board when they tried to make the variance permanent and they voted it down. They voted against the bed and breakfast, the Crislips that you mentioned before. That was no nonconforming, bad. We think this present one is no, nonconforming, bad, and we hope that there's some continuity coming out of this township, but it hasn't changed in the last couple of months. MR. HUNSINGER-Just a quick question. You said you live next door. Which side? MR. LYNCH-Just to the north. MR. HUNSINGER-Just to the north. Okay. MAUREEN LYNCH MRS. LYNCH-We are the parcel, the wooded one that is cattycorner to their back corner, if you will. MR. TRAVER-Laura, could you shut off that light, by any chance? MR. HUNSINGER-Yes, I can't really see the screen. Perfect. MRS. LYNCH-The arrow is on the Cruz's property. Used to be a bed and breakfast. That has since been not rescinded but it was not granted permanent to the land. Apparently it was issued in error years and years ago to the owner as opposed to the property. So that's a private residence. Behind it is Giovanna Garner, our old neighbor, or our old house. The big, long one. I have been unable to reach her since we got home. We found out about this less than 36 hours ago. I cannot get a hold of Giovanna. We are the wooded parcel behind Giovanna. I'm sorry. I have trouble talking. I have been unable to reach the Cartiers who are out of town until April. I have been unable to reach Mark Kazazean who is also on the mailing list and within the 500 foot radius impacted. I have been unable to reach Randy Weeks. I did speak with Joan Reed, who is just south of (lost word). She has had problems with drainage, stormwater runoff and flooding on her property since the Romer house went in, which is a separate issue and it's moot point, but if that caused her that much trouble, I would not want to be concerned about more than doubling the septic field on this proposed project. They're also going to be denuding more trees out of that one section of the property. Proposed (lost words) are pointed right at Doris Schultz's well in her yard. She is here also this evening, and that is a concern. The past five to ten years there has been a loss of tree cover from our parcel and surrounding because of the windstorms. They came in the early months of the year. Sap hasn't risen. The trees are brittle and they snap (lost words). We lost a lot of old trees. So did everyone else. It has reduced the cover. We've got a very active ecosystem on our property we have been desperately trying to preserve. It has, there has been a marked reduction in species and population over the past five years, and we have had loss of buffer between us and the road, and that has contributed to this markedly. Romer just about clear cut the whole back of his lot. Now he's going to (lost words) his house and all the traffic going by on the road. If these trees are taken out for the septic and to add in the parking spaces, more cover and more buffer is lost and it drives the wildlife away. I also know on the proposal there's a total of seven parking spaces, the minimum required for the guest rooms. There are no spaces for the owners. So I assume that is under the minimum that would be necessary, and I am also concerned with putting in some decorative shrubbery, three four feet high is not going to replace the ecological effect of mature trees that were taken down. Shrubs don't go down and absorb wastewater or any other products. You need a good tap root to get that stuff cycled through, and these are going to be lost. The other thing that we are really concerned about is the traffic. Deadman's Curve has got to be about the worst possible place to put a business, especially a bed and breakfast which means people that don't know the area, and their pets coming and going. If you've got animals roaming, even on a leash, they can still introduce disease, and believe it or not that's of concern to me, again, for uncommon species we're trying to protect them on land, for stuff coming and going, and the other thing is all the best intentions in the world on this are going to go out the window as soon as this property changes hands. It may be much more marketable as a working bed and breakfast and an operating catering business when we have the house, but what happens when the next owner takes over it? Well, that's (lost words) no protection. We have no guarantee that they're not going to be in here seeking further expansion (lost words). It is a very sensitive area. We've already had deleterious impact from the past couple of changes over the past 10 years, and if we aren't (Queensbury Planning Board 02/25/2013) active and proactive to try and protect what we've got, we're going to lose more. We may not be adding as much to the local economy, but I can't believe increasing the number of traffic accidents on that area is going to help either. There's other places to run a bed and breakfast. There's other places you can locate a catering business. I really can't see dropping it in the middle of Ridge Road right on that turn. I would please, one last thing, footnote, the number of neighbors on that mailing list, I have tried to contact just about everybody on the list, and most of them are out of town and the timing of this is somewhat alarming that those things were mailed out on the 19th when most people are out of town that entire week. Thirty-six hours is not sufficient time to question or evaluate this and the idea that most of the people are out of town and haven't even seen this yet is of great concern to us. Apparently, according to the documents, the project has been on and off in the works since 2009. Yesterday at 9:40 in the morning was the first we heard about any of this. Thanks for your time. MR. HUNSINGER-Thank you. MR. MAGOWAN-Welcome home. I know that trip over from Europe is tough. MRS. LYNCH-Plus two teenagers and four seats together for eight hours. MR. MAGOWAN-And bronchitis. MR. HUNSINGER-Did you want to speak, too, ma'am? Thank you. Good evening. LISA CRUZ MRS. CRUZ-1 am Lisa Cruz. I am the owner of the adjacent property, the former bed and breakfast, and, yes, it was a bed and breakfast when we bought it and we converted it back to its original single family home, to maintain the historical value of the home. When we were looking at property, we actually did look, the home that's in question, the Alexander's home, was on the market at the same time as our house was. They had done, it's a beautiful home, but the driveway, my husband pulled in the driveway and said, well, you couldn't live here because getting in and out of this driveway is like a death warrant. I have, since we have lived there, we have had, well, numerous accidents, as the Lynches have said. We have had people go through our picket fence that lines that twice now. I have ridden to the hospital in an ambulance, you know, as a result of a car accident that happened there and there was children involved and I went running out of the house to help. It's just, it's an awful corner. It's, you know, I don't know, I mean, I don't know how else to say it but it is just an awful corner, and it's very dangerous. So leaving the existing driveway as I see on the plans, because there isn't any other way on to that property, I don't think is a viable solution. As the Lynches have indicated, you know, you're going to be dealing with people that aren't familiar with the area and it's just, it's a recipe for disaster. Myself and my husband feel that you have the right to do what you want with your own property. If they want to choose to have a bed and breakfast, they have the right to operate, come before the Board and do that, but the other side of it is how does that impact the rest of the community and the rest of the property? The house is historical. Our house is historical. The area on the edge of the property, that outlying area, has a rock wall that was built, is one of the original rock walls in Queensbury, and I don't see that that's being maintained on the, because now we're going to have a new driveway that goes in there and that's around the perimeter of the property, and it says it's going to have kind of a, I don't know, a split fence. So we're going to get rid of a historic rock wall to put a driveway egress and parking spots and lose all of those trees. It's a very heavily wooded area. It's a barrier between my house and their house, and it's an area that's going to take a lot of engineering to make it a driveway. My husband was not able, as the Lynches indicated; we got the notice this past week in the mail. My husband had a business trip planned today. He's on an airplane on the way to Chicago. So he was not able to come tonight. So very much, you know, like the Lynches said, we feel that we haven't really had enough opportunity to learn about this project and what the total, you know, consequences of the plan were. I think that's it. DORIS CIEZENSKI-SHULTZ MS. CIEZENSKI-SHULTZ-I'm Doris Ciezenski-Shultz, and I live in the house just west of Alexanders, in between Romers and Alexanders, and my main concern is my well is in the front yard, and knowing where they're going to put the expanded septic is right in line with my well, and also water drainage. I mean, I have problems with my basement now, with water drainage after Romers built their house, because they built their house up. So it no longer goes in the natural slope of things, it kind of backs up and into my basement. I can't use my basement for anything. Anything that's down there is ruined, but anyway, that's my problem. When I built my house over 20 years ago on that piece of property, I was required to leave the back third wild because they found it to have a natural deer corridor. So if they're going to be taking down trees, that's going to destroy that natural corridor, and getting back to what she was saying (Queensbury Planning Board 02/25/2013) about the driveway, I lived in that house for two years with my mother-in-law, my late mother-in- law, and it was hard getting in and out of there, no matter which way you went, whether you made a left or a right. Because those cars come around and you can't hear them, you can't see them. All of a sudden they're there. So that would be a definite hazard, and I guess that's all I have to say. Thank you very much. MR. HUNSINGER-Thank you. Anyone else? MRS. CRUZ-1 would just like to add that I did contact the neighbors across the street, the Cartiers, who are in Florida. They go to Florida every summer. Their concerns were as well the volume of traffic, you know, just the number, seven rooms, taking a three bedroom house to a seven bedroom, and then when are you going to park these cars and those cars going in and out of that driveway. Another question that, I'm sorry, I forgot to ask. I know that the Crislip bed and breakfast had to have, it was a Zoning Board issue, prior to, it had to be approved by the Zoning Board. Is not the same case with this? I mean, was there a Zoning Board? MR. HUNSINGER-I'm not familiar with that project. It didn't come before this Board. Currently the zoning allows a bed and breakfast through site plan review. So there's no zoning variance required. MRS. CRUZ-So that is just a Planning Board issue. It does not have to go through the Zoning Board? MR. HUNSINGER-Right. MRS. CRUZ-Okay, because that was one of the Cartier's questions as well, because when Crislip did the bed and breakfast, they had to go before the Zoning Board and it was voted down. MR. DEEB-Mrs. Cruz, you live in Crislip's old house? MRS. CRUZ-Yes. MR. DEEB-Which was a bed and breakfast. MRS. CRUZ-Yes. MR. DEEB-How many years was it a bed and breakfast, do you know? MRS. CRUZ-I'm not sure exactly how many. MR. DEEB-And about how far are you away from the Rudolphs? That was a bed and breakfast for years. MRS. CRUZ-The Rudolphs? MR. DEEB-Yes. They stopped doing it a few years ago, but I know for years it was a bed and breakfast. MRS. CRUZ-They had to have a variance as well. MR. DEEB-But it was still operated as a business. I was just wondering, it was a bed and breakfast. So they were two bed and breakfasts up there in that area for years. Okay. MR. HUNSINGER-Anything else? Thank you. MRS. CRUZ-Thank you. MR. HUNSINGER-Anyone else wish to address the Board? Did you have any written comments, Laura? MRS. MOORE-1 do not. MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. If the applicant wants to come back to the table. I mean, there were a number of concerns that the neighbors raised. One of them was lighting for the parking area. You have asked for a lighting waiver. (Queensbury Planning Board 02/25/2013) MR. HUTCHINS-We have asked for a lighting waiver. We've indicated shielded downcast and we would have a light in that area. We need a light in the area to the north of the garage, and our intention was a motion activated light, shielded, downcast, residential style light. MR. DEEB-The plans, did they indicate there was a fence around the whole property or just, and that's where the animals are going to be walked, only on your property? MR. HUTCHINS-Yes. MS. ALEXANDER-Right. MR. DEEB-And it's fenced in. MS. ALEXANDER-Right. We have a locked closed in fence around the perimeter right now, and there's a white picket fence in the front. MR. DEEB-Right. I saw that. MS. ALEXANDER-There are open portions of it which we would close off so that only the side and the front would be where the dogs would be walked and it would all be enclosed. MR. TRAVER-Now would there be impact to the rock wall? MR. HUTCHINS-No. MS. ALEXANDER-Absolutely not. MR. TRAVER-That is a bit of a fixture in that area. MR. HUTCHINS-And that's depicted on the plan that we're not, we don't get near that. MR. TRAVER-There was a question on septic as well, and I know we require engineering signoff. That system as it is now is fairly recent, I think, 2004, if my notes are accurate. You would be expanding upon that system, but again, the engineering your design and the, all of the engineering requirements would require Town signoff. MR. HUTCHINS-Yes, it's a permanent item, and we are expanding, we are staying with the same essential style system. It doesn't get any closer to the neighbors. It expands actually in a direction toward the road. It doesn't get any closer to the neighbors well. We did locate the well on the westerly parcel, and there's a 100 foot radius on there and it's just about 100 feet from the radius, it's approximately 200 feet from that well. MR. TRAVER-Can you comment on the degree of tree removal? I know in your earlier remarks you talked about some of the old and I am somewhat familiar with the property, some of the larger older trees you want to try to retain. MR. HUTCHINS-Yes. We've made effort to retain, in fact the original concept had a little different configuration, not quite as much sweep in the drive that goes to the north, and we revised it in order to say we did relocate three, one of them was really big, red oaks, I believe they were all red oaks. Maybe one was a maple. Within that island and we constructed it that way in order to save those, and the area directly behind the garage, and correct me if I'm wrong, I don't believe there were any large, they're small trees that would have to get removed to get the parking in. With regard to parking, I believe we are compliant with the Ordinance. I believe the Ordinance states for bed and breakfasts, one space per guest room and two for the owners, and that's what we're showing. We didn't overdo parking. We're doing as little parking as we can to be functional and compliant. We've kept a narrow drive. We've minimized the cut area as best we can in order, and still accomplish what we're trying to accomplish. MR. TRAVER-A question that might be traffic related. I know you're talking about the specialty cakes aspect of the business. Are you going to be, you're going to be baking these cupcakes there, but are you going to be having people drive in and out to get them or are you going to deliver them to another site and sell them? MS. ALEXANDER-We will be delivering only. No cupcake patrons will be on the premises at all. MR. TRAVER-So no additional traffic caused by the sale of the cakes. So it would only be the overnight guests, presumably, that would be. MS. ALEXANDER-Yes. (Queensbury Planning Board 02/25/2013) MR. TRAVER-Okay. Thank you. MR. HUNSINGER-If I could just ask you to elaborate on that, I guess the impression I had with cupcake deliveries is I know there's, you know, it's a big trend now to have like, you know, mobile like the ice cream man kind of things. So, I'm envisioning that you'd be like, you know, going multiple times a day going to multiple locations. MS. ALEXANDER-No. We do not have a mobile cupcake vehicle. We're going to be using our vehicle that's going to be commercially, a commercial vehicle for our use, and then take it to an event, a wedding shower, bridal shower, to set up the product on tiers. MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. So it's event driven. MR. DEEB-Special events, then? MS. ALEXANDER-Special events. MR. TRAVER-So that's the specialty in the cakes part. MS. ALEXANDER-Exactly. Also we're personalizing. So it's special to the individual that's receiving them. They can give us; they're designed specifically for the customer. MR. MAGOWAN-So you're not going to be setting things up in stores and, you know? MS. ALEXANDER-No. MR. MAGOWAN-On call, made to order. MS. ALEXANDER-Exactly. MR. TRAVER-And that part of the operation is also still pending approval by the Department of Health, as part of the letter that we discussed earlier. Okay. MS. ALEXANDER-We're in collaboration with the Health Department. MR. DEEB-Now as far as the traffic impact, that curve, I know it's very dangerous. I grew up in this area for years and they've never changed that, if I'm not mistaken, for as long as I've lived here, and that's 60 something years. So I just don't, the danger of that curve has always been there, and always will be until, the State would have to do something with it if they were going to do anything with it, I think, I don't know if it's a County road or State, probably State road, isn't it? MR. HUNSINGER-It's a State road. MR. DEEB-It's a State road. So I mean it would be up to the State if they were going to do anything with that, but as of all these years, nothing has ever been done with it. Yes. I grew up on Chestnut Ridge Road. So we are very familiar with that turn, and that has been the thought process on that road, and we are (lost words) repositioned that stone wall just a bit coming in the driveway. So now it's excellent view from both, on that side when you're turning. MR. HUTCHINS-Right, sight distance to the north. MS. ALEXANDER-Right. Yes, which is exceptional for us as homeowners. MR. HUTCHINS-And we looked at if there was a way we could improve it by reconfiguration or whatever, and we looked at modifying the entrance to the other side or something. We don't see an easy way. MR. TRAVER-I know I've seen on some, let's say tricky driveways, particularly up on the lakeside, some people have used mirrors so that as you approach the. I'm not sure, with the line of sight, if that would work in this application, but that might be something you could look into that might mitigate. MR. MAGOWAN-You said you moved what to give you a better view? MS. ALEXANDER-We curved the wall in more instead of coming straight out so that when you were at the end of the driveway, when you look up the road, you can see the cars coming. (Queensbury Planning Board 02/25/2013) MEGAN ALEXANDER M. ALEXANDER-The corner edge of the stone wall. MR. MAGOWAN-So you could get your nose out a little bit further and still be safe, all right. MS. ALEXANDER-Exactly. MR. MAGOWAN-You're aware of the dangers of the corner and you feel comfortable with it, then? MS. ALEXANDER-Absolutely. MR. DEEB-You you were proactive in increasing the safety factor. MS. ALEXANDER-Yes, the visibility. MR. DEEB-That is a problem. MS. ALEXANDER-As we know living there at the home, then we (lost words). We love the area. MR. HUNSINGER-One of the comments in the Staff Notes from the Staff review from the sit down Staff review, asked about the days of operation. Could you comment on that? MS. ALEXANDER-The days of operation of the bed and breakfast? MR. HUNSINGER--Yes. MS. ALEXANDER-It would be year round, 365 days. MR. HUTCHINS-By reservation. MS. ALEXANDER-By reservation. MR. HUNSINGER-Do you have any sense for the market? I mean, what's your expectation in terms of occupancy? MS. ALEXANDER-Well, we would expect a higher occupancy in the summer months with Lake George and Saratoga so close, but we would be hopeful to have a reasonable occupancy in the winter as well, as the area offers some skiing and Fall foliage, Balloon Festival. So we're hoping it would be pretty steady year round, but probably more concentrated in the summer. MR. HUNSINGER-Any other questions from members of the Board? I asked specifically about lighting on the driveway. Is there any other new lighting fixture proposed, exterior lighting? MR. HUTCHINS-There was lighting proposed on the, everything is building mounted. There would be lighting on the existing garage and then there is lighting on the walk in side of the house. Correct? Okay. I don't believe we had any other lighting. MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. MR. TRAVER-And the lighting you're proposing is Code,just downcast? MR. HUTCHINS-Yes, it would be wall pack, shielded wall packs. MR. HUNSINGER-And you said it would be motion activated? MR. HUTCHINS-Right. MR. MAGOWAN-That's just the one on the north side of the garage, right? Is there one on the north and the south side of the garage? MS. ALEXANDER-Yes. MR. MAGOWAN-Well, you've got actually three on the garage, right? MR. HUTCHINS-We've got four on the garage. (Queensbury Planning Board 02/25/2013) MS. ALEXANDER-All sides of the garage will be (lost words). So whoever is approaching from whatever side (lost words). MR. MAGOWAN-Now the walkway, I imagine does not go all the way over now, right? It just goes over to the asphalt driveway now? MR. HUTCH I NS-Correct. MR. MAGOWAN-And you don't plan on putting any lights along there? MR. HUTCHINS-No. MR. MAGOWAN-It would just be all activated by the garage lights. MR. HUTCHINS-Right. There's a building light here and a building light here. Yes. MR. MAGOWAN-And they will be downcast, correct? MR. HUTCHINS-Yes. MR. HUNSINGER-Any other questions? MR. DEEB-Chris, if there was one message that came across that there was a lot of concern about the traffic. MR. HUNSINGER-Right. MR. DEEB-And I know we probably don't have any authority to do anything with that, but is there anything we can do just in relation to, you know, as I'm looking at this drawing here, if you're coming out of that driveway, rather than crossing traffic if you're trying to go north, if you just have all traffic just come out of Ridge Road and head south, I know that would probably be an inconvenience for some people but I'm just thinking about cars crossing, and while I can appreciate the applicant saying that they're comfortable in coming out of that driveway, again there are going to be people that are tourists that are just completely unfamiliar with that road and the speed with which those cars are traveling along that stretch of Ridge. MR. TRAVER-Right exit only? MR. HUTCHINS-I'm not familiar with that such thing being done in essentially a residential type situation, although the bulk of people would likely be going south, but there are going to be some that want to go north. I mean, could there be some signage, perhaps, on the, exiting the driveway,just cautionary? MS. ALEXANDER-Yes, we would advise people to turn right only. MR. TRAVER-Yes, it's not far down the hill at the next curve there's a place that you can turn around in. MS. ALEXANDER-Yes. MR. TRAVER-Pretty good sight visibility there. MS. ALEXANDER-Yes, we would definitely do that. MR. DEEB-Also, I was just wondering, are you going to have brochures? Are you going to advertise? MS. ALEXANDER-We're going to put it on the website. MR. DEEB-You're going to put it on the website. Will people be making reservations on line or will they be doing it by phone? MS. ALEXANDER-Phone. MR. DEEB-And at that point if they make a reservation, is there a possibility that you could say to them, if you give them exact directions when they come in, pre-warn them that that's a tough curve. They'll know when they're there. So that that'll hopefully lessen any problems that might come up. All right. (Queensbury Planning Board 02/25/2013) MR. HUNSINGER-Any other comments from the Board? What's the feeling of the Board? Are members willing to move forward? MR. TRAVER-Yes, I think between the engineering signoff and the Board of Health approval that they need to acquire, and we reviewed the lighting. The other main issue is traffic and we've addressed that as best we can. I mean, there could be a residential setting with seven people living there. MR. HUNSINGER-Right. MR. MAGOWAN-Will that be a Board of Health signoff? MR. HUNSINGER-Department. MR. HUTCH I NS-Department of Health. MR. TRAVER-The Board of Health is our Town. MR. HUNSINGER-Right. MR. HUTCHINS-And that approval is not required for the bed and breakfast operation. MR. TRAVER-Right. MR. HUTCHINS-For the other operation. MR. DEEB-And there were two bed and breakfasts existing up there prior to this, that had been there for years. MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. Well, I will then close the public hearing. PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED MR. HUNSINGER-This is an Unlisted action. The applicant prepared a Short Form. Brad, are you going to do the SEAR review? MR. MAGOWAN-Sure. Short Form? MR. HUNSINGER-Short Form. MR. MAGOWAN-"Does the action exceed any Type I threshold in 6 NYCRR Part 617.47" MR. HUNSINGER-No. MR. TRAVER-No. MR. MAGOWAN-"Will the action receive coordinated review as provided for Unlisted Actions in 6 NYCRR, Part 617.67" MR. HUNSINGER-No. MR. TRAVER-No. MR. MAGOWAN-"Could the action result in any adverse effects associated with the following: C1. Existing air quality, surface or ground water quality or quantity, noise levels, existing traffic patterns, solid waste production or disposal, potential for erosion, drainage or flooding problems?" MR. HUNSINGER-No. MR. SIPP-No. MR. MAGOWAN-"C2. Aesthetic, agricultural, archeological, historic, or other natural or cultural resources; or community or neighborhood character?" MR. HUNSINGER-No. MR. TRAVER-No. (Queensbury Planning Board 02/25/2013) MR. MAGOWAN-"C3. Vegetation, fauna, fish, shellfish or wildlife species, significant habitats, or threatened or endangered species?" MR. HUNSINGER-No. MR. TRAVER-No. MR. MAGOWAN-"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. MAGOWAN-"C5. Growth, subsequent development or related activities likely to be induced by the proposed action?" MR. TRAVER-No. MR. SIPP-No. MR. MAGOWAN-"C6. Long term, short term, cumulative or other effects not identified above?" MR. HUNSINGER-No. MR. SIPP-No. MR. MAGOWAN-"C7. Other impacts (including changes in use of either quantity or energy)?" MR. TRAVER-No. MR. HUNSINGER-No. MR. MAGOWAN-"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. MAGOWAN-"Is there or is there likely to be controversy related to potential adverse environmental impacts?" MR. HUNSINGER-No. MR. TRAVER-No. MR. MAGOWAN-Then I declare this a Negative Declaration. MR. TRAVER-Second. RESOLUTION WHEN DETERMINATION OF NO SIGNIFICANCE IS MADE RESOLUTION NO. 7-2013, Introduced by Brad Magowan who moved for its adoption, seconded by Stephen Traver: WHEREAS, there is presently before the Planning Board an application for: BRITTANY& MEGAN ALEXANDER, 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 02/25/2013) 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 26th day of, February, 2013, by the following vote: AYES: Mr. Magowan, Mr. Traver, Mr. Deeb, Mr. Ferone, Mr. Sipp, Mr. Hunsinger NOES: NONE ABSENT: Mr. Schonewolf MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. Would anyone like to put forward a motion? MR. MAGOWAN-I'll put a motion to approve. RESOLUTION APPROVING SP #7-2013 BRITTANY& MEGAN ALEXANDER A site plan application has been made to the Queensbury Planning Board for the following: Applicant proposes conversion of a three (3) bedroom single family residence into a seven (7) bedroom Bed and Breakfast. Bed and Breakfast in an MDR zone requires Planning Board review and approval. A public hearing was advertised and held on 2/26/2013; This application is supported with all documentation, public comment, and application material in the file of record; MOTION TO APPROVE SITE PLAN NO. 7-2013 BRITTANY ALEXANDER & MEGAN ALEXANDER, Introduced by Brad Magowan who moved for its adoption, seconded by Stephen Traver: According to the resolution prepared by Staff with the following findings and conditions: 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: Topography, Landscaping, Grading, Stormwater and Lighting; 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) Additionally, we'd like to replace the black ash that you propose with an oak or maples; 8) And that the four lights on the garage will be motion activated and downcast; (Queensbury Planning Board 02/25/2013) 9) And looking for engineering signoff and the New York State Department of Health for the cake and cupcake business; 10) Also, signage at the end of the driveway for a recommendation to turn right due to the concerns of the nature of the corner; 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 26th day of February, 2013, by the following vote: MR. HUNSINGER-Is there any discussion? Did you have a question, Laura? MRS. MOORE-For clarification, it's a Town signoff on the septic design, and it's the New York State Department of Health not the local Board of Health for the signoff, and then you had suggested one other item, and I don't know whether that's something that you want to bring up is a review of the opportunity to have a sign that indicates patrons of the B & B should turn right only. I don't know if that's something that you wanted to add to that. MR. MAGOWAN-Or a sign just warning of the dangers, you know, do recommend you turn right, you know, turn around at the bottom of the hill or something like that. MR. HUTCHINS-We'd be okay with a small sign facing inward that suggests right out only. MR. MAGOWAN-Just suggests. MR. HUTCHINS-Yes, due to the blind curve, indicate there's a blind curve, suggested right turn only. We'd be okay with that. MR. TRAVER-Are you going to add that to your motion? MR. HUNSINGER-Do you want to add that to the motion, then? MR. MAGOWAN-Okay. So I will amend the motion. AYES: Mr. Traver, Mr. Magowan, Mr. Ferone, Mr. Deeb, Mr. Sipp, Mr. Hunsinger NOES: NONE ABSENT: Mr. Schonewolf MR. HUNSINGER-You're all set. Good luck. MR. HUTCHINS-Thank you. MR. HUNSINGER-Thank you. SUBDIVISION NO. 8-2007 MODIFICATION SEAR TYPE UNLISTED RONALD & CYNTHIA MACKOWIAK (CONT'D) MICHAEL O'CONNOR, REPRESENTING APPLICANT, PRESENT MR. HUNSINGER-We'll go back to our first item under Old Business. Subdivision 8-2007, a modification for Ronald & Cynthia Mackowiak. We were ready for you, Mr. O'Connor. I can hold off. We've got a lot of people coming for the next one. I can do this one afterwards. MR. TRAVER-Well, if it's simple. MR. HUNSINGER-If it's simple, yes. They're all here for your project. (Queensbury Planning Board 02/25/2013) MR. O'CONNOR-I guess so. For the purpose of your record, I'm Michael O'Connor from the law firm of Little & O'Connor. I represent the applicant who wishes to modify an existing subdivision plan, and basically there was a small parcel that was land hooked to the main parcel of Lot C as shown on the subdivision map for Sherwood Acres, and they have entered into a contract subject to getting Town approvals that would separate that and then merge it with another piece of property that the purchaser owns that's on the lake. It had no impact on the neighborhood. It is not a piece that would ever be used in conjunction with the building or home that was built on Lot C. We've been through the Zoning Board and did get the variance approved. So that Lot C can become a nonconforming lot in that it would be 2.45 acres as opposed to 3 acres, and that's basically it. When I talked to Craig about this, Craig Brown, he indicated that I should note on the modified map that the parcel that was being separated is to be merged with the parcel that it's to be merged to, and I've actually got the mylars prepared and I showed this to him at the Zoning Board of Appeals and he was satisfied with that indication. That's as simple as it is. MR. TRAVER-I was trying to remember when we looked at this last. Because this little hooked piece of property, is that the gore, the piece of property that you found that was actually a gore? MR. O'CONNOR-No. There's a little tiny piece on the far end that's a triangular piece that is a gore. MR. TRAVER-Okay. MR. O'CONNOR-That piece only has 204 square feet. MR. TRAVER-Yes, it was real small. I was trying to remember. I knew there was one in there somewhere. I didn't know if it was this one. MR. O'CONNOR-I talked to Craig about that last meeting. I said I certainly hope I don't have to come back for another modification of the subdivision to get rid of that, and we looked at the map. It's not really land hooked. So we're going to try and sell it as a single family lot. We're going to give it to somebody, 204 square feet. MR. HUNSINGER-I was going to say, 204 square feet? MR. TRAVER-Create another Gore Mountain maybe. MR. HUNSINGER-You couldn't put a dog house on that. MR. O'CONNOR-It wouldn't meet any setbacks. It's just a triangle. MR. HUNSINGER-Exactly. MR. O'CONNOR-But basically whichever neighbor speaks up and wants it we probably will deed it to them. I don't know if it's even on the tax roll. It doesn't have a tax map number. MR. HUNSINGER-Wow, that's interesting. MR. MAGOWAN-Give it to someone, then will it have a tax map? MR. O'CONNOR-I think if one of those two people want it, we would put a clause in the deed saying it's merged with their other parcel. It's not the intent, and when I talked to Craig, it's not the intent to sell a freestanding lot that's someplace all of a sudden pops up in a tax sale and somebody else claims it. There's a small island on Glen Lake that nobody can locate that continuously happens like that. It's up near the inlet, and where it is nobody knows, but every once, somebody will buy it for a couple of hundred bucks and it goes for a few years and then they figure out that it's not something that anybody could ever use for anything. It goes back into tax sale. Somebody else buys it for a couple hundred bucks. It's been through about six, seven tax sales. MR. HUNSINGER-Wow. MR. TRAVER-There was a, some years ago, and this is my fault this is not so simple, but I seem to recall some years ago near Canoe Island someone bought essentially a rock pile that was south of the island of Canoe Island, and with plans to try to build that up somehow and develop it. Nothing ever came of it, but it may have been something similar. MR. O'CONNOR-They probably couldn't figure out what Town it was in. MR. TRAVER-Well, I hear everything now is in Bolton. Right? 18 (Queensbury Planning Board 02/25/2013) MR. O'CONNOR-I just did a dock in Putnam, that's attached to lands in the Town of Putnam, and the Town of Hague has jurisdiction. MR. HUNSINGER-Wow. MR. O'CONNOR-So it's different. MR. MAGOWAN-It looks like the west side just encroaches on the east side. Right? MR. O'CONNOR-Yes, but the east side gets the assessment. Nobody wants to answer that question. That's my pitch on this thing. I don't think it affects anybody. It does allow the fellow who's going to purchase it better control of his access, and a potential area for improvement to his septic system. MR. HUNSINGER-Any other questions, comments from the Board? We do have a public hearing this evening. Is there anyone that wishes to address the Board on this project? PUBLIC HEARING OPENED MR. HUNSINGER-Any written comments? Okay. We'll open the public hearing and I will close the public hearing. PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED MR. HUNSINGER-Let the record show no comments were received. This is an Unlisted action. They did not submit a SEAR form. So I assume that we would just reference the prior SEAR review that was done? I forgot the date. MR. O'CONNOR-You did the SEAR review when the original subdivision was made. There's really no change to that. MR. HUNSINGER-Yes. I saw it in the package and I meant to demarcate it and I forgot to. Yes, it was from December 20, 2007. We did a SEAR Long Form. So we can just affirm the prior SEAR decision in the motion. Anything else? So whenever you want. MR. MAGOWAN-Okay. I'll make a motion to approve. RESOLUTION APPROVING MODIFICATION TO SUB #8-2007 MACKOWIAK A subdivision application has been made to the Queensbury Planning Board 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; A public hearing was scheduled and held on 2/26/2013; This application is supported with all documentation, public comment, and application material in the file of record; MOTION TO APPROVE MODIFICATION TO SUBDIVISION NO. 8-2007 RONALD & CYNTHIA MACKOWIAK, Introduced by Brad Magowan who moved for its adoption, seconded by Stephen Traver: As per the resolution prepared by Staff with the following findings and conditions: 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. We will affirm the prior SEAR decision from 2007; Modification- the requirements of the State Environmental Quality Review Act have been considered, and the proposed modification[s] do not result in any new or significantly different environmental impacts, and, therefore, no further SEQRA review is necessary; 3. Waiver requests granted: stormwater mgmt., grading, landscaping & lighting plans; (Queensbury Planning Board 02/25/2013) 4. Final approved plans, in compliance with the Subdivision, must be submitted to the Community Development Department before any further review by the Zoning Administrator or Building and Codes personnel; 5. The applicant must meet with Staff after approval and prior to issuance of Building Permit and/or the beginning of any site work; 6. Subsequent issuance of further permits, including building permits is dependent on compliance with this and all other conditions of this resolution; 7. As-built plans to certify that the subdivision is developed according to the approved plans to be provided prior to issuance of the certificate of occupancy. Duly adopted this 26th day of February, 2013, by the following vote: AYES: Mr. Magowan, Mr. Sipp, Mr. Traver, Mr. Ferone, Mr. Deeb, Mr. Hunsinger NOES: NONE ABSENT: Mr. Schonewolf MR. O'CONNOR-We thank you. MR. HUNSINGER-You're all set. You're welcome. SITE PLAN NO. 8-2013 SEAR TYPE I CRM HOUSING DEV., INC. OWNER(S) SAME AS APPLICANT ZONING MDR LOCATION ABBEY LANE 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 RECOMMENDED TO THE ZBA. CROSS REFERENCE AV 5-2013 WARREN CO. REFERRAL 2-2013 LOT SIZE 17.01 ACRES TAX MAP NO. 302.9-1-28.1 SECTION 179-9; 179-3-040 MICHAEL O'CONNOR & TOM ANDRESS, REPRESENTING APPLICANT, PRESENT MR. HUNSINGER-Laura, if you could summarize Staff Notes, please. MRS. MOORE-Sure. At this point the Planning Board can acknowledge their role as Lead Agency for this project. The Board can begin their SEAR review. Again, the project is to, applicant proposes a senior housing complex with seven to eight unit two story buildings on a private access drive. There's Staff Notes in reference to, that came from Warren County that the Board could review as part of their SEAR, and there's comments from the Zoning Board of Appeals in their minutes to you as well for your review tonight. MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. Thank you. Good evening. MR. O'CONNOR-Good evening. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. For the purpose of your record, I'm Michael O'Connor from the law firm of Little & O'Connor. I am part of the team that's representing the applicant. With me at the table is Tom Andress who is the engineer for the project from ABD Engineering, and John Vagenalis who is the principal attorney for the project, and with us is John Veracka from the applicant. Basically I think we're here this evening to hear your comments on what has been submitted to you. We understand that there are extensive comments by the engineer that we're prepared to answer and we'll make a submittal to the engineer which we think will satisfy the engineer. So I'm going to have Tom give you an overview of the project, and then if you have questions we'll try to answer them the best that we can. I don't think we had submitted to you, and I know I just received it today, a letter from DEC that basically says there are no known occurrences of rare or State listed animals or plants of significant natural communities or other significant habitats on or in the immediate vicinity of these parcels. So we've got a signoff from them, and I would just copy to you of that, and I presume that you also, although it's not necessarily the subject that we're here for tonight, there is a memorandum that Craig Brown issued on the history of the site and what the zoning was when it was purchased, which is more, I think when we go back to the Zoning Board we will talk about that. MR. HUNSINGER-Do you have copies for everybody? 20 (Queensbury Planning Board 02/25/2013) MR. O'CONNOR-I did. MR. HUNSINGER-You can pass them out. We're going to be short. We need to make sure we get one in the file. MR. O'CONNOR-Tom, do you want to go ahead. MR. ANDRESS-Sure. Tom Andress with ABD Engineers and Surveyors. Just a brief overview of the site. I'm sure most of you are aware where it is. It is a 17 acre parcel that's been owned by the CRM Management since 1986. It's been in their possession. I know there was a question at the Zoning Board of Appeals meeting on the deed that was provided that was part of your package. There was a transfer between different entities but there's been a principal who has owned it and been a paying principal since 1986 for it. So it has been continuous ownership of the same parcel. Seventeen acres, again, bordered by Abbey Lane and Burke Drive. It's a large wooded piece. It's pretty much all woods behind the Ramada. So it's between the Montcalm apartments and the Ramada has Abbey Lane and the thruway ramps for Exit 19 to the north and to the south is Dixon Heights. Sort of to the southeast and directly to the south of this is a logging, I guess it's a mill. MR. MAGOWAN-No, it's a tree surgeon. Sears tree surgeons. MR. ANDRESS-This is an overall view of what the site is. The site does have public water available to it. It does not have sewer. That's one of the problems obviously on the west side of the Northway. I know we had a discussion with the Ramada. They had really wanted, I guess they were trying to work with the school a number of years ago when the school was re-doing their septic fields, but just weren't able to convince the school to try to put that money into the crossing to get over to the sewer on the east side. So, as it stands, it's septic. This proposal is all in beautiful sand. Chazen was out when we did the test pits. I was there with them. Great granular sand. Perfect for sewage disposal, perfect for infiltration for green infrastructure. So we are proposing to utilize this site. We're not connecting into the Montcalm site across the street for the sewer. We'll be using this site. Each building will have individual septics for the building. I believe we have it set up as there's eight units in the building, there's seven buildings in each. Each building will have two systems. So there'll be four units on a system, then the other four on the other system. So all in-ground. We did the perc test. We'll obviously have to go through the approval with the Department of Health as we move forward, but it's certainly, it meets all the criteria for the septic design. We do have the City of, I think the City, or maybe it's, I'm not sure if it's the City of Glens Falls or the Town of Queensbury has actually a major water line coming through. MR. O'CONNOR-It's the City of Glens Falls. MR. ANDRESS-Is it the City? Has a major water line through. We did go out with them. We've located that. Technically I guess they had an easement, although it wasn't well defined. As part of this project we're making sure that we increase that easement to the width that, when I met with the people from the City, what they wanted to have on each side of the lines. We surveyed and determined where the lines were so that we would have a lot of room, and we've kept our units fairly far away from that line to, again, protect that much more. The development is going to be a private road, you can sort of see from over there. It will just be a private road coming in, wing wedges, catch basins. It'll have a cul-de-sac that would meet Town standards so that we could have the correct cul-de-sac for emergency vehicles, things like that. The units will be right off of that. They'll have enough depth so that you can get, in all instances I believe, two cars outside of the garage. There'll be a garage for every unit and the garage accesses via directly into the unit or into a hallway that has two units. So someone from the outside can't come in there. You'd only be able to enter that small hallway that would just be for those two units to the garage or through a secure front door. So we'll have sprinklers. We'll be bringing in a regular eight inch water line in and hydrants to the site that we would be probably looking to dedicate over to the Town of Queensbury for ownership of the lines but we certainly can keep it private if they want to do that. Stormwater, again, as I mentioned will be handled on site. We have great sand. So we can meet all the DEC Phase I I regulations for green infrastructure. We have more than enough room on the site for all those practices. In fact, we are able to keep this condensed into the center of the site so we can keep a large buffer all the way around the site of the existing trees. We have a full (lost words) that works. One of the items that we did have, we have a connection between our site and the Ramada. There was an initial discussion that we had with Craig in reference to emergency access. That will be gate controlled. We will have probably a Knox box type situation working with the fire department for gates. It would only be in an emergency situation but it would be paved, so in the instance that we had a problem and couldn't get to our site through our main access you could come through the Ramada, but just as importantly, if the Ramada had a problem with a lane, they only had one way in, this would be their second way in to the Ramada for emergency services. That will also integrate as part of (Queensbury Planning Board 02/25/2013) the sidewalk. We do have sidewalks through the whole site, so that every unit can walk around to each other, but it would also integrate into a sidewalk over to the Ramada. We have had discussions with the Ramada. I believe there should be actually a letter in your file of support from the Ramada. The Ramada was actually owned by the applicant up to a couple of years ago when they sold it, but they do have dining services available. So that will be a service that seniors living in this complex, should they so choose could go over and walk over to get for dining service. Again, it is proposed as a senior complex, 55 and above. It will be restricted. We'll have notations on the plan to note that it is a senior complex only. Like I said, sort of gives a general overview of what we're looking to do. MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. Questions, comments from members of the Board? MR. MAGOWAN-The gated paved road will be plowed in winter. Now will there be a gate at either end so people don't travel down and then get caught to find out there's a gate at the other end? MR. ANDRESS-That's correct. There'll be gates at both ends. So you can obviously walk around them for pedestrians, but there'll be a gate so you can't bring vehicles in unless you have the key to get in to the Knox box. MR. MAGOWAN-And you did say that the units were all going to be sprinklered? MR. ANDRESS-They are sprinklered, correct. MR. TRAVER-I noticed in the public comment portion of the Zoning Board, when they were looking at Lead Agency, there was comments about a concern about the sewer system for the neighboring apartment complex. You're familiar with that I assume, the comments? MR. O'CONNOR-Yes. MR. TRAVER-Do you have any comments? MR. O'CONNOR-That's not part of this application. They aren't hooking up to that system. I understand from principals of that entity that they are working to resolve any issues that they have. That is an on-site sewer plant that they operate there. MR. TRAVER-Okay. MR. O'CONNOR-It's unlike this one here. This one is going to be septic systems that are going to be underground. So this will not add any effluent to that system or any waste to that system. MR. TRAVER-Are there examples in Town of other projects that had that number of septic systems in that proximity and that amount of acreage, if you will, not the total acreage, but the footprint of the project? MR. ANDRESS-The largest one would be the school. The school has a huge amount of fields with it. About every commercial building over on that side has a septic system. The septic's are designed, all of them are less than 1,000 gallons. I mean, they're based on just regular bedroom flows. Because it is a senior complex, you usually will have less flow than that. We haven't reduced our design for that. We're still maintaining the regular one bedroom or two bedroom design. They're all two bedroom. I don't anticipate any issues. There's a lot of room in between and there's still a lot of open area around the units themselves and then of course we have all the wooded area. So nothing is tight where we're, we meet the 10 foot to the property line, 20 feet to the building, and then the next one is 10 feet from there and keeps going on. There's a lot of room in between. So we don't anticipate any issue with the design, although it will go through, obviously, both Chazen review for your TIDE, but also it will go to the Health Department. MR. TRAVER-And you mentioned the project as a senior project. I know that's gotten a lot of, generated a lot of discussion because it doesn't appear to be designed as a senior project. For example, the County Department commented, Staff noted that the proposed design of this market rate senior housing project identified primarily 2-bedroom units. There is no indication that there are any 1-bedroom units as part of the offering for seniors - which generally typifies this type of age-restricted housing. Also, based on the site plan provided, the project does not include the amenities typical of an active senior development. The proposed plan would appear to be able to accommodate family households (non-seniors) as well. Do you have any comment on that? (Queensbury Planning Board 02/25/2013) MR. O'CONNOR-We will restrict it to seniors. If there's a couple, one of the couple will have to be 55 or over. They have a project with similar type housing, in fact it's the exact same design, Foxwood in Rome where they did two bedroom apartments, and people, for a lot of different reasons, will use two bedrooms, or they'll set up an office in the second bedroom. They may have a medical reason where they sleep separately or whatever. There's no guarantee that they won't have people visit them from time to time, and it's good to have a second bedroom. MR. TRAVER-Sure. MR. O'CONNOR-It just makes it more marketable to do this way, but the leases will be to couples. MR. TRAVER-Okay. Well, you talk about medical concerns, elsewhere in the material I noted that, you know, there's stairs involved, and that also is not, I guess, typical. MR. O'CONNOR-Stairs are designed for senior occupancy. There's a set of stairs, not a full ramp, all the way to the second floor. Then there's a landing, and then there's a second set of stairs to the second floor. MR. TRAVER-Okay. MR. O'CONNOR-They have the experience of actually having built one of these and operated it. So it's pretty much a cookie cutter, as close to being a cookie cutter duplicate of that, as I understand it. MR. ANDRESS-That's correct. MR. TRAVER-And I think I also saw somewhere that you actually had offered a comment that the senior issue could be resolved by a covenant? MR. O'CONNOR-I said I've seen that happen. MR. TRAVER-Okay. MR. O'CONNOR-You can do it different ways. You can put it on the filed map as a condition of your approval, and if they don't abide by it it's a violation of that. Put it in a covenant more often where you're going to have sales. This is going to be rentals. It's not going to be a sale. I have a project in South Glens Falls. There's 55 units, and they're single lots, with single freestanding homes on them. They're 22 senior lots. You wouldn't want somebody, five years down the road, come in on a weekend, and buy a unit and then later on find out that it's not legitimate because they aren't qualified to live there. So and those where you have a sale operation, you want to put it in restrictive covenants, or put in a restrictive covenant. Where it's a rental, it's typically, I don't believe, done. MR. TRAVER-Well, and of course our concern would be enforcement. Coming up with a mechanism that would restrict it to senior housing in a way that could realistically be enforced. MR. O'CONNOR-I think we would make our leases available on a regular basis any time somebody wanted to come in and inspect them, and I think every time we take a lease, we have to have proof of age. So that's an open file, or that would be an open file. We can make a document up that is readily available for inspection. I think out loud, sometimes correctly, sometimes not. I'm sure there's information on the lease, the lease application that is private, but we can document age and have that file readily available. JOHN VERACKA MR. VERACKA-We make a yearly affidavit certifying that the age restrictions have been met for all the residents who are living there on a yearly basis. We (lost words) so that's not an issue. MR. HUNSINGER-And I'm sorry, your name for the record? MR. VERACKA-My name is John Veracka, president of CRM rental management. MR. HUNSINGER-Thank you. MR. TRAVER-That was mainly my question. MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. One of the questions I had, you gave us some nice elevations, but you did not give us any color schemes. 23 (Queensbury Planning Board 02/25/2013) MR. ANDRESS-1 did have. MR. HUNSINGER-So it's earth tones. MR. ANDRESS-It's earth tone, basically. It almost has a townhouse type of look. So it's an apartment type look to it because you will be driving down the road and we want to make it look like it's a community. MR. HUNSINGER-So would they all be the same color? MR. ANDRESS-1 believe there would be changes in the color, some slight changes in the trim to just make them slightly different. MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. MR. SIPP-Will this area be clear cut? MR. ANDRESS-Within the perimeter that we show on our plan, yes. You would have to clear that all off to be able to put the units in to grade out to meet all the stormwater requirements, but we do have, again, a very large wooded buffer that we've maintained. We make a backyard so they do have a backyard that's also where the septic is going, but past that point we have a large buffer of trees that would remain undisturbed. MR. HUNSINGER-Actually that was one of the questions I had is the minimum size of that buffer, and also the minimum size of the clear cut, of the no clear zone. MR. ANDRESS-We're approximately just under 10, 1 think, 9.7 acres is the total disturbance on the site, out of a 17 acre. So that's a little more than 50%. The green space, of course, is 82% of the site, but that's really not a significant number. MR. HUNSINGER-Yes. MR. ANDRESS-The buffer, I'm just looking at. MR. HUNSINGER-It really wasn't labeled. That's why I asked the question, I mean, you kind of half to scale it off. MR. ANDRESS-We have it scaled. We just didn't label it because we weren't restricting it as a buffer. We certainly can put certainly restrictions in there. We just basically had it the limits where the grading was needed. It's going to vary anywhere from maybe at the short end 40 feet, 100 feet, along Abbey Lane where we're looking at probably 100, 120 feet at least as a minimum, and as we go around towards the Ramada more than that, against the Ramada, 100 plus in most instances. As you go to the southeast corner of Dixon Heights you've got 100 feet, 100, probably 150 feet through that area. So it's a significant buffer. It's certainly not a 25 foot buffer. MR. HUNSINGER-Right. MR. ANDRESS-It's significant. It's all based upon the grading needed for the units, the septics and the stormwater, but there's nothing graded past that. MR. SIPP-Will there be services provided by you such as grass cutting and snow removal? MR. VERACKA-This is an apartment complex. So everything is provided. It's not like a condominium or a townhouse. Everything would be provided. So there's no maintenance requirements for the people who are leasing the buildings. Everything is taken care of, including garbage. We actually will be collecting with individual containers. So the people will be able to bring out, just as you would at your regular house, bring out, they'll be picking up the garbage with the small container and put it into the truck. You bring the container back into your garage. MR. DEEB-So that's maintenance inside and outside? MR. VERACKA-No. Just regular, as you would rent a regular apartment complex. Once you're inside, I mean, the small little common areas where the few units that do you have a common area where you walk out of your garage and then you have to, there's two doors there. I mean, that would be something that would be maintained by the owner of the complex, but once you're inside your walls, it's (lost word). You're making the bed. You're doing the other things. Obviously if there's a problem with the sink or anything like that, sure, that's covered as part of the maintenance. So, I mean, everything is (lost word). 24 (Queensbury Planning Board 02/25/2013) MR. MAGOWAN-So you're being charged with the common areas because in most cases the renters are saying well, that's not mine and that's not mine. So. MR. VE RAC KA-Exactly. The common area is probably one and a half times the width of those closets behind you. So it's a very small area. You just walk out of the two garages and walk into the common area. You have two doors. The other instances you walk directly from your garage into your unit. MR. HUNSINGER-You show, I guess they're really pedestrian scale lighting throughout. MR. ANDRESS-That's all that it's proposed to be. It's going to be six foot high pedestrian lighting. You've got an incandescent, it would probably be the new spiral lighting, and then you would just have coach lighting that will match the style of the architecture of the building over the doors. MR. HUNSINGER-I assume it has the cut off? MR. ANDRESS-Well, these won't even, it normally would have that if you were having like the more, the larger street lights you would have in a city environment or even in a town environment, when you line the street with larger street lights that are maybe cast and then they have the special cut offs. These are just going to be the lights that you would buy at Home Depot or Lowe's. So I mean it's just a, it's a regular residential lantern. MR. HUNSINGER-Yes, it still has a top on it. MR. ANDRESS-Yes, it has a top on it. Sure. MR. HUNSINGER-So the light doesn't go. MR. ANDRESS-So you're just putting the light out. The intention is to have enough light, obviously, for security, but it's the same way you would feel if you were in a private neighborhood. MR. MAGOWAN-It's a smaller lamppost out in front of everybody's, everybody has their own lamppost. MR. ANDRESS-Everyone has a lamppost. MR. MAGOWAN-That they can decorate during the holiday. MR. ANDRESS-Right. Yes, that's what it comes down to. MR. HUNSINGER-And I think you commented before, I just wanted to point it out, you show a sidewalk all the way around both sides of the road. MR. ANDRESS-We do. Everything is connected with sidewalks and connected out to the Ramada and also out to Burke Drive. MR. TRAVER-The primary waiver issue that we're looking at, of course, is the density. I see from Staff Notes that eight units are permitted on this seventeen acres, and you're looking for fifty-six, which is seven hundred percent of the, so you're looking for seven hundred percent relief. MR. O'CONNOR-I don't think we're looking for a waiver for that. MR. TRAVER-A variance. MR. O'CONNOR-We understand we're going to have to go to the Zoning Board for a variance. MR. TRAVER-Variance. Yes, I'm sorry. I meant variance. So it's a 700% relief being requested. MR. O'CONNOR-Obviously it's a large variance, but if you balance all the factors that (lost words) approving or disapproving a variance, it's not really a significant variance. If you look at the Staff Notes that were made by Staff on the variance application, although it never got that, because of the (lost words), they indicated that they any impacts on the neighborhood, community or environment were minor. That's a big part of the balancing act. We also, I spoke to that memo. I don't know if the memo came here or just the Zoning Board. 25 (Queensbury Planning Board 02/25/2013) MR. HUNSINGER-Yes, I don't think we got it. MR. O'CONNOR-Okay. This is a memo that Craig Brown wrote and it had to do with the fact that there are five tests for a variance. The last test is not determinative of it but it's a consideration, and it's whether or not it's self-created. His memo says, "In July 1986 John Burke Apts. Co. (mailing address: c/o CRM Rental Mngmt, Inc) purchased the property from Pulp and Paper Workers Realty. At that time the Town zoning designation was Urban Residential (UR-5). In this zone, multi-family dwellings were allowable with SPR and the density requirements called for 5000 sf of land per dwelling unit; essentially, 8 units per acre." And if you look at the density across the road, I think that turns out to be 8.2 per acre for the Mohican, Montcalm Apartments, which is indicative of the fact that that's what it was when the people purchased it. So, they've had a change of zoning since the time they purchased it. They purchased it with the intent that it would be multi-family. So it really is not self-created. The variance requirement is created because there's a change of statute. I think that's pretty well black letter law, and I really think if you balance everything, we're going to have a good argument with the Town Zoning Board to get that variance. I think Tom did some research. If you looked at the Ramada, they're talking about, if you equate their rooms to apartments, the occupancy, they're at 19.6, and I also did take a look at a couple of properties in Dixon Heights, and those lots are even smaller than, these are allocated to create lots in this particular project. I picked three parcels simply because I knew the name of one owner and I picked the two parcels on each side of it. On one they have 5.6 units per acre. Another they have 5.88 units per acre, and on another, which is only .17 or .07 of an acre, they have 14.29 units per acre. MR. TRAVER-And you have 3.3 units per acre. MR. O'CONNOR-Three point three. So it's not something new that's in the neighborhood, and we feel comfortable that we'd be able to make a sound presentation to the Zoning Board. MR. TRAVER-So you don't need a recommendation from us, then. MR. O'CONNOR-We will need a recommendation. I would presume you would do your SEAR and see whether or not the density does cause any community or environmental impacts, and you would base your recommendation on that. MR. TRAVER-What about the remaining, assuming this project goes through, what about the remaining undeveloped part of that 17 acres? Any plans to develop that or any problem with restricting further development on that piece of property? MR. O'CONNOR-No problem. MR. TRAVER-Thank you. MR. DEEB-From what I read from the minutes from the Zoning Board, they seemed quite concerned about the density. MR. O'CONNOR-They sometimes look at a density, or look at a variance simply on a mathematical basis, and we had not presented the character of the neighborhood, the history of the property. I happened to be there for some other application and spoke in general because I knew the property. You'll see my comments, I think, in the minutes as well. I think when you really take a look at it, that's our issue, that's our problem. We want you to look at this application as though it's going to be 56 units and what are the impacts from an environmental point of view under SEAR, would that present to the Town. MR. TRAVER-Now the engineering issues are still out there obviously. MR. O'CONNOR-I think we just got the report, or very recently got the report. We've got another submittal to them and answer their questions. MR. HUNSINGER-Yes, it's a pretty lengthy comment letter. MR. O'CONNOR-Yes, it is. MR. TRAVER-I'll say. MR. ANDRESS-It is. It was all in relationship to stormwater management. MR. HUNSINGER-Mostly, yes. 26 (Queensbury Planning Board 02/25/2013) MR. ANDRESS-And erosion control. There's a lot of, what I guess I would consider minor comments. There are a few of substance we will have to make some changes in our calculations. I believe if you look to our stormwater, we have the required volumes and then the volumes that we propose and then the volumes that we provided, and we provided significantly greater volumes than was required. So we'd certainly have plenty of room to meet any of the conditions that were in there. There was a little concern in reference to the endangered species which was mentioned and actually we now have that letter that Mike had just obtained from New York State DEC Bureau of Wildlife. So we do have that covered. We will have to look into the archeological issues. MR. HUNSINGER-I was going to ask you about that. MR. ANDRESS-Right. We still have to; we'll have to do something on that. That was one of the comments. MR. HUNSINGER-Have you filed that yet? Have you filed the letter with SHPO? MR. ANDRESS-We have not filed the letter with SHPO. We have to; we're going to look at a consultant to see what they need to do. MR. TRAVER-The archeological and stormwater, actually, are SEAR. MR. HUNSINGER-I know, yes. MR. TRAVER-That's the issue for us, I guess, is, you know, we have to. MR. HUNSINGER-Although we did have that letter from the State on a prior application that said we're to conduct SEAR based on any known information, and that that's all we're expected to do, but then of course they turn around and tell us that we have to approve the stormwater. MR. TRAVER-But we haven't conducted a search for known information. So we don't know what known information there is that we could review. MR. ANDRESS-We will certainly be providing you information. Obviously we just got those letters a couple of days ago also. MR. TRAVER-Sure. MR. ANDRESS-So we don't expect you to be able to take an action immediately. We'll be able to come back with information, get it back in to Craig, hopefully for the deadline for the 15th of next month so that we can get on to the. MR. O'CONNOR-We might ask for an exception to that SHPO letter. They've been good lately. Send them a map of the USGS latitude and longitude; tell them whether or not there are any structures that are over 50 years old on the property or in the immediate area. I've been happy with the way they respond. They've gotten a lot more efficient and a lot better at it than making you wait and wait and wait. MR. HUNSINGER-Don't they ask for that request to come from the Town now? MR. ANDRESS-No. MR. HUNSINGER-Because we recently approved a standard form letter. MRS. MOORE-It can be with either entity. MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. MR. ANDRESS-We would usually prefer to send it in. MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. MR. ANDRESS-Our intent would be to get a no effect letter for your records. MR. HUNSINGER-I'm one to preach on the unfunded mandates because we ran into this, Laura wasn't here yet, but recently we've run into, on a number of projects, where, you know, it was previously disturbed soil. There were no concerns about endangered species or archeological resources, and because they needed a Stormwater Pollution Prevention Plan, they had to get (Queensbury Planning Board 02/25/2013) approval from the State. In fact, that's where we got the letter from the State saying, you don't have to do the research, you just have to know that there's no known issues there. MR. TRAVER-Yes, we knew the history on that one. MR. HUNSINGER-Yes. MR. TRAVER-This one we don't. MR. HUNSINGER-Because it was, because there were previously disturbed sites. MR. O'CONNOR-Lock step. Any time you have a State agency now you need a SHPO letter. MR. HUNSINGER-Yes. MR. O'CONNOR-It used to be just APA. MR. HUNSINGER-Right. MR. O'CONNOR-And I think the last thing I did in the APA was quick turnaround. MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. MR. O'CONNOR-So this is a vacant parcel of land I don't think ever has been developed of any nature. So I don't think there's going to be any question on it. MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. MR. O'CONNOR-I do, before I leave, want to give you copies of that memorandum, apparently you didn't have it, from Craig Brown. So it's part of your record. I gave one to Laura. MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. Yes, a lot of times if it's in the Zoning Board file it doesn't necessarily get put into the Planning Board file. MR. O'CONNOR-You know, an odd comment I would make is that this is a Moderate Density Residential zone. If you go back to the Comprehensive Land Use Plan, they said houses in this area as well as the size of the lots on which they sit can be described as Suburban, and it goes on and talks about large lots, but if you look at this neighborhood, there's nobody in the world who can try and figure out that you build large single family homes, with the Ramada behind you, Montcalm Apartments across from you, and the tree clearing service on the other side. It just doesn't make sense. We tried to go back and see how it got put in the broad brush, but I don't really know. It's a ring that was put in around Glens Falls for anything that was vacant, other than a commercial area. They all got hit with the same thing. MR. TRAVER-Well, I think it may come down to a question of degrees. If you say, well, it doesn't make sense to develop single family residences, but sort of the other extreme maybe 700%, a variance of 700%. MR. O'CONNOR-I don't think they'd be marketable. MR. TRAVER-Well, I hear your argument. MR. O'CONNOR-You could buy a vacant lot, a two acre vacant lot up on West Mountain and build your house up there, or you could build it here, and that's part of what will bring, we will bring you some proof from some realtors that this is mis-zoned and that's the basis for them going forward (lost words). There's a whole line of cases that says you don't simply do a mathematical exercise. I mean, on the front you look at it and say, ooh, but when you look at all the impacts and you balance who will be impacted. MR. TRAVER-And the 3.3 units per acre. MR. O'CONNOR-Yes. That's a Zoning Board thing. We're asking you to look at this as a 56 unit apartment complex and asking you to give your opinion based on that. MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. Other questions, comments from the Board? MR. DEEB-I think we've pretty much covered it. 28 (Queensbury Planning Board 02/25/2013) MR. HUNSINGER-We do have a public hearing this evening. I imagine there's people in the audience that wish to address the Board on this project. So I will open the public hearing. PUBLIC HEARING OPENED MR. HUNSINGER-Is there anyone that wants to address the Board? Okay. If you wouldn't mind giving up the table. I don't know if you were here for the previous application, but the purpose of the public hearing is for members of the public to address the Board on a project. We do record the meeting. The tape is used to transcribe the minutes. So I would ask that you speak into the microphone and state your name for the record. ROZ NOLAN MS. NOLAN-Okay. My name is Roz Nolan. I live in Phase III Dixon Heights on Old Mill Lane. I'm on the Board there, President, actually, of the Board. I'm also a local realtor, and my concern with this whole project, I'm not opposed to senior housing. I think it's something we very much need, but I'm concerned about the two story. Most of the seniors that I've dealt with they're downsizing are looking for one level living, and my concern is if they can't fill these with 55 and older, what is it going to become there? And that's basically my concern. MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. Thank you. MS. NOLAN-Thank you. MR. HUNSINGER-Anyone else? ELEANOR SMITH MS. SMITH-My name is Eleanor Smith. I am a senior, and I'm just a little concerned about this project for the simple reason that I live right near the logging company, as they refer to it, which is now a chipping company, and it is very, very noisy. Now we're putting seniors in this area. I don't think it's good. That's all I have to say. MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. Thank you. Anyone else? Good evening. JOANNE SILETTI MRS. SILETTI-Good evening. I'm Joanne Siletti. I'm on the Board at Dixon Heights Phase III. 1 basically want to reiterate what's been said already. We have a concern. We'd really like to know, if senior housing goes in, which is great, that it remain senior housing forever. We are very concerned that it will simply turn into apartments that are not for seniors. We're not happy with other things going on in the area. That's a major concern of ours. The chipping, as was stated, it's, you know, Mr. Sears is supposed to have a tree removal service, but in fact there is constant grinding, constant chipping, constant noise. He is not zoned for what is going on on that property, and that is not being corrected. It is before the Zoning Board. MR. HUNSINGER-Is it? Okay. MRS. SILETTI-There, you know, there are lawyers involved and we're trying to remedy that, but it is really not happening very fast at all. This is an ongoing program. I don't know if Mr. Sears will be alive when it is finally resolved, but we have concerns about the traffic because active seniors will come and go all day long. There is a school in the area. It's going to be pretty congested. This Town is growing like crazy, and going out to Aviation Road will only become more and more congested, and there are times of day when it's pretty congested already. So I will reiterate that we are concerned about the size of this project. We brought this to the Zoning Board as well. I don't know that we belonged there, but we were there, and we feel that this is a lot of units for the parcel. It's just our opinion. The two stories, we're kind of concerned about because it's almost in our backyard, and they will probably be visible from some other people's homes, you know, people at Dixon Heights never anticipated that this would happen, but I guess that's growth in a community, but if this could be downsized at all, the people at Dixon Heights would be very happy about that. We like the idea that it'll be senior housing. We hope it really stays that way. If anything could be written in to the terms that it would actually, you know, you get the approval of the Planning Board provided that, this is that way forever. Because if that just turns into regular apartments, they don't stay nice very long, and you have no control over the people who'll come and go from here. MR. HUNSINGER-Thank you. MRS. SILETTI-You're welcome. 29 (Queensbury Planning Board 02/25/2013) MR. HUNSINGER-Anyone else? Good evening. WAYNE LA LONDE MR. LA LONDE-My name is Wayne La Londe. I live on Dixon Road. My main concern, because I haven't done any research on this since I got the notice, was the septic system and they did bring that up at the beginning of the meeting. The current system of Montcalm apartments, I'm not clear if this is the same group that owns Montcalm apartments or not, but because it's an open septic system that they have currently, we still, even though they've done a lot of work on it over the past year or two years, we do, at times, still do get a stench from their system. So my concern was whether this was going to be tied into there and they said at the beginning of the meeting that they're going to have a separate underground system which would definitely be a positive. I don't know if anything else could be done about the open septic system, and I would have to agree with this lady here on Dick Sears doing his chipping in the morning. On Saturday morning, you know, you like to sleep in sometimes and you can't, because it's pretty loud. MR. HUNSINGER-How early do they start? MR. LA LONDE-I think about eight o'clock. AUDIENCE MEMBER-Six o'clock. MR. LA LONDE-Six o'clock. I know they still use the power line road to take their vehicles out sometimes. So they must have a key and they've been through there at five o'clock in the morning and they go right by our house with their big trucks and they do wake us up sometimes, but then again so does the newspaper boy. So I guess that's basically. MR. MAGOWAN-Is that a tub grinding chipper they have there, or is it a, you know, a feed pull? MR. LA LONDE-I couldn't tell you. AUDIENCE MEMBER-Tub grinder. MR. MAGOWAN-Tub grinder. MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. Thank you. MR. LA LONDE-Thank you. MR. HUNSINGER-Anyone else? SUE LUND MS. LUND-Good evening. My name is Sue Lund and I also live in Dixon Heights. In fact my house is directly behind Mr. Sears. My concern is that these gentlemen here who are going to build a beautiful adult senior site, that people aren't going to stay there because they won't be able to tolerate the sound. I'm looking how close it is to Mr. Sears' grinding operation, and that's what it is, it's a grinding operation. You are going to get so many complaints. People are not going to stay. You can't enjoy your summer. You can't go on your patio. It's too noisy. MR. HUNSINGER-If you could address your comments to the Board, ma'am. MS. LUND-Okay. I just want to give them contact because that's my concern. I know that you guys probably can't do a whole lot about this. This is a zoning issue. MR. HUNSINGER-Well, it's an enforcement issue. MS. LUND-But it will impact the new builders. MR. HUNSINGER-Yes. MS. LUND-And they're sitting over there. So that's why I turned that way. MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. MS. LUND-I apologize. MR. HUNSINGER-That's okay. 30 (Queensbury Planning Board 02/25/2013) MS. LUND-But the noise is horrific, and it will probably frustrate you renters like it does us. MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. MS. LUND-Okay. MR. HUNSINGER-Thank you. MS. LUND-Thank you. MR. HUNSINGER-Laura, do you know anything about that issue? MRS. MOORE-I've heard only briefly. So I can't really say. I understand there's an enforcement action. MR. HUNSINGER-Yes, it sounds like, yes. MRS. MOORE-That's all I'm aware of. MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. Anyone else wish to comment? Were there any written comments? MRS. MOORE-No. MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. We will conclude the public hearing for this evening. We will leave the public hearing open, so that at our next meeting we will take additional comments. I guess before we consider any other action, we should Acknowledge Lead Agency status. There is a draft resolution in our package if somebody would like to move that. RESOLUTION RE: ACKNOWLEDGE LEAD AGENCY STATUS RE: 8-2013 CRM HOUSING WHEREAS, the applicant has submitted the following: 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. Variances: Relief requested from density requirements for the MDR zoning district. Planning Board may acknowledge Lead Agency Status; conduct SEAR and provide a recommendation to the ZBA WHEREAS, in connection with the project, the Town of Queensbury Planning Board, by resolution, previously authorized the Community Development office to notify other involved agencies of the desire of the Planning Board to conduct a coordinated SEQRA review; WHEREAS, the Zoning Administrator has advised that other involved agencies have been notified and have consented to the Town of Queensbury Planning Board being lead agent; NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, MOTION TO ACKNOWLEDGE LEAD AGENCY STATUS FOR PURPOSES OF SEAR REVIEW FOR AREA VARIANCE NO. 5-2013 & SITE PLAN NO. 8-2013 CRM HOUSING DEV., INC., Introduced by Brad Magowan who moved for its adoption, seconded by Donald Sipp: According to the resolution prepared by Staff. Duly adopted this 26th day of February, 2013, by the following vote: AYES: Mr. Sipp, Mr. Deeb, Mr. Ferone, Mr. Magowan, Mr. Traver, Mr. Hunsinger NOES: NONE ABSENT: Mr. Schonewolf MR. HUNSINGER-Do you think you'll have engineering comments addressed by the 15 th? MR. O'CONNOR-The 15th of March? MR. HUNSINGER-Of March? MR. O'CONNOR-I would think so, yes, and I guess my question was, I'm not sure how you're doing it now. When does he respond to the engineer? If we can get them in by the 15th of March, Laura, when would we get a comment back? (Queensbury Planning Board 02/25/2013) MRS. MOORE-1 would say prior to April's meeting. MR. HUNSINGER-It would be prior to the April Board meeting. I mean, the other option would be to kind of send you on your way and have you work with the engineer and then once you had the engineering comments all addressed and satisfied, then come back. MR. TRAVER-Well, the only problem with that is that then they're doing all the engineering work assuming they're going to get through the Zoning Board. MR. HUNSINGER-Good point. MRS. MOORE-We potentially have them on the schedule for one of our March meetings. MR. HUNSINGER-We do? MRS. MOORE-So they're already in the cycle. So we were aware that there were additional comments that needed to be addressed. MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. MRS. MOORE-So the sooner the better that they receive their responses from the engineering. MR. MAGOWAN-Yes, but they can have enough done at least so we can do SEAR. MRS. MOORE-It may be possible. MR. O'CONNOR-My understanding is we can't go back to the Planning Board or Zoning Board until you do SEAR. MR. HUNSINGER-Right. That's correct. MR. ANDRESS-Well, we can certainly respond right away. We're planning to work through the Planning Office to get the comments. We can handle most of them fairly quickly. MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. That's one of the big issues for us, for SEAR, is the archeological. MR. TRAVER-While we await that information, I'm wondering if it would be possible to have, to ask Town Counsel provide us with some options for ensuring they will maintain the senior, both in the case of a transfer of ownership and the current operation. MR. HUNSINGER-You were reading my mind. Yes. I would going to ask Staff if they could contact counsel to work on that. MRS. MOORE-Okay. MR. HUNSINGER-I mean, you've made, given us some options on how that can be done and how you've done it in other communities, but it would be good to have counsel weigh in on that as well. MR. TRAVER-I think if we could come up with something that, even in the event the complex were transferred to another owner, sold, so it might be a combination of their own procedures already with the yearly affidavits and some kind of(lost word) or covenant or something. MRS. MOORE-Our thought process in the office was a yearly reporting requirement, and the affidavit sounds similar to what our discussions were, that they would be a yearly report, submit that. We'd put it in the file so that we would have notice on file if anybody ever had a question about that. MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. MR. TRAVER-That would cover the current operation, but then the other question would be if the current operation were, for whatever reason you were unsuccessful or the, this company decided to put the property for sale and then we have a new operator, I understand they'd have to go through planning review, but could we somehow, you know, attach something to the land that. MR. O'CONNOR-Mr. Traver, the way that I understand your site plan now is that we take your actual approval resolution and have it put on the site plan map, so it's going to be public record (Queensbury Planning Board 02/25/2013) on that map, and it's part of your approval so it's enforceable by the Town against us or anybody else who acts under that. MR. TRAVER-But if the ownership were transferred. MR. O'CONNOR-They're going to get a copy of the map. MR. TRAVER-Right, but they can come in for site plan, let's see, they would come back for site plan review. MR. O'CONNOR-If they were going to change it, yes. MR. TRAVER-Yes, and that issue might come up again. So we might want to address it now rather than have perhaps a different Board address it in the future. MR. O'CONNOR-I've never been involved in an application where an applicant was, as part of his approval, told that they could never come back to the same Board for some modification. It certainly would be a condition of your approval. It's understood that. We're not trying to go around a corner of it, but I mean, part of it, the Town's rules and regulations says that the property owners are entitled to make applications under the Ordinance. So it's like the subdivision I did earlier today. That's not permanent. They come back. You go through the process, and you either get the approval at that time or you don't get the approval. We have no problem with you talking to Town Counsel. We'd be happy to talk to them, too, about getting something that gives you some permanency. MR. HUNSINGER-And of course the Zoning Board is always the outlet if you want to do something that is not in the Code. MR. O'CONNOR-You've got your own Counsel, but once you make it a condition of your approval, the Zoning Board doesn't have the authority to change that, separate from you. We have to come back to you. I've seen that in the process up in Lake George. The Planning Board put a condition on something about no further expansion. People tried to get a variance to get that approved and that didn't fly, too. We have no problem doing something that will make it permanent. We heard the question. Marketing issues as to whether or not this is a project that's going to be successful based upon the neighbor's noise or the stairs, I think that's something CRM has to decide. MR. TRAVER-Sure. Yes, that's not really our concern. The noise sounds like it may be, but the marketing is entirely, and I personally, I don't, you know, your representation, I think, is strong that your intent is to maintain it as senior and keep it well documented. I'm just thinking, at some point in the future, should the property be transferred, how do we ensure that that, I guess what stuck out in my mind was the comment, actually, that you had made before the Zoning Board about the covenant. So, not being an attorney, that's why we're interested in getting some feedback. MR. O'CONNOR-The only other comment I'd answer or talk about right now would be traffic. I think the Town has given you some information in there, at least we did at the Zoning Board, what traffic you might expect, and we can look at that again, because it's a senior project, but active seniors maybe we'd rather go a little bit away from what the manual shows. MR. TRAVER-Yes, I mean, if they're running up and down stairs, and might be bicycling and doing all sorts of things, motorcycling. MR. ANDRESS-That clearly is what it is marketed to. So we will, as the supplemental information that we provide back to the Town. We have traffic information in the EAF. We'll update that with a small report so that there's a little more information for you to be able to make a decision off of. MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. MR. TRAVER-Okay. That would be very helpful because of course traffic is part of SEAR, too. MR. ANDRESS-Sure. MR. O'CONNOR-So far we've talked about SHPO and we've just talked about traffic. We talked about a permanency plan. MR. TRAVER-Whatever you can offer, plus we'll get advice from Town Counsel. 33 (Queensbury Planning Board 02/25/2013) MR. O'CONNOR-And engineering comments. MRS. MOORE-Do you want me to, I have details on the color scheme. I have that here. We don't have one in the file. MR. ANDRESS-We'll certainly transmit you the rendering, yes. MRS. MOORE-Additional information on the buffer data size and notation and any restrictions that are going to occur. MR. TRAVER-Yes, I think you had offered something about no further development. MR. O'CONNOR-Other than the remainder (lost words). MR. TRAVER-Right. MR. ANDRESS-We can put notations, certainly. MRS. MOORE-And then I wasn't sure, and I don't have a plan laid out, but sidewalk information. I believe the plans all detail. MR. HUNSINGER-Yes, it's on. MR. ANDRESS-It's fully detailed. MRS. MOORE-It's on the plan that the sidewalks are on both sides. Okay. MR. O'CONNOR-Do you want lighting cuts? MR. ANDRESS-We actually provided information from there. MR. HUNSINGER-There is lighting information. Yes, I mean, it doesn't have the model. MR. ANDRESS-It doesn't have the model. It's colonial versus Victorian, but it gives you the size, the height. MR. HUNSINGER-I mean, I've said this at other meetings, I live in a very fairly rural part of Town, but we had some flood lights on, believe it or not, the front of the house because it shined out on the driveway, and I replaced it with just a standard, you know, wall mounted, and it's a 16 watt fluorescent. It's amazing how much light that puts off, but it doesn't glare. I mean, I've seen residential fixtures, you know, with a standard 100 watt bulb that provide terrible glare. In fact, I have neighbors that have spotlights that glare, even though they're hundreds of feet away. I mean, you even said you might use a fluorescent. MR. ANDRESS-Yes, it just depends. The fluorescent usually, the only issue you have sometimes they're not as efficient when they get very cold. MR. HUNSINGER-Yes. This is supposed to be good to 30 below zero, and I think if it's that cold I don't care if the light goes on. I'm not going out. MR. TRAVER-My garage lighting is the same way. I don't heat my garage anymore, and sometimes they're a little slow to come on when it's real cold, but do I really want to be working with wrenches out here when it's that cold anyway. MR. MAGOWAN-They eventually warm up. MR. TRAVER-They do. MRS. MOORE-I know you've talked about lighting for the exterior site, but there was no information about how the lighting would appear on the units themselves, door entryways, things like that. My guess is you're going to have some sort of entryway light. MR. ANDRESS-That was a comment that was actually brought up in the, I believe in the Chazen review or certainly in Staff, but we'll note that. MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. MR. ANDRESS-But there's a requirement by State Code that you have to have a light over the doors. There'll be a certain amount of security lighting. We can give a typical unit. 34 (Queensbury Planning Board 02/25/2013) MRS. MOORE-Just a typical information, yes. MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. My question for Staff, if you're thinking this is going to be in the March cycle, you're probably thinking the 19th, right? In case, so that it would go back to the Zoning Board? MRS. MOORE-Potentially, but I have, my notes indicate for March 26th. So it would be in the April cycle for the ZBA. MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. MR. ANDRESS-That would make sense, because that would give more time for Chazen also to go through it. MR. O'CONNOR-March 26 th? MRS. MOORE-Yes. MR. HUNSINGER-Any other discussion? Would anyone like to put forward the tabling resolution? We'll table this to March 26th, to address engineering and Staff comments. MR. MAGOWAN-I'll move that. MR. HUNSINGER-We have a motion. Is there a second? MR. DEEB-Second. MR. HUNSINGER-We have a second. Any discussion? MRS. MOORE-The only discussion I have is some sort of reference that indicates when the information is going to be submitted to Staff to send on to the engineer for review or if you're going to have those individual discussions, what time can I get information so that information can be sent out to the Board members before the 26th? Do you have an idea when? I know you're going to have discussions between yourselves and the engineer and that at some point we need to set a timeframe that says you're going to be able to get some information back to Staff so that information can be distributed to the Board members prior to the 26tH MR. ANDRESS-I can get everything back by, I don't know what the date is the end of next week. MR. HUNSINGER-That would be the 8th of March. MR. ANDRESS-So the 8th of March. We certainly can have the full package back there. There may be, depending on which response, but the information will be there and we can work through. We might be able to. MR. O'CONNOR-The SHPO letter, I think we can. Do you know who you're going to ask on, to look at the issue of permanency? Mike Hill? MRS. MOORE-It could be any one of the three, four. MR. TRAVER-Yes, and I don't know that we need that for SEAR review, but. MR. HUNSINGER-Yes, that's a site plan issue. MR. TRAVER-Yes. MR. HUNSINGER-So that could even come at a later date. MR. TRAVER-I mean, you can talk about community character or whatever, but. MRS. MOORE-I'm sure some of the items will be discussion items ongoing, but there's, I need some sort of hardcopy of some information at some point. MR. HUNSINGER-Well, I was going to say March 15th for April, but, if you were assuming they'd be in the March cycle, we'll go forward. So March 8tH MR. O'CONNOR-When's your meetings in April? 35 (Queensbury Planning Board 02/25/2013) MR. HUNSINGER-The meetings are the 16th and the 23rd MR. ANDRESS-If for some reason there's a real issue with the review, I mean, we can always ask to modify it. MR. O'CONNOR-If we did it the April 16th meeting, we would include a (lost words) SEAR? MR. TRAVER-Assuming we could get through SEAR. MR. HUNSINGER-Yes. MR. TRAVER-We have to get through SEAR in order to make a recommendation. MRS. MOORE-So are you interested in tabling until the April's meeting? MR. ANDRESS-Just give us one second. MR. HUNSINGER-Yes. MR. O'CONNOR-April 16th would be a good date. MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. MR. MAGOWAN-I'll amend the motion. MR. HUNSINGER-And the deadline, of course, would be March 15th. So we have an amended motion. Do we have a second on the amended motion? MR. DEEB-Second. RESOLUTION TABLING SP# 8-2013 CRM HOUSING DEV., INC The applicant has submitted an application for the following: 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; MOTION TO TABLE SITE PLAN NO. 8-2013 CRM HOUSING DEVELOPMENT, INC., Introduced by Brad Magowan who moved for its adoption, seconded by David Deeb: Tabled to April 16th, to address engineering and Staff comments. Information to be submitted by March 15th deadline. Duly adopted this 26th day of February, 2013, by the following vote: AYES: Mr. Traver, Mr. Magowan, Mr. Ferone, Mr. Deeb, Mr. Sipp, Mr. Hunsinger NOES: NONE ABSENT: Mr. Schonewolf MR. HUNSINGER-You're all set. We'll see you in a couple of months. MR. ANDRESS-Thank you. MR. HUNSINGER-Was there any other business to be brought before the Board this evening? Would anyone like to move to adjourn? MR. MAGOWAN-1 move to adjourn. MOTION TO ADJOURN THE QUEENSBURY PLANNING BOARD MEETING OF FEBRUARY 26, 2013, Introduced by Brad Magowan who moved for its adoption, seconded by David Deeb: Duly adopted this 26th day of February, 2013, by the following vote: AYES: Mr. Traver, Mr. Magowan, Mr. Ferone, Mr. Deeb, Mr. Sipp, Mr. Hunsinger NOES: NONE 36 (Queensbury Planning Board 02/25/2013) ABSENT: Mr. Schonewolf MR. HUNSINGER-Meetings on March 19th and 26th. We still need alternates for both meetings. On motion meeting was adjourned. RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED, Chris Hunsinger, Chairman 37