Loading...
03-19-2013 (Queensbury Planning Board 03/19/2013) QUEENSBURY PLANNING BOARD MEETING FIRST REGULAR MEETING MARCH 19, 2013 INDEX Subdivision No. 2-2013 Greenwood Builders 1. SKETCH PLAN Tax Map No. 290.-1-83 Freshwater Wetlands No. 1-2013 Subdivision No. 5-2012 LARIC Development, LLC 3. Tax Map No. 308.12-1-3 &7.1 Site Plan No.42-2012 Daniel&Ellen Nichols 4. Tax Map No. 288.20-1-18, 19 Site Plan No. 62-2012 Kirk Roberts S. Tax Map No. 295.6-1-8 Site Plan No. 78-2012 Jeffrey Schwartz 6. Tax Map No. 308.20-1-2 Site Plan No. 62-2011 Queensbury Partners 7. SEEK LEAD AGENCY STATUS Tax Map No. 289.19-1-23-35 Site Plan No. 10-2013 The Fun Spot 10. ZBA RECOMMENDATION Tax Map No. 296.9-1-1 Site Plan No. 77-2012 Marcia Parker 14. Tax Map No. 316.5-1-8 Subdivision No. 1-2013 Hayes&Hayes 16. FINAL STAGE Tax Map No. 302.14-1-79.2 Subdivision No. 13-2008 Mary Sicard 18. PRELIMINARY STAGE Tax Map No. 289.6-1-1, 2, 3, 5, 17 THESE ARE NOT OFFICIALLY ADOPTED MINUTES AND ARE SUBJECT TO BOARD AND STAFF REVISIONS. REVISIONS WILL APPEAR ON THE FOLLOWING MONTHS MINUTES (IF ANY) AND WILL STATE SUCH APPROVAL OF SAID MINUTES. 0 (Queensbury Planning Board 03/19/2013) QUEENSBURY PLANNING BOARD MEETING FIRST REGULAR MEETING MARCH 19, 2013 7:00 P.M. MEMBERS PRESENT CHRIS HUNSINGER, CHAIRMAN STEPHEN TRAVER BRAD MAGOWAN DAVID DEEB,ALTERNATE MEMBERS ABSENT DONALD SIPP PAUL SCHONEWOLF DONALD KREBS LAND USE PLANNER-LAURA MOORE STENOGRAPHER-MARIA GAGLIARDI MR. HUNSINGER-So, good evening, members of the audience. We don't have a quorum yet this evening. We do expect another member who's en route. So I can't even really call the meeting to order, but to give consideration to everyone's time, we thought we would consider the Sketch Plan Review for Greenwood Builders. Is the tape rolling? I mean, can we even tape this when we're not officially under call to order? Brad will get here while we're still discussing it, hopefully. So it'll still count as a review, in terms of, you know, the required Sketch Plan Review, and then we can move on with our regular agenda. The floor is yours. SKETCH PLAN REVIEW SUBDIVISION NO. 2-2013 FRESHWATER WETLANDS 1-2013 SKETCH PLAN REVIEW SEQR TYPE UNLISTED GREENWOOD BUILDERS AGENT(S) JARRETT ENGINEERS OWNER(S) H. THOMAS JARRETT ZONING MDR LOCATION RIDGE ROAD APPLICANT PROPOSES SUBDIVISION OF A 16.02 ACRE PARCEL INTO 3 RESIDENTIAL LOTS OF 3.44, 4.13, AND 8.44 ACRES. SUBDIVISION OF LAND REQUIRES PLANNING BOARD REVIEW AND APPROVAL. CROSS REFERENCE NONE FOUND APA, CEA, OTHER NWI WETLANDS, STREAM OVERLAY LOT SIZE 16.02 ACRES TAX MAP NO. 290.4-83 SECTION CHAPTER A183 TOM JARRETT&GARY SCOTT, REPRESENTING APPLICANT, PRESENT MR. JARRETT-All right. Tom Jarrett of Jarrett Engineers and Gary Scott, President of Greenwood Builders. In full disclosure, I'm also a partner in Greenwood Builders. This project is a three lot subdivision of a 16 acre parcel on Ridge Road,just north of Haviland Road, and as you can see from the Sketch Plan, if you can go to Sheet Two there, yes, there's a total of just over six acres of buildable area, and the way we've configured the lots is to include more than two acres of buildable area on each lot, even though it's technically not required. We thought it would be more appropriate, more attractive to do that, and so there's two acres of buildable area on each lot. Two of the lots would front on Ridge Road, and we've designed it with a common curb cut off Ridge Road, and the third lot is on a paper street off Stonehurst Drive. That paper street was put in by the Planning Board several years ago when Stonehurst was approved, and that is owned by the Town, and it would be appropriate for a driveway to serve that third lot on this project. Each lot will be served by on site water and onsite sewage disposal systems, as well as on site stormwater management system. I think those are the key points. MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. MR.JARRETT-There are no variances required that we can identify. MR. HUNSINGER-I mean,the obvious question,to me, is how the neighbors in Stonehurst might feel about an additional lot set behind their property. MR. JARRETT-Well, I introduced myself to the neighbor who owns the end lot on the cul de sac, the very closest one to the proposed house there,and actually he was very amenable to it. He didn't see 1 (Queensbury Planning Board 03/19/2013) any objection to it at all. Because we had designed a buffer there, more than 100 feet of trees to be left between his lot line and this proposed house. So he was fine with it. MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. MR. JARRETT-There's a house under construction on the other side, one of the other side of the cul de sac,and the third side of the cul de sac is a vacant lot. MR.TRAVER-It seemed very straightforward to me. MR. DEEB-There isn't a lot to it,I guess. MR. HUNSINGER-How close are the houses to the wetlands? MR. JARRETT-More than 75 feet. We maintain that 75 foot setback. I don't remember the exact distance, but sheets, three and four show the setback lines, including the wetland setback line, which you'll notice. MR. HUNSINGER-Yes,I just saw a delineation. MR.JARRETT-This line right here is the 75 foot setback. MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. MR.JARRETT-The one house is pretty close to 75 feet. The other house is (lost word). MR. HUNSINGER-Isn't that the distance from the well? MR.JARRETT-There's a number of setback lines that are shown,septic and well and wetlands. MR. HUNSINGER-Yes. Okay. You know what, I see those. I was looking at the wrong line. I see it now. It's this one here. MR. JARRETT-There's a number of regulations that come into play now on subdivisions. It gets a little confusing to show all the setbacks. MR.HUNSINGER-Yes,and the paper drive,the paper street,you're not asking the Town to pave that or anything,are you? Just to be allowed to use it? MR.JARRETT-Correct. We would build a private driveway and we would maintain it. MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. Has there been any discussion yet with the Highway Superintendent? MR. JARRETT-We've initiated that. There has not been any real meaningful dialogue yet, but we have talked to the Assessor's Office to confirm the status of that street. We will talk with the Highway Department. Talking with Planning, Craig suggested that we make sure there's no stormwater management on that section of paper street that we make sure that it's on the. MR. MAGOWAN-One of those days. MR. HUNSINGER-We made our quorum. Okay. Well, now that we have a quorum I can officially call the meeting to order. Now we did go out of order a little bit on the agenda so that we wouldn't be sitting here watching each other while we awaited your arrival. MR. MAGOWAN-Well,thank you. MR. DEEB-We're looking at this Sketch on Greenwood Builders, Brad. MR. HUNSINGER-Any other comments,information you want to share? MR.JARRETT-No. Laura,did you have anything? MRS. MOORE-The only thing I suggested the Board confirm single family project versus a duplex which are allowed in MDR zone, and then just to follow up on the paper street, and my understanding is that all three lots are for single family dwellings. 2 (Queensbury Planning Board 03/19/2013) MR. JARRETT-There's been no decision yet as to what to build but it would certainly be zoning compliant. MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. MR.JARRETT-The market would dictate that it would be zoning compliant. MR. HUNSINGER-Any other comments from the Board? Okay. Did we give you enough feedback? MR.JARRETT-Yes,you did. Did we need to ask for a waiver on topo mapping right now? We asked for it in our paperwork MRS. MOORE-Yes. Does the Board want to consider, do you want to have that waiver request for Preliminary as well or just for the Sketch? The Board has the opportunity to grant the waivers through Sketch Plan. MR.JARRETT-Yes. We would do the topo survey for Preliminary. We just used USGS mapping for Sketch Plan. MR. HUNSINGER-Yes. MR.JARRETT-We'll go out and do the topo mapping for Preliminary. MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. That's fine. MR.JARRETT-Good. So we'll proceed with our Preliminary submission. MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. Great. Thank you. MR.JARRETT-Thank you. MR. HUNSINGER-You're welcome. Thank you. We will return to the agenda. For members of the audience,there are copies of the agenda on the back table. The first order of business is approval of minutes for January 15th and January 22nd, 2013. Whoever would like to move those. APPROVAL OF MINUTES January 15, 2013 January 22, 2013 MOTION TO APPROVE THE QUEENSBURY PLANNING BOARD MEETING MINUTES OF JANUARY 15TH &JANUARY 22ND, 2013, Introduced by David Deeb who moved for its adoption, seconded by Brad Magowan: Duly adopted this 19th day of March, 2013, by the following vote: AYES: Mr. Deeb, Mr. Magowan, Mr.Traver, Mr. Hunsinger NOES: NONE ABSENT: Mr. Sipp,Mr. Schonewolf, Mr. Krebs MR. HUNSINGER-We have several items for tabling consideration. ADMINISTRATIVE ITEMS FOR FURTHER TABLING CONSIDERATION SB 05-2012 LARIC DEVELOPMENT,LLC MR. HUNSINGER-The first one is LARIC Development. Since the agenda was set, they've submitted for. MRS.MOORE-They have submitted information for April's meeting. MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. 3 (Queensbury Planning Board 03/19/2013) MRS.MOORE-So you can table that application until April. MR. HUNSINGER-Do you have any sense for the balance of agenda items yet or no? Does it matter which meeting? MRS. MOORE-I would just suggest you say April meetings because we're still working those details out. MR. HUNSINGER-Is there anyone here for the public hearing for that project? Okay. So you don't want us to table? MRS.MOORE-I would ask that you not select a specific date at this time. MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. Would anyone like to make that motion? RESOLUTION TABLING SUB # 5-2012 LARIC DEVELOPMENT, LLC MOTION TO TABLE SUBDIVISION NO. 5-2012 LARIC DEVELOPMENT, LLC, Introduced by David Deeb who moved for its adoption,seconded by Stephen Traver: Tabled until an April meeting. Duly adopted this 19th day of March, 2013,by the following vote: AYES: Mr. Deeb, Mr.Traver, Mr. Magowan, Mr. Hunsinger NOES: NONE ABSENT: Mr. Sipp,Mr. Schonewolf, Mr. Krebs MR. HUNSINGER-The next one is Daniel and Ellen Nichols. SP 42-2012 DANIEL&ELLEN NICHOLS MR. HUNSINGER-Is there any new information on that one? MRS.MOORE-I believe they would prefer to be tabled until June or July. MR. HUNSINGER-June or July. Has there been any discussion with the applicant? MRS. MOORE-They are still working on their details of their plans is my understanding. I did talk to representatives today. MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. I mean, my feeling is if they don't have a preference, we'll do it in July, if they gave us that much leeway. That would be more likely that they'd be ready. I see Jon shaking his head. Okay. We have meetings on the 16th and the 23rd. MR.TRAVER-The 16th. MR. HUNSINGER-Do it the 16th. Does it matter? MRS.MOORE-If you're going to table it that far out,no. MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. Yes,why don't we say July 16th. Would anyone like to move that? RESOLUTION TABLING SP #42-2012 DANIEL&ELLEN NICHOLS The following resolutions have been made by the Planning Board: 8/21/2012 Tabled the application to 9/18/2012 citing need for map plan and report for the sewer district extension; 9/18/2012 Seeking Lead Agency Status regarding SEQR review; 10/16/2012 Acknowledging Lead Agency status regarding SEQR review; 4 (Queensbury Planning Board 03/19/2013) 10/16/2012 Tabled the application to 11/27/12 pending receipt of DEC and OPRHP sign-off-no new information received; 11/27/2012 Tabled the application to 1/15/13 pending receipt of DEC and OPRHP sign-off- no new information received; 1/15/2013 Tabled the application to 3/19/13 with a 2/15/2013 deadline for receipt of revised information-no new information received In addition there are still several outstanding engineering comments from Chazen's review dated 8/10/2012 -no new information received On 2/26/2013 via e-mail Planning Board Chairman requested that Planning staff contact the applicant in advance of the meeting and inform the board of the status of the application the night of the meeting; MOTION TO TABLE SITE PLAN NO. 42-2012 DANIEL & ELLEN NICHOLS, Introduced by David Deeb who moved for its adoption,seconded by Stephen Traver: Tabled to the July 16th Planning Board meeting Duly adopted this 19th day of March, 2013,by the following vote: AYES: Mr. Deeb, Mr.Traver, Mr. Magowan, Mr. Hunsinger NOES: NONE ABSENT: Mr. Sipp,Mr.Schonewolf, Mr. Krebs MR. HUNSINGER-And then Kirk Roberts. SP 62-2012 KIRK ROBERTS MR. HUNSINGER-Any new information? MRS.MOORE-I have no new information. MR.TRAVER-That's been going since September 2012. MR. HUNSINGER-Since September, and apparently Craig has contacted the applicant to say he wanted to meet with them and no date's been set. MR.TRAVER-Table them out to July,too? MR. HUNSINGER-I hate to push them out that far. MR.TRAVER-Well,we could always do April and if we don't get an update. MR. HUNSINGER-I mean,typically we would do May and then if there's no update,usually it's every other month. So why don't we table it to May 23rd. No,wait a minute. Why don't we say May 21St. So do you want to move that one,Steve? RESOLUTION TABLING SP# 62-2012 KIRK ROBERTS The following resolutions have been made by the Planning Board: 9/18/2012 Tabled the application to 11/15/2012 so the applicant's representative can discuss the numerous and complex engineering issues that appear to exist with this site; 11/15/2012 Tabled the application to 1/22/2013 -no new information submitted; 1/15/2013 Tabled the application to 3/19/2013 -no new information submitted; The following e-mails have been sent by Planning Staff: 5 (Queensbury Planning Board 03/19/2013) 2/15/2013 & 2/19/2013 Planning Staff exchanged e-mails with the applicant requesting the status of the project; subsequent to that the applicant spoke with Craig Brown stating he would like to meet to discuss the project-to date that has not occurred; On 2/26/2013 via e-mail Planning Board Chairman requested that Planning staff contact the applicant in advance of the meeting and inform the board of the status of the application the night of the meeting; MOTION TO TABLE SITE PLAN NO.62-2012 KIRK ROBERTS, Introduced by Stephen Traver who moved for its adoption,seconded by Brad Magowan: Tabled to the May 21St meeting of the Planning Board. Duly adopted this 19th day of March, 2013,by the following vote: AYES: Mr. Magowan, Mr. Deeb,Mr.Traver,Mr. Hunsinger NOES: NONE ABSENT: Mr. Sipp,Mr.Schonewolf, Mr. Krebs MR. HUNSINGER-And then finally Site Plan 78-2012 for Jeffrey Schwartz. SP 78-2012 JEFFREY SCHWARTZ MR. HUNSINGER-Was there any new information on that since the e-mails and faxes on? MRS. MOORE-The only thing that's gone on so far is the e-mails back and forth of when to table it to, and right now the applicant has requested May 21St. MR.HUNSINGER-May 21St. MR. TRAVER-The only question I have on that, Mr. Chairman, is the, as I recall when we reviewed this project, it was one of the conditions of the tabling was to come back with all the engineering issues resolved as I recall. MRS. MOORE-My understanding is that they're going to attempt to schedule a meeting with Staff to go over those details, and then assist them referring it to the engineer. So we're still e-mailing. MR. TRAVER-Right, and I noticed in the communications they talked about coming in to get materials next month, April 10th, and with the deadline April 15th, I wonder if a May tabling is appropriate. MRS. MOORE-I know we're still in ongoing discussions. So I understand the comment. I just don't know whether, it's possible they are working with the engineer at this time to address those comments and maybe on the April timeframe that he's suggested that he's coming in with information about what their discussion is or was. So I don't know. MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. I mean, most of the, as a layperson, I thought most of the comments were pretty straightforward. It was mostly stormwater, which, to me, is just the engineers get together and they should be able to figure it out pretty quickly. . MR. TRAVER-Well, yes, and I agree, that's the normal procedure, but as I recall from the interview of the applicant, there were some points that they were pretty adamant about not agreeing with policy and the procedures and the engineer. Was that your sense as well? MRS. MOORE-Yes, and so that's why this discussion is still ongoing. So I don't,if you choose to table it further, that's up to you. It's possible that they may come in with information addressed, only because they have a new engineer handling that stormwater information and that communication between that engineer and the Town's Engineer may actually just pan out and resolve itself. MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. That gives me actual,some comfort. So May 21St is what they've requested. I don't see any reason why we wouldn't honor that request. MR.TRAVER-Yes. 6 (Queensbury Planning Board 03/19/2013) MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. MR. TRAVER-So in order to get that date,they would have to have their application complete by the April 15th submittal deadline? MRS.MOORE-Yes. MR.TRAVER-Okay. That's fine. MR. HUNSINGER-Do you want to make that motion, Steve? RESOLUTION TABLING SP # 78-2012 JEFFREY SCHWARTZ The following resolutions have been made by the Planning Board - 12/18/2013 Tabled the application to 1/22/2013; 1/22/2013 Tabled the application to 3/19/2013 to address engineering, Staff and Fire Marshal comments -no new information was received by the 211512013 deadline date; 2/24/2013 In response to an e-mail sent by staff our office received an e-mail from the applicant's agent stating he would be calling for an appointment with Craig Brown, Laura Moore and Michael Palmer to discuss the project; On 2/26/2013 via e-mail Planning Board Chairman requested that Planning staff contact the applicant in advance of the meeting and inform the board of the status of the application the night of the meeting; On 3/12/2013 our office received an e-mail from the applicant's agent requesting to be tabled to 5/21/2013; MOTION TO TABLE SITE PLAN NO. 78-2012 JEFFREY SCHWARTZ, Introduced by Stephen Traver seconded by Brad Magowan: Tabled to the May 21St meeting of the Planning Board with an April 15th deadline for re-submission of material. Duly adopted this 19th day of March, 2013,by the following vote: AYES: Mr. Magowan, Mr.Traver, Mr. Deeb, Mr. Hunsinger NOES: NONE ABSENT: Mr. Sipp,Mr. Schonewolf, Mr. Krebs MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. Under "Administrative Items 2.2", we have Planning Board seek Lead Agency status for Queensbury Partners. PLANNING BOARD SHALL SEEK LEAD AGENCY STATUS FOR PURPOSES OF SEQR REVIEW SP 62-2011 QUEENSBURY PARTNERS MATT FULLER&MIKE INGERSOLL, REPRESENTING APPLICANT, PRESENT MR. HUNSINGER-Is anyone here,was there anything that you wanted to present to the Board? MR. FULLER-Good evening. Matt Fuller with Fitzgerald Morris Baker Firth, and I'm here with Mike Ingersoll from the LA Group tonight. I don't know how much info.you want. I think what I would, my thought was just to give you a quick rundown of the differences, the changes from when were last before the joint meeting to where we are tonight. MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. MR. FULLER-And we got into engineering and architecture and things like that, and as we knew, you know, some things would change, and I'll hit them for you real quick. On Blind Rock, the setback required is 75. Prior we were talking 50 feet. When it came to the buildings and we looked 7 (Queensbury Planning Board 03/19/2013) at the zoning with the little porches on the front of the building,they extend a couple of feet further. So currently we're at 48 feet. So the request instead of 25 is 27. It doesn't look like there's a huge difference, but I wanted to point that out. The Bay residential setback stays the same at 75. The Bay Road actual setback, the building setback, when we were before the ZBA and the Planning Board last, we got talking about pergolas, awnings, things like that, which, if they're connected to the building or the zoning do fall under the setback requirements. So what we're looking at right now is a 50 foot setback,but not for the structures themselves. That would be basically the pergola that's around the front Bay and Blind Rock side would be within that. So we'll talk about that with the ZBA, and the last one is height. When we were before the joint Boards a couple of months ago, we talked about potentially being in the 54 foot range, but when we got working with the architect designing the building,the architect thinks pretty firmly that it can stick to 45 and a half feet. So we put 47 in the application just with mechanicals and things,depending on what happens,but it looks like the 45 and a half foot is going to be the number. So that's five and a half feet of relief which is, again, trying to meet the, kind of the direction of where we were asked to head with that. So it is, tonight,it is just Lead Agency. I can tell you on the archeological front,that it was in the Staff Notes, we have a draft report that's actually going, it won't be a draft, that'll be a report going back to SHPO this week that identified all of the pieces and things that they found,and the recommendation is that there's no further needed. It's not a site of historic significance. So that report's going back. Hopefully, you know, maybe a month or so we'll have a letter back on that. So that's a pretty promising development there, and on traffic which has been, as you know, the recurring theme, we did meet with Warren County last month and the County oversees the highways, but does not oversee the traffic lights. That's a Town traffic light out there,believe it or not. The County doesn't own any traffic lights. Except for one. The only traffic light the County owns in the entire County is the blinking light right down here on Bay Road. I didn't know that, but that's a little interesting fact. Somehow they got stuck with it,is what I'm told. MR. MAGOWAN-That's less bulbs they have to change they believe. MR. HUNSINGER-Is that the one over the bike path? MR. MAGOWAN-No,the one on Moon Hill and Sunnyside. MR. FULLER-Yes. MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. MR. FULLER-We met with the County. They didn't have any issues with the access. They had actually, under that prior subdivision, had issued access permits for Bay and Blind Rock, and we're pretty much sticking to that same layout of the road. So they didn't have any big issues. We did meet with Mike Travis and he lined up the Town's traffic consultant, I forget the gentleman's name, but works out of the City,that oversees the timing and programming of all the lights, and our traffic engineers gave the Town a traffic sequence for the box that's out there, and that was actually implemented last Friday. MR. MAGOWAN-I knew it. I knew it. That's how I was able to cut two minutes off getting here tonight. That light stayed green and I was at the other end of Blind Rock Road. MR. FULLER-That's what it is. If you notice it,the timing going up and down Bay has been reduced to 25 seconds, and the timing coming across from Blind Rock and over east, or west from Haviland is offset. So the Blind Rock turn now has another five seconds. So when it goes red at Haviland, there's another five seconds coming off of Blind Rock. MR. MAGOWAN-But there's no arrow,though. So that would confuse people. MR. FULLER-Well,we're working on the next part,too. MR. HUNSINGER-So that would give people an opportunity to take that left hand turn. MR. MAGOWAN-It will, if they knew. So we've got to put it in Chronicle and the Post Star so everybody knows. Otherwise it's going to frustrate me because I know and nobody else knows. MR. FULLER-Well, the other part that came up, when the engineer, it was, again, the Town's engineer did the timing, actually, when they put it in the box, the micro detectors, the microwave detectors that are out on the poles, there are detectors out there, they were retrofit years ago, but they were broken. They weren't working. 8 (Queensbury Planning Board 03/19/2013) MR. HUNSINGER-I'm not surprised,yes. I didn't even think there were any. MR. FULLER-For years. So Mike Travis,new ones have been ordered. MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. MR. FULLER-And as soon as they get here they'll be installed. So, you know, by next month when we get into site plan things or whenever we end up back on the agenda, we'll have a good three, four maybe five weeks of data to show you. Preliminarily right now it's going from an E to a B. MR. MAGOWAN-Wow. MR. FULLER-And that was just the timing change. So, Mike Travis is very appreciative of us handing this the sequencing over to the Town so that could be implemented, and we wanted to get that going now. MR. HUNSINGER-I think that's a great idea. MR. FULLER-Versus waiting after, and all the Chazen comments you talked about the stormwater. There were, you know, a good five or six pages of that, and with the same comment that you guys had,let the engineers talk and they'll figure out numbers and what needs to be put in. We didn't see anything that was contrary to policy or any comments like that. So,you know,tomorrow night we'll go to the ZBA and it's just SEQR at this point. We're happy to be in and moving forward with the project. So we're moving and we appreciate the Board's help. MR. HUNSINGER-Sure. So the only thing we're doing tonight is seeking Lead Agency status and then you go back to the Zoning Board tomorrow night? MR. FULLER-Yes,and they'll probably say yes or no and then. MR. HUNSINGER-And we've got you back on the agenda next week to accept the Lead Agency status,or do we have to wait 30 days? MR. FULLER-We have to wait 30 days. MR. HUNSINGER-Yes. MR. FULLER-Because we've got other, we've got DOT and we've got health, we've got a couple of other agencies that are involved. MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. MR. FULLER-So I don't know what April looks like yet,but we're hoping to be back in April. MRS.MOORE-In April. MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. Any questions, comments from the Board? I think that's, I'm going to have to make sure that I go through the intersection now. MR. FULLER-I have. MR. MAGOWAN-I knew it. Because I've been up and down there this past week and last week there, I said the light's staying longer. MR. FULLER-You can definitely tell coming this way more than when I come down Bay. I can definitely tell it's shorter. MR. MAGOWAN-And I haven't seen that many cars waiting either anymore. MR. HUNSINGER-Yes. MR. FULLER-And we're going to come back out and do a follow-up study. So we'll have the actual times and have that data back. MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. 9 (Queensbury Planning Board 03/19/2013) MR. FULLER-Yes. MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. So there's a sample resolution in our package for the Planning Board to Seek Lead Agency status. If anyone would like to move that. RESOLUTION RE: SEEK LEAD AGENCY STATUS RE: AV# 61-2011 QUEENSBURY PARTNERS WHEREAS, the Town Planning Board is in receipt of a Variance & Site Plan application for: Site Plan: Applicant proposes construction of 11 buildings totaling 132,000 sq. ft. on a 34.05 acre parcel. The intended uses for the site include office, business retail, and multi-family. Activities also include land disturbance for installation of parking area and other infrastructure and utilities associated with the project. Site Plan review and approval is required for multi-family, office and business retail. Variances: Relief is requested for building setbacks on Blind Rock Road, residential setback from Blind Rock Road; building height and building canopies and such setback from Bay Road, WHEREAS, the Planning Board of the Town of Queensbury has determined to begin an environmental review process under the State Environmental Quality Review Act(SEQRA), WHEREAS, the Planning Board of the Town of Queensbury has identified the project to be an Unlisted action for the purposes of SEQRA review pursuant to 6 NYCRR 617, WHEREAS, the Planning Board is the agency most directly responsible for approving the actions because of its responsibility for approving the land uses for the property, NOW, THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED, The Planning Board of the Town of Queensbury hereby indicates its desire to be Lead Agency for SEQRA review of this action and authorizes and directs the Zoning Administrator to notify any other potentially involved agencies of such intent. That Part I of the SEQRA will be sent to the following agencies [as identified in EAF]: Zoning Board of Appeals,Warren Co. Planning; Warren Co. Dept.of Transportation,Army Corps of Engineers. MOTION TO SEEK LEAD AGENCY STATUS IN CONNECTION WITH AREA VARIANCE NO. 61- 2011. SITE PLAN NO. 62-2011, FRESHWATER WETLANDS 6-2011 FOR QUEENSBURY PARTNERS, Introduced by Stephen Traver who moved for its adoption, seconded by Brad Magowan: As per the resolution prepared by Staff. Duly adopted this 19th day of March, 2013,by the following vote: AYES: Mr. Deeb, Mr. Magowan, Mr.Traver, Mr. Hunsinger NOES: NONE ABSENT: Mr. Sipp,Mr. Schonewolf, Mr. Krebs PLANNING BOARD RECOMMENDATIONS TO THE ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS SITE PLAN NO. 10-2013 SEQR TYPE UNLISTED THE FUN SPOT AGENT(S) JARRETT ENGINEERS OWNER(S) ANTHONY FERRARO ZONING CI-COMMERCIAL INTENSIVE LOCATION 1035 STATE ROUTE 9 SITE PLAN: APPLICANT PROPOSES TO CONSTRUCT A 3,529 SQ. FT. ADDITION TO AN EXISTING BUILDING FOR RECONFIGURATION OF THE LASER TAG/ARCADE AREA OF THE AMUSEMENT CENTER AN TO INCLUDE THREE CLASSROOMS FOR A FULL DAY-CARE FACILITY. DAY CARE CENTER IN A CI ZONE REQUIRES PLANNING BOARD REVIEW AND APPROVAL. VARIANCE: RELIEF FROM PARKING REQUIREMENTS. PLANNING BOARD SHALL MAKE A RECOMMENDATION TO THE ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS. CROSS REFERENCE AV 7-2013, SUP 35-06, AV 42-06, ETC. WARREN CO. REFERRAL MARCH 2013 LOT SIZE 3.51 ACRES TAX MAP NO. 296.9-1-1 SECTION 179-9 TOM JARRETT&JON LAPPER, REPRESENTING APPLICANT, PRESENT MR. HUNSINGER-And this is for a recommendation to the Zoning Board of Appeals. Laura, if you want to summarize Staff Notes,please. MRS. MOORE-This project is on the Board's agenda tonight for the Zoning Board of Appeals concerning the relief requested. So this is a recommendation only. The applicant proposes to 10 (Queensbury Planning Board 03/19/2013) construct a 3,529 sq. ft. addition to an existing building for reconfiguration of the laser tag/arcade area of the amusement center and to include three classrooms for a full day-care facility. The variance relief is from parking requirements. MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. Good evening. MR. LAPPER-Good evening. For the record, Jon Lapper with Tom Jarrett, project engineer, and Keith Ferraro,the applicant. It was about six years ago that we were before this Board and the ZBA to do the major upgrade to the Fun Spot. At that point it was mostly because of the front setback. We weren't building the building but all of the improvements for the mini golf, which was a lot of landscaping and really dressed up that site and there was a lot of back and forth with the Boards to get that right, and fortunately it's been a real success. I mean, it looks great when you drive by,but also in terms of their business model, it worked out just as they were hoping. At that point, we needed the variance for parking, and it was justified based upon the shared uses that there's people come to not just do laser tag or miniature golf, but they may do both and be arcade. So it's an overlap of uses. So it didn't require separate parking for each of their various activities, and at the same time different activities happen different times of the day. So everything that we had used as arguments for the parking variance at the time panned out because they've been carefully counting extra parking spaces and as we put in the submission, it's only been the one day,the biggest day of the year, President's week or Martin Luther King Day when the schools are closed and it's winter and everybody wants to be indoors. So it's really worked out. In sort of an abundance of caution, Craig Brown asked us to still characterize this as if we needed the 264 spaces,but he has a variance for 118 which has worked out well, and the differential for these proposed uses is only seven spaces. So it's a little confusing in the Staff Notes, but really here to talk about the seven spaces for the proposed daycare use and reconfiguring the laser tag,because the variance, again,exists for the 118 spaces, and in terms of that, Keith can talk in more detail about this and answer any of your questions,but they already have summer camp program and they have an after school program. So they're very familiar with, and part of it, to digress, is just because they have the amusement activities, it works really nicely to have the kids there. It supplements their income and it also happens that's non-peak hour for skating and birthday parties and everything else because it's during the day when it's quieter up there, and that's really the same rationale for the daycare, but because they already are experienced with the summer program and the after school program, a daycare, three classrooms with daycare is sort of a natural progression and it also just keeps the place a little busier,you know,with 50 children during the day when it's pretty quiet,and there also wouldn't be in effect when there's no school. So it wouldn't,there would be no conflict with Martin Luther King Day, for example. It seems to be a pretty compatible use with what they have there. The kids get dropped off. So it's really not a parking issue, and based upon how it's being operated now, we don't feel that anymore spaces are required. So it's really just those seven incremental spaces that under the Code would be required beyond what they have now, and since they actually have these numbers, it just doesn't seem necessary. So that's, we're hoping that we'll get the variance tomorrow and then we'll be back to talk to you guys about the site plan next week. MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. Questions,comments from the Board? MR. DEEB-The question I have, is the daycare going to be during the summer also, are parents that are working going to be bringing their kids to the daycare? KEITH FERRARO MR. FERRARO-Yes,they will. MR. DEEB-So it'll be a year round operation? MR. FERRARO-Yes. MR. DEEB-Okay, and the busy time is in the summer. The hours will be they'll drop them off in the morning and pick them up in the afternoon? MR. FERRARO-Yes. Our entertainment center is normally busy from like 11 to 4. Kids will get dropped off in the morning before work, probably 7:30 to 8:30 in the morning and get picked up after five o'clock when our entertainment center guests are mainly at dinner. MR. DEEB-Okay. So there won't be any conflict of traffic at the peak hours when you're busy. I know the go karts do really well. MR. FERRARO-Yes. 11 (Queensbury Planning Board 03/19/2013) MR. DEEB-Okay. MR. HUNSINGER-Yes, that was kind of my question, too, you know, dropping kids off to a daycare center is different than dropping kids off to go play laser tag, you know, because usually when you're dropping them off for daycare, you know, you park your car and you go in with them, and then you go back to your car and leave. Whereas, you know, a lot of times with the other uses, they're older kids,you just open the door and let them out(lost word) picking them up. MR. MAGOWAN-Yes, I thought they jumped out the window as soon as you got in the parking lot. MR. HUNSINGER-Pretty much,yes. MR. LAPPER-I did neglect to mention that drop off for the daycare will be in the back. That's regulated by the State. It has to be that,have their own entrance. MR.HUNSINGER-Okay. MR. LAPPER-The other kids,the older kids are all in the front. MR. HUNSINGER-Yes,but still most of the parking's in the rear. MR.JARRETT-Yes,a significant portion of it. MR. HUNSINGER-Yes. MR.JARRETT-A lot of the normal parking is along the side. MR. HUNSINGER-I now have a child who's old enough to go skating and stuff, and, you know, the couple of times that she's been there when it was really full, you know, we did have to park out back, but, I mean, there were spots, and even though inside was just mobbed with kids, there was parking in the rear. MR. DEEB-Well, the last time I was there I had to park in the theater parking lot. I didn't have to, but I did because it was closest to the door. MR. LAPPER-It was easier. MR. DEEB-It was easier. MR. HUNSINGER-Well, you know, and that is the question. I know in your application you did say that you have an agreement with the neighbors that you can use overflow parking in neighboring lots needed. MR. LAPPER-We read in the paper, of course, that there's going to be a new use, but the simple answer, we discussed that, is that they've never needed that. They've been able to maintain everything on their site. So it's been as a stop gap,but it hasn't been used,and we don't see that the seven cars would make a difference. MR.JARRETT-Actually Keith has noticed,but the people next door are using next door were parking in your lot. Right? MR. FERRARO-Right. We have a reciprocal agreement. They have like an indoor sports field (lost words) those guests parking in our parking lot because it's closer to the door than parking in there. MR. HUNSINGER-Sure. MR. FERRARO-So it's kind of one of those things that works well, and Gary and I have worked well with it, not complained to each other about problems like that because it just doesn't make sense to do that. MR. HUNSINGER-Right. I mean, that's the only concern I have and,you know, I mean it's not a city setting. You can't park on Route 9. So,you know, if you need to stop and drop kids off or whatever, there has to be a place for you to park. So that's the only concern,in that unlikely event. MR. FERRARO-I wish that was a problem. Let's put it that way. 12 (Queensbury Planning Board 03/19/2013) MR. HUNSINGER-Yes, okay. MR. FERRARO-So I guess I'm confused. The variance is just for the. MRS.MOORE-Parking request. MR. HUNSINGER-So how many spaces? MRS.MOORE-They're required. I apologize. MR. JARRETT-Two sixty-four is what they're required, and we're asking from the variance back to the original number, with the variance that was granted six years ago, the one eighteen. We think we only need 109, maybe 112, if you count the staff for the daycare. We need 112. We're asking for 118. Technically we were supposed to provide 264. We got the variance six years ago. MR. HUNSINGER-I guess that's what confused me is when Jon said you already have the variance for the other. You're only really asking for the variance for the daycare center,right? MR.JARRETT-Well,except Craig said we needed to ask for the variance from 264 down to 188, even though we had a variance for 118. He wanted us to go from the current Code. That's why it's confusing. MR.TRAVER-So the new site plan basically, in the opinion of the Zoning Administrator,negates the original variance. So you're re-applying for the variance you got six years ago. MR. JARRETT-With the new Ordinance in place, so he asked us to ask for the variance from 264 down to 118, even though we had a 118 in place. We only need three more for daycare. MR. HUNSINGER-I mean, personally I don't see the addition of the daycare adding a huge demand for more parking. MR.JARRETT-We don't, either. We looked at it hard. We don't see a problem. There's diversity of times,there's diversity of uses and diversity in entrances. We've got a lot of flexibility. MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. MR. MAGOWAN-And most of the people are being dropped off and leaving anyway. The cars never idle long anyway. MR. HUNS INGER-So what time will the daycare be open? Do you know yet? MR. FERRARO-From seven or seven-thirty in the morning until five forty-five. That's basically what we do. Our summer camp is from seven thirty until five forty-five every day. MR. HUNSINGER-And how many kids do you typically have at the summer camp? MR. FERRARO-We do a program for 60 kids. MR. DEEB-You've never really had a problem,then,with the 118? MR. FERRARO-The spaces? No. Like I said,I wish I had a problem with that,but I don't. MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. Any other questions, comments from the Board? Again, all we're doing is making a recommendation to the Zoning Board. So if there's no further questions or comments, would anyone like to move it? MR. JARRETT-We're willing to entertain any questions you have regarding site designs. We'll be back next week for that if we're successful tomorrow night. If you have any informal comments you want to make on that as well. MR. HUNSINGER-I mean, my biggest concern is just the traffic circulation, especially if you're dropping off the kids from daycare. RESOLUTION RE: ZBA RECOMMENDATION FOR AV 4 7-13 THE FUN SPOT (Queensbury Planning Board 03/19/2013) The applicant has submitted an application for the following: Site Plan: Applicant proposes to construct a 3,529 sq. ft. addition to an existing building for reconfiguration of the laser tag/arcade area of the amusement center and to include three classrooms for a full day-care facility. Day Care Center in a Cl zone requires Planning Board review and approval. Variance: Relief from parking requirements. Planning Board shall make a recommendation to the Zoning Board of Appeals. The Town of Queensbury Zoning Ordinance, per Section 179-9-070 J 2 b. requires the Planning Board to provide a written recommendation to the Zoning Board of Appeals for projects that require both Zoning Board of Appeals&Planning Board approval; The Planning Board has briefly reviewed and discussed this application, the relief request in the variance application as well as the potential impacts of this project on the neighborhood and surrounding community,and found that: MOTION TO MAKE A RECOMMENDATION ON BEHALF OF THE PLANNING BOARD TO THE ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS FOR AREA VARIANCE NO. 7-2013 FOR THE FUN SPOT, Introduced by Stephen Traver who moved for its adoption,seconded by Brad Magowan: The Planning Board, based on a limited review, has not identified any significant adverse impacts that cannot be mitigated with the current project proposal. Duly adopted this 19th day of March, 2013,by the following vote: AYES: Mr. Magowan, Mr.Traver, Mr. Deeb, Mr. Hunsinger NOES: NONE ABSENT: Mr. Sipp,Mr. Schonewolf, Mr. Krebs MR. HUNSINGER-Hey, Good luck. MR. FERRARO-Thank you. MR. HUNSINGER-We have an item on the agenda that was tabled from January 15th. TABLED ITEM: SITE PLAN NO. 77-2012 SEQR TYPE II MARCIA PARKER AGENT(S) HUTCHINS ENGINEERING OWNER(S) SAME AS APPLICANT ZONING WR-WATERFRONT RESIDENTIAL LOCATION 11 SPERRY ROAD APPLICANT PROPOSES TO CONSTRUCT A 300 FOOT LONG, 6 FOOT WIDE GRAVEL PATH ON SLOPES IN EXCESS OF 20%. FURTHER,APPLICANT PROPOSES A 40' X 8' (320 SQ. FT.) GRAVEL TURN-AROUND ADJACENT TO THE HUDSON RIVER SHORELINE. HARD SURFACING & FILLING WITHIN 50 FEET OF SHORELINE IN A WR ZONE REQUIRES PLANNING BOARD REVIEW AND APPROVAL. CROSS REFERENCE BP 04-106 WARREN CO. REFERRAL NOVEMBER 2012 APA, CEA, OTHER NWI WETLANDS LOT SIZE 2.14 ACRES TAX MAP NO. 316.5-1-8 SECTION 179-9 TOM HUTCHINS, REPRESENTING APPLICANT, PRESENT MR. HUNSINGER-Laura,whenever you're ready to summarize Staff Notes. MRS.MOORE-Project is hard surfacing and filling within 50 feet of the shoreline. The project details a 300 foot path to address, or as a response to an enforcement action for filling within 50 feet of the shoreline. The project has been designed with stormwater and erosion control measures. The applicant has evaluated an elevator unit but determined that it would be cost prohibitive. The applicant has also evaluated relocation of the path but determined it would be more disruptive than the path proposed. Chazen has provided a comment letter requesting clarification to the design. MR. HUNSINGER-Good evening. MR. HUTCHINS-Good evening, Board. Tom Hutchins with applicant Marcia Parker, her husband Rick, and we were here in November, and then the Board asked us to look into the feasibility of some type of mechanical elevator as well as address engineering concerns. We have, the applicant has looked into a type of elevator system which is kind of neat, but it's cost prohibitive. We have looked at the design again, in terms of alternatives to give us some access to the shoreline and we've continued to feel that the location and proposal we have shown is appropriate. We've 14 (Queensbury Planning Board 03/19/2013) addressed the engineering concerns, and we're back and asking for your support, and with that I'll turn it over to the Board. MR.HUNSINGER-Okay. Questions,comments from the Board? MR. MAGOWAN-Well, I want to thank you for looking into the alternatives. I'm sorry that they were more costly than we thought,but,hey,it was worth looking into. MR. TRAVER-And there were some questions on the engineering review which had to do primarily with the stormwater again. Have those issues been addressed or? MR. HUTCHINS-Yes,those issues,I've been,we've done another submission that the engineers have looked at and we have a new comment letter which is,has three comments and they are essentially addressing details on the plan. There's some notes on the silt fence detail. There's some notes on the riprap detail, and there's a question with regard to the thickness of our ditch, but overall it's very minimal. MR. HUNSINGER-Any other comments, concerns from the Board? We do have a public hearing scheduled for this project this evening. Is there anyone in the audience that wants to address the Board? The public hearing was held open. PUBLIC HEARING OPEN MR. HUNSINGER-Were there any written comments,Laura? MRS.MOORE-No,there's not. MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. I'm not hearing any concerns from the Board. So I will close the public hearing. It's a Type II SEQR. MR. TRAVER-There was a couple of engineering issues to be taken care of, but that's part of the approval resolution. MR. HUNSINGER-Yes. If there's no other questions or comments, I'll entertain a motion. RESOLUTION APPROVING SP # 77-2012 MARCIA PARKER A site plan application has been made to the Queensbury Planning Board for the following: Applicant proposes to construct a 300 foot long, 6 foot wide gravel path on slopes in excess of 20%. Further, applicant proposes a 40'x 8' (320 sq. ft.) gravel turn-around adjacent to the Hudson River shoreline. Hard surfacing&filling within SO feet of shoreline in a WR zone requires Planning Board review and approval. Type II SEQR-no further review required; A public hearing was advertised and held on 11/27/2012, 1/1S/2013 tabled to 3/27/2013; This application is supported with all documentation, public comment, and application material in the file of record; MOTION TO APPROVE SITE PLAN NO. 77-2012 MARCIA PARKER, Introduced by Stephen Traver who moved for its adoption,seconded by David Deeb: According to the resolution prepared by Staff. As per the resolution prepared by staff with the following 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 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, 3) Engineering sign-off required prior to signature of Zoning Administrator of the approved plans; 15 (Queensbury Planning Board 03/19/2013) 4) Final approved plans, in compliance with the Site Plan, must be submitted to the Community Development Department before any further review by the Zoning Administrator or Building and Codes personnel. 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 site plan is developed according to the approved plans to be provided prior to issuance of the certificate of occupancy. Duly adopted this 19th day of March, 2013,by the following vote: AYES: Mr. Deeb, Mr.Traver, Mr. Magowan, Mr. Hunsinger NOES: NONE ABSENT: Mr. Sipp,Mr. Schonewolf, Mr. Krebs MR. HUTCHINS-Thank you. MR. HUNSINGER-You're all set. Good luck. You're welcome. We have two items, this evening, under Old Business. OLD BUSINESS: SUBDIVISION NO. 1-2013 FINAL STAGE SEQR TYPE UNLISTED HAYES & HAYES AGENT(S) NACE ENGINEERING OWNER(S) SAME AS APPLICANT ZONING NR-NEIGHBORHOOD RESIDENTIAL LOCATION DIXON ROAD APPLICANT PROPOSES SUBDIVISION OF A 8.47 ACRE PARCEL INTO THREE (3) RESIDENTIAL LOTS CONSISTING OF A 7.44 ACRE LOTS WITH EXISTING DUPLEX APARTMENTS; TWO (2) NEW 0.51 ACRE SINGLE FAMILY LOTS. SUBDIVISION OF LAND IN A NR ZONE REQUIRES PLANNING BOARD REVIEW AND APPROVAL. CROSS REFERENCE AV 2-12, SP 80-10 LOT SIZE 8.47 ACRES TAX MAP NO. 302.14-1-79.2 SECTION CHAPTER A-183 TOM CENTER, REPRESENTING APPLICANT, PRESENT; MICKIE HAYES, PRESENT MR. HUNSINGER-And there they come. Did you have anything you wanted to add on Staff Notes, Laura? MRS. MOORE-No. I just, I guess I'll say, yes I do. The Board should condition the Final Stage, again, with the Type B Buffer so that's included on the plat and the deeds and the applicant's aware of that. MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. Good evening. MR. CENTER-Good evening. MR. HUNSINGER-If you could identify yourselves for the record. MR. CENTER-Tom Center, Nace Engineering and Mickie Hayes. MR. HUNSINGER-I don't know if there's really much to review since we're here just for Final. MR. HAYES-We worked it out last time. MR. HUNSINGER-Yes. MR. CENTER-In regard to the Type B Buffer, we did add a note to Plan S-3 did call out the Type B Buffers on the plan as well as on S-1 we'd labeled all the individual trees per specification purposes where they're supposed to be. So we have added it to the drawing so it is on the subdivision plans that it's to be a Type B Buffer. 16 (Queensbury Planning Board 03/19/2013) MR.TRAVER-And the draft resolution has that,too. MR. HUNSINGER-Questions, comments from the Board? I think we had worked everything out at Preliminary. We do have a public hearing scheduled this evening. Is there anyone in the audience that wants to address the Board? PUBLIC HEARING OPEN MR. HUNSINGER-Were there any other comments from any of the neighbors after the meeting the other night? MR. HAYES-No,there has not been. MR. HUNSINGER-Yes,and were there any written comments, Laura? MRS.MOORE-No. MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. MR. HUNSINGER-All right. Well, I will close the public hearing. PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED MR. HUNSINGER-We already did SEQR. So this is just a Final Stage. If anyone would like to move it. RESOLUTION APPROVING FINAL STAGE SUB # 1-2013 HAYES&HAYES A subdivision application has been made to the Queensbury Planning Board for the following: Applicant proposes subdivision of a 8.47 acre parcel into three (3) residential lots consisting of a 7.44 acre lots with existing duplex apartments; two (2) new 0.51 acre single family lots. Subdivision of land in a NR zone requires Planning Board review and approval. A public hearing was scheduled and held on 1/16/2013 &2/19/2013; 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; The requirements of the State Environmental Quality Review Act have been considered and the Planning Board has adopted a SEQRA Negative Declaration on 2/19/2013; Waiver requests were granted for stormwater mgmt., grading, landscaping, & lighting plans on 2/19/2013; This application is supported with all documentation, public comment, and application material in the file of record; MOTION TO APPROVE FINAL STAGE SUBDIVISION NO. 1-2013, Introduced by Stephen Traver who moved for its adoption,seconded by Brad Magowan: As per the resolution prepared by staff with the following conditions: 1. Type B buffer as noted on Sheet 4 S-3 to be included on the final subdivision plat and in the deeds. 2. 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; 3. The applicant must meet with Staff after approval and prior to issuance of Building Permit and/or the beginning of any site work; 4. Subsequent issuance of further permits, including building permits is dependent on compliance with this and all other conditions of this resolution. Duly adopted this 19th day of March, 2013,by the following vote: 17 (Queensbury Planning Board 03/19/2013) AYES: Mr. Magowan, Mr.Traver, Mr. Deeb, Mr. Hunsinger NOES: NONE ABSENT: Mr. Sipp,Mr. Schonewolf, Mr. Krebs MR. HUNSINGER-You're all set. Thank you. MR. HAYES-Thank you, gentlemen. I appreciate it. MR. HUNSINGER-You're welcome. MR. DEEB-Sorry to keep you so long. MR. HUNSINGER-Yes,sorry to keep you so long. SUBDIVISION NO. 13-2008 FRESHWATER WETLANDS 1-2010 PRELIMINARY STAGE SEQR TYPE TYPE I MARY SICARD AGENT(S) JARRETT ENGINEERS OWNER(S) SAME AS APPLICANT ZONING WR & RR LOCATION GLEN LAKE ROAD & NACY/JAY ROADS APPLICANT PROPOSES A 16 LOT SUBDIVISION ON MULTIPLE PARCELS TOTALING 42.38 ACRES ON BOTH THE EAST AND WEST SIDE OF GLEN LAKE ROAD ADJACENT TO GLEN LAKE. FRESHWATER WETLANDS PERMIT FOR PROPOSED REGULATED ACTIVITY WITHIN 100 FEET OF A WETLAND. SUBDIVISION OF LAND REQUIRES PLANNING BOARD REVIEW AND APPROVAL. CROSS REFERENCE AV 20-09 APA, CEA, OTHER GLEN LAKE CEA LOT SIZE 42.38 ACRES TAX MAP NO. 289.6-1-1, 2, 3, 5, 17 SECTION CHAPTER A183 TOM JARRETT&DAN MANNIX, REPRESENTING APPLICANT, PRESENT MRS. MOORE-Under Planning Board Summary Remarks, the Planning Board is reviewing a 16 lot subdivision that has received several variances due to the topography of the land and existing layout of lots surrounding the subdivision. SEQR has been completed. The applicant has received notice from SHPO that "no impact" letter which also satisfies the engineering comments for the project. The Zoning Board reviewed and approved the area variance in 1/19/2011. Notes that the Planning Board conducted their SEQR in 2010 and the applicant has now completed activities identified by the engineer 11/14/2011 and received sign-off from the engineer as of 02/14/2013. MR. HUNSINGER-This is one of those projects we joke about it like birthing a child, going back to 2010. MR.TRAVER-Yes,it's incredible. MR. HUNSINGER-Good evening. MR.JARRETT-Good evening. Tom Jarrett, Mary Sicard and Dan Mannix. MR. HUNSINGER-It has been a long time since you were here. MR.JARRETT-It's been a long process. You don't have to tell Mary about it. MR. HUNSINGER-Yes. MR. JARRETT-We think we've satisfied all of the hurdles that have been put in front of us, whether by regulation or otherwise, and we think we're here for final stage of preliminary review, Preliminary approval. MR. HUNSINGER-Do you want to update us,refresh us,update us? MR.JARRETT-Well,this is a 16 lot subdivision. MR. HUNSINGER-My first thought when I saw this on the agenda again was, you know, what happened,why did it take so long. Can you just kind of fill in the gap a little bit? MR. JARRETT-Well, if you recall, we had 22 variances on this because we were situated, we were building the lots around existing structures, an existing cottage colony that Mary and her husband developed 60, 70 years ago, and they're trying to divest, Mary's trying to divest this to the kids 18 (Queensbury Planning Board 03/19/2013) basically, and a few lots to sell off,but basically building that subdivision around those cottages was very difficult. We needed 22 variances and a long drawn out process to do that, and then we went through the archeological investigation phase which took over a year. MR. HUNSINGER-Wow. MR.JARRETT-So it's been a long drawn out process. Laura, if you go to the next page, I'll show you. Well, anyway, there are six lots on the west side of Glen Lake Road, okay, that are essentially right now in a wooded area that used to be a mobile home park and an RV park that they still have a license for so they still technically can operate that, and then 10 lots on the lake side of Glen Lake Road amongst the cottage colony,and there's. MRS.MOORE-It's not there. MR. JARRETT-Those ten lots accommodate Mary's house, and several other family houses, as well as the cottages that she rents out right now. Several of the cottages would be torn down essentially very soon after the approval and other cottages would be torn down only as lot owners buy those lots and decide if they want to tear them down. They might maintain them for a number of years,or they might tear them right down and build a new home,but that's essentially what they're trying to do. There are four lots right on the lake. The remainder are off the lake. You're not finding it, Laura? Go to the 11 by 17 set. Right there. MRS.MOORE-Okay. MR.JARRETT-Here are the six lots that are on the west side of Glen Lake Road, and here are the lots that are on the lakeside of Glen Lake Road. There are the four lots that are along the lakeshore. Actually Mary's house is right there. She does have frontage on Glen Lake as well. The 16 variances were largely perfunctory,sideline setbacks. I'm drawing a blank on a lot of the variances, but they were largely perfunctory in nature. They weren't substantive. They designed the subdivision with significant setbacks from Glen Lake and we're maintaining a wooded buffer along Glen Lake,if you recall that. MR. HUNSINGER-Yes. MR.JARRETT-And we're building complaint wastewater, stormwater, and water supply systems for each lot, and we've gone through the engineering review which was also lengthy and exhaustive. David, I know, and, Brad, you didn't sit in on this at all. I don't know if you have any particular questions or not. The other two are probably,they've aged along with us with this project. MR. MAGOWAN-Unfortunately I wasn't able to pick up, but I have the Mary Sicard file, it's like that thick, in my crate at home, and I'm very familiar, I was going to say,you know, Mary has pulled me by the ear of a cottage once that there was a little party going on. So I'm very familiar with, and I know your sons. MR. JARRETT-Okay. On the agenda it notes that we need a permit for development within 100 feet of a wetland. This three lot complex which is south of the main shoreline development, there's three lots in here. It's hard to, see these lots right here. There's the boundary line to these three lots. Right in the center is a little piece of Army Corps wetland,very poor drainage. It's just trapped there, and it lays there. A small piece of wetland, and we're within 100 feet of that wetland, and that's why we need the permit. MR. HUNSINGER-What's amazing to me is that the Army Corps would be concerned about a wetland that is so tiny. MR. JARRETT-Well, when it's delineated you have to look for all wetlands on the property, no matter how small it is,and that was just a small piece of wetland that was trapped drainage right in the center. It is a little bit odd. It's a little bit out of context with some of the others. MR.TRAVER-It's basically the same elevation as the lake surface. MR.JARRETT-That one's actually elevated above the lake quite a bit in its present drainage, and I'm not sure exactly why it doesn't drain any faster than it does. It may be some silt's been built up over the years in that little area that it drains so slowly that it stays perched and it stays wet. MR. MAGOWAN-I was going to say,it's pretty sandy there,isn't it? 19 (Queensbury Planning Board 03/19/2013) MR. JARRETT-It's all sand on the majority of the site. We're quite a ways above the lake level. That's the question you asked. The wetlands otherwise, Laura, could you go back, one more. Right now we're looking at the west, there's Glen Lake Road right there. West of it, these are the six lots west of it. There's a wetlands complex here in the northwest corner, 149 is over here. You can see that from 149 when you drive by. There's a large pond in there and a large DEC and Corps of Engineers wetland complex and that's basically where all the wetlands are, except for a couple of isolated spots here and then that one little piece down that we need a permit for. MR. HUNSINGER-I know back when, when you first talked about this project, there was, I mean, I even have the maps still here of the structures that were going to be torn down and that kind of thing. Has any of that changed at all? MR.JARRETT-Correct. No, not at all. MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. Because it wasn't color coded the same. MR. JARRETT-They're exactly the same as what you saw a couple of years ago. We've been wrestling with the engineering comments and the archeological. MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. This is dated,well,it's dated October 2009. MR.JARRETT-It's not changed,the configuration has not changed since then. MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. MR.JARRETT-We've been wrestling with details. MR. HUNSINGER-Wow. MR.TRAVER-I knew it was a long time. MR. JARRETT-We had three changes in Town Engineer didn't help. We've had changes in DEC regulations which didn't help. There've been a lot of hurdles to go through. MR. HUNSINGER-I guess the question that I would ask, and I guess maybe more of Staff, or maybe the engineer, I don't know when we did the SEQR review. MR.JARRETT-That was also in 2010. MR.TRAVER-July of 2010. MR.JARRETT-Yes. MR. HUNSINGER-I don't know,have any of the rules or regulations changed that may require us to? MRS.MOORE-Reaffirm SEQR? MR. HUNSINGER-Well,reaffirm,or at least take a second look at it? MR.TRAVER-The form,the questions have not changed. MR. HUNSINGER-Not yet. MR. JARRETT-And I can tell you that the configuration of the lots have not changed. None of the variances have changed. We spent a year and a half going through the archeological. MR. HUNSINGER-That's amazing. Was there something that they found on the site? MR.JARRETT-No. There was a suspicion that there was,but it turned out that there wasn't. It was of course in a sensitive area. MR. HUNSINGER-Right. MR. JARRETT-They went through a lot of physical investigation, but there was nothing found. We lost part of the time due to winter conditions. 20 (Queensbury Planning Board 03/19/2013) MR. HUNSINGER-Right. MR. JARRETT-A lot of administrative issues, and then wrestling with the engineering comments. There were a lot of very,very detailed minor comments that we discussed and went back and forth. MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. Any other questions, comments from the Board? I have to say this is one of the most unusual projects that I've worked on. MR.TRAVER-Yes,it sure is. MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. If there's no other questions or comments, we do have a public hearing scheduled this evening. Is there anyone in the audience that wants to address the Board? Sir, did you want to? MARY SICARD MRS. SICARD-Could you speak up a little so I could hear you? MR. HUNSINGER-I'm sorry. I was asking if there was anyone that wanted to address the Board on this project, and we do have one commenter. I'll need to get you on the microphone, sir. The purpose of the public hearing is for interested parties to address the Board. We do tape the meeting. The tape is used to transcribe the minutes. So I would ask anyone who wishes to comment to state their name for the record and to speak clearly into the microphone. PUBLIC HEARING OPEN BILL FOSBROOK MR. FOSBROOK-Okay. I'm Bill Fosbrook. I've lived on Glen Lake for the last 65 years. I've known the Sicards for better than 50, and I just can't see any problem. Basically they want to eliminate four places, which is less density, less lake usage, and they want some lots on the other side of the Glen Lake Road, and I guess my question is why should it take four years and the better part of $100,000 to do it? MR. HUNSINGER-Well,that wasn't us. That's the State for you. You heard the biggest issue was the archeological review. MR. FOSBROOK-I've been behind there, on the other side of Glen Lake Road, since I was a kid, running my dog and four wheeler. I've never seen any Indian bones over there, arrowheads or any of that stuff. I mean,you know,come on. MR. HUNSINGER-Yes. MR. FOSBROOK-It's kind of ridiculous,in my estimation. That's about all I've got to say. MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. Thank you. Anyone else? MRS.MOORE-I do have a record of a phone conversation. MR. HUNSINGER-Okay,sure. MRS. MOORE-I had a conversation with Frank Donahue on March 18th. He wanted to express his concern that he received six phone calls from neighbors, and he was concerned that they would not be present this time of year and was concerned about the notification, and then he also indicated that he wanted to make sure that it was brought up about the concern about the water supply, and if there would be any harm to the existing water sources because apparently where they draw their water from they wanted to confirm that their water source wasn't going to be harmed, and what would be the impact on the water quality of the lake if there is additional boat traffic with those lots down on the lake. MR.TRAVER-Well,we addressed all those at SEQR. MR. HUNSINGER-Yes. MR.JARRETT-Actually I think there's going to be less intense,less use than there is currently or was before. 21 (Queensbury Planning Board 03/19/2013) MR. HUNSINGER-I mean,it wasn't clear in the comment. Do they draw their water from the lake? MRS. MOORE-I don't know. He just knew that their water source, he was not sure if it would be impacted by the new development,if there were to be any new development on those lots. MR. MAGOWAN-Is there public water there or well water? MR. JARRETT-Well water. Right now they draw out of two main wells for the cottage colony, and that's, those will remain intact and then several new wells will be drilled for the individual homes. So it's actually spreading out the demand of water. I think it's going to be a better situation than is there now. MR. HUNSINGER-And I mean, you clearly show the water and wastewater on each of the lots in the subdivision plan. Okay. Were there any other comments, Laura,in the file? MRS.MOORE-Not in the file,no. MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. Then I will close the public hearing. PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED MR. HUNSINGER-And I guess I'll entertain a motion for Preliminary Stage approval unless there's any further questions or comments from the Board. RESOLUTION APPROVING PRELIMINARY STAGE SUB # 13-2008 MARY SICARD A subdivision application has been made to the Queensbury Planning Board for the following: Applicant proposes a 16 lot subdivision on multiple parcels totaling 42.38 acres on both the east and west side of Glen Lake Road adjacent to Glen Lake. Freshwater Wetlands Permit for proposed regulated activity within 100 feet of a wetland. Subdivision of land requires Planning Board review and approval; Planning Board made a recommendation to the ZBA on 7/27/2010; the ZBA approved the variance requests on 1/19/2011; SEQR Negative Declaration was approved on 7/27/2010; Engineering review dated 2/14/2013 requests a letter from NYSOPRHP stating "no adverse impact" or "no affect" to support General Permit eligibility and to be included in the SWPPP - please see letter dated 212512013 from Philip Perazio, OPRHP; A public hearing was scheduled and held on 5/20/2010, 7/27/2010,&3/19/2013; This application is supported with all documentation, public comment, and application material in the file of record; MOTION TO APPROVE PRELIMINARY STAGE SUBDIVISION NO. 13-2008 MARY SICARD, Introduced by Stephen Traver who moved for its adoption,seconded by Brad Magowan: As per the resolution prepared by staff: 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; Duly adopted this 19th day of March, 2013,by the following vote: AYES: Mr. Magowan, Mr. Deeb, Mr.Traver, Mr. Hunsinger NOES: NONE ABSENT: Mr. Sipp,Mr. Schonewolf, Mr. Krebs MR.JARRETT-Thank you very much. 22 (Queensbury Planning Board 03/19/2013) MR. HUNSINGER-Did you give us a motion for the Freshwater Wetlands approval, or was that already done? MRS.MOORE-No,there's not one in there. MR.JARRETT-You probably will do it at Final. MR. HUNSINGER-I guess we could do it at Final. Yes, I just want to make sure we don't let it slip through the cracks. MR. JARRETT-I had been a little presumptuous and asked Craig if we could do Preliminary and Final in one night. He chuckled and said no. MR. HUNSINGER-Yes. MR. JARRETT-Good. We will see you soon. We will get the plat prepared and get back on an agenda. Thank you very much. MR. HUNSINGER-You're welcome. Good luck. Thank you. Is there any other business to be brought before the Board this evening? MRS.MOORE-I don't have anything else for the Board. MR. HUNSINGER-If there is none, I will entertain a motion to adjourn. MOTION TO ADJOURN THE QUEENSBURY PLANNING BOARD MEETING OF MARCH 19, 2013, Introduced by Stephen Traver who moved for its adoption,seconded by David Deeb: Duly adopted this 19th day of March, 2013, by the following vote: AYES: Mr. Deeb, Mr.Traver, Mr. Magowan, Mr. Hunsinger NOES: NONE ABSENT: Mr. Sipp,Mr. Schonewolf, Mr. Krebs MR. HUNSINGER-Thank you, everybody. On motion meeting was adjourned. RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED, Chris Hunsinger, Chairman 23