Loading...
04-23-2013 (Queensbury Planning Board 04/23/2013) QUEENSBURY PLANNING BOARD MEETING SECOND REGULAR MEETING APRIL 23,2013 INDEX Site Plan No.48-2012 Steven&Jennifer Kitchen 1. FURTHER TABLING Tax Map No. 226.19-1-39 Site Plan No. 17-2013 Kathryn Tabner Rev.Trust 1. ZBA RECOMMENDATION Tax Map No. 226.12-1-23 Site Plan No. 62-2011 Queensbury Partners S. FWW 6-2011 Tax Map No. 289.19-1-23 through 35 ZBA RECOMMENDATION Subdivision No. 3-2013 Jennifer Ball 21. SKETCH PLAN Tax Map No. 266.1-1-9 Site Plan No. 76-2012 Paul&Margaret Sheehan 23. Tax Map No. 289.13-1-20 Site Plan No.8-2013 CRM Housing Dev.,Inc. 27. Tax Map No. 302.9-1-28.1 Site Plan No. 16-2013 Robin Inwald 40. Tax Map No. 227.17-1-16 Subdivision No. 5-2012 LARIC Development,LLC 46. PRELIMINARY STAGE Tax Map No. 308.12-1-3 ZBA RECOMMENDATION 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 04/23/2013) QUEENSBURY PLANNING BOARD MEETING SECOND REGULAR MEETING APRIL 23, 2013 7:00 P.M. MEMBERS PRESENT CHRIS HUNSINGER, CHAIRMAN DONALD KREBS, SECRETARY PAUL SCHONEWOLF THOMAS FORD BRAD MAGOWAN STEPHEN TRAVER DAVID DEEB LAND USE PLANNER-LAURA MOORE STENOGRAPHER-MARIA GAGLIARDI MR. HUNSINGER-I'll call to order the meeting of the Town of Queensbury Planning Board on Tuesday, April 23, 2013. For those members of the audience, welcome. There are copies of the agenda on the back table. There's also a handout for public hearing procedures. Several of the projects have a public hearing scheduled tonight and we'll go into details when we get to the first public hearing. The first item on the agenda is an Administrative Item. ADMINISTRATIVE ITEM: SITE PLAN 48-2012 STEVEN&JENNIFER KITCHEN FOR FURTHER TABLING CONSIDERATION MR. HUNSINGER-I understand this needs to be tabled because the Zoning Board has not yet acted on the application? MRS. MOORE-Right. Their application for the appeal is being heard potentially on the first meeting in May, which is May 22nd at the Zoning Board. So if you would table it to the 23rd again for the Planning Board meeting. MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. Would someone like to move that? RESOLUTION TABLING SP 48-2012 STEVEN&JENNIFER KITCHEN MOTION TO TABLE SITE PLAN NO. 48-2012 STEVEN &JENNIFER KITCHEN, Introduced by Paul Schonewolf who moved for its adoption,seconded by Thomas Ford: Tabled to the May 23rd Planning Board meeting. Duly adopted this 23rd day of April, 2013,by the following vote: AYES: Mr.Traver, Mr. Krebs, Mr. Magowan, Mr. Ford, Mr. Schonewolf, Mr. Deeb, Mr. Hunsinger NOES: NONE MR. HUNSINGER-We have two items this evening for recommendations to the Zoning Board of Appeals. PLANNING BOARD RECOMMENDATIONS TO ZBA SITE PLAN NO. 17-2013 SEQR TYPE UNLISTED KATHRYN TABNER REV. TRUST AGENT(S) BARTLETT PONTIFF STEWART & RHODES; HUTCHINS ENGINEERING OWNER(S) SAME AS APPLICANT ZONING WR-WATERFRONT RESIDENTIAL LOCATION 89 MASON ROAD SITE PLAN: APPLICANT PROPOSES REMOVAL OF EXISTING RESIDENCE AND CONSTRUCTION OF A NEW RESIDENCE. FILLING AND HARD SURFACING WITHIN 50 FEET OF THE SHORELINE AND CONSTRUCTION ON SLOPES GREATER THAN 15% IN A WR ZONE REQUIRES PLANNING BOARD REVIEW AND APPROVAL. VARIANCES: RELIEF REQUESTED FROM SIDE, SHORELINE, 1 (Queensbury Planning Board 04/23/2013) FAR & HEIGHT REQUIREMENTS OF THE WR ZONE. PLANNING BOARD SHALL PROVIDE A RECOMMENDATION TO ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS. CROSS REFERENCE AV 11-13, SP 20- 95, A V 14-95, BP 01-346, BP 95-209 WARREN COUNTY REFERRAL APRIL 2013 APA, CEA, OTHER L G CEA,APA WETLANDS LOT SIZE 0.23 ACRES TAX MAP NO. 226.12-1-23 SECTION 179-6-050, 179-4-10, 179-6-060 JON LAPPER&TOM HUTCHINS, REPRESENTING APPLICANT,PRESENT MRS. MOORE-This is a site plan that proposes removal of existing residence and construction of a new residence. Filling and Hard surfacing within 50 feet of the shoreline and construction on slopes greater than 15% in a WR zone requires Planning Board review and approval. Variances: Relief requested from side, shoreline, permeability, FAR & height requirements of the WR zone. Under Summary,The Planning Board is to provide recommendation to the Zoning Board in regards to the amount of relief requested for the proposed project. MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. Good evening. MR. LAPPER-Good evening, everyone. For the record, Jon Lapper with Tom Hutchins. This is a pre-existing, nonconforming lot of about 10,500 square feet approximately that's been in the Tabner family since the early 70's. It's now been conveyed to the two daughters, one in her trust. So that's where the applicant's name comes from, but Jack Tabner was actually a land use attorney from Albany who did a lot of sewer projects in the Capital District for years now,retiring around 80, but this was his family's property, always across from the Sans,which is part of our explanation for why we're proposing what we are, but in terms of what we've got with a 10,500 square foot lot, about a quarter acre, you know, we sat down with the applicants in the planning stages to look at what they had. Approximately 2.7 feet from the neighbor to the south to start with on that side setback and we tried to make everything that was there better,knowing that,you know,we weren't going to be able to have a conforming sized house because of that small property size. So what we've got that we're applying for, we've increased the nonconforming side setback. We've increased the lake setback. We've substantially increased the site permeability. Tom has increased shoreline planting. There was some to begin with but he's increased that as well, put in some stormwater facilities, decreased the number of total bedrooms on the site from six existing to four proposed, and installing the conforming septic system where there's an ancient septic system on the property. So knowing the constraints of a small lot, we know that we have to come to the Planning Board and the Zoning Board with something to offer, and that was our list of everything that we could come up with. The house is modest,about 3100 square feet including everything and the basement floor. It's not that this is a huge house. It's just that it's a small lot, and it's a three bedroom house. Then in terms of the existing bunkhouse, you know, if we remove the bunkhouse it would be a less nonconforming application,but the issue there is that they're right adjacent to the Sans, which everybody uses as their living room, if you will, on Cleverdale, and it is great for the neighborhood but it certain generates late night noise. A lot of people walk but some traffic, and that bunkhouse acts as a way to not only protect the Tabner property but also people on the lake and other residents. So what we're proposing is to reduce that from the two bedroom to a one bedroom, not to make it any smaller, but just to reconfigure it. So the total number of bedrooms will, as I said, be from six to four on the site, but we're hoping to be able to keep that bunkhouse building there as a buffer for the lake and for the property owners. I believe that there was, the letter that I saw from the immediate adjacent neighbor to the south saying that they understand the constraints and that they support this. That went to the Zoning Board. I'm not sure if that went to the Planning Board, but with those, that general outline, let me ask Tom to walk you through some of the details. MR. HUTCHINS-Good evening, Tom Hutchins. As Jon said, what we've tried to do is improve on most of the issues with regard to setbacks. We've moved it further from the side parcel. We're compliant with the northerly side setback. We've moved it further from the lake. We're not quite compliant with the lake setback. We still are requesting relief there,but we have moved it further from the lake than the existing residence. We've put in two additional buffer planting beds between the house and the existing natural planted area that's going to remain. So the shoreline buffer is real good. We've worked out a compliant wastewater system on a property that right now actually the wastewater system is south of the house, which is sort of hard to believe in and it's difficult to understand what's actually there because there's only a couple of feet of property between the house and the property line,but that's where the wastewater system is, and we're able to show a compliant system. 2 (Queensbury Planning Board 04/23/2013) MR. FORD-And that is going to be eliminated? MR. HUTCHINS-That is going to be eliminated. We've used a fair degree of permeable paver covers in both the driveway and the walkways,and with that I'll turn it over to the Board for questions. MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. Questions,comments from members of the Board? MR. TRAVER-I see in the engineering comments there's some concerns, and I know that this really only touches on the request for recommendation to the Zoning Board, but some of the comments could imply that some of your structures might have to be re-designed, and I just wonder if you feel you can come into accord with the Town Engineer with your existing design so that (lost word) look at these setbacks we could assume that the engineering will work out. MR. HUTCHINS-Yes. I can, and I presume, well, one of their comments with regard to water wells, there are no adjacent water wells. So that one really isn't an issue, and we have researched that. With regard to his looking for a setback for permeable pavers from a structure, I'll have to discuss that one with him. MR.TRAVER-Well, and also from the septic design. MR. HUTCHINS-And from the septic system,yes, and I'll have to review those with him and attempt to work it out. I mean, he's quoting a reference that technically doesn't apply. I think at some point we need to see if it makes sense or not, and to us it makes a lot of sense. The alternative is hard surface. MR. LAPPER-Yes. What's ironic there is that if this wasn't permeable pavement for the parking lot it wouldn't matter, and that's pretty clean water. So the idea of a conflict between the permeability of the parking lot and the septic system,you know,is kind of funny. MR. TRAVER-No, I understand your point. I just, you know, we've got to make the engineering work. MR. LAPPER-No,your question's right. MR.TRAVER-Other than that, I think it's an improvement. MR. HUNSINGER-I was intrigued by the wastewater treatment system. Have you had any experience with that? MR. HUTCHINS-I have,yes. MR. HUNSINGER-And it works out pretty well? MR. HUTCHINS-It's a good system,yes. MR. HUNSINGER-I'm surprised we haven't seen it before,then. Or maybe I just never remembered it. MR. HUTCHINS-I haven't done them in Queensbury. MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. MR. HUTCHINS-But that's going to change fairly soon. MR. HUNSINGER-I mean, it seems to me like there'd be a lot of applications, especially on some of these smaller lakefront lots,where we haven't been able to put in a conforming. MR. HUTCHINS-I have used them in other towns I think. I think it's a good system. I mean, it's a sand filter. It's similar to a bio-mat system in operation. I think the manufacturers and people who put this together have put a little bit more research into it,and it's a personal preference to me. I prefer the system to that system. A lot of, the sand that surrounds these is very important, and it's critical that it be the right material. 3 (Queensbury Planning Board 04/23/2013) MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. So that's what makes it so efficient? MR. HUTCHINS-That's what makes it so efficient. MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. MR. HUTCHINS-And that's a similar principal to how bio mats are supposed to work. MR. HUNSINGER-Yes. MR. HUTCHINS-They don't always get installed that way. MR. HUNSINGER-So these are easier to install and less? MR. HUTCHINS-I don't know that they're easier, but, installation's very important with it, but we have used them,and I think it's a good system,and I'm going to use more of them. MR. FORD-You know the installer? MR. HUTCHINS-Not yet,no. MR. FORD-You have a recommendation? MR. HUTCHINS-Yes. MR. FORD-Somebody that has experience in installing this type of system. MR. HUNSINGER-Can you comment on the height relief request? MR. LAPPER-Part of that is just because the lot takes such a dip there in terms of the topography that it goes up the hill, and there's not the possibility to move the house back farther from the lake because that's the location for the compliant septic system, the distance from the lake. So there's really not flexibility with moving the house back farther and that's really, it's measuring it from the bottom of the hill to the top of the peak. That's what that's about. MR. HUNSINGER-Yes,I mean,my concern there is that that might be a fairly dramatic change in the. MR. LAPPER-Well, we looked at the house next door, not that precedent is the issue,but the house to the south that's really pretty similar,in terms of the height of that house,really almost identical. MR. HUTCH INS-Almost. It's within inches of the same. MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. Yes. I didn't really look at the houses next door when I walked around front,but I guess that would have been a good analysis to look at. MR. HUTCHINS-It's very similar in size and height. It's a little bit smaller than the house to the south and it's essentially the same height. MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. Other questions, comments from the Board? There's no public hearing scheduled on this recommendation. It's an Unlisted action. We need to do SEQR before we can make a recommendation to the Zoning Board. Correct? MR. LAPPER-No, because it's independent review on both of those. It's not, because it's Unlisted. The other one that you're going to do later is a Type I, and that's why you have to do SEQR. Sothis one you'd do SEQR separately and the Zoning Board will do SEQR. MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. Any other questions, comments, concerns from the Board? I see Don's ready to make a recommendation. RESOLUTION RE: ZBA RECOMMENDATION FOR AV# 11-2013 KATHRYN TABNER The applicant has submitted an application for the following: Site Plan: Applicant proposes removal of existing residence and construction of a new residence. Filling and Hard surfacing within 50 feet of the shoreline and construction on slopes greater than 15% in a WR zone requires 4 (Queensbury Planning Board 04/23/2013) Planning Board review and approval. Variances: Relief requested from side, shoreline, FAR & height requirements of the WR zone. Planning Board shall provide a recommendation to 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. 11-2013 KATHRYN TABNER REVOCABLE TRUST, Introduced by Donald Krebs who moved for its adoption, seconded by Stephen Traver: The Planning Board,based on limited review,has not identified any significant adverse impacts that cannot be mitigated by the current project proposal. Duly adopted this 23rd day of April, 2013,by the following vote: AYES: Mr.Traver, Mr. Krebs, Mr. Magowan, Mr. Ford, Mr. Schonewolf, Mr. Deeb, Mr. Hunsinger NOES: NONE MR. LAPPER-Mr. Chairman, if you decided to take the Larry Clute LARIC recommendation at the end of the recommendations rather than at the end of the meeting, you wouldn't get any argument from me. I just wanted to let you know that. MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. MR. LAPPER-Thank you. MR. HUTCHINS-What did you folks think of the small drawings? Do they work better? MR. HUNSINGER-I like them. MR. HUTCHINS-They're hard to read. MR. HUNSINGER-They can be. They can be,yes. That was a good one. SITE PLAN NO. 62-2011 FRESHWATER WETLANDS 6-2011 SEAR TYPE I QUEENSBURY PARTNERS AGENT(S) MATTHEW FULLER, ESQ. OWNER(S) SAME AS APPLICANT ZONING O-OFFICE LOCATION SOUTHEAST CORNER OF BAY & BLIND ROCK ROADS 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. PB MAY ACKNOWLEDGE LEAD AGENCY STATUS, CONDUCT SEQRA REVIEW, AND MAKE A RECOMMENDATION TO THE ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS. CROSS REFERENCE AV 61-11; SUB 13-99 WARREN COUNTY REFERRAL APRIL 2013 WARREN CO. DPW REFERRAL MARCH 2013 APA, CEA, OTHER NWI WETLANDS, STREAM OVERLAY LOT SIZE 34.050 ACRES TAX MAP NO. 289.19-1-23 THROUGH 35 SECTION 179-3-040, 179-9, CHAPTER 94 MATT FULLER, REPRESENTING APPLICANT, PRESENT MR. HUNSINGER-Laura? 5 (Queensbury Planning Board 04/23/2013) MRS. MOORE-Applicant proposes to construction 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,and under Staff Summary, Planning Board is to acknowledge Lead Agency Status for SEQR review,may consider conducting SEQR review and to provide recommendation to the Zoning Board. MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. Thankyou. Good evening. MR. FULLER-Good evening. Matt Fuller for the Queensbury Partners the Fowler Square development. I've got one of the project sponsors, Dan Galusha, and Mike Ingersoll from the LA Group is with me as well, and Peter Faith from GPI who has handled the traffic mitigation out at the intersection. I've put together a quick kind of overview and get us to where we are. As Laura said, tonight hopefully we can work through SEQR, make a determination on that if it's the Board's pleasure and we are on for tomorrow night at the ZBA to discuss the variances, and, you know, we've been through the project. It's been a long process. I think it's been a good process. There's been a lot of back and forth. So what I thought I'd do is just go through some of the comments and things that we've seen, the SEQR aspects, and then if the Board's got questions or anything,we can, you know, certainly address those, too. As you know the project is right across the street here at the corner of Bay and Blind Rock. Site stats, the parcel is just over 34 acres in size. It's got wetlands of just over 10 and a half acres, slopes under the zoning that get excluded from the developable acreage of about 1.28 acres. We do have some easements on the property that exist to the tune of about .39 acres, and that leaves us with a total buildable area of 21.827 acres. The Zoning Administrator, Craig Brown,has already made determinations on it in the past that continue as far as the uses and the setbacks. With the plan, our total small office is 14,000 square feet. Retail space of just over 42,000 square feet,and residential units are at the number of units allowed in the zoning. Parking,we have worked on getting to a number that banks some of the parking that are in the plans, the total spaces, and we've got some shared office and shared spaces. The residential spaces kind of stay the same with the units. There is garages,there are parking garages built into the project on the commercial up along Bay. Impervious acreage gets to 9.28 acres, leaving pervious of 73%. The total actually land clearing, as far as trees and things that have to go, is 2.0 acres. Obviously we'll have dirt and things moving in excess of that, but as far as the actual clearing that needs to be done,that's where we stand on that. As far as utilities,we had checked on. MR.FORD-You're talking timber clearing? MR. FULLER-Yes. MR. FORD-Okay. Thank you. MR. FULLER-Utilities,we've checked on all utilities. We've got electric at the property, natural gas at the property,water and sewer both at the property,and telecommunications, phone cable are all at the property. So utilities exist. The variances. As you know, the project has certainly gone through review and comment. The variances were quite large, and both Boards had made some strong overtures, and even the public, about some of the variances, and sent us back to the drawing board, and we kind of took that to heart,got more into a good planning process, I think, and ended up at four variances. The first one, residential within 300 feet of Bay Road, 75 feet is proposed. The Bay Road Travel Corridor Overlay of 75 feet,the proposal is 50, and that's a number,just based on the pergolas,the canopies of the plan along the corner of Bay and Blind Rock,you know, it's not habitable structure. It's just to cover, again,the awnings and things like that that,under the zoning, do get triggered within the setback and we met with Craig and worked through those to make sure we had the numbers right. Blind Rock Road 75 feet setback is required, we're proposing 48, and the height limit is 40, and we're proposing 47. That's really, you know, for aesthetics as we talked about, the mechanicals and things that are on the roof, and I've just popped in some pictures here. This is the view along Bay, and, you know, again, the setback. You can see the pergolas up at the corner of Bay and Blind Rock that are going to trigger that. Here's more of the canopies and things. Blind Rock, again, even some of the variances along Blind Rock are, the porches and things that are along the front,those are calculated in that setback. It's not a flat wall setback. It's anything that sticks out, and we took those into account. We didn't want any after the fact issues of, you know, you were two feet closer, just because of design, and finally the height, again, that's the look at the 6 (Queensbury Planning Board 04/23/2013) top,that's not, again,habitable space. It's the structures to the top, mechanicals and things that are hidden in back. Could that be reduced? It certainly could,but I think that kind of takes away from the look and feel of the project in general, and again, that was, we originally thought, before we started working with Balzar-Tuck, that that may top out in the 50 to 54 foot range, but they have assured us that 45, 47 is really,you know, we put in the 47 just because if a mechanical pops up a little bit more we don't want to get tagged with an after the fact coming in to ask for a variance when, depending on the structure and what actually is put on the mechanicals, that could pop up. So turning to the SEQR discussion, there've been a couple, you know, I'd call them main areas that kept popping up, and I did submit a letter that went through all of the points that the Board has to go through on the full EAR It's a Type I action and coordinated review has been done. Notices were sent out, and I don't believe we received any objections, not, certainly not surprising. Nobody's jumping up, I think,to be Lead Agent. Again,I just put a note there. It's not intended,the slides are not intended to cover everything that we discuss in there,but just hit on the main things, the traffic, archeological has been talked about, the neighborhood and sewer. Looking at traffic, I left the Board,you know, when we were here last on the Lead Agency,that Peter Faith had, we met with the County, and we met with the Town. The Town actually owns the light at the intersection. The County only owns one light in the entire County. It's just up here on Bay,the flashing light,and so they were, you know, in concept okay with the traffic plan and directed us to come down and meet with the Highway Department, show them the numbers. We did that. We had some discussions. The consultant, again, Peter has proposed a traffic timing plan. We did institute that. The updated traffic report, and I apologize for the later submission. We wanted to get the comments addressed and we got things back in last week, but the updated final traffic report is based on the new numbers and the new updated data, so to show that, you know, from the preliminary report that we did to what is actually occurring out there at the intersection is working. I've been through it. Obviously I'm looking for it so I kind of recognize it when I go through it,but I think anybody that has seen the timing, it's definitely been an improvement. I don't know that the microwave detectors are in yet. That was Peter just saying not that he knew of, as far as whether or not the microwave detectors were put in. So they will help, too. That'll be, obviously, an off peak hour situation,but they would,you know, if somebody approaches the light,they'll trigger the light with those little, I call them the cameras,but the little detectors that can detect the cars there. The last page of the written part of the report,the exhibits and things are on the back,but GPI made a number of recommended improvements, provide one lane entering the project and two lanes exiting at Bay Road. We've included that. Again, that's the turn in and the turn out. Provide one lane entering and one lane exiting at Blind Rock. We've done that, and these are all recommendations that were included, and their numbers for the plan. Provide stop sign control on both main driveways. That obviously goes without saying, but we did update the plan for that. Control of vegetation along the entrances. That will be done. It's all pulled back, and modify the current fixed time operation at the existing traffic signal, and as I said, that was done on May 15th, and is in effect right now. Replace the malfunctioning microwave detectors. Again, that's, the Town's working on that, and they will be installed, and last has been a topic that we've discussed throughout the project is including the right of way for a turning lane along Blind Rock Road, if it's needed, and that was, came out of the discussion we had with the DOT of, you know, listen, based on the numbers right now, you know, it doesn't warrant it, but we've all talked about it. It's been discussed at length and certainly, you know, we're going to have that set aside right there for the right of way and if it's needed then it'll be done. I think the approach is the numbers seem to be working,the traffic has improved,the microwave detectors will only improve that greater and kind of let's see and make sure that we've addressed those issues,but in case for some reason it doesn't, then we've got the turning lane that we need. The final tables, Table Three on the report on Page 14, that is the current levels of traffic, the levels of service both existing and if the project was just built, and certainly nobody would, and Peter would recommend that. That's just to give you the baseline data, if you will, and then over to Table Four is where the numbers popped up, and as you can see,just, even with the timing adjustment, we've gotten to B's across the board,whereas in the past,you know,we were dealing with A's, C's and D's,even just based on existing traffic patterns. MR. HUNSINGER-1 was going to ask this question later, but since you have those tables up, if you could back up to the one on Page 14, and my question was the no improvements. Now does that include the timing improvements that you've already made? MR. FULLER-That's if we don't do anything in front. MR. HUNSINGER-But, I mean, you've already done that, so it's kind of misleading, but that was my question. Thank you. 7 (Queensbury Planning Board 04/23/2013) MR. FULLER-Yes. We could have put a note. That's a good thing. On to Four, again, that's the table with just the timing adjustment, and the numbers only get better with the signal timing and things like that. So, you know, traffic was identified out of the gate years ago, when we started these discussions, and, a lot of times, as I said last month, you know, you don't get the benefit of seeing the improvements up front, and if a developer, you've got to rely on their word. They can tell you that they're going to do this and make the project work,but,you know,we put together the plan, gave it to the Town's Engineer, obviously for liability concerns. The Town doesn't want us touching the box out there. So the Town's traffic engineer took that data, reviewed it and agreed with the recommendation and implemented it out there in the box, and that's what we've got today, so, you know, again, it's just, it's a good benefit to be able to do that up front and show those numbers and the improvements. We did get, that picture's a little blurry, I just popped it up there for the record. We did get a letter from the County DPW, agreeing with the traffic improvements and mitigation that we have done. We've done everything with the Town. We haven't gotten that far because the microwave detectors aren't in yet. So moving on to archeological, it was a couple of year process but we did work with Birchwood Archeological. There's a copy of the full report, it's for the file, and we did get the no effect letter from SHPO. There had been two cellar hole sites, if you will, that were identified on the property. One that, right out of the gate, SHPO didn't have a concern with. The second one back a year, maybe a year and a half ago,they asked us to go take a further look at and we did. Dan had Birchwood go back out there and do digs and things like that, and come up with a follow up report that was quite extensive, to SHPO, and recommended a no effect determination and we're happy, you know, it's not often we can get these up front, but certainly a testament to Birchwood and the work that they've done. I think SHPO doesn't just issue those reports. You have to work with them. MR. HUNSINGER-I'm sorry to interrupt again, since you're talking about these topics,the questions are relevant. There's a comment from the Town Engineer about, the delineation of archeologically sensitive areas. So did he not see that full report that you just commented on? MR. FULLER-I don't know if he did. MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. MRS.MOORE-I believe that the updated information was forwarded. MR. FULLER-As part of the SWPPP. MRS.MOORE-Yes. MR. FULLER-Yes, and he may not have gotten the letter from SHPO yet because it just came in, and that was the area. There are a bunch of little flags out there on the southern part of the property. You see them in the field there. That's where the area was. MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. MR. FORD-How recently did that letter from SHPO come in? MR. FULLER-April 12th. So we just got that in, and we'd submitted that information a little while ago,but we've worked through that. Water and sewer. Water has come up. We're working,we've submitted to the Department of Health already,kind of in anticipation of hopefully moving forward on site plan review, but based on the existing flow and pressure data, we did get the ability to submit the, and, Mike, if there's any questions on that, Mike Ingersoll can follow up, but there's adequate supply and pressure at the property. So we were able to submit the request directly to your Department of Health, and that is in right now. For sewer, it's been a topic that's come up in the past. Back when the map plan and report and things were done for this project,you know, Dan and his partners put the sewer line in, and the sewer line was run up here to the corner. So this is Town Hall, and it serves the development to the north, and there still exists adequate capacity that was built for this project,in that line. Again, it was the developer's expense for this,and the senior facility just to the south that that line was run, but it was done so to service the other properties up here and this project. We're still working through, again, hopefully in anticipation of site plan, but the final permit and approval out of the sewer department, but the comment letter was, we submitted it, and the response, and haven't gotten negative report back, so I know there've comments dropped about stations and things like that, but that was all fine. That was all just comments that somebody had dropped. We ran it right by the sewer department. The 8 (Queensbury Planning Board 04/23/2013) neighborhood. That certainly has been a topic as well, and maybe when public hearings and things get going, certainly it's a change, and, you know, the question is, you know, change for the good or change not for the good. I think, you know, we've worked hard at this project, and I think the Planning Board's worked hard at this project. The ZBA has worked hard at this project, and we've had joint meetings,you know,we had meetings with the neighbors. We held one here about a year or so ago. What we're proposing is in standing with the development that's in the immediate corner here. Commercial offices, there's banks, Town Hall, there's significant development going on at the ACC campus. There's equal density across the street. I think from a services standpoint, I think some of the ideas and things that we're proposing for the first floor uses and even, perhaps, whatever could be built to the south as a later phase I think works with the neighborhood, and I know that people may not agree on that, but I think, again, the degree to which the Boards have gone to shape this and move it in the direction,you know,we've got developers that have been very interested in doing that, and a project sponsor has to front that cost for all of us to go out and put the plans together I think says a lot. As we've said from the beginning, the project is committed to start at the corner and move back towards the residents. That hasn't changed. That's still the plan. Because, again, I know that a-mails are swirling out there again. This isn't a bait and switch. It's not a, let's get the residences rushed in there and then come back afterwards and say we can't do the commercial. They have committed to the project as it's been proposed, and I think there are certainly adequate controls within Queensbury to make sure that that never happens. It's not a bait and switch. That is the plan, and we've committed to that, and I can say it again tonight that that is the commitment. MR. KREBS-And, Matt, I think that we should let everybody know that when you originally came to us,you came to us with a plan with no variances required. MR. FULLER-We did. MR. KREBS-And it was from input from our Board and the other Board that actually ended up creating the requirement for the variances, and we felt that what we were asking you to do improved the project. So, I just want the public to know that the developer didn't come asking for variances. Through looking at the project,we asked him to make changes that eventually ended up requiring variances. MR. FULLER-And I think it's, you planned, the Planning Board planned, and it went, certainly the pendulum swung on the variances, and honestly,as we were doing it, I was looking at it, and I know the Code, and I'm counting them thinking, if it was controversial in the past, if you have all these variances,it's certainly not going to make that any easier,but that drove the direction that we went, and it drove the joint meeting. Certainly the first time we met with the ZBA, there wasn't a lot of comment. The second time we met with the ZBA,they made it very clear what they didn't like, and that's the job of the ZBA. There's no fault there. That's there to check and balance on variances. There's nothing wrong with that, and it was very clear. We had a joint meeting. Both Boards had input, and to get to the number of variances that there were into the four that we have now, that I firmly believe really don't have an impact. They don't have an environmental impact, the variances. I firmly believe that. I think that we've still got work to do. We've got site planning. We've got the stormwater, the sewer, and things that we will go through on site. That reminds me of the one comment. The sewer will be project owned on site. There won't be Town obligation on site. That was one of the sewer department questions. It'll be just like the streets and lighting, everything that's on site will be project based, not the Town extending into the project. So, I mean, you know, and we've got the look of the buildings,what the actual texture and the colors and those things are going to be,and we're prepared to come with that. That's site plan review and we'll have those samples, you know, if we can get a hold of them to show you what we're going to use, and that's all to be developed in site plan,but. MR.SCHONEWOLF-At one time I think you had 20 variances,didn't you? Now you're down to four. MR. FULLER-Here's what I won't do. When we were here, I complained about the over exaggeration of the variances against us,because every building was counted for one and the height on every building was counted. So I won't now try to use that to our benefit. I think, realistically, when you take a realistic look at what it was, it was in the 20's, you know, because some of them were multiple counted,but,you know,even with that,that was quite a number. 9 (Queensbury Planning Board 04/23/2013) MR. FORD-You mentioned the number of things that you were driven to. I note that one of the things you were not driven to was underground parking,and that was an initial issue brought up by a fellow Board member that I supported,and I want to make note of that. MR. FULLER-Anecdotally, I don't know if she's here, but I have seen her out and about,and I did tell her that we didn't get underground to the extent that I think she had in mind, but we did get parking into the residential structures, and we did get structured parking out front in some of the commercial. So she had a good smile when I told her that. I said, your effect has lasted beyond your time on the Board because we got there, to what you wanted to see, and I hope she's here, because she could express it, but I did see her out and about, actually at our store, and I told her that,and she smiled. So questions? MR. HUNSINGER-I was going to ask if there's anything else. MR. FULLER-No,that's. MR. FORD-I have an additional question relative to that turning lane. It sounds like that's a little too up in the air for my palate. What's going to be the driving factor there in determining that? MR. FULLER-Peter, if you could stop up. We could build it. The question is keeping it there, maintaining it. Does it really drive the numbers at the end of the day,and we met with the County. PETER FAITH MR. FAITH-I guess the history of this project, and I think I've been involved doing traffic studies for this project for almost 10 years now, and it seems like the idea of a turn lane on the Blind Rock Road approach has also been thought of as the logical traffic improvement that that would make the intersection better. When we started digging into the numbers and we tested, we tested the alternative, it was in one of the charts that Matt put up before, what we found is that the turn lane didn't really help, doesn't really address the problem at the intersection. There's not that much traffic that turns left in that location today, and this project is going to add very little traffic to that left turning movement. So what we felt was a much better improvement was improving the traffic signal, which, a lower cost, it actually makes it, the traffic operations and the delay less than if you built the turn lane without doing the signal improvements, and we also tested the scenario that if you built a turn lane with the signal improvements,you wouldn't notice the difference between not doing the signal improvements. So we didn't feel it was appropriate to include as part of this project, but, again, planning for the future, who knows what's going to happen 10 years down the road. There may be some other growth that occurs, 10 years, 20 years from now, that would require that type of improvement to the intersection. So we didn't want to preclude that turn lane, but we didn't feel it was appropriate to include as part of this project because we didn't really see the benefit in terms of traffic flow. We felt that we could make a much better traffic operations by just doing the signal improvements. MR. HUNSINGER-I have a question related to, it's really not the left hand turn lane,but if you put in a left hand turn lane, then the other remaining lane would encourage more right on red, and right now it's posted no right on red. I see cars doing that almost every day. I didn't know if maybe you could comment on that,if that was an issue that you identified or noticed during your traffic study. MR. FAITH-We did notice that it was there, and we wondered why the no turn on red was there. I don't think we had an answer, but usually that's more in response to a crash history that you wanted to address or pedestrian conflict that you wanted to address. In my informal look at the intersection, it seemed like it had good sight distance. So that a right turn on red could be accomplished safely. I wasn't sure why it was there, and if it wasn't there, I would have recommended that it be put there,that they install a right turn on red restriction. MR. SCHONEWOLF-I think it's on this side, the reason it's there on this side is because you're making a turn right in front of the Town driveway,even though it's supposed to be in only. I think that's why they put it there. There were a few fender benders there. MR. HUNSINGER-I was thinking more of the traffic traveling east making a right on red. That one's clearly posted. I see cars do it all the time. MR. SCHONEWOLF-That doesn't make any sense to me. 10 (Queensbury Planning Board 04/23/2013) MR. FAITH-I don't know the history as to why it was there. MR. HUNSINGER-I wanted to ask the question since we had the opportunity. MR. FORD-Good point. MR. HUNSINGER-Other questions,comments from the Board, either on traffic or? MR. SCHONEWOLF-You haven't been to the ZBA yet with your variances? MR. FULLER-Tomorrow. Depending on the determination of significance under SEQR. MR.SCHONEWOLF-Yes. MR. HUNSINGER-One of the other questions I had, you may or may not know the answer, and it's relative to the height request. Do you know how tall the new dorms are at SUNY ACC? I know they're four stories. MR. FAITH-I'm not comfortable giving you a number. We can get you that number. MR. FULLER-We will not be that high. MR. HUNSINGER-I'm pretty sure they're four stories. MR. SCHONEWOLF-Yes. The buildings are taller, just looking at the drawings and yours, anything you've got over there. MR. MAGOWAN-I thought it was 48. MR.TRAVER-The dorms? MR. MAGOWAN-Yes,with the elevator shafts up there. MR. SCHONEWOLF-It's just the way they've drawn them,they look bigger. They might be. MR. HUNSINGER-Well,they also,they sit down in a hill. So it's not as noticeable from Bay Road. MR. FULLER-And we are barely lower as well. The grade's not coming up. It actually drops a little bit under the property. So the request has 47 from then grade. MR. DEEB-Well, then what's the determination going to be whether that needs to build, construct that right turn lane? What is the exact determination? MR. FORD-Thank you,that's where I wanted to go. MR. FAITH-Yes,well,the project team is not proposing to build it. MR. DEEB-I understand that,but you've said for the future if it had to be there. MR. FULLER-Kick me if I'm wrong. I think what the idea is is that we would have the land set aside there so there wouldn't be any variance issues or nonconforming issues by trying to push a turning lane there, but depending on levels of service, if another project comes along at the corner, at this corner of Blind Rock or up the road or somewhere in the immediate vicinity, that changes those numbers at Blind Rock and Bay to suggest that the mitigation be a right turn lane, then we had the land set aside that that can be done. MR. SCHONEWOLF-Well,it's based on volume. MR. FULLER-Yes,just based on numbers. I mean,we could put it in there. I was just pointing to it. It's in that column there. The numbers are really negligible. Peter can check me if I'm wrong, but it doesn't move the needle enough to say go put it in there now. 11 (Queensbury Planning Board 04/23/2013) MR. DEEB-Well,I was looking at it,but studies are good,but accuracy can be a little bit skewed,and, I mean, I worry about the traffic on that corner, and my point is, if, will another study be done in a year or two to see how this is going? I mean,I just. MR. FULLER-We could do that. I mean, we don't have any problem with building it if that's the desire. It's not for lack of want. I mean, it's not, in the scheme of the project, if the Planning Board said,hey,we'd like to see that there, even if it was just shouldered for now,it could be put there. MR. FAITH-One of the discussions we had as a project team is that the building the turn lane makes it a wider pavement, and it makes it actually more difficult for pedestrians in the area to cross. So we don't want to propose something and build something that really didn't address the traffic operations issue and made it harder for pedestrians to actually cross that location. So I think the days of doing traffic impact studies and just saying,build a lane because maybe we need it,are gone. There's a lot more emphases these days on the non-motorized,the pedestrians and bicyclists in the area. It's not all about cars. So we attempted to, in our plan, develop that balance, and plan for that turn lane, if it's really needed in the future,but we don't think it's needed,so why build it to the detriment of pedestrians in the area. MR. FULLER-And it's not a,like I said,it's not a dodging it. MR. FORD-I guess the question is,what triggers that? MR. FAITH-Well, it would be delay. It would be actual vehicle delay and congestion would warrant the need to make it a(lost words). MR. FORD-Who makes that determination? MR. FAITH-It could be the Town,it could be the County. MR. FORD-I mean,number of accidents or number of complaints? MR. TRAVER-Would it be possible for your team to get together and come up with a recommendation for a trigger in time for site plan? MR. FULLER-Yes, and I was just saying, too,just ask Dan, because it's Dan's call, that once it's built, within a year or 18 months, you know, once you actually see the number of cars that are, because it's all going to be, it's going to depend on actual use, right, people's patterns and what their habits become,and you get to take another look at it. MR. FAITH-Yes. When I've done these after studies, I've done after studies before for developments, and you can do studies at key thresholds in a development when it's SO% built or when it's 80% built, or if you wanted to do a study at full build out,usually wait a certain period of time until it's mature, the development is mature and the traffic patterns are established, but we can come up with a recommendation for the timing of those traffic studies. MR. FORD-I'd appreciate that. MR.TRAVER-I think we, I mean,we know what we can do. The issue, I think,is,you know,putting some mechanism so that when you,you know,if we go ahead with this project as designed,we have somewhere that the calendar or some mechanism that you might suggest that will automatically trigger that periodic review and will cause it to be built or not. MR.FULLER-You could make that request under site plan. MR.SCHONEWOLF-Yes,we can make that request of you. MR. FULLER-It could be a condition at the end, or we could make it part of our application. It wouldn't have to be a condition. MR.SCHONEWOLF-The Town has a say. MR. FULLER-You can have a threshold that Peter can come up with that at, you know, within eight months of 60% of occupancy,because you want to have people. Just build out I don't think is what 12 (Queensbury Planning Board 04/23/2013) you're looking for. You're looking for people are occupied in there and what are those numbers. How does that look at that point? MR. SCHONEWOLF-Also when the university,the College down here is built out,too,that's going to change the traffic pattern. MR.TRAVER-I think it's important to include that those numbers will be collected and how that will be done. MR. FORD-How and when. MR.TRAVER-Right. MR. DEEB-You need a contingency, I guess. MR. FULLER-Yes, I don't think that's unreasonable. MR. KREBS-I was going to say, for somebody who drives through this intersection three or four times a day,it has been a major improvement already. MR. FULLER-It is interesting what the timing will do. DAN GALUSHA MR. GALUSHA-What I'd like to say,too,that really came from Peter. I mean, he's really the one that suggested to do this, and kind of pushed us and pushed the Town. So, you know, I kind of look at him. He said if you do this, it will do this. So what he's said he would do, and I've just got to follow his experience. I'm, you know, so that's where we're headed with this. So if there's some mechanism we need to put in here,we have no issue with that. MR. TRAVER-And I've been impressed when, I'll have a particular intersection that I might go through on some regular basis, and then something will happen like a thunderstorm or something, and you can tell everything has been re-set, and it's just acting strange. You can tell it's gone back to its default, go home to mama after the power has gone back on. It's lost all of the engineering programming,and it really makes a noticeable difference. MR. GALUSHA-As long as what he says actually makes it better, I'll follow him. MR. FULLER-Yes, Ridge and Quaker is on my hit list. That intersection's horrible. MR. HUNSINGER-Yes. MR. FULLER-You sit there forever. MR. HUNSINGER-Other questions, comments from the Board? We do have a public hearing scheduled this evening. Is there anyone in the audience that wishes to address the Board on this project? I want to kind of get a show of hands for how many people wanted to comment? Just a couple, three, four? Okay. The purpose of the public hearing is for interested parties to make comment to the Planning Board. I would ask anyone who wishes to address the Board to state their name for the record, speak clearly into the microphone. We do tape the meeting. The tape is actually on the Town's website. So you can listen to it. It's also used to transcribe the minutes for the meeting. I would ask you to address any of your comments or questions to the Board, and not to engage the applicant, it's to make comments to the Board. Who would like to be first? Yes, ma'am. PUBLIC HEARING OPEN MARY LEE GOSLINE MRS. GOSLINE-Mary Lee Gosline, 25 Blind Rock Road. I do appreciate the Board wanting to make contingencies on the development here for the turning lane, because I do think a turning lane is important. The reason that no turning was put in there was because there were a lot of accidents on that street, numerous accidents. The one thing I was trying to wonder, when they put up here 13 (Queensbury Planning Board 04/23/2013) that the sewer would go north of this project. Now are they going to enlarge the sewer line going up north of us on Bay? Because that line's only three inches. So anything they do down here doesn't make any difference. They made it sound like the development up north of us, you know, on Bay Road, would be big enough to help, where other people could hook to it, and they can't. That's a private line from Surrey Fields. So I'm just wondering are they considering, you know, enlarging their line,extending it. MR.TRAVER-Well,that's an engineering question that would have to be resolved. MRS. GOSLINE-No, they just put it on. It was going to help, you know, upper Bay, and I just wondered how it was going to help upper Bay. So,just a question. MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. Thank you. Anyone else? KATHYSONNABEND MRS. SONNABEND-Kathy Sonnabend, 55 Cedar Court. I don't know if you read the letter I passed out before the meeting started. I'm just, my mind is completely boggled by the process that we've been through. Ten years ago, in 2004, Queensbury Partners had a proposal for a multi-family residential unit development for 174 residences. It was grossly in violation of the zoning at the time, which was professional office and required a 1,000 foot setback. That got soundly rejected after a very strong public response. Then during the Comprehensive Land Use Plan planning review, the compromise that Saratoga Associates preliminarily recommended was 650 feet, basically a compromise. That review was never completed by Saratoga Associates because the Town Board voted not to continue funding the project, and a year later the Town implemented a new Comprehensive Land Use Plan with a 300 foot setback, no explanation for why they brought it back so dramatically. Now we're talking about residences 75 feet from Bay Road and a variance of 48 to 50 feet from Blind Rock when it was supposed to be 75. Basically except for some office space and retail space, we're back to the same original proposal, and they do have property to the south that it's not part of this project if I understand it correctly. So there's going to be additional construction, and in some of the meetings I've attended, they've been kind of wishy-washy about whether those would be offices or more residential. So basically we're pretty close to what the original project was,which was turned down then,and somehow magically over the years, it's been okay, and it's extremely frustrating to me that, in the Town of Queensbury, we don't support our Code, our Zoning Code. I'm told in Saratoga they don't give out variances like we do. I don't know why we have a Zoning Code if we don't follow it. We've got very little land left in this Town that's easily developable that doesn't have water issues or access issues or size issues that would be attractive to professional offices like this property was originally supposed to be. So as this nanotech park continues to develop, eventually there's going to be more demand for ancillary services locating here in Queensbury. We could have some really good jobs here,but instead we're just building more residences, more senior housing which is a huge drain on the County Medicare, Medicaid costs. We know that when you build residential units, it's a much bigger drain on municipal services than it creates in tax revenue. That's why you want more office space because it's a better tax picture. So I'm just flabbergasted about what's happened, and there've been so many times that that this applicant has been in front of this Board, and has been able to make their case when there wasn't any opportunity for public comment. So you've gradually been accustomed to what their project is without even thinking about how significant those variances are. Yes, it's not 20 variances anymore, but the variances they're asking for with respect to setback are very significant. So I'm incredibly disappointed. It just seems like Queensbury's run for the benefit of a few people that are well connected, and that the community at large isn't really seriously considered. I'm extremely disappointed. MR. HUNS INGER-Thank you. Anyone else? DOUG AUER MR. AUER-Good evening, everyone. Doug Auer, 16 Oakwood Drive. I know most of you folks on the Planning Board here. Some of you are new, I don't know you, but two comments I want to make. One, at the time that I was involved, I was staff engineer for Rich Schermerhorn. I'm not a P.E.,but I'm a graduate mechanical engineer, and I was intimately involved with the specking of the pump station on Bay Road,which made all of this possible, okay,and just some background on it. I was actually hired by the Baybridge Homeowners Association for the expertise that I had, and helped with the engineering of a pump station,with a fellow by the name of Kevin Hastings,and we 14 (Queensbury Planning Board 04/23/2013) actually did a map plan and report which was accepted by the Town. We were going to do an out of district user thing, and that's what made sewering possible on Bay Road, because the original estimate for a sewer district to do was like about six plus million dollars, and that would have been, if it was put out as a project under prevailing wage and so forth. We did it for a mere fraction of that, okay, well less than the $900,000 that Galusha claims he spent on it. I know what they spent, within reasonable, plus or minus $20,000, maybe$50,000,but in any case,that's not the point. My point is this. The pump station that is presently down there is a T-4 Gorman Rub pump station, which we specked, based on what the build out at the time was, the existing Code, okay. So we specked that pump station, and also we had a consideration for what the downstream gravity portion of the sewer was,which is all of Cronin Road. I've since spoke to the Town Engineer, and t they've run all the numbers on this. I'm very confident that he is correct that it could handle the capacity,even though the slope of that thing is.3%which is getting very close to what the minimum slope is for a gravity sewer. So I'm happy with that, but the problem is, and he's looking at these numbers. I would suggest to you, before you do anything, you talk to him about, A, when the trigger point is that that pump station would have to be changed to a T-S or T-6 pump station, and, B,when Henry Hess was the Town business manager,whatever you want to call him, treasurer, or whatever,he did a very careful analysis of the benefit tax that would have to be put in place for the residents. Now I don't know what kind of a, if there was any compensation to Galusha or not. I know Schermerhorn was paid some amount of money, I believe it was like $190,000, because we built into that capacity for the existing Code at the time, and not just for what we would have considered for a needs for an out of district user,which would have been a single purpose user. So basically we specked it out for the entire Bay Road corridor. Now,you really need to look at this, because here's the deal. You can't have Resident A being charged more than Resident B. That'll create a lawsuit for you in a heartbeat. So you really need to look at any additional expenses which will be incurred which would be a new pump station. Everything else, from what I could see,would probably be okay, but you really need to think about that,because somebody's going to come along and say,hey,wait a minute,these folks were paying that,you're asking me to pay this,whoa,that's a no go,and the State will look very not well on that. I think, Chris,you know that,you were involved. So be forewarned on that. That's one thing. This is a little bit aside from this. This is my own jollies, if you will. If Rich Schermerhorn thought, and we all know Rich is an extremely successful builder/developer of apartment complexes. If Rich Schermerhorn thought for one second that he could build and successfully rent buildings that had retail or office space below it and apartments above it, I can tell you with absolute certainty, he would have done it. Brad, do you know if he's ever built one like that? He hasn't? Okay. End of discussion. I would really like to see the marketing plan that these guys have,because I'm going to be willing to bet you that five years from now you're going to see commercial space underneath apartments vacant. It's just not going to happen. Everybody else on Bay Road has done what was asked of them, Valente, Schermerhorn, everyone else has followed the Code up to this point. What you folks are going to do now tonight and tomorrow is going to set in place something that our kids will have to live with, and, sure, it'll work,but is it right? I don't think so. MR. HUNSINGER-Thank you. Anyone else? Okay. No other takers? We will conclude the public hearing for this evening. We will leave the public hearing open, however. There's a couple,well, one administrative item that we need to do before we move forward on any further discussion,and that is to accept the Lead Agency status,and I believe there was a sample resolution in our package. I'm sorry,Acknowledging Lead Agency status. So if someone would like to move that. RESOLUTION ACKNOWLEDGING LEAD AGENCY STATUS SP# 62-2011 FWW 6-2011;AV 61-2011 QUEENSBURY PARTNERS WHEREAS, the applicant has submitted the following: Site Plan: Applicant proposes construction of 11 buildings totaling 132,000 sq. ft. on a 34.OS 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. PB may acknowledge Lead Agency status, conduct SEQRA review,and make a recommendation to the Zoning Board of Appeals. 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; 15 (Queensbury Planning Board 04/23/2013) 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 IN CONNECTION WITH AREA VARIANCE NO. 61-2011, FRESHWATER WETLANDS 6-2011 & SITE PLAN 62-2011 QUEENSBURY PARTNERS, Introduced by Paul Schonewolf who moved for its adoption, seconded by Donald Krebs: In accordance with the resolution prepared by Staff. Duly adopted this 23rd day of April, 2013,by the following vote: AYES: Mr. Krebs, Mr. Magowan, Mr. Ford, Mr. Schonewolf, Mr. Deeb, Mr.Traver, Mr. Hunsinger NOES: NONE MR. HUNSINGER-Did you have anything you wanted to add as a result of the comments? MR. FULLER-Just two quick comments. One, and Mary Lee brought up a question about the sewer, and I think that might have, I might not have been clear enough when I was talking about the sewer line. We're not doing anything north of the project. So it won't, we're not going to impact the north, when I say north, north of Bay and Blind Rock as far as the sewer line goes. We won't be touching the line. We don't have to. It's not part of the project. It's not needed. MR. FORD-You're not going to be tied into that? MR. FULLER-Not that line to the north, no. The bigger line to the south we will be. The one that Dan put in,it'll be tied into that,that sewer line south,going south. MR. MAGOWAN-Are there two lines that go down? MR. FULLER-No, there's one, but coming from the deal that was struck on Surrey Fields to get to that line is the one she was talking about,but the line from the intersection south has already taken the Town. MR. FORD-But that will be tied in together? MR. FULLER-It is right now, yes. We'll be tying in to the line we put in, yes, not the smaller line to the north. MR. GALUSHA-Yes, there's a three inch line that runs from the corner north that ties in, and I think you folks have come across the street and tie in. From there it's a gravity line all the way down to where it ties in. I think that's a 10 inch. We oversized that line when we did with C.T. Male. I mean, originally I believe we had a, don't quote me, like an eight inch line. I think we sized it up to take on, and they calculated a lot of the flows from not only our project, but all the other projects above us, I think even cedarcrest, even though they're not using it, they're in a calculation. Mike's got the whole chart. MR. FULLER-So the line gets bigger right here at the intersection. MR. GALUSHA-Right. MR. FULLER-That small line dumps into it. The one going south is 12. MR. MAGOWAN-Now does that tie into Schermerhorn's pump? MR. FULLER-It goes down to the pump. MR. GALUSHA-It all ends up down there,yes. 16 (Queensbury Planning Board 04/23/2013) MR. FULLER-And that's all, we gave the sewer department everything, all the calcs and everything, even from the prior report, the updated numbers, all of that, you know, and with the comments we had heard before, we kind of expected there's going to be some comment on the pump station and there wasn't. They took all that into account and got back to us with the same e-mail you guys got. Here's the comments we have,deal with us. MR. MAGOWAN-Well, am I correct to say that really one of the main reasons the line went from here and then further up,because Surrey Field's system was failing? MR. FULLER-Yes. MR. GALUSHA-Well,we brought the line up here. They hooked onto it, like the Town did after, after we put the line in,they hooked up to it. I wasn't part of that, I don't know. MR. MAGOWAN-But that was one of the reasons why you kept going? MR. FULLER-No,they didn't. They ran it right to here,the corner. MR. GALUSHA-To the corner. We ran it to the intersection on the north end, would be the north end of our property. We put a manhole right there, then the Town, I don't know if the Town hooked into it first or Surrey Fields hooked into it first, I'm not sure which one hooked in, but they're both hooked into it now. MR. MAGOWAN-All right,so you didn't bring the line down from Surrey Fields? MR. GALUSHA-No, that was done by, I believe, Trinity Construction did that, I believe, or somebody contracted to do it. MR. MAGOWAN-Because Surrey Fields systems were failing? MR. FULLER-There were some angry homeowners. MR. GALUSHA-They were failing at the time. MR. FULLER-I was there. MR. GALUSHA-And I think they were looking to go another way, until we put the line up there,if I'm not mistaken. MR. FULLER-And the last commented I wanted, Mrs. Sonnabend had commented about the southern piece of the property and more residential. That, Craig Brown's zoning determination, you guys had that, it's been part of the record forever. He calculated the allowed density. The allowed density is 142,and we have used that allowed density in residential. So, I mean, I know the comment about variances are bad. Anybody could apply for one, but I think how this project has gone, a variance coming back for more residential probably wouldn't be very well received. So, no, that is a flexible space to the south. We've shown building. We're taking into account for stormwater, parking, utilities the whole nine yards, but if it was ever used, that would need site plan approval. The idea is, hey, if a big commercial office user needs a space, obviously we would come back and build it. That would be great, and we don't have a problem with that, but, no, it's not residential to the south. We've used the density in the project that's planned I'll call it on the northern part,and that was it. I just wanted to hit those two pertinent comments. MR. FORD-Thank you. MR. HUNSINGER-Any other questions or comments from the Board? Is the Board comfortable in reviewing the SEQR? MR. SCHONEWOLF-Yes. MR. HUNSINGER-It is a Long Form. Okay. Whenever you're ready. MR. KREBS-Will the proposed action result in a physical change to the project site? 17 (Queensbury Planning Board 04/23/2013) MR. HUNSINGER-Yes. MR. FORD-Yes. MR.TRAVER-Small to moderate,mitigated by Site Plan Review. MR. KREBS-Will there be an effect to any unique or unusual land forms found on the site? MR.TRAVER-No. MR. FORD-No. MR. KREBS-Will the proposed action affect any water body designated as protected? MR. HUNSINGER-No. MR.TRAVER-No. MR. KREBS-Will the proposed action affect any non-protected existing or new body of water? MR.TRAVER-No. MR. FORD-No. MR. KREBS-Will the proposed action affect surface or groundwater quality or quantity? MR. HUNSINGER-No. MR.TRAVER-No. MR. KREBS-Will the proposed action alter drainage flow or patterns,or surface water runoff? MR.TRAVER-No. MR. KREBS-Will the proposed action affect air quality? MR. HUNSINGER-No. MR.TRAVER-No. MR. KREBS-Will the proposed action affect any threatened or endangered species? MR. FORD-No. MR.TRAVER-No. MR. KREBS-Will the proposed action substantially affect non-threatened or non-endangered species? MR. HUNSINGER-No. MR. FORD-No. MR. KREBS-Will the proposed action affect agricultural land resources? MR. HUNSINGER-No. MR. FORD-No. MR. KREBS-Will the proposed action affect aesthetic resources? MR. HUNSINGER-No. 18 (Queensbury Planning Board 04/23/2013) MR.TRAVER-No. MR. KREBS-Will the proposed action impact any site or structure of historic, pre-historic or paleontological importance? MR. HUNSINGER-No. MR.TRAVER-No. MR. KREBS-Will the proposed action affect the quantity or quality of existing or future open spaces or recreational opportunities? MR. HUNSINGER-No. MR. FORD-No. MR. KREBS-Will the proposed action impact the exceptional or unique characteristics of a critical environmental area established pursuant to Subdivision 6NYCRR617.14? MR. HUNSINGER-No. MR.TRAVER-No. MR. FORD-No. MR. KREBS-Will there be an effect to existing transportation systems? MR.TRAVER-No. MR. HUNSINGER-No. MR. KREBS-Will proposed action affect the community's sources of fuel or energy supply? MR. HUNSINGER-No. MR. FORD-No. MR. KREBS-Will there be objectionable odors,noise, or vibration as a result of the proposed action? MR.TRAVER-No. MR. FORD-No. MR. KREBS-Will the proposed action affect public health and safety? MR. HUNSINGER-No. MR.TRAVER-No. MR. KREBS-Will the proposed action affect the character of the existing community? MR.TRAVER-No. MR. HUNSINGER-No. MR. KREBS-And is there, or is there likely to be, public controversy related to potential adverse environmental impacts? MR.TRAVER-No. MR. HUNSINGER-No. (Queensbury Planning Board 04/23/2013) MR. KREBS-I declare a Negative declaration. RESOLUTION WHEN DETERMINATION OF NO SIGNIFICANCE IS MADE RESOLUTION NO. 62-2011 & FWW 6-2011, Introduced by Donald Krebs who moved for its adoption,seconded by Stephen Traver: WHEREAS,there is presently before the Planning Board an application for: QUEENSBURY PARTNERS,and WHEREAS, this Planning Board has determined that the proposed project and Planning Board action is subject to review under the State Environmental Quality Review Act, NOW,THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED: 1. No Federal agency appears to be involved. 2. The following agencies are involved: NONE 3. The proposed action considered by this Board is Unlisted in the Department of Environmental Conservation Regulations implementing the State Environmental Quality Review Act and the regulations of the Town of Queensbury. 4. An Environmental Assessment Form has been completed by the applicant. S. 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 23rd day of, April, 2013, by the following vote: AYES: Mr.Traver, Mr. Krebs, Mr. Magowan, Mr. Ford, Mr. Schonewolf, Mr. Deeb, Mr. Hunsinger NOES: NONE MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. Would anyone like to make a recommendation to the Zoning Board? MR. SCHONEWOLF-Based on the four variances? MR. HUNSINGER-Yes. RESOLUTION RE: ZBA RECOMMENDATION FOR AV# 61-2011 QUEENSBURY PARTNERS The applicant has submitted an application for the following: 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. PB may acknowledge Lead Agency status,conduct SEQRA review,and 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; 20 (Queensbury Planning Board 04/23/2013) 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. 61-2011,FRESHWATER WETLANDS 6- 2011. AND SITE PLAN 62-2011 QUEENSBURY PARTNERS, Introduced by Donald Krebs who moved for its adoption,seconded by Paul Schonewolf: Per the resolution prepared by Staff. The Planning Board, based on limited review, has not identified any significant adverse impacts that cannot be mitigated with current project proposal. Duly adopted this 23rd day of April, 2013,by the following vote: AYES: Mr. Schonewolf, Mr. Deeb, Mr.Traver, Mr. Krebs, Mr. Magowan, Mr. Ford, Mr. Hunsinger NOES: NONE MR. HUNSINGER-Good luck. MR. FULLER-Thank you. MR. GALUSHA-Thank you. MR. HUNSINGER-You're welcome. AUDIENCE MEMBER-You did not approve it? MR. HUNSINGER-We did not approve it, no. We made a recommendation to the Zoning Board. They have to go before the Zoning Board next. They have to go to the Zoning Board tomorrow night. MR. KREBS-Yes, and once they go to the Zoning Board, if they get approval, they have to come back before us again for site plan review. SKETCH PLAN REVIEW SUBDIVISION NO. 3-2013 SKETCH PLAN REVIEW JENNIFER BALL OWNER(S) PAMELA HARRIS ZONING RR-3A-RURAL RESIDENTIAL 3 ACRES LOCATION PICKLE HILL ROAD APPLICANT PROPOSES SUBDIVISION OF A 20.88 ACRE PARCEL INTO TWO LOTS OF 16 & 4.89 ACRES. A SINGLE FAMILY DWELLING IS TO BE CONSTRUCTED ON THE 4.89 ACRE PARCEL. SUBDIVISION OF LAND REQUIRES PLANNING BOARD REVIEW AND APPROVAL. CROSS REFERENCE NOA 1-96, A V 51-90, SP 56-91, SP 43-91, BP 92-289 APA, CEA, OTHER L G PARK CEA LOT SIZE 20.88 ACRES TAX MAP NO. 266.1-1-9 SECTION CHAPTER A-183, CHAPTER 147 JENNIFER BALL, PRESENT MRS. MOORE-Applicant proposes a subdivision of a 20.88 acre parcel into two lots of 16 & 4.89 acres. A single family dwelling is to be constructed on the 4.89 acre parcel. Subdivision of land requires Planning Board review and approval. MR. HUNSINGER-Good evening. MS. BALL-How are you? MR. HUNSINGER-Good. How are you? MS. BALL-I'm good. Jen Ball. MR. HUNSINGER-Would you like to describe your project,what you'd like to do? 21 (Queensbury Planning Board 04/23/2013) MS. BALL-Yes. It's a 20.8 acre parcel, plus or minus, because we found it to be 20.89 acres, but we're looking to subdivide it into two lots, one lot to be used for a single family residence, the 4.89 acre lot, and the 20 acres or, sorry, 16 acres remaining just to be its existing use, which there is an existing garage on it,and that's all it's being used for at this point. MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. Anything else? MS. BALL-Pretty basic. MR. HUNSINGER-Questions,comments from the Board? MR.TRAVER-I guess I'm just curious why, if you're not planning on using the 16 acre parcel,what's the reason you're subdividing? MS. BALL-The current owner, Pam Harris, is retaining the 16 acres, and I'm purchasing the 4.89 acres off of her. MR.TRAVER-Gotcha. Okay. Thank you. MS. BALL-No problem. MR. HUNSINGER-Is there any plans to further subdivide either lot? MS. BALL-Not by myself,no. Pam, I don't believe,has any purpose in doing so,no. MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. It seems pretty straightforward. MS. BALL-I did my homework. I know where we had to be. MR. FORD-That's appreciated. MRS. MOORE-The applicant has submitted for Preliminary and Final for the upcoming months. That information has already been forwarded to our office for review. MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. MR. MAGOWAN-So where's the foundation that's right up there in that corner? MS. BALL-Not on this lot. It's on the adjacent lot,by Metivier. Can you see it on the survey? Yes. MR. HUNSINGER-No other comments from the Board? I like the way your house design uses the contours of the land. I thought that was a good design. MS. BALL-It'll look nice out there. MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. We didn't give you a lot of feedback. MS. BALL-That was easy. MR. HUNSINGER-Yes,sometimes. MR. KREBS-I like the design of the house. It's very attractive. MS. BALL-It's nice. It's very nice. Yes. Thank you. MR. HUNS INGE R-Anything else from the Board? Any comments? Questions? Are there going to be waiver requests? MS. BALL-We waived contours,but I actually did have the topography done for the stormwater. So, I mean, I do have it, but I did ask to waive it. Originally I was trying to get everything done all in one meeting,but the stormwater wasn't done in time. So I had to bump it and just put a sketch net for now. So I'm going to try and do Preliminary and Final in the next meeting. So, I mean, I have everything done. So I don't think I'll need those waivers now. 22 (Queensbury Planning Board 04/23/2013) MR. HUNSINGER-Yes,the only risk of that is if there's any conditions then, you know, you'd have to come back again for Final. MS. BALL-Yes, I mean, I have it done so I may as well just give it to you. So it's on the final survey with the stormwater. So as long as you guys have that,is that acceptable? MR. HUNSINGER-Yes,generally,yes. MS. BALL-Okay. Well, it's on the stormwater plan but not on the survey. Would that be okay? MRS.MOORE-That's something that we will review at Staff level and provide comment. MS. BALL-Okay. Yes,that's fine. MR. TRAVER-Yes, as I understand it this is a cornfield. I mean, there's not a whole lot of topography involved. MS. BALL-Yes,it's relatively flat. I mean,there's just minor little tiny variations,but it's not much. MRS. MOORE-I will ask that if Board members are finished with their plans, that they do forward them back to the applicant. MR. HUNSINGER-Instead of keeping them? MRS.MOORE-You'll receive a whole new set. MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. MRS.MOORE-At Preliminary and Final. We're recycling them. MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. You're all set. Thanks. MS. BALL-Thank you. TABLED ITEM SITE PLAN 76-2012 SEQR TYPE II PAUL & MARGARET SHEEHAN AGENT(S) HUTCHINS ENGINEERING OWNER(S) SAME AS APPLICANT ZONING WR-WATERFRONT RESIDENTIAL LOCATION 31 BIRCH ROAD APPLICANT PROPOSES TO DEMOLISH EXISTING 1,352 SQ. FT. RESIDENCE AND ACCESSORY STRUCTURES AND CONSTRUCT A NEW 3,950 SQ. FT. FOUR BEDROOM RESIDENCE. CONSTRUCTION OF A DWELLING WITHIN 50 FEET OF 15% SLOPES IN A WR ZONE REQUIRES PLANNING BOARD REVIEW AND APPROVAL. CROSS REFERENCE AV 62-12, BP 89-508 APA, CEA, OTHER NWI WETLANDS, GLEN LAKE CEA LOT SIZE 0.63 ACRES TAX MAP NO. 289.13-1-20 SECTION 179-9, 179-6-060, 179-4-050 TOM HUTCHINS, REPRESENTING APPLICANT, PRESENT MR. HUNSINGER-Before I turn it over to Staff, I just, for the record, I wanted to make a comment. I didn't realize until this morning that I serve on a Board with the applicant. I certainly don't think that there's any inherent conflict, but I just did want to fully disclose that before we addressed the topic. Laura? MRS. MOORE-Under Project Description: Applicant proposes to demolish an existing 1,352 sq. ft. residence with accessory structures and construct a new 2,597 sq. ft. three bedroom residence. Construction of a dwelling within 50 feet of 15% slopes in a WR zone requires Planning Board review and approval. MR. HUNSINGER-Good evening. MR. HUTCHINS-Good evening, Board. Tom Hutchins, with owner/applicant, Paul Sheehan, and architect Michael Finney from Finney Design Group. We were here in October for a 23 (Queensbury Planning Board 04/23/2013) recommendation for a variance and we were here in December, I believe, for Site Plan Review. At that point,and I believe we might have been here in January also. MR. HUNSINGER-In March,we just tabled it in March. MR. HUTCHINS-Yes. The Board asked for some landscaping information,landscaping plan, and the Board asked to work on some engineering issues, and at the time the applicant had been working on the house and Mr. Finney has re-designed the house. It's very similar, from a site perspective it's very similar in footprint to what you have last seen. It is a different house than the prior application. The most notable change, beside the interior floor plan, is we rotated the garage 90 degrees. It's now a side entry garage, as opposed to a front entry garage which was on the prior application. Site wise, I have kept the wastewater system up near the road. We have resolved almost all of the engineering comments from the prior application. I did receive a couple on Friday that I can resolve through with Chazen, and I think we've done a landscaping plan that we think is good. We've increased the shoreline buffer considerably as we had discussed at the last meeting, and we've done a fair amount of plantings, particularly to the south side, and with that, I'll turn it over to Mike who'll comment on the structure itself. MIKE FINNEY MR. FINNEY-Great. Thanks, Tom. Again, Mike Finney from the Design Group. We've been working with Paul and Peggy Sheehan for the last few months. I think originally the building footprint that was submitted to you was larger by about 20%. It was, I think, listed as a four bedroom house, 3950 square feet. We're a three bedroom house, now, just around 3,000 square feet,with the porches and such. Like Tom said, we did rotate the garage 90 degrees. We did that as, we think to better relate to the topography and grading on the site. It kind of keeps the disturbance a little bit more compact. The house design you'll see,if you look at the side elevations, they'll sort of utilize the hill in the grading, so that garage and house now acts as a retaining wall. The existing house now there's a very large retaining wall and then a, kind of a steep drop down to the cabin. So we're pulling the house back further from the existing cabin,from the water,utilizing that area. Like Tom said, we put in the shoreline buffer and some green space. So we think, overall, it's a good improvement. The other thing is I think that the presentation sort of slowed once we got involved because it was a schematic design for a house. Now this is an actual, the actual design that Paul and Peggy have approved and want to build, and working with Tom,we just said,let's get all the details figured out and then be able to present back to you a final design. As far as materials on the house,you can see here, it's going to be natural materials, a stone water course on the lower level with a combination of cement board and cedar siding and some cedar shakes in the gable ends as an accent, and then there's some flower boxes up on, at the mid-level. As you know,there is quite a change, 16 foot change in grade from one side to the other. So we've studied the placement of the house,location on the site to try to mitigate all of those changes. MR. HUNS INGER-Anything else? MR.FINNEY-That's it. MR. HUNSINGER-Questions, comments from the Board? What were the comments from the Town Engineer? MR. HUTCHINS-One of them had to do with erosion control on a cut slope and he and I haven't quite agreed on the mannerism that we're going to do that, but he put some suggestions in there, and in the interest of simplicity, I think I will just take his suggestion and do it the way he suggests and then that one would go away. The other one has to do with separation of a stormwater device from a neighboring well, which is something I can resolve. I want to discuss it with him because I don't really think it applies. I think what we're doing here, we're taking a septic system that's 40 feet from the neighbor's well, and we're making a septic system a couple hundred feet from the neighbor's well, and we will have a stormwater device that presently flows off the property in all directions and we're going to put it into the ground 85 feet from the neighbor's well. He's citing a provision of Department of Health Code that says for a new well you try to locate it 100 feet from a stormwater device. If worse comes to worse, I can shorten that device and make it meet the 100 foot requirement. Because of the way, it's an arc thing, I can make it a ditch and then keep the infiltration device further out,but I would like the opportunity to discuss that with the engineer and agree to work that out. 24 (Queensbury Planning Board 04/23/2013) MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. MR. FORD-May I ask the rationale for, I'm all for discussion and working together on that,but if you can do the 100 foot as the requirement,why is that not your plan? MR. HUTCHINS-Well, one I don't necessarily agree that it's a requirement, but we will, it's more cumbersome. We'll have to push a trench a little further away from the structure, and we'll have to convert what I've got as a full trench into a ditch line into a separate infiltration area. MR. FORD-Good luck in your discussion. MR. HUTCHINS-I can make it work either way, and we certainly request your support for the project,and. MR. MAGOWAN-You said right now the septic is 40 feet away? MR. HUTCHINS-Right now the septic is 40 feet away. MR. MAGOWAN-You can put 100. MR. HUTCHINS-More than 100. MR. MAGOWAN-And what's worse,septic or stormwater? MR. HUTCHINS-Well, we're way more than 100 feet. I don't know the exact number, but it's probably 200, maybe more. It's difficult to meet, and I'll throw this in. On pre-existing lakeside lots,it's difficult to meet all these separations (lost words) stormwater. MR. HUNSINGER-We hear that with every project. MR. HUTCHINS-It's a vast improvement over what we're showing, and I think anyway that the design we're showing makes a whole lot of sense. If the thing were to overflow, which I don't believe it's going to, if it were to overflow, it overflows in the opposite direction from this well to the south side of the house,which is away from this well. So there's only a small portion of it that's within that 100 feet. MR. HUNSINGER-Any other questions, comments from the Board? Okay. We do have a public hearing scheduled this evening. Is there anyone in the audience that wants to address the Board on this project? PUBLIC HEARING OPEN MR. HUNSINGER-Any written comments? MRS.MOORE-No. MR. HUNSINGER-I will open the public hearing and let the record show no comments were received. This is a Type II SEQR, so no SEQR review is necessary. Unless there's any questions, comments,concerns from the Board, I'll entertain a motion. MS. GAGLIARDI-Excuse me, Mr. Chairman,you have to close the public hearing. MR. HUNSINGER-I'm sorry. I'll close the public hearing. PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED MR. KREBS-The public hearing is closed? MR. HUNSINGER-The public hearing's closed. RESOLUTION APPROVING SP# 76-2012 PAUL&MARGARET SHEEHAN 25 (Queensbury Planning Board 04/23/2013) A site plan application has been made to the Queensbury Planning Board for the following: Applicant proposes to demolish existing 1,352 sq. ft. residence and accessory structures and construct a new 3,950 sq. ft. four bedroom residence. Construction of a dwelling within 50 feet of 15%slopes in a WR zone requires Planning Board review and approval. PB made a recommendation to the ZBA on 11/27/2012;the ZBA approved the variance requests on 12/5/2012; Type II SEQR-no further review required; A public hearing was advertised and held on 12/20/12, 1/22/13, 3/26/13,&4/23/2013; This application is supported with all documentation, public comment, and application material in the file of record; MOTION TO APPROVE SITE PLAN NO. 76-2012 PAUL & MARGARET SHEEHAN, Introduced by Donald Krebs who moved for its adoption,seconded by Thomas Ford: 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) The Sanitary Sewer connection plan must be submitted to the Wastewater Department for its review,approval,permitting and inspection; 4) 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; 5) Engineering sign-off required prior to signature of Zoning Administrator of the approved plans; 6) If required,the applicant must submit a copy of the following to the Town: a) The project NOI (Notice of Intent) for coverage under the current "NYSDEC SPDES General Permit from Construction Activity"prior to the start of au site work. b) The project NOT (Notice of Termination) upon completion of the project; 7) The applicant must maintain on their project site,for review by staff, a) The approved final plans that have been stamped by the Town Zoning Administrator. These plans must include the project SWPPP (Stormwater Pollution Prevention Plan) when such a plan was prepared and approved; b) The project NOI and proof of coverage under the current NYSDEC SPDES General Permit,or an individual SPDES permit issued for the project. 8) 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. 9) The applicant must meet with Staff after approval and prior to issuance of Building Permit and/or the beginning of any site work. 10)Subsequent issuance of further permits, including building permits is dependent on compliance with this and all other conditions of this resolution; 11)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; 26 (Queensbury Planning Board 04/23/2013) Duly adopted this 23rd day of April, 2013, by the following vote: AYES: Mr. Ford, Mr. Schonewolf, Mr. Deeb, Mr.Traver, Mr. Krebs, Mr. Magowan, Mr. Hunsinger NOES: NONE MR. HUNSINGER-You're all set. Good luck. MR. HUTCHINS-Thank you. MR. FINNEY-Thank you very much. OLD BUSINESS REQUIRING PUBLIC HEARING: SITE PLAN NO. 8-2013 SEQR TYPE I CRM HOUSING DEV., INC. OWNER(S) SAME AS APPLICANT ZONING MDR-MODERATE DENSITY RESIDENTIAL LOCATION ABBEY LANE SITE PLAN: 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. VARIANCE: RELIEF REQUESTED FROM DENSITY REQUIREMENTS FOR THE MDR ZONING DISTRICT. PLANNING BOARD MAY CONDUCT SEQR AND PROVIDE A RECOMMENDATION TO THE ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS. CROSS REFERENCE AV 5-2013 WARREN CO. REFERRAL FEBRUARY 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? MRS. MOORE-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. Variance: Relief recieved from density requirements for the MDR zoning district. Under Summary, Planning Board may wish to discuss arrangement within the facility to accommodate senior needs such as wider sidewalks for walkers and wheelchairs, amenities on site for passive recreation, sidewalk shelter, public transit opportunities,garden area,parking arrangements for storage of recreational vehicles i.e. RV's. MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. Thank you. MR. O'CONNOR-Mr. Chairman, I'm Michael O'Connor from the law firm of Little & O'Connor. I represent the applicant, and with me is Tom Andress who is the project engineer for the project. Since we were last here, I've had a little minor surgery on the side of my face and my ear. It looks worse than it is. We actually went to the Zoning Board after your recommendation and they unanimously granted the variance requested for density without condition, and we're very pleased with that. Some of the comments, and I don't know if you have their minutes yet or not. They thought basically we were filling out the neighborhood. We would have no real impact on anyone from a community neighborhood or environmental manner, and we're very pleased with how we presented it and how it went along. We've had discussions, and we've still got two points, and I really didn't realize that it automatically had gone on tonight's agenda, and I think I found that out this morning. So we have two points, I think, if I understood the comments that were made from the Board the last time we were here, one you wanted us to flesh out the language that would be used for senior, and two, we still need to answer the comments for the engineer. We have not answered those. We can walk through those, if it would be satisfactory, and maybe like the last application, ask you to give an approval subject to our obtaining an engineering signoff, because I think those comments are of that nature that has a lot to do with showing things on plans, amending, not a lot of the engineering, but amending our plans. The second, and maybe we want to, if that's possible I'll have Tom go through those right now,then I'll get to discuss the second. Do you want to do it? MR.ANDRESS-Sure. All right. I'm not sure if you all have a copy of the,you do? Okay. This is the April 10th letter, it was in response to our, they had provided a previous letter. We had responded with some plan changes. This was to respond to those plan changes, starting at the beginning, and they all really involve stormwater management or erosion control. Their first letter was, their first comment was just in reference to providing the SHPO signoff. They hadn't seen a copy of it because 27 (Queensbury Planning Board 04/23/2013) they hadn't received the SWPPP, but obviously we provided the SWPPP and that SHPO comment is in that SWPPP to this Board and to the Zoning Board of Appeals. The second comment is in rooftop disconnect. One of the methods of RRv for the green infrastructure is rooftop disconnect. We're utilizing that, but actually in our calculations we didn't note it. We had enough RRv that we didn't actually have to compensate for that. So they're just saying either add the calculations in or just say we're not doing it. We'll just add the calculations into show that we have, in fact, more RRv than is required. The third comment is in reference to,they had asked for additional soil testing. Because we had gone out and tested the site with Chazen, but at that time we didn't know the final design. It turns out the stormwater basin is a slightly different area. They were just agreeing that we wouldn't have to do the testing until we got the ZBA approval, which we have now, to just make sure we do more testing to know what the final design is. So we're certainly going to be doing that final testing. Item Four is in response to the stone berm. We had added a stone berm on the infiltration basin, and this whole site is very high quality sand, very granular sand, all utilizes infiltration. We had added a stone berm as pre-treatment coming in to the large basin at the end of the cul de sac. There were some questions in their mind, although I've never done it the way they're saying it. They're saying that we can't credit the infiltration on the pre-treatment side of the basin because technically I guess that side would over time, the intention for that side is to be able to collect sediment so it can be cleaned out. We've always taken that credit, but we have no problem, and they had no problem when I spoke with them in reference to that. We did speak about all of these comments. I did speak to them prior for these comments, but we have plenty of extra room to just extend that to provide the infiltration and the basin was oversized, but they just wanted to make sure that we noted in the calculations. Again,the same for Number Five,the water quality calculation, just make sure I do this right. The RRv, there's a minimum that you have to provide that's less than 100%. However, everyone like, TDE's like you to provide 100% if you can. Ninety percent is provided through the practices that we use. We get the 10% the other way, through the rooftop disconnect, but they had just mentioned that they would allow the 90% to be 100% if we provide 110% of the water quality volume, which we can just get 100 that way, which is, we're fine with that. Although we do meet the requirements,we'll provide that little additional, again, and as you can see on the map over there, there's a lot of room in reference to the area around the stormwater basin. Obviously we want to try to maintain the wood line, but unfortunately that is the area that was illegally cut by the adjoining owner. So I guess from that standpoint at least we won't have to cut the trees in that area. Comment Six, that was just a, we had asked, instead of us making up a stormwater management agreement, if there was something that was available that we could follow so we didn't have to re-invent the wheel, and they just let us know that, in fact, there is one in the Town Code that we can utilize. So we'll follow that format. We have ones. I just didn't want to go through a three or four iteration process and changing it to meet the requirements. For Item Seven, well, we have the sidewalk that is emergency sidewalk that goes between the proposed road and the Ramada. At the very top of that you can sort of see the green that bulges out there that's some snow storage area. Technically they felt that that little bit of a sidewalk, whatever that is, an eight foot or a twelve foot sidewalk, because it's really an emergency access road,wasn't flowing by grading all the way down to the basin at the far end. So I re-graded it a little bit to show it there. They still feel, they're a little concerned about that. Obviously it's 12 feet wide. Water comes of a 12 foot road. It goes into sand that peres at one and two minutes. It's not going to make it 10 feet. I discussed that with them, said I don't want to cut anymore trees to show that it grades all the way down to the basin at the far end. So they agreed that what I'll do is I'll put a stormwater detention basin next to this 12 foot wide access road. It is what it is,I guess. MR. FORD-The length of the road? MR.ANDRESS-No,just for about 20 feet at the far end. MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. MR. ANDRESS-Yes. Whatever. That was Number Seven, I think. Number Eight, they had asked, we had on,some of our silt fence was not following the contours 100%, so we changed the silt fence to follow the contours 100%. However, we have two soil erosion control plans, one is for construction of the road, and then when the road is finished construction, everything is built and stabilized around it, then we have a specific soil erosion control plan for when you're building the actual units, and on the units we actually put the silt fence around the unit to make sure that it doesn't go anywhere. Some of those aren't running parallel to the contours so we have to take it off where it's running perpendicular to the contours on that little detail. We'll do that. Number Nine, the applicant revise the erosion control plan to provide a temporary sediment basin. As we're 28 (Queensbury Planning Board 04/23/2013) building the road, we have a sediment basin, but it's in the area of the cul de sac because DEC doesn't allow you to use an infiltration basin as a temporary sediment basin, concern being that you'll have fines in there and you'll affect the performance of the infiltration basin. So we have that on the plan for, again, a soil erosion for the construction of the road. When we have the road complete,we don't have a temporary basin because the temporary basin is where the road is going to be. However, they're noting that on the other plan we really should put a temporary basin somewhere. When the road's all complete,the catch basins are all in,you have the siltation around the basin, I'm not really even sure what we're going to do, but we'll add a basin somewhere for them. That was Number Nine. Number Ten, when we submitted the SWPPP form, I believe we might have listed Chazen as the person to sign it, and it apparently has to be the Town stormwater officer. On Number Eleven,we had a typographical error. It's not in the calculations,but we were supposed to put 5690, and we put 5590. It was a typographical error we will change. We have a silt fence detail that I've used for 35 years,but apparently I'm going to have to add some additional information, noting the New York State standards on it from the erosion control, and I have no problem doing that. It's there and then I guess the last one was the,there's check boxes within the Notice of Intent to show what practices that we're using for your temporary and your permanent practices so DEC can see what your methodology is. Apparently they like us,under the temporary, to check the dust control, or there must be a dust control measure as temporary structural measure and the temporary swales which we can certainly do, and that was the limit of it. So we certainly don't see any problem. Some I'm not quite sure that are that critical,but we will certainly do them all because it won't have any effect on the project. MR. O'CONNOR-Does anybody have specific questions for Tom? I think I as you can see probably 95 to 98% of the comments are paperwork comments, and we would ask for your approval conditioned upon us getting a final engineering signoff, which would include doing the additional test pits. That site is very uniform in its soils. We don't expect that we're going to find anything different. It would also be conditioned upon us, and I think your permitting was conditioned upon us signing a stormwater management plan on the form that the Town has and includes with every project. So that is not a big issue. One thing I didn't comment on, and I would stipulate is that part of the clearing area,when you take a look at that map up there, as I look at the map this way,to the right of the driveway, the clearing limits come close to Burke Drive. In our discussions with the Zoning Board, we agreed that we would do some planting in there, in addition to the landscape planting that we've shown on the landscape plan, to do some additional screening. This project basically is not visible from almost any site. So we'll put in a staggered row of some fast growing white pine,or something of that nature,where the cutting area comes out close. MR.ANDRESS-You see the narrow between the orange and the green,that one strip as you go to the right of the entrance,that narrower area in there we would supplement with more trees. The trees there will stay,but we'll supplement that with another row of evergreen trees. MR. HUNSINGER-So how would we describe that? The area that's to the? MR. O'CONNOR-To the right of entrance driveway. MR. HUNSINGER-Well,it's to the south. MR. O'CONNOR-It's to the south of it. MR.ANDRESS-The south,where the buffer is narrow. Because obviously the buffer then goes from the narrower to the wide area. MR. HUNSINGER-Did you stipulate any number of trees? MR. O'CONNOR-They didn't ask for anything specific. How many feet are we talking? MR. ANDRESS-If we were going to do a staggered row, I'd say you're probably looking at somewhere in the neighborhood of, somewhere in the 15 trees range. Obviously if we need more we'll (lost words) somewhere in that range. MR. O'CONNOR-Okay. We'd be satisfied with that. The second issue that we had open when we left here the other day was language for the restrictive covenant, and I asked Laura to send my language on to the Town Attorney, which she did. He came back with one draft. I said that that was something that wouldn't work. I sent it on to my clients. I had some discussions with him. 29 (Queensbury Planning Board 04/23/2013) He sent a second draft,which came today. That does not work, and maybe we ought to discuss the substance of that. The intent here is the build a senior complex. What we presented from an environmental point of view, and from planning and everything else, really wasn't based on the senior, and in fact you questioned why we had two story buildings, or two story apartments in it. So we didn't try to take credit in the traffic counts or anything of that nature for seniors. I'm familiar with a couple of other senior projects in the Town, and I don't know where there was any restrictive covenant put on them. When we first started talking about this, I talked about a project over in South Glens Falls where there are single family homes that are senior, and that's a completely different world for financing. You're talking probably about a $200,000 mortgage or less on one parcel. This thing here,you're talking, at least in the very beginning, of a multi-million dollar mortgage, and it's a commercial mortgage, and it's completely different from the way that the banks were looking at it. They want it to be totally without conditions, totally free to treat it like any other property. The Town Attorney came up with a, I thought, a reasonable solution for if the property were foreclosed. He suggested that the developer, or the person who purchased that at the foreclosure would have to show and document to the Town Planning Board that he had marketed it for a year and was unable to find a buyer, due to the restriction. I didn't think that was totally unreasonable, but when it went back to the people that are doing the financing, even that was not acceptable because then all you're going to do is get real low ball bids on that. You're not going to be able to recover your balances. People are going to know that you've got a very restrictive market. MR. TRAVER-But, Mike, with respect, this application, from the beginning, has been represented as a senior complex. MR. O'CONNOR-Yes, and I understand your point when last we discussed this about borrowing money from the bank and if they foreclose on it, theoretically they may want to sell it as something else. However, if I go to the bank, and I buy a pickup truck or something and they foreclose on it, they can certainly re-sell it, but they're going to have to sell it as a pickup truck. So I don't see what's the problem with saying,look,this is a senior complex. It may change owners,but it is being approved as a senior complex, and we did take that into account, in terms of community character, even for SEQR issues and things like that. It has an impact that we discussed at length on the community. MR. O'CONNOR-Okay. The discussions have come back to even a little bit more basic discussions. There are other factors besides just even the financing that influence the desirability or the impact of that type of restriction. We have no control over competition. What happens if 1S other projects get approved for seniors in the Town or the immediate area? What happens if the demographics of the area change so that seniors aren't going into private apartments, at market apartments? MR. TRAVER-If that were the case,why would your applicant decide to enter that market? We are only listening to the applicant that's in front of us, and you came, from Day One, this is senior, senior, senior. You didn't want to hear any discussion about it being anything other than senior, and now you're saying maybe it might be something else. MR. KREBS-Yes, but, Steve, we have approved at least two senior apartments without any restrictions. MR.TRAVER-Not in this location we haven't. MR. KREBS-Not in this location. MR.TRAVER-Okay,but,that's what's in front of us. MR. KREBS-We did one down on Bay Road for Schermerhorn. You did one (lost word) for Schermerhorn. MR.TRAVER-That's not the project that we have before us. MR. O'CONNOR-You did one over on Bay Road. I mean,they're subsidized. MR.TRAVER-Obviously there are senior projects around. No one disputes that. 3( (Queensbury Planning Board 04/23/2013) MR. O'CONNOR-There are subsidized projects with a lot more units than what we're talking about that do not have that restriction, and I'm just telling you the feedback. You wanted us to do a due diligence good faith exploration of this. We knew it was an issue, and they're willing to make, they're going to make a commitment. They'll make a commitment of. MR. TRAVER-I mean, I understand it would be much better to,you know, have no restrictions on it whatsoever. I understand that, but we're dealing with a sensitive situation with a sensitive neighborhood. This is the way it was presented to us, to the neighbors, and to the Town, and the plan that we came up with, when last we reviewed this, I believe, was acceptable to all parties provided we can ensure that this would remain senior, and without that I don't feel that I can support it. MR. O'CONNOR-Okay. That's why I want to have the discussion. MR. HUNSINGER-So the language that was presented at the last meeting,that was. MR. O'CONNOR-It's been doctored twice. I don't know if Laura has. MRS.MOORE-I have copies of the e-mail that was sent. MR. O'CONNOR-Four thirty this afternoon? MRS.MOORE-Yes. MR. O'CONNOR-Can I have a copy,too? MR.TRAVER-Four thirty this afternoon? MR. O'CONNOR-I read it on my I-Pad. MR.TRAVER-Yes. MR. SCHONEWOLF-I've seen a lot of senior citizen buildings and seen them marketed that way, but the last time,he was talking about putting a 58 year old age limit on, I believe. MR.O'CONNOR-No, I don't think so. MR. SCHONEWOLF-That would be age discrimination. I don't think you can do that. MR. O'CONNOR-No, he told you, 55 is the definition of seniors. His average occupancy in Rome is 58. MR.SCHONEWOLF-Fifty-eight. Okay. MR. O'CONNOR-These are active seniors. MR.TRAVER-And they have a very good system for monitoring and reporting,documenting the fact that it is, in fact,senior housing. They,every year, I believe,they have a program in another project that they have where they have documented, I mean,well,yes, documents that indicate that at least one inhabitant,I believe it is,of the apartment is senior. MR. O'CONNOR-Yes,one member. MR. TRAVER-And again, I mean, I can say I'm not a realtor, obviously, but if I'm putting up an apartment complex somewhere, I would rather not have any restrictions on that all, but if I market it as, hey, this is going to be college dormitory or this is going to be for seniors or it's going to be, you know, whatever, when the community reviews it by what I claim that it's going to be, I think that we need to follow through with that, unless you want to make a different application and have another public comment period. MR.SCHONEWOLF-Can you put a specific age on there? MR. TRAVER-Well, they already have that in place. The issue is not whether or not the applicant intends for it to be occupied by seniors and has a plan to demonstrate and prove that it maintains a 31 (Queensbury Planning Board 04/23/2013) senior character. The question is that they make the investment and they build the project and it fits in as best it can to the neighborhood, and then down the road,someone decides to, perhaps the applicant has some financial difficulty, someone buys it for, let's say hypothetically a very small amount of money and says, well, I don't care who's in it, I just want to rent it, and now you've dramatically changed the whole nature of that apartment. Has a huge impact on that neighborhood. That's what much of the concern, both of this Board, and I believe the public and the neighborhood had, and so I think,you know, and they have certainly, it's obviously their intent. There's no question in my mind, that they don't intend to make it senior. The question, I think, is we need to ensure that it remains so. MR. HUNSINGER-This language that you passed out,Laura,is this from the Town Attorney? MRS. MOORE-This is from the Town Attorney. The items struck out are to be removed. The Attorney is proposing to have those items struck. The things that are highlighted without stripes are the information that's to be added. MR.HUNSINGER-So, I mean,you're just looking at this for the first time,too. MR. O'CONNOR-This afternoon, I forwarded by e-mail and got two quick back replies saying that that would not work. MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. MR. TRAVER-I mean,just in looking at it myself I can see that it includes a provision at the bottom that the application can be made to the Planning Board to remove the restrictions. I think that that's fine, and we have certainly done that with other parcels of real estate, where at the time a particular plan was proposed, there was a certain design and intent, and we approved it and later we re-visited it and altered, let's say, the restriction. So I think that that's fine, but I think in the meantime, unless there is reason to make that change, I feel that this needs to remain, unless if and when that, in fact, happens, the Town, there is a review, which I think was my first question, was there an opportunity, if it was sold, would we have a chance to look at it again? For example, if someone came in and, I believe your response was not necessarily. MR. O'CONNOR-Right. MR. TRAVER-And then the issue came up about the foreclosure situation. So this would preserve our ability to review,and I think that would be acceptable. MR. HUNSINGER-And the Town Code probably wouldn't, I mean like with a lot of commercial space, if there's a new owner or new use,it comes back for Site Plan Review. MR.SCHONEWOLF-Yes,we can put that condition. MR. HUNSINGER-So I don't think,well. MR.TRAVER-Well,that's the language that we have in front of us from the Town,but Mike is saying that's not acceptable. MR. O'CONNOR-I've got to go through and parcel this thing out, paragraph by paragraph, the language. One thing I have a problem with is having a dead period of 12 months. I would think it would be reasonable to say that if, at any time, they can demonstrate that the property is not, and this actually, Steve,and I don't. MR. TRAVER-I'm actually not seeing that in this revised, understanding this came out at 4:30 this afternoon. MR. O'CONNOR-The language at the bottom. MR.TRAVER-Yes, that 12 months appears to be stricken,and what remains. MR. O'CONNOR-No,that's added. The highlighted information is being added. The two strike outs are the lines through them. 32 (Queensbury Planning Board 04/23/2013) MR. TRAVER-Okay. All right, then I stand corrected. I'm sorry. I thought that that highlighted section had been, I see, it isn't, there's no line through it. I see. Well, I think it preserves, even if you take out the 12 months,because I don't know that the Planning Board necessarily is going to be directing marketing efforts. We haven't in the past. MR. HUNSINGER-No. MR.TRAVER-But we can respond to an application. MR. HUNSINGER-Sure. MR. TRAVER-So I think that if you strike that section of the paragraph that reflects the comments about the,that we are saying,before we have an application in front of us,that you've got to market it for 12 months. I don't think we need to do that, but I do think at the end, where it says in the event that the Planning Board at any time amends its approval,you know,we can certainly consider an application. If you say, look, we have this, we can't find anymore seniors, or the new owner or whatever,there's no reason why it couldn't be reconsidered,but we have to look at what we have in front of us, and we have to take into account the neighborhood character at this point in time, not what could happen down the road, and I think we need to responsibly retain some control over it because of the impact, and potential impact, it should say, that it has in the neighborhood, and we've approved the other aspects of it based on that,based on the fact that it would be senior. MR. O'CONNOR-Let me ask it in this way, and I honestly am at a little bit of a disadvantage as far as being able to communicate with my people after I've seen this thing, and they aren't necessarily dictating it. It'll probably be, I can name the bank, but it'll probably be a banking institution that will dictate it. So,they would actually like to start,and I came in with the idea I'd like to at least get on to your May agenda. Is it a consensus that at least 12 months is not a necessity, and all that they would have to show is that they provide the Town Planning Board with documents evidencing good faith efforts to sell,and an inability to do so due to the above occupancy restrictions? MR. TRAVER-No. It has nothing to do, I mean, that certainly might be part of an application, and again, I'm only speaking for myself. I'm not speaking for other members of the Board, but what I would want to see would be the Planning Board would have, you would submit an application saying,we're asking the Planning Board to consider removing that restriction, and then we can get into at that time,you know,say, well, we tried to market it for 12 months, but I don't know that we need to say that in front,that that becomes a trigger,no. I don't think that that's appropriate. MR. HUNSINGER-Yes,I feel the same way. MR. O'CONNOR-You're moving back further than where you were. You're moving back to a stricter version than what the Town Attorney said. MR.TRAVER-No,actually where I was before was you were supposed to strike Paragraph Four. MR. O'CONNOR-Okay. MR. TRAVER-Now we're coming back with something that, understand you haven't had an opportunity, because it was this afternoon, to discuss it with your client, but I'm finding something that is not this exact thing, but actually gives more flexibility because in the original, at least what I had expressed to you, and again, not speaking for other members of the Planning Board, but what I had said was removing that fourth paragraph there was no mention of any possibility of coming to the Planning Board and requesting that that. MR.O'CONNOR-Correct. MR. TRAVER-So you now have an escape route, because if worse comes to worse, and you can always come back to the Planning Board and granted, I suppose, the Planning Board could always say no,but I mean,let's face it. MR. O'CONNOR-And I am offering to limit the triggering device for Planning Board application to being the inability to sell based upon that restriction. Even without this clause, at any time an applicant can come back and ask for a modification of a site plan approval. 33 (Queensbury Planning Board 04/23/2013) MR.TRAVER-Yes. MR. O'CONNOR-But I want an understanding with the future members of the Planning Board that this was discussed, that this is an issue now, and it could be an issue in the future and it could be a legitimate issue for making the modification,and if you don't mention that in here,within under the terms of whatever simple modification is. MR.TRAVER-No,again,this is my own opinion. I think that it's absolutely true that you could come back at any time and ask the Planning Board to remove that restriction. I don't think any trigger is necessary for the applicant to put in an application. I think we just have to look at the history and look at the application and make a decision based on that. I don't think, you know, requiring 12 months or requiring anything. You're entitled to make application any time you want. MR. MAGOWAN-Well, I'm a little confused, though, Steve. Just for my own clarification, if it happened to change,all right. MR.TRAVER-What happened to change? MR. MAGOWAN-You know, say it changed hands and, you know, it didn't become a senior. How drastically do you think it would change that particular area with all the apartments all around it and the Ramada,you know? MR.TRAVER-I don't know. I think we'd have to take a look at it. I think we would have to evaluate based on that. We haven't yet. MR. MAGOWAN-They've done the traffic study based on not a senior complex. MR. TRAVER-Well, because, in all fairness, for SEQR they need to look at maximum impact. So, I mean, not everyone living there is going to be a senior. So Mike is great, but I'm not going to give him that. MR. MAGOWAN-You've got all these other senior complexes that come in and say senior and we haven't had these restrictions,and it was just brought up,and,I don't know, I'm just confused. MR. TRAVER-I'm talking about the application we have in front of us. I'm not talking about anything else. MR. O'CONNOR-We've said they're active seniors. We've included the trips as though they weren't seniors. We've included every bedroom for septic, as though every bedroom was going to be occupied, even though most of the units are two bedroom and we don't anticipate that they will all be used as bedrooms. I mean,the impacts on the,I don't think,even. MR. TRAVER-Can I make a suggestion that maybe would resolve this whole thing? Why don't we re-evaluate this application and not attach senior requirement to it? Just say, look, these are just going to be apartments, just like anyplace else, and then you don't have to worry about it. If you want to fill it with seniors,that's fine,but you don't have to. MR. O'CONNOR-Okay. That may be a resolution. I started with what Mr. Magowan said is I don't think we attached that much to it as to impact on anyone to the fact that it was senior,and we're not trying to walk away from the commitment that it is going to be marketed as senior and it is going to be senior, and we are going to be required to show annually to the Town that there are seniors there,that on an annual basis we make that report. This is just a sky falls and the doom is with us, and I hadn't, and we have that issue, I'm told, even with the original financing, which is a little bit different than just looking at what happens if the financing is in default, and the discussion that was brought to our table from the banker is how do you know that your market that you've done a study of is going to be there 10 years from now? How do you know what your competition is going to do? MR. TRAVER-Well, I can appreciate that, but with all due respect, that's not my problem. You guys are the ones that came to me and said this is going to be a senior. MR. O'CONNOR-You're making it distinctly our problem. 34 (Queensbury Planning Board 04/23/2013) MR. TRAVER-No, because you can simply say, look, we're not going to put any restrictions on it at all. We're going to put a sign out and anyone that wants to rent from us is going to get an apartment. MR. SCHONEWOLF-And then they can limit it to seniors if they want MR.TRAVER-Yes. Well, I don't know about that,because then it becomes discriminatory. MR. SCHONEWOLF-That's how they do it. MR.TRAVER-1 didn't hear that. MR. HUNSINGER-It comes back to the question of, you know, the project has always been represented as being a senior apartment complex. So how would Code Enforcement respond if all of a sudden you were renting to families? I mean, would there be an action by the Town? I mean, I guess where I'm headed with this is this conversation even really necessary. MR. O'CONNOR-I would anticipate it's a condition of the approval. MR.TRAVER-Well,the Town Attorney apparently felt it was worth putting. MRS. MOORE-You're basing it on the information that has been submitted. So it's your approval on this application material. MR. HUNSINGER-Right. MRS.MOORE-So how it gets enforced is the conditions that you place on it. MR.TRAVER-Well, and the applicant is offering to provide proof. MR. SCHONEWOLF-That doesn't stop somebody coming back 10 years from now and asking for a different change of venue from the Planning Board. MRS.MOORE-That's correct. MR.SCHONEWOLF-And that's an easy solution. I think that's what Steve's saying. MR.TRAVER-I wish I could take credit for it. I guess it was from the Town Attorney. MR. HUNSINGER-I guess where I'm going is, isn't it implicit in any approval that this was approved as a senior housing project when that's how it was presented? MR.TRAVER-Well, apparently not. MR.HUNSINGER-And is a deed restriction even necessary? MR. TRAVER-Apparently it is necessary because I asked that question, specifically, and was told that, no, we would not get another review of it. So I have to go by them. If somebody says, and apparently the attorney agrees,because otherwise this language wouldn't be offered for use by us. So I'm assuming that unless we put something in here. MRS.MOORE-He's responding to your request. MR. HUNSINGER-Right. MR. O'CONNOR-He's specifically responding to the request of some provision that would allow, on a mortgage foreclosure,that the property not be restricted. MR.TRAVER-And would you agree that that language is required if what we're proposing would be enforced? Or are you saying that we don't need any language in there, it would remain senior without? That's not the information that I got the last time we talked about it. The information that I got was that if it was foreclosed on that it could be,that wiped the slate clean basically. 35 (Queensbury Planning Board 04/23/2013) MR. O'CONNOR-That was our proposal. That was the language that we had proposed in the restrictive covenant. MR.TRAVER-Okay. I understand. So I guess I'm having a hard time seeing why it's such a problem if in that, granted, that unlikely event, because I know your applicant has had successful projects going and still going,that the worse did happen that it would require a Planning Board review. MR. O'CONNOR-You've got other business to do tonight. Can I get on your May agenda and come back with a client who can answer yes, no, or in the meantime work out language, other language than what was given to us at 4:30 this afternoon, and can I go away with the idea that you're not married to some type of time limit before we do this,we can just come in at any time and make that application? MR.TRAVER-Well,that's my own feeling. MR. FORD-What we ought to be married to is the proposal that you have had before the Planning Board now for several months. MR. O'CONNOR-Okay. MR. TRAVER-Yes, I mean, I think commonsense, Mike, would say that if you get this approved and then you come back in a month or something and you say, well, now we want to lift, I mean, obviously to some degree it's a matter of commonsense. I think that it's in here, if this language survives that I'm looking at, it's obviously intended for you and your partners not being involved anymore, and someone may come in and they want to make a case to us that the senior residential definition should be,that restriction should be lifted,and we'd certainly take a look at that. MR. HUNSINGER-Well, and that is the language that's in there, that says foreclosure action or deed in lieu of foreclosure. MR. O'CONNOR-My problem, as an attorney, not with the developer or the client, was the dead period of 12 months. I mean, when you get into a foreclosure circumstance, that doesn't happen overnight, particularly with a commercial piece of property, and you try like heck to market it before you get to the final day. MR.TRAVER-And for us as a Planning Board,I mean, I interpret that language as somebody decided that meant you tried really hard to avoid foreclosure. I mean, myself as a Planning Board member, I would have no clue if two months was enough time or two years was not enough. So the 12 doesn't mean anything to me. What I would want to see is who,what, where,why, and why do we need to remove that restriction,and I don't care how long it's been. MR. O'CONNOR-The language I see that is a good faith effort is with documents evidencing good faith efforts to sell the property. That would be. MR. TRAVER-I'm sorry, I don't feel that any reference to selling the property has anything to do with it. I don't think that your client should be required to sell or advertise or do anything in order to come in and ask us to remove that restriction. I think they can do that at any time. MR. O'CONNOR-Then I would add a sentence at the end of all this saying that the above language does not restrict the right of the applicant to make application for modification at any time with regard to restriction. MR. TRAVER-Well, I think if you take that out, that highlighted area in the last paragraph, I think you've removed that restrictive language anyway. So I think what you just offered would not be necessary. MR. HUNSINGER-Well, I mean,what we're talking about is not at any time,it's only at foreclosure or deed in lieu of foreclosure. MR.TRAVER-Right,but certainly,you know,like you said,if we can redress this next month. MR. O'CONNOR-Well, your attorney actually included everybody, which I didn't understand. The attorney,in the beginning of that paragraph,says any purchaser or transferee of the property. 36 (Queensbury Planning Board 04/23/2013) MR. HUNSINGER-Yes. MR. O'CONNOR-My language was any mortgagee. MR. HUNSINGER-Right. MR. O'CONNOR-Which, I haven't had a chance to talk to Mike Hill about this, and I haven't had a chance to talk to my client. MR. FORD-Why don't we give him the opportunity to do exactly that. MR. HUNSINGER-Yes. MR.TRAVER-Yes,absolutely. I mean,I think you know the intent that we're looking for. MR. O'CONNOR-Can we get on your May agenda? MR. HUNSINGER-Yes. Before we table it, though, I mean, let's set aside the deed restriction issues. Are there any other items that we need to talk about or satisfy or discuss? We do have a public hearing scheduled. So we want to do the public hearing. MR.SCHONEWOLF-The only other thing was the engineering issues,and we've gone through them. MR.TRAVER-And those are going to be signed off on anyway. MR. HUNSINGER-I just want to make sure there's no other issues that the Board has. MR. DEEB-I've been trying to ponder this whole thing. I'm new to the Board so I wasn't around when you did the other senior complexes. Was any of this language ever brought up at other senior complexes? MR.TRAVER-No. MR. HUNSINGER-No. MR.TRAVER-Not so far. MR. DEEB-Okay. So if they decide that they want to change those, the use of that later on,they can do so,without coming to the Planning Board. MR. HUNS INGER-Well,that was kind of, I mean,that was really my question. I mean,if we approve a senior housing project and it's no longer a senior housing project,it no longer(lost words). MR. TRAVER-I think that in the other cases it was creating a neighborhood versus here you have a neighborhood. That, I think, is the difference. It's a matter of context. It's not apples and apples. It's apples and oranges. This is a different situation than, you know, some of the other senior projects. MR. FORD-I'm trying to play catch up here because I was away during so much of this process,but it appears, you've had public hearings, you've had input from the community, etc., and it was all predicated upon the concept of senior housing. MR.TRAVER-Yes,and there was a great deal of concern that it remain senior housing. MR. FORD-That's what I've been hearing in the last week. MR. TRAVER-And that's why this language originally was offered by the applicant, by Mike, trying to,you know, reassure in a way that he felt comfortable with, that it would handle that, and it does largely, except for the fact that there's that one issue where, under certain circumstances if the property changes hands,which could happen at any time. MR. FORD-And that was expressed by the public as a concern. 37 (Queensbury Planning Board 04/23/2013) MR. TRAVER-Sure. So this way we're just saying, we'll take a look at it, you know, in order to re- evaluate it or whatever. MR. O'CONNOR-When this project was first discussed somebody on the Board asked the question or somebody in the public asked the question about would it be permanently a senior project, and the suggestion was made we could make it permanent by putting a restrictive covenant on the land, and we acknowledged that and said we've had some experience with that. We would have to work out language that would be workable,and that's where we are at this point. MR.TRAVER-Right. MR. O'CONNOR-We aren't trying to duck the restrictive covenant. We're just trying to have language in the restrictive covenant that's practical,commonsense and that works. MR.TRAVER-Sure. MR. FORD-And another month could give you clear sailing. MR. O'CONNOR-Mr. Ford,you are an optimist. MR. HUNSINGER-Before we table it,though, is there anyone in the audience that wanted to address the Board on this project? Because we do have a public hearing scheduled. Okay. Were there any written comments, Laura? Okay. PUBLIC HEARING OPEN JOHN SALVADOR MR. SALVADOR-Good evening, my name is John Salvador for the record. Is senior housing distinguishable from any other kind of housing within our Code, within our Zoning Ordinance? Is there any definition of senior housing,any criteria for the? Nothing? What are we talking about? MR. TRAVER-That's why we have a Planning Board. There are lots of things that aren't very, very specific in the Code. It doesn't mean that it shouldn't be considered. It doesn't mean it's not relevant context to a given project. MR. SALVADOR-Then you need a variance. MR.TRAVER-They went to the Zoning Board. They got variances. MR. SALVADOR-A variance for what,from what? MR.TRAVER-Well,it's a matter of public record,you can read that yourself. MR. SALVADOR-Well,did it have to do with senior housing? MR. SCHONEWOLF-It had to do with the application,John, look it up. MR. SALVADOR-Thank you. MR. HUNSINGER-You're welcome. Anyone else? Were there any written comments, Laura? MRS.MOORE-No. MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. We will leave the public hearing open. We had a motion from Mr. Schonewolf to table this to,did you say a date, 21St or 23rd? MR. SCHONEWOLF-I'll let Laura pick a date. MRS. MOORE-I did want to make sure you know that our May Planning Board meetings are on the 21St and the 23rd. 38 (Queensbury Planning Board 04/23/2013) MR. HUNSINGER-Right,Tuesday and Thursday. MRS.MOORE-Either date,the 23rd would be better at this time. MR. HUNSINGER-That's what I would suggest,too. MR. FORD-I'll second that. RESOLUTION TABLING SP #8-2013 CRM HOUSING DEV., INC. MOTION TO TABLE SITE PLAN NO. B-2013 CRM HOUSING DEV., INC., Introduced by Paul Schonewolf who moved for its adoption,seconded by Thomas Ford: Tabled to the May 23rd Planning Board meeting,to work out the restrictive covenant with the Town Attorney and address the engineering. Duly adopted this 23rd day of April, 2013,by the following vote: MRS.MOORE-Why are you tabling it? MR. SCHONEWOLF-To discuss the restrictive covenant. MR. HUNSINGER-To work out the restrictive covenant with the Town Attorney. MRS.MOORE-Do you wish the applicant to address the engineering? MR. HUNSINGER-The engineering,yes. MR. O'CONNOR-They had to do with the. MR. ANDRESS-The sidewalk, I think there was a Staff comment and concern for the width of the sidewalk based upon if we had wheelchairs. MR. SCHONEWOLF-Well, I thought it was going to be a road. That's why I said 20 feet. I didn't know it was going to be a sidewalk. MR.ANDRESS-Well,the access road is an emergency access road that will also operate as a. MR. SCHONEWOLF-Emergency access for vehicles it has to be 20 feet. MR. ANDRESS-It does based upon, right. Well, there can be certain, depending on what you're doing,there can be different lengths depending on the,or widths depending on the length. MR. FORD-Twenty can become twelve? MR. SCHONEWOLF-No. MR. O'CONNOR-Twenty's the minimum. MR.ANDRESS-If 20 is the minimum, that's what it would be. I think the question was in reference to the other sidewalks. We have proposed concrete sidewalks. MR. SCHONEWOLF-What you said was an emergency access road. MR.ANDRESS-I think Staff comments were,though, on the. MRS.MOORE-Staff comments were in reference to sidewalks within the development. MR. SCHONEWOLF-I'm sorry. I didn't know Staff commented on that. MRS.MOORE-(Lost words) other amenities on the site (lost words). MR. O'CONNOR-We have not proposed any other amenities. 39 (Queensbury Planning Board 04/23/2013) MRS.MOORE-(Lost words) parking areas. (lost words) MR. O'CONNOR-Okay. My addressing of those would be I think based upon the average age of the project that has been successful, we don't think that we need those amenities on the site. This is not going to be a senior assisted living or something of that nature. MR.TRAVER-Active seniors. MR. O'CONNOR-Active seniors. MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. I think it's all on the record. MR. O'CONNOR-That would be my address, unless the Board has some specific issues with those, thought that they would be required. It's not the developer's plan to provide those. We've talked about that I think in one of our other presentations. MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. We have a motion and a second. Call the vote,please. AYES: Mr.Traver, Mr. Krebs, Mr. Magowan, Mr. Ford, Mr. Schonewolf, Mr. Deeb, Mr. Hunsinger NOES: NONE MR. O'CONNOR-We thank you. MR. HUNSINGER-We'll see you next month. MR. FORD-Good luck to you, Mike. NEW BUSINESS: SITE PLAN NO. 16-2013 SEQR TYPE II ROBIN INWALD OWNER(S) SAME AS APPLICANT ZONING WR-WATERFRONT RESIDENTIAL LOCATION 38 GUNN LANE APPLICANT PROPOSES THE ADDITION OF A 2,541 SQ. FT. SECOND STORY TO EXISTING SINGLE FAMILY HOUSE. EXPANSION OF A NON-CONFORMING STRUCTURE IN A CRITICAL ENVIRONMENTAL AREA REQUIRES PLANNING BOARD REVIEW AND APPROVAL. CROSS REFERENCE AV 7-11, SP 6-11, AV 45-10, SP 39-10, AV 26-10, AV 68-08, SP 38-08, SP 8-89; BP'S WARREN CO. REFERRAL APRIL 2013 APA, CEA, OTHER L G PARK, CEA LOT SIZE 0.66 ACRES TAX MAP NO. 227.17-1-16 SECTION 179-13-10 CHRISTOPHER HUMPHREY&KEVIN MASCHEWSKI, REPRESENTING APPLICANT, PRESENT MR. HUNSINGER-Laura? MRS. MOORE-Applicant proposes the addition of a 2,541 sq.ft.second story to existing single family house. Project is a residential second story addition. The applicant has indicated the project will be designed so stormwater will be directed to the rain gardens; plans note that there is to be a maintenance agreement that should be noted on the final plans. MR. HUMPHREY-Good evening, Mr. Chairman, members of the Board. Christopher Humphrey, Humphrey Law, on behalf of the applicant. With me tonight I have Kevin Maschewski who's going to address any of the building issues relating to the project, and Devin Dickenson who prepared a very thorough analysis of the septic system and stormwater runoff. So I believe that the application is pretty straightforward. We're not seeking any zoning relief. It is simply an addition, a second story addition over the existing footprint of this structure, and we believe that it is consistent with the Town's Comprehensive Plan, and I would open up to any questions that can be fielded by Mr. Dickenson or Mr. Maschewski. MR. SCHONEWOLF-Wasn't there an addition to this just a year ago or? MR. HUMPHREY-Yes, sir, there was, and a little background on that. I represent Mrs. Inwald in an ongoing, perhaps you're aware, in an ongoing lawsuit related to defective spray foam insulation that was installed in the home. A part of this project was necessitated by the fact that this spray 40 (Queensbury Planning Board 04/23/2013) foam, which has not cured in the structure, is in the attic spaces and the roof now needs to be ripped off. Also, for obvious reasons, Mrs. Inwald has been out of the house since February of 2011. There's a lot of anxiety with living in this home. It's unclear of when the remediation will be completed and the final outcome will be. So adding the second story will allow her to have a clean area of the home, and will give her peace of mind in sleeping in a new portion of this home that's been in their family for many, many years as you're probably aware. MR. SCHONEWOLF-Yes,this is also the one that had the path down to the dock. MR. HUMPHREY-Yes,sir. I wasn't involved in that application,but I believe there was a boathouse. MR. SCHONEWOLF-I just wanted to make sure I got the right house. MR. HUNSINGER-You've got the right house. MR. HUMPHREY-Yes,sir,you do. MR. HUNSINGER-We've been there a dozen times. MR. SCHONEWOLF-That's what I thought. We don't even have to go there,we're so familiar. MR. HUMPHREY-And if there are other questions regarding this spray foam, I think that's beyond the scope of this application, though I'm certainly happy to field those questions and answer anything with regard to that. MR. TRAVER-So the application for the second story is to a large extent to accommodate the discomfort caused by the spray foam issue? MR. HUMPHREY-Well, it's this, I would submit that the roof needs to be ripped off, and as a part of that, in evaluating the plans, and when she's met with Mr. Maschewski and other builders, it was discussed that this addition could be put on the home within the existing footprint without any zoning relief, and it would certainly give her peace of mind because, I don't know if you were aware that when the spray foam problem was discovered, it caused problems for Ms. Inwald. The home has not been habitable, and this,again,would give her some peace of mind having a clean portion of the home. Other engineers have suggested also that it's going to give a clean space between the floors, and allow better air flow and circulation to the extent there's any residual noxious fumes that are still in the home following remediation. MR.TRAVER-Has the problematic foam been removed from the structure? MR. HUMPHREY-Yes,it has been, and with the exception of the foam in the attic space,which, again, is a part of this project,removing the roof and then adding the second floor. MR.TRAVER-So in removing the roof and installing this second story addition,will the environment be exposed to any nasty spray foam insulation that we need to be concerned about? MR. HUMPHREY-No. Unfortunately, well, the EPA has recognized the significant hazards with improperly installed spray foam insulation, which is the basis of Ms. Inwald's lawsuit. It's not considered hazardous material. So it will be removed and disposed of by the contractor, which there's been a portion, a lot of the foam has been removed from the home already, but it's not considered hazardous waste. I will tell you that it is, has not cured,that it's gas and noxious fumes, but it's not,based on my understanding,it's not considered hazardous waste. MR. TRAVER-Are there any, should this construction go forward, are there any special accommodations that the design includes, I didn't notice any, that would ensure that there's some buffer between the lake and in case pieces of foam or whatever are not drifting into the water and hypothetically exposing the lake to these gas and toxins or whatever you're describing? MR. HUMPHREY-It's my understanding that the Building Department has been aware of the removal. We do have Mr. Zervis here who has performed the remediation and there hasn't been any requirements. They've done a very thorough job and there hasn't been any issues with that. Certainly if that's a concern of the Board we can address it, but the foam will be, it's a pretty fair 41 (Queensbury Planning Board 04/23/2013) distance from the lake and it's been removed in pieces and bagged and then removed. So it's not going to be blowing all over. MR.TRAVER-So it is being contained as it's being removed? MR. HUMPHREY-Yes,sir,it is. MR.TRAVER-Thank you. MR. HUMPHREY-Thank you. MR. HUNSINGER-And the previous construction was constructed so that you can add a second story? MR. HUMPHREY-From an engineering standpoint, Mr. Maschewski would probably be better to address that,but it's my understanding,that there's not going to be any structural change that need to be made to accommodate the weight of the second story. MR. FORD-While we're talking about the weight on the second floor, could you describe for us please the way the structure is going to accommodate that fireplace. MR. HUMPHREY-I would ask Kevin to address that. MR. MASCHEWSKI-Good evening, Kevin Maschewski, Adirondack Designers and Builders. Although I am a designer and a builder, I did not do the design on the project here. Mrs. Inwald had contracted me just to oversee, manage, look at the existing house for Code compliant addition. So there were conversations with me, Robin and Williams and Williams. What fireplace are you, are you talking about the new one on the second floor? MR. FORD-Yes. MR. MASCHEWSKI-All right. That is just a gas,zero clearance fireplace. It's not a full masonry. MR. FORD-What is that chimney structure made up of? MR. MASCHEWSKI-The chimney is, it's wood framed with cultured stone, the thin veneer cultured stone, not the real thick stone. So it's just a wood frame stack, so to speak, and the exterior is cultured, man-made stone. Now what's in it would be a stainless steel flu cover that goes up on through to the outside. MR. FORD-Thank you. MR. MASCHEWSKI-Okay. You're welcome. MR. MAGOWAN-This is the same house that they had to take off the foundation and re-do the foundation because when they did the, when they re-built the first story, they found that the foundation wasn't adequate enough so they took the house off, moved it over to the side, dug a new foundation underneath it, pushed it over onto some property next door which they had to remove some stuff I believe, right? Is this the same house? And now all of a sudden we have an insulation problem,now what do you do with all the interior walls,gut all them? Get that foam insulation. MR. MASCHEWSKI-Yes, the insulation was on the exterior walls, and, yes, that's already been taken out. MR. MAGOWAN-So basically the whole house has been gutted. MR. MASCHEWSKI-Gutted. MR. MAGOWAN-And now you're going to re-build it to a second story? MR. MASCHEWSKI-Correct. MR. FORD-Would you reinforce the rationale again for that,please. 42 (Queensbury Planning Board 04/23/2013) MR.HUMPHREY-I'm sorry? MR. FORD-Would you reinforce again the rationale for doing exactly that, as you re-build it, adding another story. MR. HUMPHREY-Mr. Ford, I believe I did address that,but I'll re-visit it. Because the roof had to be removed, so there's significant costs associated with that, so as a part of that process Ms. Inwald hired designers to look at the additional cost of putting on the second floor, again, to, where her injuries occurred, where she was, first encountered this gassing,was in the middle of the night, in the master bedroom which is on the first floor, and by having the second floor, it's an area of the home that is now, it's not going to be insulated with the spray foam, and she felt it made economic sense to put the second story on and also give her the peace of mind to have a now new, clean area of the home. MR. MAGOWAN-See, I am just so baffled on this, because we just went through a process, meeting after meeting, over a boathouse lift for this huge, gargantuous walkway, and all this, you know, because of the injuries that family members have going up and down stairs, and now you want to put on a second story. MR. HUMPHREY-Actually, Mr. Magowan, they are putting in electrical, as part of the plans, they're putting in adequate electrical to have a stair lift. MR. MAGOWAN-No, I understand that. MR.HUMPHREY-Within the interior of the home. MR. MAGOWAN-I understand that. I just know the history of this property, and what's been going on for many years and what has been done without approvals,and then,you know,they've come up afterwards and then there's been some back peddling. So now, I'll be honest with you,I just have a hard time understanding this whole process,what you're trying to explain now. I'll be honest with you,I'm not too in favor of it. MR. MASCHEWSKI-If I can intervene, and that's part of my role is coming in as designer, looking at this project,trying to keep it Code compliant. The structure pre-existing, nonconforming. Looking at it, Robin did have interest on putting a second floor, and I'm trying to explain,keep it beyond the 20 foot side yard setback, let's keep it compliant. Your height restrict, 28 feet compliant, floor area ratios compliant, and I said let's, you know, if you plan on doing this, let's keep it compliant so there's no variances, and understanding your frustration with the property, and, you know, that's beyond my knowledge, but we tried to design this, and we did successfully, into Code compliance, and aesthetically I think it looks great. There's some things I may have changed throughout the design, but she was happy with it, so we tried to keep it as best Code compliant and aesthetically pleasing, and I don't think, on the outside looking in, there's not much, once it's built, if it ever does get approved,you won't be able to tell. You won't be able to tell that it's a second floor attic. It's going to blend right in with the pre-existing structure. So, I understand your frustration with everything that's going on. I've worked with Robin back in 2004 and '05 building a house for her up on Pilot Knob. I understand the way she is. I accept it. MR.MAGOWAN-She's got the house up on the mountain,which overlooks the lake. She had to get a boathouse so she could look down the lake. Now we've got to get a lift up to it, and now we need a second story, I mean, which is fine, but like I said, I know the history of that, the barns and all the other,you know,houses on that property. MR. SCHONEWOLF-I was going to bring that up. There's also other buildings on this property behind the garage,right? MR. HUMPHREY-It's a separate parcel. MR. SCHONEWOLF-They've been taken down? MR. HUMPHREY-It's a separate parcel, sir, and just, while I wasn't the attorney on the other applications, I know the Board did. 43 (Queensbury Planning Board 04/23/2013) MR. SCHONEWOLF-(lost words) Code compliant,the last time I was there,that's what I was told. MR. HUMPHREY-I'm not familiar with that,sir,but I will say that I know that this Board rejected the ramp for the boathouse. MR. SCHONEWOLF-That's another story. MR. HUMPHREY-But that's not before the Board, and I would respectfully submit that we're just here for the four corners of this application and not what may have occurred prior. MR. FORD-And why wouldn't we be able to tell there's a difference in height? MR. MASCHEWSKI-I'm not sure I alluded to that. My point is that. MR. FORD-Maybe I misunderstood. MR. MASCHEWSKI-Yes, the height restriction of 28 feet we're under. It's going to be 27 and a half feet. I guess my point was that the new addition is going to blend in to the existing structure down below. It's molded. It fits beautiful. The siding is all still brand new on the old original structure. MR. MAGOWAN-How many more chimneys now? MR. MASCHEWSKI-One more. MR. SCHONEWOLF-Well,there's three now. MR. MASCHEWSKI-There's three now and there's one more. There's three total, one more being added,one more in the. MR. FORD-Making a total of four? MR. MASCHEWSKI-No,there's three total. MR. MAGOWAN-So obviously that one on the first page, you're going to have to raise that up to go for the second story, because I'm sure it's not that high right now from the first story, from the single story house, if that's already existing if that's what you're saying. Because I'm sure you're going to do the one up over the bedroom, correct? MR. MASCHEWSKI-There's two new fireplaces in the new addition,two upstairs that are additional. One,in Bedroom Number Two,is utilizing the same chimney chase as down below. MR. MAGOWAN-But you're going to have to raise that up because now you've raised the roof. MR. MASCHEWSKI-Correct. Correct. MR. FORD-So there'll be a total of how many fireplaces,and how many chimneys? MR. MASCHEWSKI-There'll be a total of three chimneys. MR. FORD-And four fireplaces? MR. MASCHEWSKI-Five fireplaces. MR. FORD-Five. MR. MASCHEWSKI-Two of them share,two fireplaces share the same stack. So there's three stacks, chimney stacks. MR. HUNSINGER-Other questions,comments from the Board? MR. MAGOWAN-I see the rain gardens and the absorption beds. Is this all you have for the planting? 44 (Queensbury Planning Board 04/23/2013) DEVIN DICKENSON MR. DICKENSON-Devin Dickenson from Dickenson and Associates. I had a written letter to Craig Brown discussing the septic system. That was installed on the, I believe,the last approval you guys gave, some time I think 2010 or 2011. So we just basically did a letter based off the number of bedrooms, the size of the tanks and the system that was installed, as inspected by the Building Department, and then the rain gardens, again,we did a similar process. That was also approved in the 2010 plan, and we analyzed those for the additional volume for the new impervious area and the added depth that was, of the installed rain gardens as opposed to the approved rain gardens. So those were supplemental sheets to what Williams and Williams submitted. MR. HUNSINGER-Other questions? We do have a public hearing scheduled this evening. Is there anyone in the audience that wanted to address the Board on this project? PUBLIC HEARING OPENED MR. HUNSINGER-We'll open the public hearing. Were there any written comments, Laura? Okay. Seeing that there are no comments, I will close the public hearing. PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED MR. HUNSINGER-Let the record show no comments were received. It is a Type II SEQR, although the applicant submitted a Short Form. Any other questions? Any conditions of approval that need to be discussed? Would anyone like to make a motion? RESOLUTION APPROVING SP# 16-2013 ROBIN INWALD A site plan application has been made to the Queensbury Planning Board for the following: Applicant proposes the addition of a 2,541 sq. ft. second story to existing single family house. Expansion of a non-conforming structure in a Critical Environmental Area requires Planning Board review and approval. Engineering sign-off received on 4/10/2013; A public hearing was advertised and held on 4/23/2013; This application is supported with all documentation, public comment, and application material in the file of record; MOTION TO APPROVE SITE PLAN NO. 16-2013 ROBIN INWALD, Introduced by Donald Krebs who moved for its adoption,seconded by David Deeb: Per the resolution prepared by Staff. The applicant has indicated the project will be designed so stormwater will be directed to the rain gardens. 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) Type II SEQRA-no further review needed; 3) The Sanitary Sewer connection plan must be submitted to the Wastewater Department for its review,approval,permitting and inspection; 4) Plans note that there is to be a maintenance agreement that should be noted on the final plans. 5) 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. 6) The applicant must meet with Staff after approval and prior to issuance of Building Permit and/or the beginning of any site work. 45 (Queensbury Planning Board 04/23/2013) 7) Subsequent issuance of further permits, including building permits is dependent on compliance with this and all other conditions of this resolution; 8) 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 23rd day of April, 2013,by the following vote: MRS. MO ORE-just making sure about the request for waivers. Did you request waivers in the draft resolution? MR. HUMPHREY-No. MR. HUNSINGER-I was going to say, I don't think they requested any. MR. FORD-No waivers. MR. HUNSINGER-Strike that. AYES: Mr. Deeb, Mr. Schonewolf, Mr. Ford, Mr. Krebs, Mr. Hunsinger NOES: Mr. Magowan, Mr.Traver MR. HUNSINGER-You're all set. Good luck. MR. HUMPHREY-Thank you very much. PLANNING BOARD RECOMMENDATION TO ZBA SUBDIVISION NO. 5-2012 PRELIMINARY STAGE SEQR TYPE I LARIC DEVELOPMENT, LLC AGENT(S) J. LAPPER, B P S R OWNER(S) DKC HOLDINGS ZONING MDR-MODERATE DENSITY RESIDENTIAL LOCATION LUZERNE ROAD SUBDIVISION: APPLICANT PROPOSES SUBDIVISION OF A 58.8 ACRE PARCEL INTO 36 LOTS RANGING IN SIZE FROM 1.0 TO 2.52. PROPOSAL INCLUDES INTERCONNECTION BETWEEN SHERMAN AVENUE AND LUZERNE ROAD AS WELL AS BOULEVARD ENTRANCE OFF OF LUZERNE ROAD. SUBDIVISION OF LAND REQUIRES PLANNING BOARD REVIEW AND APPROVAL. VARIANCE: RELIEF REQUESTED FROM DENSITY AND LOT SIZE REQUIREMENTS OF THE MDR ZONE. PLANNING BOARD MAY CONDUCT SEQR REVIEW, AND PROVIDE A RECOMMENDATION TO THE ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS. CROSS REFERENCE AV 52-12, SB 18-05, SP 10-04 LOT SIZE 58.8 ACRES TAX MAP NO. 308.12-1-3 &7.1 SECTION CHAPTERA-183 179-3-040(A)(3)(b) JON LAPPER&TOM CENTER, REPRESENTING APPLICANT, PRESENT MR. HUNSINGER-Laura? MRS.MOORE-This is a subdivision of 58.8 acre parcel into 36 lots ranging in size from 1.0 to 2.52. Proposal includes interconnection between Sherman Avenue & Luzerne Road as well as boulevard entrance off of Luzerne Road. Variance: Relief requested from minimum lot size requirements of the MDR zone. MR. HUNSINGER-Good evening. MR. LAPPER-Good evening, everyone. First of all, thanks for putting us back on the agenda after last week so we could get back into this. For the record, Jon Lapper with Larry Clute and Tom Center. This is an interesting application. It's somewhat of a mixed area of Town adjacent to the half acre Burnt Hills subdivision. There's the public component to this of making the connection and I know you've seen the letters in the file from the emergency services providers and the Highway Department. Larry's trying to do something here that makes sense for this part of the area, but what he can't do is provide two acre lots. We consider like an estate lot size, and I'm not making the argument that the MDR zoning is wrong, but just that in this particular lot next to the Homestead Village trailer park, adjacent to the West Side junkyard which is just up the road, that this is a mixed area with small lots and small houses, and that what Larry's proposing here is a compromise here. He didn't come in and say, hey, I want one acre lots. The average lot size of 46 (Queensbury Planning Board 04/23/2013) what we're proposing is over 1.4, almost 1.5 acres. So it's really bigger than everything else in the neighborhood, and thereby arguably doesn't diminish anything. It's really, it's more than what the neighbors have. We're trying to propose this as something that we think is realistic and makes sense, but I guess I'd like to start and direct you to a project that we, that you approved probably now five or six years ago, Geneva Drive, which is on the other side of Sherman, an area that was also, you know, a very mixed area with dilapidated cottage, cabins, trailers, and Larry has kind of single-handedly over the last decade gone in and cleaned that up,that Howard Street, Geneva Drive. We came in here to modify a subdivision on the back on Geneva Drive to connect that, which is somewhat analogous to what's going on here. So he has a lot of experience on this part of Town of building,you know,yes,starter homes,but nice,new,clean and he's really done a lot for that part of the Town. At the same time, I know that there was at least one neighbor that was concerned about the connection and the impact that that might have on the Burnt Hills subdivision, and my analogy there is Hidden Hills, where you have the connection through between Sherman and Dixon. Because, like what Tom designed here, this is not a straight away. You're not going to get people just zipping through to get between these two drives because you've got to twist and turn which slows you down. It's just not conducive to a straight away, and I don't think there's any problem with Hidden Hills,you know, any of this that take that you certainly don't speed through there, but it is effective, and it's effective in the event that you have an emergency and you need an ambulance or you need a fire truck. Instead of somebody having to go all the way out to West Mountain Road, as it is now, I know that it's always been in the Comp Plan that there should be a connection between Sherman and Luzerne. So this is Larry as a private citizen,as a private developer,trying to provide a public benefit, and I think,you know, it's not that, again, that he's trying to get away with a zoning that's different. These lots are much bigger than the adjacent lot. So we think that it's appropriate, in terms of zoning, in terms of the neighborhood,but it just doesn't make sense on this lot, in this location,to do a two acre estate lot, and the real problem is that if he has to live with the two acre density,he can't really justify the infrastructure for all the roads. So the alternative would be to do two cul de sacs coming off of Burnt Hills and not connecting it, which doesn't help him but it doesn't help the Town as well. So we're hoping that this Board will see this as a positive benefit for this part of Town and recommend to the Zoning Board that they grant the variance. I think what I'm hoping is that you'll go a little farther than usual, instead of just saying that you don't see any impacts that can't be mitigated, to be able to say that there are some public benefits to it, because that will help us at the Zoning Board tomorrow. MR. FORD-Jon,you've given us the average lot size. Could you give us the range from the smallest to the largest please. MR. LAPPER-Yes. Tom? MR. CENTER-I believe it's one acre to two and a quarter. MR. KREBS-One to 2.5. MR. CENTER-One to 2.52 is the range,with the median,the mean lot size being 1.45 acres. MR. FORD-Thank you. MR. MAGOWAN-What are these acres I see, .53, .73? MR. CENTER-Okay. Which drawing number are you looking at? C-1-A,would that be C-1-A? MR.SCHONEWOLF-Yes. MR. CENTER-Okay. What we tried to do here, and this is probably more for the Zoning Board,is to show the difference in the one acre lot,versus then C-1-13 would be the two acre lots, and what that really is going to show, and when we talk at the Zoning Board is the amount of area that will be left undisturbed was one of the things we were looking at with those,just to show different layouts, if you will, and really with the type of houses and the type of driveways that we're going to do for this type,they're not going to be long driveways with lots of disturbance. Everything's going to be kept close to the road, and even if you were to go to those, the smallest lots versus the largest lots, the area of disturbance,you still have a lot more green space, and I think that's what we were trying to show when we get to the Zoning Board, and that's why we kind of added these drawings, just to look at. C-1-A is just a one acre,what a one acre one, closer to what the neighbors have. No,it was just to show different versions of what's something that would be similar to the local neighborhood, 47 (Queensbury Planning Board 04/23/2013) something that's compliant with today's Code, and then what we're actually asking for would be, you know,the C-1 layout that we propose. It was just to show, I think there was some discussion to show some different layouts for discussion,and then discuss them basically. MR. SCHONEWOLF-I think you did a good job in laying out the roads. No matter when you have a project of this size you're going to get some NIMBY comments,and I expect that,but when you look at the overall project,the benefit to the Town, and some of its service agencies is huge,compared to the inconvenience on people. Plus cul de sacs area bad design anyhow,and I think the way you did it, it's not a thoroughfare. People really don't have anything to complain about, but they'll get their road plowed a lot faster. They'll get emergency services a lot faster. So I think it's a good job. MR. MAGOWAN-Well, the only thing I kind of see is,you know, I like the way you designed it, and I like the idea of a connector, but Road A and Road B seem to be a lot narrower than the new roads, you know, at the time that they were built. Tom, I mean, have you, and that was one of the comments that was brought up before. MR.CENTER-There's the pre-existing Burnt Hills,and we're using the 50 foot right of way. MR. LAPPER-Has the road profile changed since then? MR. CENTER-No. MR. LAPPER-So the difference I think is here we're looking at the edge of pavement and here we're looking at the width of the right of way. MR. CENTER-Right. Correct. MR. LAPPER-I think that the pavement width is exactly the same,but you're right,it's hard to tell on this map. MR. MAGOWAN-So the roads are the same? MR. CENTER-The road widths are the same. MR. FORD-The pavement is the same. MR. CENTER-The pavement is the same. You're looking at the difference between the right of way versus the pavement. When you're looking into Burnt Hills, you're just looking at the roadway versus the right of way. MR. MAGOWAN-Because it was brought up before, you know, that if you have a car parked on the road, it really narrows down that road. So I just thought,you know, in looking at the new picture, I'm thinking the roads were a little bit wider. MR.LAPPER-You know what it is,Brad? Here's the difference. In the new road,the dark line is the edge of the right of way,the 50 foot right of way, and in the old Burnt Hills,the dark line is the edge of pavement. So it's deceptive. It looks exactly the way you said it,but the right of way's really the same thing,but you can't tell from looking at the map. MR. MAGOWAN-So the road's not anymore narrower than the existing road. MR.LAPPER-No. MR. MAGOWAN-You know, you compared it to Hidden Hills, you know, that's kind of like further down and like I said,by the time you get all the way down that way, most people have decided well I might as well just go down West Mountain Road and get on 19 or come up West Mountain and down Corinth,you know. I mean,by the time you get all the way down there. This is kind of like right in the middle, and this is like,you know, and I'm concerned that the traffic,you know, for the neighborhood,you know,for the existing neighborhood, I'm concerned that it would be great. MR. LAPPER-Well, Larry always,when he designed Burnt Hills and sold that, he had stubbed those roads out, not knowing what he was going to do, but he certainly told people that they were going to connect to more lots at some point in the future. So it's not like that's a surprise to anybody. 48 (Queensbury Planning Board 04/23/2013) MR. SCHONEWOLF-Larry,how old is Burnt Hills. LARRY CLUTE MR. CLUTE-I can't tell you what version of this layout is. It's gone through three, maybe four different Highway Superintendents and we've taken everything into consideration, and that's why I think this is a really good plan, but it's really gone through revision after revision, comment after comment, and taking all those comments into consideration is how we actually came up with that. Will the traffic be increased? Probably so,but limited,to be honest with you,by design. So I think the timeframe's, like I said, 10 years, I think the timeframes has really allowed a very positive design. MR. SCHONEWOLF-I was just surprised that there's two Burnt Hills within 15 miles of each other. I'm surprised the County would use the name. MR. HUNSINGER-I mean, I certainly appreciate the comments that were made at the prior public hearings about, you know, the existing resident's fear for additional traffic. What I would find interesting,though, is to see how much new traffic would really be introduced, because, you know, my speculation would be that the only people that are really going to use the cut through are the people that live there. MR. CLUTE-The people I've talked to,to be honest with you,that's exactly what we're getting. MR. HUNSINGER-So that's like Hidden Hills. MR. CLUTE-Yes. MR. HUNSINGER-I mean, nobody, I mean, I get lost in there too many times to think about using it as a cut through. MR. CLUTE-But the Hidden Hills residences, which is the easterly part of Sherman, they're going to continue to use Veterans or head for 19. If you move to the westerly part of Sherman Avenue, get to the next largest subdivision,you're into Tyneswood. Well, they're going to continue to use West Mountain Road. Nobody's really going to change their traffic pattern to come to center of Sherman, other than the emergency services. This is an immense help to emergency services. To the residences, I don't think their traffic flow is going to increase that much in that subdivision because you're winding around. The people are going to continue to use Veterans or continue to use Sherman. These guys are actually going to benefit, the existing Burnt Hills. I can tell you right now,you put this connector in,they're going to go to 18 this way. MR. HUNSINGER-Conversely,it really benefits the people within the neighborhood. MR. CLUTE-I tend to agree. MR. HUNSINGER-Because what it does is if traffic is bad on one road,you can go the other way, and that's why,you know, for planning purposes, you know, we always, it's in the master plan to have through traffic. MR. FORD-It isn't a thoroughfare. MR. CLUTE-When we sat down and did the Comprehensive,and at that time they were trying to get a, Queensbury as a whole, we were trying to get these crossovers and I was fortunate to be part of one of those committees, and honestly this is how this started, and that was before I even started this subdivision,just trying to get connectors,because a lot of Queensbury, unfortunately, ends in a cul de sac. So it makes it really difficult. MR. HUNSINGER-Well, and that's why the traffic is so bad on the major arteries through Town. MR. CLUTE-I agree. MR.HUNSINGER-Because all the roads are dumping into the same place. 49 (Queensbury Planning Board 04/23/2013) MR. CLUTE-Yes,sir, I agree. MR. TRAVER-One question I had was the SHPO detail. They had asked for additional information and you were sending some in. Did you get confirmation back? MR. LAPPER-Here's what happened with that, Steve. There was some documentation that went to Laura today. What SHPO said is that likely when the final configuration is decided, after this goes to the Zoning Board and then comes back to the Planning Board, they're going to want to see a Phase I on areas of disturbance, but that they're not looking for that at this point. They haven't made the determination that they actually will, but they probably will, and sort of the issue there, the archeological sensitive sites are either Clendon Brook or the river, neither of which are near here,and we've recently done a site at Exit 18 where we had to do,the Taco Bell site,we had to do a full archeological because that was closer to the river, and absolutely nothing came up and we got clearance. So we're hoping on that basis that they may say that this just isn't significant,but if they do, as a condition of this and certainly for SEQR, that if SHPO requires an archeological Phase I, that'll happen once the final disturbance area is determined,and that's an agreement,and that came from SHPO and Laura has that. MR.TRAVER-Thank you. MRS.MOORE-He covered it. I don't know if you want(lost words). MR.HUNSINGER-No. MR. MAGOWAN-Yes, I don't have a problem with the lot size. I mean, the two acres just doesn't fit, but that's not my decision. Like I said,I like the flow,I like what you've done to it. MR. FORD-I like the layout. MR. SCHONEWOLF-I do,too. MR. KREBS-Just to give you a perspective,some of the lots in Masters Common are smaller than one acre. MR. HUNSINGER-Any other questions or comments from the Board? We do have a public hearing scheduled tonight. It was held open from previous meetings. Is there anyone in the audience that wanted to address the Board? PUBLIC HEARING OPEN MR. HUNSINGER-Written comments? MRS. MOORE-We have a public comment. This is from John Reilly at 56 Burnt Hills Drive, Queensbury, NY It's dated April 22nd. "Queensbury Planning Board: As you consider the proposal to connect Sherman Avenue and Luzerne Road via Burnt Hills Drive, I trust that you will give careful review to the information I have presented at previous meetings. Also for your consideration is the attached petition signed by residents of Kylian's Way and Burnt Hills Drive in opposition to the plan. In addition, I have attached documents shared with my neighbors to inform them about this project. Please note that, as I have stated in the past, my objection is not to the development on this property but to the connection of these two major roads through a currently closed neighborhood of 30 homes. The concern of my family and my neighbors is the impact that increased traffic will have on our safety and quality of life, as well as the lack of recognition the Town has given this matter. As a point of comparison I would direct you to the extensive discussion at the April 16th meeting between Board Members and representatives of the senior housing project proposed adjacent to the Ramada Inn which will add fewer than 100 vehicles to a major four-lane roadway. As a final point I would note that residential development in Queensbury has long been a concern of residents. Nearly a decade ago a comprehensive plan was adopted to provide a more specific guideline of how neighborhoods should be developed with a very clear focus on enhancing a livable neighborhood characteristic in residential areas. I believe the Board must acknowledge the fact that at a point, additional vehicle trips through a neighborhood change its character. The construction of this project, in my opinion and that of my neighbors who have signed his petition, will destroy our neighborhood and deliberately create a new heavily traveled thoroughfare. I encourage you, as a Board, to require a comprehensive traffic study that examines 50 (Queensbury Planning Board 04/23/2013) the impact of this project not only on Burnt Hills Drive but on roadways to the north and south, with specific attention to Wintergreen Road and Lupine Lane. Thank you. John Reilly" He provides a letter that he addressed to his neighbors. He provides his highlighted points, and then there are 18 signatures on this,and do you want me to go through his letter to his neighbors? MR. HUNSINGER-I'm sorry? MRS. MOORE-He provided an overview of what he shared with his neighbors. He included that specific letter to his neighbors. I didn't know if you wanted me to read that as well? MR. HUNSINGER-How long is that? MRS.MOORE-It's one page. MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. Yes,you might as well. MRS. MOORE-This is addressed to the residents. It's dated April 13, 2013. It says, "To the Residents and neighbors of Queensbury's Burnt Hills Development: As most of you know, a proposal to construct an extension of Burnt Hills Drive to connect through to Luzerne Road is currently before the Town Planning Board for consideration. As a homeowner on Burnt Hills Drive, I have significant concerns about the negative impact this project will have on our safety and our quality of life. I believe that the Town Planning Board can be convinced that this project should not be approved as it is currently designed. I have prepared a petition to present to the Town Planning Board when this proposal comes before them on Tuesday, April 16th. Although I am taking this step to preserve our neighborhood, I encourage each of you to also contact our Town Planning Board with your thoughts. Here are some items for your consideration: The proposed extension of Burnt Hills Drive will create the only connection from Sherman Avenue to Luzerne Road between West Mountain Road and Veterans Road, a three mile distance. In 2007 the Adirondack/Glens Falls Transportation Council (AGFTC) reported that there were 4761 vehicle trips on average each day on West Mtn.Road at Sherman (This is a six year old study) In 2006,the AGFTC reported 7792 vehicle trips on Western Avenue, the border with Glens Falls. If 10% of this traffic were diverted to the Burnt Hills Drive connector, our neighborhood would see an additional 1250 vehicles per day. The current proposal provides an uninterrupted path for vehicles travelling between Luzerne and Sherman, with a straight half-mile stretch that could easily allow vehicles to reach speeds of 40 mph. Zoning for this property was changed recently from Light Industrial to Residential 2 acre minimum. The proposed project calls for twice the number of housing units allowed by zoning. Planning Board approval of this project will move it to the Zoning Board. It appears that an appearance at the Zoning Board has already been scheduled. As concerned citizens, our opportunity to act on this matter is short and I encourage you to make your voice heard. Thank you. John Reilly" And there's 18 signature on that from 11 addresses. MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. Thank you. Was that the only written comment? MRS.MOORE-Yes. MR. HUNSINGER-Well,we will,obviously leave the public hearing open for Site Plan Review. MR. LAPPER-Yes. MR. HUNSINGER-Let the record show there were no comments received other than the written comments. This is a Long Form. MR. LAPPER-Yes. MR. HUNSINGER-Are members comfortable with pursuing the SEQR? MR. SCHONEWOLF-Yes,go ahead. MR. FORD-Yes. MR.TRAVER-Yes. MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. Whenever you're ready. (Queensbury Planning Board 04/23/2013) MR. KREBS-Okay. Will the proposed action result in a physical change to the project site? MR. FORD-Yes. MR. HUNSINGER-Yes. We said yes,so we've got to talk about that yes. Small to moderate impacts, controlled by project design. MR. FORD-Okay. MR. KREBS-Will there be an effect to any unique or unusual land forms found on the site? MR. HUNSINGER-No. MR. FORD-No. MR. KREBS-Will the proposed action affect any water body designated as protected? MR. HUNSINGER-No. MR.TRAVER-No. MR. KREBS-Will the proposed action affect any non-protected existing or new body of water? MR. HUNSINGER-No. MR. FORD-No. MR. KREBS-Will the proposed action affect surface or groundwater quality or quantity? MR. HUNSINGER-No. MR.TRAVER-No. MR. KREBS-Will the proposed action alter drainage flow or patterns,or surface water runoff? MR. HUNSINGER-No. MR.TRAVER-No. MR. KREBS-Will the proposed action affect air quality? MR. HUNSINGER-No. MR.TRAVER-No. MR. KREBS-Will the proposed action affect any threatened or endangered species? MR. HUNSINGER-No. MR. FORD-No. MR. KREBS-Will the proposed action substantially affect non-threatened or non-endangered species? MR. HUNSINGER-No. MR. FORD-No. MR. KREBS-Will the proposed action affect agricultural land resources? MR. HUNSINGER-No. 52 (Queensbury Planning Board 04/23/2013) MR. FORD-No. MR. KREBS-Will the proposed action affect aesthetic resources? MR. HUNSINGER-No. MR.TRAVER-No. MR. KREBS-Will the proposed action impact any site or structure of historic, pre-historic or paleontological importance? MR. HUNSINGER-No. MR.TRAVER-No. MR. HUNSINGER-Well, don't we have to check yes here because SHPO's requiring additional studies? MR.TRAVER-I think we have to say unknown pending a SHPO review. MR. KREBS-Okay. MR. HUNSINGER-I think it's the first example. Proposed action. So we check other impacts, and say small to moderate, SHPO's requiring. MR.TRAVER-Pending SHPO. MR. HUNSINGER-SHPO's requiring further study. Okay. MR. KREBS-Will the proposed action affect the quantity or quality of existing or future open spaces or recreational opportunities? MR.TRAVER-No. MR. FORD-No. MR. KREBS-Will the proposed action impact the exceptional or unique characteristics of a critical environmental area established pursuant to Subdivision 6NYCRR Part 617.14? MR.TRAVER-No. MR. FORD-No. MR. KREBS-Will there be an effect to existing transportation systems? MR.TRAVER-No. MR. KREBS-Will proposed action affect the community's sources of fuel or energy supply? MR. HUNSINGER-No. MR. FORD-No. MR. KREBS-Will there be objectionable odors,noise,or vibration as a result of the proposed action? MR. HUNSINGER-No. MR. FORD-No. MR. KREBS-Will the proposed action affect public health and safety? MR.TRAVER-No. 53 (Queensbury Planning Board 04/23/2013) MR. HUNSINGER-No. MR. FORD-No. MR. KREBS-Will the proposed action affect the character of the existing community? MR.TRAVER-No. MR. HUNSINGER-No. MR. KREBS-And is there, or is there likely to be, public controversy related to potential adverse environmental impacts? MR.TRAVER-No. MR. HUNSINGER-No. MR. FORD-No. MR. KREBS-I declare a Negative declaration. RESOLUTION WHEN DETERMINATION OF NO SIGNIFICANCE IS MADE RESOLUTION NO. 5-2012, Introduced by Donald Krebs who moved for its adoption, seconded by Paul Schonewolf: WHEREAS,there is presently before the Planning Board an application for: LARIC DEVELOPMENT,LLC,and WHEREAS, this Planning Board has determined that the proposed project and Planning Board action is subject to review under the State Environmental Quality Review Act, NOW,THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED: 1. No Federal agency appears to be involved. 2. The following agencies are involved: NONE 3. The proposed action considered by this Board is Unlisted in the Department of Environmental Conservation Regulations implementing the State Environmental Quality Review Act and the regulations of the Town of Queensbury. 4. An Environmental Assessment Form has been completed by the applicant. 5. Having considered and thoroughly analyzed the relevant areas of environmental concern and having considered the criteria for determining whether a project has a significant environmental impact as the same is set forth in Section 617.11 of the Official Compilation of Codes, Rules and Regulations for the State of New York, this Board finds that the action about to be undertaken by this Board will have no significant environmental effect and the Chairman of the Planning Board is hereby authorized to execute and sign and file as may be necessary a statement of non-significance or a negative declaration that may be required by law. Duly adopted this 23rd day of, April, 2013, by the following vote: AYES: Mr. Schonewolf, Mr. Deeb, Mr. Ford, Mr.Traver, Mr. Krebs, Mr. Magowan, Mr. Hunsinger NOES: NONE MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. Would anyone like to make a recommendation to the Zoning Board? RESOLUTION RE: ZBA RECOMMENDATION FOR AV# 52-2012 LARIC DEVELOPMENT, LLC 54 (Queensbury Planning Board 04/23/2013) The applicant has submitted an application for the following: Subdivision: Applicant proposes subdivision of a 58.8 acre parcel into 36 lots ranging in size from 1.0 to 2.52. Proposal includes interconnection between Sherman Avenue and Luzerne Road as well as boulevard entrance off of Luzerne Road. Subdivision of land requires Planning Board review and approval. Variance: Relief requested from density and lot size requirements of the MDR zone. Planning Board may conduct SEQR review,and provide 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. 52-2012 LARIC DEVELOPMENT, LLC, Introduced by Donald Krebs who moved for its adoption,seconded by Thomas Ford: The Planning Board, based on a limited review, has not identified any significant adverse impacts that cannot be mitigated by the current project proposal. Duly adopted this 23rd day of April, 2013,by the following vote: MR. LAPPER-Would you mind saying something more positive that there are benefits for the connector road? Would you consider that? MR. SCHONEWOLF-Yes,we did during our discussion. MR. LAPPER-But I mean in terms of the resolution,because that's all the Board will see. MR. KREBS-Does everybody on the Board agree that that's? MR. TRAVER-I'm not sure that we've ever made a, I mean,we've normally reserved that, and I think the draft is intended to allow us a place to put concerns. I think by saying that we don't have any concerns that we can't address, when it comes back, I mean, that's as positive as I think we're expected to be at this phase. I mean,they're asking us for a recommendation. MR. SCHONEWOLF-Yes,well,they're entitled to their opinion,too. MR.TRAVER-Yes. MR. SCHONEWOLF-So they should get it clear. MR. TRAVER-Yes, exactly, that we're not seeing any concerns that we don't think can be mitigated, and we'll see what they think. MR. LAPPER-Okay. It doesn't hurt to ask. We appreciate the recommendation. AYES: Mr. Ford, Mr. Schonewolf, Mr. Deeb, Mr.Traver, Mr. Krebs, Mr. Magowan, Mr. Hunsinger NOES: NONE MR. LAPPER-Thanks,everybody. MR. HUNSINGER-Good luck. Before we consider a motion to adjourn, Mr. Salvador had asked if he could address the Board for five minutes. Although I should have asked what it was about. MR. SALVADOR-Thank you. As you know, there's been a lot of discussion recently regarding the jurisdictional boundaries of local government versus the State government on Lake George. Last year Judge Krogmann rendered a decision involving a project in the Town of Lake George wherein he determined that the Town did not have jurisdiction to regulate boat docks and boathouses on 55 (Queensbury Planning Board 04/23/2013) Lake George, and shortly after that the Appellate Division came out with a decision involving a project on Lake Placid in the Town of North Alba, and the Appellate Division, I've got to tell you, it was a very robust decision, and if I could just read to you a couple of paragraphs here. In the case of North Alba, the grim ditch, dealing with local jurisdiction on Lake Placid, the court cited a similarity between Lake Placid and Lake George, and at the same time speaks to a big dissimilarity. Both lakes are navigable waterways. However,they possess a dissimilarity because the title to the land under the navigable waters of Lake Placid is not held by the State in its sovereign capacity. The Appellate court went on to say that only when the State owns title to lands under the water in its sovereign capacity does the State have exclusive jurisdiction, pre-empting local land use laws. This would seem to include site plan approval, variance approval, special use permits, building permits, etc. Now, since that Appellate Division decision came down, the Town of Lake George, well,the thought was that well maybe we can get some legislative activity to get the towns involved in the approval of docks and boathouses, and that didn't get much support. The other thought was to get the local governments around the lake to join together to petition for this sort of thing, and there wasn't much support for that. So Lake George quietly allowed that boat dock to be built, and it has been built, and I understand, in talking around, that Queensbury is also considering not regulating boat docks and boathouses any longer on Lake George. Now this is as it should have been from the very beginning,without any doubt,because the cases that the Appellate Division cite in their decision go back to 1953, long before this Town had any zoning laws. So it should have been clear, and there have been a series of decisions from 1970 through the 80's, stating the same thing, but for some reason we haven't wanted to pay attention to that. So what I'm suggesting in this thing, and Lake George is different from a lot of other lakes. It's clear that the riparian land owner takes title to the mean low water mark,to the mean low water mark. Now we regulate only to the mean high water mark. Check our zoning laws. We regulate only to the mean high water mark. There is that zone between the mean high and the mean low which, it has a vertical distance of 2.46 feet. Now depending on the topography, that can be a very,very short distance, steep, or if it's a shallow bay, like Dunham Bay, it could be a lot of land. So I'm suggesting that the Town, because I believe the Town still has jurisdiction in that zone. The State isn't claiming sovereign ownership of the land above 317.74,which is the mean low. So I'm suggesting an underwater land zoning district. That's what we need, and in that zone we regulate, we define what we want to have. Now right now, I have underwater land that I own. The Town has zoned it residential. Do you really want residential development on underwater land? That's been going on for years, but that's an approach. That's an approach we could have. The Lake George Park Commission is a State agency. They've been regulating boat docks and boathouses for years, and there was a period between 1981 and maybe somewhere around 1988,'89,when this Town did not regulate marinas, boat docks, boathouses, anything, didn't do it. All of a sudden we jumped back into it, and I can't tell you why, but I have been talking about this subject for years. You know that. So anyway, I'll give you this letter where I've summarized all this,and I'm hoping that the Town,I've suggested in a Town Board meeting that the Town conduct a workshop session and decide what we're going to do. MR. HUNSINGER-I know some people have made a distinction between whether or not,you know,a dock is attached to the land, and that apparently had something to do with the decision in Lake George, because it was really a, it wasn't really a dock because it was entirely built in the lake. There was no portion of it that was attached to the land. MR. SCHONEWOLF-I don't know how they can make that distinction. MR. HUNSINGER-I don't,either,but that was. MR.SCHONEWOLF-A dock is a dock whether it goes onto the land or not. MR. HUNS INGER-Yes. I'm just saying,that's been one of the arguments. MR. MAGOWAN-Yes,but since it didn't come to the land,you know,the legalities of it,you know. It didn't attach to the land, but yet because it was in the Town, because the Town didn't own the,you know,he went to the mean low. MR. SALVADOR-The Town regulates 320.2, the mean high, and they ignore that zone between the mean high and the mean low. Now the Park Commission could have addressed this years ago. MR.SCHONEWOLF-But they didn't want to. 56 (Queensbury Planning Board 04/23/2013) MR. SALVADOR-Okay, years ago, but what they did, instead of understanding that the Park Commission had no taxing jurisdiction above the mean low, State agency. The Town has the taxing jurisdiction, the riparian land. Instead of saying that and making it clear, they used a term called usable dock. Isn't that cute? They said we only tax beyond, they measured dock length for taxing. We only measure beyond the point of usable dock. Well, I asked the question, if you have usable dock,then conversely you have unusable dock. What the hell was it built for if it's unusable? MR. SCHONEWOLF-Yes,but you put boat numbers on the dock and call it a boat. MR. SALVADOR-Do you know what I mean? So anyway, they said two feet of water, two feet of water was where the usable dock started. Well,two feet of water is not far from 2.46 feet,you see. So without clearly stating it,they back into it that way. There are other issues also to be addressed in this. The Town boundary,where's the Town boundary in this zone. MR. SCHONEWOLF-I can show you where that is. It's in the water. I can show you where that is. Most of the water out here is in the Town of Bolton. We've been told that. MR. SALVADOR-Yes,the County has said that,yes,the County has said that. MR. SCHONEWOLF-So has the Town of Bolton said that in no uncertain terms. MR. KREBS-Sure,all the taxes for all the islands are, private islands,go to the Town of Bolton. MR. SALVADOR-Yes. MR.TRAVER-I'd like to make a motion to adjourn. MR. SCHONEWOLF-Second. MOTION TO ADJOURN THE QUEENSBURY PLANNING BOARD MEETING OF APRIL 23, 2013, Introduced by Stephen Traver who moved for its adoption,seconded by Paul Schonewolf: Duly adopted this 23rd day of April, 2013, by the following vote: AYES: Mr.Traver, Mr. Krebs, Mr. Magowan, Mr. Ford, Mr. Schonewolf, Mr. Deeb, Mr. Hunsinger NOES: NONE On motion meeting was adjourned. RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED, Chris Hunsinger 57