Loading...
05-21-2013 I (Queensbury Planning Board 05/21/2013) QUEENSBURY PLANNING BOARD MEETING FIRST REGULAR MEETING MAY 21, 2013 INDEX Site Plan No. 78-2012 Jeffrey Schwartz 1. FURTHER TABLING Tax Map No. 308.20-1-2 Site Plan No. 62-2012 Kirk Roberts 2. FURTHER TABLING Tax Map No. 295.6-1-8 Subdivision No. 18-1972 Paul&Denise Przybylo 3. MODIFICATION Tax Map No. 290.18-1-11, 12, 13 ZBA RECOMMENDATION Site Plan No. 12-2013 William&Carol Merritt 6. Tax Map No. 289.17-1-38 Site Plan No. 17-2013 Kathryn Tabner Rev.Trust 18. Tax Map No. 226.12-1-23 Subdivision No. 5-2012 LARIC Development, LLC 22. PRELIMINARY STAGE Tax Map No. 308.12-1-3 Subdivision No. 3-2013 Jennifer Ball 27. PRELIMINARY STAGE Tax Map No. 266.1-1-9 FINAL STAGE Site Plan No. 15-2013 Tribals, LLC 37. Tax Map No. 296.9-1-2 Site Plan No. 18-2013 Nicholas Daigle 40. Tax Map No. 309.13-2-16 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 I (Queensbury Planning Board 05/21/2013) QUEENSBURY PLANNING BOARD MEETING FIRST REGULAR MEETING MAY 21, 2 013 7:00 P.M. MEMBERS PRESENT STEPHEN TRAVER,ACTING CHAIRMAN PAUL SCHONEWOLF DAVID DEEB BRAD MAGOWAN THOMAS FORD GEORGE FERONE,ALTERNATE MEMBERS ABSENT CHRIS HUNSINGER DONALD KREBS MR. TRAVER-Good evening, ladies, and gentlemen. Welcome to the Town of Queensbury Planning Board meeting for Tuesday, May 21St. We have some administrative items. The first being approval of minutes of our meetings of March 19 and March 26, 2013. APPROVAL OF MINUTES March 19, 2013 March 26, 2013 MOTION TO APPROVE THE QUEENSBURY PLANNING BOARD MEETING MINUTES OF MARCH 19TH AND MARCH 26TH, 2013, Introduced by Brad Magowan who moved for its adoption, seconded by George Ferone: Duly adopted this 21St day of May, 2013,by the following vote: AYES: Mr. Magowan, Mr. Deeb, Mr. Ferone, Mr.Traver NOES: NONE ABSTAINED: Mr. Ford, Mr. Schonewolf ABSENT: Mr. Krebs, Mr. Hunsinger MR.TRAVER-Okay. Then we have two other Administrative Items requests for tabling. ADMINISTRATIVE ITEMS: SP 78-2012 JEFFREY SCHWARTZ-FOR FURTHER TABLING CONSIDERATION MR.TRAVER-And I see we have some information in our packet that they're requesting tabling until the July 16 Planning Board meeting. Do we have any other information? MRS. MOORE-1 would just suggest that during your tabling,that you indicate that information is,by the 17th he's indicating that he's going to submit information, and I need to see that information prior to that submission date. I've suggested him to have it by June 10th. So if you, within your motion, you can indicate information needs to be submitted to the Planning Office prior to the 17th submission of information. MR. TRAVER-Well, we should make it prior to the 10th. Otherwise he could submit it on the 16th, right? MRS.MOORE-The week,between the 10th and the 14th. 1 I (Queensbury Planning Board 05/21/2013) MR. FORD-Could we have the rationale for that, please? Because traditionally it's been on the 15th of the previous month? MRS. MOORE-Right. There's information that he needs to submit, and he has not indicated, he has not clearly indicated what information he's submitting on the 17th, and in the past you've received voluminous pieces of information that are irrelevant to what is being reviewed. He needs to respond to engineering comments, Fire Marshal comments and Staff comments. MR. TRAVER-So, if I may, to follow up on Tom's comment, if there are, if what he submits does not fully address engineering,does not the TDE need to review what he submits? MRS. MOORE-He will be reviewing that. In the past we've had pre-submission application meetings. They're due prior to the submission of information. In this case, yes, this applicant's been within the process. However, time has passed, and it would be beneficial to Staff and he himself to submit information that he would like to have reviewed as part of a pre-submission meeting. MR.TRAVER-Okay. So you would ask that the information be submitted no later than June 14th? MRS.MOORE-Yes,for a pre-submission meeting. MR. TRAVER-For a pre-submission meeting, and the results of that meeting would then indicate whether or not. MRS.MOORE-He should submit information on the 17th for the full Board. MR.TRAVER-Gotcha. Okay. Does everyone understand that? MR. MAGOWAN-So you think three days is enough? MRS.MOORE-Yes, I do. That's fine. MR. MAGOWAN-I don't want to overload you. MR.TRAVER-If isn't,it'll just be tabled again. MRS. MOORE-Correct,but I'm trying to give him some specific guidance to provide information that is clear and concise to the Board. MR.TRAVER-Okay. Does someone want to make that motion? RESOLUTION TABLING SP 78-2012 JEFFREY SCHWARTZ MOTION TO TABLE SITE PLAN NO. 78-2012 JEFFREY SCHWARTZ, Introduced by Paul Schonewolf who moved for its adoption,seconded by Thomas Ford: Tabled to the July 16th meeting of the Planning Board,with a June 14th deadline for pre-submission. Duly adopted this 21St day of May, 2013,by the following vote: MR. DEEB-Any specific meeting? Which meeting in July? MR. SCHONEWOLF-Which meeting do you want in July? MR.TRAVER-Well,he's requesting the 16th. MR. SCHONEWOLF-Okay. AYES: Mr. Deeb, Mr. Schonewolf, Mr. Ford, Mr. Magowan, Mr. Ferone, Mr.Traver NOES: NONE ABSENT: Mr. Krebs, Mr. Hunsinger 2 I (Queensbury Planning Board 05/21/2013) SP 62-2012 KIRK ROBERTS-FOR FURTHER TABLING CONSIDERATION MR. TRAVER-And he has a rather cryptic e-mail he exchanged, I see, with the Town, where he says he's still working on a few things. MRS.MOORE-Is Mr. Roberts in the audience today? MR. TRAVER-Yes, is the applicant here tonight to talk about this tabling request? I know there was a recommendation that he attend. MRS. MOORE-He attend, and if he is not here, then this information indicates he still wishes to be tabled another month. MR.TRAVER-Okay. It looks like he's working on an engineering issue still? MRS.MOORE-Yes. MR. TRAVER-Do you think one month is sufficient, or should we table it out for? Have you had any communications with? MRS. MOORE-1 have had no communications other than this e-mail. So it's fine to table it until August. MR.TRAVER-August? MRS.MOORE-Yes. MR.TRAVER-Okay. That would then be. MRS.MOORE-Either August 20th or 27th. MR.TRAVER-20th or 27th. Do we want to go for the 20th? MR. FORD-Yes. MR.TRAVER-Okay. Does someone want to make a motion to that effect? RESOLUTION TABLING SP 62-2012 KIRK ROBERTS MOTION TO TABLE SITE PLAN NO. 62-2012 KIRK ROBERTS, Introduced by Paul Schonewolf who moved for its adoption,seconded by Thomas Ford: Tabled to the August 20th meeting of the Planning Board. Duly adopted this 21St day of May, 2013,by the following vote: AYES: Mr. Ferone, Mr. Magowan, Mr. Ford, Mr. Schonewolf, Mr. Deeb, Mr.Traver NOES: NONE ABSENT: Mr. Krebs MR. TRAVER-Okay. Now we have one item that is a Planning Board recommendation to the Zoning Board of Appeals. PLANNING BOARD RECOMMENDATION TO THE ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS: SUBDIVISION 18-1972 SEQR TYPE II PAUL & DENISE PRZYBYLO OWNER(S) SAME AS APPLICANT, GARY PALMIROTTO ZONING: MDR-MODERATE DENSITY RESIDENTIAL LOCATION BUTTERNUT HILL ROAD SUBDIVISION: APPLICANT PROPOSES TO CONVEY 35.33 SQ. FT. TO LOT 24 (290.18-1-13) FROM 290.18-1-12 TO ACCOMMODATE ENCROACHMENT OF AN EXISTING DRIVEWAY; CONVEY 134.13 SQ. FT. OF LAND TO LOT 23 (290.18-1-11) TO ACCOMMODATE ENCROACHMENT OF THAT LOT ON TO 290.18-1-12. THIS 3 I (Queensbury Planning Board 05/21/2013) RESULTS IN DEFICIENT ROAD FRONTAGE FOR LOT 23. MODIFICATION TO AN APPROVED SUBDIVISION REQUIRES PLANNING BOARD REVIEW AND APPROVAL. VARIANCES: RELIEF FROM ROAD FRONTAGE REQUIREMENTS OF THE MDR ZONE. PLANNING BOARD SHALL PROVIDE A RECOMMENDATION TO THE ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS. CROSS REFERENCE AV 15-13; 3/18/03 MODIFICATION LOTS 8 & 9 APA, CEA, OTHER DEC WETLANDS LOT SIZE 9.04, 1.04,AND 1.17 ACRES TAX MAP NO. 290.18-1-11, 12, 13 SECTION CHAPTER A- 183 DENISE PRZYBYLO, PRESENT MRS.MOORE-Do you want me to read through the project description? MR.TRAVER-Please. MRS. MOORE-This is a subdivision, and in this case the Planning Board shall provide a recommendation to the Zoning Board. The applicant is proposing to convey 35.33 square feet to Lot 24 from Lot 290.18-1-12 to accommodate the encroachment of an existing driveway to convey 134.13 square feet of land from lot 290.18-1-12 to lot 23 to accommodate driveway encroachment. This results in a deficient road frontage for parcel 290.18-1-12. MR.TRAVER-Okay. Good evening. MRS. PRZYBYLO-Hello. MR. TRAVER-Could you state your name for the record? We do record the meetings for the minutes. MRS. PRZYBYLO-Okay. I'm Denise Przybylo. I live at 11 Butternut Hill Drive. MR.TRAVER-Okay. That was my first question, Przybylo? MRS. PRZYBYLO-Przybylo. MR. TRAVER-Przybylo. Okay. I was wondering how you pronounced your name. Thank you. Can you tell us about your request? It's an interesting one. Not a whole lot of property, but can you explain the reason behind it and what you hope to achieve? MRS. PRZYBYLO-Sure. We purchased a lot from Charlie Maine, and there's a piece of property that goes between my lot and my neighbor's lot that has some road frontage. Right now it's 100 feet, and during the survey we found out that the neighbor's driveway is part of the 100 feet. MR.TRAVER-Okay. MRS. PRZYBYLO-So to be neighborly we're going to get a variance, hopefully, so that we can utilize his driveway and not have to move it. MR.TRAVER-Okay and I see on the tax map up there, I think you can see that gap that you speak of. MRS. PRZYBYLO-Yes. It's not a lot,though. It's his entrance to his home. MR. TRAVER-Sure. Okay. Interesting. So we're being neighborly but we're creating the need for a variance. MRS. PRZYBYLO-That's correct. MR.TRAVER-I see. Okay. Is that it? MRS. PRZYBYLO-That's it. MR.TRAVER-Does anyone have any questions for the applicant? MR. FORD-Is there any further development anticipated on either properties that you're aware of? 4 (Queensbury Planning Board 05/21/2013) MRS. PRZYBYLO-Not at this time,no. That's why we're purchasing it,so there won't be. MR.TRAVER-Okay. MRS. PRZYBYLO-Because we're the adjoining lot. We're 23. So that's why we purchased that parcel,so there won't be. MR. DEEB-You have no plans for that nine acres behind it? MRS. PRZYBYLO-No. MR. DEEB-Okay. That makes it easy. MR. TRAVER-Okay. So this is going to reduce the road frontage to 57 feet, where 100 feet is normally required. MRS. PRZYBYLO-Correct. MR. TRAVER-This is a Type II SEQR. A recommendation for the Zoning Board. So the question is, do we see any issues with this from a planning perspective. I do not. Does anyone have any concerns with the recommendation? Any issues that we should pass along? MR. FORD-If it were precedent setting, I would have an issue with it,but I think in this instance, and in all others we look at them individually and on the merit of this, I would be in favor of it. MR.TRAVER-Any other comments or concerns? Would anyone like to make a recommendation? RECOMMENDATION RE: ZBA RECOMMENDATION FOR AV# 15-2013 PRZYBYLO The applicant has submitted an application for the following: Subdivision: Applicant proposes to convey 35.33 sq. ft.to lot 24 (290.18-1-13) from 290.18-1-12 to accommodate the encroachment of an existing driveway; convey 134.13 sq. ft. of land to lot 23 (290.18-1-11) to accommodate driveway encroachment of that lot on to 290.18-1-12. This results in deficient road frontage for lot 23. Modification to an approved subdivision requires Planning Board review and approval. Variances: Relief from road frontage requirements of the MDR zone. Planning Board shall 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. 15-2013 PAUL & DENISE PRZYBYLO, Introduced by Paul Schonewolf who moved for its adoption,seconded by David Deeb: The Planning Board,based on limited review,has not identified any significant adverse impacts that cannot be mitigated with the current project proposal. Duly adopted this 21St day of May, 2013,by the following vote: AYES: Mr. Ferone, Mr. Magowan, Mr. Ford, Mr. Schonewolf, Mr. Deeb, Mr.Traver NOES: NONE ABSENT: Mr. Krebs, Mr. Hunsinger MR.TRAVER-Good luck. MRS. PRZYBYLO-Thank you. 5 (Queensbury Planning Board 05/21/2013) MR. FORD-Here's to neighborliness. MRS. PRZYBYLO-Trying to do the right thing. OLD BUSINESS REQUIRING PUBLIC HEARING: SITE PLAN NO. 12-2013 SEQR TYPE UNLISTED WILLIAM & CAROL MERRITT AGENT(S) JARRETT ENGINEERS OWNER(S) SAME AS APPLICANT ZONING WR-WATERFRONT RESIDENTIAL LOCATION 103 BIRDSALL ROAD APPLICANT PROPOSES REMOVAL OF EXISTING SEASONAL RESIDENCE AND CONSTRUCTION OF A NEW SINGLE FAMILY DWELLING WITH AN ATTACHED GARAGE AND NEW WASTEWATER SYSTEM. FURTHER,A NEW SEAWALL TO BE CONSTRUCTED ALONG THE EXISTING SEAWALL. HARD SURFACING AND FILLING WITHIN 50 FEET OF THE SHORELINE AND CONSTRUCTION WITHIN 50 FEET OF SLOPES GREATER THAN 15% IN A WR ZONE REQUIRES PLANNING BOARD REVIEW AND APPROVAL. CROSS REFERENCE AV 8-13, BOH 3,2013 WARREN CO. REFERRAL APRIL 2013 APA, CEA, OTHER GLEN LAKE CEA, NWI WETLANDS LOT SIZE 0.20 ACRES TAX MAP NO. 289.17-1-38 SECTION 179-6-050, 179-4-010, 179-5-050, 179-6-060 TOM JARRETT&CURT DYBAS, REPRESENTING APPLICANT, PRESENT MR.TRAVER-Good evening. MR. JARRETT-Good evening. Tom Jarrett of Jarrett Engineers. Curt Dybas, the architect, and Bill Merritt, one of the two owners that's in the room tonight, and we were here previously for recommendations to the ZBA for several area variances needed on this project, and you recommended those variances, and the ZBA, after deliberations, granted those variances. There were some comments to the Planning Board, which you will probably see in your packet. Most particularly was to, they wanted you to look at the waterfront, and between Laura and I, Laura and my team,we can probably sort out those comments we think. Essentially,this design is to replace a house that currently sits on Glen Lake, and the house itself would be a new house to current Code, winterized. The Merritt's would retire there. It is slightly larger than the existing camp that's on the site, and that camp is old and tired, it needs replacement, but the total impervious area on the project site would be lessened. We would improve that. You'll note from the statistics that we don't comply with permeability requirements, but that's because Birdsall Road goes right through the property, and if Birdsall Road was not counted, we would comply. There's a number of things that we'd like to point out regarding the waterfront design, which I think is what the Zoning Board wanted you to pay attention to, and if Laura could pull up a plan that's got some notes on it. This site was originally beachfront. Okay and I think that question has been raised with Staff, maybe with the Board, but back in the 60's and 70's it was beachfront, and actually, why don't we pass these photos around. We'll try to pull them up on the screen as well. MR. FORD-That was prior to the existing seawall? MR. JARRETT-Correct. The seawall, you'll see these pictures, was actually a block wall built by the Merritts back in,correct me,'70? BILL MERRITT MR. MERRITT-Yes. MR.JARRETT-Seventy. MR. FORD-So it's pre-70. That's a question that I had. When that was a (lost word)? MR. JARRETT-Right, and Staff Notes said that 2008 photography didn't show it, which is correct, it was back in the 70's when. If you'll scroll down, Laura, I think you'll see some earlier photos that show actually the start of the block wall. Anyway, these are family photos, typical American family that you can look in your front windows here. So this was originally a beach. It has been improved over the years with the addition of the seawall and the lawn area. What we want to do is put in a new wall because the old wall is deteriorating, but we want to put a break in the center and put a small beach in, and that beach would be for the children and elderly, especially the handicap to access the waterfront. There are some health issues in the family, and they feel that a small beach area would be very, very helpful, and it more or less restores some of the beach that was there 6 (Queensbury Planning Board 05/21/2013) originally. The existing wall, as I said, needs replacement. It's actually unsafe in spots, and the new wall would meet DEC standards for work within a jurisdictional water body. Well,there's the block wall that was initiated. There's no date on that photo, but the wall is right here, and then this is lawn behind the beach area. Now you will see engineering comments in your package, and there are four comments. Three of them are basically clarifications, asking us to clarify the drawings. One is a comment stating that we need to obtain a permit from the Health Department for our well which is proposed near the lake. It is too close to the stormwater management system on our property, and actually we have three options for dealing with that comment. One is to go to the Health Department, which I'm reluctant to do because it is time and money and the Health Department really didn't want to see us last time we had to do this on a project. Number Two is for the Town to negotiate a waiver in general for these existing properties that are small and need to replace infrastructure on the lake, and Number Three is to abandon the stormwater management on the shoreline and just call it a landscaping buffer, which, as you know, we've done before on Cleverdale with this Board, and I don't particularly like it, but if we have to do it, we'll do it. So we're at your mercy on that one. We'll take direction from you. MR. FORD-Has there been an attempt to make contact as per the recommendation relative to correspondence with the Department of Health? MR. JARRETT-I've placed a phone call with them. We have not submitted anything formally. Go ahead, Laura. MRS. MOORE-I can add something, that I did talk to our Building and Codes today, and that issue has been handled in the past with Building and Codes,so,at the local level,in reference. MR. FORD-That's what I was wondering about. MR. JARRETT-So what should we do from this point on? What are you going to advise the Board, I guess? MRS.MOORE-So when the applicant is submitting for their building permit and information such as that, they're working with our Building and Code Inspectors at that time, in reference to the distance between the septics and the infiltration devices and it'll be addressed at that time. MR. FORD-Okay. MR.JARRETT-So I will respond that way in our response to engineering comments. MR. FORD-Thank you. MR. DEEB-It will be resolved,then. MRS.MOORE-It will be resolved,yes. MR. JARRETT-Previously when we had this situation arise on Glen Lake, a different situation but similar in concept, the Health Department supported our waiver, but we went through a long involved process to get there,as you can well imagine dealing with agencies. So I'd prefer not to go there if we don't have to. Stepping back and looking at the overall waterfront design, could you go to the colorized plan, Laura. There's a little bit of confusion over what the Zoning Board saw and it was my fault, totally. The Zoning Board was correct in their raising the issue, and I'll clarify it with you right now. There was no intent to have new beach go all the way up significantly into the site. The intent is actually to have a small, see where the (lost word) area is here? That's the break in the seawall, and right up to the end of the break in the seawall is where we intend to put a little bit of sand for swimmers. Above that there's a rain garden system and above that is a ramp of lawn getting up to grade right there. MR. FORD-What are the dimensions of that sandy area? MR.JARRETT-It's approximately 10 to 12 feet wide. I'd have to check that, and approximately eight to ten feet deep,depth meaning into the site,on that order. MR. FORD-Because we're dealing with such a sensitive area, I would hope that we could be very specific,not approximate. 7 (Queensbury Planning Board 05/21/2013) MR. JARRETT-We can stipulate right now what size we would make it. I think the Merritt's are not looking for a large beach. MR. FORD-I understand,but I don't want 10 feet to become 12 or 14 or something like that? MR. JARRETT-No, actually we have to document this with the Corps of Engineers and the DEC as well as the Town, too. So I'm not sure how I want to handle that right now. We can say at the maximum 12 foot wide and a maximum of 10 foot deep,if that meets with the Board's satisfaction. MR.TRAVER-How do people feel about that? MR. MAGOWAN-It's all right with me. MR. FORD-Thank you. MR.TRAVER-Okay. MR. JARRETT-Now, moving closer to the house, there is a patio plan right in front of the house which is elevated somewhat from the lake, but it's at grade. It's flush with grade in that area. It's not an exposed patio, an exposed deck. It won't be visible from the lake, but it is impervious surface. It will be built out of permeable pavers. It is a functional area. The Merritt's have said that if they, if this Board was not comfortable with that patio, they'd reduce it and leave it as lawn area, which is not as conducive to tables and chairs, but they would make it smaller if need be, but it is a flush with grade patio of permeable pavers. We've applied a 10 percent credit for stormwater and zoning, I think for both. Anyway, for stormwater we applied a 10 percent credit, which is what the Town has determined, is appropriate for permeable pavers of this nature. There are several large trees in front of the existing camp, and they will be preserved. We're going to protect those. You may have seen it on the plan where we're protecting those during construction, and we will well around them so we do not impact their roots, and I think I'll open it to questions, unless anyone on our team wants to jump in with something I forgot. MR.TRAVER-Okay. Members of the Board have questions for the applicant? MR. FORD-There's a birch,two maples, and what is the fourth tree that'll be preserved? MR. JARRETT-We've got two birch, two maples, and then an evergreen hedge along the eastern side. We're going to move a couple of those shrubs and that hedge,but they'll be maintained. I was just going to clarify. There's a 13 inch birch, a 15 inch maple, another, looks like 13 inch maple, and a 13 inch birch again. MR. FORD-There was just one of them I couldn't read. MR.JARRETT-I'm not sure I can read it either. MR. TRAVER-How does the Board feel about the patio of permeable pavers? Does anyone have any questions or concerns about that? MR. MERRITT-Is there any concern with the runoff from that? If that's permeable it should go right in. MR. JARRETT-Number One, it's permeable. So much of it will penetrate into the ground right there within the patio. The rest is being managed in that rain garden system in front. MR. DEEB-What kind of difference would there be if it was just grass,do you have any idea? MR. JARRETT-Well, from a stormwater perspective, we're only allowed to take 10% credit, so 90% of it is impervious when we build it this way, and function, it probably is going to take more stormwater than 10%. Did I answer your question? But all the runoff from that patio,whether it be lawn or permeable paver,is going to be collected in those rain gardens in the front. MR. MAGOWAN-No, I think you've done a great job designing this for the lot, and I'm, you know, familiar with it. So I like the plan and the layout, and I don't have a problem with the permeable pavers. 8 I (Queensbury Planning Board 05/21/2013) MR.TRAVER-Okay. MR. FORD-I would agree with that,as long as there's the rain gardens. MR. JARRETT-Well, it sounds like we've resolved that issue, or will resolve it. So we will definitely have that stormwater management system along the lakeshore. It'll be a buffer anyway, but I want to make it a stormwater management system. MR. FORD-I like the sound of that. MR.TRAVER-Any other questions,comments,concerns that members of the Board have? MR. SCHONEWOLF-Items 10 and 11, did you strike those out of your proposal, Laura, or your motion? It looks like someone drew a line through it or under it. MR. DEEB-I think that's just the copy,wasn't it? MRS. MOORE-That's just a copy. That is not a strike out. Items 10 and 11 still stand. They're not strike outs. MR. SCHONEWOLF-So these conditions are still as they were, except that we've added a 10 by 12 foot beach,a maximum beach area. MR. TRAVER-Now this is an Unlisted SEQR, but did we not do SEQR when we made a recommendation to the Zoning Board? MRS. MOORE-No. We did not. It's uncoordinated review. That's fine. It's an uncoordinated review, but it's a Type II,that's fine. You did,you just do SEQR now under the Short Form. MR.TRAVER-Okay. All right. So, Short Form SEQR. MRS.MOORE-If you want to do your public hearing,and I do have public comments. MR. TRAVER-Right. Thank you. Yes. We have the public hearing on this application is open. Are there members of the audience that want to comment on this application? Yes, sir. Come up to the table and state your name for the record and make your comments. PUBLIC HEARING OPEN STEVE MILLER MR. MILLER-Good evening. Steve Miller. I live behind the Merritts, and I'd like to say that my wife and I oppose this project. Number One,because of a previous variance that was granted for relief to our well. It's a shallow uncased well. Currently we have 104 feet of separation to their septic for seasonal camp. The relief would give them 72 feet for a full time residence, and I hear tonight that they're worried about the separation of their well and stormwater, and yet our well has been disregarded to their septic system, and we're also opposed to this because of the magnitude of the house. It's certainly going to affect our view, the view we purchased with the property. A view we pay taxes on,and also we oppose the handling of the meeting. I think Mr.Jackoski should have done a better full disclosure of his living in the neighborhood in relationship to the applicant, myself, and his status in the neighborhood, and so we oppose the way the meeting was handled, and we would just like to go on record with that,but mostly we're concerned about the relief to our well, a shallow uncased well. Their septic is way too close, and yet they don't want to bring in the Board of Health because of their well and drainage. MR. TRAVER-So your well, there's a separation issue between your well. First of all, could you tell us where you are,where your home is in relation to the applicant? MR. MILLER-It would be to the bottom of the stream,to the lower right corner. MR.TRAVER-Lower right corner. Okay. So you're on the opposite side of the road. MR. MILLER-We're a back lotter. We're on the opposite side of the lake from this property. 9 (Queensbury Planning Board 05/21/2013) MR.TRAVER-Okay. MR. MILLER-And our well is very close to that lower right hand corner of their property. It's a shallow uncased well. It's been there for years. We've had it tested. We have good water. MR.TRAVER-Okay. MR. FORD-How frequently do you have it tested? MR. MILLER-We just had it tested when this came up, and then usually annually or every other year. MR. TRAVER-And your concern is that with this application there is a change in the separation, there would be proposed to be a change? MR.MILLER-Yes,there would be a change from 104 feet from a seasonal residence, from a seasonal residence septic, 104 feet currently, to a full time residence and from what they said, the kids, the family, the visitors are going to be up, of full time residents, of 72 feet. Now they've added a so called enhanced system, a plastic box full of peat moss,which brings the sewage up to the surface. It drains in,but it's still 72 feet from our well, our shallow uncased well MR.TRAVER-Okay. Anything else? MR. MILLER-And just the magnitude of the building, the garage, right on the road, and the view we'll lose,the view we pay taxes on,and it's just,it's an enormous house. MR. MAGOWAN-Is that your house right there? MR.TRAVER-In the lower right corner,across the road is where he's located. MR. MILLER-It's actually under the trees right there, right where the hand is right there. MR.TRAVER-Anything else? MR. MILLER-No, we're just very, and thanks for your time,but we're just very concerned about our well, and we're very worried about it and I just really, you know, and to hear tonight that they're hesitate to bring in the Board of Health to look at things, about runoff and their well. Maybe the Board of Health should look at this again and look at everything, the drainage, the runoff, the reduced separation to our well. MR. TRAVER-Well, you should know, if you don't already, that the Town Engineer has raised a question regarding that, which is as of tonight is not resolved, and there's been some discussion about how to go about resolving that, but as of now, it has yet to be resolved and is required to be. They need Town Engineer signoff before this can be approved. MR. MILLER-Okay. I had not heard that. MR.TRAVER-Yes,in fact,that will be in the motion. MR. MILLER-Okay. MR. TRAVER-So they do need to meet the engineering standards, and if that's an issue, than the Town Engineer will be aware of that. MR. MILLER-Yes,and are these,would the plan be for public view? MR.TRAVER-I'm sorry? MR. MILLER-Would the plan, or ultimate plan, whatever the engineer comes up with, is that available for? MR. TRAVER-Well their application is,yes, available at the Planning Office. You can certainly look at all the paperwork and everything that we have. 10 (Queensbury Planning Board 05/21/2013) MR. MILLER-Okay. MR. TRAVER-And should changes be required as a result of engineering or anything else, there will be final submitted plans for signature by Town officials before they can go forward, and those also are a matter of public record. All right? MR. MILLER-Okay. Thank you for your time. MR.TRAVER-Thank you. MR. FORD-Thanks for coming in. MR.TRAVER-Anyone else have any comment? MRS. MOORE-Mr. Chairman,I do have some public comment. I don't recall us reading those into the record at the last meeting. MR.TRAVER-Okay. MRS. MOORE-I have one, it's dated April 2nd. "To Whom It May Concern: We are the most immediate neighbors of Carol and Bill Merritt. The Gwinup and Merritt families have been neighbors on Glen Lake for over 40 years. The Merritt's have kept us informed of their building plans each step as they progressed. We approve of their plans and the variances. We believe it will be an overall improvement to our neighborhood and the environment. Sincerely, Dan and Kathy Gwinup" Also dated April 2nd. "Dear Mr. Brown and Committee: As long time stewards of Glen Lake, we and the Merritts have always felt the health of the lake is of foremost importance. Waterfront ownership has its own ethical environmental responsibility. It is apparent that the Merritts agree and have taken this responsibility into account in their planning. With that in mind, we unequivocally support their requests for a few variances of relief from setbacks and a minor FAR variation. The site development will, in fact, make the "neighborhood" much improved in terms of septic and stormwater management. Please grant their requests tonight so they can proceed with their plans to build their new home on the lake. Sincerely,Wally Hirsch Kate Hirsch" Dated April 1St. Attention to Craig Brown -"Please forward these comments to the appropriate Board concerning the proposed Merritt residence. We understand that Bill and Carol Merritt are asking to replace their seasonal camp with a year-round residence. As twenty year summer residents and neighbors, we are speaking in favor of the proposal, although we cannot attend the meeting. Conversions of seasonal residences to year-round are constantly occurring on the lake. This is inevitability as the population ages and as lakefront values increase. The Planning and Zoning boards are faced with the difficult challenge to strike a balance between acceptable variances from the code and those requests that are simply unreasonable. I believe that the key to acceptability concerns the issue of long term, permanent solutions versus short term fixes. I find the requests asked for by Bill and Carol to be reasonable based upon the following considerations. 1. Many of the original lots that were sold when the lake community was initially formed in the 50's are now considered substandard and non-conforming. These long ago established lots should be allowed some degree of leeway as they are brought before the Board. The community's goal should be to allow a result that is both palatable for the owners and also provides an environmentally sustainable project which will ultimately serve to protect the adjacent aquatic resource. 2. This is not a self-imposed hardship. I believe that the Merritt family owned the land prior to enactment of many of the current land use regulations and I believe that the proposed plan will improve many of the currently non-conforming issues and be a benefit to the character of the area. 3. Replacement and upgrade of the septic system is an obvious benefit. Camp to year round conversions serves to improve the long term water quality of the lake. 4. There really are few alternatives to this proposal. Gerrymandering the footprint to bring the building more into compliance may result in an awkward and unpalatable plan for the owners. Denying the proposal would serve only to postpone the review as the site will eventually be built upon by either the Merritt family or whomever they eventually sell the land to. S. Lakefront living puts neighbors in close contact with each other and disputes over real or perceived issues can often develop. I am sure that some neighbors will speak out against, as well as in support of the proposal. It would be interesting to ask any commenter to divulge any variances that thev have sought or obtained, (I received a 4 ft. height variance on my garage seven years ago.) Thank you for your consideration. Russell Pittenger,Lin Whittle 139 Birdsall Road" This is dated April 2nd. "Dear Mr. Brown: I am a"long time" resident and neighbor of Bill&Carol Merritt on Birdsall Road. I am familiar with their building project on Birdsall Road and I am supportive of it. I support their project for many 11 (Queensbury Planning Board 05/21/2013) reasons, mainly because it improves the present situation and is beneficial to the lake and our neighborhood. I urge the town to approve the Merritt's project. Colleen Beadleston" An e-mail, and it's dated April 3rd as well. "This letter is to express our total support on the proposed construction of a year round home; 103 Birdsall Road, Queensbury, NY. We feel that the project is an asset to the neighborhood and the area as a whole. The improvements to the land will drastically improve the ecology and address fully any environmental concerns. We ask that you do everything in your power to expedite any and all permits and variances that they request. If you are looking for any additional feedback please feel free to contact us personally. Thank you. Steven Joiner, Margaret Berrigan, Debbie Berrigan 99 Birdsall Rd. Queensbury, NY 12804" MR.TRAVER-Is that it? MRS.MOORE-That's it. MR.TRAVER-Thank you very much. Okay. We'll close the public hearing. PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED MR. TRAVER-I have a question on the waivers. They are, in our draft resolution, are you requesting waivers for stormwater management,grading,landscaping,and lighting plans? MR.JARRETT-No. Lighting, I don't think,is applicable to residential properties. MRS. MOORE-That's correct,but there's a couple of these items that I wanted to check as well. So as you read through, I'll. MR.JARRETT-We're applying for no waivers. MRS.MOORE-So we're going to remove Item Number Three from that draft resolution. MR. TRAVER-Okay. Thank you. I just wanted to clarify that for benefit of our acting Secretary. Are we then ready for SEQR,members of the Board? MR. FORD-Could we have a further addressing of this issue that was raised by one of the,please? MR.JARRETT-Yes,I'd like to clarify the record,if nothing else. MR. FORD-Please,the 72 feet compared to the 104 feet. MR. JARRETT-Absolutely. Number One, this project's already been vetted by two Boards thoroughly, the Town Board for wastewater variances, and the Zoning Board for area variances. The well that we're, wells, excuse me, that we're talking about are two separate wells. The issue that I'd prefer not to bring to the New York State Department of Health is the separation to our own well,because it's basically a bureaucratic exercise and the Health Department's told us they like our design and they don't really want to have to go through that process, but they're being told to go there and get a waiver. Our well, and we can bring up the other plan if need be, but our well, leave it right there for the moment, Laura, if you would. Our well is right here at the lakefront proposed, which is near our stormwater system, okay. That's the separation distance. Our own well to our own stormwater system is the question that the engineer has raised. We have double protections for this well. Number One,we're putting in 50 feet of grouted casing,which is the standard uses the Health Department uses to define it as a deep well,which is a protected well. Number Two, we're putting a Bentonite seal around the top six feet of that well casing to prevent surface water intrusion into the aquifer that is supplying water, which is a belt and suspenders approach that's not required by the Health Department. We've used it in a number of cases. We find it very effective. The Miller's well is back here on the slope above Birdsall Lane,and it is a little closer, 100 feet roughly they're saying,versus 70 feet,to our proposed wastewater system,which is right there. The Town Board reviewed this thoroughly, and they felt that this new system was protective of their well. MR. FORD-Acting as the Board of Health? MR. JARRETT-Acting as the local Board of Health. In fact, they agreed with our determination that our system is discharging at a lower elevation than their well is taking water in. 12 I (Queensbury Planning Board 05/21/2013) MR. MAGOWAN-Well, that's what I was going to ask, because I know there's that tire behind there, and they've got a shower well. I was going to ask Mr. Miller how deep his was. MR. JARRETT-It's been reported to us as 16 feet. I think Mr. Miller reported to the Zoning Board he's not sure exactly how deep it is,but the Zoning Board vetted that issue as well. They were very concerned with that issue. They discussed it at length. Both Boards discussed that at length but its two separate issues. One is our well. One is their well. MR.TRAVER-Right. MR. FORD-We understand that. MR. TRAVER-Yes. Well, Mr. Miller was trying to confuse the issue, maybe not purposely,but he was confusing the issue because we're not afraid of reviewing this without the permit at all. We've already reviewed their well with the local Board of Health and we're willing to review our well with the New York State Department of Health. It's just another step in a lot of bureaucracy. MR. JARRETT- No, I think their issue clearly was the separation with their well and the new septic, and this is not an issue now that's already been vetted by the two prior, especially at the Town Board. MR.TRAVER-And it's being looked at in terms of engineering as well. MR.JARRETT-Yes and the Town Engineer did not raise that as an issue. MR.TRAVER-Okay. Thank you for that clarification. MR.JARRETT-Does that help? MR.TRAVER-Okay. Short Form you said,right Laura? MRS.MOORE-Yes. MR.TRAVER-"Does the action exceed any Type I threshold in 6 NYCRR Part 617.4?" MR. DEEB-No. MR. FORD-No. MR. TRAVER-"Will the action receive coordinated review as provided for Unlisted Actions in 6 NYCRR, Part 617.6?" MR. MAGOWAN-No. MR. FORD-No. MR. TRAVER-"Could the action result in any adverse effects associated with the following: C1. Existing air quality, surface or ground water quality or quantity, noise levels, existing traffic patterns,solid waste production or disposal,potential for erosion,drainage or flooding problems?" MR. MAGOWAN-No. MR. FORD-No. MR. TRAVER-"C2. Aesthetic, agricultural, archeological, historic, or other natural or cultural resources; or community or neighborhood character?" MR. FORD-No. MR. DEEB-No. MR. TRAVER-"C3. Vegetation, fauna, fish, shellfish or wildlife species, significant habitats, or threatened or endangered species?" 13 (Queensbury Planning Board 05/21/2013) MR. MAGOWAN-No. MR. FORD-No. MR. TRAVER-"C4. A community exists plans or goals as officially adopted, or a change in use or intensity of use of land or other natural resources?" MR. FORD-No. MR. MAGOWAN-No. MR. TRAVER-"C5. Growth, subsequent development or related activities likely to be induced by the proposed action?" MR. FORD-No. MR. MAGOWAN-No. MR.TRAVER-"C6. Long term,short term,cumulative or other effects not identified above?" MR. DEEB-No. MR. FORD-No. MR.TRAVER-"C7. Other impacts (including changes in use of either quantity or energy)?" MR. MAGOWAN-No. MR. FORD-No. MR. TRAVER-"Will the project have an impact on the environmental characteristics that caused the establishment of a Critical Environmental Area?" MR. FORD-No. MR. MAGOWAN-No. MR. TRAVER-"Is there or is there likely to be controversy related to potential adverse environmental impacts?" MR. FORD-No. MR. DEEB-No. MR.TRAVER-Then I will make a motion for a Negative SEQR declaration. RESOLUTION WHEN DETERMINATION OF NO SIGNIFICANCE IS MADE RESOLUTION NO. 12-2013, Introduced by Stephen Traver who moved for its adoption, seconded by Brad Magowan: WHEREAS,there is presently before the Planning Board an application for: WILLIAM&CAROL MERRITT,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 14 ittj I (Queensbury Planning Board 05/21/2013) 3. The proposed action considered by this Board is Unlisted in the Department of Environmental Conservation Regulations implementing the State Environmental Quality Review Act and the regulations of the Town of Queensbury. 4. An Environmental Assessment Form has been completed by the applicant. 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 21St day of, May, 2013,by the following vote: AYES: Mr. Ferone, Mr. Magowan, Mr. Ford, Mr. Schonewolf, Mr. Deeb, Mr.Traver NOES: NONE ABSENT: Mr. Krebs, Mr. Hunsinger MR. TRAVER-Okay, and next with the resolution, are Board members feeling comfortable moving forward on this application? MR. FORD-Yes. MR. DEEB-Yes. MRS. MOORE-There's some items on that list that,just briefly go through again. Item Number Four, the limits of clearing will constitute a no cut buffer zone. Do you want to look at, there's a planting plan that indicates trees to remain,or you can remove Number Four altogether,but it's not,because this application does not have a no cut buffer zone on it, you might want to clarify that we're discussing the trees that are to remain on the site. MR. TRAVER-Maybe we could replace Number Four with the applicant will follow the submitted landscaping plan? Will that work? MR. FORD-That included two birch,two maples,and the shrubs. MR.TRAVER-Well,that's marked on the plan. MR. FORD-Yes,it's on the plan. MR.TRAVER-Okay,and did you have something else? MRS. MOORE-I did. Number Five is the sanitary sewer connection. That should be removed, or stricken. MR.JARRETT-We'd love it if we could. MR.TRAVER-Yes,and that's already been addressed. So we think you can delete Number Five. MRS.MOORE-Yes,because that doesn't,that's a municipal connection. MR.JARRETT-That's a municipal connection. MRS.MOORE-That's not relevant to this application. MR.TRAVER-Right,which they may have some day, but we don't have. MR.JARRETT-Bill's agreeing right now. 15 (Queensbury Planning Board 05/21/2013) MRS. MOORE-And then you have, your remaining item, I believe, was you were going to, I believe; provide a condition about the size of the beach. Do you still want to do that? MR.TRAVER-Yes. MR. SCHONEWOLF-Ten by twelve max. MR. FORD-Ten by twelve. MR.TRAVER-Maximum. Yes. MRS.MOORE-And confirm that your 12 foot width and 10 foot depth. Is that correct? MR.TRAVER-Yes, I think the maximum is what the applicant offered. MR.JARRETT-Maximum is the wording we used. MR.TRAVER-Yes. Okay. Very good. Then are we ready to make a motion? MR. SCHONEWOLF-I think so. MR.TRAVER-Okay. RESOLUTION APPROVING SP #12-2013 WILLIAM&CAROL MERRITT A site plan application has been made to the Queensbury Planning Board for the following: Site Plan: Applicant proposes removal of existing seasonal residence and construction of a new single family dwelling with an attached garage and new wastewater system. Further, a new seawall will be constructed along the existing seawall. Hard surfacing and filling within 50 feet of the shoreline and construction on slopes greater than 15% in a WR zone requires Planning Board review and approval. PB provided a recommendation to the ZBA on 4/16/13; the ZBA approved the variance requests on 4/17/13; A public hearing was advertised and held on 5/21/2013; This application is supported with all documentation, public comment, and application material in the file of record; MOTION TO APPROVE SITE PLAN NO. 12-2013 WILLIAM & CAROL MERRITT, Introduced by Paul Schonewolf who moved for its adoption,seconded by Brad Magowan: As per the resolution prepared by Staff. 1) Pursuant to relevant sections of the Town of Queensbury Zoning Code-Chapter 179-9-080, the Planning Board has determined that this proposal satisfies the requirements as stated in the Zoning Code; 2) The requirements of the State Environmental Quality Review Act have been considered and the Planning Board has adopted a SEQRA Negative Declaration; 3) 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, 4) The applicant will follow the submitted landscape plan; 5) There will be a maximum beach area of 10 foot deep by 12 foot wide; 6) If curb cuts are being added or changed a driveway permit is required. A building permit will not be issued until the approved driveway permit has been provided to the Planning Office; 7) Engineering sign-off required prior to signature of Zoning Administrator of the approved plans; 16 (Queensbury Planning Board 05/21/2013) c 8) 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 work. b) The project NOT (Notice of Termination) upon completion of the project; 9) The applicant must maintain on their project site,for review by staff: a) The approved final plans that have been stamped by the Town Zoning Administrator. These plans must include the project SWPPP (Storm Water Pollution Prevention Plan) when such a plan was prepared and approved; b) The project NOI and proof of coverage under the current NYSDEC SPDES General Permit,or an individual SPDES permit issued for the project. 10)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. 11)The applicant must meet with Staff after approval and prior to issuance of Building Permit and/or the beginning of any site work. 12)Subsequent issuance of further permits, including building permits is dependent on compliance with this and all other conditions of this resolution; 13)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 21St day of May, 2013,by the following vote: MR. SCHONEWOLF-Number Five is removed. Number Six I want to add to the end of it,that we will have a maximum beach area of 10 deep wide by 12 feet wide. MR.TRAVER-Any discussion? MRS. MOORE-I just want clarification. Number six, are you removing the language that says if curb cuts are being added and adding language there about the beach? MR.TRAVER-Yes, I don't think they're proposing a driveway. MRS. MOORE-I don't believe they are, either. I just want to make sure that it's clear that six is being re-worded to the beach. MR. SCHONEWOLF-Yes, I think that was the thought. MRS.MOORE-That was the intent. MR.TRAVER-Okay. I think that they could comply with that,but,all right. AYES: Mr. Ford, Mr. Schonewolf, Mr. Deeb, Mr. Magowan, Mr. Ferone, Mr.Traver NOES: NONE ABSENT: Mr. Krebs, Mr. Hunsinger MR.JARRETT-Thank you very much. MR.TRAVER-Good luck. 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 APPLICANT PROPOSES REMOVAL OF EXISTING RESIDENCE AND CONSTRUCTION OF A NEW RESIDENCE. FILLING AND HARD SURFACING WITHIN 50 FEET OF THE SHORELINE AND CONSTRUCTION WITHIN 50 FEET OF SLOPES GREATER THAN 15% IN A WR ZONE REQUIRES 17 ittj I (Queensbury Planning Board 05/21/2013) PLANNING BOARD REVIEW AND APPROVAL. CROSS REFERENCE AV 11-13, SP 20-95,AV 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 MR.TRAVER-Good evening. MR. LAPPER-Good evening. For the record, Jon Lapper and Tom Hutchins. We were here before you on this project last month for your recommendation, before we went to the Zoning Board for some area variances, which were granted, and now we're back to talk about the Site Plan Review. The Zoning Board asked us to move the house farther from the lake by five feet,which we were able to do, and this was that application you'll recall where the bunkhouse was what provided privacy from this lot and also the neighbors from the Sans restaurant, and there were some neighbor's letters that acknowledged that, that they wanted it to stay, and on that basis the Zoning Board granted the area variances. So we're moving the house farther from the property line on the south side, which was pretty nonconforming, farther from the lake, putting in a compliant septic system, and we've got a Town engineering letter which really only had three issues. One was to augment some stormwater controls during construction, which Tom did, to verify that the neighbors don't have wells, and we did verify the Sans and the neighbors on the north and the south all use lake water, and the last issue was a compliance issue about using permeable pavement on the driveway, and that's,we don't believe that that applies,that regulation,but what we're hoping is that we could get approval subject to working that through with the Town Engineer. MR.TRAVER-If I remember,as I recall,we had quite a bit of discussion about that. MR. LAPPER-Yes. MR.TRAVER-You were going to be parking on that. MR. LAPPER-The issue is that that parking area is within 25 feet from the septic system. We don't think that that applies because it doesn't apply under the DEC regulations for residences with this little disturbance,but our position is that if the Town Engineer insists that we can make the parking area smaller and change that surface to satisfy the engineer, but we're expecting we'll be able to work it out,and that's pretty much the story. MR. TRAVER-So other than moving the footprint of the house further away from the line and the lake,the applicant basically is as we reviewed the last time? MR. LAPPER-Exactly. MR.TRAVER-Okay. Do members of the Board have questions,concerns of the applicant? MR. FORD-The only question I have is whether or not, not this applicant, but when somebody is going to just come in for approval of a roof over that whole end of the peninsula. MR.TRAVER-A roof over the whole end of the peninsula? MR. FORD-It's really getting built in close. MR.TRAVER-Yes,that's true. MR. SCHONEWOLF-They're still not done with the Sans yet. MR.TRAVER-Yes,they're still struggling with that project. MR. FORD-We'll deal with that. MR. TRAVER-Yes. They're running against a clock, as I recall. I had the same question for Staff. This is an Unlisted SEQR,but we did review this and sent it to the ZBA. Did we do SEQR? MRS. MOORE-You did not do SEQR at that time. You'll have to do it at this time because it's an uncoordinated review. 18 (Queensbury Planning Board 05/21/2013) 14 MR. LAPPER-I thought this was a Type II? MRS.MOORE-1 have it Unlisted,and you completed a SEQR form as well. MR.TRAVER-Yes, I have the application that we looked at in April shows it as Unlisted as well. MR. LAPPER-Okay. So, Long Form, Short Form? MRS.MOORE-1 have Short Form. MR.TRAVER-Short Form. MRS. MOORE-And I will look into it, because I believe there's a, I'll look at the DEC for Type II because construction of single family houses usually falls under a Type II. So I will look into it again. There's no reason not to complete it at this time,but I will clarify that. MR. TRAVER-Okay. Thank you. In the meantime we do have a public hearing on this project. Are there members of the audience that want to speak to this project? No? Okay. PUBLIC HEARING OPEN MR.TRAVER-Hearing none, I will close the public hearing. PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED MR.TRAVER-Do members of the Board feel comfortable going ahead with SEQR? MR. FORD-Yes. MR.TRAVER-Okay. Then we'll get some volunteer to do the Short Form, I guess. MR.TRAVER-"Does the action exceed any Type I threshold in 6 NYCRR Part 617.4?" MR. DEEB-No. MR. FORD-No. MR. TRAVER-"Will the action receive coordinated review as provided for Unlisted Actions in 6 NYCRR, Part 617.6?" MR. FERONE-No. MR.FORD-No. MR. TRAVER-"Could the action result in any adverse effects associated with the following: C1. Existing air quality, surface or ground water quality or quantity, noise levels, existing traffic patterns,solid waste production or disposal,potential for erosion,drainage or flooding problems?" MR. MAGOWAN-No. MR. FORD-No. MR. TRAVER-"C2. Aesthetic, agricultural, archeological, historic, or other natural or cultural resources; or community or neighborhood character?" MR. MAGOWAN-No. MR. FORD-No. MR. TRAVER-"C3. Vegetation, fauna, fish, shellfish or wildlife species, significant habitats, or threatened or endangered species?" 19 (Queensbury Planning Board 05/21/2013) MR. FORD-No. MR. FERONE-No. MR. TRAVER-"C4. A community's existing plans or goals as officially adopted, or a change in use or intensity of use of land or other natural resources?" MR. FORD-No. MR. MAGOWAN-No. MR. TRAVER-"C5. Growth, subsequent development or related activities likely to be induced by the proposed action?" MR. DEEB-No. MR. FORD-No. MR.TRAVER-"C6. Long term,short term,cumulative or other effects not identified above?" MR. DEEB-No. MR. FORD-No. MR.TRAVER-"C7. Other impacts (including changes in use of either quantity or energy)?" MR. MAGOWAN-No. MR. FORD-No. MR. TRAVER-"Will the project have an impact on the environmental characteristics that caused the establishment of a Critical Environmental Area?" MR. FORD-No. MR. DEEB-No. MR. TRAVER-"Is there or is there likely to be controversy related to potential adverse environmental impacts?" MR. FORD-No. MR. MAGOWAN-No. MR.TRAVER-I will make a motion that we find a Negative SEQR Declaration. RESOLUTION WHEN DETERMINATION OF NO SIGNIFICANCE IS MADE RESOLUTION NO. 17-2013, Introduced by Stephen Traver who moved for its adoption, seconded by Thomas Ford: WHEREAS,there is presently before the Planning Board an application for: KATHRYN TABNER REV. TRUST, 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 20 ittj I (Queensbury Planning Board 05/21/2013) 3. The proposed action considered by this Board is Unlisted in the Department of Environmental Conservation Regulations implementing the State Environmental Quality Review Act and the regulations of the Town of Queensbury. 4. An Environmental Assessment Form has been completed by the applicant. 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 21St day of, May, 2013,by the following vote: AYES: Mr. Ford, Mr. Schonewolf, Mr. Deeb, Mr. Ferone, Mr. Magowan, Mr.Traver NOES: NONE ABSENT: Mr. Krebs, Mr. Hunsinger MR.TRAVER-Okay. Let's see. MRS. MOORE-I think this is just standard language. I don't believe there are any waiver requests at this one. I don't believe three; four,five,or six are applicable. I think you can strike those. MR. TRAVER-Okay. I see, three, four, five, and six. Very good. Do we have any conditions that we want to amend to the draft resolution that any members have,or concerns? MR. FORD-No. MR.TRAVER-Does the Board feel comfortable moving forward with this application? MR. MAGOWAN-Yes. MR. FORD-Yes. MR. DEEB-Yes. MR.TRAVER-Okay. Do you want to make a motion? RESOLUTION APPROVING SP # 17-2013 KATHRYN TABNER REV.TRUST A site plan application has been made to the Queensbury Planning Board for the following: 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. PB provided a recommendation to the ZBA on 4/23/2013; the ZBA approved the variance requests on 4/24/2013; A public hearing was advertised and held on 5/21/2013; This application is supported with all documentation, public comment, and application material in the file of record; MOTION TO APPROVE SITE PLAN NO. 17-2013 KATHRYN TABNER REV. TRUST, Introduced by Paul Schonewolf who moved for its adoption,seconded by Brad Magowan: In accordance with the resolution prepared by Staff. 21 ittj I (Queensbury Planning Board 05/21/2013) 1) Pursuant to relevant sections of the Town of Queensbury Zoning Code-Chapter 179-9-080, the Planning Board has determined that this proposal satisfies the requirements as stated in the Zoning Code; 2) The requirements of the State Environmental Quality Review Act have been considered and the Planning Board has adopted a SEQRA Negative Declaration; 3) Engineering sign-off required prior to signature of Zoning Administrator of the approved plans; 4) 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; 5) The applicant must maintain on their project site,for review by staff: a) The approved final plans that have been stamped by the Town Zoning Administrator. These plans must include the project SWPPP (Storm Water Pollution Prevention Plan) when such a plan was prepared and approved; b) The project NOI and proof of coverage under the current NYSDEC SPDES General Permit, or an individual SPDES permit issued for the project. 6) 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; 7) The applicant must meet with Staff after approval and prior to issuance of Building Permit and/or the beginning of any site work; 8) Subsequent issuance of further permits,including building permits is dependent on compliance with this and all other conditions of this resolution; 9) 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 21St day of May, 2013,by the following vote: AYES: Mr. Ford, Mr. Schonewolf, Mr. Deeb, Mr. Magowan, Mr. Ferone, Mr.Traver NOES: NONE ABSENT: Mr. Krebs, Mr. Hunsinger MR. LAPPER-Thank you. MR.TRAVER-You're all set. Good luck. 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 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. CROSS REFERENCE AV 52-12, SB 18-05, SP 10- 04 LOT SIZE 64.89 +/- ACRES TAX MAP NO. 308.12-1-3 SECTION CHAPTER A-183 179-3- 040(A)(3)(b) JON LAPPER&TOM CENTER, REPRESENTING APPLICANT, PRESENT; LARRY CLUTE, PRESENT MRS. MOORE-Could I just add something to this? Information was submitted to our office on May 15th. This information still needs to go through engineering review and Staff review. There still are some items that need to be addressed for Preliminary review, and I would suggest that you table this application. You are going to see the application again in June because the applicant has submitted for Final, and you can do Preliminary and Final at your June meeting, but the applicant has items that they can discuss this evening. 22 (Queensbury Planning Board 05/21/2013) MR.TRAVER-Okay. There are items that are outstanding prior to doing Preliminary? MRS.MOORE-There are,but the applicant may be able to address those items. MR.TRAVER-Okay. Thank you. Good evening. MR. LAPPER-Good evening. For the record, Jon Lapper with Larry Clute and Tom Center. This is another project that required area variances, and we were here last month to discuss this. This Board was very supportive of the project with the connections between Luzerne and Sherman, and we got to the Zoning Board. They were very supportive as well. As Laura said, we've submitted. We weren't expecting Preliminary approval tonight. Just an opportunity to discuss the project with you. There's a number of engineering issues. Nothing significant, but a bunch of things that we need to talk about with the Town Engineer. I think what's unique about the design is really from a stormwater perspective, and Tom could get into the details, but based upon the new green infrastructure, it's a little bit of a different design, more passive on the lots, and just with some drywells within the right of way so it doesn't have a detention basin anywhere on the site and we have a letter from the Highway Superintendent. This is the design that they want. So we need to clarify that with the Town Engineer,but pretty efficient design. The layout was done specifically to avoid a straight through between the existing Burnt Hills and Luzerne Road to discourage that, and we think it's going to be helpful to have a connection,but not a problem with people driving quickly through the subdivision. So why don't I ask Tom to go through some of the engineering issues. MR. CENTER-In regards to the stormwater design for this subdivision,knowing that these are deep, well drained sands, and the nature of the lots that Larry's developing, as far as the residences,they lend themselves to be built closer to the subdivision road, rather than individual houses that have long driveways that are off the road. So with that in mind, what we've done with the stormwater design is the front of the house and the driveways drain forward toward the subdivision road, and get captured either in the lawn or in the drywells within the subdivision road, in the wing swale drywells,similar to any other crown lot that we have in most of this area, similar to what we did on Geneva Drive. The rear of the house, they house roofs will drain towards the rear of the property, across the lawn, and around the septic system and just disperse into the woods, and knowing that we have this well drained soils and talking with DEC,it saves us the conservation of area. We don't have to build another device to put this water through that would require us to take more woods out, and we still get the end result of our runoff reduction rate, because the soils are well drained sands. We get our filtering through the grass, and then, you know, it peres into the soil before it gets outside the subdivision. This subdivision in particular is unique because most of it drains into itself. There's a lot of dips and valleys as you walk the site itself. It only has one point that it discharges, and that's off to the west, as you go towards the lands of Carte and Clark, but nothing ever, it doesn't have a defined drainage pattern. Anything that gets to that point is below the pre- existing levels. So we really don't have any runoff. There's nothing coming from the road or the houses. It's just the roofs of the rear of the houses that go in that direction, and that's eaten up by the lawn and the grass before we get there, and it infiltrates into the ground, as it does now in the woods, and with that in mind, we've worked with Highway to discuss some of the engineer's concerns to do the wing swales and drywells. They've been in discussion with Chazen Engineering in regard to those things and working out an answer to the stormwater comments in regards to the drywells within the wing swales, and we believe we'll be able to resolve that before the next meeting. We did go out with Department of Health and do several test pits. Mike Shaw from Department of Health is currently working up his comments in response to the building of the houses for the septic systems. Our discussions have covered a lot of different areas to where we know we have pretty consistent deep sands that are fast. It's his recommendation, and I think his recommendation is going to be, that we do a perc test in the location of every single septic system prior to its construction. MR. FORD-Excuse me. Did you go out with the Department of Health, or a Department of Health representative? MR. CENTER-I went out with the Department of Health representative. Mike Shaw is from the Department of Health. MR. FORD-Thank you. MR. FORD-The whole Town Board wasn't out there. 23 (Queensbury Planning Board 05/21/2013) VID, MR. CENTER-What's that? MR. FORD-The whole Town Board,acting as the Board of Health,was not out there. MR. CENTER-No,no,no. MR. FORD-Okay. MR. CENTER-The New York State Department of Health. It was Mike Shaw from the Glens Falls office. We went out and dug several test pits. The initial test pits that I did were all in the low spots of the lot,because if you're going to see groundwater,you're going to see that in the lowest portions of the lot. We were down 12 feet plus. That's where we did our infiltration rate tests. We had,you know, high infiltration rate, which, again, the stormwater design is conservative in regards to that. We used a 12 minute, 12 inches per hour perc rate and it's somewhere up in the 120 to 480 inches per hour. So it's a relatively fast perc rate, and what we're trying to do is just conserve the green space as much as possible, in this design, and that's, you know, similar to what we've done on Geneva Drive where the houses are closer to the road, reducing the driveway, reducing the impervious surface, trying to capture the impervious surface closer to where the stormwater is created. Are there any specific stormwater comments or anything from the engineer's letter that you folks have that we may or may not have addressed? MR. TRAVER-I think until you, I mean, it's my feeling that until you have submitted, you know, closer to what your final plans are and we've gotten those final comments,then we may,but at this point it's still somewhat nebulous. MR. FORD-I agree. MR. CENTER-Right and we understand that. That's why we submitted, you know, May 15th knowing, you know, as soon as we got through the Zoning Board, trying to meet that submission date, to answer those first round, knowing that we didn't have any large changes after going through the Zoning Board. We did include a landscape entrance plan on Luzerne Road. That you'll see at the next meeting. We have done that. We're working with Staff in regards to the buffer, and just for clarification purposes, I think when we were here before, we talked about the 50 foot, it shows a 50 foot buffer and the Code calls for 50 foot buffer, but I think we agreed to the 100 foot buffer in the areas where the lands of DKC and the one large parcel. We decided to put the whole 100 foot on the residential portion, as opposed to showing it, you know, 50, and 50. So that's why the 100 foot was there, and then I think what we were talking about with Laura was dropping it down to the 50 foot section where it's already developed where Lands of Colby are, and making that a 50 foot section, and also on the other corner, making that a 50 foot buffer, where we have, in the southwest corner, where we have a small, commercial light industrial zone, and going back to that, but that's where the 100 foot came from. MRS.MOORE-That makes sense. Thank you. MR. CENTER-Yes. Laura's coming in on the backside of this, and I couldn't remember. We've been through a few iterations on this job. So I couldn't remember exactly what Larry had, but I guess those were the questions. Is there anything in particular, now that we've got the zoning variance where this subdivision is on, any other issues that you folks may have, that you'd like to see us address further,or anything outstanding,other than the engineering comments? MR. TRAVER-Do you have, and, Laura, I would ask you this as well, do you have an idea when we might want to re-hear this application? MRS.MOORE-Currently I have it tentatively for the 25th of June. MR.TRAVER-So it's already on the agenda for June? MRS. MOORE-It's potentially on the agenda list already for June, and that's the second Planning Board meeting. MR. TRAVER-Okay, and the goal, then,would be to do both Preliminary and Final if possible in one night? 24 (Queensbury Planning Board 05/21/2013) MRS.MOORE-Yes. MR. TRAVER-Okay, and, again, my same concern with SEQR, and I have a note to myself that says self,SEQR appears to have been completed April 23rd. Is that correct? MRS.MOORE-That's correct,because it was a Type I. MR.TRAVER-Okay. So we're all set with that. MRS.MOORE-You're all set with SEQR. MR. TRAVER-How about that? All right. We do have a public hearing tonight. Are there members of the audience that want to speak to this application? Yes,sir. PUBLIC HEARING OPEN JOHN RILEY MR. RILEY-Good evening. I'm John Riley at 56 Burnt Hills Drive. I've been here several times. I've got a load of questions. Submitted lots of documents,and I just have a couple of things to follow up on. The first thing tonight was discussed stormwater, and I've mentioned in my written comments in the past that we've had some problems on Burnt Hills with stormwater. The drain pit in front of my house was re-done by the Town probably seven years ago because we had continual flooding when we had storms. Currently, the catch basins further down towards Sherman Ave. flood out every time we have significant rain,and it runs over the road,down through,between two lots,kind of into the woods. So I'd just ask that the sizing on those catch basins be looked at twice, so that the Town residents don't incur the cost of going back in to fix something that was approved by the Town Board. I know that in different parts of the Town, even though things are sand and we think it runs off appropriately, like Michaels Drive, for example, it's been tremendous expense for the Town to go back and fix that. Morse Field is another example of where there's development, and it is a significant amount of money to correct rainwater runoff problems. I don't know who on the Board has that kind of history, but it was a significant issue in an area that everybody thought was just sand. MR.TRAVER-Sure. Well,that is an issue. It remains,at this point,outstanding,and does require the Town Engineer to approve their stormwater system, and regulations require that the stormwater remain on site. So that is being looked at. It's unresolved,but it is being looked at. MR. RILEY-Okay. Continually, the biggest concern of the residents in this area is the impact that traffic will have, and I've submitted a couple of different things that point to that, and I notice that Mr. Schonewolf doesn't agree with this, but if you take a look at even 10% of that traffic through, and follow this through to Wintergreen, it changes the characteristic of both our neighborhood and that side of Sherman Ave.significantly,and it appears that,you know,may not be addressed and it's something that's being put off to the future for the Town to handle, but as I read through the Comprehensive Land Use Plan, which I understand is not law, but it's kind of a guideline that the Board is supposed to take a look at, there are a number of things that seem to be missing in this development plan. One of those things is connection to potential development on either side. On one side it's basically built out and it's commercial and it's mobile homes, but on the other side is undeveloped land, and one of the things that's clear in the Comprehensive Land Use Plan is that there should be right of way left to allow for commuting or, you know, transfer between that potential neighborhood and this existing neighborhood. If you look at further down, not Richmond, well, Richmond Hill,there is a connection between that and the development to the east of that, and the development to the east of that, Winterberry, I think, something like that, does have a cut through. There is a spot for potential connection through to that undeveloped land. That's missing in this plan. There are a number of deficiencies, if you look at it and compare it to what the Comprehensive Land Use Plan asks for, and I think there's still time for those things to be addressed. One of the things that is significant in the Comprehensive Land Use Plan is that we're supposed to be enhancing travel by pedestrian, for pedestrian traffic. Sherman Ave. is continually seeing more traffic. I know that members of my family stay off of that roadway because it's just not safe for pedestrian and bicycle traffic, and those are concerns. This is not going to alleviate that kind of thing. It's actually going to exacerbate it. We're going to take traffic off of two other existing corridors that are, one is developing one side that commercially,that's Veterans. The other is West Mountain Road, and that's a roadway that has developed to handle higher volume of traffic. So,you 25 (Queensbury Planning Board 05/21/2013) W know, we've submitted a petition. I'm not sure; you know where we go next to try and get some relief to at least see an attempt to offer us some type of modification of this plan. It's kind of disappointing to me that after, well, we're about a year since this first came up. It was started last year. I've been to every meeting except, I think, one or two, and, you know, I'm left hanging wondering what do I have to do to get some kind of communication back from either the Staff or the Planning Board. It's kind of disappointing that in a Town. MR. TRAVER-As we discussed, you probably heard earlier, they have not yet submitted, formally, their Preliminary plans. So you can certainly maintain contact with the Planning Office and see how the plan evolves over time. MR. RILEY-Thank you. MR.TRAVER-Thank you. Anyone else want to make public comment? Okay. We'll leave the public hearing open until the next time this application is heard. Do you have any comments or response that you want to make to the public comment that was made? MR. LAPPER-Just very briefly,and I think that we had submitted this,so it should already be in your file, but I know the last time we were here, we read the letters from the Highway Superintendent, West Glens Falls Volunteer Fire, and West Glens Falls Emergency Squad, all very supportive of this connection, and, again, it was specifically designed to cut down on through traffic, to minimize that neighbor's concern, and how many lots are there in the existing Burnt Hills? Twenty-eight, and I know that Larry's talked to virtually everyone there, and most people are not concerned about this. MR. FORD-What are you referring to, 28 what? MR. LAPPER-The lots in the northern subdivision. MR. CLUTE-The people I have spoken to within Burnt Hills, I mean, there's an obvious concern, there always is when you propose new development, but virtually every home in there I built and they were aware that this connector at some point in time was going to be proposed and hopefully approved, and the dead ends that are in that subdivision are signs of that. They've always been there, and so most of the residences are aware and were aware. They do still, I mean, just like anybody else, have concerns of the possible increased traffic, no doubt, but are not completely uncomfortable with the new subdivision. They were prepared for it. MR.TRAVER-Okay. MR. LAPPER-I should also probably just quickly point out that the, you know, obviously this addresses the connection north/south. On the east side there's the trailer park. So there's no opportunity to make that connection because the commenter talked about connecting on the west side. On the west side is the dedicated Karner blue area that was done in the past because of those sandy soils,and that was reserved. MR. TRAVER-Okay. So we specifically want to avoid any connection there because of the Karner blue. MR. CENTER-That's exactly right. MR.TRAVER-Okay. I see. Okay. All right. MR. SCHONEWOLF-I'd just add one thing with the traffic,because we talked about it last week, or a couple of weeks ago. I can understand why some people,when something comes new around them there, are concerned. That's natural. The fact of the matter is I think some of the Board members brought it up last time, that probably the people in Burnt Hills will continue to go in and out of Burnt Hills the way they always have, no matter whether there's a connection or not, and the people that are on the other side will probably go in and out the other way. That's just human nature, and that's what happens. If I look at the impact of the, what, 15 people in Burnt Hills that are really concerned, I don't think there are that many, if I measure that against the advantage to the entire Town, to the Highway Department, to the EMS crew, to the fire department, there's no question we should be doing this. 26 ittj I (Queensbury Planning Board 05/21/2013) MR. LAPPER-And the commenter also talked about the Comp Plan and the Comp Plan has always been in favor of a connection on the west side of the Northway, so everyone doesn't have to go back to West Mountain Road and this accomplishes that, again, privately rather than to have the Town pay for it. MR.TRAVER-Thank you. MR. LAPPER-Thank you. MR. TRAVER-So it looks as though our plan for this evening, then, is to table this application until the June 25th meeting, where we are going to be discussing Preliminary Stage again and hopefully also be able to do Final, potentially, that evening. As far as a tabling resolution, conditions are basically to address engineering comments, and any outstanding issues with the Planning Department Staff,and I guess that's all we need for tonight. Right? MR. FORD-Right. MRS.MOORE-I'd just add that information should be submitted prior to June 10th. MR. CENTER-Actually, I believe I'll set up a meeting with you on Monday. MRS.MOORE-Okay. That's great. MR. CENTER-Oh no,that's a holiday. MR. LAPPER-He'll be here,but Laura won't be. MR.TRAVER-Would someone like to make a motion? RESOLUTION TABLING PRELIMINARY STAGE SUB.# 5-2012 LARIC DEVELOPMENT, LLC MOTION TO TABLE PRELIMINARY STAGE SUBDIVISION NO. 5-2012 LARIC DEVELOPMENT, LLC, Introduced by Paul Schonewolf who moved for its adoption,seconded by Brad Magowan: Tabled to the June 25th Planning Board meeting,with preliminary information due by June 10th. Duly adopted this 21St day of May, 2013,by the following vote: AYES: Mr. Magowan, Mr. Ford,Mr. Schonewolf, Mr. Ferone, Mr. Deeb, Mr.Traver NOES: NONE ABSENT: Mr. Krebs, Mr. Hunsinger MR.TRAVER-See you next month. MR. CENTER-Thank you. MR. LAPPER-Thanks,everybody. SUBDIVISION NO. 3-2013 PRELIMINARY & FINAL STAGE 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,AV 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 JEN BALL, PRESENT MR.TRAVER-Good evening. 27 I (Queensbury Planning Board 05/21/2013) MS. BALL-I was here last month, but basically it's a subdivision into two lots of a 20 acre parcel, 20 plus acre parcel, one lot 16 acres,the other is 4.89 acres. MR.TRAVER-This is the cornfield,right? MS. BALL-The cornfield. MR. DEEB-It's level. MS. BALL-It's level. Did you look at it? Did you see it? MR.TRAVER-Yes. MS. BALL-One lot obviously I'm going to purchase from the current owner, Pam Harris, and she's going to retain the other lot. There's a garage on the far corner of the lot. It's been there for; I don't know how many years, 20 years or so, and just building a single family dwelling on the 4.89 acre lot. MR.TRAVER-Okay. MS. BALL-Pretty simple,other than everything that you guys have looked at tonight. MR. TRAVER-Right. We have, do we not have a waiver request for, here we go, waivers for (lost words), okay. This is an Unlisted SEQR, and I see we have a number of, which we have to complete tonight,if we're going to move this forward. Correct? MRS.MOORE-Correct,yes. MR. TRAVER-And I see we have a number of engineering comments, and I guess I'm wondering, are there any that are a potential impediment to moving forward with SEQR? MRS.MOORE-No. They are not. MR.TRAVER-Okay. MR. DEEB-You're comfortable with that? MRS.MOORE-I'm comfortable with that. MR. TRAVER-Okay. Well, we did talk about this quite a bit when last we discussed it. I don't know if members of the Board have follow up questions or comments for the applicant? MR. FORD-I don't. MR. DEEB-I don't,either. MR.TRAVER-Are we,and this is Long Form? MRS.MOORE-This is a Long Form because it is a subdivision. MR.TRAVER-Okay. Hopefully I can pull that out of my hat here somewhere. MR. DEEB-I've got it right here,if you need it, Steve. MR.TRAVER-Okay. MRS.MOORE-Do you want to do your public hearing? MR.TRAVER-Yes,thank you. Yes. There is a public hearing scheduled for tonight. Are there people in attendance who'd like to comment on this subdivision application? Yes, sir. There is someone who would like to comment. I'm glad you noticed that. I missed that. PUBLIC HEARING OPEN 28 (Queensbury Planning Board 05/21/2013) PAUL DAVIDSON MR. DAVIDSON-Good evening, sir. I'm Paul Davidson. I live on Pickle Hill Road, opposite this property,and my first comment is that the application characterizes the situation correctly by Code, but not by use. MR.TRAVER-I'm sorry, could you repeat that? MR. DAVIDSON-The characterization of the property in the application correctly describes the property per Code,but not by use. MR.TRAVER-But not by use. MR. DAVIDSON-Right. MR.TRAVER-Okay. Could you clarify that? MR. DAVIDSON-Yes. If you look, do you see where the garage is that they refer to in the application? MR.TRAVER-Yes. MR. DAVIDSON-Right down there in that corner? MR.TRAVER-Yes. MR. DAVIDSON-It looks like just a plain garage, so this photo was probably taken between 1992 or 1993 and last August. As of last August,there is a heavy commercial use within the six acres around that garage,and so it is a nonconforming use. MR.FORD-Could you elaborate on that,what you mean by that? MR. DAVIDSON-Yes, I can. MR. FORD-Okay. Thank you. MR. DAVIDSON-Okay. What it is is it's Keith Harris logging excavating, trucking depot, trucking business. They operate a wood yard there now, since last August. They have filled in a lot of the property and they repair heavy equipment. They have log skidders, front end loaders, bulldozers, log trucks, dump trucks, fuel trucks, pickup trucks, and I think that that needs to be considered before you go about subdividing it all, and also I'm a DEC certified inspector in erosion and stormwater control, and just a cursory view from across the street, I can tell you right now,there is no stormwater mitigate or erosion mitigation on that commercial entity. So I don't think without action being taken regarding that situation we should be entertaining subdividing the property, because it's mischaracterized in the application. MR.TRAVER-Okay. MR. DAVIDSON-And that's about all I have to say. MR.TRAVER-Thank you very much. Anyone else? CARLY BOLEN MS. BOLEN-My name's Carly Bolen. I'm a neighbor of the Davidsons, directly across the street from that property, and I just want to second his notion that that property is not being used for residential purposes right now,and it's an issue that's been brought up to the Zoning Board as well. So I think that does need to be addressed prior to subdivision. MR. TRAVER-So there has been a, you say it's been brought up to the Zoning Board. Is there a formal complaint? MS. BOLEN-There has been formal complaints to the Zoning Board regarding the property,yes. 29 (Queensbury Planning Board 05/21/2013) MR.TRAVER-Okay and what's been the follow up communication with them? MS. BOLEN-Have not heard anything back. I've heard a couple of off the record comments that, okay, it's fine, or we'll get back to you or there was supposed to be some sort of decision made on it a couple of weeks ago. There's been nothing. MR. FORD-Did you personally go to the ZBA? MS. BOLEN-I personally spoke to the Zoning Board. I also personally wrote a letter to the Zoning Board. MR. MAGOWAN-Did you talk to Bruce Frank? MS. BOLEN-No. I talked to Craig Brown. MR. MAGOWAN-Craig Brown. MR.TRAVER-Okay. Anything else? MS. BOLEN-No, I just wanted to confirm that that is what's happening over there. MR. MAGOWAN-When did all, because I know for the longest time there wasn't really any action there,but I know Keith,you know,before his unfortunate happening there,that most of that logging all went out to Fort Ann. MS. BOLEN-It did. MR. MAGOWAN-Now, I believe that building might have been sold off? MR. DAVIDSON-I can shed light on that,if you want me to come back up. MS. BOLEN-I don't mind if he comes up. MR. MAGOWAN-Since you're neighbors,if you don't mind. MS. BOLEN-Yes. That property was not, when I purchased my property,three years ago, there was nothing happening on that. It was used for personal storage. There was nothing happening on that property. MR.TRAVER-Okay. Sir,can you elaborate? MR. DAVIDSON-Yes. I've been there since 1986, and we live next door to them, and that's the year the garage was built, and we argued against the permit to build the garage, and Mr. Harris was allowed to continue. It had something to do with a fellow by the name of H. Russell Harris and it went on. Anyway, we unsuccessfully, we were unsuccessful. So he built a business there, but the Town, under the administration of Steve Borgos, put a limit on how much he could do there, and I believe that was about 20 years ago, and Mr. Borgos is in attendance,and so Mr. Harris realized that he couldn't expand and do anything he wanted there, so he did re-locate to Fort Ann. Recently, last summer, the Harris' sold that property to Northeast Trucking, but they also maintained part of the business at their property on Mud Pond Road. As a matter of fact,today, their Facebook page, Mud Pond Road is the location of Harris Excavating and Logging, which, that's an acceptable use there. They have moved back to the original location back in the 80's. I brought the, some neighbors brought the situation to the attention of Craig Brown last September, and unfortunately, at least once a month I make contact with Craig, and he says he's waiting for more information from the Harris'. Finally I was kind of fed up with that and I got a hold of some of the Town Board members and talked to them, and the last I heard was from Ron Montesi today that they were supposed to meet today with the Harris' attorney to discuss the situation. I don't know where it stands,but I do think that it wouldn't be proper to make any decisions with this property until that issue is resolved. MR. MAGOWAN-Now was that agreement with Mr.Borgos in writing of how large it could be? MR. DAVIDSON-I think it was a Board (lost words). 30 (Queensbury Planning Board 05/21/2013) STEVE BORGOS MR. BORGOS-I didn't expect this hearing tonight. I left office 22 years ago,but it was before that. MR. DAVIDSON-It was before that,and I believe what happened was during his administration,they took it to a court, and I think there's a court order out there saying you can have so many (lost word) and you can have so much space, and in August they started bringing in more fill and they expanded on that space,and now it's back to what it was over 20 years ago. MR.SCHONEWOLF-Who's doing what there now? MR. DAVIDSON-The young Keith Harris is operating a full blown wood yard and excavating business out of that. MR.SCHONEWOLF-So how many people are working there? MR. DAVIDSON-I'd say five, maybe six. They're individual vehicles there also. There's a large wood yard there, and my argument was, with Mr. Brown,was that since it had been 20 years or so since the use had lapsed,they shouldn't allow the business there at all. They should have to go through a variance to re-constitute the business, but Mr. Brown didn't that tact, and so I don't know (lost words) other than that they were having a meeting today. MR.TRAVER-Okay. Thank you very much. MR. DAVIDSON-You're welcome. MS. BOLEN-I don't disagree with her building a residential property there within zoning. That's not my problem at all. I think that's perfectly fine. MR.TRAVER-I understand. Thank you. MR. FORD-Thank you. MR. MAGOWAN-Yes,thank you. MR.TRAVER-Anyone else have any comment on this application? MS. BALL-I can address all that with you guys. I did, I knew all of this that was going on prior because I know the Harris family very well. Craig originally when I met with him was meeting with Pam and Stefanie Bitter the same exact day that I went in and we talked about the subdivision of this land. He said it would not affect it whatsoever because I'm splitting off a residential lot. I mean, if you look at that lot,where you see that kind of like that big chunk over there,it's going to be split right where that line goes straight down to the road. I mean, it's a residential building lot. Whatever they're doing there,it shouldn't affect what I'm doing,you know,what I plan on doing. MR.TRAVER-Yes,it's a separate issue. MS. BALL-Absolutely, 100%, and Craig's aware of it, Laura's aware of it. They all know what's going on, and that's an issue that's being dealt with, has nothing to do with me and what I plan on doing with my lot. MR.TRAVER-Right. I understand. MS.BALL-So,that being said, I mean, I knew of the issue. Well, Craig had actually,he had said to me, I mean, I said is this going to affect it at all. He said absolutely,not. One doesn't have anything to do with the other. MR. TRAVER-Well, it sounds like a zoning, it's a zoning issue. Laura, can you shed some light? It sounds like you have some insight. MRS. MOORE-Right. The only light I can shed is that I know that there's ongoing discussions between the attorney and the Harris'to come to a resolve as to what activity should be occurring no that property. So that's the only information I have. 31 (Queensbury Planning Board 05/21/2013) MR. TRAVER-Right. Okay. Would you agree, or would it be your assessment that that issue is separate from the application that's before us? MRS.MOORE-Yes. MR. TRAVER-Okay. So where are we at here? I'm just seeing,we talked about the engineering not, the outstanding issues not affecting SEQR. MR. SCHONEWOLF-There's very few items on there. MR.TRAVER-Right. Okay. Are members comfortable going forward with SEQR? MR. DEEB-Yes. MR. FORD-Yes. MR. DEEB-Did you want to close the public hearing? MR.TRAVER-Yes. PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED MR. MAGOWAN-Well,the SEQR is to subdivide it. Correct? MR.TRAVER-SEQR is for the subdivision. Correct. MR. MAGOWAN-And if there's issues on that property that could eventually go,you know,we're not sure which way, even though we're told it's a separate issue, it isn't, you know, the operation is on that lot. Should we feel comfortable moving forward with SEQR? MR. TRAVER-Well,the question,the applicable consideration with regards to SEQR, and correct me if I'm wrong, is not the allegations of an improper use on this section of property, but rather the applicant's application, which is to subdivide the ownership of the property and have a residential use. That's what we're considering for SEQR. We're not talking about. MR. MAGOWAN-No,but some of the questions might pertain to,you know, right now that whole lot, and I'm just saying this as a question for a better understanding for myself for being able to correctly answer the questions, but saying that there is not, you know, a conflict on there, but say, you know, if they go to say, all right, we could keep that use as construction, but you need so many more square feet, and now we've subdivided that off. MR. SCHONEWOLF-Well,it wouldn't affect what we're doing here. MR.TRAVER-We're talking about a boundary. MR. SCHONEWOLF-We're just talking about drawing a boundary between residential. MR. TRAVER-Yes. Now, to your point, should there be an application for site plan review for a change in use or something like that at some point down the road by somebody else, that would be another SEQR consideration regarding that use. MR. MAGOWAN-So I'm all right, I can feel comfortable moving forward with SEQR. MR.TRAVER-Well, I'm not going to speak for you. I'm just explaining. MR. MAGOWAN-Well,see, I'm just a little confused. MR.TRAVER-I don't know, Laura,do you want to offer any comment or guidance on? MRS. MOORE-I can say you're dealing with an individual applicant. If you're looking at cumulative impacts, those will be addressed. You know that there are ongoing discussions with the property owner and the attorney. So you're aware of that information. Is it going to affect this piece of property in its residential use or this subdivision application? No, it will not. So cumulative you have addressed what's happening on this site as a whole. 32 (Queensbury Planning Board 05/21/2013) MR. MAGOWAN-Okay. Thank you all for your patience. MR. TRAVER-Okay. Any other questions or discussion prior to going to SEQR? Okay. This is a Long Form. Will the proposed action result in a physical change to the project site? MR. MAGOWAN-No. MR. FORD-Only in the re-drawing of lines. Only on the map. MR. TRAVER-I would say no. Will there be an effect to any unique or unusual land forms found on the site? MR. FORD-No. MR.TRAVER-Will the proposed action affect any water body designated as protected? MR. FORD-No. MR.TRAVER-Will the proposed action affect any non-protected existing or new body of water? MR. FORD-No. MR.TRAVER-Will the proposed action affect surface or groundwater quality or quantity? MR. FORD-No. MR. TRAVER-Will the proposed action alter drainage flow or patterns, or surface water runoff? I would say no. MR. MAGOWAN-No. MR.TRAVER-Will the proposed action affect air quality? MR. FORD-No. MR.TRAVER-Will the proposed action affect any threatened or endangered species? MR. FORD-No. MR. MAGOWAN-No. MR. TRAVER-Will the proposed action substantially affect non-threatened or non-endangered species? MR. FORD-No. MR. DEEB-No. MR.TRAVER-Will the proposed action affect agricultural land resources? MR. FORD-No. MR.TRAVER-Will the proposed action affect aesthetic resources? MR. FORD-No. MR. MAGOWAN-No. MR. TRAVER-Will the proposed action impact any site or structure of historic, pre-historic or paleontological importance? MR. FORD-No. MR. DEEB-No. 33 (Queensbury Planning Board 05/21/2013) 9 MR. TRAVER-Will the proposed action affect the quantity or quality of existing or future open spaces or recreational opportunities? MR. FORD-No. MR. MAGOWAN-No. MR. TRAVER-Will the proposed action impact the exceptional or unique characteristics of a critical environmental area established pursuant to Subdivision 6NYCRR 617.14(g)? MR. FORD-No. MR. DEEB-No. MR. MAGOWAN-No. MR.TRAVER-Will there be an effect to existing transportation systems? MR. FORD-No. MR. DEEB-No. MR.TRAVER-Will proposed action affect the community's sources of fuel or energy supply? MR. FORD-No. MR. MAGOWAN-No. MR. TRAVER-Will there be objectionable odors, noise, or vibration as a result of the proposed action? MR. FORD-No. MR. MAGOWAN-No. MR.TRAVER-Will the proposed action affect public health and safety? MR. FORD-No. MR. MAGOWAN-No. MR.TRAVER-Will the proposed action affect the character of the existing community? MR. FORD-No. MR. MAGOWAN-No. MR. TRAVER-And is there, or is there likely to be, public controversy related to potential adverse environmental impacts? MR. FORD-No. MR. MAGOWAN-No. MR.TRAVER-Then I'll make a motion to find a Negative SEQRA declaration. RESOLUTION WHEN DETERMINATION OF NO SIGNIFICANCE IS MADE RESOLUTION NO. 3-2013, Introduced by Stephen Traver who moved for its adoption, seconded by Thomas Ford: WHEREAS,there is presently before the Planning Board an application for: JENNIFER BALL,and 34 (Queensbury Planning Board 05/21/2013) c 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 21St day of, May, 2013,by the following vote: AYES: Mr. Deeb, Mr. Schonewolf, Mr. Ford, Mr. Magowan, Mr. Ferone, Mr.Traver NOES: NONE ABSENT: Mr. Krebs, Mr. Hunsinger MR.TRAVER-Okay. Now we do a Preliminary. RESOLUTION APPROVING PRELIMINARY STAGE SUB # 3-2013 JENNIFER BALL A subdivision application has been made to the Queensbury Planning Board for the following: 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. Sketch Plan review was discussed on 4/16/2013; A public hearing was scheduled and held on 5/21/2013; This application is supported with all documentation, public comment, and application material in the file of record; MOTION TO APPROVE PRELIMINARY STAGE SUBDIVISION NO. 3-2013 JENNIFER BALL, Introduced by Stephen Traver who moved for its adoption,seconded by Brad Magowan: According to the resolution prepared by Staff. Pursuant to relevant sections of the Town of Queensbury Zoning Code-Chapter A-183, the Planning Board has determined that this proposal satisfies the requirements as stated in the Zoning Code; The requirements of the State Environmental Quality Review Act have been considered and the Planning Board has adopted a SEQRA Negative Declaration. Duly adopted this 21St day of May, 2013,by the following vote: MR.TRAVER-And waiver requests are granted for contours and clearing plan. 35 (Queensbury Planning Board 05/21/2013) MS. BALL-The contours,actually,we did bring in. They're on there, and it's already cleared. MR.TRAVER-Then you don't need a waiver. Then I withdraw that granting a request of that waiver. MRS.MOORE-And you can strike Number Three,then. MR.TRAVER-Strike Number Three. AYES: Mr. Deeb, Mr. Schonewolf, Mr. Ford, Mr. Magowan, Mr. Ferone, Mr.Traver NOES: NONE ABSENT: Mr. Krebs, Mr. Hunsinger MR.TRAVER-Okay,and last but not least, Final,and we can have a motion for Final Stage. RESOLUTION APPROVING FINAL STAGE SUB # 3-2013 JENNIFER BALL A subdivision application has been made to the Queensbury Planning Board for the following: 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. The PB adopted a Negative Declaration on 5/21/2013; a public hearing was scheduled and held on 5/21/2013; This application is supported with all documentation, public comment, and application material in the file of record; MOTION TO APPROVE FINAL STAGE SUBDIVISION NO. 3-2013 JENNIFER BALL, Introduced by Paul Schonewolf who moved for its adoption, seconded by Thomas Ford: In accordance with the resolution prepared by Staff. 1. 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, 2. Engineering sign-off required prior to signature of Planning Board Chairman; 3. 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 or for coverage under an individual SPDES prior to the start of guy site work. b) The project NOT (Notice of Termination) upon completion of the project; 4. The applicant must maintain on their project site,for review by staff: a) The approved final that have been stamped by the Town Zoning Administrator. These plans must include the project SWPPP (Storm Water Pollution Prevention Plan) when such a plan was prepared and approved; b) The project NOI and proof of coverage under the current NYSDEC SPDES General Permit,or an individual SPDES permit issued for the project; S. Final approved plans, in compliance with the Subdivision, must be submitted to the Community Development Department before any further review by the Zoning Administrator or Building and Codes personnel; 6. The applicant must meet with Staff after approval and prior to issuance of Building Permit and/or the beginning of any site work; 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 subdivision is developed according to the approved plans to be provided prior to issuance of the certificate of occupancy. 36 (Queensbury Planning Board 05/21/2013) Duly adopted this 21St day of May, 2013,by the following vote: AYES: Mr. Ford, Mr. Deeb, Mr.Schonewolf, Mr. Magowan, Mr. Ferone, Mr.Traver NOES: NONE ABSENT: Mr. Krebs, Mr. Hunsinger MR. FORD-Good luck,Jennifer. MS. BALL-Thank you. NEW BUSINESS: SITE PLAN NO. 15-2013 SEQR TYPE UNLISTED TRIBALS, LLC AGENT(S) NACE ENGINEERING OWNER(S) GARY WILSON ZONING CI-COMMERCIAL INTENSIVE LOCATION 1043 STATE ROUTE 9 APPLICANT PROPOSES CHANGE OF USE TO A MICRO-BREWERY WITH TASTING ROOM,BREWERY TOURS,RETAIL SALES AND BREWING/BOTTLING OF BEVERAGES. PROJECT INCLUDES A MINOR BUILDING ADDITION, A LOADING DOCK AREA, RAMP, AND SILO. NEW USES IN A CI ZONE REQUIRE PLANNING BOARD REVIEW AND APPROVAL. SP 16- 12,SP 36-03,BP'S WARREN CO. REFERRAL APRIL 2013 LOT SIZE 3.73 ACRES TAX MAP NO. 296.9-1-2 SECTION 179-9-010 MICHAEL BORGOS&TOM CENTER, REPRESENTING APPLICANT, PRESENT MR.TRAVER-And I believe we looked at this application in a recommendation to the ZBA. MR. BORGOS-That's correct. MR.TRAVER-Good evening. MR. BORGOS-Good evening, Mr. Traver. My name is Michael Borgos, attorney for the applicant, Tribals, LLC. With me is Mr. Center, who you are well familiar with. I don't know if Laura is going to be asked to read in the usual. I don't want to be repetitive,because I think what is in the write up is a pretty good,concise summary of the application. MR. TRAVER-I know we had quite a bit of discussion about the modifications to the building and there were some concerns about traffic patterns and the times the business was going to be in service and so on. Do you have anything that you want to discuss with us this evening? MR. BORGOS-Absolutely. We took a look at the Staff comments and the engineering notes, and we're prepared to address those. I'll let Tom talk about those specifics, especially with the traffic flows. MR. CENTER-In regards to the specific traffic flows, as far as, if there were any buses or tour things that would go through, that would be a scheduled type of deal with the facility. It would be off hours and would be opposite, you know, the normal pattern of traffic, I think the fall tours, things like that, which is off season, midday type of thing. So that impact of traffic flow, there's adequate access to get vehicles in and out of the site,and now that we do know that hidden farm road is not a, was labeled a private road, some additional research, talking with Town Highway, it is actually a road by use, and the Town does receive CHIPS funds for it. So it is an actual road, and we clarified that,between (lost word) and the Town Highway. So there is a Town road there. So that use in and out of that is applicable. As far as the tractor trailers and the service coming in for the brewery portion, that's down to one a day, very minimal amount of traffic going in and out as far as tractor trailers and that will be serviced in the rear of the building. So that wouldn't be during peak service hours, you know, morning time, tractor trailer comes in, leaves some time, you know, night time or in the afternoon before peak service being early afternoon or late afternoon and evening time. As far as the engineering comments, mostly stormwater related. We've clarified most of what the engineer had concerns over in regards to some clarifications on the drawing. We also did find some existing drywells that are on the site that manage the existing stormwater runoff. At the time that the survey was done, there was snow plowed into the corners. We have an additional drywell in the northeast corner, on the front side of the lot. So it appears that most of that lot,while relatively flat, drains to towards Route 9, the front side, and then would pond and go into either of those 37 (Queensbury Planning Board 05/21/2013) drywells. It doesn't appear there's a major runoff problem going off site in the front or any complaints that we know of in talking with Staff, and as far as the rear portion, the rear portion drains to the southeast corner where we found another drywell. That drywell is going to have to be rehabbed because that's where all the snow is plowed and the sediment from the snow has clogged up that drywell and that drywell is going to be rehabbed and put back into service, but there is no plans to use that back existing parking area or rehab it at this point in time. That's strictly for service vehicles and the tractor trailers using the back. No customer or retail service is going to be directed towards the back of the building. We are going to add, we've been in discussions since these were submitted,with the Water Department,with the use. We've already actually tapped into the six inch line that runs down Hidden Farm Road to get additional water service into the brewery portion. We found that there was an adequate capacity. We spoke with the Water Department. So we have the additional water, which is coming off the Hidden Farm Road. If there are any specific comments, and the last comment, I think,with Chazen was there was a thought that the stormwater ran off onto lands of Ferraro,but it doesn't. Everything drains to that southeast corner,and there's a grass berm that runs along, where that interconnection is, that doesn't allow anything to run off the property. So there is no issue with existing stormwater runoff going off site. Are there any particular concerns with any of the engineering comments we may not have addressed? MR. FORD-You've addressed the concerns I was going to raise. So,thank you. MR. DEEB-You don't intend to do any improvements in the paving in the back? MR. CENTER-No,sir,not at this time. MR. DEEB-In the future? MR. CENTER-In the future, anything is possible in the future. I believe that back parking lot will be cleaned up and it's mainly going to be used just for the tractor trailers,but there's no use right now for that rear parking. JOHN DAVIDSON MR. DAVIDSON-John Davidson. Yes, for the back parking lot, it doesn't need any re-surfacing, per se. we're just going to clean it up. There's a few weeds and such. We'll sweep it and it'll look nice. No customers are going to be going back there. The back, the building parking lot will just be a couple of employees and our own use. MR. DEEB-But you can drive around,right? MR. DAVIDSON-You can. Yes. MR. CENTER-I do believe that connection is more for fire service. MR. DEEB-Yes, and for the service vehicles and delivery vehicles. MR. CENTER-It will allow(lost word) degree access to both The Fun Spot and this building. MR. TRAVER-Okay. We also have a public hearing on this project. Are there individuals in the audience that want to speak to this project? Okay. We have one individual at least. PUBLIC HEARING OPENED KEITH FERRARO MR. FERRARO-I'll be brief. I'm Keith Ferraro from The Fun Spot. You guys probably remember me not too long ago. I was a little apprehensive, I'll admit, hearing a brewery was going to go in next door. I was like,what's this all about, but I met with Rick and John, and they,you know, discussed their vision of the family style attraction that they plan on creating here next door, and I think it would really be a perfect fit for the Route 9 corridor and everything that we do in that area now. So that's my only comment. Thanks. MR.TRAVER-Thank you. 38 v (Queensbury Planning Board 05/21/2013) MR. MAGOWAN-Thank you. MR. FORD-Thank you. MR.TRAVER-Any other public comment on this project? Then I will close the public hearing. PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED MR.TRAVER-It looks like SEQR's been done for us,this by,by the Town Board. MR. FORD-Right. MR. TRAVER-Okay. Well, as I say, I know we did talk about this quite a bit the last time. Are there any questions,concerns,comments that members of the Board have for the applicant? MR. FORD-Good use of the facilities. It's going to be a positive feature for Queensbury and the Route 9 corridor. MR. DEEB-It'll make it a destination,which is nice. MR. TRAVER-Okay and we have in our packet a draft resolution. Do we need to make any modifications to that? MRS. MOORE-Yes, I believe you need to strike Number Three and then just clarify that the waiver requests are subject to,or are requested are lighting,signage,and landscaping. Is that still correct? MR. BORGOS-We will maintain the existing lighting and the existing signage. MR.TRAVER-Okay. All right. Are we ready to move forward? RESOLUTION APPROVING SP# 15-2013 TRIBALS, LLC A site plan application has been made to the Queensbury Planning Board for the following: Applicant proposes change of use to a micro-brewery with tasting room,brewery tours, retail sales and brewing/bottling of beverages. Project includes a minor building addition a loading dock area, ramp,and silo. New uses in a Cl zone require Planning Board review and approval. SEQR was approved by Town Board resolution on 5/6/2013; A public hearing was advertised and held on 5/21/2013; This application is supported with all documentation, public comment, and application material in the file of record; MOTION TO APPROVE SITE PLAN NO. 15-2013 TRIBALS. LLC, Introduced by Paul Schonewolf who moved for its adoption,seconded by Thomas Ford: In accordance with the resolution prepared by Staff, 1) Pursuant to relevant sections of the Town of Queensbury Zoning Code-Chapter 179-9-080, the Planning Board has determined that this proposal satisfies the requirements as stated in the Zoning Code 2) Waiver requests granted: lighting,signage and landscaping 3) 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 4) Engineering sign-off required prior to signature of Zoning Administrator of the approved 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. 39 (Queensbury Planning Board 05/21/2013) c 6) The applicant must meet with Staff after approval and prior to issuance of Building Permit and/or the beginning of any site work. 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 21St day of May, 2013,by the following vote: AYES: Mr. Deeb, Mr. Schonewolf, Mr. Ford, Mr. Magowan, Mr. Ferone, Mr.Traver NOES: NONE ABSENT: Mr. Krebs, Mr. Hunsinger MR.TRAVER-You're all set. Good luck. MR. BORGOS-Thank you very much. MR. FORD-Thank you. SITE PLAN NO. 18-2013 SEQR TYPE II NICHOLAS DAIGLE OWNER(S) SAME AS APPLICANT ZONING CLI-COMMERCIAL LIGHT INDUSTRIAL LOCATION BIG BAY ROAD APPLICANT PROPOSES TO CLEAR A 100 X 150 SQ. FT. BUILDING LOT TO PROMOTE FUTURE DEVELOPMENT, APPROXIMATELY 15 TREES TO REMAIN. NO DEVELOPMENT IS PROPOSED AT THIS TIME. LAND CLEARING/SITE PREPARATION IN A CLI ZONE REQUIRES PLANNING BOARD REVIEW AND APPROVAL. CROSS REFERENCE AV 49-98, UV 47-98 LOT SIZE 0.34 ACRES TAX MAP NO. 309.13-2-16 SECTION 179-9-020 NICK DAIGLE, PRESENT MR.TRAVER-Good evening. MR. DAIGLE-Good evening. MR.TRAVER-Do you want to tell us about your project? MR. DAIGLE-Well, I bought the parcel on spec. I have really no intentions or any plans at this point to do anything other than to clear it and make it a little more presentable and marketable for future development, but at this point there are no plans pending specifically for the site, other than we went in and cleared it and cleaned some debris and such off the property to make it look more presentable. MR.TRAVER-So you're basically doing landscaping it sounds like? MR. DAIGLE-Correct. MR. TRAVER-Okay. Well, that seems fairly straightforward. Laura, do you have any comments or concerns? MRS.MOORE-I don't have any comments,but when you open your public hearing, I do have a public comment,and I believe the question can be answered from the public. MR. TRAVER-Sure. Any questions for the applicant from Board members? Okay, and this also has a public hearing. Are there members of the audience that want to address this application? PUBLIC HEARING OPENED MRS.MOORE-I do have the public comment that I'll read into the record. MR.TRAVER-You have some written comment? Okay. 40 (Queensbury Planning Board 05/21/2013) MRS. MOORE-Yes, that was dated today. It says, "Hi, Laura, this is Florence Goedert and Doreen Green, the people of 469 Big Bay Road, right next door to Daigle's new property. He is on the agenda tonight for approval to clear the land which he already did most of prior to getting permission. We were going to attend tonight's meeting. However, I had a surgical procedure done today, and I'm unable to attend and unable to be left alone, which is why Doreen cannot attend either. What we are most concerned about is how he intends to remove the trees. He wants to remove, at this point, as many of them bordering our immediate property and last time he was doing removal it was just ramming back and forth into the trees and they were falling on top of the fence and hanging over our property. If someone could bring this up at the meeting and let us know the outcome,we would surely appreciate it." She leaves her phone number and her e-mail. MR. TRAVER-Okay. Thank you. Do you want to comment on that concern raised, something about trees falling on the fence. It sounds like you were hoping to address that by general cleaning up of the property. Right? MR. DAIGLE-Yes, no trees fell on her fence at any time. I use an excavator and have been doing it for years. It was not a hazard. She felt it might be a hazard. I think we had a little conflict when I asked her,you know,if she was upset with me clearing the lot or the fact that she wasn't going to be able to dump her garbage on that lot anymore, which is a substantial amount of garbage on the fence line that she's mostly concerned with,which has been cleaned up by myself. I don't think that there's really any concerns that are (lost word) there myself,but that's my opinion. MR.TRAVER-Okay. MR. FORD-Did that put a stop to it? MR. DAIGLE-The garbage? It did. It did. MR. FORD-Good. MR. MAGOWAN-Yes, I have to say what he's cleaned up looks so much better than the, I mean, for years I pulled out of Curtis and you see it right there. MR.TRAVER-Yes,it is an improvement. MR. SCHONEWOLF-It sure is. You should go across the street and take care of that (lost word) house. MR.TRAVER-All right,and I've got another winner on SEQR here. It's a Type II. So we don't need to worry about SEQR. Are members comfortable moving forward on this application? MR. FORD-Yes. MR. TRAVER-It seems fairly straightforward. We have a draft resolution. We're not asking for any waivers. MRS.MOORE-We are asking for waivers. MR.TRAVER-So we can strike Number Two. MRS. MOORE-No, the applicant is requesting waivers. So you're either going to, his waivers requested are lighting,signage,utility systems,stormwater,topography,landscaping. So leave Item Two in. MR. TRAVER-We want to grant those waivers. Okay. I'm sorry. Thank you for clarifying that. You need to close your public hearing. MR.TRAVER-So we'll close the public hearing. PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED MR.TRAVER-And if we're ready to move forward,we will entertain a motion. (Queensbury Planning Board 05/21/2013) W RESOLUTION APPROVING SP # 18-2013 NICHOLAS DAIGLE A site plan application has been made to the Queensbury Planning Board for the following: Applicant proposes to clear a 100 x 150 sq. ft. building lot to promote future development, approximately 15 trees to remain. No development is proposed at this time. Land clearing/ site preparation in a CLI zone requires Planning Board review and approval. SEQR Type II-no further review needed; A public hearing was advertised and held on 5/21/2013; This application is supported with all documentation, public comment, and application material in the file of record; MOTION TO APPROVE SITE PLAN NO. 18-2013 NICHOLAS DAIGLE, Introduced by Paul Schonewolf who moved for its adoption,seconded by Thomas Ford: In accordance with the resolution prepared by Staff: 1) Pursuant to relevant sections of the Town of Queensbury Zoning Code-Chapter 179-9-080, the Planning Board has determined that this proposal satisfies the requirements as stated in the Zoning Code; 2) Waiver requests granted: lighting, signage, utility systems, stormwater, topography, and landscaping; 3) Final approved plans, in compliance with the Site Plan, must be submitted to the Community Development Department before any further review by the Zoning Administrator or Building and Codes personnel. 4) The applicant must meet with Staff after approval and prior to issuance of Building Permit and/or the beginning of any site work. 5) Subsequent issuance of further permits,including building permits is dependent on compliance with this and all other conditions of this resolution. Duly adopted this 21st day of May, 2013,by the following vote: AYES: Mr. Magowan, Mr.Schonewolf, Mr. Ford, Mr.Deeb, Mr. Ferone, Mr.Traver NOES: NONE ABSENT: Mr.Krebs, Mr. Hunsinger MR.TRAVER-You're all set. MR. DAIGLE-All right. Thank you very much,gentlemen. MR.TRAVER-All right. Do we have any other business or discussion for the Board this evening? MRS.MOORE-I don't have any other business. MR.TRAVER-No? Okay. Then does someone want to make a motion to adjourn? RESOLUTION ADJOURNING QUEENSBURY PLANNING BOARD MEETING 5/21/2013 MOTION TO ADJOURN THE QUEENSBURY PLANNING BOARD MEETING OF MAY 21, 2013, Introduced by Paul Schonewolf who moved for its adoption,seconded by David Deeb: Duly adopted this 21St day of May, 2013,by the following vote: AYES: Mr. Ferone, Mr. Magowan, Mr. Ford, Mr. Schonewolf, Mr. Deeb, Mr.Traver (Queensbury Planning Board 05/21/2013) NOES: NONE ABSENT: Mr. Krebs, Mr. Hunsinger MR.TRAVER-Thank you,everyone. On motion meeting was adjourned. RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED, Stephen Traver,Acting Chairman 43