Loading...
07-16-2013 (Queensbury Planning Board 07/16/2013) QUEENSBURY PLANNING BOARD MEETING FIRST REGULAR MEETING JULY 16,2013 INDEX Site Plan No. 78-2012 Jeffrey Schwartz 1. Tax Map No. 308.20-1-2 Site Plan No.45-2011 Kelly Carte 2. Tax Map No. 300.16-1-3 Site Plan No.42-2012 Daniel&Ellen Nichols 3. Tax Map No. 288.20-1-18, 19 Site Plan No. 30-2013 George&Patty Pensel 3. ZBA RECOMMENDATION Tax Map No. 226.19-1-76 Site Plan No. 33-2013 William&Pamela Roberts 6. ZBA RECOMMENDATION Tax Map No. 239.12-2-64 Site Plan No. 34-2013 Chip Gordon 9. Tax Map No. 239.12-2-88 Site Plan No. 21-2013 Hobby Lobby 10. Tax Map No. 296.18-1-47 Subdivision No. 13-2008 Mary Sicard 17. FINAL STAGE Tax Map No. 289.6-1-1, 2, 3, 5, 17 Freshwater Wetlands 1-2010 Site Plan No. 31-2013 Craig Brown 18. Tax Map No. 303.8-1-13.2, 13.3 Site Plan No. 32-2013 New Generation Yarn Acquisition Corp. 32. Tax Map No. 308.20-1-9.2 THESE ARE NOT OFFICIALLY ADOPTED MINUTES AND ARE SUBJECT TO BOARD AND STAFF REVISIONS. REVISIONS WILL APPEAR ON THE FOLLOWING MONTHS MINUTES (IF ANY) AND WILL STATE SUCH APPROVAL OF SAID MINUTES. 0 (Queensbury Planning Board 07/16/2013) QUEENSBURY PLANNING BOARD MEETING FIRST REGULAR MEETING JULY 16,2013 7:00 P.M. MEMBERS PRESENT CHRIS HUNSINGER, CHAIRMAN DONALD KREBS, SECRETARY STEPHEN TRAVER THOMAS FORD PAUL SCHONEWOLF DAVID DEEB JAMIE WHITE,ALTERNATE LAND USE PLANNER-LAURA MOORE STENOGRAPHER-MARIA GAGLIARDI MR. HUNSINGER-I'll call to order the meeting of the Town of Queensbury Planning Board on Tuesday, July 16, 2013. First order of business is approval of minutes from May 21St & May 23rd, 2013. Would someone like to make a motion? APPROVAL OF MINUTES May 21, 2013 May 23, 2013 MOTION TO APPROVE THE QUEENSBURY PLANNING BOARD MEETING MINUTES OF MAY 21 &MAY 23, 2013, Introduced by Paul Schonewolf who moved for its adoption, seconded by Donald Krebs: Duly adopted this 16th day of July, 2013,by the following vote: AYES: Mr. Deeb, Mr. Schonewolf, Mr. Ford, Mr. Krebs, Mr.Traver, Mr. Hunsinger NOES: NONE MR. HUNSINGER-A couple of meetings ago Brad showed up like five minutes in, so why don't we just get going on the business, and if he's, when we get to the first item, if, I don't know who's, are you ready to sit, George, or Jamie? You're probably waiting to have a turn, right? Okay. All right. We'll give Brad a couple of more minutes, and if he doesn't show up,then you can join us. We have three administrative items this evening. The first one is Site Plan 78-2012 for Jeffrey Schwartz. ADMINISTRATIVE ITEMS: SP 78-2013 JEFFREY SCHWARTZ: FOR FURTHER TABLING CONSIDERATION MR. HUNSINGER-Which is being further tabled. There's still outstanding issues with the Town Engineer. Staff has suggested we table this to a September meeting. We have meetings on the 17th and 24th. MRS. MOORE-I would suggest just tabling it to a September meeting, and then we can decide, at Staff level,which meeting that is,if you don't mind. MR. HUNSINGER-We'd have to warn it again,right? MRS.MOORE-I'm sorry,what? MR. HUNSINGER-We'd have to warn it again,then,if we don't table it to a specific date. MRS.MOORE-I understand. Okay. MR. HUNSINGER-Why don't we just do it to the 24th? 1 (Queensbury Planning Board 07/16/2013) MRS.MOORE-Okay. MR. HUNSINGER-Deadline August 15th. RESOLUTION TABLING SP# 78-2012 JEFFREY SCHWARTZ The applicant& agent met with Planning Staff and subsequently submitted revised information for engineering review; Once an engineering sign-off is given on the project the applicant will submit revised plans for Planning Board review: MOTION TO TABLE SITE PLAN NO. 78-2012 JEFFREY SCHWARTZ, Introduced by Donald Krebs who moved for its adoption,seconded by David Deeb: Tabled to the September 24th meeting of the Planning Board with an August 15th deadline for submittal of information. Duly adopted this 16th day of July, 2013,by the following vote: AYES: Mr. Deeb, Mr. Schonewolf, Mr. Ford, Mr. Krebs, Mr.Traver, Mr. Hunsinger NOES: NONE MR. HUNSINGER-We also have a Kelly Carte applicant 45-2011 for further tabling. SP 45-2011 KELLY CARTE: FOR FURTHER TABLING CONSIDERATION MR. HUNSINGER-Was there any additional information on that one? MRS. MOORE-There's no new information on this application. The applicant hasn't corresponded back with us. This is why the motion indicates the planning staff is to get in touch with them through your request. MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. So do we want to table it to a specific date,or table it indefinitely? MRS. MOORE-No,you can table it to September, and then, either the first meeting, and hopefully by that time we will have a response, and then I can indicate whether it's for a six month period or for next year. MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. MR.TRAVER-Yes,as I recall we had some concerns about that, and a lot of conditions. So we'll want to get an update on it. MR. HUNSINGER-Yes. MR. KREBS-Okay. RESOLUTION EXTENDING APPROVAL SP#45-2011 KELLY CARTE On 8-2-2011 the applicant was approved with conditions (see attached resolution); On 7-24-2012 the application was tabled to 7-24-2013; MOTION TO REQUEST PLANNING STAFF CONTACT THE APPLICANT TO REQUEST AN UPDATE AND FURTHER EXTEND THE APPROVAL TO SEPTEMBER 24TH FOR SITE PLAN NO. 45-2011 KELLY CARTE, Introduced by Donald Krebs who moved for its adoption, seconded by Stephen Traver: As per resolution prepared by Staff. Duly adopted this 16th day of July, 2013,by the following vote: AYES: Mr. Deeb, Mr. Schonewolf, Mr. Ford, Mr. Krebs, Mr.Traver, Mr. Hunsinger 2 (Queensbury Planning Board 07/16/2013) NOES: NONE MR. HUNSINGER-And then finally Site Plan 42-2012 for Daniel & Ellen Nichols. Is there any information on that one? They had requested to table it to September also MRS. MOORE-Yes, they did. They had to complete some other items before they moved on this project,and so they've asked to be tabled to September. MR.TRAVER-They were waiting for a response from another entity,weren't they,on the property? MRS. MOORE-They had other properties that they were working with and therefore they believe that will be resolved so they can move forward on this project. MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. RESOLUTION TABLING SP#42-2011 DANIEL&ELLEN NICHOLS MOTION TO REQUEST PLANNING STAFF CONTACT THE APPLICANT TO REQUEST AN UPDATE AND FURTHER TABLE THIS APPLICATION TO SEPTEMBER 24TH FOR SITE PLAN NO .42-2012 DANIEL&ELLEN NICHOLS, Introduced by Donald Krebs who moved for its adoption, seconded by Stephen Traver: Duly adopted this 16th day of July, 2013,by the following vote: AYES: Mr. Deeb, Mr. Schonewolf, Mr. Ford, Mr. Krebs, Mr.Traver, Mr. Hunsinger NOES: NONE MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. We have several items for recommendations to the Zoning Board of Appeals,actually two items. PLANNING BOARD RECOMMENDATIONS TO THE ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS: SITE PLAN NO. 30-2013 SEQR TYPE II GEORGE & PATTY PENSEL AGENT(S) DENNIS MAC ELROY OWNER(S) SAME AS APPLICANT ZONING WR-WATERFRONT RESIDENTIAL LOCATION 256 LAKE PARKWAY SITE PLAN: APPLICANT PROPOSES REMOVAL AND REPLACEMENT OF EXISTING RESIDENCE, DETACHED GARAGE AND ASSOCIATED SITE IMPROVEMENTS INCLUDING 3 BEDROOM WASTEWATER SYSTEM AND NEW STORMWATER SYSTEM. HARD SURFACING WITHIN 50 FEET OF THE SHORELINE AND CONSTRUCTION OF A FREESTANDING STRUCTURE WITHIN 50 FEET OF SLOPES IN EXCESS OF 15% IN THE WR ZONE REQUIRES PLANNING BOARD REVIEW AND APPROVAL. VARIANCE: RELIEF REQUESTED FROM THE FOLLOWING REQUIREMENTS OF THE WR ZONE: SHORELINE & SIDELINE SETBACKS; ROAD FRONTAGE, PERMEABILITY,AND CONSTRUCTION OF 2 GARAGES ON ONE PARCEL WHERE ONLY ONE IS ALLOWED. CROSS REFERENCE AV 30-13, BP 8092 WARREN CO. REFERRAL 7/2013 APA, CEA, OTHER L G PARK CEA, APA WETLANDS LOT SIZE 0.41 ACRES TAX MAP NO. 226.19-1-76 SECTION 179-6-050, 060 DENNIS MAC ELROY&CURT DYBAS, REPRESENTING APPLICANT, PRESENT MRS. MOORE-Okay. The Planning Board is to provide a recommendation to the Zoning Board for the removal and construction of a single family dwelling. The relief requested for side setbacks is greater than the existing home and moves the home further away from the lake. The request for a second garage may be considered substantial but the total size of the garage usage is 964 square feet, where garages as an accessory structure on lots less than five acres cannot exceed 1,100 square feet. MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. Good evening. MR. MAC ELROY-Good evening. I'm Dennis MacElroy with Environmental Design, with Curt Dybas, excuse me, architect on the project,and we both represent the Pensel's in this application,and Patty and George Pensel are with us tonight in the first row. This project,as Laura described,involves the replacement of an existing structure on a uniquely shaped lot at the end of Lake Parkway,Assembly Point. The replacement structure has been meticulously designed by the Pensel's, with Curt's assistance, and in a way that the existing nonconformity of side setbacks is at least increased somewhat. There's a greater setback now than what currently exists as proposed. 3 (Queensbury Planning Board 07/16/2013) MR. FORD-That's a better description. MR. MAC ELROY-Yes. The, it obviously still is a nonconforming situation,thus the request for those side setback variances. The front, shorefront variance being requested is simply related to the entry stoop, let's call it. It's the main front line of the house, is at 50 feet, but because the entry porch is part of the structure, that becomes a variance item, and again, that shorefront variance is still, is, as proposed, is greater than what currently exists. A variance related to permeability is being requested because, as you can see, this is an unusual situation in that the road, the end of Lake Parkway, bisects this property. So we've got a significant portion of impervious surface related to the road. In our chart, the last item under the site development area is the percentage of impermeable area of the site. I've given two figures; actually, one that is the percentage including the road, and the second is the percentage without the road including the calculation. Now I know from, evidently, past experiences,there's a Glen Lake project, I think,that perhaps you recently had that you required the road area to be included in it. We've done that, but it does tip the scale and require the variance. I would point out that there is, in this proposal there is still less impermeable area than currently exists. So in each one of these cases, setbacks, permeability, we're decreasing the amount of relief necessary. A housekeeping item is frontage on a Town road. That's required because the end of Lake Parkway here is actually a private road. So there's not Town road frontage. That's a housekeeping issue. I've done this on other projects. It was suggested by Craig that we proceed that way, and then the last variance request is related to a second garage, and really what this becomes is within the main structure there is a small or a single garage space that's included. There is a detached garage that's part of the proposal. So by dedicating some space within the main structure, within the house, that becomes a second garage that conflicts with the Ordinance as written. So we're requesting that relief from that part of the Ordinance. I think what goes along with this re-build of an existing structure in an existing location is, again, somewhat lessening the relief that currently exists. There'll be a new wastewater system associated with this, a new stormwater system associated with the property. So we feel it's a positive improvement to the neighborhood. MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. Questions,comments from the Board? MR. FORD-Okay. So how many cars can be accommodated as a result of the proposed garages? MR. MAC ELROY-Well,in the house structure,that's a single car garage. The detached garage is a 24 by 28 size garage,a two car garage. MR. FORD-So a total of three cars. MR. MAC ELROY-Correct. MR. FORD-Okay. MR. SCHONEWOLF-Dennis,who owns the property across the street? MR. MAC ELROY-Across? MR. SCHONEWOLF-Lake Parkway? MR. MAC ELROY-Well,this parcel is,this L shaped. MR. SCHONEWOLF-No,no,no, across the street. It's got your name on it. Is that you that owns it,or is it your brother or is it the family? MR. MAC ELROY-Family. MR. SCHONEWOLF-It's in trust? MR. MAC ELROY-No,it's in five names. MR. SCHONEWOLF-Okay. I'm not going to re-visit the conflict you've had with the Town on the fire departments,but this Board hasn't been briefed on that and I will do that at a later date,but the fact of the matter is you and I have talked for 18 years about a way of getting around, if Assembly Point Road is closed and having to get through off your private road, because it's a matter of 40 feet in one place, 50 feet in the other place. It just so happens that this is one of the places, but either you or your family have said we don't want to go through here, even if we put up a barrier. So then there's the other place, (lost word). What I'm asking you to do is take another shot at resolving it, 4 (Queensbury Planning Board 07/16/2013) besides just saying your brother doesn't want it. Take another shot at resolving it with the Town. If not,then we'll have to resolve it. Not us here,but. MR. MAC ELROY-Right, and let me be clear. I'll step away from this if somehow that effects anything with the Pensel's application. MR. SCHONEWOLF-Not at all. MR. MAC ELROY-Okay. MR. SCHONEWOLF-Just because you're here and the land's right there, it's a matter that, I know the Town is working on it,and I think you should take another look,that's all. MR. MAC ELROY-Let me just point, for some bit of clarity, you see the amount of frontage, then, that's on,that's contiguous with my family's property and the Pensel's. It's the Harrington property that's really the abutting one. MR. SCHONEWOLF-Well,we only need 20 feet. MR. MAC ELROY-That's not even 20 feet. Again, I don't want to drag that. MR. HUNSINGER-So where does the Town road end? MR. MAC ELROY-A little further north on Lake Parkway. MR. SCHONEWOLF-I was talking about the Town road that's at the top of Sunset that the Town came in and built,got right to the end and then they blocked it for say 35 feet. This is more. This is more,probably about 50 feet. MR. HUNSINGER-Well, I mean,driving down there you wouldn't know that the Town road ends. MR. MAC ELROY-That's right. MR. HUNSINGER-I mean,it's not obvious on the site plan. MR. SCHONEWOLF-No, it's just a turnaround, and George, we have nothing against you. If you're going to take down that house, God bless you. MR. HUNSINGER-Any other questions or comments from the Board? So the public hearing would be for Site Plan Review. MRS.MOORE-Yes. MR. HUNSINGER-Is there a public hearing for the? MRS.MOORE-For the variance? Yes. There'll be a public hearing for the variance. MR. HUNSINGER-It's a Type II SEQR, so no SEQR review is necessary. If there are no other questions or comments,then I would entertain a recommendation. RESOLUTION RE: ZBA RECOMMENDATION FOR AV# 30-2013 GEORGE&PATTY PENSEL The applicant has submitted an application for the following: Site Plan: Applicant proposes removal and replacement of existing residence, detached garage and associated site improvements including 3 bedroom wastewater system and new stormwater system. Hard surfacing within 50 feet of the shoreline and construction of a freestanding structure within 50 feet of slopes in excess of 15% in the WR zone requires Planning Board review and approval. Variance: Relief requested from the following requirements of the WR zone: shoreline & sideline setbacks; road frontage, permeability,and construction of 2 garages on one parcel where only one is allowed; 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; 5 (Queensbury Planning Board 07/16/2013) The Planning Board has briefly reviewed and discussed this application, the relief request in the variance application as well as the potential impacts of this project on the neighborhood and surrounding community,and found that: MOTION TO MAKE A RECOMMENDATION ON BEHALF OF THE PLANNING BOARD TO THE ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS FOR AREA VARIANCE NO. 30-2013 GEORGE & PATTY PENSEL, Introduced by Donald Krebs who moved for its adoption,seconded by Stephen Traver: The Planning Board based on a limited review has not identified any significant adverse impacts that cannot be mitigated with the current project proposal. Duly adopted this 16th day of July, 2013,by the following vote: AYES: Mr.Traver, Mr. Krebs, Mr. Ford, Mr. Schonewolf, Mr. Deeb, Mr. Hunsinger NOES: NONE MR. HUNSINGER-You're all set. Good luck. MR. MAC ELROY-Thank you very much. SITE PLAN NO. 33-2013 SEQR TYPE II WILLIAM & PAMELA ROBERTS AGENT(S) DENNIS MAC ELROY OWNER(S) SAME AS APPLICANT ZONING WR-WATERFRONT RESIDENTIAL LOCATION 4 HOLLY LANE SITE PLAN: APPLICANT PROPOSES IMPROVEMENTS TO TWO EXISTING RESIDENTIAL STRUCTURES. MAIN HOUSE WILL INCREASE FOOTPRINT BY 128 SQ. FT. EXPANSION OF NON-CONFORMING STRUCTURE IN A WR ZONE REQUIRES PLANNING BOARD REVIEW AND APPROVAL. VARIANCE: RELIEF REQUESTED FROM THE MINIMUM 100 FOOT SHORELINE SETBACK AND WELL FOR A STORMWATER MANAGEMENT DEVICE. CROSS REFERENCE AV 36-13, BP'S WARREN CO. REFERRAL 7/2013 APA, CEA, OTHER L G CEA LOT SIZE 0.42 ACRES TAX MAP NO. 239.12-2-64 SECTION 179-13-10 DENNIS MAC ELROY, REPRESENTING APPLICANT, PRESENT MR. HUNSINGER-Jamie,if you want to come sit,you certainly can. MRS. MOORE-I'll read through the Summary. The Planning Board is to provide a recommendation to the Zoning Board in regards to the improvements to a non-conforming structure that includes a 128 sq. ft. addition and I believe a 350 sq. ft. +/- deck. The relief requested is for separation distance of stormwater infiltration for a new driveway where 100 ft. separation is required and 41 ft.is proposed to the shoreline and 81 ft.is proposed to the well. MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. Good evening. MR. MAC ELROY-Good evening, again, for the record I'm Dennis MacElroy with Environmental Design representing Pam and William Roberts on this application for a variance, seeking a recommendation from your Board tonight. This project involves the renovation of two existing structures that pre-exist on a nonconforming lot. These are nonconforming structures, based on the Ordinance, planning ordinance that came into effect. The renovation will be done such that the main dwelling will require site plan review. The renovated cottage, any renovation to that, the guest cottage is all within Code, within the setback area. So that simply requires a building permit, but naturally it's part of the application. All figures and quantities and areas and what not include that building as well. The purpose of the variance is that in the construction of a driveway for that property that creates impervious area greater than 1,000 square feet, and therefore triggers the requirement for a minor stormwater application. Under those regulations for a minor permit, stormwater that is generated from an impervious surface that supports traffic, vehicular surface, requires that those infiltration devices be 100 feet from the lake. The mechanism for relief of that is to go before the ZBA. It's kind of an unusual relief that the ZBA is asked to look at,but we've done it before. They're knowledgeable of it now. At the beginning they were a little uncertain why they were acting on variances of that nature but that's what we're here for. We have a stormwater management device, a shallow grass swale, which is down gradient of the proposed driveway. It's located 41 feet from the shoreline. The Ordinance calls for 100 feet. Therefore relief is being requested for that location. MR. FORD-For the record,could we have the identity of the lady seated next to you? MR. MAC ELROY-I'm sorry. Excuse me. 6 (Queensbury Planning Board 07/16/2013) PAM ROBERTS MRS. ROBERTS-Pam Roberts. MR. MAC ELROY-Pam Roberts. MR. MAC ELROY-I'm sorry,Tom. My error. MR. HUNSINGER-Anything else? Questions, comments from members of the Board? Everyone's quiet. MR. SCHONEWOLF-I don't have a problem with this. It's pretty minor. MR. HUNSINGER-Yes. MR. SCHONEWOLF-They've got plenty of room there. Not a heavy traffic street, except for the one at the end. MR. HUNSINGER-Well, if there's no questions or comments, this is a Type II SEQR, so no SEQR review is required, and there's no public hearing scheduled until Site Plan Review. So, if there's no questions or comments, I'll entertain a motion for a recommendation. RESOLUTION RE: ZBA RECOMMENDATION FOR AV# 36-2013 WILLIAM &PAMELA ROBERTS The applicant has submitted an application for the following: Site Plan: Applicant proposes improvements to two existing residential structures. Main house will increase footprint by 128 sq. ft. Expansion of non-conforming structure in a WR zone requires Planning Board review and approval. Variance: Relief requested from the minimum 100 foot shoreline setback and well setback for a stormwater management device; 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. 36-2013 WILLIAM & PAMELA ROBERTS, Introduced by Donald Krebs who moved for its adoption,seconded by Thomas Ford: The Planning Board based on a limited review has not identified any significant adverse impacts that cannot be mitigated with the current project proposal. Duly adopted this 16th day of July, 2013,by the following vote: AYES: Mr. Ford, Mr. Schonewolf, Mr. Deeb, Ms.White, Mr. Krebs, Mr.Traver, Mr. Hunsinger NOES: NONE MR. HUNSINGER-You're all set. MR. MAC ELROY-All right. Thank you very much. I have a procedural question for the Board or Laura, actually. Within the Staff Notes package there are,both this application and the prior one, is comments from Chazen, engineering comments,which typically would be addressed at the site plan portion of this. MR. HUNSINGER-Right. MR. MAC ELROY-Does the ZBA,that's our next stop,do they have any questions or? MRS.MOORE-No,this is a reference to site plan. MR. MAC ELROY-Okay, and as it would appear that we'd be heading for an August meeting for both those applications,responses to those are best,you know,we've already past now July 15th. 7 (Queensbury Planning Board 07/16/2013) MRS. MOORE-We've past, so for the Roberts application, it won't be heard again until a later date as it is, and then the Pensel application that we just did will, has an opportunity to review that on the 24th. So, your comments should be addressed, for the site plan level by the 24th, you know, a conversation between you and the Town Engineer should be completed by the 24th so that the Board has enough information. MR. MAC ELROY-Which 24th? MRS.MOORE-August 24 or, I'm sorry,July 24th,next week. MR. HUNSINGER-Next week. MRS.MOORE-Which is next week,or the Zoning Board. MR. MAC ELROY-That's a ZBA,right. MRS.MOORE-I'm sorry. Yes. I'm getting my dates mixed up and what Board it is. MR. MAC ELROY-Both have yet to be scheduled for an August meeting, but that's what we would anticipate. MRS.MOORE-Yes. You want the deadline of when I need comments addressed by. MR. MAC ELROY-Is that,a response to that effecting our placement on an August agenda. MRS.MOORE-We can talk about that. MR. MAC ELROY-Okay. That's good for me. Thank you very much. MR. HUNSINGER-Yes,frequently we will see projects the following week. MR. MAC ELROY-Yes understood. MR. SCHONEWOLF-When does it go to the ZBA,tomorrow night? MR. MAC ELROY-A week from tomorrow. MRS. MOORE-No, a week from tomorrow, and that's why I'm thinking that it was rolling that it would be,and it's not rolling. MR. MAC ELROY-Yes. It's not a Tuesday,Wednesday,Tuesday thing. MRS.MOORE-Right and it's not this time. MR. TRAVER-And to the extent that any of those engineering comments relate to the variances, if you're thinking about putting together a response, you might even just have an oral response in case a question comes up at the ZBA. MR. MAC ELROY-Great. Thank you. MR. KREBS-Just a technical matter, which my fellow Planning Board member just brought up. In the draft it says 36-2013 as the number of the,but on the Town agenda it says 33-2013. So let's just make sure whichever it is,we have the correct one in the minutes. MR. HUNSINGER-Good catch. MRS.MOORE-I see that. I'll amend that. MR. MAC ELROY-Thank you. MR. HUNSINGER-Yes,you're welcome. We have an item,this evening,for Expedited Review. EXPEDITED REVIEW: SITE PLAN NO. 34-2013 SEQR TYPE II CHIP GORDON AGENT(S) DAN WILLIAMS OWNER(S) SAME AS APPLICANT ZONING WR-WATERFRONT RESIDENTIAL LOCATION 2780 STATE ROUTE 9L APPLICANT PROPOSES A NEW DOCK AND BOATHOUSE AND INCLUDES A 8 (Queensbury Planning Board 07/16/2013) LANDSCAPE BUFFER AT THE SHORELINE. BOATHOUSE IN A WR ZONE REQUIRES PLANNING BOARD REVIEW AND APPROVAL. CROSS REFERENCE BP 04-363 WARREN CO. REFERRAL 7/2013 APA, CEA, OTHER L G CEA LOT SIZE 1.69 ACRES TAX MAP NO. 239.12-2-88 SECTION 179-5-060 HAROLD GORDON, PRESENT MR. HUNSINGER-Laura? MRS. MOORE-The applicant proposes the construction of a boathouse with a sundeck. The actual sundeck is 388 sq. ft. and the dock is 423 sq. ft., and that's just a misread on the print that was supplied. MR. HUNSINGER-So it was wrong in Staff comments as well? MRS.MOORE-Correct. Yes. MR. HUNSINGER-Did everyone get that? The dock is 423 square feet and the sundeck is 388, not 700. MR.TRAVER-Okay. MR. HUNSINGER-Since this is an Expedited Review, I'll just ask if there are any questions or comments from the Board. MR. SCHONEWOLF-You're just replacing what's down there. Right? MR. GORDON-Well,what's down there now will be gone completely. It's a flat dock now and a ramp that's a platform at this point. MR. HUNSINGER-I'm sorry. If you could identify yourself for the record. MR. GORDON-Yes, I'm sorry. My name's Harold Gordon. It's down there as Chip which is my more familiar name. I'm one of the landowners and the applicant. MR. HUNSINGER-Great. Thank you. Any other questions from the Board? MR. SCHONEWOLF-No. MR. HUNSINGER-We do have a public hearing scheduled for this project. Is there anyone in the audience that wants to address the Board on this? PUBLIC HEARING OPENED MR. HUNSINGER-Are there any written comments, Laura? MRS.MOORE-No. MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. We will open the public hearing, and since there are no comments, I will close the public hearing. PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED MR. HUNSINGER-And it's a Type II SEQR so no SEQR review is required, and with that I'll entertain a motion. RESOLUTION APPROVING SP# 34-2013 CHIP GORDON A site plan application has been made to the Queensbury Planning Board for the following: Applicant proposes a new dock and boathouse and includes a landscape buffer at the shoreline. Boathouse in a WR zone requires Planning Board review and approval. SEQR Type II; A public hearing was advertised and held on 7-16-2013; 9 (Queensbury Planning Board 07/16/2013) This application is supported with all documentation, public comment, and application material in the file of record; MOTION TO APPROVE SITE PLAN NO. 34-2013 CHIP GORDON, Introduced by Donald Krebs whom moved for its adoption,seconded by Jamie White: 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) 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; 3) The applicant must meet with Staff after approval and prior to issuance of Building Permit and/or the beginning of any site work; 4) Subsequent issuance of further permits,including building permits is dependent on compliance with this and all other conditions of this resolution. Duly adopted this 16th day of July, 2013,by the following vote: AYES: Ms.White, Mr. Krebs, Mr.Traver, Mr. Ford, Mr. Schonewolf, Mr. Deeb, Mr. Hunsinger NOES: NONE MR. HUNSINGER-You're all set. MR. GORDON-Thank you very much. TABLED ITEM: SITE PLAN NO. 21-2013 SEQR TYPE UNLISTED HOBBY LOBBY AGENT(S) P132 ARCHITECTURE & ENGINEERING OWNER(S) GS 1998 C-1 NORTHWAY PLAZA ZONING CI- COMMERCIAL INTENSIVE LOCATION 820 STATE ROUTE 9 APPLICANT PROPOSES REPURPOSING OF AN EXISTING 58,000 SQ. FT. BUILDING FOR A HOBBY LOBBY,ADDITIONAL SITE WORK INCLUDES A 1,125 SQ. FT. VESTIBULE, NEW DELIVERY TRUCK AREA, 2,000 SQ. FT. SIDEWALK, REMOVAL OF SOME PARKING SPACES TO ACCOMMODATE VESTIBULE, SIDEWALK,AND DRIVE AISLE. NEW USES IN A CI ZONE REQUIRE PLANNING BOARD REVIEW AND APPROVAL. CROSS REFERENCE SP 48-08; SP 12-02, MANY AV'S & SV'S WARREN CO. REFERRAL MAY 2013-NO COUNTY IMPACT LOT SIZE 22.87 ACRES TAX MAP NO. 296.18-1- 47 SECTION 179-3-040 BECKY SHINGLER, REPRESENTING APPLICANT, PRESENT MR. HUNSINGER-Laura? MRS. MOORE-Okay. The applicant proposes to utilize 59,063 square feet of an existing building complex for the use of a retail business for Hobby Lobby. This applicant is also requesting waivers the Board may consider, and this includes lighting, utility location, stormwater measures, topography, contour intervals, landscaping, land use districts, traffic patterns, soils logs, disposal plans, and snow removal plans. The applicant has indicated that the lighting and such are not changing on the site. We have discussed with them about the stormwater measures. They are looking into updating the report that's been handled on a yearly basis about the stormwater management system on the site. So they are in the process of getting that information to us at Staff level. MR. HUNSINGER-Great. Good evening. MS. SHINGLER-Good evening. My name's Becky Shingle. I'm representing Hobby Lobby Stores Incorporated. We'd just ask the Board to approve our re-use of the zone for a new Hobby Lobby, which will require a new truck dock and new vestibule, about 1100 square feet on the vestibule. It will require, the vestibule adding will change the traffic pattern and will require some additional sidewalk work. 10 (Queensbury Planning Board 07/16/2013) MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. Anything else? Okay. I'll open it up for questions, comments from the Board. I think one of the reasons there was a Staff comment about lighting is because I had asked about it when we tabled this last month, and I notice on the existing building there's a couple of carriage lights that are there near the entrance. So there's not going to be any new lighting in the entrance? It'll be inside? MS. SHINGLER-Yes. Any lights that we will add,the signage obviously will be lit, and then there will just be emergency lights on either side of the sliding doors, and then some wall packs, probably on the outside,down lights, LED down lights on those wall packs. MR. FORD-How many? MS. SHINGLER-I think there's about eight or ten, and they go down the one side of the building and around the back. MR. SCHONEWOLF-Where people are going to walk, right? MS. SHINGLER-Yes. MR. HUNSINGER-So how high would they, I mean? MS. SHINGLER-I believe, I want to say they're 14 to 16. MR. HUNSINGER-So these aren't existing lights,these are going to be new ones? MS. SHINGLER-The wall packs are not existing. MR. HUNSINGER-Okay and do you know where those locations will be? MS. SHINGLER-I don't have them with me. They are on 24 foot centers down the side. It would be the south end of the building that faces Route 9 side,and then along the east side of the building. MR. HUNSINGER-So there's eight in total? MS. SHINGLER-I think there's eight total. I'm not positive about the (lost word). MR. FORD-But it might be more? MS. SHINGLER-It might be more. They're LED. They're down lights. So we use them frequently for our standard,and I can send you a cut sheet if you'd like to see. MR. HUNSINGER-Yes,it would have been helpful to get. MR. FORD-Yes,it would have been. I'm concerned we don't know the number or the height. MR. HUNSINGER-Yes. MRS. MOORE-Yes, I mean, I was not aware of that, so I would just suggest, as part of your review, that it be something that they submit to ensure that it's in conformance with the Town lighting standards, and then we would go from there, but the Board can, that's up to you how you want to proceed with the lighting information. MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. MS. SHINGLER-I know we've used the same lighting in Las Vegas and they had issued with it, so we had to conform to their codes. MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. Yes,we have,the Town has very specific lighting standards that you have to comply with,and that's why we like to review those ahead of time. MS. SHINGLER-Yes,at the time I didn't know that they were putting the wall packs on. MRS.MOORE-Okay. MR. HUNSINGER-That's why we ask the questions. 11 (Queensbury Planning Board 07/16/2013) MS. SHINGLER-Yes, the drawings I looked at today had wall packs on them, but I can get that information to you quickly. MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. I actually work in Northway Plaza, so, yes, you know, I don't have a problem with this at all. In fact, sometimes I think it's almost overkill,but,you know,it is a new use, it's been vacant for a long time, so we do have to comply with the Code,but I think it would be great to get a new tenant in there,get that end of the Plaza used again. MS. SHINGLER-I think Mr. Gallagher,who's the P132 architect,has reviewed that and I'm sure he can comply with that,but I can get you that information. MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. Any other questions or comments from the Board? MS.WHITE-Just in an economic development sense, we're very pleased to see that coming into the Town. MS. SHINGLER-We're excited about coming to the Town. MR. HUNSINGER-Good. MR. SCHONEWOLF-It will be a great improvement. MR. KREBS-My wife is excited that you're coming. MS. SHINGLER-I hear that all over the place. MR. HUNSINGER-We do have a public hearing scheduled this evening. Is there anyone in the audience that wants to address the Board on this project? PUBLIC HEARING OPENED MR. HUNSINGER-Any written comments, Laura? MRS.MOORE-No. MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. I'll open the public hearing, and let the record show no comments were received,and we will close the public hearing. PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED MR. HUNSINGER-This is an Unlisted action. Was a Short Form submitted? MRS.MOORE-Yes. MR. HUNSINGER-They actually filled out the assessment for us. MRS.MOORE-They did. MR. HUNSINGER-Can we just go with what they have? MRS.MOORE-You can,but you should go through. MR. HUNSINGER-Whenever you're ready. MR.TRAVER-This review is with the understanding that the lighting would be Code compliant. MR. HUNSINGER-Would be Code compliant,yes. MR.TRAVER-Good,okay. MRS. MOORE-Okay. I'll go through the lighting code with you or give you that section of the Ordinance so that you can confirm that that many wall packs and their intensity meets the Code. MS. SHINGLER-Okay. MR. KREBS-"Does the action exceed any Type I threshold in 6 NYCRR Part 617.4?" 12 (Queensbury Planning Board 07/16/2013) MR.TRAVER-No. MR. FORD-No. MR. KREBS-"Will the action receive coordinated review as provided for Unlisted Actions in 6 NYCRR, Part 617.6?" MR. FORD-No. MR.TRAVER-No. MR. KREBS-"Could the action result in any adverse effects associated with the following: C1. Existing air quality, surface or ground water quality or quantity, noise levels, existing traffic patterns,solid waste production or disposal,potential for erosion,drainage or flooding problems?" MR. HUNSINGER-No. MR.TRAVER-No. MR. FORD-No. MR. KREBS-"C2. Aesthetic, agricultural, archeological, historic, or other natural or cultural resources; or community or neighborhood character?" MR. FORD-No. MR.TRAVER-No. MR. KREBS-"C3. Vegetation, fauna, fish, shellfish or wildlife species, significant habitats, or threatened or endangered species?" MR. HUNSINGER-No. MR.TRAVER-No. MR. KREBS-"C4. A community's existing plans or goals as officially adopted, or a change in use or intensity of use of land or other natural resources?" MR. FORD-No. MR.TRAVER-No. MR. KREBS-"CS. Growth, subsequent development or related activities likely to be induced by the proposed action?" MR.TRAVER-No. MR. HUNSINGER-No. MR. KREBS-"C6. Long term,short term,cumulative or other effects not identified above?" MR.TRAVER-No. MR. FORD-No. MR. KREBS-"C7. Other impacts (including changes in use of either quantity or energy)?" MR.TRAVER-No. MR. HUNSINGER-No. MR. FORD-No. MR. KREBS-"Will the project have an impact on the environmental characteristics that caused the establishment of a Critical Environmental Area?" 13 (Queensbury Planning Board 07/16/2013) MR. HUNSINGER-No. MR.TRAVER-No. MR. KREBS-"Is there or is there likely to be controversy related to potential adverse environmental impacts?" MR. FORD-No. MR.TRAVER-No. MR. KREBS-So we can declare a Negative SEQR. MR.TRAVER-Second. RESOLUTION WHEN DETERMINATION OF NO SIGNIFICANCE IS MADE RESOLUTION NO. 21-2013, Introduced by Donald Krebs who moved for its adoption, seconded by Stephen Traver: WHEREAS,there is presently before the Planning Board an application for: HOBBY LOBBY,and WHEREAS, this Planning Board has determined that the proposed project and Planning Board action is subject to review under the State Environmental Quality Review Act, NOW,THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED: 1. No Federal agency appears to be involved. 2. The following agencies are involved: NONE 3. The proposed action considered by this Board is Unlisted in the Department of Environmental Conservation Regulations implementing the State Environmental Quality Review Act and the regulations of the Town of Queensbury. 4. An Environmental Assessment Form has been completed by the applicant. 5. Having considered and thoroughly analyzed the relevant areas of environmental concern and having considered the criteria for determining whether a project has a significant environmental impact as the same is set forth in Section 617.11 of the Official Compilation of Codes, Rules and Regulations for the State of New York, this Board finds that the action about to be undertaken by this Board will have no significant environmental effect and the Chairman of the Planning Board is hereby authorized to execute and sign and file as may be necessary a statement of non-significance or a negative declaration that may be required by law. Duly adopted this 16th day of,July, 2013,by the following vote: AYES: Mr. Krebs, Mr.Traver, Ms.White, Mr. Ford, Mr. Schonewolf, Mr. Deeb, Mr. Hunsinger NOES: NONE MR. HUNSINGER-Are there any other issues besides the lighting? MRS. MOORE-Also, I would suggest the stormwater information be part of your condition,that they include stormwater management, knowing that it's adequate for the site, and then another note that I did not mention earlier was if the existing snow removal plan is going to be the same as it was previously. MR. SCHONEWOLF-You mean for Chili's and Walgreens? MRS.MOORE-For this site,for that area of Hobby Lobby. MR. HUNSINGER-What they do now is they, well, especially there where it's empty,you know,they plow what's being used,and then if the snow gets too deep,they come in and remove it. 14 (Queensbury Planning Board 07/16/2013) MRS.MOORE-Okay. So if that's okay with the Board,that's fine. That was just a question from Staff. MR. KREBS-And the problem is, with including stormwater, is that this applicant alone is not responsible for all of the stormwater runoff. There are other pieces of property here that contribute to that runoff. So it's kind of hard to ask them to do. MRS. MOORE-I know, right. I can inform you, like the stormwater retrofit project that came up a few, that's been ongoing, that is in the process of being reviewed and potentially installed, and they're working those details out now,and that's the property owner,not necessarily Hobby Lobby. MR. HUNSINGER-I was going to say,because you're here just representing the tenant,right? MS. SHINGLER-Right. RCG Ventures will address the stormwater. MR. KREBS-And I was under the impression that the landowner has agreed to work with the County to handle the water coming off of Route 9. MRS.MOORE-Yes. MR. KREBS-Which is where the water is coming from. MRS.MOORE-That's correct. MR. KREBS-The surface of the water itself. It's not like it's being created on site. MR. HUNSINGER-So, just in terms of the motion, well, I mean, they have asked for a waiver from lighting,but we are going to ask that the wall packs be Code compliant. MRS. MOORE-And you could indicate their lighting plan in general should be Code compliant, or do you want the wall packs to be? You're more concerned about the building itself? MR. FORD-Good point. MR. HUNSINGER-I mean,my guess is the existing lights. MRS. MOORE-They're not changing those existing lights. So you want information in regards to the new lighting. MR. HUNSINGER-I think it's just in regards to the wall pack, but I don't want to speak for the whole Board. MRS.MOORE-Okay. MR.TRAVER-Yes, I mean,they're not changing anything else. MR. HUNSINGER-Yes. I believe that the existing parking lot lights are, certainly the height, I believe, is within Code. I can't speak to whether or not the light levels are. They certainly don't seem excessive. MRS.MOORE-Okay. MR. HUNSINGER-It would have been reviewed when Home Depot went in. MRS.MOORE-The whole site? MR. HUNSINGER-The entire site,because they tore buildings down and they reconfigured parking. MR. KREBS-Well, what I was going to do is add new lighting will be compliant with the Town regulations. MR. HUNSINGER-Is that good enough? MRS.MOORE-Yes. MR. HUNSINGER-So we're still granting a waiver, but we're not granting a waiver on the new lighting. Okay? 1s (Queensbury Planning Board 07/16/2013) MRS.MOORE-Yes. MR. HUNSINGER-And I don't see any problem with any of the other waivers, either. All right. Go ahead. RESOLUTION APPROVING SP# 21-2013 HOBBY LOBBY A site plan application has been made to the Queensbury Planning Board for the following: Applicant proposes repurposing of an existing 58,000 sq. ft. building for a Hobby Lobby, additional site work includes a 1,125 sq. ft. vestibule, new delivery truck area, 2,000 sq. ft. sidewalk, removal of some parking spaces to accommodate vestibule, sidewalk, and drive aisle. New uses in a Cl zone require Planning Board review and approval; A public hearing was advertised and held on 6-18-2013 tabled to 7-16-2013; This application is supported with all documentation, public comment, and application material in the file of record; MOTION TO APPROVE SITE PLAN NO. 21-2013 HOBBY LOBBY, Introduced by Donald Krebs who moved for its adoption,seconded by Stephen Traver: 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) Waiver requests granted: stormwater mgmt., grading, landscaping, lighting plans, utility locations,topo contour intervals,land use districts,traffic patterns,soil logs, disposal plans, and snow removal plan; 4) New lighting will be compliant with Town regulations. 5) Final approved plans, in compliance with the Site Plan, must be submitted to the Community Development Department before any further review by the Zoning Administrator or Building and Codes personnel. 6) The applicant must meet with Staff after approval and prior to issuance of Building Permit and/or the beginning of any site work. 7) Subsequent issuance of further permits,including building permits is dependent on compliance with this and all other conditions of this resolution; Duly adopted this 16th day of July, 2013,by the following vote: AYES: Mr. Deeb, Mr. Schonewolf, Mr. Ford, Ms.White, Mr. Krebs, Mr.Traver, Mr. Hunsinger NOES: NONE MR. HUNSINGER-You're all set. Good luck. MS. SHINGLER-Thank you. MR. HUNSINGER-You're welcome. We have one item under Old Business this evening. OLD BUSINESS: SUBDIVISION NO. 13-2008 FRESHWATER WETLANDS 1-2010 FINAL STAGE SEQR TYPE TYPE I MARY SICARD AGENT(S) JARRETT ENGINEERS OWNER(S) SAME AS APPLICANT ZONING WR-WATERFRONT RESIDENTIAL & RR - RURAL RESIDENTIAL LOCATION GLEN LAKE ROAD & NACY/JAY ROADS APPLICANT PROPOSES A 16 LOT SUBDIVISION ON MULTIPLE PARCELS TOTALING 42.38 ACRES ON BOTH THE EAST AND WEST SIDE OF GLEN LAKE ROAD ADJACENT TO GLEN LAKE. FRESHWATER WETLANDS PERMIT FOR PROPOSED REGULATED ACTIVITY WITHIN 100 FEET OF A WETLAND. SUBDIVISION OF LAND REQUIRES 16 (Queensbury Planning Board 07/16/2013) PLANNING BOARD REVIEW AND APPROVAL. CROSS REFERENCE AV 20-09 APA, CEA, OTHER GLEN LAKE CEA LOT SIZE 42.38 ACRES TAX MAP NO. 289.6-1-1, 2, 3, 5, 17 SECTION CHAPTER A183 TOM JARRETT, REPRESENTING APPLICANT, PRESENT MR. HUNSINGER-Laura? MRS. MOORE-The Planning Board is reviewing a 16 lot subdivision for Final Stage. The applicant has indicated that the lakefront lots will be subject to site plan review, where the Planning Board may consider this as a condition of the application. MR. HUNSINGER-Good evening. MR.JARRETT-Good evening. How are you tonight? MR. HUNSINGER-Good. MR. JARRETT-For the record, Tom Jarrett of Jarrett Engineers, Mary Sicard, owner of the property, and Dan Mannix. We are here for a Final approval, hopefully. We've gone through many hoops. We've tried everybody's patience, including yours. I guess we'll turn it over to Staff, and if there's any questions from the Board. MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. I don't have any. MRS.MOORE-I don't,either. MR. HUNSINGER-Any questions,comments from the Board? MR.TRAVER-Yes, I think this project,to say the least,has been very thoroughly reviewed. MR. HUNSINGER-Yes. MR. FORD-Yes,over the years. MR. HUNSINGER-I almost hate to ask the question, but back in March we had granted Preliminary approval, I made a comment that we need Freshwater Wetlands. Now that might have just been for my own benefit that we need to do the resolution for Freshwater Wetlands. MRS.MOORE-It's included within this resolution that has been prepared. MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. MRS.MOORE-So it's for both. MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. All right. We closed the public hearing. So unless there's any additional questions or comments from the Board,we'll entertain a motion for approval. RESOLUTION APPROVING FINAL STAGE SUB # 13-2008&FWW 1-2010 MARY SICARD A subdivision application has been made to the Queensbury Planning Board for the following: Applicant proposes a 16 lot subdivision on multiple parcels totaling 42.38 acres on both the east and west side of Glen Lake Road adjacent to Glen Lake. Freshwater Wetlands Permit for proposed regulated activity within 100 feet of a wetland. Subdivision of land requires Planning Board review and approval; Variance approval: 1-19-2011; SEQR approval: 7-27-2010; Engineering approval: 12-2-2011 A public hearing was scheduled and held on 5-20-2010, 7-27-2010,&3-19-2013; This application is supported with all documentation, public comment, and application material in the file of record; MOTION TO APPROVE FINAL STAGE SUBDIVISION NO. 13-2008 FRESHWATER WETLANDS 1- 2010 MARY SICARD, Introduced by Donald Krebs who moved for its adoption, seconded by Thomas Ford: 17 (Queensbury Planning Board 07/16/2013) As per the resolution prepared by Staff, which does include the information on SPDES and SWPPP, etc. 1. Pursuant to relevant sections of the Town of Queensbury Zoning Code-Chapter A-183, the Planning Board has determined that this proposal satisfies the requirements as stated in the Zoning Code; 2. The 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 au site work. b) The project NOT (Notice of Termination) upon completion of the project; and 3. 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; and b) The project NOI and proof of coverage under the current NYSDEC SPDES General Permit, or an individual SPDES permit issued for the project. 4. Final approved plans, in compliance with the Subdivision, must be submitted to the Community Development Department before any further review by the Zoning Administrator or Building and Codes personnel. 5. The applicant must meet with Staff after approval and prior to issuance of Building Permit and/or the beginning of any site work. 6. Subsequent issuance of further permits, including building permits is dependent on compliance with this and all other conditions of this resolution. Duly adopted this 16th day of July, 2013,by the following vote: MS. WHITE-Being newly appointed and not familiar with some of the background, I will be abstaining. AYES: Mr. Ford, Mr. Schonewolf, Mr. Deeb, Mr. Krebs, Mr.Traver, Mr. Hunsinger NOES: NONE ABSTAINED: Ms.White MR.JARRETT-Thank you very much. MR. HUNSINGER-You're all set. Good luck. We have two items under New Business. NEW BUSINESS: SITE PLAN NO. 31-2013 & SUBDIVISION NO. 3-2002 MODIFICATION SEQR TYPE UNLISTED CRAIG BROWN ZONING NR-NEIGHBORHOOD RESIDENTIAL LOCATION 216 QUEENSBURY AVENUE. APPLICANT PROPOSES CONSTRUCTION OF MULTIFAMILY DWELLING UNITS - 1 DUPLEX & 1 FOUR-PLEX. MORE THAN ONE DUPLEX REQUIRES PLANNING BOARD REVIEW AND APPROVAL. SUBDIVISION MODIFICATION: LOT LINE ADJUSTMENT BETWEEN TWO LOTS. SB 5-01, SB 3-02 APA, CEA OTHER DEC WETLANDS, STREAM OVERLAY LOT SIZE 5.89 ACRES, 0.99 ACRES TAX MAP NO. 303.8-1-13.2, 13.3 SECTION 179-3-040 CRAIG BROWN, PRESENT MR. HUNSINGER-Laura? MRS. MOORE-Okay. Under the Staff comments, I have, the Subdivision: The lot are to be adjusted so lot 2 is to be 0.83 acres from 1.12 acres and lot 3 is to be 6.20 acres from 8.92 acres. The Site Plan itself is for the plan locating two buildings on the lot, one is a duplex and one is a, or one is a fourplex and the other is a duplex. MR. BROWN-Good evening, Mr. Chairman, Board members. MR. HUNSINGER-Good evening. 18 (Queensbury Planning Board 07/16/2013) MR. BROWN-Thanks for your time. I'm Craig Brown, here with an application for what I think's a pretty conservative development of a piece of property that I've owned for about 11 years. It's been rezoned, as part of the 2007 Comprehensive Land Use Plan, there was a recommendation to change the zoning to Neighborhood Commercial, or, I'm sorry, Neighborhood Residential. In 2009, when the Town Board considered making revisions to the Zoning Code,this was one of the areas of Town that was rezoned to Neighborhood Commercial. Essentially what that does is that allows for the development of properties in the NR zone with multi-family dwellings with a certain density based on the availability of public water and public sewer. This property is serviced by Town water. There is a municipal sewer line that's on the west side of the road,that's primarily intended for the development of the industrial park by the airport. I've contacted the Wastewater Department. They've indicated that it's possible for out of district users, such as myself or any of my neighbors, to tie into that. There's an out of district user fee. It's a force main. You have to pump into it. So it's a pretty expensive undertaking to do that. So, as you can see in my letter, although I potentially have the density to do more units than I've asked for, it's not economical for me to be able to tie into the force main sewer line. So I've gone with onsite septic systems, and,you know, six units is really all that I'm interested in developing at this point. So I'm sure there'll be some questions. I see some of my neighbors here, and I'm happy to answer whatever questions might come up. MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. Questions,comments from members of the Board? MR. FORD-I know you don't want to commit to the future,but I notice you did indicate at this time. MR. BROWN-Well,yes, I mean, I don't want to commit to the future. I don't have a plan at this point. Six is my number. If, you know, if the lotto comes in, maybe I'd tie into the sewer line and put a couple of more units in. That's not realistic. I shouldn't have said that. Six is what my plan is right now. Yes. MR. FORD-Thank you, MR. HUNSINGER-So really the big, if I may, the big change is really that you're adding a driveway? Because the original subdivision they were shared driveways. MR. BROWN-The original subdivision, that's correct, there was a shared driveway, a 40 foot strip between, I don't know what page you have. If you have S-1, Lot Three is where my house is right now. MR. HUNSINGER-Right. MR. BROWN-Lot Two was an original 40 foot strip that was to be for the development of a single family home on the larger six acre parcel. What doesn't really show on here is the lot immediately to my north, the lands of the Lemerys, who are here tonight, the driveway that goes into their property actually kind of comes across the corner of my house lot, and the intention is, I think on one of the other drawings I may have drawn that on there, the intention is to utilize that curb cut. It's cleared, it's open. Again, I'm looking at the economics of, you know, what's it going to cost to make this project work for me and less amount of clearing, it's a flatter entry into this area that I'm looking to develop. So the goal is to modify the subdivision lines,you know, keep my house on one parcel and just basically move that 40 foot strip to the north,which under the current zoning has to be a 50 foot strip,so move that to the north of my property and utilize the driveway that's there. MR. HUNSINGER-Yes,it is clearer on,this looks like it's labeled Sheet Z. MR. BROWN-Yes,the zoomed in page. MR. HUNSINGER-The shared driveway with the neighbor. MR. BROWN-Yes. MR. HUNSINGER-Or shared curb cut, I should say,with the neighbor, and then my other question is, you gave us the mark with the steep slopes, and it was difficult to ascertain where the development, where the proposed units were in relation to that. MR. BROWN-Yes. MR. HUNSINGER-It looks like they're not going to be on the. 19 (Queensbury Planning Board 07/16/2013) MR. BROWN-Yes, I can kind of do it from here, if you have this map in front of you. This is where the 40 foot strip originally was on the subdivision. This is the Lemery's house right here, and it's the land right in back, I don't know if anybody's been able to make a site visit, but there was an old garden there, kind of in that area is where it starts, and then it goes into the woods from there, in this area, away from these,the slopes are really down here. They're labeled as wetlands on the map which is, again, they can't be both steep slopes and wetlands, but I counted it twice, just be conservative with the density calculations. So it's really steep slope. The wetlands are really down where this beaver dam is and this wetland that was just County land down here. So the development's going to be up in this area. I don't know if anybody can see where that is on the plan. If I had a laser, I could show you up there,but. MR. HUNSINGER-Other questions,comments from the Board? MR. KREBS-My only comment was a funny comment. When I first looked at this print, Brown Complex Four, and I'm trying to find the bedrooms for the two center units,they're upstairs. MR. BROWN-Upstairs,yes,on the other page. MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. Well,we do have a public hearing scheduled this evening. I imagine people are here to comment. The purpose of the public hearing is for members of the public to provide comments to the Planning Board on the project before us. I would ask anyone who wishes to make a comment to come up to the table and to speak into the microphone. Give your name first. We do, the microphone is used to tape the meeting, and the tape is used to transcribe the minutes. The tape is also available on the Town's website for anyone to listen to the tape. So,with that, sir, if you want to come up to the front table. Good evening. PUBLIC HEARING OPENED LAWRENCE LEMERY MR. LEMERY-Hi, my name is Lawrence Lemery, and my father owned the property adjacent, on the north side of where Mr. Brown's talking, and I had about 26 hours' notice of this. I'd like a little bit more time to maybe come up with some comments or something. I don't even know where I stand as far as my legal rights are concerned, but the driveway and the strip that he's talking about is something we've maintained for about close to 40 years. So my contention is the access to this property, which my property does not have an access to it,that the driveway was, I don't know if it was intentionally,but it was put in the wrong spot 40 or 50 years ago,and it should be 30 or 40 feet to the road. So now I have to sacrifice my driveway and the privacy for this road that's going to a development and my back door yard, which is practically spit on, it's that close. So I don't know how you feel, but I would really like my 89 year old father to have access to an ambulance or emergency vehicles at all times, and if this construction goes on, we're going to have no access to the road. Where are you going to park the equipment? I've been in construction all my life. I know what these projects take, and there's going to be a lot of equipment in and out of there, and that's my contention, and it's awfully close. This is my wife. We just moved in to take care of my father about two months ago,and if you'd give me time, I would like to contact people and get information. I mean, I was handed this paper yesterday afternoon. MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. MR. LEMERY-So I'm kind of in the dark. My other neighbors might have something to say, but I'm the closest one that's going to affect me the most. I have half an acre. MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. Thank you. MR. LEMERY-Thank you very much. MR. HUNSINGER-You're welcome. Anyone else? Ma'am? SUSAN BAYER MS. BAYER-I'm Susan Bayer. I live at 224 Queensbury Avenue, which is just to the north of the Lemerys. I might add, I and my neighbors yet to the north of me received a big packet of information from Mr. Brown in last Saturday's mail, and Mr. Lemery only received it yesterday. He's the one who has the most impact. Now my questions. I understand there's also an application to adjust the line setback for these homes? 20 (Queensbury Planning Board 07/16/2013) MR. HUNSINGER-I'm sorry? MS. BAYER-I understand that there's an application to adjust the line setback. MR. HUNSINGER-Well,the application is to adjust the existing lot lines. MS. BAYER-What does that mean? MR. HUNSINGER-Is it clear on the? MRS.MOORE-I can show her. Have you seen the drawing? MS. BAYER-What does adjusting the existing lot lines actually mean? MR. KREBS-Well, properly what we're looking at is the fact that there are two, there's multiple lots here, and so we're going to move the lot line between two of those lots, expanding one lot, contracting the other lot slightly. MS. BAYER-Expanding what lot and contracting what lot? MR. KREBS-Well,if you look at the blueprint,there are three lots. MR. HUNSINGER-She doesn't have that. MR. KREBS-Lot One,Two,and Three. So that's. MR.TRAVER-Ma'am,is your question that any lot line adjustment affect the outer boundary of? MS. BAYER-How close is this going to be to my property. That's my bottom line question, and I don't think I could determine that from any of this information. My question is how close are these buildings going to be to my property line? MR. BROWN-The minimum property line setback in the NR zone I think is. MS. BAYER-100 feet? MR. BROWN-A minimum of 20 feet,but there's also a minimum buffer requirement. MS. BAYER-You can build 20 feet next to my property line. MR. BROWN-(Lost words) the closest point is about 25 feet from the property line. The bigger one here,you're talking about 50 feet from the property line. It's 10 feet on the side and 15 on the rear. This one's about 25. This corner's about 50. This one looks to be about 75 from the property line. MS. BAYER-That was not my understanding. What about,is there not supposed to be a 250 foot line of vision coming off that,right over that road? MR. HUNSINGER-I'm sorry,ma'am,if you could direct your questions to the Board. MS. BAYER-I'm sorry. MR. HUNSINGER-That's okay,because I couldn't hear you. MS. BAYER-I understood that there needed to be a 250 foot line of vision as you were coming out such a road. MR. HUNSINGER-I'm not sure where you have that. MS. BAYER-Well, we live on a hill. This particular property would exit on the hill. Immediately north of me, my neighbors, the Brunelle's, start to curve the road and just have a total blind curve. There have been countless accidents there, and now we're going to add, you've got six apartments times, potentially, two people, plus three more people. You've got 15 to 20 cars coming in and out of there over a day. MR. SCHONEWOLF-Is that a County road or a Town road? It's a County road,isn't it? 21 (Queensbury Planning Board 07/16/2013) MR. HUNSINGER-It's a County road,yes. MS. BAYER-It's a County road. MR. SCHONEWOLF-That's something you'd have to take up with the County,that sight problem. MS. BAYER-Well,isn't that part of this consideration? Doesn't it need to be part of this? MR. SCHONEWOLF-Well,we don't set the standards for County roads. MR. KREBS-Nor can we control speed on County roads. So we can't make on any judgments based on a County road. The County would make those judgments. MS. BAYER-Also from this I see that there are two septic systems that would be south of the road. Is that a thing that should be done? The road would actually be crossing the septic lines. Is that a safe thing to do? MR. HUNSINGER-I see what you're saying, the septic systems, the lines would be underneath the driveway. Yes. That's not uncommon. MS. BAYER-That's not? MR. HUNSINGER-No. MS. BAYER-Okay. I guess the only other concern that I have is, given the nature of Mr. Brown's position with the Zoning Department and the Zoning Board of Appeals and the Planning Board, I would just like some sort of assurance that, if this application is moving forward,that everyone can assure me that they'll act on it with impartiality. I mean, is there anyone who should recuse themselves because of any personal relationships? MR. HUNSINGER-That would be up to any individual Board member to determine. MR. SCHONEWOLF-None of us are related,if that's what you're thinking. MS. BAYER-No, I'm not talking related by blood. I'm talking about personal relationships that have been developed over the years. MR. SCHONEWOLF-We have to take the applications as they come, where they come from, as long as they're in the Town. MR. DEEB-Mr. Brown is a citizen, also, and he has a right to do what he does, and I'm sure all of us are looking at this as we would any application that comes in. I don't think there's any prejudice involved. MS. BAYER-I would hope. MR. HUNSINGER-Thank you. Anyone else? Yes,sir. GARY BRUNELLE MR. BRUNELLE-Gary Brunelle, Carol Brunelle. We have the property north. It's cut up really weird because it was a farm at one time back(lost word)years ago. MR. HUNSINGER-So is yours the property that goes way back? MR. BRUNELLE-Yes. MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. MR. BRUNELLE-Ours goes right back as far as his does,right to the swamps way in back. MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. MR. BRUNELLE-It's all wet. I was just wondering, now, how far from our property line is he going to build back there? I don't have a real clear understanding where he's going to put these units. One I do, the other I don't, and then in the course of maybe 10 years, 5 years, next week, he could 22 (Queensbury Planning Board 07/16/2013) build four more. I'd just like to know how close he is going to be to our property line, and how close can he be to our property line. When you got it re-zoned, it was kind of drop in the bucket, nothing against you guys, but it was, boom, passed like that, with no comment, no nothing. I mean, when you re-zone, and I said to my neighbors, I said as soon as you get this rezoned,he's going to be able to build, or whoever owns it, is going to be able to build one unit, regardless of three family, four family, on every acre, which he's got five or six. So that means he can, I'm not saying him in particular,but someone could put a (lost word) down in there. Am I right? MR. SCHONEWOLF-Are you talking about the rezoning in'09. MR. BRUNELLE-Well,the one he got for his property. Not my property. MR. HUNSINGER-Yes, I guess I kind of have a two part answer to your question, if I will. The first answer is that there is a density requirement that has to be met, and its currently one unit per acre, and then the second part of the answer is, you know, any new proposal would have to come back before the Planning Board. So he couldn't just build another building back there without there being,you know,additional public hearing and site plan review application. MR. BRUNELLE-If he gets it approved,he could build six more down in there. MR. HUNSINGER-Yes, I see what you're saying. Yes,you still have to go through the process. MR. BRUNELLE-But how exactly far from the line does a person have to have as a buffer zone in that particular zoning area? Is it 10 feet? Is it 100 feet? Is it right on the line? What would it be does anybody know? MR. SCHONEWOLF-You're talking about the setbacks. CAROL BRUNELLE MRS. BRUNELLE-We're talking about where they're building these duplexes where you can have 20 children running through our backyard, after 35 years of privacy. We don't want anybody to be cutting paths through the backyard. We don't want all the children. We don't want anyone to get hurt on our property. We'd like to request a fence line through there. MR. KREBS-Laura,what are the requirements? MRS. MOORE-Minimum landscape feet is 20, and this includes the height is, I'm sorry, let me read through this. It says minimum landscape yard is 20. So the width would be 20 feet, and number of trees required per 100 linear feet is 3, and maximum height of required trees could be six feet, or minimum height,rather,could be six feet. MR. BRUNELLE-I don't understand the trees,what's? MR. KREBS-That's to help buffer the view. MR. BRUNELLE-So you'd go 20 feet with trees,or a row of trees,something like that. MRS.MOORE-Twenty feet is the required buffer. Every 100 feet would be three trees. MRS. BRUNELLE-But there is a buffer line there, as long as it's stable, and they're not crossing that buffer line. MRS. MOORE-All right. The applicant isn't proposing a change to the buffer area that's existing there. MR. BRUNELLE-They could. MRS.MOORE-No. MR. BRUNELLE-No,he can't? MRS.MOORE-No. MR. BRUNELLE-So, 20 feet, 3 trees,they could build a house. Is that what you're saying? 23 (Queensbury Planning Board 07/16/2013) MR. HUNSINGER-I'm sorry,what was the question? MR. BRUNELLE-Twenty feet from our line, from our property line, three trees, or whatever they would be,they could build another house. Am I losing people or what? Hello? I don't understand. MR. KREBS-I think what you need to understand is there are regulations. A 20 foot buffer is a regulation. He can never put anything a building, as long as that zoning stays that way, he cannot put it closer than 20 feet from the property line. Within that buffer, he is required to have trees, 3 every 100 feet. Okay. That's what we're saying, and he's coming specifically before the Board to ask for the construction of two buildings, one a four plex and a one two plex. When we give him that approval that is all he can do on that site, unless he comes back to the Planning Board at some point with a future plan requesting a change from the site plan. MR. BRUNELLE-That I understand. MR. KREBS-Okay. MR. BRUNELLE-But if this is, how many acres do you have to have before you can get it rezoned? I mean,you go to a Zoning Board hearing,how many acres would you have to have? Could I get mine rezoned? MR. KREBS-Possibly. MR. BRUNELLE-Put in an application for one? This is what I'm saying, I just don't know. Because the last one,his got rezoned. I don't know how many acres you have to have to get from residential to a commercial residential,or however they? MR.TRAVER-Yes, I think you're asking questions of a technical nature that aren't directly related to the applicant. So what I would suggest the easiest thing for you to do, to get the clearest answer, and to look at the documentation that supports those answers, is to make a visit to the Town Planning Department. They have all the maps, all regulations. You can look at your property in relation to everything else,what the zoning is,and the history of it,whatever you want. MR. BRUNELLE-Okay. MR.TRAVER-That would be the easiest thing for you to do. MR. BRUNELLE-I did that one time (lost words), but I think you're going to have a mess with the traffic. You've got 18 wheelers up through there going 65 miles an hour. Somebody's going to get killed. I had to stop and watch to go across to the mailbox. You know what that little area's like back there. It's scary. MR. SCHONEWOLF-You should call the sheriff and get them to slow it down. MR. BRUNELLE-They sit across the street. We've done that. I've gone to Dan Stec. I've been there. MR. SCHONEWOLF-The point I'm making is we can't. MR. BRUNELLE-I understand. MS. BAYER-(Lost words) an application to the State DOT to drop that zone to 45 miles an hour (lost words) and DOT said,it's okay. MR. SCHONEWOLF-That's what happens a lot. MR. BRUNELLE-I'd like it, I'm just lucky that Warren County replaces all of our mailboxes once a year. MR. SCHONEWOLF-After they knock them down in the winter? Yes,that's right. MR. BRUNELLE-Thank you. MR. HUNSINGER-You're welcome. Did anyone else want to comment? Did you have any written comments, Laura? MRS.MOORE-No, I did not. 24 (Queensbury Planning Board 07/16/2013) MR. BROWN-If I could just go to the map and answer some of these questions for you. MR. HUNSINGER-Take the mic with you,though. MR. BROWN-I'm kind of loud,so maybe I don't need it,but. I don't know if you can hear me,maybe. MR. HUNSINGER-Well, except it won't be on the tape,though, Craig. MR. BROWN-Okay. This is your property right here, this is your house. So the goal is to be able to put the units in this area. This distance along the back of Ms. Bayer's property is 170 feet. So it's at least 170 feet from your property. It's down in here. The Code says you can construct to within 10 feet of the side property line. There's a buffer requirement that Laura's talking about, if you have multi-family dwellings up against single family dwellings, you have to keep at least a 20 foot wide buffer of trees and landscaping or whatever to separate the uses, and I'm going to have at least that, and maintain all the trees that are there, and there's plenty of trees to transplant or I can get trees to transplant and I talked to you about, you know, accessibility in here, if we want to do some buffering between the driveway and your house, I mean,we can do that. I'm certainly willing to do that. MR. LEMERY-How come you don't sacrifice your buffer zone? MR. BROWN-Well, I told you yesterday, it's not so much the buffer zone, it's this much more road that I would have to build,rather than this much road. It's an economic thing. MR. LEMERY-I'm talking about this buffer zone that you put here for the foliage,privacy. MR. BROWN-Well,no,the goal is to keep the driveway as close to that wood line as possible. MRS. BRUNELLE-So how does (lost words) our driveway over to that you're not invading our privacy because we're, you're driving through our drive, yours and our driveway, the common driveway. MR. BROWN-Yes,you're certainly entitled to your own driveway. That's a driveway permit. That's easy, and just so you know, when the project goes, the plan is to keep all the construction equipment out there. I'll guarantee you there's going to be emergency access to here. Obviously I want to have emergency access back there during construction in case something goes wrong. I'm not looking to have a driveway blocked where we can't get an ambulance to anybody at any time. So,you know, I'm not insensitive to this. I want to have my mom living in one of these units, since she's 70 years old, and I want to try and market it to 55 plus. I don't want tons of kids around. It's my backyard,too. MRS. BRUNELLE-So you're going to market it to 55 plus? MR. BROWN-That's the goal,yes. MRS. BRUNELLE-So where would this,then,road,how far away would it be from the? MS. BAYER-From our garage? MR. LEMERY-The line's through my property. MR. BROWN-Yes, the line's actually about, I don't know, four, five feet off the garage, that stake we saw in the back there. So this line is drawn incorrectly. The line's actually south of the garage, four, five feet,and it comes off at an angle. MR. LEMERY-So you don't want to sacrifice any of this foliage? MR. BROWN-I don't want to disturb any more land than I have to. I want to use what's already cleared. MRS. BRUNELLE-This line is actually down here? MR. BROWN-Yes, the line is actually right on the edge of the driveway and it goes, I don't know if you've ever been back there, there's a lilac tree. It's right at the base of that lilac tree, behind the garage. So it's four,five feet off the garage, I think. That's where the property line is. 25 (Queensbury Planning Board 07/16/2013) MRS. BRUNELLE-And then the first building starts,the four plex starts? MR. BROWN-It's right about in here and the duplex is right about here. Yes. MRS. BRUNELLE-And then, okay,what about the health of the ground from the septic runoff? What does that have to do with it? MR. BROWN-Well, there's two, well, there's four two bedroom units. So it's basically eight, it's an eight bedroom system. It's in this area. MRS. BRUNELLE-One system here and one system over here. MR. BROWN-Yes. MRS. BRUNELLE-What happens to the runoff from the septic tank? MR. HUNSINGER-I'm sorry,but we'll need to get those questions on the record,ma'am. MR. BROWN-Yes, she had a question about the septic, and I think the answer is it goes into the ground just like everybody else's septic system does. They're not, you know, multi bedroom. They're two, four bedroom system. My house is a four bedroom house. I have a four bedroom system here. It's the same as any other residential system. Other questions that I heard in the public hearing, I'm happy to address. There was a question about sight line. I'm kind of familiar with the Town Zoning Code. There's no setback or sight distance requirement for a private drive like this. If you were going to create a subdivision road, there are sight line requirements. I don't think any of them are in the 250 foot range, but, you know, I'm happy to inquire with the County DPW, see about signage, we talked about that the other day, and try and get some, you know, caution, driveway ahead signs, something that they might entertain doing. I can't guarantee you they'll do it, just like the Town Board approved the 45 speed limit and the County DPW said, no, we're not going to drop it. So I'm happy to inquire. I just can't promise that they'll do it. MS. BAYER-I don't mean to interrupt you,but there's a concern there. MR. HUNSINGER-Ma'am,we'll have to get you on the record. I'm sorry. MS. BAYER-There's a concern there about,when you've got 12 to 20 cars coming in and out of there daily, and 55 plus, presumably some of them will be retired so they wouldn't all be coming out daily,they'd be enjoying the woods,but you've got this,it's right on a hill, and where that comes out, there's a double line. Cars come south around the bend. I mean,they're really, if you're going to do this, which I assume you all are, there really needs to be some fix out there. People come out and literally in front of my house,they come around here,this is my house,they come around this bend, hell bent for election, pardon me, and this is now the hill,this is still the hill. They come around and start to pass cars that are going too slow; this is the bottom of the hill. They start passing on this hill. There is a spot right here that's totally blind. If you're on the hill by my house,you cannot see for a short few seconds' cars coming up, and I've had cars pass as a car's up the hill, screech on brakes. Thank God nobody's been killed. MR. BROWN-No, I'm aware of it. I pull out of my driveway every day. I know exactly what you're talking about. MR. KREBS-But part of that is, and I travel up Route 9L, Ridge Road frequently to go to my boat in Lake George, and there are double lines, and I'm traveling along at the speed limit of 50 miles an hour, and people pull out and pass me. I don't know what we can do about making people more law abiding,but it's happening today more and more and more. MR. HUNSINGER-I agree. MR. KREBS-I stop at stop signs, but people come up and they get down to about 10 miles an hour and they go right through the stop sign,but our job, as a Planning Board,is to administer the Zoning Code of the Town of Queensbury. We don't create the Code. All we do is administrate the Code,and again,we don't have any control over a County road. MS. BAYER-I get that. Well,it is a Neighborhood Residential area now after all. MR. HUNSINGER-Anything else,ma'am? 26 (Queensbury Planning Board 07/16/2013) MS. BAYER-No,that's it. MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. Thank you. MR. BROWN-And just one last response, unless there's other questions, to Mr. Brunelle. The Neighborhood zoning district that was changed in 2009 goes all the way from Dix Avenue all the way up to I think the water tower property. So your property's zoned the same as my property. If you want to come in with a design to do this and you have the density to do it, the Zoning Code allows for that. MR. BRUNELLE-I didn't know that. MR. BROWN-Yes, it goes all the way up to, if you zoom out, you can see where the water tower is, but it's up past the vet clinic. MR. BRUNELLE-Into Warren County and the other side is Washington County. MR. BROWN-Right, you can see the Town line on the right side of the map, but that's the, Neighborhood Residential zoning goes all the way up,way past your property. MR. HUNSINGER-Back to questions, comments from the Board. Can we talk a little bit about the buffer,the landscaping,because there really isn't much detail on the site plan. MR. BROWN-Yes, I didn't pick anything out yet. I kind of put a general note on there that I'll comply with the buffer requirements. Laura read it off. Like I said, I've got five or six acres of trees that I'm happy to move around if the time comes to make it, no doubt more than what's required by the Town Zoning Code. Three trees per one hundred feet, that's not a lot of trees. I'd prefer more privacy than that between, you know, the single family and the multi-family. So it'll certainly be denser than the minimum. MR. KREBS-Not only that,it'll make yours more marketable. MR. BROWN-Well,yes, like I said,you know, I'm not insensitive to the fact that these are,you know, rental units, and, again,the goal is to do 55 plus. If nobody 55 plus wants to rent them,you know, I still want to try and rent the units, and it's in their backyard, it's in my backyard. I'm going to try and keep it as quiet and maintained as possible. So, you know, buffering between mine and this development is not as big an issue to me as it is to them, and,you know, I'm happy to do whatever I can to keep that separation. MR. HUNSINGER-One of the things I mentioned to Mr. Krebs, I didn't get elevations for the duplex. MR. BROWN-Yes, it's, if you look at the four plex, and it depends on which ones are more attractive. It's either going to be the center of the four plex, it's going to be another two story duplex. So if you cut the sides off,or it's going to be a single story,so if you put the two ends together. If you have the elevation there of the four plex,the easiest thing to do is just build the center of that as a duplex. MR. HUNSINGER-So it would look like the center of the four plex. MR. BROWN-Yes. If you cut off the two sides. MR. HUNSINGER-With no garages. MR. BROWN-Exactly. Yes. MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. MR. BROWN-But if people really like the single story, again, I'm trying to do 55 single level living. Maybe they want the ranch style. So maybe it'll be just the two end units with the garages, and not the two story one. Just cut out the middle and put the sides together. MR. HUNSINGER-Doesn't that affect your site plan,though? MR. BROWN-The footprint of the building is maybe 10 feet wider. So I'm not sure it really changes too much of the clearing that I have on there. The one that I have drafted is the two story one in the middle. The bedrooms are the same number, parking count's the same, driveway's the same location. It's just the footprint of the building is a little bit bigger with the single story versus the 27 (Queensbury Planning Board 07/16/2013) two story, and if it changes dramatically, I haven't gone that far. The first goal is to do the four plex. I'm not even sure I'm going to get to the other duplex, but if it changes dramatically, I'll come back and ask for more clearing or a change to the plan if it changes with going with the single story. MS. BAYER-So you're going to build the four plex, rent that out,and then move towards building the duplex? MR. BROWN-Yes, I'm still, the first step in the process, and you guys, if you've done any project, is try and get an approval, and then go figure out how much it costs and see if you can actually afford to do it. So right now I'm trying to get the approval, and then, you know, if the numbers come in something that I can't afford or the bank won't give me the money,then,you know, it's not going to happen,but the first step,before you can go ask for the money,is to have an approval to show them, look,my property is approved to do this. So it's the first step in the game. MR. KREBS-And again,just so they know,any change to this would require another site plan review. So if he makes changes other than what he has indicated here, he will have to come back before the Board for approval. MR. BROWN-That is correct. MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. Any other comments, concerns from the Board? Did I already ask if there are any written comments? MRS. MOORE-There are no written comments,but I can add, if the, if Craig's amenable, is that north property owner, I think you already talked about landscaping, but anything additional to that one corner, I guess. MR.TRAVER-There's also a note about no further subdivision. MRS.MOORE-Yes. MR.TRAVER-On,it is, Lot Two? MRS.MOORE-Yes. MR. BROWN-I'm happy with that condition. The goal isn't to subdivide ownership. It's just to have some income from a property that I've just been paying taxes on for a while. MRS. MOORE-So just that one corner, because the driveway itself, the requirement is the width of that, and then if you have enough space here, to add additional plantings, and I think that was the concern. MR. BROWN-Yes,wherever the buffer's required,we'll make sure it's in. MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. If there's no other questions or comments from the Board, I will close the public hearing. PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED MR. HUNSINGER-It's an Unlisted action. The applicant submitted a Short Form. Whenever you're ready. MR. KREBS-Okay. "Does the action exceed any Type I threshold in 6 NYCRR Part 617.4?" MR. HUNSINGER-No. MR. FORD-No. MR.TRAVER-No. MR. KREBS-"Will the action receive coordinated review as provided for Unlisted Actions in 6 NYCRR, Part 617.6?" MR. HUNSINGER-No. MR.TRAVER-No. 28 (Queensbury Planning Board 07/16/2013) MR. KREBS-"Could the action result in any adverse effects associated with the following: C1. Existing air quality, surface or ground water quality or quantity, noise levels, existing traffic patterns,solid waste production or disposal,potential for erosion,drainage or flooding problems?" MR. HUNSINGER-No. MR.TRAVER-No. MR. KREBS-"C2. Aesthetic, agricultural, archeological, historic, or other natural or cultural resources; or community or neighborhood character?" MR. HUNSINGER-No. MR.TRAVER-No. MR. KREBS-"C3. Vegetation, fauna, fish, shellfish or wildlife species, significant habitats, or threatened or endangered species?" MR. HUNSINGER-No. MR.TRAVER-No. MR. KREBS-"C4. A community's existing plans or goals as officially adopted, or a change in use or intensity of use of land or other natural resources?" MR. HUNSINGER-No. MR. KREBS-"CS. Growth, subsequent development or related activities likely to be induced by the proposed action?" MR.TRAVER-No. MR. FORD-No. MR. KREBS-"C6. Long term,short term,cumulative or other effects not identified above?" MR.TRAVER-No. MR. HUNSINGER-No. MR. KREBS-"C7. Other impacts (including changes in use of either quantity or energy)?" MR.TRAVER-No. MR. HUNSINGER-No. MR. KREBS-"Will the project have an impact on the environmental characteristics that caused the establishment of a Critical Environmental Area?" MR. HUNSINGER-No. MR.TRAVER-No. MR. KREBS-"Is there or is there likely to be controversy related to potential adverse environmental impacts?" MR. FORD-No. MR.TRAVER-No. MR. KREBS-We declare a Negative declaration. RESOLUTION WHEN DETERMINATION OF NO SIGNIFICANCE IS MADE RESOLUTION NO. 31-2013 & SUB 3-2002, Introduced by Donald Krebs who moved for its adoption,seconded by Thomas Ford: 29 (Queensbury Planning Board 07/16/2013) WHEREAS,there is presently before the Planning Board an application for: CRAIG BROWN,and WHEREAS, this Planning Board has determined that the proposed project and Planning Board action is subject to review under the State Environmental Quality Review Act, NOW,THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED: 1. No Federal agency appears to be involved. 2. The following agencies are involved: NONE 3. The proposed action considered by this Board is Unlisted in the Department of Environmental Conservation Regulations implementing the State Environmental Quality Review Act and the regulations of the Town of Queensbury. 4. An Environmental Assessment Form has been completed by the applicant. 5. Having considered and thoroughly analyzed the relevant areas of environmental concern and having considered the criteria for determining whether a project has a significant environmental impact as the same is set forth in Section 617.11 of the Official Compilation of Codes, Rules and Regulations for the State of New York, this Board finds that the action about to be undertaken by this Board will have no significant environmental effect and the Chairman of the Planning Board is hereby authorized to execute and sign and file as may be necessary a statement of non-significance or a negative declaration that may be required by law. Duly adopted this 16th day of,July, 2013,by the following vote: AYES: Mr.Traver, Ms.White, Mr. Krebs, Mr. Ford, Mr. Schonewolf, Mr. Deeb, Mr. Hunsinger NOES: NONE MR. HUNSINGER-Are there any conditions that we need to discuss? MR.TRAVER-No further subdivision. MR. KREBS-No further subdivision. MR.TRAVER-No further subdivision on Lot Two. MR. HUNSINGER-And I don't know how we want to address the additional buffer that was discussed,either. MS.WHITE-An additional buffer on it or just the existing buffer? MR.TRAVER-Well,the applicant has offered that it will exceed the minimum requirement. MRS.MOORE-So currently you have three per hundred feet. MR.TRAVER-I'm sorry? MRS.MOORE-You have three trees per one hundred feet of the buffer. MR. TRAVER-Okay. Well, we can ask the applicant. What would you propose? You indicated greater than three per one hundred feet. MR. BROWN-I can double it,six. MR.TRAVER-Six? MR. BROWN-Yes. MR.TRAVER-Okay. So double the requirement. 30 (Queensbury Planning Board 07/16/2013) MR. BROWN-And that's in, just so I know, when I revise the plans, along that side, along those two sides right there? MR.TRAVER-Yes,the buffer between your property and the existing residential. MR. BROWN-Okay. Yes,a lot of that's existing. It's going to stay,but it's,okay. MRS. MOORE-I guess the question is with the buffer that's near the new drive, new road, is there enough space between the new road and the neighboring property, I guess,to maintain that buffer? MR. BROWN-Yes, when I put that buffer in, if I have to move the road to the south closer to my house,that's what we'll have to do. MRS.MOORE-All right. MR. KREBS-Okay. Then I added six trees per one hundred feet in the 20 foot buffer. MR. FORD-Do we want to specify type of tree and size? MR. HUNSINGER-I think as long as it's compliant with what's in the Code. MR. KREBS-Right. MR. BROWN-Yes,there's a species list and a dbh and a size in there that it's easy. RESOLUTION APPROVING SP# 31-2013 &SUBDIVISION MODIFICATION 3-2002 CRAIG BROWN A site plan application has been made to the Queensbury Planning Board for the following: Site Plan: Applicant proposes construction of multifamily dwelling units -1 duplex& 1 four-plex. More than one duplex requires Planning Board review and approval. Subdivision Modification: Lot line adjustment between two lots. A public hearing was advertised and held on 7/16/2013; This application is supported with all documentation, public comment, and application material in the file of record; MOTION TO APPROVE SITE PLAN NO. 31-2013 & MODIFICATION TO SUBDIVISION NO. 3- 2002 CRAIG BROWN, Introduced by Donald Krebs who moved for its adoption, seconded by Stephen Traver: 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) If curb cuts are being added or changed a driveway permit is required. A building permit will not be issued until the approved driveway permit has been provided to the Planning Office; 5) We are adding two additional clauses: No further subdivision of Lot Number Two, and six (6) trees per 100 feet in the 20 foot buffer; 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. 31 (Queensbury Planning Board 07/16/2013) 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 16th day of July, 2013,by the following vote: AYES: Mr.Traver, Mr. Krebs, Ms.White, Mr. Ford, Mr. Schonewolf, Mr. Deeb, Mr. Hunsinger NOES: NONE MR. HUNSINGER-You're all set. MR. BROWN-Thank you. SITE PLAN NO. 32-2013 SEQR TYPE PREVIOUS SEQR NEW GENERATION YARN ACQUISITION CORP. AGENT(S) STEPHEN BORGOS OWNER(S) SAME AS APPLICANT ZONING CLI- COMMERCIAL LIGHT INDUSTRIAL LOCATION 1 NATIVE DRIVE APPLICANT PROPOSES REUSE OF AN EXISTING BUILDING FOR POTENTIAL SINGLE OR MULTI-TENANT OCCUPANCY FOR LIGHT MANUFACTURING, WAREHOUSE, OR A DISTRIBUTION FACILITY. NEW USES IN THE CLI ZONE REQUIRES PLANNING BOARD REVIEW AND APPROVAL. CROSS REFERENCE SP 47-97, SP 22-94, BP 98-161, 94-454 LOT SIZE 33.27 ACRES TAX MAP NO. 308.20-1-9.2 SECTION 179-3-040 STEVE BORGOS, REPRESENTING APPLICANT, PRESENT MR. HUNSINGER-Laura? MR. FORD-May I, before Laura. For the record, I just want to interject that the agent for the applicant and I are both associated with Realty USA. However, I don't think there's anything that would prevent me from being impartial. MRS.MOORE-Thank you. Okay. MR. HUNSINGER-Thank you. MRS. MOORE-This is a reuse of an existing building, specifically for light manufacturing warehouse or distribution facility. MR. HUNSINGER-Good evening. MR. BORGOS-Good evening. I'm glad to see all of you. My name Steve Borgos. I'm a licensed associate real estate broker associated with Realty USA, and I'm required by law to say that. I'm here tonight to represent the New Generation Yarn Acquisition Corporation, asking, essentially, for a recertification of a site plan that's been around since 1994. This property ceased operation in 2007, and we've been trying since that time to get another owner with a new business or a number of tenants perhaps with a new business, but as you may know, when people in business look to start something new or even to move something, they make a decision they want to do it. They don't want to wait and say, gee, it's going to take two months, three months, four months to go through Planning Board and all this other stuff. So this way, with this approval for the continued use with no change whatsoever in the footprint, no change of anything,we'll be able to say, here's a place ready to go. So that's what we're asking for. MR. HUNSINGER-I certainly don't have any problems with what you're proposing, but I do have some questions. MR. BORGOS-Fire away. MR. HUNSINGER-Are they buying or renting? MR. BORGOS-We don't know at this point. MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. 32 (Queensbury Planning Board 07/16/2013) MR. BORGOS-We've had a couple of people come in who wanted to buy,but then they looked at the possible timeframe involved, and they said no thank you. We have other people coming, hopefully yet this week who are interested in buying. I've got another party who wants to rent 70,000 square feet,but again, I can't say absolutely yes because of this. MR. HUNSINGER-Well,that was my next question is,you know,how much of the building would be used. You don't know yet. MR. BORGOS-It depends. MR. KREBS-It sounds like a pretty good deal to me. What you do is you sell it to the guy and you tell them you've already got a tenant for 70,000 square feet. MR. BORGOS-Sure, but the tenant won't sign up until he knows who the owner's going to be and what all the terms are. It's a cat and mouse kind of game and chicken and egg and all that stuff. MR. KREBS-Well,we would certainly like to see an existing building like this come back. MR. BORGOS-Right now it's being subjected to a lot of vandalism. We'd like to get somebody in there with cameras and the State police and Sheriff Department's out there quite often. MR. HUNSINGER-Yes. MR. FORD-Let's re-open the opportunity to get it operational. MR. HUNSINGER-Other questions,comments from the Board? I really liked, I thought this was done very well, Mr. Borgos. MR. BORGOS-Thank you. MR. HUNSINGER-You're welcome. We do have a public hearing this evening. Is there anyone in the audience that wishes to address the Board? PUBLIC HEARING OPENED MR. HUNSINGER-Any written comments? MRS.MOORE-No. MR. HUNSINGER-I will open the public hearing, and let the record show no comments were received. We will close the public hearing. PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED MR. HUNSINGER-And unless there are questions or comments, I'll entertain a motion. Previous SEQR. So,what's that mean? MRS. MOORE-Just re-affirm that it was a Negative Declaration previously, and just a note that the applicant has requested waivers for Item D and Item N. So that's included as part of your, if you're going to grant waivers. MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. We're ready. RESOLUTION APPROVING SP# 32-2013 NEW GENERATION YARN ACQUISITION CORP. A site plan application has been made to the Queensbury Planning Board for the following: Applicant proposes reuse of an existing building for potential single or multi-tenant occupancy for light manufacturing, warehouse, or a distribution facility. New Uses in the CLI zone requires Planning Board review and approval; Previous SEQR; A public hearing was advertised and held on 7/16/2013; This application is supported with all documentation, public comment, and application material in the file of record; 33 (Queensbury Planning Board 07/16/2013) MOTION TO APPROVE SITE PLAN NO. 32-2013 NEW GENERATION YARD ACQUISITION CORP., Introduced by Donald Krebs who moved for its adoption seconded by Stephen Traver: As per the resolution prepared by Staff. We are reaffirming our previous SEQR. 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: Items D&N; 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 16th day of July, 2013,by the following vote: AYES: Mr.Traver, Mr. Krebs, Ms.White, Mr. Ford, Mr. Schonewolf, Mr. Deeb, Mr. Hunsinger NOES: NONE MR. HUNSINGER-Good luck. MR. BORGOS-Thank you. MR. HUNSINGER-I was really hoping that you had a big tenant that you were going to announce and create 300 jobs. MR. BORGOS-I hope so. The last operation there had I believe 75 full time jobs. It would be nice to get that back on line. MR. HUNSINGER-Absolutely. MR. BORGOS-Thank you all very much. I really appreciate this. MR. FORD-Thank you, Steve. MR. HUNSINGER-Is there any other business to be brought before the Board this evening? MRS.MOORE-No. MR. HUNSINGER-If there's no other business, I will entertain a motion. MOTION TO ADJOURN THE QUEENSBURY PLANNING BOARD MEETING OF JULY 16, 2013, Introduced by Paul Schonewolf who moved for its adoption,seconded by David Deeb: Duly adopted this 16th day of July, 2013,by the following vote: AYES: Mr. Deeb, Mr. Schonewolf, Mr. Ford, Ms.White, Mr. Krebs, Mr.Traver, Mr. Hunsinger NOES: NONE MR. HUNSINGER-Thank you, everybody. See you next Tuesday. On motion meeting was adjourned. RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED, Chris Hunsinger, Chairman 34