Loading...
10-15-2013 ueensbu Planning Board 10/15/2013) ■ �Q rY g QUEENSBURY PLANNING BOARD MEETING FIRST REGULAR MEETING OCTOBER 15,2013 INDEX Site Plan No. 54-2013 157 Mannis Road, LLC 1. ZBA RECOMMENDATION Tax Map No. 289.18-1-7 Subdivision No. 2-2013 Greenwood Builders 3. PRELIM&FINAL STG. Tax Map No. 290.-1-83 FWW 1-2013 Site Plan No.49-2013 Rich&Jill Long 7. Tax Map No.240.-1-16 Special Use Permit No. 56-2013 J D Marina 8. MODIFICATION TO SUP 14-2008 Tax Map No. 240.5-1-31.23 Subdivision No.4-2013 697 Upper Glen Street, LLC 22. PRELIM&FINAL STG. Tax Map No. 296.13-1-22 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 ueensbu Planning Board 10/15/2013) ■ �Q rY g QUEENSBURY PLANNING BOARD MEETING FIRST REGULAR MEETING OCTOBER 15,2013 7:00 P.M. MEMBERS PRESENT CHRIS HUNSINGER, CHAIRMAN DONALD KREBS, SECRETARY PAUL SCHONEWOLF STEPHEN TRAVER BRAD MAGOWAN THOMAS FORD DAVID DEEB LAND USE PLANNER-LAURA MOORE STENOGRAPHER-MARIA GAGLIARDI MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. I'll call to order the meeting of the Town of Queensbury Planning Board on Tuesday, October 15, 2013. I'd like to welcome members of the audience. There are copies of the agenda on the back table, and there's also a handout for public hearing procedures. Many of the items have public hearings scheduled this evening,and we'll talk about details when we get into the first public hearing. The first item on the agenda is approval of minutes from August 20th and 27th. Is there a motion? APPROVAL OF MINUTES August 20, 2013 August 27, 2013 MOTION TO APPROVE THE QUEENSBURY PLANNING BOARD MEETING MINUTES OF AUGUST 20TH AND AUGUST 27TH, 2013, Introduced by Donald Krebs who moved for its adoption, seconded by Thomas Ford: Duly adopted this 15th day of October, 2013, by the following vote: AYES: Mr. Deeb, Mr. Schonewolf, Mr. Ford, Mr. Magowan, Mr. Krebs, Mr.Traver, Mr. Hunsinger NOES: NONE MR. HUNSINGER-We have one item on the agenda for recommendation to the Zoning Board of Appeals, Site Plan 54-2013 for 157 Mannis Road, LLC. PLANNING BOARD RECOMMENDATION TO THE ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS SITE PLAN NO. 54-2013 SEQR TYPE II 157 MANNIS ROAD, LLC AGENT(S) MICHAEL J. O'CONNOR OWNER(S) SAME AS APPLICANT ZONING WR-WATERFRONT RESIDENTIAL LOCATION 157 MANNIS ROAD SITE PLAN: APPLICANT PROPOSES REPLACEMENT OF A 740 SQ. FT. DOCK WITH A 700 SQ. FT. DOCK AND 629 SQ. FT. SUNDECK. BOATHOUSE IN A WR ZONE REQUIRES PLANNING BOARD REVIEW AND APPROVAL. VARIANCE: RELIEF REQUESTED FROM MAXIMUM DOCK WIDTH REQUIREMENTS OF THE WR ZONE. PLANNING BOARD SHALL MAKE A RECOMMENDATION TO THE ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS. CROSS REFERENCE AV 55-13 APA, CEA, OTHER GLEN LAKE CEA, NWI WETLANDS LOT SIZE 0.99 ACRES TAX MAP NO. 289.18-1-7 SECTION 179-3-040, 179-5-060 MICHAEL O'CONNOR, REPRESENTING APPLICANT, PRESENT MR. HUNSINGER-Laura? MRS. MOORE-This applicant proposes replacement of a 740 sq. ft. dock with a 700 sq. ft. dock and 629 sq. ft. sundeck. The nature of the Area Variance is the applicant proposes a 40 ft. wide continuous single dock where 8 ft. in width is the maximum allowed. The Planning Board is to provide a recommendation to the Zoning Board in regards to the variance relief requested. 1 ueensbu Planning Board 10/15/2013) ■ �Q rY g MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. Thank you. Good evening. MR. O'CONNOR-Mr. Chairman, thank you. I'm Mike O'Connor from the law firm of Little & O'Connor. I represent 157 Mannis Road. That is not a commercial enterprise. That is a family LLC. It's obviously the Hughes Family LLC. They own that property as a family residential summer home, and that basically is where we're coming from. We have a dock that has been there since the early probably 2000 or, not 2000, 1900's. I think atone time or another it was a steamer wharf that was there,and it's fallen into disrepair. The disrepair has come in stages. There used to be a covered dock. I've got a rendering, if you will, to show you that. That's where the dock is. This is a nice picture of the seven Hughes children. You can seethe docks, of course,behind that. I also gave you, at this time, letters from two of the neighbors that adjoin the property that have no objection to the proposed improvement to the dock. If you went out and looked at it and you actually walked to the edge of dock,you will see that at one time or another they tried to reinforce the dock by driving down steel eyebeams and even those eyebeams now, with the ice and whatnot, have moved so they need to replace the cribbing and replace the surface of the dock. The dock right now is above the 700 square feet, and they're going to reduce it so that beyond the mean high water mark they're only going to have a dock of 700 square feet. The reason that we're here is that you've got two dimensional requirements in your Ordinance for docks. One says that the dock complex cannot be wider than 40 feet, and I've never really run into this before where the dock actually is,that width of the dock is considered the dock width,because typically what you have is a back piece, a header, and then two piers that go out into the lake. In this instance you don't. You have a 20 foot deep dock, and it's the full width of the 40 feet. So it's a little bit different, but what they propose, even with the boat cover, or with the dock cover, if you will, is less obtrusive than if they actually built the U-shaped dock and went 40 feet out into the lake, as opposed to their proposed 20 feet. So it's rather simple. You did approve a dock a couple of years ago for Colleen Clark, down near where I live behind the island, and this is the same architecture that will be provided for this dock, and the boat cover will be the same architecture. The Hughes, Rob Hughes actually owns the place that's to the east of 157 Mannis Road, and he owns two places there, and he's a member of this LLC. The Mannis, or the LLC owns the piece upon which the dock is situated. To the west is Ken Mingus. I've spoken to him. He has no objection, and to the west of him are the properties of Vittengl and O'Keefe. They have no objection. So there's no objection throughout the whole neighborhood of anybody that might possibly be impacted by this dock, and because of the way that they're configuring it, actually those neighbors and everybody else will be less impacted because they're keeping it closer to shore. That's as simple as I can make it. If you have questions, we'd be glad to answer them. MR. KREBS-Plus, by not reconfiguring it, you're also not disturbing anything in the water. You're using the same old crib,basically,that exists. MR. O'CONNOR-To the extent that we can salvage the cribs,we may have to replace the cribs in full. MR. KREBS-Okay,but you're not pushing them out into the lake. MR. O'CONNOR-No,and it's fairly deep there,off that dock. MR. HUNSINGER-I hope so,because I saw the proposed jumping platform. MR. O'CONNOR-When I was younger, we used to go up there and used to jump off the roof on a regular basis,and I think the Hughes'also did the same. MR. HUNSINGER-Other questions, comments from the Board? Hearing none, would anyone like to put forward a recommendation? RESOLUTION RE: ZBA RECOMMENDATION FOR AV# 55-2013 157 MANNIS ROAD, LLC The applicant has submitted an application for the following: Site Plan: Applicant proposes replacement of a 740 sq. ft. dock with a 700 sq. ft. dock and 629 sq. ft. sundeck. Boathouse in a WR zone requires Planning Board review and approval. Variance: Relief requested from maximum dock width requirements of the WR zone. Planning Board shall make a recommendation to the Zoning Board of Appeals. The Town of Queensbury Zoning Ordinance, per Section 179-9-070 J 2 b. requires the Planning Board to provide a written recommendation to the Zoning Board of Appeals for projects that require both Zoning Board of Appeals &Planning Board approval; 2 ueensbu Planning Board 10/15/2013) ■ �Q rY g 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. 55-2013 157 MANNIS ROAD, LLC, Introduced by Donald Krebs who moved for its adoption,seconded by Brad Magowan: The Planning Board,based on limited review,has not identified any significant adverse impacts that cannot be mitigated with the current project proposal. Duly adopted this 15th day of October, 2013,by the following vote: AYES: Mr. Magowan, Mr. Krebs, Mr.Traver, Mr. Deeb, Mr. Schonewolf, Mr. Ford, Mr. Hunsinger NOES: NONE MR. O'CONNOR-And we thank you very much. MR. HUNSINGER-You're welcome. MR. O'CONNOR-Do you have any comments,we're going to come back to you next week for that site plan for the sundeck? You have those drawings in front of you. Any comments that we should think about? All right. We thank you. MR. HUNSINGER-Yes. You're welcome. Thank you. We have two items, this evening, under Old Business. OLD BUSINESS REQUIRING OR CONTINUATION OF PUBLIC HEARING: SUBDIVISION NO. 2-2013 FRESHWATER WETLANDS 1-2013 PRELIMINARY & FINAL STAGE REVIEW SEQR TYPE UNLISTED GREENWOOD BUILDERS AGENT(S) JARRETT ENGINEERS OWNER(S) H. THOMAS JARRETT ZONING MDR LOCATION RIDGE ROAD SUBDIVISION: APPLICANT PROPOSES SUBDIVISION OF A 16.02 ACRE PARCEL INTO 3 RESIDENTIAL LOTS OF 3.44, 4.13, AND 8.44 ACRES. SUBDIVISION OF LAND REQUIRES PLANNING BOARD REVIEW AND APPROVAL. FRESHWATER WETLANDS: WORK ADJACENT TO ACOE WETLANDS _CROSS REFERENCE AV 43-13, SEPTIC VARIANCE APA, CEA, OTHER NWI WETLANDS, STREAM OVERLAY LOT SIZE 16.02 ACRES TAX MAP NO. 290.4-83 SECTION CHAPTER A183, CHAPTER 94 TOM JARRETT, REPRESENTING APPLICANT, PRESENT MR. HUNSINGER-Laura? MRS. MOORE-Okay. The applicant proposes a three lot subdivision where two lots, 1 and 2, will have a shared access on Ridge Road. The third lot has frontage on Ridge Road and 50 ft. paper- drive to Stonehurst Drive. Lot 3 will be accessed from Stonehurst Drive paper drive. The applicant has received their variance for road frontage requirements. They are here tonight for Preliminary and Final review, as well as Freshwater Wetlands. You did complete your SEQR previously and it was a Negative Declaration. MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. Thank you. Good evening. MR. JARRETT-Good evening. Tom Jarrett along with Gary Scott. As Laura said, we're here for Preliminary and Final review of the Ridgewood Meadows subdivision. It's been vetted by each Board numerous times, and I think all the issues have been resolved satisfactorily with the exception that we had some TDE comments that are still outstanding. We have responded to those, and we hope that they will be satisfied shortly. Four of those comments were administrative,in my opinion,and three of them were technical, and I think we've cleaned them up pretty well. Laura can speak to that if she wishes. I think you've looked at the details, looked at the layout numerous times. I guess we'll open it up to questions and any issues you have. MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. Questions,comments from the Board? MR.TRAVER-What's the status of the driveway easement? 3 ueensbu Planning Board 10/15/2013) ■ �Q rY g MR. JARRETT-The Town Attorney is actually looking at that right now. His opinion, when I spoke with him on Friday,was that if it's in the same deed,that it shouldn't require an easement. It's just that the Highway Department didn't have it listed on their roll of roads, and he doesn't feel it requires a separate easement, although I'm not going to speak for him right now. He hasn't gotten back to me with a final determination. He said he would try to get back to me as of today, but he didn't do it. So we should have an answer shortly. MR. HUNSINGER-Other questions, comments? I did notice that your project signs were still up as of today. MR.JARRETT-Amazingly,amazingly. MR. HUNSINGER-Yes. They're a little hard to read because they're faded,but. MR.JARRETT-Trees have come down in the meantime,but the signs are still there. MR. HUNSINGER-The signs are still there. MR. KREBS-Leaning a little bit,but. MR. HUNSINGER-No other questions or comments from the Board? MR. KREBS-We pretty much went through this before. MR. HUNSINGER-Yes. We do have a public hearing scheduled this evening. Is there anyone in the audience that wants to address the Board on this project? Any written comments, Laura? PUBLIC HEARING OPEN MRS.MOORE-No. MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. We will open the public hearing and I will close the public hearing. PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED MR. HUNSINGER-Let the record show no comments were received. What's the feeling of the Board? Are members comfortable with a conditional approval? MR. FORD-Conditioning on the driveway easement,that it should be resolved. MR. HUNSINGER-And the engineering. MR. FORD-Yes. MR. HUNSINGER-Yes. Can we do Final approval pending engineering comments? MRS.MOORE-Yes. MR. HUNSINGER-Yes,for subdivision? MRS.MOORE-Yes. MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. MRS. MOORE-So you're doing two resolutions, one's Preliminary, and the one's Final, with the wetlands. MR. HUNSINGER-Right. Okay. MR.JARRETT-We just don't come back here for your signature until we have all that resolved. MR. HUNSINGER-Yes. MR. KREBS-Right. MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. If there's no other questions or comments,we'll entertain a motion. 4 (Queensbury Planning Board 10/15/2013) ■ �Q rY g RESOLUTION APPROVING PRELIMINARY STG. SUB # 2-2013 GREENWOOD BUILDERS A subdivision application has been made to the Queensbury Planning Board for the following: Subdivision: Applicant proposes subdivision of a 16.02 acre parcel into 3 residential lots of 3.44, 4.13, and 8.44 acres. Subdivision of land requires Planning Board review and approval. Freshwater Wetlands:Work adjacent to ACOE Wetlands On 9-17-2013 the Planning Board conducted a SEQR review and adopted a Negative Declaration; On 9-17-2013 the Planning Board provided a recommendation to the ZBA; on 9-18-2013 the ZBA approved the variance requests; A public hearing was scheduled and held on 9-17-2013 & 10/15/2013; This application is supported with all documentation, public comment, and application material in the file of record; MOTION TO APPROVE PRELIMINARY STAGE SUBDIVISION NO. 2-2013 GREENWOOD BUILDERS, Introduced by Donald Krebs who moved for its adoption,seconded by Brad Magowan: This is pursuant to relevant sections of the Town of Queensbury Zoning Code A-183, and Planning Board has determined that this proposal satisfies the requirements as stated in the Zoning Code. Duly adopted this 15th day of October, 2013,by the following vote: AYES: Mr. Magowan, Mr. Krebs, Mr.Traver, Mr. Ford, Mr. Schonewolf, Mr. Deeb, Mr. Hunsinger NOES: NONE MR. HUNSINGER-Are you ready to roll? MR. KREBS-Yes. MR. HUNSINGER-Go ahead. RESOLUTION APPROVING FINAL STG. SUB # 2-2013 GREENWOOD BUILDERS A subdivision application has been made to the Queensbury Planning Board for the following: Subdivision: Applicant proposes subdivision of a 16.02 acre parcel into 3 residential lots of 3.44, 4.13, and 8.44 acres. Subdivision of land requires Planning Board review and approval. Freshwater Wetlands:Work adjacent to ACOE Wetlands SEQR approval on 9/17/2013; A public hearing was scheduled and held on 8/27/2013 tabled to 9/17/2013; This application is supported with all documentation, public comment, and application material in the file of record; MOTION TO APPROVE FINAL STAGE SUBDIVISION NO. 2-2013 &FRESHWATER WETLANDS 1- 2013 GREENWOOD BUILDERS, Introduced by Donald Krebs who moved for its adoption, seconded by Thomas Ford: As per the resolution prepared by staff with the following: 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 limits of clearing will constitute a no-cut buffer zone, orange construction fencing shall be installed around these areas and field verified by Community Development staff, 3. Engineering sign-off required prior to signature of Planning Board Chairman; 5 ueensbu Planning Board 10/15/2013) ■ �Q rY g 4. The driveway easement is pending Town Attorney determination. If an easement is required, the applicant will obtain it. 5. 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; 6. 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; 7. 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; 8. The applicant must meet with Staff after approval and prior to issuance of Building Permit and/or the beginning of any site work; 9. Subsequent issuance of further permits, including building permits is dependent on compliance with this and all other conditions of this resolution; 10. As-built plans to certify that the subdivision is developed according to the approved plans to be provided prior to issuance of the certificate of occupancy. Duly adopted this 15th day of October, 2013,by the following vote: MR. HUNSINGER-And did you want to say anything about the driveway easement,pending? MR. KREBS-Well,the driveway easement is pending. MR. JARRETT-Resolution of that question that was raised regarding the need for an easement, I guess. MR. FORD-Right. MR. HUNSINGER-The Town Attorney review. MR. KREBS-The Town Attorney will review that. MR.JARRETT-If an easement is required,we will obtain it. MR. KREBS-Yes. MRS.MOORE-That is part of your motion? If an easement is required,it will? MR. KREBS-Yes,if an easement is required,if the Town Attorney determines. MR.JARRETT-Right now they're thinking it's not,but it if is required,we'll obtain it. MR. FORD-Okay. I'll second that. MR. HUNSINGER-Is everyone clear what the resolution is? MR. KREBS-The resolution is per the draft, plus they will have to have an easement determination by the Town Attorney. MR. HUNSINGER-Right. MR. KREBS-And if so,they will get an easement if they need it. AYES: Mr. Deeb, Mr. Schonewolf, Mr. Ford, Mr. Magowan, Mr. Krebs, Mr.Traver, Mr. Hunsinger 6 ueensbu Planning Board 10/15/2013) ■ �Q rY g NOES: NONE MR.JARRETT-Great. Thank you. MR. HUNSINGER-You're all set. You're welcome. SITE PLAN NO. 49-2013 SEQR TYPE II RICH &JILL LONG OWNER(S) SAME AS APPLICANT ZONING LC-42A LOCATION 2407 RIDGE ROAD APPLICANT PROPOSES TO CONSTRUCT A 787 SQ. FT. ADDITION AND TO ALTER A 351 SQ. FT. PORTION OF AN EXISTING HOME THAT INCLUDES A NEW PORCH ENTRYWAY. THE PROJECT INVOLVES AN ADDITIONAL BEDROOM, UPDATING AN EXISTING BATHROOM, UPDATING AN EXISTING BEDROOM, ENCLOSING UTILITIES AND REMOVAL OF A SHED THAT PREVIOUSLY HELD UTILITIES. SITE PLAN REVIEW IS REQUIRED FOR EXPANSION OF A NON-CONFORMING STRUCTURE IN A CEA. CROSS REFERENCE AV 46-13, V 67-98, AV 2-96, BP 98-639, BP 97-048 WARREN CO. REFERRAL SEPTEMBER 2013 APA, CEA, OTHER L G PARK CEA LOT SIZE 0.44 ACRES TAX MAP NO. 240.-1-46 SECTION 179-3-040, 179-13-010 RICH&JILL LONG, PRESENT MR. HUNSINGER-Laura? MRS. MOORE-Okay. This applicant proposes to construct a 787 square foot addition and to alter a 351 square foot portion of an existing home. This includes an entry, new porch entryway. This portion of the project includes making two bedrooms larger, adding a full bath and enclosing existing hot water tank, their well tank, and other furnished utilities. They received their Area Variance for the expansion of a nonconforming structure,setback and permeability requirements of the LC-42A zone. MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. Thank you. Good evening. If you could identify yourselves for the record. MRS. LONG-Jill Long. MR. LONG-Rich Long. MR. HUNSINGER-Did you have anything else that you wanted to add? Okay. I will open it up for questions,comments from the Board. MR.TRAVER-I see that the number of boats stored has been dramatically reduced. Do you have an alternative site? MR. KREBS-I think you're on the wrong one. This is Rich and Jill Long. MR.TRAVER-I'm sorry. My apologies. I withdraw the question. MR. KREBS-No, and I think if we look at the information that was provided by the Zoning Board, they pretty much covered all the key points that were needed. Having observed the property, absolutely I think it makes sense what you're doing with it. MR. SCHONEWOLF-Most of the work's inside. MR. FORD-Yes,it's internal. MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. If there's no further questions or comments from the Board, we do have a public hearing scheduled this evening. Is there anyone in the audience that wants to address the Board on this project? PUBLIC HEARING OPEN MR. HUNSINGER-No written comments? MRS.MOORE-I have no written comments. MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. We will open the public hearing and we will close the public hearing. PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED 7 (Queensbury Planning Board 10/15/2013) ■ �Q rY g MR. HUNSINGER-Let the record show no comments were received. It's a Type II SEQR, so no SEQR review is required,and if there are no other questions or comments, I will entertain a motion. RESOLUTION APPROVING SP#49-2013 RICH &JILL LONG A site plan application has been made to the Queensbury Planning Board for the following: Applicant proposes to construct a 787 sq. ft. addition and to alter a 351 sq. ft. portion of an existing home that includes a new porch entryway. The project involves an additional bedroom, updating an existing bathroom, updating an existing bedroom, enclosing utilities and removal of a shed that previously held the utilities. Site Plan Review is required for expansion of a non-conforming structure in a CEA. SEQR Type II -no further review required; PB made a recommendation to the ZBA on 9/24/2013; the ZBA approved the variance requests on 9/25/2013; A public hearing was advertised and held on 9/24/2013 & 10/15/2013; This application is supported with all documentation, public comment, and application material in the file of record; MOTION TO APPROVE SITE PLAN NO. 49-2013 RICH &JILL LONG, Introduced by Donald Krebs who moved for its adoption,seconded by Brad Magowan: This is 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 15th day of October, 2013,by the following vote: AYES: Mr. Magowan, Mr. Krebs, Mr.Traver, Mr. Ford, Mr. Schonewolf, Mr. Deeb, Mr. Hunsinger NOES: NONE MR. HUNSINGER-You're all set. Good luck. MR. LONG-Thank you. MR. HUNSINGER-You're welcome. We have two items under New Business this evening. NEW BUSINESS: SUP 56-2013 MODIFICATION TO SUP 14-2008 SEQR TYPE UNLISTED J D MARINA AGENT(S) JOHN MATTHEWS OWNER(S) SAME AS APPLICANT ZONING WR LOCATION 2585 STATE ROUTE 9L APPLICANT PROPOSES COMMERCIAL BOAT AND ASSOCIATED EQUIPMENT STORAGE. PROJECT INCLUDES INDOOR STORAGE IN AN EXISTING BUILDING AND OUTDOOR STORAGE. COMMERCIAL BOAT SALES/SERVICE/STORAGE USES IN THE WR ZONE REQUIRE SPECIAL USE PERMIT REVIEW BY THE PLANNING BOARD. CROSS REFERENCE SUP 14-08, NOA 5-06, SUP 47-06, BP 09-99 WARREN CO. REFERRAL OCTOBER 2013 APA, CEA, OTHER L G CEA, APA WETLANDS LOT SIZE 11.15 ACRES TAX MAP NO. 240.5-1-31.23 SECTION 179-3-040, 179-10-070(D) CARL SCHODER&LONNY CHASE, REPRESENTING APPLICANT, PRESENT 8 ueensbu Planning Board 10/15/2013) ■ �Q rY g MR. HUNSINGER-Laura? MRS. MOORE-Okay. This applicant proposes to operate a commercial boat storage on an 11.15 acre parcel. The boats to be stored include 8 inside the garage and 76 outside. The applicant previously had a special use permit for 200 boats that has since expired and the applicant has explained the storage numbers were arrived at with the Park Commission's review of the project. The applicant has submitted plans show the location of the storage, stormwater management for the site, and existing conditions for landscaping with paved areas. Additional information includes photos and a summary of the wetlands review of the site, and under Special Use Permit, I did evaluate the information under the Special Use Permit. Under the Harmony, the Compatibility, access, the infrastructure, the environmental and natural features, the long term effects and the Special Criteria for Boat Storage Facilities, and under Summary I have, Staff would suggest a permanent permit for this boat storage activity. MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. Thank you. Good evening. MR. SCHODER-Good evening. I'm Carl Schoder, Schoder Rivers Associates, representing the applicant in this matter, and if anybody else was impressed with the way that easel came out, so was I. I was expecting it to fall apart and pieces fly all over. Well, thank you very much for seeing us this evening. As noted,this application is a Special Use Permit application for boat storage. It is a follow up to a Special Use Permit No. 14-08, which has since expired. The project as proposed is very similar to the prior project. However, I would note that the biggest difference is there's a significant reduction in the number of boats that will be stored. The original project anticipated up to a maximum of approximately 200 boats to be stored on this site. The current project, with 8 boats stored inside as well. The current project proposes a maximum outdoor storage of 76 boats, while the 8 boats indoor storage would still be maintained. All other stipulations that were made and that were part of the original permit would still be in place for this new site, or Special Use Permit. The prior permit required consultation with the Lake George Park Commission relative to the number of boats that actually could be fit on this site and any other requirements that the Park Commission may have prior to implementation of outdoor storage. Actually as part of the work for this Special Use Permit,that consultation was held. I would note that outdoor storage of boats, and I believe this is true, had not occurred under the prior permit. The only storage that was utilized was indoor storage. There was no need, as it turned out,for outdoor storage during that prior time period, but now the owner's anticipating that there will be some opportunity for that, obviously would like to pursue that. In the prior, the stipulation that asked us to go to the Park Commission resulted in a meeting with them. The purpose for the meeting was to flesh out what their requirements would be, specifically regarding layout on the site, and this is the main reason why the number of boats have been reduced. Layout on the site would be controlled by a separation to existing flagged wetlands,which kind of surround the site on two sides, and also to the proximity of a steep bank over a fill area that is also adjacent to those wetlands. What was agreed with the Park Commission was to maintain a buffer or separation distance of 50 feet from the wetland, or 10 feet to top of it, whichever is obviously controlling. There is a line that's indicated on the drawing to that effect that indicates where these boats would be able to be placed. Using that stipulation significantly reduced the amount of available area from what was originally anticipated in the prior permit, and therefore we're at the number of boats that we have. The other requirement that the Park Commission asked us to address or asked us to look at was something, an extent of stormwater management that could be done on this site to address existing impermeable areas,and again, we're not proposing any new impermeable areas with this project, but there are certain roof areas, certain pavement areas and also certain gravel pavement areas that, if at all possible, should be addressed. Now, to the best degree possible, now the best degree possible as defined by discussing this with the Park Commission, was to avoid infiltration into the fill areas that are present on the site,located pretty much to the, oh, what would that be,to the west and north of the existing building that's on the property. It was not considered to be desirable to try and infiltrate into that fill. The materials that are in the fill are deteriorating and you certainly don't want that leaching out into wetlands. So we've avoided that at all costs. The decision was made to be able to do something that would include the installation of a stormwater detention basin,not an infiltration basin, not intended as a primary infiltration device, but rather as a detention device, to allow the settlement of some of the silt that may be in this runoff, and also to obviously control outlet, to control flow rate. That basin was designed and is indicated on the drawing. The discharge from that basin then was directed to, and again, as agreed with the Park Commission, was directed to a riprap lined swale that would extend down the hillside,that would terminate in a grass lined swale, to allow the material, or again,the runoff to have some filtering effect as it goes through check dams which would be installed within the riprap lined swale. Those features are indicated on the drawings, and again, I can go into them in more detail if you wish, but let me move on. The Park Commission did review what we had proposed, and both from the point of view of the number of 9 ueensbu Planning Board 10/15/2013) ■ �Q rY g boats being stored, the separation distances, and the stormwater management system. The decision on the Park Commission's point was to grant a modification to the Marina's Class A Marina permit that allowed for this facility,which is known as Facility Two on their permit,to operate,with the one caveat that before outdoor storage would be put in place, the stormwater management would need to be constructed and be operational, and we certainly feel that that was a reasonable request on their part. This is the time that they get to make sure that that actually does get built, and certainly seemed to be a reasonable requirement. So that's where we are with the Park Commission. At this time what the owner is proposing to do is to construct that stormwater management system that we had spoken of, preferably this coming Spring, because it's going to be difficult to get grass to grow and do effective erosion control and that kind of thing this time of year. However, in building it, which of course would anticipate outdoor boat storage for 2014. Am I misspeaking here or am I on the same page? Okay. Kick me when I'm wrong, please. The winter, though, this coming winter, the owner would like to continue to utilize the indoor boat storage, which they did use this facility for as a part of the last permit, would like to continue on with that, and be able to implement that as soon as possible,because obviously it's, in spite of tonight and the nice warm weather, it is starting to get cold out and people want their boats under cover. So,with that, we submitted this to the Town. We received a comment letter from Chazen, or from the Chazen Companies, and what we had done in response to that comment letter is return a letter to the Town, responding to their comments,which I'd be more than happy to go over. I don't know if you folks have a copy of that, but if not, my response, that is, but if not, I do have extra copies here, and I'd be glad to hand those out and go through that if you wish. MR. HUNSINGER-Do you have it, Laura? MRS.MOORE-I have one set of that response,yes, I do. MR. HUNSINGER-How lengthy is it? MR. SCHODER-It's fairly short. MRS.MOORE-It's short. MR. HUNSINGER-I think I would rather you. MRS. MOORE-The applicant can go through those responses,because the Planning Board does have the engineering comments from Chazen. MR. HUNSINGER-Right. MRS. MOORE-That they've already looked through, and if you wish the applicant to go through their response briefly. MR. HUNSINGER-Yes, we typically don't accept new information the night of a meeting. I think it would probably be easier if you just verbalized what is in your letter. MR. SCHODER-I would be glad to do that. MR. HUNSINGER-And then you don't need to pass out the reply. MR. SCHODER-That's absolutely fine. MR. HUNSINGER-As long as,but Staff will need a copy for the record. MR. SCHODER-That's fine. We'll leave copies with them. The drawing that is up on my magic easel here is a drawing that has certain minor modifications made to address the Chazen comments as well, and I would also propose that I would give the Town copies of that which I also have with me. MR. HUNSINGER-Sure. MR. SCHODER-As necessary. So if I may,should I go into the Chazen comments? MR. HUNSINGER-Yes,go ahead,unless there's comments from the Board. MR. FORD-Let's go. MR. SCHODER-Now you folks have a copy of the Chazen letter? 10 ueensbu Planning Board 10/15/2013) ■ �Q rY g MR. HUNSINGER-We do. MR. SCHODER-Okay. Very good, because my letter is formatted around in response to comment number,that kind of thing, and if you'd give me just a half a second, I'd like to get that letter in front of me. There we go. MR. MAGOWAN-You say you have an updated version of(lost word)? MR. SCHODER-That is correct. That drawing, I also have many copies, I have numerous copies of that. I can,again,give them to the Town. I'd be more than happy to share them with you,however. MR. HUNSINGER-Yes. Maybe when we get to that, you can just review with us what the changes are. MR. SCHODER-Absolutely, absolutely fine. As a matter that, that'll be actually part and parcel, I think,with what we're doing right now. MR. HUNSINGER-I figured. MR. SCHODER-Regarding Comment Number One, I guess my response letter noted that that is an acknowledged comment. By the way, I would have gotten this information to you folks quite a bit earlier. We received the letter from the Chazen Companies yesterday. So I didn't, obviously, have the time to be able to get this to you, but I apologize. At any rate, the first comment is an administrative. MR. KREBS-I just want to point out that I have been, for several years, trying to get the Planning Department to change that procedure so that you would have an opportunity to respond to the engineering comments prior to coming before the Board. MR. SCHODER-Mr. Krebs, I recognize that, and I present in other towns. Some towns have that policy, and I'll tell you what, it cleans up your agendas because you can get so much done and through and finished. MR. KREBS-Well, and oftentimes it requires the applicant to come back a second time, which they would not have to if they. MR. SCHODER-Exactly. That's what I'm saying,it cleans up your agenda. At any rate. MR. SCHONEWOLF-We didn't see it until Saturday. So don't feel bad. MR. SCHODER-Okay. Well, close enough. Regarding Comment Number One, that's an administrative comment and my response will be acknowledged. Comment Number Two addresses the drainage area delineated and asks for some clarification on grading to show that that drainage area indeed will discharge toward the drainage basin. If I may. MR. HUNSINGER-Yes,go ahead. MR. SCHODER-Okay. Comment Two,what we had done,the area in question is this stippled area in here, which effectively needs to be re-graded. The rest of this is flowing down in this general direction anyway, the rest of the runoff that I can pick up, which is indicated on my drainage calcs, but this area was somewhat unclear to Chazen, and what we did was we added some spot grades, here, there and there, indicating a low point at the entrance to the basin, and indicating the anticipated slopes to that low point. At 50 scale showing grading in that, in my opinion the spot grades would be easier for the owner to actually construct. Comment Number Four, Comment Number Four is dealing with infiltration, and I would like to address that. My response, and I'll just read it, the intent of the stormwater design is to provide a detention basin as indicated on the drawings. At the request of the Lake George Park Commission, some allowance for infiltration was assumed. Now the reason for that was this basin, as it drains,will still have some minimal amount of water in the bottom. That should go into the ground at some point to allow the basin to empty. As well, if you could pick up some infiltration, it would be a good idea. This basin provides adequate storage for the design rainfall events assuming no infiltration. When we originally designed this basin,we had zero. The Lake George Park Commission came back to us and said,hey, guys,how about looking at some infiltration and seeing how the basin performs. Didn't change the size of the basin. So, with that, with that scenario, the maximum stormwater elevation attained within the basin,if there was no infiltration,was 357.33 for the 10-year event 358.09 for the 100-as 11 ueensbu Planning Board 10/15/2013) ■ �Q rY g opposed to 357.10 for the 10-year and 357.8 for the 100. So we're talking about three-tenths of a foot, okay. There's not a lot to be gained here by saying there is no infiltration, as the original design intent was. Peak discharges similarly only increase by about .02 CFS. So it's a negligible increase. Since the design basis for this basin was detention, not infiltration, no infiltration tests were performed,which is also referenced in here. However,there was a test pit that was excavated back in August, okay, before we designed this basin, and that test pit is located right there, just immediately above the basin. That test pit revealed mottling at 30 inches. So I've got 24 inches of usable soil above that mottling area, and indeed the basin is constructed substantially above grade. It's a bermed basin. Therefore I think we've addressed that, bedrock, by the way, was at 48 inches in that hole. So I think we've addressed that. As far as infiltration, when the Park Commission asked me, he basically said it's a detention basin. They said, well what would be reasonable, and my sense was about 10 inches per hour, which is a perc rate, if you will, of six minutes per inch. This is a sandy soil, that, in my experience, and I've done a little bit of this, it seems to be a reasonable assumption for that, that's as far as it went. So it was kind of an add on, this whole infiltration point. Regarding Number Five, the applicant shall submit test pit information, I think I just addressed that, and groundwater separation, I think I just addressed that. So,that should take care of Five. Regarding Number Six,this has to do with a report by QEA. QEA was an organization that was retained back, a long time ago actually, to assess, to do I believe it was a Phase II environmental assessment, was it not? That they were doing, to assess the fill in this area. Now the fill, can't really point with a piece of paper, sorry. The fill, this is the existing building. The fill had occurred basically from my pencil line in that direction, okay. That's why I feel safe putting a basin up in here, because even if we do get some infiltration, it's effectively lateral. Grade is going down this way. There is a swale,a natural swale that kind of comes up this way. So we're isolating our basin and any potential infiltration from going into this. However, QEA did a study,did a Phase II, basically found some construction related debris that kind of thing, but nothing onerous, and I believe the correct statement would be gave it a reasonably clean bill of health. That said, there's still some construction debris in there and it's based on test pits. The test pits are in fill material. The data that would come, in addressing the remarks here, the data that I would get, usable data that I would get relative to the infiltration basin,would be for dumped fill that I have no intention of infiltrating in in the first place. So,in my opinion,that information would really not supplement the design of this basin, even if it was designed for infiltration. That said,the important part about the QEA study was locating where this fill area was. Now we have copies of that study that the Board has received back in,what would it be now, '08, or'07. We would be glad to give you another copy of that to carry on with this application. We can give it to the Town if you wish, but those data are already on file, and we honestly didn't think that you would need that fairly thick report again because that was kind of established the first time. MR. HUNSINGER-Do you know if that was made available to the Town Engineer? MRS.MOORE-I believe it was not for this particular application. MR. HUNSINGER-Yes. MRS. MOORE-Just the summary was, so maybe it's something that we should forward on to the engineer at this. MR. HUNSINGER-Yes,that's what it sounds like. MR. SCHODER-Well,we'll be glad to give you copies of that. MR. HUNSINGER-I don't think the whole Board needs to get a copy. MR. SCHODER-Okay. That's fine. Yes,it's kind of boring reading. MR. HUNSINGER-Yes. MR. SCHODER-All right. Regarding Comment Number Seven, and Comment Number Seven, I believe, was pertinent to, where'd it go, thank you, ah, pertinent to a drafting error. In our calculations we had an invert elevation for this culvert that forms, basically, the final outlet pipe, okay, and the invert elevation in hydroCad in our calculations was 354.33, and someone who has been yelled at since indicated 355 on the drawing, okay, so about eight inches,but that eight inches obviously makes no difference whatsoever to the function of the basin. It's simply a conduit that takes the water away after the basin's done its thing. MR. MAGOWAN-A round up,huh? 12 ueensbu Planning Board 10/15/2013) ■ �Q rY g MR. SCHODER-I'm sorry? MR. MAGOWAN-A round up. MR. SCHODER-Well,these things happen. We try not to round up. We try to,you know,take it out to five decimal places and then double the answer for safety, but that's an engineer. Temporary erosion controls are the last item that was noted in the response,and what we had done here, again, we don't want to build this until next year so we can get some good grass growth on the stormwater management system, but in the lower reaches, there is a grass swale. What we had indicated, and as I noted, there were check dams that were going to be installed, I believe is every 25 feet in the stone lined swale in the first place. So what we have done is included two check dams to be installed immediately upon construction of that grass swale, i.e. before the grass grows, okay, such that they could retain some silt. We've also, belt and suspenders, put a short section of silt fence across the discharge point for that swale, which actually discharges out into a flat area. Normally silt fence across a concentrated flow is not a good idea, but here, a few feet away and that will disperse and be a flat flow. Those were, if I can sit down again, now, those were the modifications that were made to the drawing and those would be our response to that letter. I guess with that relatively long winded presentation,sorry about that. MR. HUNSINGER-That's okay,we asked. MR. SCHODER-I'll open it up to you guys. MR. HUNSINGER-Questions,comments. Paul? MR. SCHONEWOLF-Did you say the Park Commission had issued a permit or they said they will? MR. SCHODER-They have. They have issued,and as a matter of fact, as part of our package. MR. HUNSINGER-Yes, I was going to say, I thought it was in here. MR. SCHODER-Page Three. MR. SCHONEWOLF-So it's a current permit? MR. SCHODER-There is a current Class A Marina permit,and Condition 39 of the Marina permit,and basically what this is, Schedule C of the above referenced permit is hereby modified. So it's a modification of their Class A Marina permit. MR. SCHONEWOLF-But there's a permit. That's all I want to know. MR. HUNSINGER-Other questions,comments from the Board? MR. FORD-I remember this when it came before us in 2008. MR. SCHONEWOLF-So do I. MR. FORD-And I think your time spent with the Park Commission was time well spent. I like the improvements that I note, and it will give you a good opportunity for that outside storage that that had previously been approved anyway in anticipation of that. So, I'm in favor of it. MR. SCHONEWOLF-Yes, I like the layout a lot better. MR. FORD-Much better. MR. SCHODER-Thank you. MR. HUNSINGER-Any other comments,questions from the Board? MR.TRAVER-I had a question that I asked of the other applicant in error. So thank you for that. MR. HUNSINGER-We do have a public hearing scheduled this evening, if there are no other questions from the Board members. Is there anyone in the audience that wishes to address the Board on this project? We do have one commenter. The purpose of the public hearing is for members of the audience to provide comments to the Board. I would ask that anyone wishing to state their name for the record and speak clearly into the microphone. We do use, the meeting is 13 ueensbu Planning Board 10/15/2013) ■ �Q rY g taped and we do use the tape to transcribe the minutes. The tape is also available on the Town's website if anyone wishes to hear it. Good evening. PUBLIC HEARING OPENED HAL HALLIDAY MR. HALLIDAY-Thank you. Good evening,gentlemen. My name is Harold, nickname Hal Halliday. I am located directly next door to this property. I was up at the meeting in 2008. MR. FORD-Welcome back, Hal. MR. HALLIDAY-Thanks, Tom. We live directly next to this property. I can see every car, every truck that goes in and out of there, and I basically don't have a choice but to watch this property. We were concerned in 2008 about this project going forward, and at that time,John and Lonny and Talia made promises to us, and I came tonight to tell you that I wish we had more neighbors like them in our neighborhood. They have lived up to every promise, and believe me, this is like not me. If this was going to ruin our neighborhood I'd be the first one to say it, but this is a business that takes care of their property. They maintain it, and in 2008 they made promises, and so far everything has been done what they told. They're not only good neighbors, they're good family, and they're not our worst neighbor, okay. I wish all the neighborhood was as clean and neat as they are, okay. So I came to support them. One of our, one of my concerns, and I've spoken with all the neighbors, we were confused because of the letter that was sent to us, because in the project description it says that applicant proposes boat and storage equipment, and then it says building and outdoor storage,period,commercial boat sales, service and storage. I talked to John before the meeting and I read his letter that he sent to the Town, and I wanted to verify that he just wanted to renew the current permit. This confused the neighbors, including myself, and I came to see Laura today and she was absolutely wonderful. She gave, she helped me look through the stuff, and we were concerned that they were trying to go to commercial boat sales and service, and our biggest concern was customers coming out of the property, the dogs, the radios, the trash, and we're all close to this, okay. As long as it's just a renewal, I would highly recommend that you approve these people . They do a really good job. I'm concerned about the runoff from the property. I've been very clear about that. I've lived there for 40 years now, and I saw the trucks going in and out of there for 20 years dumping stuff, but I think between the Lake George Park Commission and John Salvador, they've probably got the runoff well covered, so we don't have to worry about that, okay. Please support these people. I think they're good neighbors. We made some agreements in 2008 that I asked you to look through your files, and I know they're in the minutes but I did not see them in the paper that I was shown regarding the last meeting. They had agreed to no boats higher than 16 feet so we wouldn't have, you know, 28 foot storage tents in there. At the time they agreed to only white boat covers, so it would blend in with the snow, all the people living up on the hill on Pilot Knob Road or the Munoff family looking down onto it,it probably would blend in all winter. It wouldn't bother anybody. At the time they agreed that no public or customers would be on property, and I do notice that that's in the letter that they sent to you, and they did agree to no additional lighting. I would just ask you that if we could get those same agreements,which I'm told that they will agree to, that I think the neighbors and myself and my wife will be very happy. Because I think we can go on a long time with these people storing boats there. They won't bother us. Okay. Thank you very much. That's all. MR. HUNSINGER-Thank you. Yes,we really appreciate you coming to see. MR. HALLIDAY-Thank you. MR. HUNSINGER-Was there anyone else that wanted to comment on this application? I think that might be the first time we ever had someone show up to say the applicant did what they said they were going to do. Usually we just hear when they don't. Were there any written comments, Laura? MRS.MOORE-No,there was not. MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. MR. SCHODER-If I may. MR. HUNSINGER-Yes,go ahead. MR. SCHODER-What I noted prior to this permit application continues on with the same stipulations as before. What the speaker had addressed and had requested is exactly what I meant. 14 ueensbu Planning Board 10/15/2013) ■ �Q rY g We're anticipating the same stipulations exactly as before. No additional lighting, etc., all those items that were listed. Although the white covers was a surprise to me. I didn't realize that was in there. I must have missed that. MR. CHASE-I don't think it is,but that was our intent. MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. I remember that discussion,yes. MR. SCHODER-It's not a bad idea. MR. MAGOWAN-Since we haven't had any snow in a few years, I'm thinking maybe a little camouflage maybe. MR. SCHODER-That's a good point. MR. HUNSINGER-What's the feeling of the Board? Is everyone comfortable with this project? MR. FORD-Yes, I am. MR. SCHONEWOLF-I am. MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. Then I will close the public hearing. PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED MR. HUNSINGER-This was an Unlisted action. The applicant, I believe, submitted a Short Form. So we do need to do SEQR review. MRS.MOORE-Do you want me to guide you through that first part? MR. HUNSINGER-Well, what I was going to say is, since this is a continuation of a prior Special Use Permit,can we just reaffirm SEQR,or do we need to do a separate resolution? MRS. MOORE-You do need to do a separate one because that has since expired, so this is a new application. MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. MR. KREBS-Can we just do the motion? MRS. MOORE-You can do the motion. I'll give you guidance that part of your motion should include, under C,the C1.through C7. If they're all answered no,then you should indicate as part of your resolution that under C1. through C7. that there is, this would be no adverse environmental impacts as seen in C1.through C7.,and then as per resolution per Staff. Does that make sense? MR. HUNSINGER-Yes,that makes sense. Do you understand what she's saying? MR. KREBS-Yes. Did everyone on the Board follow that discussion? At the last Board meeting we had a conversation afterwards about the way that we review SEQR, and Laura did some research and confirmed with Town Counsel on how we review SEQR as part of the project review, and it is not necessary for us to go through each question in the SEQR form. So she has provided a draft SEQR resolution,with the stipulation that we do have to specify our answers to C1.through C7. So as long as everyone's in agreement that all those answers are no, we can put that into the draft resolution and just do the draft resolution. MR. SCHONEWOLF-Okay. MR. HUNSINGER-Go ahead. RESOLUTION APPROVING SEQR FOR SUP# 56-2013 J D MARINA The applicant proposes commercial boat and associated equipment storage. Project includes indoor storage in an existing building and outdoor storage. Commercial boat sales / service / storage uses in the WR zone require Special Use Permit review by the Planning Board. 15 ueensbu Planning Board 10/15/2013) ■ �Q rY g The Planning Board has determined that the proposed project and Planning Board action is subject to review under the State Environmental Quality Review Act; 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; No Federal or other agencies are involved; Part 1 of the Short EAF has been completed by the applicant; Part 2 of the Short EAF has been reviewed by the Planning Board; 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. MOTION TO APPROVE NEGATIVE DECLARATION FOR SPECIAL USE PERMIT NO. 56-2013 J D MARINA, Introduced by Donald Krebs who moved for its adoption,seconded by Thomas Ford: And we need to indicate that there were no adverse impacts on Questions C1. Through C7. on the form. This is per the resolution prepared by Staff. Duly adopted this 15th day of October, 2013,by the following vote: AYES: Mr. Krebs, Mr.Traver, Mr. Magowan, Mr. Ford, Mr. Schonewolf, Mr. Deeb, Mr. Hunsinger NOES: NONE MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. Resolution. MR. KREBS-Yes. MR. HUNSINGER-We did have a copy of the prior approval resolution in our package, which had, well, it had three special conditions. The first one is that the Special Use Permit expires June 24, 2013. The second is that the boats will not be stacked, and then it talks about the site plan. I think the only one really that's relevant now is the stacking, and we also talked about the white covers. Would you prefer the language say that the boats will not be stacked or that the boats will not exceed 16 feet? MR. SCHODER-When you say stacked, are you talking vertical stacking? MR. HUNSINGER-Yes. MR. CHASE-They're separate issues, but I would say will not be stacked and the height, shrink wrapped height not to exceed 16 feet. MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. MR. FORD-Good. So we've got it covered. MS. GAGLIARDI-Can I get your name for the record? MR. CHASE-Lonny Chase,J&D Marina. MR. SCHODER-I'm sorry, I neglected to introduce the two folks that are sitting here, Lonny Chase from J&D,and John. MRS. MOORE-Mr. Krebs, can you just read through the conditions prior to making your motion,just so I'm clear? 16 ueensbu Planning Board 10/15/2013) ■ �Q rY g MR. KREBS-Yes. The condition is that the boats are not to be stacked,and will not exceed 16 feet in height. MRS. MOORE-Are you going to, I have others as white boat coverage, no public or customers to site and no additional lighting on site. Do you wish to add those as well? MR. SCHONEWOLF-Why don't you just say the conditions of the previous permit. MR. KREBS-Right. MR. HUNSINGER-You know, this is always one of those questions. I mean, they say in their application, in their letter that there will be no additional lighting. So,you know,do we need to say it in the resolution? MR. KREBS-Yes. Okay. MR. HUNSINGER-And then of course, obviously, I mean, even though you read your response to the Town Engineer's comments,obviously we have to have the Town Engineer signoff before. MR. FORD-We also want to stipulate whether this is going to be temporary, permanent or for a specific length of time. MR. HUNSINGER-Yes. MRS. MOORE-I have one more. In my Staff Notes I suggested the Board make it a permanent, and for boat storage only, so that if there were any other uses in the future, that the applicant would come back for a Special Use Permit for any other uses. At this time it is specifically for boat storage. MR. HUNSINGER-Well, I was going to say,that's all they've proposed is boat storage. MR. SCHONEWOLF-That's right. MR. HUNSINGER-Right? MRS. MOORE-Right, but in the language of the WR zone, it's the, it's read as one line, boat storage, commercial. MR. HUNSINGER-Okay,which is why the neighbors got confused. MRS.MOORE-Why the neighbors were concerned. So if you specify that,that will clarify that. MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. That the Special Use Permit is for boat storage only. Okay. I think we're ready. MR. KREBS-Okay. Motion to Approve Special Use Permit 56-2013 for J D Marina, Introduced by myself, and this is per the draft provided by Staff, with the following changes: Number One, the term of validity will be permanent. Second, this approval will be for boat storage only. Boats not to exceed 16 feet in height and boats will not be stacked. MR. MAGOWAN-Hang on,that would be wrapped height,right? MR. FORD-That's right. MR. KREBS-Wrapped height. MR. HUNSINGER-And they'll have the white covers. MR. KREBS-And the covers for the boats will be white material,so that they don't stand out. MR. SCHODER-Might I ask one question as a clarification? MR. HUNSINGER-Hold on. We have a motion. Is there a second? MR. FORD-Second. MR. HUNSINGER-We have a second. Okay. Go ahead. 17 ueensbu Planning Board 10/15/2013) ■ �Q rY g MR. SCHODER-Sorry. MR. HUNSINGER-That's all right. MR. SCHODER-Trailer storage. There is summer trailer storage that's also proposed. I don't believe that that is part of the regulation, but when you make the stipulation boat storage only, I don't think trailer storage, boat trailer storage is at issue with your regs, but I just wanted to be clear on that. MR. HUNSINGER-Should we specify that? MRS.MOORE-Includes trailers,includes boat storage trailers. MR. HUNSINGER-Yes, I mean, I don't know how you can. MR.TRAVER-I mean,that would have been part of the original permit I'm sure. MR. SCHODER-It was. MR. CHASE-It's a non-regulated activity. So it's. MR.TRAVER-Right,so I think that covers it. MR. HUNSINGER-Yes. MR. SCHODER-Okay. MR. HUNSINGER-I would just rely on Staff to say whether or not you would think,you feel a need to specify that. MR. MAGOWAN-You're going to have to pull them out in the Fall anyway, and they're probably four feet under the growth. MRS. MOORE-I just want to clarify that the Board, it sounds like the consensus is that you're feeling that the boat storage trailers are included as part of boat storage. MR. HUNSINGER-Right,yes. Well, Staff has to do enforcement,so that's why I say do we need. MR. KREBS-Well, I can certainly modify that to say that the term of validity is permanent for boat storage and trailers. MR. TRAVER-The only other question we might want to clarify of the applicant, the trailer storage, obviously, is in the summertime for people that have their boats there. Would, do you think it likely that the number of trailers stored during the summer would exceed 76? MR. SCHODER-We had indicated an assumed number of trailers. What was that number? MR.TRAVER-I don't remember seeing it. MR. SCHODER-30 to 40 trailers is what's on our drawing. MR.TRAVER-As long as it's not more than 76. MR. HUNSINGER-It's right on your plan,so we don't need to specify it if it's on the plan. MR. SCHODER-It even says summer storage. MR. HUNSINGER-Summer storage. It's right on the plan. MR. SCHODER-That's why I brought the plan. MRS.MOORE-Per plan. MR. HUNSINGER-Per plan,well, I mean,the plan's part of the application. 18 (Queensbury Planning Board 10/15/2013) ■ �Q rY g MR. HUNSINGER-Yes,okay. We'll go with that. MS. GAGLIARDI-I'm sorry, but could you read that motion over again so I make sure I know exactly what's in it? MR. KREBS-Yes. RESOLUTION APPROVING SUP# 56-2013 J D MARINA A site plan application has been made to the Queensbury Planning Board for the following: Applicant proposes commercial boat and associated equipment storage. Project includes indoor storage in an existing building and outdoor storage. Commercial boat sales / service/ storage uses in the WR zone require Special Use Permit review by the Planning Board. A public hearing was advertised and held on 10/15/2013; This application is supported with all documentation, public comment, and application material in the file of record; MOTION TO APPROVE SPECIAL USE PERMIT NO. 56-2013 J D MARINA, Introduced by Donald Krebs who moved for its adoption,seconded by Thomas Ford: As per the resolution prepared by staff with the following: 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) Term of Validity: Permanent for boat storage and trailers; 4) Boats not to be stacked or exceed 16 feet in wrapped height; 5) Conditions of the previous approval shall apply; 6) The covers will be white; 7) Nothing in the resolution shall prohibit the applicant from storing the boats inside the building; 8) Engineering sign-off required prior to signature of Zoning Administrator of the approved plans; 9) 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; 10) The applicant must meet with Staff after approval and prior to issuance of Building Permit and/or the beginning of any site work; 11) Subsequent issuance of further permits, including building permits is dependent on compliance with this and all other conditions of this resolution. Duly adopted this 15th day of October, 2013,by the following vote: MR. HUNSINGER-Did you have another comment? MR. SCHODER-One last question before you folks vote. As I've noted, it's the owner's intent to make those modifications for, such that outdoor boat storage can happen next Spring,but there is a real imperative and a real need to implement the interior storage as soon as possible. I recognize that you will have some engineering review. You're going to be re-submitting to the Chazen Company my letter of response. I would hope that we would be able to start that process, assuming a favorable vote here,that we would be able to start the process for interior storage immediately. 19 ueensbu Planning Board 10/15/2013) ■ �Q rY g MR. SCHONEWOLF-What was that, 12 boats? MR. FORD-Eight. MR. SCHODER-Eight. MR. FORD-Make that part of the motion, I'd second that. MR. HUNSINGER-Can we make that part of the motion? MRS. MOORE-You can, but typically you wait for your engineering signoff, and that doesn't, I don't think that takes a long period of time. MR. FORD-Well,how is that going to impact the storage of eight boats interior? MR. HUNSINGER-Yes,it's probably not. MR. TRAVER-Well, I think what the issue is that we would be approving without engineering signoff. MR. HUNSINGER-Right. MR.TRAVER-I mean,based on what the applicant offered us tonight it sounds like signoff would not be an issue. MR. HUNSINGER-Yes, I would agree. MR. SCHODER-I would certainly hope so, I agree,but you know, I never know. MR. HUNSINGER-As an existing building, I mean, storage of anything in the existing building would (lost words). MRS. MOORE-Correct. You, as a Board,can make that as part of your motion,and I'm just saying,as Staff, that I've seen you typically say until engineering signoff. That is up to you. It's enforceable either way. MR. SCHODER-I don't think any of the comments made by the Chazen Companies have anything even remotely to do with interior storage. MR. HUNSINGER-Yes. MRS.MOORE-Right,and that's why I'm saying either way. MR. HUNSINGER-And the practicality is would anyone even really know if you put boats in the building,unless they happened to be driving by when it was being done. MR. SCHODER-But if we could do that immediately it would really help our application. MRS. MOORE-Well, let me just back up just one step is that when we do final plans, the applicant receives a letter that says these conditions,and they're supposed to submit those final plans. MR. HUNSINGER-Right. MRS. MOORE-So potentially the final plans for the indoor boat storage could change some of the drawing components on,if there's any other engineering comments. MR. KREBS-Except that in the proposed draft,there is no date as to when the storage starts or ends. So as far as I'm concerned, this is allowing you to do this immediately, once you've got engineering signoff and the Zoning Administrator signs the documents. MR. SCHODER-We're just trying to do it by the rules. MR. KREBS-Yes. I don't see anything inhere that says anything about dates. MRS. MOORE-Right. Well, the next step after this is the applicant will receive a letter from our office indicating that they need to submit four final sets of plans. The four final sets of plans gets 20 ueensbu Planning Board 10/15/2013) ■ �Q rY g reviewed by myself and the Zoning Administrator. The Zoning Administrator stamps off on that, and then the applicant can proceed. MR. CHASE-But that won't happen until next season after the construction is done. So I think the easiest thing would be to put a condition in the approval saying that outside boat storage cannot be commenced until, you know, site plan is closed out and approved and final sets are submitted and reviewed. MR. FORD-Interior storage can commence immediately. MR. CHASE-I think that's basically what you did the last time, because we asked the same question then,too. MR. HUNSINGER-There wasn't anything in the resolution, though, and, you know, we do have a copy of the resolution from,the previous resolution in front of us, and it doesn't say anything about the interior storage. MR. FORD-Let's just stipulate it in our motion. MR. KREBS-But the point is,normally we're not controlling what happens interior to any building. MR. HUNSINGER-That's right. MR. KREBS-So I don't understand why we. MR. CHASE-It would be a marina use, by storing a boat in the building. So a marina use obviously needs a Special Use Permit. We just want to do it by the book. MR. HUNSINGER-Sure. Do you want to make an amendment to your resolution saying that nothing in the resolution shall prohibit the applicant from storing the boats inside the building. MR. KREBS-Yes,that's what I want to add,just what you said. MR. FORD-And I'll second that amendment. MR. KREBS-Okay. Good. MR. HUNSINGER-So we have an amendment to the resolution,and we have a second. MRS.MOORE-And the amendment,again? MR. HUNSINGER-The amendment is saying that there is nothing in the resolution that will prohibit the applicant from storing boats inside the building. MRS.MOORE-Okay. Is that clear, Maria? MS. GAGLIARDI-Yes. MRS.MOORE-Okay. MR. HUNSINGER-Is that sufficiently vague? MRS.MOORE-Yes. MR. KREBS-But, I mean, that's kind of like if I decided I wanted to have a farm tractor and I wanted to put it in my garage. I'm in a residential neighborhood, but, you know, it's interior to my property. So the Town has no control over that anyway. MR. SCHONEWOLF-That's right,and it's going in the garage anyhow. MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. Any other discussion? Call the vote,please. AYES: Mr. Ford, Mr. Magowan,Mr. Krebs, Mr.Traver, Mr. Deeb, Mr. Schonewolf, Mr. Hunsinger NOES: NONE 21 ueensbu Planning Board 10/15/2013) ■ �Q rY g MR. HUNSINGER-You're all set. Good luck. MR. SCHODER-Thank you very much. MR. HUNSINGER-Yes,you're welcome. Thank you. SUBDIVISION NO. 4-2013 PRELIMINARY&FINAL STAGE SEQR TYPE UNLISTED 697 UPPER GLEN STREET, LLC AGENT(S) HUTCHINS ENGINEERING OWNER(S) SAME AS APPLICANT ZONING CI-COMMERCIAL INTENSIVE LOCATION 989 STATE ROUTE 9 APPLICANT PROPOSES SUBDIVISION OF A 3.58 ACRE PARCEL INTO 2 LOTS OF 2.88 & 1.0 ACRES - 2.88 ACRE PARCEL WILL BE MAINTAINED WITH EXISTING STRUCTURES: 1.0 ACRE PARCEL IS VACANT. SUBDIVISION OF LAND REQUIRES PLANNING BOARD REVIEW AND APPROVAL. CROSS REFERENCE SP 58-99, SV 36-97, SP 49-96, BP'S LOT SIZE 3.58 ACRES TAX MAP NO. 296.13-1-22 SECTION CHAPTERA-183 TOM HUTCHINS&STEVEN JACKOSKI, REPRESENTING APPLICANT, PRESENT MR. HUNSINGER-Whenever you're ready, Laura. MRS. MOORE-This is an application for a two lot subdivision, and noted in the notes, this is a 3.58 acre parcel into two lots. One lot is 2.58 acres, not 2.88, and the other lot is the one acre. The new lot,the new commercial lot,the one acre parcel,is the commercial lot. MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. Thank you. Good evening. MR. HUTCHINS-Good evening. Would you like a summary? MR. HUNSINGER-I'd like you to state your name for the record first, if you could. You know the drill. MR. HUTCHINS-Tom Hutchins with Steve Jackoski, on behalf of 697 Upper Glen LLC. We are proposing to create a one acre commercial lot off the northerly portion of what's known as the Knights of Columbus property. The area where the one acre lot will be created is the vacant portion just north of all the buildings. It's kind of a gravel area now, and we're doing this such that we can have a viable lot for someone to plan a commercial use, realizing that any use on the parcel will be back here for site plan review. So, with that, we'd turn it over to the Board for questions. Steve,did you want to add anything? MR. HUNSINGER-Questions,comments from the Board? MR. KREBS-I think we're all very familiar with the property, and, you know, it certainly is in a commercial area. So I don't see any reason to restrict it. MR. HUNSINGER-The only thought I had, in terms of, it would be the future use, I mean, I agree. I think the subdivision is about as straightforward as you can get, and that is the ability to have,you know,cross uses of the parking areas,to the extent feasible and possible. MR. HUTCHINS-And we have shown cross easements across both parcels. We realize that in the event we have a chance where we need more parking,there is parking space available. MR. HUNSINGER-Exactly. MR. HUTCHINS-There's ample parking space to expand. We've shown cross easements to both owners across the rear portion of that property. In follow up to Laura's comments, we have committed to an interconnect, a formal interconnect at the back. The properties are really naturally interconnected, and we've shown that, and we've committed to a shared driveway which is part of the lot width requirement, it's the double the lot width or shared drive section which we've committed to. Ultimately we don't know the ultimate use, but they would be back here for site plan obviously. MR. HUNSINGER-Do you have any,is anyone interested? MR. JACKOSKI-There's been a lot of interest, but nobody would commit because they don't want to go through the process of subdivision. 22 ueensbu Planning Board 10/15/2013) ■ �Q rY g MR. HUNSINGER-Sure. Okay. Any other questions or comments? We do have a public hearing scheduled this evening. Is there anyone in the audience that wants to address the Board on this project? I don't see any hands. Any written comments, Laura? MRS.MOORE-No. MR. HUNSINGER-I will open the public hearing and I will close the public hearing. PUBLIC HEARING OPEN NO COMMENTS PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED MR. HUNSINGER-And let the record show no comments were received. Any other questions or comments from the Board? MR. FORD-No. MR. HUNSINGER-This is an Unlisted action and the applicant has submitted a Long Form. MRS.MOORE-The Board can discuss the waiver request from Sketch. MR. HUNSINGER-I'm sorry. Yes, we have to do that first. Does the Board have any problems with the waiver request for Sketch Plan Review? MR. FORD-No. MR. HUNSINGER-Would anyone like to put forward a resolution to approve the request for waiver for Sketch Plan Review. MR. KREBS-Okay. MR. MAGOWAN-I will. RESOLUTION APPROVING WAIVER FOR SKETCH PLAN REVIEW SUB #4-2013 697 UPPER GLEN A subdivision application has been made to the Queensbury Planning Board for the following: Applicant proposes subdivision of a 3.58 acre parcel into 2 lots of 2.88 & 1.0 acres -2.88 acre parcel will be maintained with existing structures; 1.0 acre parcel is vacant. Subdivision of land requires Planning Board review and approval. MOTION TO APPROVE THE REQUEST FOR THE WAIVER FROM THE SKETCH PLAN REVIEW FOR SUBDIVISION NO. 4-2013 697 UPPER GLEN STREET, LLC, Introduced by Brad Magowan who moved for its adoption,seconded by Stephen Traver: As per the resolution prepared by Staff. Duly adopted this 15th day of October, 2013,by the following vote: AYES: Mr.Traver, Mr. Krebs, Mr. Magowan, Mr. Ford, Mr. Schonewolf, Mr. Deeb, Mr. Hunsinger NOES: NONE MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. This is a Long SEQR Form. We have a draft SEQR resolution. MRS. MOORE-You should go through, as a Long Form, you do need to go through each of those questions. MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. So I guess there's really no value in having the SEQR resolution prepared. Okay. So at our next, not next week, but in November we will have to start using the new SEQR forms? MRS. MOORE-You will be using new SEQR forms,and next week I will give you an overview of those forms,and go through the response process with you. 23 ueensbu Planning Board 10/15/2013) ■ �Q rY g MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. MR.TRAVER-I thought we had to start using them as of tonight? MR. HUNSINGER-Well, except these applications were submitted prior to October 1St. MR. HUTCHINS-Yes, we've been told, any new applications use the new, the longer Short Form and the longer Long Form. MR. HUNSINGER-Yes. I mean, we went from two pages, well, when you look at the new Short Form,what I found really kind of annoying is the part that's done by this Board straddles two pages and you could really fit it on one page, easily. You could easily fit it on one page, but you can't change the page breaks on a PDF form. MRS.MOORE-Correct. I have an opportunity in the next week or so to discuss that. MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. Good, because that would really be helpful. Okay, Mr. Krebs, whenever you're ready. MR. KREBS-We're doing the SEQR,right? MR. HUNSINGER-Yes, Long Form. MR. KREBS-Yes. Will the proposed action result in a physical change to the project site? MR. HUNSINGER-No. MR.TRAVER-No. MR. KREBS-Will there be an effect to any unique or unusual land forms found on the site? MR. FORD-No. MR. HUNSINGER-No. MR. KREBS-Will the proposed action affect any water body designated as protected? MR. HUNSINGER-No. MR. FORD-No. MR. KREBS-Will the proposed action affect any non-protected existing or new body of water? MR. HUNSINGER-No. MR. FORD-No. MR. KREBS-Will the proposed action affect surface or groundwater quality or quantity? MR. FORD-No. MR. HUNSINGER-No. MR. KREBS-Will the proposed action alter drainage flow or patterns,or surface water runoff? MR. HUNSINGER-No. MR. MAGOWAN-No. MR. KREBS-Will the proposed action affect air quality? MR. HUNSINGER-No. MR.TRAVER-No. MR. KREBS-Will the proposed action affect any threatened or endangered species? 24 ueensbu Planning Board 10/15/2013) ■ �Q rY g MR. HUNSINGER-No. MR. FORD-No. MR. KREBS-Will the proposed action substantially affect non-threatened or non-endangered species? MR. FORD-No. MR. HUNSINGER-No. MR. KREBS-Will the proposed action affect agricultural land resources? MR. HUNSINGER-No. MR.TRAVER-No. MR. KREBS-Will the proposed action affect aesthetic resources? MR. FORD-No. MR. HUNSINGER-No. MR. KREBS-Will the proposed action impact any site or structure of historic, pre-historic or paleontological importance? MR. HUNSINGER-No. MR. FORD-No. MR. KREBS-Will the proposed action affect the quantity or quality of existing or future open spaces or recreational opportunities? MR. HUNSINGER-No. MR.TRAVER-No. MR. KREBS-Will the proposed action impact the exceptional or unique characteristics of a critical environmental area (CEA) established pursuant to Subdivision 6NYCRR617.14? MR. HUNSINGER-No. MR.TRAVER-No. MR. KREBS-Will there be an effect to existing transportation systems? MR. HUNSINGER-No. MR. MAGOWAN-No. MR. KREBS-Will proposed action affect the community's sources of fuel or energy supply? MR. HUNSINGER-No. MR. FORD-No. MR. KREBS-Will there be objectionable odors,noise,or vibration as a result of the proposed action? MR. FORD-No. MR. HUNSINGER-No. MR. KREBS-Will the proposed action affect public health and safety? MR. HUNSINGER-No. 25 (Queensbury Planning Board 10/15/2013) ■ �Q rY g MR.TRAVER-No. MR. KREBS-Will the proposed action affect the character of the existing community? MR. HUNSINGER-No. MR.TRAVER-No. MR. KREBS-And is there, or is there likely to be, public controversy related to potential adverse environmental impacts? MR. HUNSINGER-No. MR. MAGOWAN-No. MR. KREBS-We declare a Negative SEQRA declaration. MOTION TO FIND A NEGATIVE SEQR DECLARATION SUB #4-2013 697 UPPER GLEN ST LLC The applicant proposes commercial boat and associated equipment storage. Subdivision of a 3.58 acre parcel into 2 lots of 2.88 & 1.0 acres - 2.88 acre parcel will be maintained with existing structures; 1.0 acre parcel is vacant. Subdivision of land requires Planning Board review and approval. The Planning Board has determined that the proposed project and Planning Board action is subject to review under the State Environmental Quality Review Act; 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; No Federal or other agencies are involved; Part 1 of the Long EAF has been completed by the applicant; Part 2 of the Long EAF has been reviewed by the Planning Board; 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. MOTION TO APPROVE A NEGATIVE DECLARATION FOR SUBDIVISION 4-2013 697 UPPER GLEN STREET, LLC, Introduced by Donald Krebs who moved for its adoption, seconded by Stephen Traver As per the resolution prepared by staff. Duly adopted this 15th day of October 2013 by the following vote: AYES: Mr.Traver, Mr. Krebs, Mr. Magowan, Mr. Ford, Mr. Schonewolf, Mr. Deeb, Mr. Hunsinger NOES: NONE MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. Would you like to put forward a resolution for Preliminary Stage? RESOLUTION APPROVING PRELIM. STG. SUB 4-2013 697 UPPER GLEN STREET LLC A subdivision application has been made to the Queensbury Planning Board for the following: Applicant proposes subdivision of a 3.58 acre parcel into 2 lots of 2.88 & 1.0 acres -2.88 acre parcel will be maintained with existing structures; 1.0 acre parcel is vacant. Subdivision of land requires Planning Board review and approval. 26 (Queensbury Planning Board 10/15/2013) ■ �Q rY g A public hearing was scheduled and held on 10-15-2013; This application is supported with all documentation, public comment, and application material in the file of record; MOTION TO APPROVE PRELIMINARY STAGE SUBDIVISION NO. 4-2013 697 UPPER GLEN STREET, LLC, Introduced by Donald Krebs who moved for its adoption, seconded by Brad Magowan: As per the resolution prepared by staff with the following: 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 requirements of the State Environmental Quality Review Act have been considered and the Planning Board has adopted a SEQRA Negative Declaration. Duly adopted this 15th day of October, 2013,by the following vote: AYES: Mr. Magowan, Mr. Krebs, Mr.Traver, Mr. Deeb, Mr. Schonewolf, Mr. Ford, Mr. Hunsinger NOES: NONE MR. HUNSINGER-Would anyone like to put forward a resolution for Final Stage subdivision? RESOLUTION APPROVING FINAL STG. SUB 4-2013 697 UPPER GLEN STREET LLC A subdivision application has been made to the Queensbury Planning Board for the following: Applicant proposes subdivision of a 3.58 acre parcel into 2 lots of 2.58 & 1.0 acres -2.58 acre parcel will be maintained with existing structures; 1.0 acre parcel is vacant. Subdivision of land requires Planning Board review and approval. A public hearing was scheduled and held on 10-15-2013; This application is supported with all documentation, public comment, and application material in the file of record; MOTION TO APPROVE FINAL STAGE SUBDIVISION NO. 4-2013 697 UPPER GLEN STREET, LLC, Introduced by Donald Krebs who moved for its adoption,seconded by Paul Schonewolf: As per the resolution prepared by staff with the following: 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 requirements of the State Environmental Quality Review Act have been considered and the Planning Board has adopted a SEQRA Negative Declaration; 3. 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; 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 15th day of October, 2013,by the following vote: MR. HUNSINGER-There was the typo on the heading of the top,the 3.58. MR. SCHONEWOLF-Because it didn't add up. 27 (Queensbury Planning Board 10/15/2013) ■ �Q rY g MRS.MOORE-2.58,not 2.88. MR. HUNSINGER-Yes,thank you. MR. HUNSINGER-So the draft resolution should have that correction. MR. KREBS-Yes. AYES: Mr. Schonewolf, Mr. Deeb, Mr. Ford, Mr. Magowan, Mr. Krebs, Mr.Traver, Mr. Hunsinger NOES: NONE MR. HUNSINGER-You're all set. MR.JACKOSKI-Thank you. This was actually almost as easy as going to the Zoning Board. MR. SCHONEWOLF-It didn't in any way resemble the Zoning Board. MR. KREBS-Good luck, Steve. MR. HUNSINGER-Good luck, Steve. Before we consider adjournment, we did have, Mr. Salvador asked if he could address the Board,and I had another item to discuss. Good evening. JOHN SALVADOR MR. SALVADOR-Good evening and thank you. MR. HUNSINGER-You're welcome. MR. SALVADOR-Today is October 15th. This is the day that the San Souci restaurant was supposed to begin their holding tank installation. I drove by there on my way home, excuse me, on my way to this meeting and nothing has started. Now this promise was made to the Town Supervisor. So I'll check tomorrow and see where it stands. What's supposed to happen is, until the project is approved, he's not allowed to use what's been installed, and the restaurant is open. He's in full operation and doesn't have a CO. So that's up to the people downstairs. MR. HUNSINGER-Yes,you're right. MR. SCHONEWOLF-It's not our problem. MR. SALVADOR-Okay. I have here for you this evening your copy of a letter I've written to Craig Brown and delivered that today, and this deals with the Queensbury Partners project, and what I have here is kind of a reiteration of your conditions of approval. Now, I bring this up because this is what's missing on the San Souci project. There doesn't seem to be any follow up and enforcement of your conditions of approval. That's the problem with the Sans. That project went ahead and no one paid attention to the specific conditions of approval,and that's the dilemma we're in now. Now I want to make sure that that doesn't happen with Queensbury Partners, specifically with regard to the turning lanes. MR.TRAVER-Could I respond to that? With due respect,you mentioned yourself that today was the deadline. MR. SALVADOR-He was supposed to start work today. MR. TRAVER-He was supposed to start work today, and coming over to this meeting tonight, it did not appear to you that any work was being conducted. So we don't know yet what the response from the Town is going to be. This just occurred today. Correct? MR. SALVADOR-This has been going on for a number of months,as you well know. MR.TRAVER-I understand,but with regard to the specific item that you raised tonight,the deadline just occurred today. We don't know yet what,if any,enforcement action might be taken. Correct? MR. SALVADOR-The lack of enforcement has been going on for a number of years. 28 (Queensbury Planning Board 10/15/2013) ■ �Q rY g MR. SCHONEWOLF-John, that's not the point. They had up until today to do it, and we don't know whether they did it,started it or not. MR. SALVADOR-I know they didn't start. That's one thing I do know. Okay. All right. In any case, with regard to the Queensbury Partners, there are specific conditions with regards to the turning lanes, and the way it's been, it comes down in your conditions of approval, I have a question as to interpretation, and that's why I've written this letter to Craig Brown, and what your condition says is that the turning lane, the installation of the turning lane must occur at the inception of the project. The project had its incipient moment in 2011. I would assume that what you're referring to was construction. MR. HUNSINGER-Right. Yes. MR. SALVADOR-Okay, and that, I want to make sure that Craig Brown understands that, because that,in and of itself,is going to difficult,but in any case, I have your copy of that letter here. MR. KREBS-But, John, you also have to understand, too, that they can provide the land for that turning lane, but the only person who can, or the only people who can approve that actual turning lane is the Warren County Highway Department, because they are the people who are responsible for that highway. MR. SCHONEWOLF-Yes,and they're going to build it. So we have nothing to do with it. MR. SALVADOR-Okay. All right. With regard to the subject of the jurisdiction of the Town over boat docks and boathouses, the Town Board, at its last meeting, approved a resolution authorizing the, whereas the Queensbury Town Board wishes to request that the New York State legislature amend such provision to add the phrase, the Towns of Lake George and Queensbury in the County of Warren, and they're going to add that phrase to Section 46-A Paragraph 2 of the Navigation Law. MR. SCHONEWOLF-They were asked to do that this year and they didn't do it. MR. SALVADOR-Well,this is authorization to do it,okay. MR. SCHONEWOLF-From the Town. MR. SALVADOR-The Town,yes. MR. SCHONEWOLF-Yes,but the State's got to give us the authorization. MR. SALVADOR-Well,they're talking about,they say here, Resolved that the Town Board authorizes and directs the Town Supervisor's Office to forward certified copies of this resolution to the New York State Governor,the President of the New York State Senate,the Speaker of the New York State Assembly, Senator Elizabeth Little and Assemblyman Daniel Stec. So it's authorized to move. The point, I commented on this resolution at the Town Board meeting, and I have my notes here, but basically I feel this Section 46-A Paragraph 2 is barking up the wrong tree. You recall, if you read any of these court cases, the towns, the local government failed to prevail in these court cases because they were trying to enforce a law within their zoning powers that was considered by the courts to be illegal, by their zoning, in other words, we were regulating docks and boathouses within Chapter 179, and that's what was wrong. This Paragraph, this Section 46-A talks about the towns having jurisdiction only if it's consistent with other laws of the State and the United States. Now, we've heard the courts. That's law. That's law. The other thing it says is that it shall not, this law shall not be effective unless it's approved by the Conservation Commissioner. Now we have a very special lake here. We have a Lake George Park Commission. That's the Conservation Department. It's not likely that we're going to get the approval of the Conservation Commissioner to do something that in the law his agency already has the right to do. MR. SCHONEWOLF-The State legislature won't approve it,either, at least from what I've been told. MR. SALVADOR-Well, I'm doubtful,but anyway,they're moving ahead. MR. SCHONEWOLF-The judge's rule. MR. SALVADOR-Okay. MR. HUNSINGER-Yes, I know. 29 (Queensbury Planning Board 10/15/2013) ■ �Q rY g MR. SALVADOR-Just to let you know what's going on. MR. HUNSINGER-Thanks,John. MR. SALVADOR-And, by the way, this resolution says the Towns of Lake George and Queensbury. Now I ask the question,where's Bolton? Where are the other towns? MR. SCHONEWOLF-They just own the water,John. That's ridiculous. MR. SALVADOR-All right. I have these I'll had out to you. MR. HUNSINGER-Thanks,John. MR. SALVADOR-One other thing, if I might. Mr. Krebs takes the trouble, frequently,to mention that Dunham's Bay and the pollution of the lake from the road maintenance. This goes back a long way, and there was a thought, in the late 1970's and early 1980's, that somehow we had to address this issue of road salts, and we all know it's a problem. Nobody denies that. So it was kind of left that we would get this Lake George Park Commission with expanded powers and we would have them develop regulations that would take care of this stormwater, whatever it is, road maintenance and all this sort of thing. They did that,but the legislature didn't approve any action by one agency that is going to beat up on another agency. They're not going to do that. Okay, and that's what was required. We needed the Park Commission to be able to have the authority to exercise that over the DOT, but anyway, the Park Commission developed regulations, stormwater regulations, and you're all familiar with those. They apply only to residential development. They don't apply to any other agencies. So, to that end, the Park Commission, and I'll give you copies of this, there's a Memorandum of Understanding between the New York State Department of Transportation and the Lake George Park Commission, and it talks about new projects, road realignment, road construction,that sort of thing. Nothing with snow plowing,ice removal, de-icing,none of that is in this,and that's where we don't have,now I want to remind Mr. Krebs, I do not own that road. MR. KREBS-I know you don't. MR. SALVADOR-And there's nothing I can do. MR. SCHONEWOLF-You could close the Marina and it would be harder for the salt to get into the lake. MR. KREBS-It was easier when there wasn't anything there. MR. SALVADOR-No, in fact, that road, Route 9L, the causeway, half of it is on our land. They never took that land on which to build the road. They took land for the road, but they didn't build the road where they took the land. MR. SCHONEWOLF-It was just off a little bit. MR. SALVADOR-Yes,they were off a little. Anyway,thank you,and I'll hand these out to you. MR. SCHONEWOLF-John, we're all waiting for the Jefferson project, and when we get some real scientific data out of that,we can make decisions. MR. KREBS-But I agree with you, John, and you know I felt this way. The Department of Transportation dumps its stormwater along, that comes off of Route 9 into Westbrook that goes directly into the lake. I mean, there's so many places, and we don't address those major problems. We have the APA telling us that 200 feet up the side of a mountain we should have a 100 foot setback from a brook. Okay. Or the Town of Queensbury wants to have a resident who has a piece of property on the lake who wants to change their boathouse, they have to put in a 15 foot rain garden across the entire front of their property. That's what our Zoning Ordinance says. Now, if you look at what that's going to conserve compared to the amount of pollution that is provided at Westbrook to the lake,just from the water coming off Route 9, or, there are other things like we've known for many, many years that phosphorus is the controlling factor relative to algae growth, and we know that the readings below the Lake George sewer plant are like four times the phosphorus content as above the sewer plant,but we do nothing about that,either,okay. MR. SALVADOR-And nitrates,too. MR. KREBS-Absolutely. 30 ueensbu Planning Board 10/15/2013) ■ �Q rY g MR. SALVADOR-Big problem. MR. KREBS-Yes. MR. SALVADOR-Big problem. MR. HUNSINGER-Anyway, while John is passing out his letters, I sent an e-mail around to everyone on the Planning Board today regarding the proposed changes to the Main Street zoning Ordinance, and I don't know how many people had a chance to review that, but it kind of started out with a conversation with Laura about whether or not the Town Board was going to look for input from the Planning Board about the proposed changes. MR. SCHONEWOLF-It doesn't look like they are. They keep talking about it and they don't include us. MR. HUNSINGER-Well, there's another workshop, and I can't remember if it's next Monday or the Monday after. Is it the 28th? But I just wanted to bring to the Board's attention the changes that apparently are going to be recommended and just get a feel from the Board whether or not we want to have a comment on that or whether or not we want to provide input, but, you know, to me the obvious change that has been discussed is changing the Floor Area Ratio, and personally I think that the current Floor Area Ratio really kind of flies in the face of the Main Street zone, which is to increase density, and to me, that's just a no brainer in terms of,you know, helping to resolve some of the issues with the Main Street zone. One of the other changes, and I got these from Stu Baker today, what I'm reading off, and I forwarded them to everyone so you have them. One of the other changes that's being proposed, and I really don't know why, is they want to decrease the maximum height from 60 feet to 50 feet. I'm not sure why, I don't know if we really care. MR. SCHONEWOLF-(Lost words) I mean,they're having trouble now selling that. MR. HUNSINGER-Yes, but the other change that I think is really worthy, maybe, of some input and comment by the Planning Board is the proposed change to the use tables, and they are proposing to add banks and fast food establishments to uses that require site plan review, I'm sorry, in addition parking lots, parking structures and produce stands, but I also think there are other allowed, there are other uses that are defined in the Zoning Code that really would be appropriate for the Main Street zone, and I think, you know, maybe we might want to take a look at that and provide some input. Just to give you an example, movie theater, night clubs, taverns, I'm sorry, night club was already included, but veterinary clinics. They're uses that are either typical of a downtown main street or they're already there on Main Street,but anyway, I just wanted to discuss that for a couple of minutes. You got an e-mail with these details and my comments. I just want to make sure everyone's up to speed, and, you know, if we want to provide input to the Town Board, it sounds like we need to in the near future. I don't know if anyone has any thoughts or comments about the issue. MR.TRAVER-I did not have a chance to look at your e-mail today,but I certainly will. MR. HUNSINGER-Yes,okay. MR. KREBS-Yes,and we have a meeting next week. MR. HUNSINGER-We have a meeting next week, yes. That's part of the reason I wanted to bring it up tonight so that you can give it some thought and if we could spend five minutes at the end of the meeting next week. MR. SCHONEWOLF-Have we still got five items for next week? MRS.MOORE-Yes. MR. HUNSINGER-We do have the Sketch Plan. MRS.MOORE-And we've added one,a Sketch Plan for the Dollar General. MR. HUNSINGER-Yes, which would be a good lead in to discussing these. Anything else anyone wants to bring up? 31 ueensbu Planning Board 10/15/2013) ■ �Q rY g MOTION TO ADJOURN THE QUEENSBURY PLANNING BOARD MEETING OF OCTOBER 15, 2013, Introduced by Paul Schonewolf who moved for its adoption,seconded by Thomas Ford: Duly adopted this 15th day of October, 2013, by the following vote: AYES: Mr. Schonewolf, Mr. Deeb, Mr. Ford, Mr. Magowan, Mr. Krebs, Mr.Traver, Mr. Hunsinger NOES: NONE MR. HUNSINGER-Thank you, everybody. On motion meeting was adjourned. RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED, Chris Hunsinger, Chairman 32