Loading...
12-17-2013 (Queensbury Planning Board 12/17/2013) QUEENSBURY PLANNING BOARD MEETING FIRST REGULAR MEETING DECEMBER 17,2013 INDEX Site Plan No. 62-2012 Kirk Roberts 1. Tax Map No. 295.6-1-8 Subdivision No. 5-2012 LARIC Development 1. 90 DAY EXTENSION Tax Map No. 308.12-1-3 Site Plan No. 67-2013 Michael&Tammy George 2. ZBA RECOMMENDATION Tax Map No. 265.-1-73.1 Subdivision No. 6-2013 Dodge Watkins &Larry Clute 4. (Cont'd Pg. 33) ZBA RECOMMENDATION Tax Map No. 296.9-1-54, 55 Site Plan No. 64-2013 Hannaford Bros. Co. 5. Tax Map No. 302.7-1-41 Site Plan No. 65-2013 Martin Seaton A-1 Treeworks, LLC 7. Tax Map No. 308.16-1-61 Site Plan No. 66-2013 ELRHO, LLC 12. FWW 3-2013 Tax Map No. 239.12-2-48, 44 Site Plan No. 68-2013 Andrew Liucci 15. Tax Map No. 288.12-1-4 Site Plan No. 78-2012 Jeffrey Schwartz 22. Tax Map No. 308.20-1-2 THESE ARE NOT OFFICIALLY ADOPTED MINUTES AND ARE SUBJECT TO BOARD AND STAFF REVISIONS. REVISIONS WILL APPEAR ON THE FOLLOWING MONTHS MINUTES (IF ANY) AND WILL STATE SUCH APPROVAL OF SAID MINUTES. 0 (Queensbury Planning Board 12/17/2013) QUEENSBURY PLANNING BOARD MEETING FIRST REGULAR MEETING DECEMBER 17,2013 7:00 P.M. MEMBERS PRESENT CHRIS HUNSINGER, CHAIRMAN DONALD KREBS, SECRETARY STEPHEN TRAVER BRAD MAGOWAN PAUL SCHONEWOLF DAVID DEEB GEORGE FERONE,ALTERNATE LAND USE PLANNER-LAURA MOORE STENOGRAPHER-MARIA GAGLIARDI MR. HUNSINGER-Good evening. I'd like to welcome everyone to the Town of Queensbury Planning Board meeting on Tuesday, December 17, 2013. For members of the audience, welcome. There are copies of the agenda on the back table. There's also a handout for public hearing procedures. Most of the items tonight do have public hearings scheduled, and when we get to the first hearing we will go into detail. First item of business is approval of minutes from October 15th and 22nd, if anyone would like to move those. APPROVAL OF MINUTES October 15, 2013 October 22, 2013 MOTION TO APPROVE THE QUEENSBURY PLANNING BOARD MEETING MINUTES OF OCTOBER 15TH AND OCTOBER 22, 2013, Introduced by Paul Schonewolf who moved for its adoption,seconded by Brad Magowan: Duly adopted this 17th day of December, 2013,by the following vote: AYES: Mr. Deeb, Mr. Schonewolf, Mr. Ferone, Mr. Magowan, Mr. Krebs, Mr.Traver, Mr. Hunsinger NOES: NONE MR. HUNSINGER-We have actually two administrative items. The first one is a tabling consideration for Kirk Roberts. ADMINISTRATIVE ITEMS: SITE PLAN NO 62-2012 KIRK ROBERTS: FOR FURTHER TABLING CONSIDERATION MR. HUNSINGER-Staff has suggested we table that to the February 25th Board meeting, if anyone would like to move that. RESOLUTION TABLING SP# 62-2012 KIRK ROBERTS MOTION TO TABLE SITE PLAN NO. 62-2012 KIRK ROBERTS, Introduced by Paul Schonewolf who moved for its adoption,seconded by Donald Krebs: Tabled to the February 25, 2014 Planning Board meeting with a submission deadline of January 15, 2014. Duly adopted this 17th day of December 2013,by the following vote: AYES: Mr. Deeb, Mr. Schonewolf, Mr. Ferone, Mr. Magowan, Mr. Krebs, Mr.Traver, Mr. Hunsinger NOES: NONE 1 (Queensbury Planning Board 12/17/2013) MR. HUNSINGER-And then put in front of our places this evening was a motion to extend a resolution for LARIC Development. They were waiting for signatures from the Department of Health and haven't been able to file the plat yet. Is there anything else that we need to know about that? MRS.MOORE-No. They just need that extension so they can get those other agencies signatures. MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. Would anyone like to move that? MR. SCHONEWOLF-So moved. RESOLUTION FOR A 90 DAY EXTENSION FOR SUB # 5-2012 LARIC DEVELOPMENT Subdivision 5-2012 was approved on 6-25-2013; The applicant's agent Jonathan Lapper of Bartlett Pontiff Stewart&Rhodes has requested a 90 extension of approval as they are waiting for signatures from the Dept.of Health; MOTION TO APPROVE 90 DAY EXTENSION OF SUBDIVISION 5-2012 LARIC DEVELOPMENT: Introduced by Paul Schonewolf who moved its adoption,seconded by Donald Krebs; and Approval is extended 90 days -to March 25, 2014. Duly adopted this 17th day of December 2013 by the following vote: AYES: Mr. Ferone, Mr. Krebs, Mr.Traver, Mr. Magowan, Mr. Schonewolf, Mr. Deeb, Mr. Hunsinger NOES: NONE MR. HUNSINGER-We have several items for recommendations to the Zoning Board of Appeals. PLANNING BOARD RECOMMENDATIONS TO THE ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS SITE PLAN NO. 67-2013 SEQR TYPE II MICHAEL&TAMMY GEORGE AGENT(S) DENNIS MAC ELROY OWNER(S) SAME AS APPLICANT ZONING RR-3A-RURAL RESIDENTIAL LOCATION BAY ROAD,APPROX. 0.08 MILES NORTH OF RT. 149 BETWEEN HOUSES AT 1376 & 1456 BAY ROAD SITE PLAN: APPLICANT PROPOSES DEVELOPMENT OF AN EXISTING VACANT 54 ACRE PARCEL WITH A 2,302 SQ. FT. 4 BEDROOM SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENTIAL W/ATTACHED GARAGE AND 2,000 SQ. FT. SECOND DETACHED GARAGE WITH 300 SQ. FT. WORKSHOP AREA. SITE PLAN REVIEW IS REQUIRED AS A CONDITION OF SUBDIVISION APPROVAL. FURTHER, PROJECTS CLASSIFIED AS MAJOR WITHIN THE LG PARK RELATIVE TO THE STORMWATER MANAGEMENT REGULATIONS REQUIRE PLANNING BOARD REVIEW AND APPROVAL. VARIANCE: RELIEF FROM SECOND GARAGE REQUIREMENT. CROSS REFERENCE AV 62-13, SB 14-06 (O'REILLY-1-16-07) WARREN CO. REFERRAL DECEMBER 2013 APA, EA, OTHER L G PARK CEA, STREAM OVERLAY LOT SIZE 54.82 ACRES TAX MAP NO. 265.4-73.1 SECTION 179-9-050,CHAPTER 147-11 DENNIS MAC ELROY, REPRESENTING APPLICANT, PRESENT MR. HUNSINGER-Laura? MRS. MOORE-The applicant proposes to develop a single family house on a 54 acre parcel. It requires an Area Variance for the proposed construction of the second detached garage, and the applicant has indicated the second garage will be needed for storage and the Planning Board is to provide a recommendation to the Zoning Board in regards to the variance relief requested. MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. Good evening. MR. MAC ELROY-Good evening. I'm Dennis MacElroy with Environmental Design, representing Michael and Tammy George for this application for a variance seeking your recommendation tonight for the ZBA meeting tomorrow night. As Laura indicated, it's a single family residence on a 54 acre lot along Bay Road,just about eight tenths of a mile north of 149, and the project includes a request for a second garage, and that then requires a variance request for that second garage. The purpose of it is, again, Laura indicated, is for personal storage of vehicles. I know the owner indicated to me that he has a 40 foot, 43 foot long RV. So that's one of the reasons why the size of the garage, but it's, at least in terms of garages, it's compliant with the Zoning Regulations in terms 2 (Queensbury Planning Board 12/17/2013) of size. The issue here is having a second one. The single family residence proposed has the traditional garage, although it's a three car garage, but it's a traditional attached garage. So that's the situation, and pending gaining the variance at tomorrow night's meeting, I'll be back here Thursday for Site Plan Review. This project, because of the creation of a previous subdivision, a condition of that subdivision required Site Plan Review, so even for this 54 acre lot there's a Site Plan Review process required. MR. SCHONEWOLF-Fifty-four acres you could have three garages as far as. MR. HUNSINGER-I was going to say, 54 acres you could certainly hide a garage there. MR. SCHONEWOLF-I'm not worried about the second garage. MR. KREBS-But I do believe the reason we originally required the Site Plan Review was because of the terrain,you know,so to make sure that the access to the house,etc.,was proper. MR. SCHONEWOLF-He's cut down quite a few,he's cut down those trees back there,hasn't he? MR. MAC ELROY-Well,there was,the previous owner,the Georges bought this property,closed on it in September. So prior to that sale,the prior owner had some logging done. He's done some clean up in preparation for future use,but he hasn't,the major logging was done by the prior owner. MR. SCHONEWOLF-Yes, I don't have a problem with it. MR. HUNSINGER-Any other questions or comments from the Board? MR. DEEB-Can you comment on the workshop for us a little bit,what it's intended for? MR. MAC ELROY-Well, again, probably personal use of having, it turns out he has the RV. He has some ATV vehicles. He has a snowmobile. The type of thing that you might associate with a larger land use,lot size. MR. DEEB-Any commercial vehicles? MR. MAC ELROY-No, and we've discussed this with Staff and discussed it with him and actually he did a fair amount of research on his own prior to the purchase in understanding what he could do on that property in terms of zoning, and he understands that there's no, it can't be used as a business. MR. DEEB-Thank you. MR. SCHONEWOLF-Well, and as you know, there's a lot of second garages that are used for workshops,just on Assembly Point,with smaller lots,several of them. MR. MAC ELROY-Yes,it's a,you know,personal use type situation of having probably a heated space within that larger garage area. MR. MAGOWAN-That's what I would think of that he wants something to be a little bit warmer than heating the whole garage,but in the future, Dennis,when filling this out,put man cave,okay. MR. SCHONEWOLF-We used to put cold storage unit,and they took that one away. MR. HUNSINGER-Yes. MR. DEEB-Is there going to be a big screen t.v.? MR. HUNSINGER-Any other comments or questions from the Board? Would you like to make a recommendation? RESOLUTION RE: ZBA RECOMMENDATION FOR AV# 62-2013 MICHAEL&TAMMY GEORGE The applicant has submitted an application for the following: Site Plan: Applicant proposes development of an existing vacant 54 acre parcel with a 2,302 sq. ft. 4 bedroom single family residential w/attached garage and 2,200 sq. ft. second detached garage with 300 sq. ft. workshop area. Site Plan review is required as a condition of subdivision approval. Further, projects 3 (Queensbury Planning Board 12/17/2013) classified as Major within the LG Park relative to the Stormwater Management regulations require Planning Board review and approval. Variance: Relief from second garage requirement. The Town of Queensbury Zoning Ordinance, per Section 179-9-070 J 2 b. requires the Planning Board to provide a written recommendation to the Zoning Board of Appeals for projects that require both Zoning Board of Appeals &Planning Board approval; The Planning Board has briefly reviewed and discussed this application, the relief requested 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. 62-2 013 MICHAEL&TAMMY GEORGE: Introduced by Donald Krebs who moved its adoption,seconded by Brad Magowan; and The Planning Board, based on a limited review, has not identified any significant adverse impacts that cannot be mitigated with current project proposal. Duly adopted this 17th day of December, 2013,by the following vote: AYES: Mr. Magowan, Mr. Krebs, Mr.Traver, Mr. Ferone, Mr. Schonewolf, Mr. Deeb, Mr. Hunsinger NOES: NONE MR. HUNSINGER-So you're on the agenda tomorrow night and presumably will be back here Thursday night. MR. MAC ELROY-Pending that I'll be back here Thursday. Thank you very much. MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. Thank you. The next item is also a Recommendation. SUBDIVISION NO. 6-2013 MODIFICATION TO SB 13-1972 SEQR TYPE II DODGE WATKINS & LARRY CLUTE OWNER(S) MATT STEVES ZONING MDR LOCATION 3 MAPLEWOOD DRIVE, 5 TWICWOOD LANE SUBDIVISION: APPLICANT PROPOSES RELOCATION OF THE COMMON PROPERTY LINE BETWEEN 3 MAPLEWOOD DRIVE & 5 TWICWOOD LANE. ACCESS WILL BE BY TWO SEPARATE DRIVEWAYS - ONE EXISTING AND ONE PROPOSED. MODIFICATION TO AN APPROVED SUBDIVISION REQUIRES PLANNING BOARD REVIEW AND APPROVAL. VARIANCES: RELIEF FROM MINIMUM LOT SIZE AND ACCESSORY STRUCTURE SETBACK REQUIREMENTS OF THE MDR ZONE. CROSS REFERENCE A V 64 & 65-13, BP 12-201, BP 08- 438 LOT SIZE 0.59 ACRES AND 0.71 ACRES TAX MAP NO. 296.9-1-54, 55 SECTION CHAPTER A 183 MR. HUNSINGER-Laura? MRS. MOORE-Okay. This is a re-location of a common property line between these two properties, 3 Maplewood Drive and 5 Twicwood Lane. Access will now be with two separate driveways, one is the existing and one is proposed. In addition,the relief that is requested is in reference to the shed that will be too close to their property, and a lot size that's smaller than the required minimum requirement for that lot,for that area. MR. HUNSINGER-Is there anyone here representing the applicant? Have you had any conversations with them? I mean you expected them this evening,right? MRS.MOORE-I expected them to be here. MR. HUNSINGER-Yes. Maybe we. MRS.MOORE-Do you want to move them towards the end of the agenda? MR. HUNSINGER-Yes,move them towards the end of the agenda,and see if someone shows up. MR. KREBS-It's not really a difficult situation. MR. HUNSINGER-Well, I mean, unless the Board wants to hear it without a, I mean, I did have a couple of minor questions. I don't know if other members have questions,too. 4 (Queensbury Planning Board 12/17/2013) MR.TRAVER-Yes, I think we should have the applicant here. MR. HUNSINGER-Yes,okay. MR. KREBS-Okay. MR. HUNSINGER-If they don't show at all,then we'll deal with that. MRS.MOORE-I'll call them towards the end. MR. HUNSINGER-Yes. We have four items under New Business and all of them have public hearings scheduled. NEW BUSINESS: SITE PLAN NO. 64-2013 SEQR TYPE II HANNAFORD BROS. CO. AGENT(S) J.M. LORD OWNER(S) MB-NEW YORK, INC. ZONING CI-COMMERCIAL INTENSIVE LOCATION 190 QUAKER ROAD APPLICANT PROPOSES A PHARMACY DRIVE-THRU. EXPANSION REMODELING OR CHANGE OF USE TO EXISTING STRUCTURES AND USES IN A CI ZONE AND LACK OF SITE PLAN REVIEW IN THE PAST SEVEN YEARS REQUIRES PLANNING BOARD REVIEW AND APPROVAL. CROSS REFERENCE SP 80-11 WARREN CO. REFERRAL DECEMBER 2013 LOT SIZE 9.41 ACRES TAX MAP NO. 302.7-1-41 SECTION 179-3-040 4(c), 179-9-020 JAY LORD, REPRESENTING APPLICANT, PRESENT MRS. MOORE-The applicant proposes a pharmacy drive thru. The expansion and remodeling a change of use in an existing structure in the Cl zone requires Site Plan Review as well as Site Plan Review has passed since, in seven years. The addition is simply a drive thru. The applicant had a previous approval which has since required. There were conditions placed on that previous approval in reference to an interconnect and fencing and landscaping and the re-orientation of the propane tank and those items do show up in the site plan and I've talked to the applicant's representative and all that information is on the new site plan. MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. Thank you. MR. LORD-Good evening. I'm Jay Lord. I'm here representing Hannaford on putting a drive thru pharmacy into the existing site here. I was actually here two years and two days ago for the exact same proposal. MR. HUNSINGER-Wow. MR. LORD-But obviously Hannaford did not move forward with it then,but they're looking to move forward with it now. In essence the plan calls for removing 10 parking spaces on the left hand side of the building, replacing that with a pharmacy drive thru and a landscape island of around 1600 square feet, something like that. There's a propane tank on the left hand side that will be re- oriented to the right side of the building. Before when we were here there was a drive,there was a cut through issue between the CVS pharmacy and our parking lot, and what we ended up agreeing upon was putting a split rail fence along the entire side and adding plantings along there, and then granting them an easement area on the other driveway coming in so any time they wanted to connect,they could do that. I think, at that point in time, I think the Board requested some arrows be done along the driveway,which we didn't have on the plan. We've since done that,but this plan that we've presented before you incorporates all of the conditions that were placed on the application that we were here. MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. Thank you. Questions,comments from the Board? MR. SCHONEWOLF-I don't know what the problem was. Those conditions were, we spent a lot of time on that,and they're all in here and then some. So I think it's good. MR. HUNSINGER-Yes, and you don't have any problem with the access to the CVS plaza along the Bay Road driveway? MR. LORD-We granted an access easement right there. MR. HUNSINGER-Yes, so I would imagine that, if this project was approved, that that access would then be built? Is that a fair assumption? 5 (Queensbury Planning Board 12/17/2013) MRS. MOORE-The communication similar, probably, to what we did with Pyramid, was a communication needs to be forwarded to CVS that says that this interconnect is now available and so both parties have to come to an agreement of how that's constructed. MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. Didn't we previously approve it,though,with some site plan changes at the CVS plaza? MRS.MOORE-I'll have to look at the past file. MR. HUNSINGER-Does anyone else remember that? MR.TRAVER-I know we talked about it when this application was in front of us. MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. MR.TRAVER-And of course it's in use now. People are driving through there now. MR. HUNSINGER-Well,this is the one along the Bay Road driveway. Not the one along. MR.TRAVER-I'm sorry. MR. MAGOWAN-They do have the dirt path in here. MR. SCHONEWOLF-That's the one where somebody's liable to get hit. MR. HUNSINGER-Yes. Any other questions or comments from the Board? MR.TRAVER-No. MR. SCHONEWOLF-Are you going to build it this time? MR. LORD-Yes. In the next few months. MR. HUNSINGER-We do have a public hearing scheduled for this project. Is there anyone in the audience that wishes to address the Board? PUBLIC HEARING OPENED MR. HUNSINGER-Any written comments, Laura? MRS.MOORE-No written comments. MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. We will open the public hearing. Let the record show no comments were received. We will close the public hearing. PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED MR. HUNSINGER-This is a Type II SEQR. So no SEQR review is required, and I can't remember, were there outstanding engineering comments that we should ask about? MR. KREBS-I don't believe so. MRS. MOORE-The applicant has requested waivers from lighting, utilities, and water supply details, which is already on the site. So,it doesn't affect any of the utilities. MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. Well, unless there's any other questions. RESOLUTION APPROVING SP# 64-2013 HANNAFORD BROS. CO. A site plan application has been made to the Queensbury Planning Board for the following: Applicant proposes a pharmacy drive-thru. Expansion, remodeling or change of use to existing structures and uses in a Cl zone and lack of site plan review in the past seven years requires Planning Board review and approval. SEQR Type II -no further review required; 6 (Queensbury Planning Board 12/17/2013) A public hearing was advertised and held on 12-17-2013; This application is supported with all documentation, public comment, and application material in the file of record; MOTION TO APPROVE SITE PLAN NO. 64-2013 HANNAFORD BROS. CO., Introduced by Donald Krebs who moved for its adoption,seconded by Stephen Traver: As per the resolution prepared by Staff: 1) Pursuant to relevant sections of the Town of Queensbury Zoning Code-Chapter 179-9-080, the Planning Board has determined that this proposal satisfies the requirements as stated in the Zoning Code; 2) Waiver requests granted: utilities,lighting,stormwater,water supply details; 3) The limits of clearing will constitute a no-cut buffer zone, orange construction fencing shall be installed around these areas and field verified by Community Development staff, 4) Final approved plans, in compliance with the Site Plan, must be submitted to the Community Development Department before any further review by the Zoning Administrator or Building and Codes personnel; 5) The applicant must meet with Staff after approval and prior to issuance of Building Permit and/or the beginning of any site work; 6) Subsequent issuance of further permits, including building permits is dependent on compliance with this and all other conditions of this resolution; 7) As-built plans to certify that the site plan is developed according to the approved plans to be provided prior to issuance of the certificate of occupancy. Duly adopted this 17th day of December, 2013,by the following vote: AYES: Mr.Traver, Mr. Krebs, Mr. Magowan, Mr. Ferone, Mr. Schonewolf, Mr. Deeb, Mr. Hunsinger NOES: NONE MR. HUNSINGER-You're all set. Good luck. MR. LORD-Thank you, again. MR. HUNSINGER-Yes,you're welcome. SITE PLAN NO. 65-2013 SEQR TYPE UNLISTED MARTIN SEATON, A-1 TREEWORKS, LLC AGENT(S) H. THOMAS JARRETT OWNER(S) SEATON HOLDINGS, LLC ZONING CLI- COMMERCIAL LIGHT INDUSTRIAL LOCATION 308 CORINTH ROAD, NEAR MINNESOTA AVENUE APPLICANT PROPOSES CONSTRUCTION OF A 5,000 SQ. FT. PRE-ENGINEERED BUILDING FOR VEHICLE & EQUIPMENT STORAGE ASSOCIATED WITH A-1 TREEWORKS. IN ADDITION THE REAR OF THE BUILDING WOULD BE USED TO STAGE FIREWOOD AND WOOD CHIPS FOR SALE &CUTTING LOGS TO LENGTH. ADDITIONAL VEHICLE STORAGE WOULD BE PROVIDED ON THE WEST SIDE OF THE BUILDING. AN 8 FOOT FENCE TO BE LOCATED ON A PORTION OF THE EAST SIDE OF THE PROPERTY. LOGGING COMPANY IN A CLI ZONE REQUIRES PLANNING BOARD REVIEW AND APPROVAL. CROSS REFERENCE BP 06-393, BP 04-544 WARREN CO. REFERRAL DECEMBER 2013 APA, CEA, OTHER NYSHPO, NYSDEC LOT SIZE 3.49 ACRES TAX MAP NO. 308.16-1-61 SECTION 179-3-040 TOM JARRETT, REPRESENTING APPLICANT, PRESENT; MARTIN SEATON, PRESENT MR. HUNSINGER-Good evening. MR.JARRETT-Good evening. MR. HUNSINGER-Laura? 7 (Queensbury Planning Board 12/17/2013) MRS. MOORE-Okay. The applicant has completed the site plan application for the construction of a 5,000 square foot structure that will provide storage for the A-1 Tree service vehicles and the equipment. The project also includes the development of the site for outside storage of vehicles, equipment, tree service materials, including wood chips and logs. The current site has an existing house and garage that is to remain and be used as is. Site development includes installation of a 20,000 +/- square foot of gravel surface, the placement of a 300 foot fence in length, re-planting trees and vegetation in a 20 foot buffer, placement of a log barrier between the drive aisle and the fence for buffer protection, installation of stormwater and erosion control for the project construction, and the Board may consider buffer requests for the 20 foot width with a 300 foot fence between the adjacent uses for industrial and residential and then I also suggest the Board may ask for, request clarification of firewood service processing that may occur on the site to minimize impacts on adjacent residential uses. MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. Thank you. Good evening. MR. JARRETT-Good evening again. Tom Jarrett of Jarrett Engineers, representing Martin Seaton, the owner of the property and the owner of A-1 Tree. Martin would like to put an equipment storage building on the property on the north side of Corinth Road,just west of Minnesota Avenue. It is zoned industrially, and there's an existing house on the front of the site with a garage, and this storage building would be just behind that, just north of that, as you can see on the plans. It's a pretty straightforward project. He would drive in using the existing driveway, pass to the right or east of the proposed new building, and then loop around to the west to access the building and his yard,his wood chip yard to the north. There is a 50 foot buffer required by zoning on the east side bordering the residential neighborhood which is in an industrial zone, by the way, but it's a pre- existing, nonconforming neighborhood, and this site is so narrow that it would not facilitate the use commercially or industrially unless we actually asked for a variance or in this case a waiver of those buffer requirements, and we're proposing, in lieu of the 50 feet, 20 feet. The building's actually set back 35 feet, but 20 feet of buffer along with an 8 foot high solid wood fence, and we would also plant some trees along the existing driveway to help buffer the existing neighborhood. We hope you find that as a good balance and equivalent to what the zoning requirements are for buffering a residential neighborhood in this area. The Fire Marshal has weighed in with comments and I think we've come to resolution with those, as of today. Laura can weigh in with those, and we have some SEQR issues that I think you'll probably bring up. I'll open it up to any questions. Do you want to add anything, Martin? MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. Thank you. Questions,comments from members of the Board? MR. KREBS-I'd just like to know, what hours would you, if you're preparing firewood and you're cutting and splitting,when would that be done,what time of day? MR. SEATON-During probably 8:30 to probably 4,because we tend to do it in the wintertime,just to keep the guys busy. MR. KREBS-Okay. Yes, because I wouldn't want it too early in the morning,you know, where you would be waking up the neighbors and you certainly don't want to be doing it at 11 o'clock at night either. MR. FERONE-Well, along the same line, you're going to be operating your business out of there, what time do you start up in the morning in terms of the trucks warming up,that whole starting? MR. SEATON-I normally try to get there for seven and leave by seven thirty. MR. FERONE-Okay,and how many vehicles would be on site? MR. SEATON-Seven. Leaving the yard,probably four to five at max. MR. FERONE-Are you going to be having fuel on site? Do you fuel your vehicles there or do you take them someplace else? MR. SEATON-I would like to have a fuel. MR.JARRETT-The discussion we've had is doing that inside the building,and not outside. MR.TRAVER-I think with regards to the buffer the solid fence is probably going to be more effective at buffering the activity on that site than adding another 30 feet to make a normal 50 foot buffer. 8 (Queensbury Planning Board 12/17/2013) MR.JARRETT-I would tend to agree with you,with most buffers,right,most vegetative buffers. MR. SCHONEWOLF-The engineer that raised the question about the infiltration basin not having emergency overflow? MR. JARRETT-Yes, he did. Actually, the site right now has no appreciable drainage. There's no runoff on or off the site, and if that basin does overtop, there's a natural low point right around the basin that'll flood first and then it'll flood into his lawn. It won't go off site. MR. HUNSINGER-And in constructing the fence, will you have to remove any trees, or do you feel you can install it without? MR.JARRETT-In looking at it, I don't think we have to remove anything large. If so,we may decide to offset the fence around it, but I think we can do it without removing any large trees. There's some young scrub that probably has to go, and that's about it really. I don't think anything large. No specimen trees that I noticed. MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. Right. Anything else from members of the Board? MR. SCHONEWOLF-No,there's not much to it. MR. HUNSINGER-I was a little confused by the DEC letter,because they said, maybe I'm not the only one, I hope, we cannot provide a definitive statement as to the presence or absence of all rare or State listed species or significant natural communities. MR.JARRETT-They're listed in that area. MR. HUNSINGER-So, I mean,it's really not a signoff. MRS. MOORE-No, it's not. They've actually asked for more information, so that's what Tom has done is he's had Deb go out to the site and prepare an, she visited the site and wrote up a preparation letter which is then forwarded back to the DEC. MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. I see. MR. JARRETT-So you're reading the early letter, I believe, where DEC said we believe there are these communities could be present on the site, and then I had Deb Roberts go out and look at it, and look at all these issues for us. MR. HUNSINGER-Right. MR.JARRETT-We've sent that to DEC as of last week. No response yet. MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. MR. JARRETT-She concluded that there was no, or very little likelihood to no likelihood of those communities existing on this site. MR. HUNSINGER-Yes. MRS. MOORE-I guess I'll just identify,the reason why it triggered this type of review from DEC, and you'll see this a little bit, I'm assuming more often, is because of the new SEQR forms, and where it automatically checked one of those boxes indicating that the applicant is required to go out and identify, and communicate with these agencies about what's potential on their site. So in most cases you'll see them,the box get checked,but they're actually within,yes,they're in the buffer area, but it's in the bubble,it's not actually the site that it's occurring in. MR. HUNSINGER-So is it likely that we're going to have projects held up more frequently because we're going to require? MRS. MOORE-I don't necessarily think so, but in this case they're in the middle of the process. I don't think it's a concern in reference to SEQR itself. I think the box has been checked. The applicant has done their due diligence and that's what's been asked for. 9 (Queensbury Planning Board 12/17/2013) MR. HUNSINGER-So in terms of the SEQR process, I mean, we had that letter a year or so ago from DEC saying as long as there's no known issues,we can go ahead and say no Negative impact. Is that still valid? MRS.MOORE-That's still standing. MR. HUNSINGER-So just in terms of the SEQR process we could say there's no negative impacts,but then DEC could come back and say,yes,hey,there is,and that would re-open SEQR. MRS.MOORE-Right,that can happen any time. MR. HUNSINGER-Right. MRS.MOORE-So your process has not changed. MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. So we don't need to wait for a clearance letter,is what I'm asking. MRS.MOORE-No,you do not. MR. JARRETT-We took the step of retaining a professional to look at, but to try to, you know, increase your comfort level,which I hope we've done. MR. HUNSINGER-Yes,okay. MR.JARRETT-Going forward, I'm not sure how we (lost words). MR. HUNSINGER-Yes, well, I guess we'll all figure it out together, you know, like everything else when you change things, you know. We have a workshop Thursday night where our counsel is going to bring us up to speed on the new SEQR process. MR.TRAVER-That's a big topic in Saratoga,too,at the end of January. MR. HUNSINGER-Yes, I'm sure. Any other questions or comments from the Board? We do have a public hearing scheduled on this project this evening. Is there anyone in the audience who wants to address the Board? PUBLIC HEARING OPENED MR. HUNSINGER-I kind of thought there might be some neighbors there. We'll open the public hearing,and if there are no comments,or any written comments? MRS.MOORE-I have no written comments. MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. Let the record show no comments were received. We will close the public hearing. PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED MR. HUNSINGER-This is an Unlisted action I see. Do you have the new form there, Don? MRS. MOORE-You also have the prepared resolution, but you can go through the new form if you wish,and I do have the new form. MR. KREBS-Okay. Could we just do the resolution? MR.TRAVER-Yes. I thought that's what we were going to do. RESOLUTION RE: SEQR FOR SP# 65-2013 MARTIN SEATON A-1 TREEWORKS, LLC The applicant proposes construction of a 5,000 sq. ft. pre-engineered building for vehicle & equipment storage associated with A-1 Treeworks. In addition the rear of the building would be used to stage firewood and wood chips for sale & cutting logs to length. Additional vehicle storage would be provided on the west side of the building. An 8 foot fence to be located on a portion of the east side of the property. Logging Company in a CLI zone requires Planning Board review and approval. 10 (Queensbury Planning Board 12/17/2013) 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; Upon review of the information recorded on this EAF, it is the conclusion of the Town of Queensbury Planning Board as lead agency that this project will result in no significant adverse impacts on the environment, and, therefore, an environmental statement need not be prepared. Accordingly,this negative declaration is issued. MOTION TO APPROVE A NEGATIVE DECLARATION FOR MARTIN SEATON A-1 TREEWORKS, Introduced by Donald Krebs who moved for its adoption,seconded by Stephen Traver: As per the resolution prepared by Staff. Duly adopted this 17th day of December, 2013,by the following vote: AYES: Mr.Traver, Mr. Krebs, Mr. Magowan, Mr. Ferone, Mr. Schonewolf, Mr. Deeb, Mr. Hunsinger NOES: NONE MR. HUNSINGER-Are there any other questions of the applicant? Do we need to include some of the comments about hours of operation and vehicles in the resolution? MR. SCHONEWOLF-It's commercially zoned,isn't it? MR. HUNSINGER-Yes. I just want to make sure we're thorough. MR. TRAVER-And the applicant has offered it on the record. The applicant has offered the proposed hours on the record. MR. HUNSINGER-Yes. Okay. All right. Unless there's any additional questions or comments,we'll entertain a motion. RESOLUTION APPROVING SP# 65-2013 MARTIN SEATON A-1 TREEWORKS, LLC A site plan application has been made to the Queensbury Planning Board for the following: Applicant proposes construction of a 5,000 sq. ft. pre-engineered building for vehicle & equipment storage associated with A-1 Treeworks. In addition the rear of the building would be used to stage firewood and wood chips for sale & cutting logs to length. Additional vehicle storage would be provided on the west side of the building. An 8 foot fence to be located on a portion of the east side of the property. Logging Company in a CLI zone requires Planning Board review and approval. A public hearing was advertised and held on 12-17-2013; This application is supported with all documentation, public comment, and application material in the file of record; MOTION TO APPROVE SITE PLAN NO. 65-2013 MARTIN SEATON A-1 TREEWORKS, LLC, Introduced by Donald Krebs who moved for its adoption,seconded by Stephen Traver: As per the resolution prepared by Staff: 1) Pursuant to relevant sections of the Town of Queensbury Zoning Code-Chapter 179-9-080, the Planning Board has determined that this proposal satisfies the requirements as stated in the Zoning Code; 2) The requirements of the State Environmental Quality Review Act have been considered and the Planning Board has adopted a SEQRA Negative Declaration; 11 (Queensbury Planning Board 12/17/2013) 3) Waiver request granted: buffer proposal of a 20 foot vegetative buffer width with a 300 foot fence at 8 feet in height; 4) 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, 5) Engineering sign-off required prior to signature of Zoning Administrator of the approved plans; 6) If required,the applicant must submit a copy of the following to the Town: a) The project NOI (Notice of Intent) for coverage under the current "NYSDEC SPDES General Permit from Construction Activity"prior to the start of any site work. b) The project NOT (Notice of Termination) upon completion of the project; 7) The applicant must maintain on their project site,for review by staff: a) The approved final plans that have been stamped by the Town Zoning Administrator. These plans must include the project SWPPP (Storm Water Pollution Prevention Plan) when such a plan was prepared and approved; b) The project NOI and proof of coverage under the current NYSDEC SPDES General Permit,or an individual SPDES permit issued for the project. 8) Final approved plans, in compliance with the Site Plan, must be submitted to the Community Development Department before any further review by the Zoning Administrator or Building and Codes personnel. 9) The applicant must meet with Staff after approval and prior to issuance of Building Permit and/or the beginning of any site work. 10) Subsequent issuance of further permits,including building permits is dependent on compliance with this and all other conditions of this resolution 11) As-built plans to certify that the site plan is developed according to the approved plans to be provided prior to issuance of the certificate of occupancy. Duly adopted this 17th day of December, 2013,by the following vote: AYES: Mr.Traver, Mr. Krebs, Mr. Magowan, Mr. Ferone, Mr. Schonewolf, Mr. Deeb, Mr. Hunsinger NOES: NONE MR. HUNSINGER-You're all set. Good luck. SITE PLAN NO. 66-2013 FWW 3-2013 SEQR TYPE II ELRHO, LLC AGENT(S) JARRETT ENGINEERS OWNER(S) SAME AS APPLICANT SITE PLAN: APPLICANT HAS FILLED A PORTION OF BRAYTON LANE & 76 ASSEMBLY POINT ROAD. SHORELINE FILL WITHIN 50 FEET OF A DESIGNATED WETLAND REQUIRES PLANNING BOARD REVIEW AND APPROVAL. FRESHWATER WETLANDS; DISTURBANCE WITHIN 100 FEET OF A DESIGNATED WETLAND. CROSS REFERENCE NONE FOUND WARREN CO. REFERRAL DECEMBER 2013 APA, CEA,OTHER L G PARK CEA, APA WETLANDS LOT SIZE 0.80 ACRES, 0.48 ACRES TAX MAP NO. 239.12-2- 48,44 SECTION 179-6-050,CHAPTER 94 TOM JARRETT, REPRESENTING APPLICANT, PRESENT MR. HUNSINGER-Laura? MRS. MOORE-This application is before the Board because they have filled a portion of Brayton Lane and 76 Assembly Point. This is in reference to an enforcement action with the Town and the APA. The APA has visited the site and has reviewed the applicant's remedy to the activities on the site. They have signed off and that information is in your packet. The applicant is now before us because they have filled within the designated wetlands requiring this type of review, and that information, they've showed the cut and the fill of what is, in that area, in the drawings that shows what has been filled so far,or to date,rather. MR.JARRETT-Good evening. MR. HUNSINGER-Good evening. 12 (Queensbury Planning Board 12/17/2013) MR.JARRETT-Tom Jarrett again. This is the subject of an enforcement action by the APA,as well as a site plan and a wetland permit from this Board. Contractors illegally disturbed and fill wetland in the corridor that's shown approximately right here, in this area, and the drainage corridor which is a wetland was filled and then subsequently restored by pulling fill back from the drainage swale, the wetland swale itself. It's left within,the fill has been left within the wetland buffer. That's why we need a permit from your for that activity and as well as for leaving the fill within that 100 foot wetland buffer. The APA has signed off on the restoration efforts. Fill has been pulled back out of the swale, it is in the buffer and it has been stabilized with vegetation, and there's a letter in the file stating their satisfaction with the activities to restore this. So we're before you to ask for permission to leave that fill in place, basically to approve of the actions we took to restore the wetland. MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. Questions,comments from the Board? You knew this was going on,right? MR. SCHONEWOLF-Yes, it comes under the heading of nonsense. There's actually a pipe in there, too. MR.JARRETT-Yes,there is. MR. HUNSINGER-Yes. MR. SCHONEWOLF-And it's probably been going on for 15 years. MR.JARRETT-The activity to the north leading to the lake,the lake is approximately right here, that was filled over a period of probably,what,you say 30,40 years? MR. SCHONEWOLF-Well, I've been up there 18 years and they've worked a little bit all the time, because it used to be really ugly back there and they put the pipe in and filled it, put topsoil and grass on it. MR.JARRETT-So it was illegally done but I think it was an innocent mistake to some degree because they felt that it had been done for years so they could continue to do it. MR. SCHONEWOLF-That's right. MR.JARRETT-It's unfortunate. MR. HUNSINGER-Interesting. Any other questions or comments from members of the Board? it's never easy when we get these approvals sort of after the fact. MR.JARRETT-It's no fun on this side,either,to represent somebody. MR. HUNSINGER-Until we ask all the questions,we don't know how it got there,you know. I guess the question I have for Staff is, if this didn't result in an APA enforcement, would it have ever come before, I mean,would the Code Enforcement Officer have ever flagged it? MRS.MOORE-It's possible. MR. SCHONEWOLF-There are a couple of people that walk around and look for black plastic and when they find it they call the APA. MR. JARRETT-I think it would have in this case, because the whistleblower called both the Town and the APA, I believe. MR. SCHONEWOLF-Yes. The whistleblower called at the same time they called about the emergency access road. MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. MR. SCHONEWOLF-It's the same person. MR. HUNSINGER-Gotcha. Enough said. Yes. No other questions or comments? We do have a public hearing scheduled this evening. Is there anyone in the audience that wants to address the Board on this project? I'm not seeing a lot of hands going up tonight. 13 (Queensbury Planning Board 12/17/2013) PUBLIC HEARING OPENED MR. HUNSINGER-Any written comments other than the APA letter? MRS.MOORE-Correct,no other written comments. MR. HUNSINGER-And the APA's satisfied with the final conclusion? MRS.MOORE-Yes. MR. HUNSINGER-Interestingly enough this is a Type II action. So no SEQR review is required. MR.JARRETT-I might weigh in that, I was going to say, our own Code Enforcement Officer has been up there a number of times, met with me and the APA, and has been there subsequently to the activities that I think he is comfortable with what took place. I don't know if it's in the file or not, but Bruce did go there a number of times. MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. It's listed as a Type II,but the applicant did submit a SEQR review. MRS. MOORE-I know, and if you look, I went through the Type II listings, and identified it as a Type II. MR.JARRETT-I submitted cautiously. Laura enlightened me later that it was Type II. MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. I just wanted to make sure that everyone was in agreement that it was Type II and not a typo on the agenda. Yes. Okay. Well, if there's no other questions or comments, Mr. Krebs. MS. GAGLIARDI-Excuse me, Mr. Chairman,did you close the public hearing? MR. HUNSINGER-Did I close it? I thought I did. MR. SCHONEWOLF-Yes,you did. MR. HUNSINGER-Did I? I'll close the public hearing, sorry. Go ahead. PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED RESOLUTION APPROVING SP# 66-2013 FWW 3-2013 ELRHO, LLC A site plan application has been made to the Queensbury Planning Board for the following: Site Plan: Applicant has filled a portion of Brayton Lane&76 Assembly Point Road. Shoreline fill within 50 feet of a designated wetland requires Planning Board review and approval. Freshwater Wetlands: Disturbance within 100 feet of a designated wetland. SEQR Type II -no further review required; A public hearing was advertised and held on 12-17-2013; This application is supported with all documentation, public comment, and application material in the file of record; MOTION TO APPROVE SITE PLAN NO. 66-2013 & FWW 3-2013 ELRHO, LLC, Introduced by Donald Krebs who moved for its adoption,seconded by Brad Magowan: As per the resolution prepared by Staff. 1) Pursuant to relevant sections of the Town of Queensbury Zoning Code-Chapter 179-9-080, the Planning Board has determined that this proposal satisfies the requirements as stated in the Zoning Code; 2) 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. 14 (Queensbury Planning Board 12/17/2013) 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 5) As-built plans to certify that the site plan is developed according to the approved plans to be provided prior to issuance of the certificate of occupancy. Duly adopted this 17th day of December, 2013,by the following vote: AYES: Mr. Magowan, Mr. Ferone, Mr. Krebs, Mr.Traver, Mr. Schonewolf, Mr. Deeb, Mr. Hunsinger NOES: NONE MR. HUNSINGER-You're all set. MR.JARRETT-Thank you. MR. HUNSINGER-You're welcome. SITE PLAN NO. 68-2013 SEQR TYPE UNLISTED ANDREW LIUCCI OWNER(S) NORTH HIGH REALTY HOLDINGS ZONING CI-COMMERCIAL INTENSIVE LOCATION 1519 STATE ROUTE 9 APPLICANT PROPOSES TO UTILIZE AN EXISTING 930 SQ. FT. BUILDING FOR CATERING AND ASSOCIATED COOKING ACTIVITIES. FOOD SERVICE IN CI ZONE REQUIRES PLANNING BOARD REVIEW AND APPROVAL. CROSS REFERENCE NONE FOUND WARREN CO. REFERRAL DECEMBER 2013 APA, CEA, OTHER NYSHPO, NYSDEC LOT SIZE 1.15 ACRES TAX MAP NO. 288.12-1-4 SECTION 179-3-040 ANDREW LIUCCI, PRESENT MR. HUNSINGER-Laura,any time you're ready. MRS. MOORE-Okay. The applicant proposes to utilize an existing 930 sq. ft., and that's the footprint,building for catering and associated cooking activities. The applicant is re-using it for this catering business and the project is subject to SEQR for review and the applicant has completed the Part I. The applicant has requested waivers for the contours and soil logs, and the board may consider requesting clarification of operational hours. In addition, I've also mentioned that the board may also consider a condition that the prior to a building permit the sewer is connected or a compliant system is installed. MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. Thank you. Good evening. MR. LIUCCI-Hi. Good evening. MR. HUNSINGER-If you could identify yourself for the record. MR. LIUCCI-My name is Andrew Liucci. I'm 24 Wildwood Place, Queensbury. MR. HUNSINGER-And do you want to tell us a little bit about your project? MR. LIUCCI-Yes. We have two buildings. One is residential. My daughter and her husband and my grandson live there, and the other building,which was Peggy's Doll House at one time for a long time, and that's the building that is zoned commercial and we would like to renovate it, do the complete outside, you know, new windows, new doors, roof, siding, and the inside everything to Code, and we would like to put a small catering business there, for my wife and my daughter to utilize the building for. They are exceptional cooks and they make cookies and other goodies, and, you know,they want to run,hopefully, a very nice small business there. So it's,you know, she lives right there so it would be really convenient for my daughter to have a nice business there and raise some kids and she loves living there and she always says it's a wonderful place. She fell in love with the property, the greenery around and just the location and everything, and it's got a lot of history,the property. So we're ready to do what we have to do. MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. Anything else? I'll open it up for questions from the Board. 15 (Queensbury Planning Board 12/17/2013) MR. DEEB-I think you should have brought us some samples of the cookies. I think that might help, might expedite it,you know. MR. LIUCCI-The day will come,you know. She has a reputation of cooking very well. MR. HUNSINGER-So will you do retail sales out of the building or is it just? MR. LIUCCI-I don't,well, I guess so,but I don't think it's going to be where people are going to come up every day and buy stuff. I don't think it's going to be set up like that. I think it would be more get on line,you know, do on line orders,too, and cooking for events, certain events, people that we know,you know,we,you know,know quite a few people in the area that we've gotten to know, and we feel that it would be a good niche,and,you know,maybe have a celebrity come in at some point, because we would like to have eventually a nice kitchen in there,you know, commercial kitchen to accommodate, you know, a few people coming in and doing some food tastings and, you know, maybe having some,but I don't think it would be like an outlet store. That's not our plan at all. MR. MAGOWAN-Well, catering usually means, you know, bring someone in, show them a menu, coming up with a menu, this is what we're going to offer, and then you preparing it and going to that event. Is that? MR. LIUCCI-That's part of it,yes. That will happen. MR. MAGOWAN-Or are you kind of thinking like a Samantha's kitchen Downtown where she did catering and then had a little sit down spot there? MR. LIUCCI-No. We're not going to serve food to people. No,that is not our intention at all. Maybe to,you know, teach people how to cook a little bit,you know, how to cook good or show them,you know,just something like that,but not to have sit down meals,no,that's not our plan. It's not going to be a restaurant of any type. MR. DEEB-Well, if we, let's say I wanted to have some food for catering, for a Christmas party, and I talked to you and had it done, you would cook it, would I be able to come up and pick it up and bring it home, or are you going to have people come pick food up and bring it, are you going to deliver it? MR. LIUCCI-Well, I could do either one. I mean, you could pick it up, but chances are we would bring it to your house, more so. MR. DEEB-Okay. I was just wondering if you were going to have a lot of people coming in, picking up food. MR. LIUCCI-I don't believe so,no. MR. DEEB-Okay. MR. LIUCCI-That's not our intention at all. MR. DEEB-Okay. MR. LIUCCI-It's not going to be like a takeout of any kind. No,if that's something that,no. MR. DEEB-I was wondering about traffic going in and out,that's what I was worried about. MR. LIUCCI-I don't believe there would be definitely something there wouldn't be people there most likely during the day for the most part, probably would end at nine o'clock at night, whatever operations were going on,but it wouldn't go beyond that. MR. DEEB-And you said your daughter lives there? MR. LIUCCI-Yes. She lives in the main house there,the one closest to the south part,south. MR. DEEB-Okay. MR. LIUCCI-And there's quite a bit of parking there. MR. DEEB-It used to be the Doll House. 16 (Queensbury Planning Board 12/17/2013) MR. LIUCCI-Yes, Peggy's Doll House. MR. DEEB-Yes,it is a nice piece of property. MR. LIUCCI-It's beautiful. The backyard, I mean,there's a lot of beautiful evergreens. MR. DEEB-You've got a good neighbor on the other side of you,too. MR. LIUCCI-That I understand. I also note for myself, I met George and had the opportunity to meet his sons, too, who are very nice, and they have a beautiful hotel. Absolutely beautiful, and I, you know, I want to be a good neighbor to everybody. I don't care, I'm willing to move forward with everybody in my neighborhood, because that's what really makes things happen and it's a wonderful Town. We've lived here quite a few years. We volunteer. We know, you know, a lot about the area and we're very happy living here. MR. HUNSINGER-Other questions from the Board? If there's no other questions or comments from the Board, we do have a public hearing scheduled this evening. Is there anyone that wants to address the Board? Did you want to make some comments, George? GEORGE STARK MR. STARK-Sure. MR. HUNSINGER-The purpose of the public hearing is to provide comments to the Board. Anyone interested in providing comments,we ask that you state your name for the record and speak clearly into the microphone. We do tape the meeting. The tape is available on the Town's website and the tape is also used to transcribe the minutes. So,good evening. MR. STARK-Okay. My name is George Stark from Comfort Suites and Mohican Motel, immediately north of the old Peggy's Dollhouse. Mohican, we've been there 38 years. Comfort Suites, 7 years. This gentleman bought it from Peggy's estate,was pretty rundown. He's done nothing but clean up the property, put a ton of money into the house, plumbing, heating, wiring, walls, insulation, clean up the front, trimmed it up, re-built the shed in the back, which most people don't even know is there, put new siding, and just cleaned up the whole area. Been a great neighbor. I have no question or no problems with him hooking into the water or the sewer lines that we ran up the road. That's not a problem. How much water and sewer is he going to need, not that much, you know. No, he's just been a good neighbor, and I have no objection to what he wants to do. We have catering maybe eight or ten times a year at the Comfort, you know, wedding parties and rehearsal dinners and like that, and the people that come in cater it out, or,you know, they go to a local caterer now. This would be a good fit for him, and he's just a good neighbor, you know, the whole place looks so much better in the front now that he's there than when Peggy had it,and that's all I have to say. MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. Thank you. MR. DEEB-Thank you, George. MR. HUNSINGER-Anyone else? Yes,sir. MICHAEL GIELLA MR. GIELLA-My name is Michael Giella. I'm one of the owners of mini golf course next door to the property, and we were looking forward to this property being cleaned up and developed into a commercial operation that would complement the neighboring businesses in accordance with Queensbury's current zoning and Comprehensive Plan, which is Commercial Intensive in that area. The property was listed as a prime commercial piece with both the first and the final listing agent. The use was listed as Retail Commercial. We have copies of these listings if you'd like. Unfortunately the property is currently being used as 100% residential, even though the property was vacant for more than four years from May 2008 until October 2012 when the property was purchased. It is being used as a home for Mr. Liucci's daughter and her family. In August I meet with Craig Brown, the Zoning Administrator, and filed a complaint because the resident was shooting fireworks that landed on our property while players were playing mini golf. The players wanted their money back due to the danger from the fireworks and the debris that was falling. In addition, the young man approached us after our course had closed for the day, while we were cleaning the course, to tell us that we woke up his son. He advised us that he didn't want to start 17 (Queensbury Planning Board 12/17/2013) any trouble, but we should clean our property in the morning rather than in the evening when we closed. The complaint that we filed with Craig Brown was for residential use in a commercial zone, where the property was vacant for more than four years, and also a complaint was filed because of the extensive electrical work that was done without permits. Okay. We assume that the electrical work was probably done because animals may have entered the building through broken windows in the garage that was broken for years. I checked with Craig Brown. There were no permits issued for any electrical work, plumbing work, septic work, right up until I spoke to Craig in August. On September 10th, our attorney met with Craig Brown, and it was agreed by all that there was no continuous residential use and a Zoning Board variance would be required. Mr. Liucci submitted an application for a variance, and was placed on the October 23"d agenda with the Zoning Board. We reviewed the application with our attorney,and he had contacted the Queensbury office in early October, because the application was for an Area Variance rather than a Use Variance, and he was confused by that,why it wasn't a Use Variance instead of an Area. After he did that,the application was removed from the agenda's website on October 10th. I have copies of the original Zoning Board agenda, which showed that a variance was being requested because the residential use had been discontinued for longer than 18 months. Right up until today, it's still being used as a residence, and we're waiting for the Zoning Board to address our complaint. This application before you is for a catering business,and the Staff Notes indicate that the existing home is to remain as is. We're just confused by that statement, and lastly we'd appreciate it if you'd consider adjourning the application until the Zoning Board addressed the issue. If you'd like copies of those listings for the Zoning Board agenda I have them. MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. Thank you. Yes, I don't think we need those. Do you have any comments, Laura? I don't mean to put you on the spot. MRS.MOORE-No,that's fine. MR. HUNSINGER-I mean,obviously this was new information to the Planning Board. MRS. MOORE-Okay. The applicant did come forth and submit an application for the Zoning Board. We asked the applicant to forward as much information and do enough research, additional research about when the last time it was used as a residential use, and the information was supplied to us. It was reviewed by the Zoning Administrator, and there was no discontinuance of use longer than 18 months. So there's always been some sort of residential use on that property. MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. So the Zoning Administrator determined that no variance was required? MRS.MOORE-No variance was necessary,correct,and that's why it was removed from the agenda. MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. MR. SCHONEWOLF-And this is really about, what we're talking about here is the commercial (lost word). MRS.MOORE-Correct. MR. DEEB-Which is what you want,you want commercial business. MR. LIUCCI-We'd like to have a commercial business there. MR. DEEB-Right. Okay. MR. SCHONEWOLF-This has nothing to do with the residential. MR. HUNSINGER-Yes,okay. Thank you. MR. GIELLA-Thank you. MR. HUNSINGER-I guess, just to kind of go back to the comments that you made, sir, you know, if there still remains a zoning issue that you have, that would be something that you would take up with the Zoning Board. MRS. MOORE-Or communicate again with the Zoning Administrator. If there was any questions about what occurred, and again, I don't, the removal from the agenda was because the information was supplied by the applicant that said that it was no longer,it was less than 18 months. 18 (Queensbury Planning Board 12/17/2013) MR. GIELLA-Okay, and the last time I spoke to our attorney, he said that Mr. Brown did not make a determination,and that was a couple of days ago. MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. MRS.MOORE-Okay. That's why it was removed from the agenda. MR. GIELLA-Yes, I'll contact the attorney tomorrow. MR. HUNSINGER-Yes. Okay. MR. GIELLA-Thank you very much. MR. HUNSINGER-I know this isn't the first time that we've had the Zoning Administrator make a determination that wasn't in writing. MRS.MOORE-Yes. MR. HUNSINGER-So that would not be unusual, and in fact it wouldn't be before us if the Zoning Administrator thought that it couldn't come before us. If you want to, I'm sorry, is there anyone else that wants to comment on this project? Didn't mean to jump the gun. You can come back to the table. I mean, clearly that does put some complications into our review, but it's really outside of the purview of the Planning Board. MRS.MOORE-Correct. MR. HUNSINGER-At least at this point in time. MRS. MOORE-Right. This is, it would not have been before the Board if it was for some other application material. MR. HUNSINGER-Right. Yes. MRS. MOORE-This, right now, is only for a food service business and it's a catering business, which is an allowed use in that zone. MR. HUNSINGER-One of the comments in the Staff Notes is hooking up to the Town sewer and water lines that are there. Is that your intention? MR. LIUCCI-Yes,very much so, and I also want to bring gas. I've already had National Grid come up and give me an idea. (lost words) setbacks and stuff,where I can run the water and the sewer and the gas without any issues. MR. HUNSINGER-Sure,yes. MR. LIUCCI-They'll let us know how to proceed, and that would be great. Right now ii have a running septic that works,but I would love to get on to the Town. MR. DEEB-It's a win/win situation. George wants to let you know it's okay for him. MR. LIUCCI-That's wonderful. I'm so happy. That's the first I've heard. It's pretty awesome to have people, neighbors like that that want to just make things get better,you know, and that's what our plan to do is. MR. DEEB-It's nice to see you cooperating with each other. MR. LIUCCI-It's a great place,you know,we want to help make it better. MR. HUNSINGER-Yes, I want to ask questions. MRS. MOORE-For the Board's reference, the connection to the sewer line, there is communications in your packet from Chris Harrington who has evaluated that, and the best course of action is for the applicant to communicate with the property owner that owns that sewer line right there and get authorization from that, and so I've given that direction to the applicant to communicate with Mr. Stark. 19 (Queensbury Planning Board 12/17/2013) MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. MR. DEEB-Well, George,he already indicated it would. MRS. MOORE-He would, it has to be, this authorization needs to be in writing and submitted to Chris Harrington. So it's a matter of actually putting it in writing and authorizing it so it can move forward. MR. DEEB-Okay. MR. HUNSINGER-So I'm going to ask you similar questions on this project as the last one, about the DEC Heritage Program and historic sites. MRS. MOORE-Right, the same thing, and the applicant has had a communication. There was a specific snake,and I don't remember,was there a snake that was on the site? MR. LIUCCI-Cotton,it wasn't a copperhead,it was an Adirondack Cotton. MRS.MOORE-Some species that has. MR. LIUCCI-I've got the letter here,but it doesn't specify. Some type of rattlesnake. MRS.MOORE-So again,it's in the bubble,but it's not actually on the site. MR. HUNSINGER-Right. Okay. MR. DEEB-So we're all right. MRS.MOORE-Yes,you are. MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. MRS.MOORE-I will advise you if something comes up that we need to hold back on the SEQR. MR. HUNSINGER-Were there any written comments, Laura? MRS.MOORE-No written comments. MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. MR. LIUCCI-And I just want to apologize to anyone that was made to feel not good about anything that went on on our property. I certainly will, and everybody in my family will certainly do everything they can to make everybody as happy as we can, and we want to get along. I don't want to have any issue. I apologize for anything that has occurred to make you feel bad, from my heart, I mean that. MR. DEEB-I don't think you need to apologize. There's no need to apologize. You're doing a good job. All right. MR. HUNSINGER-I'll close the public hearing. PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED MR. HUNSINGER-This is an Unlisted action. The applicant has submitted the Short Form. We do have a SEQR resolution in our package. If you're comfortable with the resolution. I thought there was one. MRS.MOORE-If I can interrupt,don't think the SEQR resolution is in there itself. MR. HUNSINGER-Yes,that's what we're looking for. Yes. MRS.MOORE-You can reference the previous SEQR, and just read that top portion. MR. KREBS-Well, I'll do it a little differently. RESOLUTION APPROVING SEQR FOR SP# 68-2013 ANDREW LIUCCI 20 (Queensbury Planning Board 12/17/2013) The applicant proposes to utilize an existing 930 sq. ft.building for catering and associated cooking activities. Food Service in Cl zone 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 Short Form has been completed by the applicant; Upon review of the information recorded on this EAF, and considering both the magnitude and importance of each identified impact, it is the conclusion of the Town of Queensbury Planning Board as lead agency that this project will result in no significant adverse impacts on the environment, and, therefore, an environmental statement need not be prepared. Accordingly, this negative declaration is issued MOTION APPROVE A NEGATIVE DECLARATION WITH A SHORT FORM ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT FOR SEQR BASED ON THE INFORMATION PROVIDED IN THE PACKET BY THE STAFF AND THE CLIENT FOR ANDREW LIUCCI, Introduced by Donald Krebs who moved for its adoption,seconded by Brad Magowan: Duly adopted this 17th day of December, 2013,by the following vote: AYES: Mr. Magowan, Mr. Krebs, Mr.Traver, Mr. Ferone, Mr. Schonewolf, Mr. Deeb, Mr. Hunsinger NOES: NONE RESOLUTION APPROVING SP# 68-2013 ANDREW LIUCCI A site plan application has been made to the Queensbury Planning Board for the following: Applicant proposes to utilize an existing 930 sq. ft. building for catering and associated cooking activities. Food Service in Cl zone requires Planning Board review and approval A public hearing was advertised and held on 12-17-2013; This application is supported with all documentation, public comment, and application material in the file of record; MOTION TO APPROVE SITE PLAN NO. 68-2013 ANDREW LIUCCI, Introduced by Donald Krebs who moved for its adoption,seconded by Brad Magowan: As per the resolution prepared by Staff: 1) Pursuant to relevant sections of the Town of Queensbury Zoning Code-Chapter 179-9-080, the Planning Board has determined that this proposal satisfies the requirements as stated in the Zoning Code; 2) The requirements of the State Environmental Quality Review Act have been considered and the Planning Board has adopted a SEQRA Negative Declaration; 3) Waiver requests granted: soil logs and contours; 4) Final approved plans, in compliance with the Site Plan, must be submitted to the Community Development Department before any further review by the Zoning Administrator or Building and Codes personnel. 5) The applicant must meet with Staff after approval and prior to issuance of Building Permit and/or the beginning of any site work. 6) Subsequent issuance of further permits, including building permits is dependent on compliance with this and all other conditions of this resolution 21 (Queensbury Planning Board 12/17/2013) 7) As-built plans to certify that the site plan is developed according to the approved plans to be provided prior to issuance of the certificate of occupancy. Duly adopted this 17th day of December, 2013,by the following vote: MR. SCHONEWOLF-She needs two different motions,one for the SEQR and then one for the project. MR. HUNSINGER-Yes, I thought so. MRS.MOORE-That's right. MR. KREBS-Well, I've got a Negative Declaration here. MR. HUNSINGER-Yes,but you still need to do it. MR. KREBS-Okay. AYES: Mr. Magowan, Mr. Krebs, Mr.Traver, Mr. Ferone, Mr. Schonewolf, Mr. Deeb, Mr. Hunsinger NOES: NONE MR. HUNSINGER-You're all set. Good luck. MR. LIUCCI-Thank you very much. MR. HUNSINGER-You're welcome. MR. LIUCCI-I had the opportunity to meet Laura not long ago to work through the process, and she's been very helpful in the paperwork. MR. HUNSINGER-Great. Thank you. Is there anyone here representing Dodge Watkins or Larry Clute? I didn't see anyone come in. MR.TRAVER-There's no public hearing,so maybe we could do them on Thursday. MR. HUNSINGER-Yes,let's go to Old Business and then we can talk about it. OLD BUSINESS: SITE PLAN NO. 78-2012 SEQR TYPE UNLISTED JEFFREY SCHWARTZ AGENT(S) PETER BROWN OWNER(S) SAME AS APPLICANT ZONING CLI-COMMERCIAL LIGHT INDUSTRIAL LOCATION 53 CAREY ROAD, LOTS 4 & 13 APPLICANT PROPOSES A 30,300 SQ. FT. EXPANSION ADDITION TO EXISTING 30,502 SQ. FT. WAREHOUSE RESULTING IN A PROPOSED STRUCTURE SIZE OF 60,802 SQ. FT. EXPANSION OF EXISTING COMMERCIAL USE IN A CLI ZONE REQUIRES PLANNING BOARD REVIEW AND APPROVAL. CROSS REFERENCE SP 67-05 SP 69-00 WARREN CO. REFERRAL PREVIOUS LOT SIZE 4.70 ACRES TAX MAP NO. 308.20-1-2 SECTION 179-9 PETER BROWN, REPRESENTING APPLICANT, PRESENT; JEFFREY SCHWARTZ, PRESENT MR. HUNSINGER-Laura? MRS. MOORE-Okay. This application is the applicant has completed the Site Plan application. He's proposing construction of a 30,300 sq. ft. addition to an existing 30,502 sq. ft. addition and the Board may consider requesting clarification on the width of the dumpster enclosure doors, nine foot or ten foot, and the width of the tree segment remaining on Carey Road East,which is 20 or 25, and also I would suggest the Board consider the following conditions: Plans to be revised to show, a. Dumpster enclosure width, b. Width of trees to remain along Carey Road East, c. Label on fire barriers on plans, d. Notations of future loading doors may need a building permit and future loading doors with no truck well infrastructure may need site plan review, e. Add additional detail of raised drainage structure, because right now I have a flat grate showing that, and I just need to have that one detail added to the drawings, and then Item Two is areas where trees are to be removed and trees to be removed should be marked in the field and confirmed with the Code Compliance Officer prior to removal, and Item Number Three is the maintenance plan to remove the waiver request notation. Because because this project is subject to the stormwater regulations 22 (Queensbury Planning Board 12/17/2013) of clearing more than one acre, those waivers that have been requested are not applicable in this case. They cannot be granted. They have to be committed and implemented. MR. HUNSINGER-I guess I'm not clear on your comment,though. I'm sorry. MRS.MOORE-Which one? MR. HUNSINGER-Maintenance plan to remove the waiver request. MRS. MOORE-Actually because that's greater than one acre, they're required to submit a maintenance plan, so the applicant has submitted a maintenance plan. There's a one line sentence at the top of the maintenance plan that says in accordance with these waivers that are requested, and then it follows through on what the applicant proposes as a maintenance plan. It just needs to be removed from the top of that page. MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. Now I understand. Thank you. MRS.MOORE-Sorry. MR. HUNSINGER-Good evening. MR. SCHWARTZ-Good evening. Jeff Schwartz and Peter Brown. Okay. Basically we have an existing business, over 30,000 square foot warehouse, with the office and all the infrastructure in there, and we simply want to add existing or new warehouse space of 30,000 plus, basically doubling our space, only warehouse though. There was a comment about office. There's no office addition. It's just warehouse, and that's basically the project,simple warehouse. MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. Do you have any comments on some of the Staff comments or the engineering comments? MR. SCHWARTZ-Just two comments that we wanted to make. With the requset with the, that Chazen be on site for the test holes,we're wondering if it would be possible,we're going to have our engineer who's certified and a professional to judge these things, and then instead of having to pay the Town's engineer, if we could just have, if they wanted to have a Staff representative, but, you know,so we wouldn't have to pay for their engineer. I don't know,do most projects require that,to have the Town Engineer on site? Because if not we have our professional that we're paying to do the job and who's certified. MR. HUNSINGER-Yes, I mean,the engineer's going to make that comment, I think, every time, and it is kind of standard practice,if you will,but I don't know if anyone else wants to comment on that. MR. KREBS-I think the difference is that the Town Engineer represents the Town. Your engineer represents you, and so if we're going to trust the results, and we're not there to see it ourselves, then we do need,yes, I mean. MR.TRAVER-Yes,and if the engineer is signing off on it,that's part of the process. MR. HUNSINGER-Right. MR.TRAVER-In getting his approval. MR. KREBS-Yes. MR. TRAVER-But you don't need two. You don't need your person plus the Town. Just have Chazen come. MR. BROWN-You're dealing with professionals. You're not dealing with trust. They have a license. They could lose it if they're not. MR. HUNSINGER-Understood. Yes. Like I said,it's pretty typical common practice. MR. SCHWARTZ-Okay. The other comment we have is the, okay, the filter fabric, we see it, you know, okay, we're going through the whole process of what they're requiring, the whole system, and so we view the filter fabric as an enhancement,because basically it'll allow the dirt not to get in, so then you won't have a problem later on, and, you know, I guess that's our view on the filter fabric. It's not,you know, it's just to help it so the dirt doesn't get in. It still allows the water to go 23 (Queensbury Planning Board 12/17/2013) in, it just keeps the dirt out. So I,you know,we just don't see the value of not putting it in when it's actually better. MR. KREBS-Well, except if it isn't maintained eventually if the dirt builds up you will not have the percolation that you normally would have. MR. BROWN-But you can look right at it and cut it out. MR. KREBS-I agree with you. MR. BROWN-It's got to be checked supposedly every week,after every rain storm. MR. KREBS-Okay. Is that in the maintenance instruction? MR. BROWN-It's part of the maintenance. MR. KREBS-Okay. MR. SCHWARTZ-We still have to maintain either way. MR. BROWN-But it's on the surface. It's like putting an extra air filter on your car. It's not required,but it's a pretty good idea. MR.TRAVER-That's an engineering issue. If you can get the Town Engineer to agree and sign off on it,then that's. MR. DEEB-We can't make that decision,can we? MR. HUNSINGER-That would be my question. MR. DEEB-It's not our purview to do that. MRS.MOORE-Right. Actually the Town Engineer. MR. BROWN-No you could say, you can't, the thing is, (lost words) can't do it, it's on our property. It's not in roadway. It's not a hazard. All it does is protect, and prevent. It's preventative maintenance. Let's put it that way. Okay. They make these things commercially, okay, and it's in your book, there's a copy of one in there. There are several in there, and several of these companies that make them now,because they don't want leaves and grass and other things like that going into it. We don't want kids jamming rocks down there, sticks and stuff like that. I mean it's just a precautionary thing, and it's like the grates over the culvert. We've got two culvert pipes. They make grates for them. We want to put a piece of filter fabric over that to keep all the rest of the stuff from getting down into that pipe,and a common thing for kids to do is get loose stones and roll them down those things. I've had experiences (lost words) and I'm going to tell you, that's what happens. MR. HUNSINGER-Anything else? MR. SCHWARTZ-I think, you know, I mean, there's different points, but I think it's just, unless you want to address anything. The general questions. MR. SCHONEWOLF-What was the requirement of a label on the fire barrier? MRS.MOORE-The plans are not labeled where the fire barriers are. It's just label. It's not there. MR. SCHONEWOLF-It's a label on the plans. Okay. MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. MR. SCHONEWOLF-I thought it was a label on the building. MRS. MOORE-And the reason is when the final plans are submitted, then the Code Enforcement Officer takes those plans, goes out to the field and marks off what's there. That label doesn't exist. It just needs to be placed on the drawings. 24 (Queensbury Planning Board 12/17/2013) MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. Can you comment on the trees? There's a Staff comment about the trees to be removed should be comment. MR. SCHWARTZ-There was, I guess,a 20 foot strip is what we want to go with. MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. MR. BROWN-Part of that is existing now. MR. HUNSINGER-Right. MR. BROWN-I mean. MR. HUNSINGER-That's why I'm asking the question. MR. BROWN-There's going to be,we want the vegetation there,okay. What we want to do is get rid of a lot of these trees. When they took and graded this, exposed the roots, a lot of these trees are dead, or dying. They have disease. Okay, and what is going to happen,we're actually going to hire Jim Hunt,okay,who's licensed, (lost words) and select the trees to be taken down. MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. So you don't have a problem with the comment,yes. MR. BROWN-We don't want a lot of, these trees falling down, and we don't want somebody coming by and taking and say,well,that looks good to him,you know,we want a professional to come in. MR. HUNSINGER-Sure. MR. BROWN-I mean, I don't, I'm an environmentalist by nature, okay, and I don't like to see trees cut, okay, but there's a lot of things involved when you're dealing with (lost words) and it's a pine tree area, so you take a tree away, that's what they,they have very small root bases, and they grow straight up and the get top heavy, especially in a wind storm or a snowstorm with wind. So we're safety,basically, and it's not, everything else has been labeled except any street areas. We're going to hand pick, and some of the trees that are dead and dying in there will drop right down to the ground and leave them there as an obstruction to ATV's and motorcycles, but anyway, we're going to do that. MR. SCHWARTZ-There's a problem in that area with a lot of that activity. MR. HUNSINGER-Well,hopefully you'll get a new neighbor someday soon. MR. SCHWARTZ-Slowly we're getting them. MR. HUNSINGER-The old,now I forgot the name of the plant. MR. SCHWARTZ-The Native Textiles? MR. HUNSINGER-The Native Textile plant. MR. SCHWARTZ-Have they had anybody looking or anybody? MR. HUNSINGER-Well,we approved a site plan for them. MR. SCHWARTZ-Oh,yes. MR. HUNSINGER-A few months ago, so that they can market it. So hopefully we'll find you a new neighbor and some of those vagrancy issues will go away. Yes. MR. SCHWARTZ-Yes,there's a lot of activity in that area,in that. MR. HUNSINGER-Yes. MR. DEEB-I think we discussed the lighting for that reason. MR. HUNSINGER-Yes. MR. DEEB-Because of your concern for that. 25 (Queensbury Planning Board 12/17/2013) MR. BROWN-We're concerned about it,yes. MR. DEEB-I remember talking about those. MR. BROWN-That's like the barriers we shouldn't have to put those up. MR. HUNSINGER-Other questions or comments from the Board? We do have a public hearing scheduled this evening. Is there anyone that wants to address the Board on this project? PUBLIC HEARING OPENED MR. HUNSINGER-Any written comments? MRS.MOORE-No. MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. We'll open the public hearing. What's the feeling of the Board? Are you comfortable moving forward? MR. SCHONEWOLF-Yes. MR.TRAVER-Yes,if we get,as long as we get final signoffs. MR. KREBS-Yes. MR.TRAVER-There's nothing wrong with the basic plan,it's just the engineering. MR. SCHWARTZ-A lot of thought has gone into this. MR. HUNSINGER-We'll, I will close the public hearing. PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED MR. HUNSINGER-This is an Unlisted action. This is under the old SEQR,though,right? MRS. MOORE-It is under the old SEQR. I do have that form if you want to use,you have one in your packet? Okay. MR. HUNSINGER-We don't have a resolution, though. Is there a resolution, maybe, on one of the earlier? MRS.MOORE-There's not a resolution. MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. MRS.MOORE-You can use the old form because this was started under the old. MR. SCHONEWOLF-This was started under the old form,so we can use it. MRS.MOORE-Right,and Don has that. Okay. MR. KREBS-"Does the action exceed any Type I threshold in 6 NYCRR Part 617.4?" MR. HUNSINGER-No. MR. FERONE-No. MR. KREBS-"Will the action receive coordinated review as provided for Unlisted Actions in 6 NYCRR, Part 617.6?" MR. HUNSINGER-No. MR.TRAVER-No. 26 (Queensbury Planning Board 12/17/2013) MR. KREBS-"Could the action result in any adverse effects associated with the following: C1. Existing air quality, surface or ground water quality or quantity, noise levels, existing traffic patterns,solid waste production or disposal,potential for erosion,drainage or flooding problems?" MR. HUNSINGER-No. MR.TRAVER-No. MR. KREBS-"C2. Aesthetic, agricultural, archeological, historic, or other natural or cultural resources; or community or neighborhood character?" MR. HUNSINGER-No. MR.TRAVER-No. MR. KREBS-"C3. Vegetation, fauna, fish, shellfish or wildlife species, significant habitats, or threatened or endangered species?" MR. HUNSINGER-No. MR.TRAVER-No. MR. KREBS-"C4. A community's existing plans or goals as officially adopted, or a change in use or intensity of use of land or other natural resources?" MR. HUNSINGER-No. MR.TRAVER-No. MR. KREBS-"CS. Growth, subsequent development or related activities likely to be induced by the proposed action?" MR.TRAVER-No. MR. HUNSINGER-No. MR. KREBS-"C6. Long term,short term,cumulative or other effects not identified above?" MR.TRAVER-No. MR. HUNSINGER-No. MR. KREBS-"C7. Other impacts (including changes in use of either quantity or energy)?" MR.TRAVER-No. MR. HUNSINGER-No. MR. KREBS-"Will the project have an impact on the environmental characteristics that caused the establishment of a Critical Environmental Area?" MR. HUNSINGER-No. MR.TRAVER-No. MR. KREBS-"Is there or is there likely to be controversy related to potential adverse environmental impacts?" MR. HUNSINGER-No. MR.TRAVER-No. MR. KREBS-We are determining a Negative Declaration. RESOLUTION WHEN DETERMINATION OF NO SIGNIFICANCE IS MADE 27 (Queensbury Planning Board 12/17/2013) RESOLUTION NO. 78-2012, Introduced by Donald Krebs who moved for its adoption, seconded by Paul Schonewolf: WHEREAS,there is presently before the Planning Board an application for: JEFFREY SCHWARTZ,and WHEREAS, this Planning Board has determined that the proposed project and Planning Board action is subject to review under the State Environmental Quality Review Act, NOW,THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED: 1. No Federal agency appears to be involved. 2. The following agencies are involved: NONE 3. The proposed action considered by this Board is Unlisted in the Department of Environmental Conservation Regulations implementing the State Environmental Quality Review Act and the regulations of the Town of Queensbury. 4. An Environmental Assessment Form has been completed by the applicant. 5. Having considered and thoroughly analyzed the relevant areas of environmental concern and having considered the criteria for determining whether a project has a significant environmental impact as the same is set forth in Section 617.11 of the Official Compilation of Codes, Rules and Regulations for the State of New York, this Board finds that the action about to be undertaken by this Board will have no significant environmental effect and the Chairman of the Planning Board is hereby authorized to execute and sign and file as may be necessary a statement of non-significance or a negative declaration that may be required by law. Duly adopted this 17th day of, December, 2013, by the following vote: AYES: Mr. Schonewolf, Mr. Deeb, Mr.Traver, Mr. Krebs, Mr. Magowan, Mr. Ferone, Mr. Hunsinger NOES: NONE MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. MR. KREBS-Okay. Ready for a motion? MR. HUNSINGER-Ready. MRS. MOORE-Before you start your motion, could I just clarify, the dumpster enclosure is nine feet or ten feet,and I'm looking at the application. MR. BROWN-It's 10 feet. MRS.MOORE-Okay. MR. BROWN-The other questions are all on the plans, including the signature sheets for the road and the fire lanes. All that information is in there. MRS.MOORE-Okay. MR. BROWN-Do you want me to? MRS. MOORE-No, I want to make sure that the Board looks at the conditions that I've suggested, if they're in agreement with Items One, with A through F, Items Two and Items Three, and then I had another thought that since this is an open enforcement action since 2005, that we place a completion project date of November 3rd of 2014. MR. BROWN-Completion? MRS.MOORE-Completion. I think it's reasonable. MR. BROWN-That means you guys have to give us a Certificate of Occupancy? 28 (Queensbury Planning Board 12/17/2013) MRS.MOORE-No,your completion,the building is complete. MR. HUNSINGER-I was going to say,that's a requirement anyway,isn't it? By the Town Code? MRS.MOORE-It is,right,and if something,as you know,this project has gone on since 2005. MR. BROWN-It's gone on before that, Laura. It was started in 1999, and was over 60,000 square feet at that time. MRS.MOORE-But it's an enforcement action since 2005. We're trying to close that. MR. BROWN-The enforcement action was (lost words) by the last one, contingent upon it being done and we took care of it. The roads have been (lost words) there's pictures in there that shows the gravel was suitable,the drainage is fine,all that stuff is answered. MR. SCHWARTZ-We're going to begin it in April. MRS.MOORE-Right, I don't think this is an issue. MR. SCHWARTZ-The last time didn't do it because the economy turned on us. MRS.MOORE-Right,and I understand that,so that's why. MR. SCHWARTZ-There was not a, you know, that was the reason. I mean, we're anxious to get started immediately. We're not,this is not a big exercise. I'm not going to move away now. MRS. MOORE-The reason behind doing it at a deadline, in case something comes up where the applicant needs to come back, there's that opportunity so that you've closed it once. We start again,instead of having something open from 2005. Now this one was,this application turned over to 2012. So,close it out,start a new application if necessary. MR. SCHWARTZ-Well, I guess I've just got one question here. MRS.MOORE-Sure. MR. SCHWARTZ-I've just got one question. I mean, if, I mean I'm starting the building right away, but who knows what, there could be some unforeseen things, and what if, okay, the building's up, and what do we do, we have to come back and go through this whole process again for some unforeseen? MR. BROWN-That's what she's saying. She's saying you've got to put another $1,000 down and open a new application. MR. SCHWARTZ-Yes, I know, but I'm just saying, I mean, our intentions are to go forward, I mean, but if, I don't what could happen. I mean, I want to get this building up by the summertime, but I don't know, I mean,who knows what could happen. MR. BROWN-He doesn't get approved for this thing or doesn't get the money to pay for this thing unless it's done properly. That's our responsibility to make sure the job is done. Okay. We have no intentions of dragging out anything,okay. MR. SCHWARTZ-The last time, I mean, there were issues, we addressed all the issues that we had on that sheet. MRS.MOORE-Right. MR. SCHWARTZ-I mean, I think we addressed every issue on that sheet. MRS.MOORE-Yes. MR. SCHWARTZ-Well,whatever. I mean, so if there's some unforeseen issue we have to go through this whole process again? MRS. MOORE-You'll have a new ID number. It's a closure. You're closing one project. There's associated fees. 29 (Queensbury Planning Board 12/17/2013) MR. BROWN-We have to re-draw the plans? We have to go through all this? MRS. MOORE-You'd have to do a new plan anyway, for any modifications or any new attention to this site. So you'd have to go through the process again no matter what. MR. BROWN-And who's done this before? MRS.MOORE-You just saw Hannaford come through. MR. BROWN-They didn't get told that they had to have this done in so many days or anything else. MRS.MOORE-You've had,well, I won't get into it. MR. BROWN-They had shorter period than us but the same thing because they (lost words) the work. MR. HUNSINGER-Yes,they didn't start the project,yes,right. MR. BROWN-It's unfair. MR. DEEB-I think you want to go through with it,Jeff. You want to get it done. MR. SCHWARTZ-Right. MR. DEEB-I don't think Town Code says, Town law says you have to have it done in a certain time anyway. I don't know why we're arguing over this. MR. HUNSINGER-Yes. MR. DEEB-I think, you know, just go ahead, get through with it and let you get on with your business. MR. HUNSINGER-That would be my inclination,yes. MR. KREBS-Not only that, but, you know, from a business man's standpoint, he's going to have a mortgage. He's going to have the building built. If he doesn't get an occupancy permit,which your office controls,then he can't use the building, and he's paying a mortgage on a building he can't use. So I don't think we need to put a date. MR. MAGOWAN-He won't be able to close out on the construction loan,you know. MR. KREBS-Right. MR. HUNSINGER-Right,yes. MR. TRAVER-So, to clarify, I guess I'm starting to get a little bit confused. There was an enforcement action and the applicant is saying it's been resolved, but there's some question on the part of Staff whether or not it's been resolved? MRS.MOORE-This resolves it. MR. BROWN-There was never an enforcement action. There was a memo saying. MR.TRAVER-I'm sorry, Mr. Chairman. MR. HUNSINGER-The site plan approval would resolve the issue. One of the issues is they took down more trees than they should have,and that was kind of. MR.TRAVER-Okay. MR. SCHWARTZ-We've got to make, I mean,we can get into a discussion. MR. HUNSINGER-Yes,no,that's fine. MR. SCHWARTZ-Okay. 30 (Queensbury Planning Board 12/17/2013) MR. HUNSINGER-I mean,we have two binders full of information,and we can. MR. KREBS-Right,yes. MR. HUNSINGER-You know, I just saw this as resolving it. MR. SCHWARTZ-This building's going up. Believe me, I wish it could be already up, but hopefully we're going to grow this business and I'm employing a lot of people here and we're going to employee more people. It's to everybody's benefit, and this is a business that I don't do local business. We do business nationally. MR. HUNSINGER-Yes. MR. SCHWARTZ-So, I mean, this is going to be a big plus for everybody, and by not getting this building up,it's holding my business up. So I want to get it up. I'm anxious to get it up,and I'm just saying,you never know,life,who knows what could happen,you know, I don't know,could be some lightning strike and hit the building,you know, I don't know, I mean, God forbid, but,you know, so, but this building's going up as soon as we can. That's the bottom line. Like you said,if it doesn't go up,then we do have to come back. MR. HUNSINGER-Or if there's a change to the plans. MR. KREBS-Right. MR. HUNSINGER-And that, I mean,that's always true,you know,we're not. MR. BROWN-And we don't foresee any. MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. MR. BROWN-We've been working on this thing,and we put it down on the plans,and,you know,it's different when somebody's (lost word) when you get into places like this, things happen, and William can take and explain that to you,but. MR. SCHWARTZ-This is a very simple building,you know,so. MR. BROWN-Nuts and bolts. MR. SCHWARTZ-Yes. All the infrastructure's in. We're basically just adding warehouse space. MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. Are you ready? MR. KREBS-Okay. What was the fire labels for the fire what? MRS.MOORE-Why don't you just identify Items One,Two,and Three in Staff Notes. MR. SCHONEWOLF-They just wanted the labels on the drawing, Don. MR. KREBS-Okay. RESOLUTION APPROVING SP# 78-2012 JEFFREY SCHWARTZ A site plan application has been made to the Queensbury Planning Board for the following: Applicant proposes a 30,300 sq. ft. expansion addition to existing 30,502 sq. ft.warehouse resulting in a proposed structure of 60,802 sq. ft. Expansion of existing commercial use in a CLI zone requires Planning Board review and approval. A public hearing and/or meeting was advertised and held on 12-18-12, 1-22-13, 3-19-13. 5-21-13, 7-16-13,9-24-13, 11-19-13, 11-21-13. 12-17-13; This application is supported with all documentation, public comment, and application material in the file of record; MOTION TO APPROVE SITE PLAN NO. 78-2012 JEFFREY SCHWARTZ, Introduced by Donald Krebs who moved for its adoption,seconded by Paul Schonewolf: 31 (Queensbury Planning Board 12/17/2013) 1) Pursuant to relevant sections of the Town of Queensbury Zoning Code-Chapter 179-9-080, the Planning Board has determined that this proposal satisfies the requirements as stated in the Zoning Code; 2) The requirements of the State Environmental Quality Review Act have been considered and the Planning Board has adopted a SEQRA Negative Declaration; 3) Engineering sign-off required prior to signature of Zoning Administrator of the approved plans; 4) Applicant will provide appropriate protection of devices during construction and to remove protection once construction is stabilized and complete. The activities will minimize any erosion or situation from being deposited into the devices during construction. This includes but is not limited to the protection described on SM26 and stabilization as described on SM27. 5) We are adding that One,Two,and Three of the Staff Notes will be satisfied. 6) If required,the applicant must submit a copy of the following to the Town: a) The project NOI (Notice of Intent) for coverage under the current "NYSDEC SPDES General Permit from Construction Activity"prior to the start of any site work. b) The project NOT (Notice of Termination) upon completion of the project; 7) The applicant must maintain on their project site,for review by staff: a) The approved final plans that have been stamped by the Town Zoning Administrator. These plans must include the project SWPPP (Storm Water Pollution Prevention Plan) when such a plan was prepared and approved; b) The project NOI and proof of coverage under the current NYSDEC SPDES General Permit,or an individual SPDES permit issued for the project. 8) Final approved plans, in compliance with the Site Plan, must be submitted to the Community Development Department before any further review by the Zoning Administrator or Building and Codes personnel. 9) The applicant must meet with Staff after approval and prior to issuance of Building Permit and/or the beginning of any site work. 10) Subsequent issuance of further permits, including building permits is dependent on compliance with this and all other conditions of this resolution 11) As-built plans to certify that the site plan is developed according to the approved plans to be provided prior to issuance of the certificate of occupancy. Duly adopted this 17th day of December, 2013,by the following vote: MR. KREBS-And we're adding Item Twelve, which is the second floor of the new building will be used as a warehouse. MR. SCHWARTZ-There's no second floor. MRS.MOORE-There's no second floor. I apologize. He clarified there's no second floor. MR. KREBS-I'm sorry. MR. BROWN-I don't know where second floor came from. MR. SCHONEWOLF-The previous building. MR. BROWN-Oh,the previous building. Yes. MR. KREBS-Forget Item Twelve. AYES: Mr. Schonewolf, Mr. Deeb, Mr.Traver, Mr. Krebs, Mr. Magowan, Mr. Ferone, Mr. Hunsinger NOES: NONE 32 (Queensbury Planning Board 12/17/2013) MR. HUNSINGER-You're all set. Good luck. MR. SCHWARTZ-Thank you. MR. HUNSINGER-You're welcome. Thank you. Good luck. MR. DEEB-Good luck to you,Jeff. MR. SCHWARTZ-I appreciate it. MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. We have Subdivision 6-2013. Are they before the Zoning Board tomorrow night? MRS. MOORE-Yes. Do you want me to give them a call? I don't have a cell number to call them. As far as I know,it has never been presented to the Board. MR. HUNSINGER-Yes,no,this is a new project. MRS. MOORE-Right. I guess maybe, I guess quite a while ago you did do a lot line adjustment and you would have seen it then,but this is a new lot line adjustment. MR. SCHONEWOLF-Okay. MR. HUNSINGER-Boy, I don't know, what's the feeling of the Board? I like Steve's idea, but, you know,if they're before the Zoning Board tomorrow night. MR. TRAVER-Well, I think we have to focus on what our issues are and not what the Zoning Board issues are. MR. HUNSINGER-Yes,right. MR. TRAVER-And I just, I think, I know technically we can't set a precedent, but I think it's bad to set a practice that we act on actions without representation. MR. HUNSINGER-Yes,right. MR.TRAVER-I just,you know, I'm sorry,but. MR. HUNSINGER-Yes,no, I tend to agree with you. MR.TRAVER-I mean,this is not his first rodeo. I mean,he knows the drill. MR. HUNSINGER-Yes,he understands it. MR.TRAVER-I mean,was there a call? MRS. MOORE-They received notices of when they're supposed to be present, and they know a Planning Board recommendation is something that they're supposed to be here, and I'm surprised that Larry or Matt are not here. MR. TRAVER-Well, I just thought maybe snow or something, you know, they might call and say, geez,you know,we has an accident or. MRS.MOORE-I only have Matt's work number. I do not have any house numbers for Clute. MR. HUNSINGER-Just in terms of procedure,if we do not take any action on this. MRS.MOORE-The Zoning Board cannot take action. MR. HUNSINGER-That's what I thought,yes. MRS.MOORE-And so they move to January. It's not going anywhere. MR. HUNSINGER-Right. Yes, I don't really think it's causing them major hardship. 33 (Queensbury Planning Board 12/17/2013) MR. KREBS-Right,no. MR.TRAVER-Apparently they didn't think so. MR. MAGOWAN-What's going on with that shed/garage that went from a garage to a shed? MRS.MOORE-I don't know. They're all sheds,the two sheds on the property,that's just a location. MR. MAGOWAN-Are they ever going to finish it? MRS. MOORE-I don't know. I'm not familiar with whether it was a shed or a garage. I just know there's two items. MR. MAGOWAN-It's been standing up there awhile. I think the Tyvek finally blew off of it. MR. SCHONEWOLF-Which shed are you talking about? MRS.MOORE-I think he's talking about Clute's shed that needs a building permit. Is that the one? MR. MAGOWAN-Yes,isn't that the property that has to be the lot line? MRS. MOORE-The line adjusted, and the shed that's there is currently under a building permit that has not been issued yet. That must be the one you're talking about. MR. HUNSINGER-So,just in terms of procedure, since this is a recommendation,we don't even need a tabling resolution. MRS.MOORE-You should do a tabling motion. MR. HUNSINGER-Should we? MRS.MOORE-Yes. MR. HUNSINGER-Just because it was posted to be on the agenda. Okay. Table it to the January 21St? MRS.MOORE-A January. MR. HUNSINGER-Everyone comfortable with that? MR. MAGOWAN-January 21St. MR.TRAVER-Tabling it to January? MR. HUNSINGER-January 21St, although I suppose, well, there's really no advantage to us doing it Thursday. MR. DEEB-Well, if we could do it Thursday. MRS.MOORE-You can table it until Thursday. MR. HUNSINGER-But then what, the Zoning Board's not going to meet again until the 22nd of January anyway,right. MR.TRAVER-But at least it'll be off the agenda. I mean,the January agenda will be unchanged. MR. HUNSINGER-Yes, I guess. MR.TRAVER-It shouldn't take long if they're here. I mean. MR. HUNSINGER-Do you want to table it until Thursday? MR. DEEB-Yes, I think it's a good idea. MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. Would anyone like to make that motion? 34 (Queensbury Planning Board 12/17/2013) RESOLUTION TABLING SUB # 6-2013 DODGE WATKINS&LARRY CLUTE A subdivision application has been made to the Queensbury Planning Board for the following: Applicant proposes relocation of the common property line between 3 Maplewood Drive & 5 Twicwood Lane. Access will be by two separate driveways -one existing and one proposed. Modification to an approved subdivision requires Planning Board review and approval. MOTION TO TABLE SUBDIVISION NO. 6-2013 DODGE WATKINS & LARRY CLUTE, Introduced by David Deeb who moved for its adoption,seconded by Brad Magowan: Tabled to the December 19, 2013 Planning Board meeting. Duly adopted this 17th day of December, 2013,by the following vote: AYES: Mr. Magowan, Mr. Krebs, Mr.Traver, Mr. Ferone, Mr. Schonewolf, Mr. Deeb, Mr. Hunsinger NOES: NONE MR. HUNSINGER-Thursday,six o'clock. MR. MAGOWAN-We've got to be here at six on Thursday? MR. HUNSINGER-Six o'clock for a workshop on SEQR. MR.TRAVER-Right. MR. HUNSINGER-With Town Counsel. Would anyone like to make a motion? MOTION TO ADJOURN THE QUEENSBURY PLANNING BOARD MEETING OF DECEMBER 17. 2013, Introduced by David Deeb who moved for its adoption,seconded by Donald Krebs: Duly adopted this 17th day of December, 2013, by the following vote: AYES: Mr. Krebs, Mr.Traver, Mr. Magowan, Mr. Ferone, Mr. Schonewolf, Mr. Deeb, Mr. Hunsinger NOES: NONE On motion meeting was adjourned. RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED, Chris Hunsinger, Chairman 35