Loading...
02-21-2017 (Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 02/21/2017) QUEENSBURY PLANNING BOARD MEETING SECOND REGULAR MEETING FEBRUARY 21, 2017 INDEX Site Plan No. 6-2017 Stephen & Caryn LaFleche 1. Tax Map No. 227.17-1-29 Subdivision No. 2-2017 Mary Sotanski 4. PRELIMINARY STAGE Tax Map No. 290.10-1-6 Subdivision No. 3-2017 FINAL STAGE Site Plan No. 12-2017 New Cingular Wireless PCS, LLC 5. Tax Map No. 279.-1-48 Site Plan No. 9-2017 Ronald & Cynthia Mackowiak 8. Tax Map No. 289.11-1-33 Site Plan No. 7-2017 TJ Upstate Properties, LLC 12. Tax Map No. 279.8-1-20 Site Plan No. 10-2017 Clute Enterprises 16. Tax Map No. 296.5-1-4.2 Disc 4-2017 Adirondack Animal Hospital 19. DISCUSSION ITEM Tax Map No. 297.18-1-1 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. QUEENSBURY PLANNING BOARD MEETING 1 (Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 02/21/2017) SECOND REGULAR MEETING FEBRUARY 21, 2017 7:00 P.M. MEMBERS PRESENT STEPHEN TRAVER, CHAIRMAN CHRIS HUNSINGER, VICE CHAIRMAN GEORGE FERONE, SECRETARY BRAD MAGOWAN DAVID DEEB JAMIE WHITE JOHN SHAFER, ALTERNATE LAND USE PLANNER-LAURA MOORE STENOGRAPHER-MARIA GAGLIARDI MR. TRAVER-Good evening, ladies and gentlemen. We will call the meeting of the Planning Board for the Town of Queensbury to order. This is the fourth meeting for the year for the Planning Board. We have no administrative items this evening. There should be agendas on the back table there. There are a number of items tonight that do have public hearings, and we will begin with Old Business. The first item being Stephen and Caryn LaFleche. OLD BUSINESS: SITE PLAN NO. 6-2017 SEAR TYPE TYPE II STEPHEN & CARYN LA FLECHE AGENT(S) DENNIS MAC ELROY OWNER(S) SAME AS APPLICANT ZONING WR LOCATION 12 WATERS EDGE DRIVE APPLICANT PROPOSES TO RENOVATE THE SECOND FLOOR OF AN EXISTING HOME. FLOOR AREA EXISTING ON SECOND FLOOR IS 474 SQ. FT. AND EXISTING GARAGE STORAGE IS 232 SQ. FT. PROPOSED SECOND FLOOR WITH ADDITION (36 +/- FT. X 5 +/- FT.) IS 697 SQ. FT. WITH REMOVAL OF FLOOR AREA STORAGE ABOVE GARAGE. THE 2ND FLOOR ADDITION ALLOWS FOR 2ND FLOOR BEDROOM EXPANSION AND 1ST FLOOR BEDROOM EXPANSION — TOTAL 3 BEDROOMS. PROJECT INCLUDES SITE WORK TO INSTALL PERMEABLE PAVERS. PURSUANT TO CHAPTER 179-13-010 OF THE ZONING ORDINANCE, EXPANSION OF NON-CONFORMING STRUCTURES SHALL BE SUBJECT TO PLANNING BOARD REVIEW AND APPROVAL. CROSS REFERENCE AV 11-2017 WARREN CO. REFERRAL FEBRUARY 2017 SITE INFORMATION APA, LGPC, CEA LOT SIZE .19 ACRE TAX MAP NO. 227.17-1-29 SECTION 179-13-010 DENNIS MAC ELROY, REPRESENTING APPLICANT MRS. MOORE-This applicant proposes to renovate the second floor of an existing home. The floor area existing on the second floor is 474 square feet and the existing garage storage is 232. The applicant received approval from the Zoning Board to re-allocate the floor area for the new construction so that it currently doesn't meet the setbacks. The Zoning Board granted that relief so that all the floor area is now moved to over the second floor which is a total of 697 square feet. MR. TRAVER-Okay. Thank you. Good evening. MR. MAC ELROY-Good evening. I'm Dennis MacElroy with Environmental Design. Here representing Steve and Caryn LaFleche for this application for a site plan review for their residence at 12 Waters Edge Drive. It's off of Seelye Road in the Rockhurst area of Cleverdale. As Laura described, the application is for the second story expansion of an existing residence. It adds no new footprint to the site, and in an effort to at least try to minimize permeability, we do propose to change the existing walkway to permeable pavers. It cuts down a little bit on the impervious surface of the site. Another site issue that is a part of the project is the replacement of the wastewater system with a holding tank system, and that has all been approved by the Board of Health already. So moving forward we're set to go with the building permit pending approval here obviously, but Queensbury's regulation requires that if you're seeking a building permit there needs to be compliance with the wastewater regulations. This previous action through the Board of Health satisfies that requirement. Setbacks, just to reiterate the setbacks of the expanded area. This is a lawful nonconforming structure as it exists. The expansion, while not needing the setbacks for shoreline or size, are less of a setback relief than the existing condition, if you follow that. It's not any worse than what current exists, and obviously I'm back again so we got our variance last week. 2 (Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 02/21/2017) MR. TRAVER-Okay, and there were no changes to what we reviewed last week based on the ZBA process. MR. MAC ELROY-Right. MR. TRAVER-Okay. Thank you very much. Members of the Planning Board, do you have any questions for the applicant to follow up on that review and ZBA approval? MS. WHITE-No. MR. SHAFER-1 have one question, Mr. Chairman. MR. TRAVER-Sure. MR. SHAFER-Dennis, I didn't get a chance to look at what's between the house and the water. We had a workshop last week here about stormwater, and there was great talk about raingardens and shrubbery and that sort of thing. Could you comment on whether there are any plans to do something on the lawn between the house and the water? MR. MAC ELROY-Well, after some comment last week I discussed that with the owner and he indicated that as part of the dock approval that he previously obtained, there were requirements, and he described four planting areas. So there is some intention, it doesn't show on the survey, it's not shown on our map, there are some planting areas in there, and all I've stated is that the lawn area that might get disturbed by the fact that they're working on the second floor, there'll probably have equipment, a lift or whatever on their front lakeside lawn, that will get restored and any other plantings would be determined by the owner and landscape contractor, but there isn't anything specific here that supplements shoreline planting or buffer. MR. TRAVER-But that was addressed during the dock review. All right. Any other questions? MR. HUNSINGER-I had a question on the, I mean, I know it's not really part of our review and approval, the holding tanks. How often will they need to be pumped out? I mean, obviously they'll use low flow fixtures and everything. MR. MAC ELROY-There's 4,000 gallons of capacity, and you figure whatever, a household of four might use 200 gallons a day, 50 gallons per capita. That's a conservative number. So the 4,000 gallons is, over a period of time, it could be, again, depending on the activity, this is a second home, but if they're all during the summer, it could go three weeks between pump outs if they're there full time using it. So it's, there's less of a capital expense up front, you know, the installation of the holding tank system verses a conventional system. That's not really the issue here, though, the expense. It's the ability to do it. MR. HUNSINGER-Right. MR. MAC ELROY-This is a small spot. So there's really not the ability to put in a compliant system now, other than holding tanks. MR. HUNSINGER-I mean, it's been a while since we've reviewed a holding tank as part of this Board. I mean, I know they've put in all kinds of bells and alarms. MR. MAC ELROY-Correct. There'd be a two alarm system that would give a notification at maybe 60% capacity and then one that is more like at 95%. MR. TRAVER-They probably would get on a service where they would come maybe every other week or monthly or something. MR. MAC ELROY-It could be. It depends on, again, the regularity. MR. TRAVER-Interesting. Any other questions or comments? I guess we're ready to entertain a motion then. MRS. MOORE-You have the public hearing, and I do have public comment. MR. TRAVER-I'm sorry. My apologies. There is a public hearing on this application. Is there anyone here tonight that would like to address the Board on this application? I'm not seeing anyone. 3 (Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 02/21/2017) PUBLIC HEARING OPENED MRS. MOORE-1 have two comments. This is addressed to Craig. "Craig, we are writing in support of the variance request by Stephen & Caryn LaFleche at 12 Waters Edge Drive. We are neighbors of the LaFleche's at 8 Waters Edge Drive, immediately to the south of their property. The project is a well-designed project that provides the LaFleches with a more livable house for their future family needs, but does so in a manner which does not worsen the already non-conforming aspects of their house. We do not believe that any of the proposed changes would have any negative consequences for the neighborhood. In fact we feel strongly that this is exactly the type of project that not only benefits the immediate neighbors, but also the lake. The LaFleches are being proactive in addressing potential septic system issues as well as reducing the amount of non-permeable surface on their property. As long time lake owners, and someone who is in the process of making significant improvements to our own property, we applaud the LaFleches on making an investment in their home that will benefit not just their own family but also all of us who care about preserving the beauty and pristine nature of Lake George. We strongly support approval of their project as proposed. Sincerely, Bob and Trish End" And this is addressed "Dear Sirs or Madam: We are the owners of the property located at 8 Seelye Road North, Queensbury, which neighbors the referenced property. We have been provided notice of the above referenced public hearings related to the proposals for modifications to the said property. Please consider this letter as evidence that we do not object to the variance and zoning requests made by Mr. and Mrs. LaFleche. The granting of the variance and proposed addition to the residence would not be detrimental or result in a negative impact to the character of the neighborhood and community. Further, the installation of holding tanks for wastewater disposal as part of the project, will result in an improvement to the neighborhood. Thank you. Very truly yours, David K. Ries Theresa M. Ries" MR. TRAVER-Thank you. All right. With that we will close the public hearing. PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED MR. TRAVER-And, Mr. Secretary, we're looking for a motion. RESOLUTION APPROVING SP # 6-2017 STEPHEN & CARYN LA FLECHE The applicant has submitted an application to the Planning Board for Site Plan approval pursuant to Article 9 of the Town zoning Ordinance for: Applicant proposes to renovate the second floor of an existing home. Floor area existing on second floor is 474 sq. ft. and existing garage storage is 232 sq. ft. Proposed second floor with addition (36 +/-ft. x 5 +/- ft.) is 697 sq. ft. with removal of floor area storage above garage. The 2nd floor addition allows for 2nd floor bedroom expansion and 1st floor bedroom expansion — total 3 bedrooms. Project includes site work to install permeable pavers. Pursuant to Chapter 179-13-010 of the Zoning Ordinance, expansion of non-conforming structures shall be subject to Planning Board review and approval. Pursuant to Chapter 179-13-010 of the Zoning Ordinance, expansion of non-conforming structures shall be subject to Planning Board review and approval. 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; As required by General Municipal Law Section 239-m the site plan application was referred to the Warren County Planning Department for its recommendation; The Planning Board opened a public hearing on the Site plan application on 2/21/2017 and continued the public hearing to 2/21/2017, when it was closed, The Planning Board has reviewed the application materials submitted by the applicant and all comments made at the public hearing and submitted in writing through and including 2/21/2017; The Planning Board determines that the application complies with the review considerations and standards set forth in Article 9 of the Zoning Ordinance for Site Plan approval, MOTION TO APPROVE SITE PLAN 6-2017 STEPHEN & CARYN LAFLECHE; Introduced by George Ferone who moved for its adoption; Per the draft provided by staff conditioned upon the following conditions: 1) Waivers requestrg anted: Signage, commercial alterations, construction detail, soil logs, construction demolition disposal, snow removal 4 (Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 02/21/2017) 2) Adherence to the items outlined in the follow-up letter sent with this resolution. a) If application was referred to engineering, then engineering sign-off required prior to signature of Zoning Administrator of the approved plans. b) Final approved plans should have dimensions and setbacks noted on the site plan/survey, floor plans and elevation for the existing rooms and proposed rooms in the building and site improvements, c) 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; d) The applicant must meet with Staff after approval and prior to issuance of Building Permit and/or the beginning of any site work; e) Subsequent issuance of further permits, including building permits is dependent on compliance with this and all other conditions of this resolution; f) 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; g) Resolution to be placed on final plans in its entirety and legible. Motion seconded by Chris Hunsinger. Duly adopted this 21St day of February, 2017 by the following vote: AYES: Mr. Deeb, Ms. White, Mr. Shafer, Mr. Hunsinger, Mr. Magowan, Mr. Ferone, Mr. Traver NOES: NONE MR. TRAVER-All right. You're all set. MR. MAC ELROY-Thank you very much. SUBDIVISION PRELIMINARY STAGE 2017 SUBDIVISION FINAL STAGE 3-2017 SEAR TYPE UNLISTED MARY SOTANSKI OWNER(S) MARY & THOMAS SOTANSKI ZONING RR-3A LOCATION 21 HILAND DRIVE APPLICANT PROPOSES A TWO LOT SUBDIVISION OF A 4.93 ACRE PARCEL. ONE LOT TO BE 3 ACRES, HAS AN EXISTING HOME AND TO BE RETAINED BY OWNER. THE SECOND LOT IS PROPOSED TO BE 1.93 ACRE VACANT LOT FOR SALE. PURSUANT TO CHAPTER 183 OF THE ZONING ORDINANCE, SUBDIVISION OF LAND SHALL BE SUBJECT TO PLANNING BOARD REVIEW AND APPROVAL. VARIANCE: RELIEF IS SOUGHT FOR LOT SIZE. CROSS REFERENCE 2004-64 756 SF ADDITION; AV 10-2017 LOT SIZE 4.93 ACRES TAX MAP NO. 290.10-1-6 SECTION CHAPTER 183 MR. TRAVER-You're welcome. All right. Next before us we have Subdivision 2-2017 for Mary Sotanski. MRS. MOORE-Correct. So you're going to, this application was tabled at the Zoning Board of Appeals materials, you have a tabling resolution and it also leaves the public hearing open. MR. TRAVER-Okay. So the public hearing is still open from. MRS. MOORE-You're opening the public hearing this evening and leaving it open. MR. TRAVER-Okay. Thank you. And can you elaborate on the tabling at the ZBA? MRS. MOORE-So the ZBA tabled the application. They were looking for additional information about the project site itself. The applicant agreed that they would have someone walk the site maybe to evaluate it for potential wetlands, and then there was also neighborhood concern about subdividing the lot into lesser lots than what was approved for the area. MR. TRAVER-Okay. All right. Then they've requested that this be tabled to the first meeting in June. So if we can note a change to the motion. Instead of making them wait for almost a year, we'll go from June 20 to June 21. So in other words it should be, instead of June 27th it should be June 20th. That should do it. As the motion reads now, it says June 27th, and then it would be taken up by the ZBA on June 21. So that would be almost a year. 5 (Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 02/21/2017) MRS. MOORE-No. So what I'm saying is it's pending Zoning Board review on June 21St You're tabling it to the 27th, the meeting after that. MR. TRAVER-All right. I see what you're saying. Gotcha. I stand corrected again. We will open the public hearing on this application tonight and it will remain open until the tabled date of June 20th. Is there anyone here that wants to comment on this application? I'm not seeing any. Are there any written comments? PUBLIC HEARING OPENED MRS. MOORE-1 don't have any written comments. I'm assuming there'll be comments when we return. MR. TRAVER-Then we will leave the public hearing open, and we're ready for the tabling motion. RESOLUTION TABLING SUB PRELIM STG #2-2017 MARY SOTANSKI A subdivision application has been made to the Queensbury Planning Board for the following: Applicant proposes a two lot subdivision of a 4.93 acre parcel. One lot to be 3 acres, has an existing home and to be retained by owner. The second lot is proposed to be 1.93 acre vacant lot for sale. Pursuant to Chapter 183 of the Zoning Ordinance, subdivision of land shall be subject to Planning Board review and approval. A public hearing was scheduled and left open on 2/21/2017; MOTION TO TABLE SUBDIVISION PRELIMINARY STAGE 2-2017 MARY SOTANSKI; Tabled until the June 27th Planning Board meeting pending Zoning Board of Appeals meeting June 21, 2017. Introduced by George Ferone who moved its adoption. Motion seconded by David Deeb. Duly adopted this 21St day of February, 2017 by the following vote: AYES: Mr. Shafer, Ms. White, Mr. Deeb, Mr. Hunsinger, Mr. Magowan, Mr. Ferone, Mr. Traver NOES: NONE SITE PLAN 12-2017 SEAR TYPE TYPE II NEW CINGULAR WIRELESS PCS, LLC AGENT(S) CENTERLINE COMMUNICATIONS; PHILLIPS LYTLE, LLP OWNER(S) KUBRICKY CONSTRUCTION CORP. ZONING MDR LOCATION 1359 RIDGE ROAD APPLICANT PROPOSES TO CONSTRUCT A TELECOMMUNICATIONS FACILITY - 130' MONOPOLE WITH 9 ANTENNAS, ASSOCIATED EQUIPMENT SHELTER AND PAD ALL WITHIN A FENCED AREA. PURSUANT TO CHAPTER 179-5 & 179-9 OF THE ZONING ORDINANCE TELECOMMUNICATION TOWERS SHALL BE SUBJECT TO PLANNING BOARD REVIEW AND APPROVAL. CROSS REFERENCE SP 55-2015, UV 57-2015 WARREN CO. REFERRAL FEBRUARY 2017 SITE INFORMATION APA LOT SIZE 9.38 ACRES (PORTION OF) TAX MAP NO. 279.1-48 SECTION 179-5, 179-9 THOMAS PUCHNER, REPRESENTING APPLICANT, PRESENT MR. TRAVER-Okay. The next application this evening is for the New Cingular Wireless, Site Plan 12-2017. Laura? MRS. MOORE-Okay. This applicant proposes a 130 foot monopole with 9 antennas. The application received their Use Variance at the previous Zoning Board meeting and the applicant is back before the Board for a Site Plan Review. MR. TRAVER-Good evening. MR. PUCHNER-Good evening. My name is Thomas Puchner, Phillips Lytle law firm in Albany for New Cingular Wireless PCS LLC. Also known as AT&T. We're back for re-approval of the site plan for the AT&T tower proposed at the Kubricky gravel mine on Ridge Road. Just to re- cap, it's a 130 foot tower that in the current design will be designed at the top 34 feet designed 6 (Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 02/21/2017) to look like a white pine tree, and we received the Board's recommendation to the ZBA last Tuesday and the ZBA's Use Variance last Wednesday. MR. TRAVER-Okay, and again, this is an application that in general in scope was reviewed and approved a year ago and it didn't get constructed so it got bumped, and then there was an APA request to add the pine disguise, if you will. I won't call it that other name. MR. HUNSINGER-Franken Pine? MR. TRAVER-Yes, thank you. MR. PUCHNER-We like mono pine. MR. TRAVER-Yes, interesting. Okay. Anything else? MR. PUCHNER-There were a few questions that the Board had that I wanted to clarify. MR. TRAVER-Sure. MR. PUCHNER-And one of them I mentioned. In terms of the portion of the tower that is built, the pine tree from 96 feet which is roughly the tree line up to the 130, so that's 34 feet, and then as to color the tower itself will be painted brown. The top of the tree itself will be green, again, it's designed to look like a white pine tree. So a little bit of additional detail that you had asked for the last time. MR. TRAVER-Yes. Thank you for that. MR. PUCHNER-You're welcome. MR. TRAVER-So before we go to the public hearing on this application, are there questions from members of the Board on this application? There weren't any changes during the ZBA review. MR. SHAFER-Do you have a schedule for construction if approved? MR. PUCHNER-In 2017. They do things by build year, and the plan, we were hoping to get this done even earlier if we could have, but this is the schedule that we have, so subject to everything else that happens with business, 2017. That's the best that I can say. MR. TRAVER-That's your intent. Well that's good, well, and that also will mean that you won't need to repeat this process for this particular site. MR. PUCHNER-Yes, that is my hope. MR. TRAVER-That would be good. All right. Thank you. All right. Not hearing any other questions from the Board. Well, we've got to have the public hearing again. We'll open the public hearing on this site for Cingular Wireless, Site Plan 12-2017. Is there anyone here that would like to discuss this application with the Board? Are there any written comments? PUBLIC HEARING OPENED MRS. MOORE-There were no written comments. MR. TRAVER-Okay. Then we'll go ahead and close the public hearing, and I'll entertain a motion. PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED MR. FERONE-Okay. RESOLUTION APPROVING SP # 12-2017 NEW CINGULAR WIRELESS PCS, LLC The applicant has submitted an application to the Planning Board to construct a telecommunications facility - 130' monopole with 9 antennas, associated equipment shelter and pad all within a fenced area. Pursuant to Chapter 179-5 & 179-9 of the Zoning Ordinance Telecommunication Towers shall be subject to Planning Board review and approval. 7 (Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 02/21/2017) 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; As required by General Municipal Law Section 239-m the site plan application was referred to the Warren County Planning Department for its recommendation; The Planning Board has reviewed the potential environmental impacts of the project, where it is recognized the project as being in the Adirondack Park where the Adirondack Park Agency has environmental review authority over the project and did not identify any adverse environmental impact; The Planning Board opened a public hearing on the Site plan application on 2/21/2017 and continued the public hearing to 2/21/2017, when it was closed, The Planning Board has reviewed the application materials submitted by the applicant and all comments made at the public hearing and submitted in writing through and including 2/21/2017; The Planning Board determines that the application complies with the review considerations and standards set forth in Article 9 of the Zoning Ordinance for Site Plan approval, MOTION TO APPROVE SITE PLAN 12-2017 NEW CINGULAR WIRELESS PCS, LLC.; Introduced by George Ferone who moved for its adoption. According to the draft resolution prepared by Staff with the following: 1. Waivers requested granted; Signage, site lighting, stormwater, topography, landscaping, soil logs, construction demolition and snow removal 2. Adherence to the items outlined in the follow-up letter sent with this resolution. a) 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; b) If applicable, the Sanitary Sewer connection plan must be submitted to the Wastewater Department for its review, approval, permitting and inspection; c) If curb cuts are being added or changed a driveway permit is required. A building permit will not be issued until the approved driveway permit has been provided to the Planning Office; d) If application was referred to engineering then Engineering sign-off required prior to signature of Zoning Administrator of the approved plans; e) Final approved plans should have dimensions and setbacks noted on the site plan/survey, floor plans and elevation for the existing rooms and proposed rooms in the building and site improvements;- f) 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; c. The applicant must maintain on their project site, for review by staff: i. 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; ii. The project NOI and proof of coverage under the current NYSDEC SPDES General Permit, or an individual SPDES permit issued for the project if required. g) 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; h) The applicant must meet with Staff after approval and prior to issuance of Building Permit and/or the beginning of any site work; i) Subsequent issuance of further permits, including building permits is dependent on compliance with this and all other conditions of this resolution; j) 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. k) This resolution is to be placed in its entirety on the final plans 8 (Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 02/21/2017) Motion seconded by Brad Magowan. Duly adopted this 21St day of February, 2017 by the following vote: MRS. MOORE-1 just want to clarify for the Board's sake, and we did this at the Zoning Board as well, but it is a Type 11 action since the APA took control over their environmental review. MR. TRAVER-Yes, I see that was changed on our notes as well. It's Unlisted to Type 11. Thank you, Laura. Very good. Then go ahead and call the vote if you would. AYES: Mr. Ferone, Mr. Magowan, Mr. Hunsinger, Mr. Shafer, Ms. White, Mr. Deeb, Mr. Traver NOES: NONE MR. TRAVER-All right. You're all set. Thank you. MR. PUCHNER-Thank you very much. SITE PLAN NO. 9-2017 SEAR TYPE TYPE II RONALD & CYNTHIA MACKOWIAK AGENT(S) HUTCHINS ENGINEERING OWNER(S) SAME AS APPLICANT ZONING WR LOCATION 9 GLEN HALL DRIVE APPLICANT PROPOSES CONSTRUCTION OF A 440 SQ. FT. GARAGE WITH OVERHEAD STORAGE. THE PROJECT INCLUDES REMOVAL OF 155 SQ. FT. SHED, SITE GRADING AND A RETAINING WALL. PROJECT OCCURS WITHIN 50 FT. OF 15% SLOPES. PURSUANT TO CHAPTER 179-3-040 & 179-5-020 OF THE ZONING ORDINANCE, CONSTRUCTION WITHIN 50 FT. OF 15% SLOPES SHALL BE SUBJECT TO PLANNING BOARD REVIEW AND APPROVAL. CROSS REFERENCE SP 9- 2014 GARAGE/ADDITION/SEPTIC; 74-2014 GARAGE; PZ 59-2016 GARAGE WARREN CO. REFERRAL N/A SITE INFORMATION CEA LOT SIZE 0.81 ACRE TAX MAP NO. 289.11-1-33 SECTION 179-3-040, 179-5-020, 179-6-060 LUCAS DOBIE, REPRESENTING APPLICANT, PRESENT; RON MACKOWIAK, PRESENT MR. TRAVER-The next application we have under Old Business is Site Plan 9-2017 for Ronald & Cynthia Mackowiak. Laura? MRS. MOORE-This applicant proposes construction of a 440 square foot garage with overhead storage. The project includes the removal of 155 square foot shed. The Zoning Board did grant the Area Variance relief which included a second garage, maintaining the second garage as well as the setback relief for the 440 square foot garage. MR. TRAVER-Okay. Thank you. Good evening. Welcome back. MR. DOBIE-Good evening, Mr. Chairman and Board. Thanks for having us. We were successful last week at the Zoning Board. We discussed it fairly thoroughly last week with you folks and we looked at our engineering comments, comfortable with our, some discussion on the retaining wall. It's more of the boulder, slope stabilization if you will, pretty typical around Glen Lake, and the builder for the project has done more than anybody in the area over the last 34 years. I'm comfortable with the buildability of the project, and we're here to ask for your approval so we can get the Mackowiaks some nice storage for next winter. I'd be glad to entertain any questions. MR. TRAVER-Sure. Questions, comments from members of the Board? All right. Then this project also has a public hearing. So I'll go ahead and open the public hearing for Site Plan 9- 2017. Is there anyone here this evening to address the Board on this project? Laura, do we have any written comment? PUBLIC HEARING OPENED MRS. MOORE-There is written comment. It's addressed to Craig. "We just received notice that our Northerly neighbor on Glen Lake, Ron and Cindy Mackowiak (9 Glen Hall Dr.) have submitted plans to build a garage to be reviewed in a few days by the Queensbury Planning Board. Looking at the submitted plans, it appears that their property will require excavation deep into our common Easterly "hill" at our common property line. Our concern relates to the impact of their excavation. With only 5 feet between the proposed garage's Southerly wall and our property line, we assume that our property may be impacted by this excavation. We note plans for a retaining wall bolstering our "hill" to the East of the garage but we don't see anything to prevent dislodging of soil, rocks and growth on the South side of the garage wall (5 feet from our common line). It is hard to interrupt the slopes, but from a layman's perspective, it appears that the Mackowiak's garage requires substantial involvement into our hill. On our common 9 (Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 02/21/2017) street, Glen Hall Dr., the Mackowiaks are located on the highest point of our common private road. Any excavation disrupting the "top" of the road affects all of the neighbors "below". How can we be assured that there will be no negative impact to our property, especially water runoff? What is planned to stop our side of the "hill" from collapsing (at our common line) and bringing debris down into our parking area? Thanks for your time and attention, Fran and Bill Hannan" MR. TRAVER-Okay. Thank you. So, this garage is being constructed on a hill. Is it somebody else's hill? I assumed it was your hill. MR. DOBIE-No, it is our property. MR. TRAVER-Okay. Is there going to be impact, construction debris or other types of impact, to surrounding properties? MR. DOBIE-In my opinion, given careful construction methods, no. There is a cut slope for Glen Hall Road follows the property to the south, and the property, two properties south, fairly uniform in an east/west orientation. We're kind of splitting the difference of that hill, the first cut slope is well halfway to the back of our garage. So it would be, only about six feet elevation of the hill will be against our garage from what I can tell. So it's almost to daylight facing the southerly property. So hopefully just a little bit of stack up of boulders as we show on that southeasterly corner. So when we received the letter last week we did go out and re-measure it to make sure we were comfortable with the location of it, and I am comfortable that, given some courtesy on our end, that says that we'd be okay with it. MR. TRAVER-Do I recall from the engineering notes that they wanted, regarding the retaining wall, they wanted a review or signoff, an engineering signoff or something on that? MR. DOBIE-Well, we will have to respond to this. Yes, sir. MR. TRAVER-Right. MR. DOBIE-And it references the erosion control book of retaining walls being designed by a professional engineer. MR. TRAVER-Right. I thought I had remembered reading that. MR. DOBIE-Yes. MR. TRAVER-How likely is it that an engineer signing off on that would approve of a retaining wall impinging outside of your property? MR. DOBIE-Well, the wall itself will be on our property. It's just to hold back the slope on, our slope to the east and just a little bit to the south, which is southerly, I'm comfortable we're going to get there. MR. TRAVER-Okay. So you feel confident that the concerns of the neighbors are addressed by the engineering and design? MR. DOBIE-Yes, sir, I am. MR. TRAVER-Any other questions from members of the Board? MR. MAGOWAN-The only question I have is accessing your other back property there. It looks like those boulders are right up on the property line. Now, are you building up that back wall or, you know, with concrete? Or is it all going to be level? MR. DOBIE-Right now as it sits there's a cut slope. We're going to put the septic in on top. It's a pretty steep, aggressive somewhat vegetative cut slope. We're cutting into that a little bit for the back of our garage, pouring an eight or ten foot wall for the garage, which will function as a structural retaining wall and then a little bit of flat and then our boulders stack up to expose the hill behind us. MR. MAGOWAN-But do you see what I, you have on the side, you have boulders on the side there. It's not leaving much of a path to get, because you've got that iron pipe right there on the corner. MR. TRAVER-It's very close to the property line. 10 (Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 02/21/2017) MR. DOBIE-Correct. Certainly. It's pretty much inaccessible now from that pitch, I call it pitch points. We only have about 20 feet of open space. It's so steep right now it's basically inaccessible. So when Ron mows the septic field I believe he comes up from the south on the rest of his property, which is still steep, but not as steep as that narrow portion there. MR. MAGOWAN-So you can access that another? MR. MACKOWIAK-If I have to I can consider some natural landscaping steps or something. We could do something if we had to which would not impact anything that we're doing. Maybe, I guess the important point is the slope behind the garage towards the leachfield is a steep area. It does flatten out quite a bit where it's accessible now, dragging a lawnmower up there, and I wouldn't expect to be any different. I'll work with the contractor to make sure that I can do that. MR. MAGOWAN-You're not going to have a lift on the backside of the garage there? MR. MACKOWIAK-No. I don't think so. And it wouldn't be anything wooden or anything like that. If anything it could be natural. MR. MAGOWAN-That's a lot of work for stuff. MR. TRAVER-Yes. MR. MACKOWIAK-Well, the only other issue was if I, this was the last alternative that I wanted to do as I've been here four times now or three times. We were forced into it due to existing right of way issues that we had. We're going to the expense of moving the septic tanks at the front of the garage, and this is the only alternative that we can use with the existing right of way the way that it's established now and the way it, according to the legal people, believe it should be. MR. TRAVER-Yes, you had tried to do an earlier design. Is that right? MR. MACKOWIAK-Yes. MR. TRAVER-And you ran into problems because of the right of way. MR. MACKOWIAK-Yes, that's correct. Yes, the neighbor to the south had an issue with it. MR. TRAVER-Okay. MR. MAGOWAN-But the right of way ends on your property. Right? MR. MACKOWIAK-It does. The right of way that I'm talking about is right where the two red lines are, sir, on Hannan's property. That's the established right of way. During discussions we were trying to obviously move the right of way back further toward the slope. On the east side. MR. MAGOWAN-So you could come into the garage? MR. MACKOWIAK-We were planning on coming in close to the slope and bringing it in this way, and they have some plans. So they'll be coming here sometime soon I would imagine. MR. MAGOWAN-Gotcha. MR. TRAVER-Yes, it's a complicated situation. It's one of those narrow, there's so many properties around the lake that are like that, that are very small, quite a challenge. MR. MAGOWAN-And they were just basically trails to get back into them, and then, you know, they turned into roads. MR. TRAVER-Right. Yes. MR. MACKOWIAK-Yes, it's a right of way that's shared, I also own the property right where Hall Road intersects and I think I give right of way to five different houses going up that road. MR. MAGOWAN-Besides the one in the back, this one here? MR. MACKOWIAK-Yes, besides that one, and then there's one, there's an empty lot, I'm sorry there are four overall families on that side that take right up way up through the property where I 11 (Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 02/21/2017) intersect with Hall, Hall Road and Glen Hall Road intersect and that property happens to be mine so I get to maintain it for everybody. MR. TRAVER-1 know some of the deeds around Glen Lake probably make interesting reading. They're very complicated. MR. MACKOWIAK-1 had a boundary line issue, yes. MR. TRAVER-Yes. MR. MACKOWIAK-It depends on which way the survey is coming from, north or south. MR. TRAVER-Right, yes, interesting. All right. Any other questions? MR. HUNSINGER-Notice we didn't ask you about the connection in the rear. We had that discussion here one night. MR. MACKOWIAK-About the road that goes over the top? MR. HUNSINGER-Yes. MR. MACKOWIAK-Well, my attorney would love for the Town to convey that property back to each of the owners on each side of it. It's a pretty steep hill. MR. HUNSINGER-Yes. MR. TRAVER-That was an issue, there was a camp and they were re-doing the stairs? Yes, I remember that. That was, yes. That was one of the cases where we got to see a lot of those odd deeds. Okay. Laura, I'm sorry, have I closed the public hearing yet? MS. GAGLIARDI-No. MR. TRAVER-If not, I will. I'll close the public hearing. And if there are no other questions, we'll be ready to entertain a motion. RESOLUTION APPROVING SP # 9-2017 RONALD & CYNTHIA MACKOWIAK The applicant has submitted an application to the Planning Board for Site Plan approval pursuant to Article 9 of the Town zoning Ordinance for: Applicant proposes construction of a 440 sq. ft. garage with overhead storage. The project includes removal of 155 sq. ft. shed, site grading and a retaining wall. Project occurs within 50 ft. of 15% slopes. Pursuant to chapter 179-3-040 & 179-5-020 of the Zoning Ordinance, construction within 50 ft. of 15% slopes shall be subject to Planning Board review and approval. 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; The Planning Board opened a public hearing on the Site plan application on 2/21/2017 and continued the public hearing to 2/21/2017, when it was closed, The Planning Board has reviewed the application materials submitted by the applicant and all comments made at the public hearing and submitted in writing through and including 2/21/2017; The Planning Board determines that the application complies with the review considerations and standards set forth in Article 9 of the Zoning Ordinance for Site Plan approval, MOTION TO APPROVE SITE PLAN 9-2017 RONALD & CYNTHIA MACKOWIAK; Introduced by George Ferone who moved for its adoption; Per the draft provided by staff conditioned upon the following conditions: 1) Waivers request granted: Site lighting, signage, landscaping, traffic, commercial alterations, construction details, soil logs, construction demolition disposal and snow removal 2) Adherence to the items outlined in the follow-up letter sent with this resolution. 12 (Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 02/21/2017) a) If application was referred to engineering, then engineering sign-off required prior to signature of Zoning Administrator of the approved plans; b) Final approved plans should have dimensions and setbacks noted on the site plan/survey, floor plans and elevation for the existing rooms and proposed rooms in the building and site improvements, c) 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; d) The applicant must meet with Staff after approval and prior to issuance of Building Permit and/or the beginning of any site work; e) Subsequent issuance of further permits, including building permits is dependent on compliance with this and all other conditions of this resolution; f) 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; g) Resolution to be placed on final plans in its entirety and legible. Motion seconded by Brad Magowan. Duly adopted this 21st day of February, 2017 by the following vote: AYES: Mr. Deeb, Ms. White, Mr. Shafer, Mr. Hunsinger, Mr. Magowan, Mr. Ferone, Mr. Traver NOES: NONE MR. TRAVER-You are all set. MR. DOBIE-Thank you very much for your time. MR. DEEB-You sure you don't want to come back? MR. MACKOWIAK-1 think I've had enough. Thank you very much. NEW BUSINESS: SITE PLAN NO. 7-2017 SEAR TYPE UNLISTED TJ UPSTATE PROPERTIES, LLC AGENT(S) VANDUSEN & STEVES OWNER(S) SAME AS APPLICANT ZONING CLI LOCATION 527 QUEENSBURY AVENUE APPLICANT PROPOSES TO CONSTRUCT A 3,600 SQ. FT. THREE SIDE ENCLOSED POLE BARN FOR MATERIAL EQUIPMENT STORAGE. POLE BARN WILL HAVE RACKING SYSTEM FOR STORAGE MATERIAL. PROJECT IS LOCATED ON EXISTING GRAVEL. PROJECT IS ALSO FOR PREVIOUS DEVELOPMENT EXPANSION OF OUTSIDE STORAGE AREA. PURSUANT TO CHAPTER 179-3-040 & 179-5-020 OF THE ZONING ORDINANCE, NEW STORAGE POLE BARNS AND SITE DEVELOPMENT FOR OUTSIDE STORAGE AREA SHALL BE SUBJECT TO PLANNING BOARD REVIEW AND APPROVAL. CROSS REFERENCE 2002-707 120 SF ALT.; 2003-871 280 SF ALT.; 2007-16 867 SF ALT. WARREN CO. REFERRAL FEBRUARY 2017 LOT SIZE 6.09 ACRES TAX MAP NO. 297.8-1-20 SECTION 179-3- 040, 179-5-020 MATT STEVES, REPRESENTING APPLICANT, PRESENT MR. TRAVER-All right. We now go to New Business, and the first item on that part of the agenda is Site Plan 7-2017 for TJ Upstate Properties, LLC. Laura? MRS. MOORE-So this applicant proposes a 3,600 square foot, it's a three-sided enclosed pole barn. So one side is open which allows for the racking system so the applicant can store materials that are currently outside in the interior of this building, as well as have it accessible so they can bring it in to the main building to process it. MR. TRAVER-Okay. Very good. Thank you. MR. STEVES-Good evening. Matt Steves with VanDusen and Steves, representing TJ Upstate Properties. As Staff has stated, this is property on the westerly side of Queensbury Avenue. Currently, the ownership is TJ Upstate, but I believe the business that runs out of there call themselves structural components or something like that. They're basically panelized building 13 (Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 02/21/2017) components, and they store a lot of their material for the panelizing outside, and the reason for this 3600 square foot pole barn would be placed over the top of the existing gravel area, the rack storage to put that stuff in under cover, out of the way of the elements. Now they put it outside. They cover it up with tarps. They'd move the tarps just to clean up the site and put it inside, put it into a rack storage of 100 foot across 36 feet deep. With racks you can fit a lot more in than you can sprawled all over the ground. It kind of consolidates it. As Staff has also stated, there was some additional gravel installed prior to us getting involved with the site plan and the Staff found that out, looked at some old aerials and we confirmed that there was some and we want to make sure that the Board is aware that part of this application is to improve part of the gravel they put in probably seven or eight years ago, six years ago. I'm not quite sure when it happened. Looking at the aerials, compared to what it is now, you can see where somewhere around 2008 I think it is all of a sudden there's some additional gravel, but the total area outside the original approved building is still less than 38,000 square feet of disturbance and is still well within the guidelines of the Code, and I'm sure the owner was not aware when he wanted to expand his building for his building products. That's been in existence for at least eight years. MR. TRAVER-Okay, and I see there's a review by the FAA required because you're in the flight zone of the airport. Has that process been started? MR. STEVES-Yes. We mailed that out. I have a copy, I believe, of what was mailed to the FAA. We don't see any issue. Obviously it's all consent. It's just to notify them because the flight path is, the height of the building, which is way under anything that's around this area. You do have to notify them about any construction, and they have that. MR. TRAVER-Sure. Okay, yes, and I saw in here in the packet somewhere that whoever's looked at it already did not think there would be an issue. MR. STEVES-I think that's Ross from the airport. MR. TRAVER-Yes, probably. Yes. Okay. MR. STEVES-Yes, he didn't figure there'd be any issue, and obviously we have submitted a lot of these forms for construction around the airport for years and we've never had any issues. He would be the so called expert on that in my opinion, dealing with things around the airport. It has been submitted to the FAA. We have not had any comments back. MR. TRAVER-Okay, but at least that's been underway. Okay. Any questions for the applicant from the members of the Board? MR. SHAFER-Just quickly. Do you know how tall the existing block building is by way of comparison? MR. STEVES-The existing block building I believe is around 22 feet at the low side in the back, and the pole barn I believe would be at 20. It's a pretty substantial block building. From the roadside the grade drops off, so at the higher side, as far as exposed building on the west side. MR. TRAVER-Anything else from the Board before we go to public hearing? I'm not hearing any. We'll open the public hearing on this application, Site Plan 7-2017 for TJ Upstate Properties, LLC. Is there anyone here this evening to address the Board on this application? I'm not seeing anyone. Laura, are there any public comments? PUBLIC HEARING OPENED MRS. MOORE-There are no public comments for this application. MR. TRAVER-Okay. Then we'll go ahead and close the public hearing. PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED MR. TRAVER-Let's see. We have a draft motion. I'm sorry, that's right. We have to do SEQR on this. This is a SEQR Unlisted. MR. HUNSINGER-Yes. MR. TRAVER-And we have a SEQR form that's been submitted. Are there concerns by any members of the Board regarding the environmental quality review that would require us to do the Full EAF? I'm not hearing any. So go ahead and make a SEQR motion. 14 (Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 02/21/2017) RESOLUTION GRANTING A NEGATIVE SEQR DEC. SP # 7-2017 TJ UPSTATE PROPERTIES The applicant proposes to construct a 3,600 sq. ft., three side enclosed pole barn for material equipment storage. Pole barn will have racking system for storage material. Project is located on existing gravel. Project is also for previous development expansion of outside storage area. Pursuant to Chapter 179-3-040 & 179-5-020 of the Zoning Ordinance, new storage pole barns and site development for outside storage area shall be subject to 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 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 impact statement need not be prepared. Accordingly, this negative declaration is issued. MOTION TO GRANT A NEGATIVE DECLARATION FOR SITE PLAN 7-2017 TJ UPSTATE PROPERTIES, LLC., Introduced by George Ferone who moved for its adoption. As per the resolution prepared by staff. 1. Part II of the Short EAF has been reviewed and completed by the Planning Board. 2. Part III of the Short EAF is not necessary because the Planning Board did not identify potentially moderate to large impacts. Motion seconded by Chris Hunsinger. Duly adopted this 21St day of February, 2017 by the following vote: AYES: Mr. Ferone, Mr. Magowan, Mr. Hunsinger, Mr. Shafer, Ms. White, Mr. Deeb, Mr. Traver NOES: NONE MR. TRAVER-All right. Then we have the motion. I think the only thing that we might want to add to the approval motion is a condition that the FAA response be reviewed and clarified. Would that be? MRS. MOORE-Or received as part of the file. Do they typically respond, and I apologize for asking. Okay. So they don't respond. MR. TRAVER-So they don't even acknowledge that you sent them? MR. STEVES-You send them the information. The only time they typically respond is if they have a major issue with the height of the building. MR. TRAVER-Right. Understood. MR. STEVES-1 doubt we'll hear back. It's kind of like sending information to SHPO. Seriously, if there's not an issue. MR. TRAVER-This is only aircraft in danger, right? So why would they? MR. STEVES-Right. Put it this way, I have no problem with the condition, but again, like the other agency, I think they have 30 days. It's been like 14. 1 would say to the Board make sure that any comments do come back from the FAA that they're addressed prior to the building permit. I have no problem with that, but as far as, I think 30 days is what they have. 15 (Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 02/21/2017) MR. TRAVER-They do have a response window of 30 days? Okay. So then if we have not heard from 30 days from today. MR. STEVES-In the next couple of weeks. MR. TRAVER-Right, okay. So why don't we condition the motion, if a response is received within the next 30 days, then the issues raised need to be addressed. As a condition of approval. Will that work? MRS. MOORE-I'm trying to think, only because what happens if it changes and it has to come back before us? I don't foresee that happening. MR. TRAVER-Well, we're only saying if they get a response within the next 30 days. So if they don't get a response, which is what the applicant is saying. MR. STEVES-We'd get a negative response, probably. I've never seen a positive response, but you never know. MR. TRAVER-Yes, so if there's nothing that needs to be addressed, then there's nothing that needs to be done. If there's something that needs to be addressed, very likely it would require a change in, I mean, presumably it would be a height or something or a location. So they probably would be coming back. I mean, we're not saying they have to come back. We're just saying it needs to be addressed. It would be up to the applicant to assess whether that required, or the Town to assess whether or not that actually required. MRS. MOORE-1 agree. MR. TRAVER-Okay. Thank you. All right. Then I guess we're ready for our motion. RESOLUTION APPROVING SP # 7-2017 TJ UPSTATE PROPERTIES, LLC The applicant has submitted an application to the Planning Board for Site Plan approval pursuant to Article 9 of the Town zoning Ordinance for: Applicant proposes to construct a 3,600 sq. ft., three side enclosed pole barn for material equipment storage. Pole barn will have racking system for storage material. Project is located on existing gravel. Project is also for previous development expansion of outside storage area. Pursuant to Chapter 179-3-040 & 179-5-020 of the Zoning Ordinance, new storage pole barns and site development for outside storage area shall be subject to Planning Board review and approval. 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; As required by General Municipal Law Section 239-m the site plan application was referred to the Warren County Planning Department for its recommendation; The Planning Board has reviewed the potential environmental impacts of the project, pursuant to the State Environmental Quality Review Act (SEQRA) and adopted a SEQRA Negative Declaration — Determination of Non-Significance The Planning Board opened a public hearing on the Site plan application on 2/21/2017 and continued the public hearing to 2/21/2017, when it was closed, The Planning Board has reviewed the application materials submitted by the applicant and all comments made at the public hearing and submitted in writing through and including 2/21/2017; The Planning Board determines that the application complies with the review considerations and standards set forth in Article 9 of the Zoning Ordinance for Site Plan approval, MOTION TO APPROVE SITE PLAN 7-2017 TJ UPSTATE PROPERTIES, LLC.; Introduced by George Ferone who moved for its adoption; Per the draft provided by staff conditioned upon the following conditions: 1) Waivers requestrg anted: Site lighting, signage, stormwater, topography, landscaping, traffic, commercial alterations, construction detail, soil logs, construction demolition and snow removal 16 (Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 02/21/2017) 2) Adherence to the items outlined in the follow-up letter sent with this resolution. a) If application was referred to engineering, then engineering sign-off required prior to signature of Zoning Administrator of the approved plans; b) Final approved plans should have dimensions and setbacks noted on the site plan/survey, floor plans and elevation for the existing rooms and proposed rooms in the building and site improvements, c) 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; d) The applicant must meet with Staff after approval and prior to issuance of Building Permit and/or the beginning of any site work; e) Subsequent issuance of further permits, including building permits is dependent on compliance with this and all other conditions of this resolution; f) 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; g) Resolution to be placed on final plans in its entirety and legible. h) That if the FAA was to respond negatively within the next 30 days, the approval would be on the condition that that be corrected. Motion seconded by Chris Hunsinger. Duly adopted this 21St day of February, 2017 by the following vote: AYES: Mr. Deeb, Ms. White, Mr. Shafer, Mr. Hunsinger, Mr. Magowan, Mr. Ferone, Mr. Traver NOES: NONE MR. TRAVER-Good luck. MR. STEVES-Thank you. SITE PLAN NO. 10-2017 SEAR TYPE TYPE II CLUTE ENTERPRISES AGENT(S) VANDUSEN & STEVES OWNER(S) DWIGHT & THELMA ILSLEY ZONING MDR LOCATION 35 BIRDSALL ROAD APPLICANT PROPOSES CONSTRUCTION OFA 1,725 SQ. FT. (FOOTPRINT) SINGLE FAMILY HOME. PROJECT OCCURS WITHIN 50 FT. OF 15% SLOPES. PURSUANT TO CHAPTER 179-6-060 OF THE ZONING ORDINANCE, CONSTRUCTION WITHIN 50 FT. OF 15% SLOPES SHALL BE SUBJECT TO PLANNING BOARD REVIEW AND APPROVAL. CROSS REFERENCE 2 LOT SUBDIVISION AD3-1997 ALBERICO WARREN CO. REFERRAL FEBRUARY 2017 LOT SIZE 1.19 ACRES TAX MAP NO. 296.5-1-4.2 SECTION 179-6-060 LUCAS DOBIE & MATT STEVES, REPRESENTING APPLICANT, PRESENT MR. TRAVER-The next item on our agenda is Site Plan 10-2017 for Clute Enterprises. MRS. MOORE-This applicant proposes construction of a 1,725 square foot single family home, one story, and the project occurs within 50 ft. of 15% slopes. That's all I have. MR. TRAVER-Okay. Good evening. Hello again. MR. STEVES-Again, Matt Steves with VanDusen and Steves representing the applicant, together with Luke Dobie from Hutchins Engineering who prepared the site plan. This is property, again, on the west side of Birdsall Road. It's an existing vacant parcel. Obviously this is the Glen Lake area again, steeper slopes, and the requirement is any construction within 50 feet of 15% slopes requires a site plan review. So we did the topography on this site to determine the best area to construction the house and Luke did the design, the grading and septic design on this property. It can accommodate the setbacks. No variances are needed for this, and again, you can create lots on a steeper area, and we're not saying that you can make it work. We're saying that the least amount necessary is where we have placed the home, but anything along those areas are going to require some grading. Again, this is an existing parcel, an existing building lot, but we now have to 17 (Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 02/21/2017) comply with the regulations which is, to make sure that the stormwater and the septic design are included in the application for a building permit. MR. TRAVER-And we did get a stormwater report last week on this project. MR. STEVES-And any questions regarding the stormwater or the grading plan I would refer that to Luke who did the design on that and Luke can answer them a lot better than I can. MR. TRAVER-Okay. Anything else? MR. STEVES-That's it for now. MR. TRAVER-Questions or comments from members of the Planning Board? MR. MAGOWAN-1 see that there's a proposed well there. Where does the water stop on Birdsall? MR. STEVES-I'm not exactly sure. MR. MAGOWAN-Does it go to High Pointe and that's it? MR. STEVES-We can check on that, but I don't know if there is Town water as far as that. MR. MAGOWAN-You live in the brown house, don't you? Up the hill? I live at 16 High Pointe. MR. MAGOWAN-They must have brought the water, the last fire hydrant there is at the end of High Pointe. So they must have brought in Town water for the development. MR. STEVES-The water does not go beyond that point. MR. TRAVER-There is a question in the engineering comments about the well, about the distance to the stormwater infiltration. Did you see that? And also a comment about soil testing. MR. DOBIE-Yes, thank you, Mr. Chairman. Lucas Dobie, again. Yes, we did look at that, and I had forgotten that part in the DOH Appendix 5B. I just pulled up the well separations and Io and behold 100 feet for a driveway stormwater infiltration device. So we have to creep it as far south as we can, and I believe we can make it. I looked at it again today. It's a little more clearing, a little more boundary of the water line than I wanted to be, but we have to comply with that and the test pits.. So I do have on the plans not for permitting constructions but pending our test pits in the spring. We expect to find our Glen Lake cobble with a little bit of sand in it but we'll certainly verify that. MR. TRAVER-So you don't see any issues with coming into compliance with all the engineering issues? MR. DOBIE-No. MR. HUNSINGER-Can you shift the well to the west instead of to the south? MR. STEVES-You could go up the slope a little bit. We're trying not to incur any more slope issues or any maintenance issues because you still have to get a rig up there. If you look at the location of the well, like Lucas said you have a little bit of a plateau, still a slope, but easy enough to be able to come in and then to the south to drill that well. So sliding it down to within the 16 to 17 feet north of the property line would suffice for the separation distance for the stormwater portion of it, and I think the accessibility for whoever, that well. It would be a lot smoother. But we appreciate it, yes, because you could move it all the way up to the top of the hill and get your separation no problem, but I wouldn't want to bring a rig up there. MR. TRAVER-Yes, interesting. MR. MAGOWAN-Now do you know where the neighbor's septic is, too? MR. STEVES-We have their well located. Their septic is to the south side, over 100 feet from both wells. MR. TRAVER-All right. Any other questions from members of the Board before we open the public hearing? 18 (Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 02/21/2017) MR. SHAFER-Yes, one question. The engineering report talked about benching to the west up that slope. I don't see that on the drawing. Is that something that you'll consider or? MR. DOBIE-Yes, that's something we'll have to work through. I was trying to keep the grading as tight as we could, and I didn't realize that requirement in the erosion book about a certain amount of feet of back slope and then a bench before we start again. Unfortunately it's going to disturb a little more, but we'll keep it as tight as we can. MR. TRAVER-Okay. All right. Well, let's go ahead and open the public hearing. Are there folks here who want to address the Board on this application? Are there any written comments? PUBLIC HEARING OPENED MRS. MOORE-There's no written comments. MR. TRAVER-Okay. All right then we'll close the public hearing. PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED MR. TRAVER-This is a Type II SEAR. So I guess we're ready for a motion. MR. HUNSINGER-I was just commenting to Brad, you know, even though that site itself is steep, your driveway doesn't look like it's going to be that bad. MR. STEVES-The way the house is designed, it's to accommodate that. I mean, you have a lot of those types of lots, especially along Glen Lake. Anywhere in that area you have those types of slopes and it's a large deposit of sandy, and it's pretty predominant throughout this whole area, but, yes, it's not a bad grade. It's actually a nice grade in the front but it accommodates the septic, well, and the driveway and the way Luke designed it, that is the actual house that is on this plan that tis proposed to be built. So that it's not like here's a house and we think this is the way it's going to be. You grade it, you do your driveway and your garage and you find out somebody comes in and does, completely, the person that's looking to build there gave us their house plans so we know exactly what house to build. MR. TRAVER-Okay. All right. I guess we're ready for our motion. RESOLUTION APPROVING SP # 10-2017 CLUTE ENTERPRISES The applicant has submitted an application to the Planning Board for Site Plan approval pursuant to Article 9 of the Town zoning Ordinance for: Applicant proposes construction of a 1,725 sq. ft. (footprint) single family home. Project occurs within 50 ft. of 15% slopes. Pursuant to Chapter 179- 6-060 of the Zoning Ordinance, construction within 50ft. of 15% slopes shall be subject to Planning Board review and approval. 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; As required by General Municipal Law Section 239-m the site plan application was referred to the Warren County Planning Department for its recommendation; The Planning Board opened a public hearing on the Site plan application on 2/21/2017 and continued the public hearing to 2/21/2017, when it was closed, The Planning Board has reviewed the application materials submitted by the applicant and all comments made at the public hearing and submitted in writing through and including 2/21/2017; The Planning Board determines that the application complies with the review considerations and standards set forth in Article 9 of the Zoning Ordinance for Site Plan approval, MOTION TO APPROVE SITE PLAN 10-2017 CLUTE ENTERPRISES; Introduced by George Ferone who moved for its adoption; Per the draft provided by staff conditioned upon the following conditions: 1) Waivers requestrg anted: Site lighting, signage, landscaping, traffic, commercial alterations, construction detail, soil logs, construction demolition disposal and snow removal 19 (Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 02/21/2017) 2) Adherence to the items outlined in the follow-up letter sent with this resolution. a) If application was referred to engineering, then engineering sign-off required prior to signature of Zoning Administrator of the approved plans; b) Final approved plans should have dimensions and setbacks noted on the site plan/survey, floor plans and elevation for the existing rooms and proposed rooms in the building and site improvements, c) 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; d) The applicant must meet with Staff after approval and prior to issuance of Building Permit and/or the beginning of any site work; e) Subsequent issuance of further permits, including building permits is dependent on compliance with this and all other conditions of this resolution; f) 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; g) Resolution to be placed on final plans in its entirety and legible. Motion seconded by John Shafer. Duly adopted this 21St day of February, 2017 by the following vote: AYES: Mr. Deeb, Ms. White, Mr. Shafer, Mr. Hunsinger, Mr. Magowan, Mr. Ferone, Mr. Traver NOES: NONE MR. TRAVER-You're all set. MR. STEVES-Thank you. DISCUSSION ITEM: DISC 4-2017 SEAR TYPE UNLISTED ADIRONDACK ANIMAL HOSPITAL AGENT(S) JMZ ARCHITECTS AND PLANNERS, PC OWNER(S) GLENDENNING REALTY, LLC ZONING MDR LOCATION 462 RIDGE ROAD APPLICANT PROPOSES TO MODIFY THE EXISTING 13 SPACE PARKING AREA TO INCREASE THE AREA TO 24 SPACES. PROJECT REQUIRES A BUFFER BETWEEN USES THAT IS PROPOSED TO BE LESS THAN BUFFER SECTION AT THIS TIME. PURSUANT TO CHAPTER 179-9-040 OF THE ZONING ORDINANCE, APPLICANT MAY SUBMIT INFORMATION FOR PLANNING BOARD DISCUSSION. CROSS REFERENCE SP 41-88 WITH UV WARREN CO. REFERRAL N/A LOT SIZE 1.94 ACRES TAX MAP NO. 297.18-1-1 SECTION 179-3-040, 179-9-040 ANDREW PARSONS & LISA GLENDENNING, REPRESENTING APPLICANT, PRESENT MR. TRAVER-All right, and last but not least we have a discussion item on our agenda tonight for Adirondack Animal Hospital. This is Discussion Item 4-2017. MRS. MOORE-This applicant has requested for a discussion item. They're proposing to modify the existing veterinary office. This would include 13 spaces to increase to 24 spaces. The project in the long run will include fagade renovations, but part of this adding new additional parking is a waiver request from the buffering requirements. He's required to be 50 feet between uses and the applicant is proposing 10. MR. TRAVER-Okay. Thank you. Good evening. MR. PARSONS-Good evening. So I hope you had a chance to review the information that we provided. It kind of explains the situation. MR. FERONE-Would you introduce yourself for the record? MR. PARSONS-I'm sorry. My name's Andrew Parsons. I'm an architect for JMZ Architects and Planners. I'm here representing the Glendennings. MS. GLENDENNING-I'm Lisa Glendenning. 20 (Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 02/21/2017) MR. PARSONS-The question that we kind of had with the design had to do with that buffer. Essentially it's an MDR zoned lot, and because it's a commercial property and it's adjacent to a residential property, the Code applies Type C buffer which is 50 feet, and that's a pretty substantial buffer, especially compared to what's there now, where there's about five feet between the edge of the parking and the adjacent lot. So we want to bring it up to the Board before going to site plan review to kind of see where your thoughts were on it and kind of get your suggestions on how we can kind of work with that. We designed a 10 foot buffer to get the adequate amount of parking, and that would be along the Type A buffer that's detailed in the Code there. So we just would like to kind of get your input and try to, you know, help you understand the project. MR. TRAVER-Sure. Well, it is certainly a very interesting location. You're surrounded by residential, and it looks as though what you're thinking of doing is a fence, and then some bushes, some plantings. MR. PARSONS-Yes, and the Type A buffer, as laid out in the Code, has essentially some shrubs and I don't think it shows a hard fence, but we kind of wanted to hear the suggestion of the Board on what they'd like to see if we did have a 10 foot buffer there, does it need to be a solid fence or could it be just plantings, how high, essentially. MR. TRAVER-Okay. I guess I misinterpreted the drawing. I saw, I thought I saw a fence line. Opaque fencing? MR. PARSONS-There is an existing fence there, but it's just a split rail fence. MR. TRAVER-Okay. Gotcha. MR. PARSONS-And that really wouldn't provide much as far as a buffer. I think Dr. Glendenning would prefer to have a split rail fence there, but we realize that that doesn't really separate the lots. Another point to bring up, the land to the north, that this would kind of be butting up against, this is also owned by Dr. Glendenning. It's in a life estate to his daughter. So they own that property, and so it's not, they obviously have no problem with the parking kind of going up against it. The property to the south is not owned by their family and the idea of kind of trying to bring the activity to the north there was part of this plan to try to get people from, or keep people from using the south entrance there because they do park along the driveway there at the south end of the building. MR. TRAVER-Yes, there are cars there almost every day. MR. PARSONS-Yes, and so the idea is to try to kind of put all that car traffic and people traffic to the north where they have more of a buffer from the adjacent property, adjacent house and kind of get it away from the south. The house to the north is 70 feet from the property line in the new property line there, and on the south side it's 12 and a half feet. So it's much tighter on the south side. MR. TRAVER-To your point about the parking and the driveway, I would think that if you can alleviate that by an alternate parking area, that could even impact on traffic safety. I know there are times when I really keep an eye on that when I drive by on Ridge Road. I'm always worried that somebody's going to backup if they try to park at the end on the southern entrance and, you know, are they going to back up or somebody, because of all the cars there, they can't see when they're exiting on the northern side. So there should be some safety impact by this as well. MR. PARSONS-Absolutely. MR. HUNSINGER-Typically what we talk about when we have less of a distance with a buffer with neighbors is, you know, more visual screenings to mitigate the distance, but to me, knowing that they own the lot to the north, to me it's a game changer. I'm a lot less concerned because, you know, usually the concern is not just for the current tenant, and any future owner as well, but like I said, for me, knowing you own all the lot to the north, too, it really changes it. MR. FERONE-Yes, I was going to say the same thing. I was going to say, not knowing that, I know you're trying to maintain aesthetics here with some islands and that, but you almost could kind of shove that parking lot down a little bit closer to the building if you didn't have the larger island there to create a little bit more buffer between your properties. MR. PARSONS-Well, there is a roadway along the building and that is, that leads to kind of a back gravel lot where the employees park now. They'd like to keep that for overflow, and try to just formalize what's there. Even the asphalt there now isn't really striped well and it's kind of, you 21 (Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 02/21/2017) know, been added to over time. So the idea is to really formalize that area and just kind of clean up that driveway along the side of the building there. MR. FERONE-Well, I appreciate what you're trying to achieve because I did go in there. It's very tight to try to get in and turn around and get back out again. MS. WHITE-So would this prevent people from parking in front of the building? MR. PARSONS-Yes. MS. WHITE-Because I just, I mean, I know it's a little bit on the crude side, but when my boys go there, they want to go find a place to pee. You know, I mean, that's where they go, and that's where all the dogs go and it's really hard because that's what, they want to go right in that front area, and that's where people are pulling in and parking. So I'm thinking that you're going to have just a buffer zone between the parking lot and the building so the dogs have that little area. I know it's a little crude, but that's what they do when they get there. MR. PARSONS-Yes, and that's, the intention of keeping those two chunks of parking separate is to have a green space in the middle there for people to take their dogs because they brought up the same issue. MS. WHITE-They can't help it. It's exciting, you know, there's a lot of new dogs and smells and I don't know, I like to do that before I get in, let them sniff and relaxing, and that's where both my dogs go. MR. PARSONS-And I included drawings of the intention for the front of the building, and that will help also. The entrance right now is down at that south end, or the entrance that most people end up using is down at that south end. So that kind of encourages people to try to park along the roadway there. By kind of bringing the vestibule out of the building and extending that overhang area towards that northern parking, people will kind of come along the building on that side. MR. SHAFER-Is there any value to closing that south entrance? MR. PARSONS-That south entrance will be closed, as part of the construction of the building, yes. The vestibule will have an entrance on both sides, but that will really only serve the purpose of accessing like a porch area on the front,just for waiting purposes, giving people options. MR. TRAVER-Well, I think in view of the circumstances it's a good plan. Are there any other comments from members of the Board? MR. DEEB-Will it trigger a variance request? Will the buffer trigger a variance? No? MRS. MOORE-No. MR. HUNSINGER-Well, I was going to say, the only other comment I had about the parking and the buffering, it appears that you have lots of room to the east. So I don't know to what extent you considered maybe even taking out one spot and pushing that out further to the east. MR. PARSONS-There was some concern about wetlands towards the very far east. So we're trying to avoid that, and additionally there's a large brush area, and you can kind of see in the terrain lines, it does start to go downhill pretty steep towards that kind of northeast area there. So we're trying to kind of limit it to where it was most flat, and really it's right in that front corner of the site. MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. MR. MAGOWAN-Now, just a little heads up. Snow removal. With that U-shape, the lot line, having a fenced buffer zone, any thought on snow removal? MR. PARSONS-Yes. Right now Dr. Glendenning pushes the snow right out off of the north edge that, and we've discussed that. He'll be able to kind of plow to the sides and then from that northern end plow to the east into that, where there's a brush area now. That will be kind of cleared out and flattened and that will kind of take all of that area. MR. MAGOWAN-1 don't want you to have to do it with your snow blower. MR. PARSONS-Yes, and he won't want to, either. 22 (Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 02/21/2017) MS. GLENDENNING-1 won't want to. MR. PARSONS-The nice thing about it is the site does drain to the northeast. So piling snow in that area will keep it from kind of draining back into the parking area, and we'll have, for the site plan review, we'll have a stormwater retention plan, a management plan. MR. TRAVER-Sure. MR. SHAFER-Question. Are the number of parking spaces driven by Code or by your need? MR. PARSONS-They are driven by Code. It's a combination of the building square footage and the number of employees, and that's based on what's in the Zoning Code, and actually I think we're a little over because I think 23 spaces is what's required and I think we have 24, and also putting in formal handicap spaces because there really is not one. MR. SHAFER-From experience, do you need that many spaces? MR. TRAVER-Sometimes. MS. GLENDENNING-I've had to park at the property next door. MR. PARSONS-1 think the issue is that the driveway right now ends up taking a lot of, you know, people park along both sides and things. MS. WHITE-It does. It gets a little odd and people are not sure where they're going in and out. MR. PARSONS-Yes, it'll be a big improvement. With that, we'll have updated lighting in the parking area, updated signage on the road. MR. MAGOWAN-No parking, fire zone, fire lane. MR. PARSONS-We could put that in front for sure. MR. TRAVER-All right. Any other questions for the discussion item this evening? Do you have any questions for us? MR. HUNSINGER-Did we give you enough guidance? MR. PARSONS-Yes, as long as you're comfortable with the 10 feet and we can kind of work with that because that was kind of how we were getting that number of spaces in there, and we'll try to at least keep it to a visual buffer. Is that the idea there? At least some dense shrubbery or a fence. MR. TRAVER-1 think in this context, yes. MR. HUNSINGER-A lot of times, I see how you own the property next door, but a lot of times we'll get comments about headlights. MR. PARSONS-And I think we'll actually also put some screening along the Route 9L side, because the cars are pulling in to park facing that way and they'll be facing the street there. So the idea to maybe kind of buffer that corner. MR. TRAVER-Okay. Good. Are there any other items for the Board this evening? I'm not aware of anything. Laura, do you have anything? MRS. MOORE-No. I don't have anything. MR. TRAVER-Then we'll entertain a motion to adjourn. MR. DEEB-So moved. MR. SHAFER-Second. MOTION TO ADJOURN THE QUEENSBURY PLANNING BOARD MEETING OF FEBRUARY 21, 2017, Introduced by David Deeb who moved for its adoption, seconded by John Shafer: 23 (Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 02/21/2017) Duly adopted this 21 st day of February, 2017, by the following vote: AYES: Mr. Shafer, Mr. Deeb, Ms. White, Mr. Hunsinger, Mr. Magowan, Mr. Ferone, Mr. Traver NOES: NONE MR. TRAVER-We are adjourned. RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED, Stephen Traver, Chairman 24