Loading...
12-20-2018 QQueensary ury Hannk)c, Board a2/20l202) QUEENSBURY PLANNING BOARD MEETING SECOND REGULAR MEETING DECEMBER 20,2018 INDEX Site Plan No. 65-2018 Cameron &Jessie Gardner-Lewis 1. Tax Map No. 295.6-1-8 Site Plan No. 78-2018 C. Raymond Davis & Sons, Inc. 5. Tax Map No. 226.19-2-2 Site Plan Mod. No. 74-2018 John R. Buchanan 7. Tax Map No. 289.11-1-38 Site Plan No. 75-2018 South Queensbury Vol. Fire Dept. 9. Tax Map No. 303.16-1-6 ELECTION OF PLANNING BOARD OFFICERS FOR 2019 15. Site Plan No. 76-2018 Stonewood Development of NENY, Inc. 16. Tax Map No. 227.17-2-30 Site Plan No. 77-2018 Stonewood Development of NENY, Inc. 20. Tax Map No. 227.17-2-28 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. Q Q ueena:ary ury Hannk)c, Board a2/20l202) QUEENSBURY PLANNING BOARD MEETING SECOND REGULAR MEETING DECEMBER 20, 2018 7:00 P.M. MEMBERS PRESENT STEPHEN TRAVER, CHAIRMAN DAVID DEEB, SECRETARY MICHAEL VALENTINE JOHN SHAFER JAMIE WHITE MICHAEL DIXON, ALTERNATE MEMBERS ABSENT BRAD MAGOWAN LAND USE PLANNER-LAURA MOORE STENOGRAPHER-MARIA GAGLIARDI MR. TRAVER-Welcome, ladies and gentlemen, to the Town of Queensbury Planning Board meeting for Thursday, December 20t", 2018. This is our second meeting for December and Meeting Number 26 for 2018. We do have one Administrative Item. Because it's the last meeting in December it is our Planning Board Annual Meeting& Elections, and I think that if the members of the Board are okay we will postpone that until we've concluded the regular agenda for the public. Does anybody have any issues with that? All right. Then we can move on to our regular agenda. The first section being Old Business, and the first application being Cameron &Jessie Gardner Lewis, Site Plan 65-2018. OLD BUSINESS: SITE PLAN NO. 65-2018 SEQR TYPE: TYPE 11. CAMERON & JESSIE GARDNER-LEWIS. AGENT(S): JARRETT ENGINEERS, PLLC. OWNER(S): JOSEPH WOODWARD. ZONING: RR- SA. LOCATION: 11 OLD WEST MOUNTAIN ROAD. APPLICANT PROPOSES CONSTRUCTION OF A 1,392 SQ. FT. HOME WITH ASSOCIATED SITE WORK, INSTALLATION OF SEPTIC AND WELL ON A PARCEL WITH STEEP SLOPES. HOME IS TO BE ONE AND ONE-HALF STORY WITH A LOFT AND UNFINISHED BASEMENT. PROJECT OCCURS WITHIN 50 FT. OF 15% SLOPES AND IS TO HAVE A DRIVEWAY GREATER THAN 10%. PURSUANT TO CHAPTER 179- 6-060 OF THE ZONING ORDINANCE, CONSTRUCTION WITHIN 50 FT. OF 15% SLOPES AND OVER 10% DRIVEWAY SHALL BE SUBJECT TO PLANNING BOARD REVIEW AND APPROVAL. CROSS REFERENCE: SP 62-2012 SF HOME; AV 68-2018. WARREN CO. REFERRAL: DECEMBER 2018. SITE INFORMATION: SLOPES. LOT SIZE: 5.87 ACRES. TAX MAP NO. 295.64-8. SECTION: 179-6-060. TOM JARRETT, REPRESENTING APPLICANT, PRESENT MR. TRAVER-Laura? MRS. MOORE-So Cameron Lewis, we understood last time that they were proposing a 1,392 square foot with associated site work, installation of a septic and well on a parcel with steep slopes. They attended the Zoning Board last night and they did receive their variances for the front setback and the side setback. MR. TRAVER-Okay. Thank you. Welcome back. MR. JARRETT-Good evening. Feels like we haven't left. Tom Jarrett with Jarrett Engineers. The same team as the other night, Jessie, Cameron & Mike. We were successful at the Zoning Board so we're back for Site Plan Review. If there are any issues that we need to open up right now or any questions. MR. TRAVER-Well, usually what I begin with is as a result of your review and you did get your variances, but were there any changes to the application other than what we reviewed on Tuesday night? MR. JARRETT-No. There were no conditions stipulated by the Zoning Board. 2 Q ueensary ury Hannk)c, Board a2/20l202) MR. TRAVER-Okay. All right. Well I'll open it up to members of the Planning Board then for any follow up questions to this application. No? Okay. All right. Well we do have a public hearing on this application as well. Is there anyone in the audience that wanted to address the Planning Board on this application? Yes, sir. We do have one taker. If you would let the gentleman have the table. Excuse me, sir. If you don't mind, we do record the audio for minutes for the record. So if you would come up and state your name for the record. PUBLIC HEARING OPENED ROB VOUDRY MR. VOUDRY-Rob Voudry. I live at 10 Old West Mountain Road. MR. TRAVER-Okay. Welcome. MR. VOUDRY-1 was wondering, is the driveway going to be where it is now? MR. TRAVER-Well. MR. JARRETT-I can address that while he's at the mic if you want. MR. TRAVER-Yes, I guess that's all right. MS. WHITE-Is that your only question or comment? MR. TRAVER-Yes, why don't you finish your comment then we'll let the applicant address your question. MR. VOUDRY-We've had some issues already in the past with previous owners that started excavating, how long ago? AUDIENCE MEMBER-A few years ago MR. TRAVER-Can you be specific as to what the issue is? MR. VOUDRY-Yes. They would not put a Swale in the bottom of the driveway. So every time there was heavy rains all the debris would wash down across the road and come down my driveway and plug up my drainage. MR. TRAVER-Okay. MR. VOUDRY-1 did come to the Town here a few years ago with the problem. They actually followed me home that day and put the nix on everything. AUDIENCE MEMBER-It runs out in the road, too. MR. VOUDRY-There's rocks and debris. MR. TRAVER-Okay. So you're concerned about stormwater runoff and so on? MR. VOUDRY-Yes. I have no issues with the building, whatever they want up there. My issue is the storm runoff. MR. TRAVER-Anything else? MR. VOUDRY-No, that's it. MR. TRAVER-Okay. Well thank you. We'll address that with the applicant and we'll see if we can get your answers. MR. VOUDRY-Okay. Thanks. MR. TRAVER-Is there anyone else that wanted to address the Planning Board on this application? Laura, are there any written comments? 3 Q ueensary ury Hannk)c, Board a2/20l202) MRS. MOORE-There are no written comments. MR. TRAVER-Okay. Then with that we'll close the public hearing and if the applicant can return to the table. PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED MR. TRAVER-I know there was development previously. You've heard the concern about stormwater. Obviously that's a concern. MR. JARRETT-Yes. Right. It was disturbed earlier and they started work on it. I don't know who did that. It was prior to even the previous applicant that I represented. MR. TRAVER-Right. MR.JARRETT-To answer this gentleman's question. The new driveway's proposed in the same location as the existing driveway. The old driveway, after construction, will be closed off up above. The new drive will enter the house site where the permanent driveway is located. Now to address stormwater, we have rain gardens on either side of the driveway in several locations around the driveway. So the only real concern would be right down near Old West Mountain Road, and that we will pay attention to and make sure that there's nothing that's diverted across the road which would be dangerous for through traffic as well as his driveway. MR. TRAVER-Right. MR. JARRETT-But we have stormwater management all along the driveway. MR. TRAVER-Right. I understood that from the plans, but it's apparently a concern. MR. JARRETT-I'm glad to hear that they brought that up and that we'll pay attention to that. MR. TRAVER-Yes. Okay. All right. And obviously you need signoff from the Town Engineer I any case for stormwater. MR. JARRETT-Well, actually we had it previously and I talked to Laura. MRS. MOORE-So we did not send this package back to engineering because it had the original signoff from engineering, and Tom actually put additional stormwater infiltration features to it in addition to. MR. JARRETT-We upgraded it a little bit. MR. TRAVER-Yes. Good. Okay. All right. Other questions, comments from members of the Planning Board on this application? MS. WHITE-My only comment is just that I appreciate that the size of the house is appropriate to the lot. I don't know how else to say it, just that I appreciate that. MR. JARRETT-That's clear. Thank you. MR. DIXON-1 have a question on the driveway real quick, since it was brought up. So will the driveway be pitched to either side so the water runs into the? MR. JARRETT-Yes. The grading is shown to do that. If you get into it, the grading is shown to shed that water into these rain gardens. Any time you have a slope on a driveway it's difficult, but we softened the slope as much as possible and then pitched it to these rain gardens. MR. TRAVER-That shows it even better. MR. JARRETT-Yes, the rain gardens are here and here and here. MR. TRAVER-And with the closure of the old driveway layout, I mean the total volume should be much less, too. MR. JARRETT-Yes, much less, and there's a note on the Site Plan that we're not only closing this off, but the water bar is here to make sure the water does not come down that old driveway route down to Old West Mountain Road. QQueena:ary ury Hannk)c, Board a2/20l202) MR. TRAVER-That would be a potential hazard to the new driveway. Very good. Any other questions from Planning Board members? This is a Type II SEAR. So we don't have to take any action under SEAR. MR. SHAFER-The calculation for the wastewater system was on three bedrooms? MR. JARRETT-Yes. MR. SHAFER-I count two bedrooms and a loft. It sounds like you included the loft? MR. JARRETT-Yes. We usually do. If it can be used as a bedroom, we count it as a bedroom. MR. SHAFER-Perfect. MR. TRAVER-Any other questions or discussion? I guess we're ready to move to a motion. RESOLUTION APPROVING SP # 65-2018 CAMERON &JESSIE GARDNER-LEWIS The applicant has submitted an application to the Planning Board. Applicant proposes construction of a 1,342 sq. ft. home with associated site work, installation of septic and well on a parcel with steep slopes. Home is to be one and one-half story with a loft and unfinished basement. Project occurs within 50 ft. of 15% slopes and is to have a driveway greater than 10%. Pursuant to Chapter 179-6-060 of the Zoning Ordinance, construction within 50 ft. of 15% slopes and over 10% driveway 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 12/202018 and continued the public hearing to 12/20/2018, 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 12/20/2018; 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 65-2018 CAMERON & JESSIE GARDNER-LEWIS. Introduced by David Deeb who moved for its adoption. According to the draft resolution prepared by Staff with the following: 1) Waivers requested granted; 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: QQueena:ary ury Hannk)c, Board a2/20l202) 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. Motion seconded by Jamie White. Duly adopted this 20t" day of December, 2018 by the following vote: AYES: Mr. Deeb, Ms. White, Mr. Shafer, Mr. Dixon, Mr. Valentine, Mr. Traver NOES: NONE ABSENT: Mr. Magowan MR. JARRETT-Thank you very much. MR. TRAVER-All right. Moving along. The next application under Old Business is C. Raymond Davis & Sons, Inc. Site Plan 78-2018. SITE PLAN NO.78-2018 SEQR TYPE: TYPE 11. C. RAYMOND DAVIS&SONS, INC. AGENT(S): TOM HUTCHINS, HUTCHINS ENGINEERING. OWNER(S): ROBERT & LORRAINE CARBOGNIN. ZONING: WR. LOCATION: 197 ASSEMBLY POINT ROAD. APPLICANT PROPOSES 176 SQ. FT. OF NEW FLOOR AREA INVOLVING NEW ROOFLINES OF HOME, AND DORMER FEATURE ON SECOND FLOOR. PURSUANT TO CHAPTER 179-3-040 &17943-010 OF THE ZONING ORDINANCE, EXPANSION OF A NON-CONFORMING STRUCTURE IN A CEA SHALL BE SUBJECT TO PLANNING BOARD REVIEW AND APPROVAL. CROSS REFERENCE: 2008-614 DECKS; 2009-346 DOCK REPAIR; AV 76-2018. WARREN CO. REFERRAL: DECEMBER 2018. LOT SIZE: .52 ACRE. TAX MAP NO. 226.19-2-2. SECTION: 179-3-040. 17943-010. JOHN ISAACS, REPRESENTING APPLICANT, PRESENT MR. TRAVER-Laura? MRS. MOORE-Okay. This applicant proposes 176 square feet of new floor area, new rooflines and the dormer feature that's being proposed on the second floor is shown on the architectural drawings, and the other evening with the Zoning Board of Appeals they did grant the side setback variance. MR. TRAVER-Okay. Thank you. Welcome back. MR. ISAACS-Thank you. Thanks for having me. My name's John Isaacs. I'm with C. Raymond Davis. We're the remodelers for the Carbognins on 197 Assembly Point Road. We did get approval from the Zoning Board last night and we're back, and they had no changes or additions. MR. TRAVER-No changes to your plan as we reviewed Tuesday. MR. ISAACS-That's correct. MR. TRAVER-Okay. Questions from members of the Planning Board? I do recall this was fairly straightforward. A little bit of an unusual case. We're just extending the roofline, but. MS. WHITE-It seems necessary. MR. TRAVER-Yes, I mean evidently from the damage to the site. 6 QQueena:ary ury Hannk)c, Board a2/20l202) MR. SHAFER-I wasn't here Tuesday night. What does possible septic field mean on the drawing, the site plan? MR. ISAACS-It is the septic field. It's where the pipe goes. MR. SHAFER-So it is an existing field? MR. ISAACS-It is existing. MR. SHAFER-Okay. MR. TRAVER-We do have a public hearing on this application. Is there anyone in the audience that wanted to address the Planning Board on this application this evening? I'm not seeing anyone. Laura, are there any written comments? PUBLIC HEARING OPENED MRS. MOORE-There's no written comments. MR. TRAVER-Okay. Then we'll close the public hearing. PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED MR. TRAVER-This, too, is a Type II SEAR under SEAR. So no SEAR motion is required. If there are no other questions or comments, we'll move to a resolution. RESOLUTION APPROVING SP # 78-2018 C. RAYMOND DAVIS & SONS, INC. 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 176 sq. ft. of new floor area involving new rooflines of home, and dormer feature on second floor. Pursuant to Chapter 179-3-040 & 179- 13-010 of the Zoning Ordinance, expansion of a non-conforming structure in a CEA 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 12/20/2018 and continued the public hearing to 12/20/2018, 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 12/20/2018; 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 78-2018 C. RAYMOND DAVIS & SONS, INC., Introduced by David Deeb who moved for its adoption; Per the draft provided by staff conditioned upon the following conditions: 1) Waivers request granted: 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 .7 Q ueena:ary ury Hannk)c, Board a2/20l202) 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 20th day of December, 2018 by the following vote: AYES: Ms. White, Mr. Shafer, Mr. Dixon, Mr. Valentine, Mr. Deeb, Mr. Traver NOES: NONE ABSENT: Mr. Magowan MR. TRAVER-You're all set. MR. ISAACS-Thank you. MR. TRAVER-Next application under Old Business is John R. Buchanan, Site Plan Modification 74- 2018. SITE PLAN MODIFICATION 74-2018 SEQR TYPE: TYPE 11. JOHN R. BUCHANAN. AGENT(S): JARRETT ENGINEERS, PLLC. OWNER(S): JOHN R. BUCHANAN TRUST. ZONING: WR. LOCATION: 66 REARDON ROAD. APPLICANT PROPOSES REVISION TO REMOVE AN EXISTING OPEN DECK TO CONSTRUCT AN ENCLOSED PORCH OF 92.5 SQ. FT. PORTION OF WALL SECTIONS ADJOINING THE DECK ARE ALSO TO BE REMOVED AND RECONSTRUCTED ABOUT EIGHT FEET. PROJECT INCLUDES CONSTRUCTION OF A WHEELCHAIR RAMP FROM THE HOME TO THE BOAT HOUSE OF 34 FT. 2 IN. IN LENGTH. PURSUANT TO CHAPTER 179-3-040 & 179-6-050 OF THE ZONING ORDINANCE, HARD SURFACING AND CONSTRUCTION WITHIN 50 FT. OF SHORELINE SHALL BE SUBJECT TO PLANNING BOARD REVIEW AND APPROVAL. CROSS REFERENCE: 911674983 ALTERATIONS; AV 61-2018; SP 58-2018; AV 75-2018; WARREN CO. REFERRAL N/A SITE INFORMATION CEA LOT SIZE: .75 ACRE. TAX MAP NO. 289.114-38. SECTION: 179-3-040, 179-6-050 BILL DEAN & TOM JARRETT, REPRESENTING APPLICANT, PRESENT MR. TRAVER-Welcome back. MR. DEAN-Glad to be here I guess. MR. TRAVER-So with all of our discussion on Tuesday about your Site Plan Modification, how did you make out at the ZBA? MR. DEAN-They actually asked why we were there. They told us to leave. We left. MR. TRAVER-Okay. So there were no changes to your application as we reviewed it on Tuesday? MR. DEAN-No. MR. TRAVER-Any follow up questions from members of the Planning Board? MR. SHAFER-Sounds like you discussed this pretty thoroughly. MR. TRAVER-Yes, I mean what there was to discuss. Here he comes. There is a public hearing on this application. Is there anyone, ma'am, did you want to discuss this application with the Planning Board? AUDIENCE MEMBER-1 was here because of the firehouse. MR. TRAVER-Gotcha. Okay. Are there any written comments, Laura? PUBLIC HEARING OPENED MRS. MOORE-There's one written comment, and this is addressed to Mr. Deeb. "We are owners of the parcel at 70 Reardon Rd., the immediate adjacent west side neighbor to John R. Buchanan. We 8 QQueena:ary ury Hannk)c, Board a2/20l202) urge approval of Mr. Buchanan's project. We are personally aware Mr. Buchanan faces a great hardship due to personal physical limitations as well as disabled parents. His proposed project is important to alleviate disabilities arising from his situation. Respectfully submitted, Michael Seidel Elizabeth S. Giblin" MR. TRAVER-Okay. Thank you. Then we'll close the public hearing. PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED MR. TRAVER-This, too, is a SEQR Type II. So no action is required on that by this Board. We're ready for a motion, I believe. RESOLUTION APPROVING SP MOD. # 74-2018 JOHN R. BUCHANAN 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 revision to remove an existing open deck to construct an enclosed porch of 92.5 sq. ft. Wall sections adjoining the deck are also to be removed and reconstructed about eight feet. Project includes construction of a wheelchair ramp from the home to the boat house of 34 ft. 2 in. in length. Pursuant to Chapter 179-3-040 & 179-6-050 of the Zoning Ordinance, hard surfacing and construction within 50 ft. of shoreline 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 12/20/2018 and continued the public hearing to 12/20/2018, 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 12/20/2018; 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 MODIFICATION 74-2018 JOHN R. BUCHANAN, Introduced by David Deeb who moved for its adoption; Per the draft provided by staff conditioned upon the following conditions: 1) Waivers request granted: 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 Michael Valentine. Duly adopted this 20th day of December,2018 by the following vote: AYES: Mr. Dixon, Mr. Valentine, Mr. Deeb, Ms. White, Mr. Shafer, Mr. Traver NOES: NONE ABSENT: Mr. Magowan QQueena:ary ur Hannk)c, Board a2/20l202) MR. TRAVER-You're all set. MR. JARRETT-Great. Thanks so much. MR. DEEB-Have a great holiday, folks. MR. JARRETT-Same to you. MR. TRAVER-So that concludes Old Business. Next under New Business we have South Queensbury Vol. Fire Dept. Site Plan 75-2018. NEW BUSINESS: SITE PLAN NO. 75-2018 SEQR TYPE: UNLISTED. SOUTH QUEENSBURY VOL. FIRE DEPT. AGENT(S): SCHODER RIVERS ASSOCIATES. OWNER(S) SAME AS APPLICANT. ZONING: CM. LOCATION: 409 DIX AVENUE. APPLICANT PROPOSES REMOVAL OF A 5400 +/- SQ. FT. PORTION OF THE EXISTING 11,920 SQ. FT. FIRE HOUSE TO CONSTRUCT A NEW ADDITION OF 10,000 +/- SQ. FT. FOR NEW DRIVE THRU BAYS. THE BUILDING INTERIOR WILL BE AMENDED WITH THE NEW ADDITION FOR MEETING SPACE, STORAGE, AND OFFICES. PROJECT INCLUDES RE-LOCATION OF PAVILION, NEW GREEN AREAS AND REMOVAL OF PAVEMENT. PURSUANT TO CHAPTER 179-3-040 OF THE ZONING ORDINANCE, NEW COMMERCIAL CONSTRUCTION SHALL BE SUBJECT TO PLANNING BOARD REVIEW AND APPROVAL. CROSS REFERENCE: 9171744894 COMM. ALT.; 2007-513 SIGN; WARREN CO. REFERRAL: DECEMBER 2018. LOT SIZE: 8.15 ACRES. TAX MAP NO. 303.164-6. SECTION: 179-3-040. SHAUN RIVERS & MATT HUNTINGTON, REPRESENTING APPLICANT, PRESENT MRS. MOORE-This applicant proposes removal of a portion of the existing firehouse, approximately 5,400 square feet to construct a new addition approximately 10,000 square feet for a new drive thru bay. The building interior will be amended with a new addition for meeting space, storage, and offices. Project includes re-location of the pavilion, new green areas and removal of pavement towards the front of the existing building. MR. TRAVER-Okay. Thank you. Is there someone here representing the applicant? MR. RIVERS-So I'm Shaun Rivers from Schoder Rivers Associates. MR. TRAVER-Welcome. MR. RIVERS-We are the civil site structural engineer on this project, sort of heading it up. I have Matt Huntington from our office with us. He's our stormwater/septic expert. MR. TRAVER-Okay. RON DU FOUR MR. DU FOUR-Ron DuFour from South Queensbury Fire. MR. RIVERS-And I'm sure you've probably heard this project's been somewhat kicked around for a number of years. That's the present facility off of Dix Ave. and almost into Hudson Falls, and basically they need, the fire department needs more space. The existing facility, as you can see there's only two bays there with proper height doors for today's fire truck equipment and basically those are single loaded bays. So you can't pass through, which is the desired way of operation for fire companies these days. So basically they have to back into the two larger bays. The old, old bay on the right hand side which is the original, this is the original 1950's construction from like here over, which is a little hard to see, and then to the left is 1992. So the last construction on the job was 1992, and the 1950's portion of the building is in really poor shape and the doors are way too low. There's not enough height. It's really almost unusable. Basically it's being used now for storage. Plus that particular building creates some significant challenges. It's buried right against the property line, and you can see the pavement on the far side is actually over the property line that's being used by the fire company. So we're trying to correct that problem with this project in addition to giving them a modern apparatus bay with the proper height doors. So the 1950's portion which I showed there from that line over, that would be removed, and then we would renovate the 1992 space to other functions, and then add on heading north to the back with the new apparatus bay. So it shows in the K) QQueensary ury Hannk)c, Board a2/20l202) picture, Laura. So that's the view from, if you were driving towards Hudson Falls, look to your left, okay, that's what you would see, okay. One is kind of focusing in on the new apparatus bay which is the white colored portion. There's a small addition between the apparatus bay and the 1992 that's the same height with a little bit of brick. There's about 25 there. That has other functions. There's office space in there, other stuff like that. The architect on this job couldn't be here but he envisioned a nice, open structure so that, basically I guess to show off your equipment, okay. That's the way most of the fire departments, the modern buildings, you know, if you see the modern fire, it's like, hey, Town, look at what you paid for, you know what I'm saying. So that's the focus of what we have here. Whether the new ends up looking 100% like that is still under discussion. Visually. The size probably won't change. I mean, we're kind of committed to the size, the fire department's needs. They need three bays, and they have to have the drive thru bays. So really we're sort of, that, the three apparatus bays is sort of a minimum requirement for this project. If we don't do that, it doesn't make a lot of sense. So I just wanted to point that out. MR. TRAVER-Well I must tell you, in looking at your application, one of the issues on our side that we are faced with is the number of engineering issues that remain outstanding. There's some issues involving stormwater and the highway and various issues like that. Because of the number of them, to streamline the process a little bit, what I'm going to recommend to you and to other members of the Board is that we send you to work with the Town Engineer and work on all of these 21 issues. I don't think there actually are 21 that need to be resolved, but there are a significant number. MR. RIVERS-Yes. I guess I would let Matt talk about that. That's been ongoing the last several days. MR. TRAVER-Okay. MR. HUNTINGTON-So we actually just responded to all those today and I've spoken to Chazen on the telephone and we're in pretty general conformance on the responses. A lot of those 21, they're all addressable without resulting in any design changes on there. Most of them were just small tweaks. There were some stormwater calculations, sub catchments, etc. Regarding the DOT work permit, that's underway. I've been trying to coordinate with Mark Sanders because I think we're going to need one for the driveway entrances regardless. So that's in the process DOT wise, but again, all the other comments on there we've pretty well hashed out. As I said, we just responded today. So if there is a second round of them they certainly should be whittled down to something pretty minimal at this point. MR. TRAVER-Okay. Well that's very helpful to us because one of the parts of the process on our side that we need to go through is that we need to do the State Environmental Quality Review, and we really cannot do that with the, at least in my opinion, and I'll open it up for discussion in a minute, but with the information that we have before us. Now if you say you're clearing this up, that's great. That's part of the process and we do that with all of the applicants, but what I would suggest is that you fully resolve those issues, maybe some of your design elements that are not 100% yet, and then come back when you have all of that off the table, so that we can just look at the Site Plan and not be concerned about the environmental impacts, because stormwater and those types of issues are a significant part of our responsibility under State law. MR. HUNTINGTON-1 understand. As I said, none of this really resulted in a design change. MR. TRAVER-Yes. I mean it's not anticipated there would be anything that could not be resolved, but for us to look at the Environmental Quality Review, we have to have the environmental impact information as it is proposed, and right now some of that information is not included. So it really makes it, in my opinion anyway, and I'll open it up to other members of the Planning Board, it makes it such that would likely not be able to proceed with the SEAR which is really the next, kind of the next step. I mean the design elements are certainly important, but that's really up to you, as long as it's not something that's totally out of line. It doesn't sound like it would be. MR. HUNTINGTON-No, I mean the tweaks I'm talking about, like I say, the generals, would be more in potentially the look of the materials on the apparatus bay. MR. TRAVER-Right. MR. HUNTINGTON-1 would just point out that this project is an environmentally, stormwater, however you want to look at it, traffic, is a significant improvement over what is occurring there today. You drive by you see nothing but blacktop from the left side of the lot all the way to the right side of the lot. MR. TRAVER-Right. That's right. aQ Q ueensary ury Hannk)c, Board a2/20l202) MR. HUNTINGTON-So you'll see green now. You'll see landscaping there, and there'll be two distinct entrances whereas right now you basically have sort of a 100 foot long piece of pavement, actually more, they do come in and out of. MR. TRAVER-Right. MR. HUNTINGTON-All the stormwater going out to Dix Avenue is greatly diminished, and from a stormwater perspective now there's essentially no stormwater controls on the site whatsoever and that's the one thing, you know, it's pretty well blacktopped from east to west. MR. TRAVER-Yes. I go by that or through that intersection fairly regularly and I've, you know, when it rains, it pours. So we're very happy to see that. Any questions, comments from members of the Planning Board? MR. DEEB-Well I'd like to make sure of the site plan design. You said you're not quite sure what it's going to be. I'd like to see what it would be. MR. RIVERS-The Site Plan won't change. The only thing that potentially would be maybe we'd change some of the materials here due to cost. Maybe less glass. The footprint will not change. MR. DEEB-It should be on the Site Plan what it is. MR. RIVERS-No, it is on there now. MR. HUNTINGTON-Yes, the footprint's going to remain the same which is what we show on the Site Plan. MR. TRAVER-What we refer to as the elevation, in other words, what is the public going to see? MR. RIVERS-The elevation won't change. The only thing that could potentially change would be maybe the look of these materials. MR. TRAVER-Well, and again, this is I guess our terminology, but that's what we refer to as the elevation. In other words, what is it actually going to look like? MR. RIVERS-1 don't think it's going to, but. MR. TRAVER-Right, understood. MR. DEEB-But when you're sure you make sure you have it down. MR. RIVERS-And I don't know, how does something like that work, Laura? Due to cost constraints. MRS. MOORE-If there's a cost constraint, if there's change in materials, you would bring that information to the Zoning Administrator and if it's considered a significant change, it comes back before this Board, but if it's not considered a significant change, say it's, I don't know what say that top portion where this glass is, if that needs to be bricked in because that would be less expensive, I don't anticipate that being a significant change, but you would bring that to the attention of the Code Compliance Officer and the Zoning Administrator, then they would make a determination whether it comes back before the Board, but if it's simply just bricking the top instead of glass, that's not considered substantial. MR. TRAVER-Yes, and the other aspect of it is that all of the information you submit it available to the public Town wide. So know that people are anxious to see this improvement and they're excited about the project and they're going to go on line, they're going to look at this and they're going to say, oh boy that's great, you know, and then if it comes out to be different, which may not be significantly different in your mind but to some people it might be significantly different, they're going to wonder, well how did that happen or what's up with that. This is what we were told it would look like. So it just would be, and you have an opportunity of some duration while these environmental issues are worked out to just have that discussion and feel comfortable with what it is that you're doing. MRS. MOORE-You could also include information in the packet saying these components of this particular area may be changed to a different material. So you could give two option materials, brick versus glass. So then the Board's aware of it and our office is aware of it. Q2 QQueensary ury Hannk)c, Board a2/20l202) MR. TRAVER-Yes, that would be fine. MRS. MOORE-So our next meeting is scheduled in January. Typically we accepted information to be on the January meeting as of Monday. So it's past. So our next meeting would be in February, but potentially you could wrap up your engineering comments, get that signoff completed, and then that comes before the Board, so there's no additional questions on either end, or the Board. So I could potentially be the first meeting in February. MR. RIVERS-Which is the second meeting, well, no, it would be this same week, right? MRS. MOORE-Yes. MR. RIVERS-A Tuesday instead of a Thursday. MRS. MOORE-So 2019, February meeting dates is 2/19. MR. TRAVER-February 19t", Laura? MRS. MOORE-Right. MR. RIVERS-Okay. MRS. MOORE-1 mean I guess the information just for my purposes with the engineering comments, did you actually drop off two copies to our office today also? MR. HUNTINGTON-No. We have them. So they'll be here. MRS. MOORE-So that's part of the process. MR. TRAVER-So that would really, you know, if you can accomplish those two things, when you come back here in February then that should mean that the State Environmental Quality Review should be taken care of because we'll have all the engineering, we'll have the engineering signoffs. We'll know that there's no stormwater issues. That takes care of that essentially. We have to vote on it, but if there are no significant environmental issues, and then Site Plan you have that taken care of. You mentioned that the footprint and so on is not going to change. I think it's generally. MR. RIVERS-Well, if the footprint changes that means there's been significant changes. Then the timeline I'm talking about I realize would be significantly screwed up. Because our goal is to go out to bid end of August. So that's why hitting these dates are important on our end, you know, concurrent with this there is a Town Board process that we're going through. So I think that that should work as long as we have all our ducks in a row,all the questions have been answered to Chazen's satisfaction. MR. TRAVER-Yes. I mean it sounds like you're close to getting a signoff. That's a major piece of a project of this type. MR. VALENTINE-Will you have a template of turning movements on site for the large vehicles? MR. RIVERS-We can include that. MR. RIVERS-The only thing that has been done, it has been designed according to the fire truck pulling in and out. MR. VALENTINE-I'm just, in my mind I'm looking at real quickly, the entrance in, it looks very narrow to be turning in there and then turning into the bays and coming back out, particularly if you have cars parked in there. That's just me looking at it. MR. HUNTINGTON-Yes. It's a 24 foot driveway entrance with the current standard DOT entrance 33 foot radius pulling in. MR. TRAVER-That's the handy thing about having the drawings on there, because it can be very subjective if you're just looking at it. When you actually have the lines on there it's cut and dried. MR. RIVERS-One of these days we'll figure out the 2-D graphical, technical. a3 Q ueensary ury Hannk)c, Board a2/20l202) MR. TRAVER-Yes. We also have a public hearing. Before we go to that, are there other comments or questions that members of the Board have for the applicant? No? Okay. Then we'll go ahead and open the public hearing on this application. Ma'am, you had indicated before you wanted? PUBLIC HEARING OPENED AUDIENCE MEMBER-No, I'm good. I just had a different question not pertaining to this that I'll ask them after. That's all. MR. TRAVER-Okay. The public hearing will remain open and there'll be an opportunity to address the Planning Board in February when they come back as well. So then we'll close the public hearing for this evening but we'll leave it open. I guess I can't do both. MRS. MOORE-Right. MR. TRAVER-So I'm not going to close it. We'll leave it open AUDIENCE MEMBER-Thank you. MR. TRAVER-And then we will have a. MRS. MOORE-And just a note that any new additional information should be submitted by the January 15" date. MR. TRAVER-Okay. So for the tabling we're looking for the engineering signoff. We're looking at the elevation drawings finalized. MRS. MOORE-In your motion, I do have a note on the schedule that we could have a third meeting in February, which would have been February 12t". Could you include the February 12" date as well in case we do have a third meeting? It would be sooner in their case. MR. TRAVER-Okay. Sure. Is that one of our draft dates? MRS. MOORE-That's one of our third meeting dates. MR. TRAVER-Well why don't we just table it to that, then, because if we have to cancel. MRS. MOORE-We do have that scheduled. Yes. MR. VALENTINE-Well that right there makes sure that we have three meetings then. MR. TRAVER-Well except that we could always cancel the last one. Right? If we get close to February. MRS. MOORE-Right. However the Board wishes to proceed, we do have three meetings scheduled in February. One of them happens to be February 12t". If you want to schedule it to then, that's fine. MR. TRAVER-Would that be your preference, Laura? MRS. MOORE-It just gives them an opportunity to be heard sooner. MR. TRAVER-Yes, absolutely. Understood. MS. WHITE-That's fine. MR. RIVERS-So you're saying the 2/12 meeting? The sooner the better. MR. TRAVER-Yes. MR. RIVERS-Appreciate it. MR. TRAVER-Okay. So then that, so we have the engineering signoff, final elevation drawings and then. MR. DEEB-We can just table it and they'll come back with that. We don't need to put that in the motion, do we? H QQueena:ary ury Hannk)c, Board a2/20l202) MRS. MOORE-You're giving guidance. I understand this applicant is aware of the information, but to be consistent with how we treat other applicants. MR. TRAVER-Yes. So we're looking for turning movements depicted on the Site Plan. I think that was it. Right? Was there anything else? MR. TRAVER-And elevation drawings. MR. RIVERS-If they change. MS. WHITE-Like Laura said give us the possibilities, the two. MR. RIVERS-I'll know by then. MS. WHITE-You'll know by then. MR. TRAVER-And if you reach out to Laura she can give you guidance on that. Okay. Then I guess we're ready for that motion. RESOLUTION TABLING SP # 75-2018 SOUTH QUEENSBURY VOL. FIRE DEPT. The applicant has submitted an application to the Planning Board. Applicant proposes removal of a 5,400 +/- sq. t. portion of the existing 11,920 sq. ft. fire house to construct a new addition of 10,000 +/- sq. ft. for new drive thru bays. The building interior will be amended with the new addition for meeting space, storage and offices. Project includes relocation of pavilion, new green areas and removal of pavement. Pursuant to Chapter 179-3-040 of the Zoning Ordinance, new commercial construction shall be subject to Planning Board review and approval. MOTION TO TABLE SITE PLAN NO. 75-2018 SOUTH QUEENSBURY VOL. FIRE DEPT., Introduced by David Deeb who moved for its adoption, seconded by Jamie White: Tabled to the February 12, 2019 Planning Board meeting, with new information to be submitted by January 15, 2019, which is to include: 1. Turning movements for the trucks. 2. Engineering comments to be satisfied. 3. Elevation drawings to be submitted. Duly adopted this 20t" day of December, 2018, by the following vote: AYES: Mr. Valentine, Mr. Deeb, Ms. White, Mr. Shafer, Mr. Dixon, Mr. Traver NOES: NONE ABSENT: Mr. Magowan MR. TRAVER-All right. Good luck. We'll see you in February. MR. RIVERS-Thank you. MR. DEEB-Are we missing somebody, Laura? MRS. MOORE-Dennis should be in soon. MR. TRAVER-We had Stonewood Development. MR. DEEB-Anybody out there? MRS. MOORE-Let me see if Dennis is out there. MS. WHITE-How long do we wait? MR. SHAFER-Steve, can we do the Administrative stuff in the meantime? MR. TRAVER-Well, if they're here, I'm sure they'll come right in. Are they here, Laura? Q" Q ueena:ary ury Hannk)c, Board a2/20l202) MRS. MOORE-No, Dennis isn't here. I'll have to text him. MR. TRAVER-All right. While we wait for that, we do have the annual meeting to take care of, and I think I handed out to everyone the section from the, there's a section in our By-laws that were updated in I think July of last year after some discussion by members of the Board, and it basically just changed a little bit of the detail, expanded upon the detail in terms of the elections. The first steps in the process were taken care of last month, and I reported to the Board that all three of the current officers,the Secretary,the Vice Chair,and the Chair, have indicated they would like to be re-nominated for the coming year. So under our new Bylaws those three individuals are put in nomination by the Secretary, and then at this meeting as Chair I am asking if there are any nominations for any office from the floor I guess. MR. VALENTINE-None here. MR. TRAVER-If there are none, and I guess we have a quorum, let me see, make sure I'm doing it right, it's been a while since I wrote it, when all nominations have been made the Chairperson will close the nominations and move that the voting take place. All right. So I'm going to make a motion. RESOLUTION TO CLOSE NOMINATION OF OFFICERS MOTION TO CLOSE THE NOMINATIONS AND THAT THE BOARD VOTE ON THE SLATE OF OFFICERS, Introduced by Stephen Traver who moved for its adoption, seconded by John Shafer: Duly adopted this 20t" day of December, 2018, by the following vote: AYES: Mr. Shafer, Mr. Dixon, Mr. Valentine, Mr. Deeb, Ms. White, Mr. Traver NOES: NONE ABSENT: Mr. Magowan MR. VALENTINE-Congratulations, guys. MR. TRAVER-We voted to close the nominations. We didn't vote on the slate of officers, I think. MR. DEEB-I thought you said we voted on the slate of officers. Didn't he say that? MR. SHAFER-No, no, no. It was to close the nominations. MR. TRAVER-Close the nominations. All right. So now we need, Mr. Secretary, if you don't mind, if you could make this motion to vote on the slate of officers. MS. WHITE-As I read this, you close it and then we vote. MR. TRAVER-Yes. I did close it so now we're going to vote. MS. WHITE-Okay. RESOLUTION APPROVING SLATE OF OFFICERS FOR 2019 PLANNING BOARD MOTION TO VOTE FOR THE SLATE OF OFFICERS FOR THE 2019 PLANNING BOARD, Introduced by David Deeb who moved for its adoption, seconded by Michael Valentine: Duly adopted this 20t" day of December, 2018, by the following vote: MR. TRAVER-Maria, do you need the officers read into the record? MS. GAGLIARDI-No. MR. TRAVER-Okay. Then did we have a second? MR. DEEB-Mike. MR. TRAVER-Okay. Then, Maria, can we have the vote, please. Q6 Q ueena:ary ury Hannk)c, Board a2/20l202) AYES: Mr. Deeb, Ms. White, Mr. Shafer, Mr. Dixon, Mr. Valentine, Mr. Traver NOES: NONE ABSENT: Mr. Magowan MR. TRAVER-All right. MR. DEEB-I know we're going to have as good a year next year as we did this year. MR. TRAVER-It's going to be a hard year to beat, but we'll give it a try. MR. DEEB-We've got a really good Board. I have to say that. MR. VALENTINE-You know it is. He's not lying. MR. TRAVER-Yes, it is a good Board. Actually Mr. Strough made a comment to me not too long ago, I'd say within a week or two weeks, that he had gotten some feedback that the Board seems to be functioning well. So that's a good thing. MS. WHITE-It's nice to hear. MR. TRAVER-Yes, that's what I told him. So, Laura, have you gotten any response? MRS. MOORE-1 just found his number. I'm going to call him because that's unusual. MR. TRAVER-If they're not here, they're probably not ready to present I would assume, right? MRS. MOORE-No, I'm assuming he's just late. MR. DEEB-He just forgot. MRS. MOORE-No, because I just talked to him today. MR. DEEB-I hope he's okay. MR. TRAVER-I'm not sure how much longer we're going to have a quorum. MR. DEEB-Yes, we're all going to walk out. MRS. MOORE-So are you going to give him five minutes? MR. TRAVER-Did you actually speak to him? MRS. MOORE-1 didn't speak to him yet. I guess what's your plan because I didn't hear. I was trying to get a hold of him. MR. TRAVER-What's the will of the Board. Do you want to wait some unknown period of time? MR. DEEB-Let's give him a couple of minutes to call back. If he doesn't call back in a couple of minutes. MR. TRAVER-Did you leave a message, Laura? MRS. MOORE-1 did. MR. TRAVER-All right. So we're looking at the next item on our agenda is 76-2018, for Stonewood Development of Northeast New York Incorporated. SITE PLAN NO. 76-2018 SEQR TYPE: TYPE 11 STONEWOOD DEVELOPMENT OF NENY, INC. AGENT(S): DENNIS MAC ELROY. OWNER(S) SAME AS APPLICANT. ZONING: WR. LOCATION: 154 CLEVERDALE ROAD. APPLICANT PROPOSES A TWO STORY 1,274 SQ. FT. (FOOTPRINT) HOME. PROJECT OCCURS WITHIN 50 FT. OF 15% SLOPES, REQUIRING SITE PLAN REVIEW. PROJECT INCLUDES A SHARED DRIVEWAY PROPOSAL. PROJECT INCLUDES SOME GRADING, NEW SEPTIC AND NEW WELL. PURSUANT TO CHAPTER 179-6-060 OF THE Q"I Q ueena:ary ury Hannk)c, Board a2/20l202) ZONING ORDINANCE, CONSTRUCTION WITHIN 50 FT. OF 15% SLOPES SHALL BE SUBJECT TO PLANNING BOARD REVIEW AND APPROVAL. CROSS REFERENCE: 2011-628 DEMO OF RESIDENCE. WARREN CO. REFERRAL: N/A. SITE INFORMATION: APA, STEEP SLOPES. LOT SIZE: 1.1 ACRES. TAX MAP NO. 227.17-2-30. SECTION: 179-6-060. DENNIS MAC ELROY, REPRESENTING APPLICANT, PRESENT MRS. MOORE-Okay. So this applicant proposes a two story 1,274 square foot home. The project occurs within 50 feet of 15% slopes, which triggers the Site Plan Review. On this application there's a shared driveway to the applicant to the north. MR. TRAVER-Okay. Good evening. MR. MAC ELROY-Good evening, and again I apologize for guessing wrong. I should have been here earlier. Sorry. Dennis MacElroy with Environmental Design representing the applicant Stonewood Development who is Jean Hoffman, and Jean built a house lakeside off of Cleverdale Road, sort of directly opposite these parcels. There are two applications, two almost identical lots. So let me give a little background. In May of this year Matt Steves presented an application for a boundary line adjustment that ended up requiring a variance, an Area Variance, for a nonconforming lot. These two lots make up 2.2 acres. They've previously been configured I think 1.6 or 1.8 and a quarter of an acre. So that boundary line adjustment that Matt did just divided it in half. So it was 1.2 and 1.2. The same frontage, same depth, and the plan was to construct a single family residence on each lot. So that's what the Site Plan for each of these lots, 154 and 158 Cleverdale Road. There is a common driveway, split at the property line. The houses are basically identical, just a mirror image of one another. The wastewater system is in the front of the property. Wells located at the proper separation distance to the wastewater systems and stormwater management devices, basically some infiltration trenches, some stormwater shallow grass swales. That type of thing. So it's pretty basic. The houses, again, are identical and compliant with setbacks, height, floor area ratio, permeability, all the different standards. It just was triggered by the fact that we're within a certain distance of 15% slopes. So that's what brings it before the Board. MR. TRAVER-And on this first application there was a house there previously. Right? MR. MAC ELROY-Yes, 154 there was a house, and I think that Jean has owned that property for around six years. I think that one of the things that she did early on was to remove that house. I don't even really remember it myself. So I think the condition dictated, it was probably in poor condition and she got a demolition permit and removed that at some point I think there was some recognition of that. MR. TRAVER-2011. MR. MAC ELROY-Okay. 2011. Then she would have owned it longer than two years. I think Jean was the one who did that, who had that done. So it always was the plan to develop two houses. Those are actually intended for her grandchildren at some point in time. That's what her goal is. MR. VALENTINE-So they're year round residences? MR. MAC ELROY-They will be, yes. They're in a Waterfront Residential zone, but I guess they have glimpses of the lake at times, but they're not really Waterfront Residential houses. MR. SHAFER-Dennis, will these be sold off or rented or what is the plan? MR. MAC ELROY-I think initially she plans to rent them, long term rentals, because her grandchildren are still young, but that was the. MR. SHAFER-How would the shared driveway work from a legal standpoint? MR. MAC ELROY-Well, there would just be the necessary easement that would recognize that on a deed. MR. SHAFER-So if they were sold there'd have to be an easement in each deed. MR. MAC ELROY-Correct. Yes. MR. DIXON-Have you thought of plans without a shared driveway? I'll be honest, I'm not a fan of shared driveways. I think sometimes we create issues farther down the road. 2 QQueensary ury Hannk)c, Board a2/20l202) MR. VALENTINE-But see I'm just the opposite down at the other end. I love them. I use them in my job. I did a short study on them. Went all around Clifton Park, Ballston Spa and a whole bunch of them, and they're, I'm not sitting here going tit for tat with you on it. I don't mean that, but I just think they're really good because of the fact that you're minimizing the number of curb cuts on a, it depends on how busy the road is itself, but everybody will always say that you may have disagreements, and as John said if you sell one, the other one, but it's an easement that just goes with the property, just as you would with any kind of easement like that. MR. DEEB-Less paving. MR. TRAVER-Yes, less paving. MR. VALENTINE-And there's going to be a paired driveway or a shared driveway. So you've got a culvert that would be, if it's necessary in the roadway, but again, each situation is different. I don't know how much vehicular traffic is on here that you need to say consolidate two drives in one area or not. MR. DIXON-How wide is that driveway, the shared component of it down towards, I couldn't really tell. MR. MAC ELROY-The width of the drive, it's got to be 15 feet, the width of the driveway to the point where it fans off to either side. So it's something that two cars could certainly pass. MR. DIXON-So if at some point the neighbors didn't get along they could always shovel half theirs and not the others. MR. MAC ELROY-I think, you know, the easement situation will at least identify responsibilities and a sharing of that route in. I think that in Jean's mind it's something that eventually will be her grandchildren's. So there'll be some familiar association there. MR. SHAFER-Second question has to do with a replacement system for the leach field. Is there a requirement for such a thing in either the Town or APA? MR. MAC ELROY-On new construction typically you have 50% reserve which is shown. MR. SHAFER-Is there room enough here for that? MR. MAC ELROY-Yes. MR. SHAFER-Okay. MR. MAC ELROY-And there's a, I mean in my mind there' isn't even a question of what is that for, is it for replacement or reserve would allow for some expansion because it's only 50%. Now APA, I will tell you yes, the APA, which isn't jurisdictional here, but APA requires replacement in full which maybe makes more sense, but it depends on what you're concerned about. Potential expansion or the need to replace? Here we're compliant with what the Town requires. MR. SHAFER-Gotcha. Okay. MR. TRAVER-Other questions from members of the Board on this application? We don't have to be concerned with SEAR. This is a Type II. There is a public hearing. I'm not seeing anyone in the audience except our dedicated student over there. Did you have any questions for the Board on this application? PUBLIC HEARING OPENED AUDIENCE MEMBER-I'm good. You guys can continue. MR. TRAVER-Very good. Are there any written comments, Laura? MRS. MOORE-There are no written comments. MR. TRAVER-Okay. It's fairly straightforward. There are no variances. If there are no other questions, I guess we're ready for a motion. Q�1 QQueena:ary ury Hannk)c, Board a2/20l202) MS. GAGLIARDI-Mr. Chairman, you need to close the public hearing. MR. TRAVER-Yes. Thank you. We'll close the public hearing and then we'll entertain a motion. PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED RESOLUTION APPROVING SP # 76-2018 STONEWOOD DEVELOPMENT OF NENY, INC. 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 a two story 1,274 sq. ft. (footprint) home. Project occurs within 50 ft. of 15% slopes, requiring site plan review. Project includes a shared driveway proposal. Project includes some grading, new septic and new well. Pursuant to Chapter 179- E-060 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 12/20/2018 and continued the public hearing to 12/20/2018, 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 12/20/2018; 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 76-2018 STONEWOOD DEVELOPMENT OF NENY, INC.; Introduced by David Deeb who moved for its adoption; Per the draft provided by staff conditioned upon the following conditions: 1) Waivers request granted: 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 Michael Dixon. Duly adopted this 20th day of December, 2018 by the following vote: AYES: Ms. White, Mr. Shafer, Mr. Dixon, Mr. Valentine, Mr. Deeb, Mr. Traver NOES: NONE ABSENT: Mr. Magowan MR. TRAVER-Okay. So you're all set with that, and then moving on we have the other house, which you say is identical. Right? On 158. So we'll look at Site Plan 77-2018, also Stonewood Development of Northeastern New York Incorporated. 20 Q ueena:ary ury Hannk)c, Board a2/20l202) SITE PLAN NO. 77-2018 SEQR TYPE: TYPE 11. STONEWOOD DEVELOPMENT OF NENY, INC. AGENT(S): DENNIS MAC ELROY. OWNER(S): SAME AS APPLICANT. ZONING: WR. LOCATION: 158 CLEVERDALE ROAD. APPLICANT PROPOSES A TWO STORY 1,274 SQ. FT. (FOOTPRINT) HOME. PROJECT OCCURS WITHIN 50 FT. OF 15% SLOPES, REQUIRING SITE PLAN REVIEW. PROJECT INCLUDES A SHARED DRIVEWAY PROPOSAL. PROJECT INCLUDES SOME GRADING, NEW SEPTIC AND NEW WELL. 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: AV 30-2018 LOT LINE ADJ. WARREN CO. REFERRAL: N/A. SITE INFORMATION: APA,STEEP SLOPES. LOT SIZE: Ll ACRES. TAX MAP NO. 227.17-2-28. SECTION: 179-6-060. DENNIS MAC ELROY, REPRESENTING APPLICANT, PRESENT MR. TRAVER-Laura? MRS. MOORE-So this is, again, a two story home. Its footprint is 1,274 square feet. The project occurs within 50 feet of 15% slopes which is triggering the Site Plan Review. MR. TRAVER-Okay. Thank you. So this is the second of the two houses in your project. MR. MAC ELROY-Correct. MR. TRAVER-What are the differences between the two structures, any? MR. MAC ELROY-Just that it's a mirror image. MR. TRAVER-Okay. MR. MAC ELROY-Flipped so that the entry end of the house, the floor plan is to the center of the two lots to be served off of that common driveway. MR. TRAVER-So it would be essentially identical on the same size lot as the other. MR. MAC ELROY-Correct. MR. TRAVER-Questions, comments from members of the Planning Board? MS. WHITE-The same updates to the septic? MR. MAC ELROY-Correct. New system, new well, and stormwater management. MR. SHAFER-Dennis, I noticed the perc tests were quite different from one lot to the next. Is that common on Cleverdale? MR. MAC ELROY-It's, no, not in that proximity, but I think the difference being that that first lot, 154, was previously developed and I think that there probably were some imported soils, which are native now, but they probably influenced that because the 154 was a better soil condition than 158, and thus 158 has a little bit more length in the laterals. MR. TRAVER-As with the other application this is SEQR Type II so we need not be concerned with SEAR. There also is a public hearing. I'm not seeing anyone in the audience that has questions. Are there any written comments on this subject? PUBLIC HEARING OPENED MRS. MOORE-There's no written comments on this application. MR. TRAVER-Okay. Then we'll close the public hearing and if there are no other questions from members of the Board we'll entertain a motion. PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED RESOLUTION APPROVING SP # 77-2018 STONEWOOD DEVELOPMENT OF NENY, INC. 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 a two story 1,274 sq. ft. (footprint) 2: QQueena:ary ury Hannk)c, Board a2/20l202) home. Project occurs within 50 ft. of 15% slopes, requiring site plan review. Project includes a shared driveway proposal. Project includes some grading, new septic and new well. Pursuant to Chapter 179- E-060 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 12/20/2018 and continued the public hearing to 12/20/2018, 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 12/20/2018; 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 77-2018 STONEWOOD DEVELOPMENT OF NENY, INC.; Introduced by David Deeb who moved for its adoption; Per the draft provided by staff conditioned upon the following conditions: 1) Waivers request granted: 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 Michael Valentine. Duly adopted this 20th day of December,2018 by the following vote: AYES: Ms. White, Mr. Shafer, Mr. Dixon, Mr. Valentine, Mr. Deeb, Mr. Traver NOES: NONE ABSENT: Mr. Magowan MR. TRAVER-You're all set. MR. MAC ELROY-Great. Thank you very much. Again, I'm sorry for being late. MR. TRAVER-So there isn't really any other business before the Planning Board. I would like to thank everyone for their work this past year and Laura, if you would extend that to Craig and all of your staff as well. MR. DEEB-Thank you, Laura. Thank you very much. Maria, thank you very much for everything. MR. TRAVER-Yes. So I hope everybody has a nice holiday and we'll be back January. MR. DEEB-And I think we should thank Steve for doing such a good job this year. Thank you very much. 22 Q ueena:ary ury Hannk)c, Board a2/20l202) MR. TRAVER-It's really you guys that do it. All I do is read the agenda MS. WHITE-Keep us moving along. MR. TRAVER-Keep us moving along. Right. All in favor of adjournment say Aye, any opposed? We stand adjourned. Thanks, everybody. MOTION TO ADJOURN THE QUEENSBURY PLANNING BOARD MEETING OF DECEMBER 20t", 2018, Introduced by David Deeb who moved for its adoption, seconded by Jamie White: Duly adopted this 20t" day of December, 2018, by the following vote: AYES: Ms. White, Mr. Shafer, Mr. Valentine, Mr. Deeb, Mr. Dixon, Mr. Traver NOES: NONE ABSENT: Mr. Magowan On motion meeting was adjourned. RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED, Stephen Traver, Chairman 23