Loading...
10-25-2022 (Queensbury Planning Board 10/25/2022) QUEENSBURYPLANNINGBOARD MEETING SECOND REGULAR MEETING OCTOBER 251r,2022 INDEX Site Plan No.51-2021 Brett&Pamela West(Main House) 1. Freshwater Wetlands 10-2022 Tax Map No.226.15-1-17 Site Plan No.50-2022 Brian Hogan S. Tax Map No.239.12-2-37 Site Plan No. 64-2022 Don Bernard 14. Freshwater Wetlands 12-2022 Tax Map No.239.E-1-15 Site Plan No. 67-2022 William Mason/Robert&Ruth Finegold 22. Tax Map No.239.E-1-49 Site Plan No. 6S-2022 Faden Enterprises 25. Freshwater Wetlands 13-2022 Tax Map No.2SS.-1-5S Special Use Permit 6-2022 Site Plan No.70-2022 Renee&Tom West 26. Freshwater Wetlands 14-2022 Tax Map No.239.7-1-16 Site Plan No.71-2022 Renee&Tom West 26. Freshwater Wetlands 15-2022 Tax Map No.239.7-1-16 Site Plan No. 66-2022 Alisha&Michael Griffey 31. Tax Map No.239.16-1-23,239.16-1-24 Site Plan No. 65-2022 Michael Flansburg/Target Corp. 42. Tax Map No. 302.5-1-92.12 THESE ARE NOT OFFICIALLY ADOPTED MINUTES AND ARE SUBJECT TO BOARD AND STAFF REVISIONS. REVISIONS WILL APPEAR ON THE FOLLOWING MONTH'S MINUTES(IF ANY)AND WILL STATE SUCH APPROVAL OF SAID MINUTES. 1 (Queensbury Planning Board 10/25/2022) QUEENSBURY PLANNING BOARD MEETING SECOND REGULAR MEETING OCTOBER 25TK 2022 7.@0 P.M. MEMBERS PRESENT STEPHEN TRAVER,CHAIRMAN DAVID DEEB,VICE CHAIRMAN MICHAEL DIXON,SECRETARY WARREN LONGACKER BRADY STARK BRAD MAGOWAN NATHAN ETU LAND USE PLANNER-LAURA MOORE STENOGRAPHER-MARIA GAGLIARDI MR.TRAVER-Good evening,ladies and gentlemen. Welcome to the Town of Queensbury Planning Board meeting for Tuesday,October 25`h,2022. This is our second meeting for October and our 22 d meeting for 2022. We have no administrative items this evening. Although I would like to point out the red signs are the emergency exits. If we have an event and we need to evacuate the building,that is your way out. If you have an electronic device,a cell phone or other electronic device,if you would either turn it off or turn the ringer off we would appreciate that very much so as not to disrupt our proceedings,and we also ask,if you wish to have a discussion outside of the public hearing and I believe every application before us this evening has a public hearing, other than the public hearing and you wish to converse among yourselves, please go to the outer area to have that conversation,again,so as not to disrupt our proceedings. And with that we will begin. The first section of our agenda is Tabled Items, and the first item is Brett & Pamela West. This is for the main house, and this is Site Plan 51-2021 and Freshwater Wetlands Permit 10-2022. TABLED ITEMS: SITE PLAN NO. 51-2021 FRESHWATER WETLANDS 10-2022 SEQR TYPE: TYPE 11. BRETT &z PAMELA WEST(MAIN HOUSE). AGENT(S): EDP. OWNER(S): SAME AS APPLICANTS. ZONING: WR. LOCATION: 106 BAY PARKWAY. (REVISED 611 512 0 2 2) APPLICANT PROPOSES TO DEMO EXISTING HOME AND SHED TO CONSTRUCT A NEW 2 STORY HOME WITH A 5,436 SQ.FT. FOOTPRINT WITH A GARAGE. ALSO,INCLUDED IS INSTALLATION OF PERMEABLE PAVERS FOR PATIO, DRIVEWAY AREAS, AND A COVERED WALKWAY BETWEEN THE TWO PROPERTIES. THE NEW FLOOR AREA WILL BE 8,670 SQ.FT. WHERE THE MAXIMUM ALLOWED IS 8,687SQ.FT. THE PROJECT INCLUDES SITE WORK FOR NEW LANDSCAPING SHORELINE AND RESIDENTIAL HOUSE, SEPTIC AND STORMWATER MANAGEMENT. THE PROJECT INCLUDES A LOT LINE ADJUSTMENT BUT NO CHANGE TO LOT SIZE. ADDITIONALLY WORK TO BE DONE IS WITHIN 100 FEET OF A DESIGNATED WETLAND. PURSUANT TO CHAPTER 179-3-040,179-6-065,CHAPTER 147,SITE PLAN FOR NEW FLOOR AREA IN A CEA, WORK ADJACENT TO WETLAND, AND HARD SURFACING WITHIN 50 FT. OF THE SHORELINE SHALL BE SUBJECT TO PLANNING BOARD REVIEW AND APPROVAL. CROSS REFERENCE: 53-2017 SEPTIC VAR.; AV 47-2007 &z SP 39-2007 — BOATHOUSE; SP PZ 89-2016 &z SP PZ 210-2016 &z AV 95-2016 —ADDITION; SP 37-2009;AV 57- 2021;SP 52-2021. WARREN CO.REFERRAL: AUGUST 2021,FEBRUARY 2022(STORM WATER DEVICE);JULY 2022(FWW). SITE INFORMATION: APA,CEA,LGPC. LOT SIZE: 0.91 ACRE. TAX MAP NO. 226.15-1-17. SECTION: 179-3-040;179-6-065,147. JON ZAPPER&GAVIN VUILLAUME,REPRESENTING APPLICANTS,PRESENT MR. TRAVER-Laura? MRS. MOORE-So this applicant proposes to demo the existing home and shed to construct a new two story home with a 5,436 square footprint with a garage. Also included is installation of permeable pavers for patio,driveway areas,and a covered walkway between the two properties. The new floor area will be 8,670 square foot where the maximum allowed is 8,687 square feet. The project includes site work for new landscaping, shoreline and residential house, septic and new stormwater management. The project includes a lot line adjustment but no changes to lot size. Additional work to be done is within 100 feet of a designated wetland. And in reference to the variances that were requested, both have been granted. There was one that was granted on March 23rd of 2022 and then an additional variance was granted on October 19`h,2022. MR. TRAVER-Okay. Thank you. Good evening. Welcome back. 2 (Queensbury Planning Board 10/25/2022) MR. ZAPPER-Good evening, everyone. Jon Lapper with Gavin Vuillaume from Environmental Design Partnership. Just to recite a little bit of the history,we've been working on this project for about a year and we hope that tonight's our last meeting on this project. We were pretty close to an approval. So you already approved the guesthouse and now this is the main house and we were pretty close to an approval in the late spring when LaBella raised a question about the drainage way on the east side of the project site which we discussed when you made your recommendation to the Zoning Board and we sent Environmental Design out to check and it was technically a wetland but it drains the large wetland area in the center of Assembly Point to the lake. So that required us to get a few extra variances for stormwater facilities and building setback to that drainage way,but the way that that was addressed is that we have stormwater facilities along the back of the garage so that no stormwater goes from the building from the site to that drainage way. In terms of the project and the whole way this has gone through, the whole thing's been designed with all sorts of stormwater facilities which weren't there. It's an antiquated non- conforming site that has no stormwater management at all up until now. Sothis project,besides providing septic holding tanks which is a good thing when you've got water basically on three sides, it also has a whole bunch of stormwater facilities that needs to be on the site. So we've gone through with LaBella a few rounds of changes and they've issued a letter,previously,but we needed a variance last week on the back of the garage, and when we were at the Zoning Board they said, they recognized on the record that we made a whole bunch of compromises and changes over the course of last year. We were no longer asking for a floor area variance. We were no longer asking for a permeability variance and we tightened up the site,moved it away from the lake,made the setbacks as much as we could, and on that basis they granted the approval for the variance. So we're here hopefully for the final site plan review on that basis. I'd just ask Gavin to show you some of the stormwater facilities on the site. MR. VUILLAUME-Actually I'm going to show you a couple of things with the planting plan and the cutting plan. Those are two new plans that we just submitted. Laura,I believe,has the planting plan up first. So with that one you can see where we have added some additional planting that was,originally we only had a very small amount along that buffer. Knowing that that is a wetland area and that there is a shoreline or a wetland buffer associated with that, we've added additional plants along the garage and around the periphery of the stormwater management area. Go to the cutting plan. So with the cutting plan, that's typically done in areas where you are removing some of the vegetation not only along the shoreline but along the wetlands. So along the shoreline we're not removing any vegetation and we've kind of pointed that out in some of our earlier meetings. That's a 35 foot setback from the shoreline and there is no removal of existing vegetation there. There is some removal of existing vegetation within the setback from the wetlands, and it really only encompasses a few trees and some shrubbery. Currently there's the driveway here along with a very large lawn area. So there's not a lot of existing trees there,but in order to put the garage in we are proposing the removal of the Norway Spruce and a sugar maple. A lot of that was caused by the fact that we added some additional stormwater. MR. TRAVER-Okay. Thank you. Okay. Well there's no doubt I think it's a big improvement over what was there,from 1941. I'll grant you that. We certainly appreciate the effort that you've put in. With that in mind, I guess the concern , I think I raised this last time,my own personal concern is the required 50 foot setback from the wetland and you're proposing just 10 feet and I understand that,you know, during construction and so on it's an inconvenience to not be able to work right up to the edge of the wetland,but it would seem to me that after the project is completed nobody's really going to notice whether it's say 10 feet or 20 feet,and I'm just asking one more time if there's any room for compromise on that. MR. ZAPPER-So the first answer, Steve, is that there's no water from the building or from the grounds going into that wetland area which is basically a ditch,because we've got a stormwater facility up against it and a swale. So what we're doing,there's no impact there, and you know how we work. If there was a way to move it 10 feet we'd be saying,yes,we can,but because of all the compromises that we did,the site is so constrained because of the lake on all the other side we had to pull it back towards that. That was sort of the unimportant part of the site because the neighbor's house is nowhere near their boundary. So we pulled everything away from the lake to that area and then found out that that drainage ditch counted as a wetland,but we're protecting it with the swales and with the retention basin. MR. TRAVER-Well I understand what you're saying, and, you know, like I said for the building and construction and everything it's fine,but,you know,my concern is that it's there forever,basically. I mean the original house was therein 1941. So how many years is that,like 7S years. So presumably this facility will be there as well and,you know,tonight,the difference between 10 feet and say 20 feet,it doesn't seem like much when we're talking about forever and we're talking about the lake that, you know, there's increasing concern about, and perhaps in the few years there won't be,you know, any variances allowed in a CEA. So I'm just, again, I'm just,it would seem to me that it wouldn't be too much to ask to bump that back a little bit further,even if it's only 10 feet. It would make a huge difference. MR. ZAPPER-In order to do that it would compromise the setbacks elsewhere on the site. It just would squeeze everything right in the middle because there's such a small envelope, but,you know, to address your concern there's going to be no activity behind that building,between there and that drainage channel, and it's a minor wetland because it's really just draining the big wetland that comes under a culvert under 3 (Queensbury Planning Board 10/25/2022) the road,but beyond that the neighbor's house is,what,30,40 feet back from their property line. So there's no one there and we're not impacting,we're not effecting the quality of that wetland because the water's being managed. If we could,we would,but we just don't have anywhere to move it. MR. TRAVER-How big is the lot,the property? MR.WILLAUME-I think it's close to an acre. MRS. MOORE-.91. MR.WILLAUME-.9. MR. TRAVER-.9 of an acre. MRS. MOORE-Almost an acre. MR.ZAPPER-It's just that when you look at the lakefront all around it,you know,that was the important setback that we needed to protect. MR. TRAVER-Okay. All right, well, I've stated my peace. Before we go to public comment, I'll ask members of the Board if they have any questions or comments. MR. DEEB-Are you going to replace the two trees that you're taking down? MR. ZAPPER-With a lot of shrubs. MR.WILLAUME-Mostly shrubbery along the back, and then there are trees,you know,throughout the front of the property. MR. DEEB-The same size trees. MR.WILLAUME-Well right now those are very large 21 inch caliper trees. MR. DEEB-I know you can't put those in. MR.WILLAUME-Yes,we're putting in very large trees,yes. MR. TRAVER-I just saw that plan today, and what caliper are the trees? MR.WILLAUME-The existing caliper is like 21 inch. MR. TRAVER-No,I understand. I'm talking about the ones that you're proposing. MR.WILLAUME-Typically three to four inch. MR. TRAVER-I'm sorry. I just got that today. I didn't have a lot of time to look at it. MR.WILLAUME-Yes. I'll check it but I think we're calling out three to four inch caliper trees., MR. TRAVER-Okay. Thank you. Other questions,comments? MR. DIXON-I know in the past we've included in our resolutions, any time there's permeable pavers involved, a maintenance plan be submitted to the Town. MR. ZAPPER-Yes. MR. DIXON-Will that be on this resolution? MRS. MOORE-So I'll just identify with a Major stormwater they're required to do a maintenance plan versus a Minor stormwater where it's an agreement with the Town. So a Major would be an agreement with the Town Board. The Town Board signs it,in reference to the attorney's taking a look at that,whereas a Minor stormwater would not. This is a Major stormwater. MR. DIXON-So it's not included at all then. MR. ZAPPER-It's a condition. MRS. MOORE-It's a condition. You can do it as a condition. That's fine. 4 (Queensbury Planning Board 10/25/2022) MR. DIXON-Okay. MR. TRAVER-All right. So we do have a public hearing on this application. I would ask a couple of things. One is, if there's a lot of public comment, we may end up limiting the speaking down to three minutes. That's the normal process. I generally like to give people some latitude,but we'll see how that goes. Is there anyone in the audience that wanted to comment on this application? Yes,ma'am. PUBLIC HEARING OPEN LORRAINE RUFFING MRS. RUFFING-Good evening. My name is Lorraine Ruffing. I live on Assembly Point. I have been asked by a neighbor who lives to the west of the West property,Pam Lester Golde,if I would present some of her comments which she did send in. As you might remember, Mrs. Golde is a registered landscape architect in the State of New York. I'm not going to re,verbatim,her letter. I'll just paraphrase it. She has several concerns and one you've already mentioned, the wetland straddling the West and the O'Keeffe property line. As Mr. Lapper stated, hey have obtained a zoning variance. The Town Code requires 50 feet from the wetland and they are going to have a 10 foot setback. So that's an S0010 relief. Miss Golde also notes that the Town of Queensbury Freshwater Wetland regulation Chapter 94 also talks about adjacent lands and it requires a buffer area which has a 100 foot setback. Would ask Laura if she could put up the existing wetland buffer diagram. If we could get that into focus. Now if you can just rotate it. Okay. Very good. Thank you, Laura. Okay. So with this particular diagram you can see where a 100 foot setback would be from the wetland,where a 75 setback for tree clearing would be, and where the 50 foot setback would be. Currently there is green grass and she's indicated that by the horizontal lines,and then you have the buffer which is under discussion tonight,which does have mature trees and shrubs and of course in order to build the garage,as Mr.Lapper has said,all that vegetation which borders the wetland is going to have to be removed,and I'm really surprised,I did check the Town website,and I never saw any cutting plan. So that is new information. Now if we could go to the next diagram which is what would happen under Mr. West's application. Okay. If we can just move it back a little bit if that's possible. Okay. Now this is the proposed wetland and drainage plan. As I said, all the mature trees and shrubs would have to be removed. You're in a very tight space behind that garage. Also you will have a depression which runs from the front of the garage on Bay Parkway alongside the garage and then into the depression there, but the important thing that wasn't mentioned is the fact that you're going to have a four inch perforated pipe under that entire of the grass depression and this pipe or under drain will discharge water within eight feet of the lake, and this is in direct violation to your own stormwater management regulations,Chapter 147. Now on previous occasions Mr.Lapper has said that clean water coming off the roof and the driveway is not objectionable and can go into the lake if need be. Industry standards consider that stormwater coming off a roof is gray water,and I guess the last point that Mrs. Golde wanted to make was that in the July letter the Town Engineer, LaBella, said that additional review may be necessary and that's what we're doing I guess this evening. So Mrs. Golde asked the Planning Board to table the applicant's submission until LaBella has time to review the current drainage plan which includes the perforated pipe, removing water from the grass depression and discharging it eight feet from the lake, or that the applicant submits a new site plan significantly reducing impacts on the wetlands, and now if I could beg your indulgence,because I have my own letter that I would like to present. MR. TRAVER-I think that was submitted to Laura to be read into the record. MRS. RUFFING-Yes,but I would like to read it myself if possible. MR. TRAVER-I must say you have well exceeded the three minutes. You probably heard the alarm go off, and if Laura's going to read that letter into the record. MRS. MOORE-I was going to say,if she would like to read that letter in that's okay with me. MR. TRAVER-All right. You heard from the boss. Go ahead and read that into the record. MRS. RUFFING-Again,my name is Lorraine Ruffing and I live on Assembly Point. The West project has been discussed in 22 meetings of the Board of Health,of the Planning Board, and of the Zoning Board and the Zoning Board has granted 19 variances, that is for the guest house and the main house, for shoreline setbacks, infiltration setbacks, the wetland setback and the Board of Health has given two variances. I think that alone should signify that there is something wrong with this project, and I think the Waterkeeper who is here this evening has pointed out its deficiencies numerous times. The balance test has been always tilted in favor of the applicant with scant attention paid to the neighborhood or the lake. There was little or no discussion of adverse impacts of water quality runoff,water table or vegetative cover. Instead what seems to matter is having a great camp on Assembly Point. Given the number of variances, I wonder if the Planning Board is really faced with a fait accompli in terms of the site plan. The water table is two feet below the ground at the end of Assembly Point, and probably the reason the Board of Health has approved two variances for holding tanks for both houses. The only to try to mitigate runoff is through the 10 infiltration devices that are planned,all of which need variances because they're too close to the lake. 5 (Queensbury Planning Board 10/25/2022) Despite these infiltration devices it is still necessary to have an underground drain or pipe to carry away excess water. This proposed underground drain at the back of the garage can be seen on Page Five of your site plan and it will empty within eight feet of the lake. According to the Waterkeeper discharging outflow at the shoreline is illegal. The Town Engineer noted 17 deficiencies in the stormwater management plan in his letter of February and I ask have these been remedied to the Board's satisfaction? I repeat Mrs. Golde's request to have LaBella look at this underground drain solution which was not presented previously. Another concern is that the amount of hard surfacing from the two houses, patios, garage, covered walkway, porte cochre and the circular driveway. We have heard lengthy discussions about the advantages and disadvantages of pavers. However, during intense rain events they do very little. The Town Engineer's review did not take into consideration the existing flood already occurring from the wetland at the northern end of Assembly Point. This wetland exits to the lake,as was said,between West and O'Keefe's properties. The Town found it necessary last spring to re-do the culvert leading from the wetland to the West and O'Keefe's property to prevent flooding on Bay Parkway. Our concern is this very large three car garage would be so close to the wetland that it will increase stormwater runoff into the wetland as well as onto the adjoining O'Keefe property despite the infiltration devices. The West representative said we will remove some trees,but they have not provided a cutting plan until this evening or yesterday. The vegetation between the garage and the wetland, sin e it is such a tight fit,will have to be removed in order to build the garage. This removal will increase runoff into the wetland and if cutting is take place a specific cutting plan should have been provided much earlier to the Planning Board. I thank you for your patience. MR. TRAVER-Sure. Thank you. Is there anyone else that wanted to comment on this site plan? Yes,sir. CHRIS NAVITSKY MR. NAVITSKY-Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Good evening, Board. Chris Navitsky, Lake George Waterkeeper. This project fails to provide the proper stormwater setbacks. It fails to provide the setbacks to wetlands, reduces the vegetative cover below what is required for permeability. They use a loophole with the permeable pavers to get around that. Maximizes floor area and permeability and at times it seems that it's justified because mitigation measures such as stormwater management are now going to be provided when none currently exists. However, that doesn't justify overdevelopment in the CEA. Stormwater management has to be provided for every project. So,you know,that's not what should be thrown out to say that this supports this level of development. Same thing on the septic systems. They have to have aseptic system. That has to be done. So these aren't benefits of being done. That's what has to be done. The project will impact the resources of the Town and Lake George. I'd ask the Planning Board to consider important aspects of the Town Code to reduce these impacts. I'm glad a cutting plan has finally been brought in and a re-planting plan,although the public hasn't been able to see that at all. It is too close to the wetlands. I appreciate the Board's concern and questions on that to try to place that garage and construct, now remember they're going to be constructing around there. So they're going to be driving concrete trucks, everything over that stormwater basin. That's going to be compacted. Of course their notes say not to compact it, but how can you construct that building without compacting those soils? You'll have a basin and clearing everything to the wetlands. The underdrain has already been mentioned,but the one thing you should note is on Sheet Two of their submission t here's a test pit at the south end of the garage close to the Parkway that shows the elevation at 324.5,groundwater at 24 inches. So that puts it at 322.5 groundwater. The pipe elevations on their drawing show the underdrain at 321.5, one foot into groundwater. So that pipe is just going to be continually discharging water to Lake George. It's correct. The water won't be going into the ditch. It's going to be going directly to Lake George. That cannot happen. That does not benefit the lake. Again,this pipe will be continually discharging right to the shoreline of Lake George. That is illegal. You cannot have discharges to Lake George. That is a DEC law, and the concern based on the currently Harmful Algae Blooms that are currently in all these bays around Assembly Point. The project fails to meet the Town Code requirements for shoreline buffering. They do have trees around there but there's a 35 foot shoreline buffer and with the level of variances and the level of disturbance and development, the shoreline buffer should be required. I also suggest to increase the vegetative cover on the site and the permeability by eliminating the interconnected driveways and have separate driveways. So thank you very much for your consideration. MR. TRAVER-Thank you. Is there anyone else in the audience who would like to address the Planning Board on this application? I'm not seeing any others. Are there any additional written comments,Laura? MRS. MOORE-There are additional comments. I'll see if I can summarize. So I have,I'll start this way. Ellen Wetherbee submitted a letter as of today but it's dated May 16`h of 2022. So it's not certain that she received the most recent information to evaluate, and then her comments are more directed at stormwater and how will we, the Town,be able evaluate,in reference to permeable pavers,how do we keep up with knowing that those are maintained. And then she also, I'll go to the other list in a second. Mr. O'Keefe writes,he submitted a letter on August 22 d and it says"I am writing about the West's variance approvals for their new house on Assembly Point. It is my understanding that the variance rules, I believe it was sent to both. This is for the variance,but I'll read through it. "or policies were recommended by experts and approved by a good vetting process. These rules were set up to help preserve and protect the lake, watershed areas and the neighbors from egregious actions by the builders of new homes. It is also my 6 (Queensbury Planning Board 10/25/2022) understanding that the Zoning and Planning Boards were setup to be the protectors of these rules. They were not set up to approve variances but to enforce what has been decided by experts to be the best way to protect the Lake,watershed and neighbors. So my question to both of you is why are we even having these conversations about the West Property. They clearly are asking for variances that are egregious and do not come close to what the variances allow. This does not fit with any test of reasonableness and clearly does not fit with what the Boards are here to protect. The Board needs to do what it was set up for. Protect us and the Lake. If these variances are approved, then it would seem clear to me that these variances mean nothing and we should throw them out and let anyone do what they want. (not a good idea). It also means when I tear down my house to build a new house next year I should get these same variances if you approve West's variances. So, all I sincerely ask is please just do the job you have been elected for. Preserve and protect the lake,watershed and the neighbors and not don't allow these variances that are not in accordance with what any expert has felt prudent or wise. Sincerely yours, Dan O'Keeffe MD" And then I had another one that was received on April 25`h. Again,I'm not certain that they were able to look at the most recent information and here they're talking in reference to trees and tree protection. And this is in regards to Lisa Adamson's letter at 12S Lake Parkway. I will identify back in March of 2022 we had letters from Lorraine at 197 Assembly, Scott Dubin, Florence Connor, Lisa Adamson, Ellen Wetherbee, Lorraine Ruffing, Chris Navitsky, and then in February of 2022 I had letters from Pamela Golde,Lorraine Ruffing and Mary Ellen O'Keeffe,and then in 20211 have a letter from Mary Helen O'Keeffe, Lorraine Ruffing, and Lisa Adamson. Some use the words against,but most of them were in reference to concerns about the stormwater. MR. TRAVER-Okay. Thank you,and all those letters are part of the record? MRS. MOORE-Part of the record,yes. MR. TRAVER-Okay. Thank you. Okay. Then we will close the public hearing. PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED MR. TRAVER-The applicants can come back to the table. So you heard the public comment. MR. ZAPPER-Yes. MR. TRAVER-A lot of concern,particularly about the underground pipe that's flowing within a few feet of the lake and is discharging and is an illegal practice. MR. ZAPPER-To start with, on balance, first of all, LaBella signed off on the stormwater plan, and this whole plan is to manage stormwater where right now, and Chris is comparing this to what's in the best interest of the lake. Right now the stormwater is flowing free into the lake, into that wetland, no stormwater management facilities, and I think that neighbors said there were 10 stormwater facilities on the site. So this whole project is a stormwater site. Chris also said it was overdevelopment but it's not overdevelopment because we're not asking for a FAR variance. I mean we started out with a bigger house and we're not asking for a floor area ratio variance and we're not asking for a permeability variance,but it's a question of how do you manage this site at the point of Assembly Point, and the way you do it is with a lot of stormwater facilities so that the stormwater is being treated and managed. Nothing is flowing directly into the lake of course,but the fact that we've gone through rounds of review with Chazen,LaBella and made changes to satisfy them and made changes for you and certainly for the Zoning Board, this is certainly an improvement to the lake from what's there now,which is everything going in untreated, and the fact that there's a smaller setback in the back,and again,it doesn't,it's not a water quality issue because there's a berm and the water's being managed and it doesn't go into the wetland at all. So on balance this is certainly a better situation than the antiquated development that's there now that has absolutely no stormwater controls and has an antiquated septic system. So the fact that the Wests are putting in holding tanks,if there were no project it would still stay the way it is and it would stay without any stormwater facilities and I know as a fact,the immediate neighbor to the south who's letter was read doesn't have any stormwater facilities. So we're being criticized about the stormwater on technicalities when we've got neighbors that have no stormwater protection at all. So we've spent a year tightening up the stormwater to satisfy your engineer,the Zoning Board and now you, and what comes out of this is certainly a benefit to the site from what's there now. That's my comment. Gavin? MR.WILLAUME-Yes,just to add a little bit more on the underdrain. It's very similar to the type of drains that you would have, a footing drain for a home. It's very clean water. Obviously it's not surface water that we're talking about. It's only to relieve the groundwater underneath the storm basin during periods of high groundwater. MR. TRAVER-And this is a perforated pipe? MR.WILLAUME-It's perforated pipe. 7 (Queensbury Planning Board 10/25/2022) MR. TRAVER-And can you just confirm that that perforated pipe is part of the stormwater plan that was reviewed by LaBella? MR.WILLAUME-Yes,it was. MR. TRAVER-Okay. Thank you. Other questions,comments from members of the Board? MR. LONGACKER-Are there any groundwater seeps right now maybe coming out right by the lake? MR.WILLAUME-Not that I'm aware of,no. MR. MAGOWAN-This wetlands, driving by and seeing it, to me it looks like it was a manmade culvert that has been wet for so long that it actually turned into,you know, wetlands, which is carrying all the water from across Bay Parkway. Right? MR. ZAPPER-That's exactly correct. MR. MAGOWAN-And that is a,looks like an 1S inch culvert pipe? MR.WILLAUME-Yes. MR. MAGOWAN-Okay. Thank you. MR. ZAPPER-And we're not impacting the quality of that water in any way. MR. TRAVER-Any other questions, comments? We have a draft resolution. Do Board members feel comfortable hearing a resolution on this application? RESOLUTION APPROVING SP#51-2021 FWW 10-2022 BRETT&r PAMELA WEST The applicant has submitted an application the Planning Board: (Revised 6/15/2022)Applicant proposes to demo existing home and shed to construct a new two story home with a 5,436 sq. ft. footprint with a garage.Also included is installation of permeable pavers for patio, driveway areas and a covered walkway between the two properties. The new floor area will be 5,670 sq. ft. where the maximum allowed is S,6S7 sq. ft.. The project includes site work for new landscaping shoreline and residential house, septic, and stormwater management.The project includes a lot line adjustment but no change to lot size.Additionally, work to be done is within 100 feet of a designated wetland. Pursuant to chapter 179-3-040, 179-6-065, Chapter 94, Chapter 147, site plan for a new floor area in a CEA, work adjacent to wetland, and hard surfacing within 50 ft.of the shoreline shall be subject to Planning Board review and approval. Pursuant to relevant sections of the Town of Queensbury Zoning Code-Chapter 179-9-OSO, 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 made a recommendation to the Zoning Board of Appeals on 9/2S/2021 ZBA approved the variance on 3/23/2022 and a recommendation was made to the ZBA on S/16/2022 (in regards to wetland);the ZBA approved the variance on 9/21/2022-1 The Planning Board opened a public hearing on the Site plan application on 2/22/2022 and continued the public hearing to 10/1S/2022,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 10/1S/2022; 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 51-2021 &z FRESHWATER WETLANDS 10-2022 BRETT &z PAMELA WEST,Introduced by Michael Dixon who moved for its adoption. According to the draft resolution prepared by Staff with the following: 1) Waivers requested granted: g. site lighting, h. signage, n traffic, o. commercial alterations/ construction details, r. construction/demolition disposal s. snow removal. as these items are typically associated with commercial projects; 2) The approval is valid for one (1) year from the date of approval. Applicant is responsible for requesting an extension of approval before the one (1)year time frame has expired. S (Queensbury Planning Board 10/25/2022) 3) 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. 1) A maintenance plan for permeable pavers is to be submitted to the Town prior to any site work. Motion seconded by Brad Magowan. Duly adopted this 25`h day of October 2022 by the following vote: MR. STARK-Laura,do you want me to abstain since I just got here? MRS. MOORE-Are you familiar with the project? MR. STARK-I am. MRS. MOORE-And you've read through the materials? MR. STARK-Yes. MRS. MOORE-You do not have to abstain. MR. STARK-Okay. It's been in front of us for a while. AYES: Mr. Deeb,Mr. Dixon,Mr. Longacker, Mr. Stark,Mr. Magowan,Mr. Etu NOES: Mr. Traver MR. ZAPPER-Thanks,everyone. This has been along project and we really appreciate you work with us on this. MR. TRAVER-The next item on the agenda, also under Tabled Items, and is also Unapproved Development,and this is Brian Hogan,Site Plan 50-2022. SITE PLAN NO. 50-2022 SEQR TYPE: TYPE II. BRIAN HOGAN. OWNER(S): SAME AS APPLICANT: ZONING: WR. LOCATION: 33 HOLLY LANE. APPLICANT PROPOSES TO COMPLETE A 361 SQ. FT. PAVILION AT 15 FT. 2 INCHES TO BE CONSTRUCTED NEAR THE VICINITY OF THE COTTAGE THAT HAS BEEN DEMOLISHED. THE EXISTING HOME OF 1,460 SQ. FT. IS TO REMAIN WITH NO CHANGES. THE EXISTING FLOOR AREA IS 1,648 SQ. FT. AND THE NEW FLOOR AREA WILL BE 2,009 SQ. FT. PURSUANT TO CHAPTER 179-3-040, SITE PLAN REVIEW FOR A PAVILION IN THE WATERFRONT RESIDENTIAL ZONE SHALL BE SUBJECT TO PLANNING BOARD REVIEW AND APPROVAL. CROSS REFERENCE: AV 68- 9 (Queensbury Planning Board 10/25/2022) 2021. WARREN CO. REFERRAL: AUGUST 2022. SITE INFORMATION: APA, LGPC,CEA. LOT SIZE: .79 ACRES. TAX MAP NO.239.12-2-37. SECTION: 179-3-040. BRIAN HOGAN,PRESENT MR. TRAVER-Laura? MRS. MOORE-So this application is to complete a 361 square foot pavilion. The height of the pavilion is 15 foot 2 inches. The application is in reference to completing the pavilion. The Board had requested it go before the Town Engineer and I just wanted to provide some clarification in regards to some of the questions. The first one is whether it's a Major or a Minor. It disturbs less than an acre so it's considered a Minor, and in this case one of the other questions was in reference to the sport court and the applicant applied to the Town, being Craig Brown who's our stormwater officer, applied for a stormwater permit and received that permit. So the engineer wanted to know what the status of that was. So the applicant had applied and received a stormwater permit specifically for that sport court,and so now in front of you, it obviously disturbs less than an acre. So it's considered a Minor. In reference to the maintenance agreement,I tried to explain earlier so it would cover this project is that because it's less than an acre we typically ask for information to be placed on the plan. In this case the applicant has provided an updated plan that indicates that they will provide maintenance of their stormwater area, and if they don't apply that,then the Town can come in and fix that. So it's on their plan. I don't know how to word it better. MR. TRAVER-Well,if it's on the plan,that's what's required. MRS. MOORE-That's what's required. MRS. MOORE-Yes. MR. TRAVER-Okay, and then did we receive a,I know that the applicant submitted a formal response to these many questions from the engineer. Did we get a response from the engineer? MRS. MOORE-Not at this time. MR. TRAVER-No. Okay. MRS. MOORE-So I mean it was just submitted the other day. So it wasn't, so the engineer is due for a response most likely in two weeks. MR. TRAVER-Okay. Thank you. Questions,comments from members of the Board? MR. DIXON-I'll make a comment. Without the engineering getting back in touch with us, I do have concerns moving forward with this. MR. TRAVER-I do as well. Other questions? We do have a,even though we don't have the full response from the Town Engineer, this is a, it does require a public hearing. So I will ask, is there anyone in the audience that wanted to comment on this application,Site Plan 50-2022? PUBLIC HEARING OPEN MR.HOGAN-Good evening. I'm Brian Hogan. I could make a comment before we get started on that. MR. TRAVER-Sure. MR.HOGAN-Laura,do you have the updated? MRS. MOORE-I do. MR. HOGAN-I think one of the issues we had the last time we were before you folks was that we did a rather poor job presenting what it is we're trying to do with this application,and it's a lot less complicated then I lead you to believe last time, and if I could take a look at that,I think I could explain it to you, and what we were hoping to accomplish this evening. MR. TRAVER-Well,while we're waiting,while Laura is helping us out putting that together,my concern is the fact that we don't have, I mean it's unapproved development. This project was proceeded without proper review. It is on the shoreline,and we have some new information,though not in writing,from the Town Designated Engineer. My own feeling is it appears that there is probably a way to respond to all the issues or unknowns that the engineer expressed,but under the circumstances I am not comfortable, as is at least one other member of the Board, moving forward without getting a response from the engineer saying that this unapproved development is sufficiently planned and all of the stormwater issues are addressed. 10 (Queensbury Planning Board 10/25/2022) MR.HOGAN-If I could comment about the amount of the unapproved development. MR. TRAVER-Sure. MR.HOGAN-We are talking about 56 square feet of crushed stone driveway. MR. TRAVER-If we start setting how much unapproved development we would tolerate on the shoreline by how many square feet it is,we're going to lose the lake in a big hurry. MRS. MOORE-So essentially they're not on the shoreline. MR.HOGAN-We're not on the shoreline. MRS. MOORE-It's off of Holly Lane,but it's an internal lot. MR.HOGAN-The development itself is over 200 feet from the shoreline in every direction. MR. TRAVER-That's good. MR. HOGAN-And I understand what you're saying, and to be honest with you,being here tonight,what we're trying to do is just a scheduling issue. I spoke with Laura about this,and waiting for the response, what we were hoping to accomplish and I'm not sure if the Board would be amenable to this after I explain to you what the project is, if we could get a conditional approval contingent upon the fact that when LaBella comes back with their final response that we take into account and whatever it is they need us to do relative to this 56 square feet that we'll accommodate them. This is,the existing stormwater is already in place and it was approved previously under a different plan. The only thing that we're doing is adding to something, and frankly what we're adding, 56 square feet, is specifically for the benefit of the Town because they wanted a place to store their snow at the end of Holly Lane,which is a dead end,and if I could impose upon you folks to help us do that, that would be great, rather than wait for another month or whatever it's going to take. MR.TRAVER-I hear what you're saying,but I guess I'm confused,then,why LaBella was not comfortable. If it's that simple, why do we have this letter from LaBella with these various concerns, some of which directly affect stormwater and other issues? MR. HOGAN-That's correct. LaBella's main concern was, and again, they were confused because they didn't understand the scope of the project. MR. TRAVER-They didn't understand it. MR. HOGAN-They didn't understand that it was a minor stormwater project because they wanted,they needed clarification on that. The other thing that LaBella did not receive was the distance to neighboring wells and septic. We included that on the drawing that you see there and the closest we come to anybody's stormwater or septic is 33 feet. If you can see the amount of total disturbance is about 3500 square feet and that encompasses the 56 square feet that we're doing for the Town as well as the re-location of a pipe that would end up being upstream. MR. TRAVER-Yes, well this complicated situation is one of the problems that arises with unapproved development. I mean things often end up being slower rather than faster,more complicated rather than simpler. It's a mess,frankly. MR.HOGAN-And just to make a comment about the unapproved development portion. One of the things I did was when we received approval from the Town for what they wanted for the location for snow,that happened at the time we were building and the equipment was on site and to add 56 square feet of stone driveway would cost me a few hundred dollars as opposed to significantly more if I had to tell them to go away and then come back, and to be honest with you, I was unaware that 56 square feet of driveway actually required a stormwater plan. My neighbors expand their driveways all the time,re-pave, do not require a stormwater plan for something this small. So I'm confused as to why,and to be honest with you, as soon as I knew that it happened I actually went to Craig and explained to him what we were doing. At that time Craig said well just include it on your submission for the Planning Board review for the pavilion that you're going to put a roof over and we'll just let it go at that,and it seems to have evolved into a much larger discussion than I anticipated. MR. TRAVER-Well as I say the main concern I have is the engineer. I think if we could get that squared away, I mean I don't see any major issues with what you have done, other than, again, that it was not reviewed at the time that it was undertaken,but for that reason and the location of the project,my own feeling, and we'll hear from other members of the Board,is that I think it is very important that we get the full review from LaBella, and I understand and can appreciate how you would perceive this to be 11 (Queensbury Planning Board 10/25/2022) something very simple and uncomplicated and not much of a change in stormwater,but then we get this letter from LaBella with a number of concerns and you have submitted information. So presumably there is a study of those updates being undertaken by LaBella and we should get those back,but as we sit here tonight we don't have that update. MR.HOGAN-So you're not comfortable making it contingent upon their approval? MR. TRAVER-Well it's always contingent upon the signoff from the engineer. The issue is that some of these things may affect your plan and you're saying that if they come back with recommendations that require changes you would do those changes, but then again we'd be doing unapproved development because it wouldn't be a site plan modification that we had an opportunity to review. MR.HOGAN-Correct. MR. TRAVER-So the whole thing is better if we sort of plan our work and work our plan and kind of go through the process,but again, and I think,I have it marked, so I assume I opened the public hearing,but I'll just ask again,is there anyone else in the audience that wanted to comment on this application? I'm not seeing anyone. Are there written comments,Laura? MRS. MOO RE-There are written comments. I'll start with this. This is from Michael Carey at 2S Holly Lane. "I'm Michael Carey owner of 2S Holly Lane and am a neighbor to Meredith and Brian Hogan. I see no issues with this project moving forward and will be a nice addition to the property. Thank you. Michael Carey Jr." MR. DEEB Just to throw a monkey wrench into this. Let's go back to the pickle ball court. MR.HOGAN-Sure. I'll gladly answer any questions you have regarding that. MR. DEEB-I don't,I thought that was going to have to be approved,and all of a sudden it appears that it's done. MRS. MOORE-So the pickle ball court fell under an administrative review in the sense that it needed a minor stormwater permit which the applicant applied for to the Zoning Administrator. MR. DEEB-Okay. I was just confused as to how that,and I'm still thinking about it. MR. TRAVER-It's an odd situation. MR. HOGAN-And I,you know,I've already done it and I took advantage of it. Personally I consider it a loophole. It's 1600 square feet. MR. MAGOWAN-That's what I was going to ask,because what is the square foot of the pickle ball court over the 56 square feet of crushed stone. MR.HOGAN-Well it's not part of this application. MR. MAGOWAN-No,but do you see what I'm saying? We were able to say,oh,hey,you can put a 1600 square foot pickle ball court in there,but you can't have a 56 square foot crushed stone driveway, where the Town pushes the snow all the way down to Holly Lane. MRS.MOO RE-So the application is in reference to the pavilion. That's what this project is in front of this Board. This 56 square feet is in reference to the stormwater development of the project,but the project's in front of this Board specifically for the pavilion work. MR.HOGAN-And actually the pavilion itself is existing non-permeable area. The only thing we're doing is putting a roof over it. So it's actually not changing the stormwater configuration at all,and in hindsight I wish I'd never said anything about the 56 square feet to anybody that is my life would have been a lot simpler. MR. MAGOWAN-Thank you for your honesty. MR. DEEB-We do require engineering signoff. MR. TRAVER-Right. MR. DEEB-So, let's say we condition and approve this tonight, and engineering doesn't, they find something,and they have to come back anyway. MR. TRAVER-Well they had to come in the first time. 12 (Queensbury Planning Board 10/25/2022) MR.DEEB-That's what I'm saying. I'm just saying you have reservations about conditional approval,even though we do have to have engineering signoff. MR. TRAVER-Well, my own sort of practice with engineering signoff, when we have incomplete comments, is generally the concerns or the unresolved issues with the engineer don't resolve, don't have potential design changes, they're usually like, well,he used a, we want you to use a different calculation for your stormwater or you didn't include this information in the plan but the information was there,that type of thing. That's,I feel comfortable giving a signoff for that,but when they're talking about stormwater is,well,you saw the letter,there are elements in here that I just feel it's incomplete. MR. DEEB-It's a minor disturbance not a major. Correct? MR. TRAVER-Right. MR. DEEB-So the engineering comments are for a major? MR.HOGAN-He's questioning it. MRS. MOORE-He's questioning whether it was considered a major or a minor. It is sometimes a discussion that we will work with the engineer and provide guidance about why we consider it a minor or major. There are some specific criteria in reference to that. MR. DEE&Well I know if we're talking about tabling it's not going to get back here for a while. We're pretty full. Right? MRS. MOORE-If you table it,it could potentially move something else off the agenda because this item is already in your queue. MR. MAGOWAN-My question is we're coming into the wintertime, and if he has to do any stormwater corrections,it's probably the best time to do it, especially in that particular area where the water is high and there are wetlands that are further out,you know, and by tabling this out another month, and then getting the approvals, and then hopefully if there are any changes that have to be made, all right, and put it off to the spring. So to me it's kind of a catch 22 and I'm still baffled and the whole thing over 56 square feet. To me it's seven by eight. MR. TRAVER-It's about the pavilion. It's not about the 56 square feet. MR. MAGOWAN-But the pavilion was existing. All he did was put a roof on it. MR.HOGAN-I'm going to put a roof over it. Basically there was a camp there.. MR. TRAVER-It was not existing. MR. HOGAN-We tore it down and it's, the pavilion itself is 361 square foot and that's already non- permeable and already approved on the previous stormwater plan. MRS. MOORE-So what happened in the field was that the piers were poured for the pavilion without the approval of this Board. You,this Board,did not approve a pavilion. So it's considered new floor area. MR. MAGOWAN-Well who approved it? MRS. MOORE-Nobody. That's why we're at this stage. MR. TRAVER-So this evening it's basically unapproved development with incomplete engineering comments. My concern is with the engineering comments. I'm not especially concerned about the pavilion, but I just don't feel comfortable moving forward when we don't have the final letter from the engineer. MR. HOGAN-Stephen the only other comment that I'll make is that if LaBella comes back and says that they need more stormwater I mean we sized this to process 2724 gallons of water. The total water that's going to be generated by both the pavilion and the stone driveway configuration is 626. It's five times the stones. MR. TRAVER-Well the letter that we have to consider this evening has concerns about the stormwater, and this is from LaBella. Now I understand you've submitted new information to LaBella and they are in the process of reviewing it and we should hear back from them shortly but we don't have that this evening so we don't know what that outcome from them is going to be. That's my concern. I'm opposed to unapproved development but in view of the pavilion and everything,that to me is as lesser concern than 13 (Queensbury Planning Board 10/25/2022) the fact that we have incomplete engineering review on this, which implies that it could require changes to the plan,and I just,with those combination of factors,I don't feel comfortable moving forward without that, but again, it's, I mean I guess I could poll the Board. How do members feel going forward with incomplete engineering? MR. LONGACKER-I took a look at the comments and I personally think Questions One through Three, you know,if it's a minor development, are irrelevant. Four and Five,you know, showing the location of the wells next door and the septics, that's pretty easy. The only one I see is maybe Number Six, being contingent upon providing that erosion and sediment control plan, but again, the other ones I think are kind of moot if it is indeed a minor stormwater. MR. TRAVER-So you're comfortable with giving? MR. LONGACKER-I'm comfortable with giving approval. MR. TRAVER-Okay. Mr. Magowan? MR. MAGOWAN-I'm comfortable with engineer's signoff. MR. TRAVER-Okay. MR. DEEB-I am,too. MR. DIXON-I'm comfortable. I don't like how we got here,but I would be comfortable with engineering signoff. MR. TRAVER-Okay. MR. STARK-I'm comfortable with engineering signoff as well. MR. ETU-Yes. MR. TRAVER-All right. Well, in that case, we have a, it sounds like Board members are comfortable moving forward,so let's hear the resolution. MS. GAGLIARDI-Mr. Chairman,you didn't close the public hearing. MR. TRAVER-All right. Thank you. I will close the public hearing. PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED MR. TRAVER-Thank you,Maria, and then we can hear that resolution. RESOLUTION APPROVING SP#50-2022 BRIAN HOGAN The applicant has submitted an application the Planning Board:Applicant proposes to complete a 361 sq. ft. pavilion with a height of 15ft 2 inches to be constructed near the vicinity of the cottage that has been demolished. The existing home of 1,460 sq. ft. footprint is to remain with no changes. The existing floor area is 1,64E sq. ft. and the new floor area will be 2,009 sq. ft. Pursuant to chapter 179-3-040, site plan review for a pavilion in the Waterfront Residential zone shall be subject to Planning Board review and approval. Pursuant to relevant sections of the Town of Queensbury Zoning Code-Chapter 179-9-OSO, 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 S/25/2022 and continued the public hearing to 10/25/2022,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 10/25/2022; 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 50-2022 BRIAN HOGAN,- Introduced by Michael Dixon who moved for its adoption. 14 (Queensbury Planning Board 10/25/2022) According to the draft resolution prepared by Staff with the following: 1) Waivers requested granted: g. site lighting, h. signage, 1. landscaping, n traffic, o. commercial alterations/construction details, q. soil logs,r. construction/demolition disposal s. snow removal as these items are typically associated with commercial projects; 2) The approval is valid for one (1) year from the date of approval. Applicant is responsible for requesting an extension of approval before the one (1)year time frame has expired. 3) 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. 1) Approval will be conditioned upon all engineering comments being addressed and engineering final signoff prior to any site work. Motion seconded by Warren Longacker. Duly adopted this 25`h day of October 2022 by the following vote: AYES: Mr. Dixon, Mr. Longacker,Mr. Stark,Mr. Magowan,Mr. Etu,Mr. Deeb NOES: Mr. Traver MR. TRAVER-Okay. You're all set. MR.HOGAN-Thank you all for your time. I appreciate it. MR. TRAVER-The next section of our agenda is Old Business, and the first item is Don Bernard. This is Site Plan 64-2022 and Freshwater Wetlands 12-2022. SITE PLAN NO. 64-2022 FRESHWATER WETLANDS 12-2022 SEQR TYPE: II. DON BERNARD. OWNER(S): 20 BRAYTON LLC. ZONING: WR. LOCATION: 20 BRAYTON LANE. APPLICANT PROPOSES TO CONSTRUCT ANEW SINGLE FAMILY HOME OF 730 SQ. FT.WITH A DECK/PORCH AREA OF 885 SQ.FT. THE NEW FLOOR AREA TO BE 2,643 SQ.FT. THE APPLICANT'S PREVIOUS HOME HAS BEEN DEMOLISHED AS PER ORIGINAL APPROVAL THAT EXPIRED IN JUNE 2022. THE APPLICANT PROPOSES THE SAME PROJECT WITH THE CONSTRUCTION OF A NEW HOME AND MAINTAINING THE EXISTING OUTBUILDINGS. PURSUANT TO CHAPTER 179-3-040,179-6-065&z 94,SITE PLAN FOR ANEW FLOOR AREA IN A CEA,HARD SURFACING WITHIN 50 FT.OF THE SHORELINE AND WORK WITHIN 100 FEET OF WETLANDS SHALL BE SUBJECT TO PLANNING BOARD REVIEW AND APPROVAL. CROSS REFERENCE: AV 61-2019, SP 79-2019, FWW 8-2019, AV 47-2022. WARREN CO. REFERRAL: OCTOBER 2022. SITE INFORMATION: CEA,APA, LGPC. LOT SIZE: .28 ACRES. TAX MAP NO. 239.8-1-15. SECTION: 179-3-040,179-6-065,CHAPTER 94. 15 (Queensbury Planning Board 10/25/2022) JON ZAPPER, REPRESENTING APPLICANT,PRESENT MR. TRAVER-Laura? MRS. MOORE-So this applicant proposes the construction of a new single family home of 730 square feet with an SS5 square foot deck,porch area. New floor area for this home is 2,643 square feet. In terms of variances,the applicant did receive the variances necessary in reference to setbacks, and again this project was untimely only because the applicant did not begin the project within the one year timeframe where the extension was granted. MR. TRAVER-Right. Understood. Thank you,Laura. Good evening. MR. ZAPPER-Good evening, again,for the record Jon Lapper. So we were here discussing this last week and you recommended that the Zoning Board approve it and they did. This project, as Laura said, was fully approved previously. The applicant did demolition of the house and some outbuilding sheds that were required under the approval,but that wasn't enough to grandfather it,so we had to re-apply. I found about it days too late, and I called Laura and it was too late. So the reason for the variances were just because it's this odd-shaped narrow lot which is setback, but in the prior process the larger house was reduced to a conforming. So it's, again, not a floor area ratio or a permeability. It's just because of the setbacks,and did some planting plan for the lake. Everything was worked out last time. MR. TRAVE R-Right. And just to confirm,this plan is identical to what was previously approved by this Board and the ZBA? MR. ZAPPER-We re-submitted the exact same project. MR. TRAVER-Okay. Thank you. Questions, comments from members of the Board? We do have a public hearing on this application as well. Is there anyone that wanted to address the Planning Board on this application, Site Plan 64-2022 and Freshwater Wetlands 12-2022? Yes,sir. PUBLIC HEARING OPENED KEN PIACENTE MR. PIACENTE-Hi. Ken Piacente, 22 Brayton Road. I'm not sure if it was last year or a little farther back, Dave Dufresne has a camera on his property and my son had stopped there and Don had hired somebody to dig alongside my foundation and cut across my property and dig, never filled it back in. I guess he dug up the road without permission, dug on his property without permission. Promised me a bunch of stuff,Dave a bunch of stuff,never came through with that,and the power pole is on the property, which is on his property,but feeds my house for the last whatever,50 or 75 years or whatever it's been and National Grid said that I should get an easement if he's going to take that pole down and run power under his property and then come onto my property,and also his surveyor is trying to say that the last five feet of my property that I don't own he owns and that has never been taken care of. MR. TRAVER-Do you have a deed? MR.PIACENTE-Yes. MR. TRAVER-That should outline your property line. MR. PIACENTE-Yes, except C.T. Male surveyed it and it's his responsibility to take care of it. I told him before that C.T. Male is not going to do anything unless he writes them a check first because they're not going to do all this research and get nothing for it. MR. TRAVER-So if I hear you correctly your concerns are that he is proposing to utilize property that actually belongs to you? MR. PIACENTE-Well the last five feet. I mean that would probably cut into his setbacks. MR. TRAVER-Okay, and that there's a potential that electricity could be cut to your home. MR. PIACENTE-Well he said that he would pay for all the underground stuff. MR. TRAVER-Do you have any of that in writing? MR. PIACENTE-No. MR.TRAVER-Okay,and then,let's see,you started by saying that he had done some construction on your property? 16 (Queensbury Planning Board 10/25/2022) MR.PIACENTE-Well just digging. He took a backhoe. MR. TRAVER-Why would he do that? MR.PIACENTE-Because he wanted to go and hook into my power. I mean why would he dig underneath the road? He didn't dig underneath the road. He dug the road up without permission. MR. TRAVER-All right. MR. PIACENTE-And he also put one inch lines in which you need two inch and it's supposed to be two feet under the ground. MR. TRAVER-And he didn't speak to you about doing that? MR.PIACENTE-He had talked to me a long time ago about it,but then when he did all this other stuff I'm like,I didn't give him permission to do it. MR. TRAVER-Okay. Well in the broad sense what you're describing sounds like it's really a civil matter and beyond the purview of this Planning Board. MR. PIACENTE-But how can you give him a permit if you don't know where the property line is? MR. TRAVER-Well we believe that we do have the property line. MR.PIACENTE-From who? MR. TRAVER-From the Town. MRS. MOORE-From his surveyor. MR. PIACENTE-Not from his surveyor. C.T. Male is ten times larger than this guy. So you think C.T. Male is the one that did it wrong,or is lying? MR. TRAVER-I appreciate what your,I hear what your concerns are and I appreciate what you're saying, sir, but be advised that this Board does not get involved in a civil dispute between parties. So if you're questioning his property line that's an issue that you need to resolve outside of the purview of the Planning Board. We have no authority to change a property line,you know,based on your,and`m not questioning what you're saying. I'm just stating there's nothing we can do about the issues that you raise. They're civil issues. MR. PIACENTE-So what happens if the property line is five foot over and he's wrong. What would they do with this house? Just get another variance to say you can be five foot closer? MR.TRAVER-Well I think that's something that would have to be resolved if it's found out that his survey is inaccurate. At this stage this evening we have no reason to believe that his survey is inaccurate. MR.PIACENTE-Well,if he gave money to C.T. Male in Latham I'm sure they would take care of it within a couple of weeks. MR. TRAVER-We will ask about the property line. Is there anything else that you wanted to mention? MR. PIACENTE-National Grid said he could not move that telephone pole, and my thing was the survey would have to be straightened out. I don't mind them moving the pole, as long as my survey is taken care of and he's paying for all the stuff. Because I still have to make time away from my job to go up and be able to have an electrician go into the house and do everything he's got to do. MR.TRAVER-Well this Board has no authority over National Grid,although I'm sure there are times that some members would wish that we did,but we will ask as best we can about your issues. So thank you. MR.PIACENTE-Okay. All right. Thanks. MR. TRAVER-Is there anyone else in the audience that wanted to address the Planning Board on this? Yes,sir. DAVID DUFRESNE MR. DUFRESNE-I'm David Dufresne from 24 Brayton Road. Right next to Kenny. The owner of the property one day,I have cameras on my property,showing me what's going on when I'm not there,when 17 (Queensbury Planning Board 10/25/2022) I'm not there all the time. So on a Saturday I'm having breakfast and I look on my camera on my phone and I see this backhoe digging to that telephone pole that's on my property. So I called Warren County Sheriff and met him up at the site and I said what's going on,well they told me to dig this from that pole, cut the road and come over onto his property and I said that's fine,but what are you doing on my property? Who gave you the right to dig from that pole? MR. TRAVER-And who was it that was doing the digging? MR. DUFRESNE-Some kid, some kid that Mr. Bernard hired to do it on a Saturday. He cut the road on Saturday and when I called the road crew on Monday they said he didn't have any permit to cut that road and he's got to put that road back together,the way he took it up. MR. TRAVER-So you have essentially the same concern that your neighbor has. MR. DUFRESNE-Well,I've got a couple of concerns. The island that goes Brayton Road,it's an island,I own half of it. Mr.Bernard has the other half on the hill. The last meeting I came to the attorney said it's taken care of. I said what's taken care of? My wife made the comment, but where are we putting the septic system? Because if he's going to put a house here,he has no room to put a septic system. He's going to put it across the road on the island. We asked what kind of septic system he's putting in, it doesn't concern you. Well I've never seen stuff go uphill. I've always seen it come downhill,but where's he going to do a leach field? He's got to pump it across the road. Number One,he's got to bring a pump in and cut the grinder and pump it over across the street. MR. TRAVER-There's no question that,in recent years,there's been a lot of innovation in septic systems and in fact some of them do flow uphill,believe it or not. I understand what you're saying that it seems odd that that would be the configuration,but that's all included in the plan. MR. DUFRESNE-Well that's what the lawyer told me. That's what the lawyer said that night, that it doesn't concern you, telling my wife it doesn't concern you. What doesn't concern you? If it's up here and we're down here,there's only one way that water can flow is down, and I'm down there. MR. TRAVER-Well there are regulations concerning distances between a septic and a well, or a septic and a stormwater device, that type of thing. So all of those calculations have been made and the Town Designated Engineer also has the responsibility to evaluate the plan from a stormwater management standpoint. The Board of Health looks at septic and so on,and those have all been reviewed and found to be in compliance. MR. DUFRESNE-Well is it a holding tank or is it a septic tank? What are they putting in there? MR. TRAVER-We can ask. We will ask that. So you'll hear that this evening. MR. DUFRESNE-And I could not get an answer. We could not get an answer the night we were here. MR. TRAVER-You should be able to hear an explanation this evening. MR. DUFRESNE-What they're putting in. Then the other thing is he has a shed up on,I don't know,can we see the shed from there? Up on top I think is the shed that he owns, and he's getting electric from National Grid from my pole. He dug,he did not dig. The former owners dug through and the electrician ran through from the pole right across in front of my shed. MR. TRAVER-But he's not running electricity off of your electric meter. MR. DUFRESNE-No,he's not on my electric meter. He's got an electric meter. MR. TRAVER-Okay. MR.DUFRESNE-He was given,see the prior owners were giving me power to my shed,and when he took it over he cut my power off,and so I don't have any power. The only way I'm going to get power now is to put a service in,a garage, a small shed. MR. TRAVER-So previously, and I'm asking the indulgence of the Board. I'm digressing a little bit,but you didn't have service before. So he was paying for your electricity in effect. MR. DUFRESNE-The prior owners of the property. MR. TRAVER-And the new owner said you're going to have to get your own meter and start paying for your own electricity. 18 (Queensbury Planning Board 10/25/2022) MR. DUFRESNE-Well,he cut the line. He offered me a shed. He was going to give me one of the sheds. He promised the world,given in dollars and sense, and gave us nothing. MR. TRAVER-Okay. MR. DUFRESNE-And I don't even know this man,but I don't want him digging on my property. MR. TRAVER-I have to ask you about specific concerns with the proposal that's before us this evening. I understand that you have a history of some issues and concerns about electricity and digging and various things and we'll ask about some of that, but the purpose of the public comment period really is to specifically address this plan. Do you have anything additional to offer on this plan that we have before us this evening? MR.DUFRESNE-I've seen the plan. I'm just saying where is he getting the electric? That's Number One. Where is he getting the water? Probably the lake. I know they came in and tried to dig a well on that island on his property quite a few years ago and the well digger said that it could be done but it's going to be very costly because of the. MR. TRAVER-We'll ask about his water supply. Anything else? MR. DUFRESNE-Water supply,electric and sewer,the septic system. MR. TRAVER-Okay. We will get answers on those things. Thank you very much. MR. DUFRESNE-Thank you. MR. TRAVER-Is there anyone else that wanted to address the Planning Board on this application? Are there written comments,Laura? MRS. MOORE-The only written comment was from Mr. Kenneth Piacente, and he spoke. MR. TRAVER-Okay. All right. In that case we will close the public hearing. PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED MR. TRAVER-You heard the concerns. There was a question about, well, I can just ask, where is he getting his electricity? MR. ZAPPER-So this project does involve taking down a pole and undergrounding the electricity and he has committed to the neighbor that he will grant him an easement. What's already been done as part of the demolition is to put in a conduit underground for the electricity and he has authorized me to say on the record that he will grant an easement for the undergrounded power. That's in everybody's interest. MR. TRAVER-Okay. MR. DEEB-So the easement will be granted. MR. ZAPPER-Yes. MR. TRAVER-So the only change in the electric service is a pole is going to disappear and it's going to be underground. MR. ZAPPER-Yes. MR. TRAVER-What about,where is he going to get his water supply? MR. ZAPPER-The water is lake water. MR. TRAVER-Is lake water. MR. ZAPPER-And I know that the septic system did not require a variance. MR.TRAVE R-Right. I think there was just a question,not a complaint really,but just for information the neighbors were wondering what kind of a system is it? Is it a raised bed type of? MR. ZAPPER-Do you have that,Laura? MRS. MOORE-I'm trying to look up what septic system he's got. 19 (Queensbury Planning Board 10/25/2022) MR. ZAPPER-I didn't bring the whole set of plans. I know it did require a variance. MR. TRAVER-It's on the plan,Laura,but it's too small to read. MR. LONGACKER-That conduit, was that okayed by National Grid, the size of it? I heard a comment that it was too small. MR. ZAPPER-Yes. He's been speaking with National Grid. MR. MAGOWAN-What size is the conduit? MR. ZAPPER-I don't have that information. MR. MAGOWAN-Laura,did you see the size of the conduit? MR. ZAPPER-There's the septic. MR. MAGOWAN-While we're looking here, I am very concerned when I hear, or will ever hear in the future,this is a civil matter. I do not feel comfortable moving forward. MR. ZAPPER-It's not a Planning Board issue about where the power comes from. MEMBER OF PUBLIC-You still haven't answered where the power's coming from,though. MR. TRAVER-So then there was a question as well about the survey. I assume that you. MR. ZAPPER-All I know is that this was a stamped survey that was submitted to the Town last time. This is the first I've heard about this,but it was approved based upon a stamped survey. MR. TRAVER-Okay. So it was signed off by the surveyor? MR. ZAPPER-Yes. MR. TRAVER-Okay. MR. ZAPPER-The good thing with Queensbury compared to other towns is you can't get to the Boards without a stamped survey. MR. TRAVER-Right. MR. LONGACKER-And I'm really sorry. I hate to ask,but could you maybe point out where the pole is on this right here and then maybe let us know where the power comes into that? MR. ZAPPER-Unfortunately I can't. It wasn't on the site plan as far as I know. That generally isn't. I just know he's done the work to underground it and that's part of the project. MR. TRAVER-But is it safe to say that any changes in the electric service are regarding mainly the pole and not the service itself? So that there's no impact to the neighborhood? MR. ZAPPER-Yes,it's just about undergrounding it so you don't have to look at poles and wires. MR. TRAVER-Right. That's what I thought. MR. ZAPPER-And we certainly are going to grant the neighbor an easement for that. MR. TRAVER-Okay. Good. I just wanted to get that on the record. So we're looking for the septic. MR. ZAPPER-The septic system is in the center of,in that area where the road is, away from the lake, and again,that didn't need any variances last time. MR. TRAVER-It doesn't specifically say what type of septic it is,but in that vein then it's probably more or less a standard system,aside from the fact that it's pumped up to the bed as opposed to running downhill as a more common is concerned. So really the difference is just that it's going to be,there you go. MRS. MOORE-It's a pressure bed design. MR.TRAVER-And this information is part of the plan that's posted on the Town website. Is it not,Laura? MRS. MOORE-Correct. This is where I'm pulling it from. 20 (Queensbury Planning Board 10/25/2022) MR. TRAVER-Okay. So for information for the public,people that are concerned about the design of the septic, it is available at queensbury.net,under Planning Board materials for the August 25`h meeting and since the same plan as last time it should be available from a year ago as well. MR. ZAPPER-So there's a soil test you can see right in the center of the septic bed and it is pumped away from the lake to get it to that central area. MR. TRAVER-Okay. All right. How do members feel moving forward? MR. LONGACKER-One question regarding that pole. I think on the sheet we have here, I think I understand the pole that is in question here, and I see that there's a 25 foot easement,a right of way. MR. MAGOWAN-It says 32 foot wide right of way. MR. LONGACKER-And then it says See Map Reference Number Three,but I don't see a Map Reference Number Three. I'd just like to know exactly. I think that's a three. MR. MAGOWAN-It looks like a 1 with a comma. MRS. MOORE-It's in parenthesis. MR. MAGOWAN-Yes, map of the survey of the lands of Francis A. and Francis M. Boucher Estate. So that's on the reference maps,but it says a 32 foot wide right of way. MR. LONGACKER-That's a utility right of way. MRS. MOORE-My guess is it's a utility right of way. MR. LONGACKER-A utility right of way. So that's why my question was, where's the pole that comes into that,because if we're going to come off of that pole and then go underground,I don't know,maybe it would be conducive to the plans to show the location of where it's coming through. MR. DIXON-I know we've closed the public hearing,but would it be a value to have the neighbor point out the pole for us? MR. TRAVER-So is the pole on this? MR.PIACENTE-It's on Don's property,but originally that was a right of way that was on a road. MR. DEEB-You're going to do away with the pole. MR. ZAPPER-Yes. MR. DEEB-And put underground,and you're going to have an easement. MR. ZAPPER-Yes. MR. PIACENTE-I'm going to have an easement, yes, but he still didn't answer the questions where he's getting the power from. Because National Grid said you cannot dig on somebody else's property to get to that pole. He can get it above ground, but not underground. Like he could put another pole on his property,right on the property line and they could just go overhead and he could come down. MR. TRAVER-Sir,we will ask about that. So,Mr. Lapper,does this change in the electric service require him digging on the neighbor's property? MR. ZAPPER-Not that I'm aware of, but I know that he has to get permission from National Grid to underground the power and he's been dealing with National Grid. MR. TRAVER-And that hasn't happened yet. MR. ZAPPER-I don't think that it's done yet. MR. TRAVER-And before National Grid grants that permission,if the neighbors are involved,you have to get their permission. Correct? MR. ZAPPER-Yes,if it's anything on the neighbor's property we need to get the neighbor's permission. 21 (Queensbury Planning Board 10/25/2022) MR.TRAVER-Okay. So there's currently no encroachment on neighbors'property and permission would have to be granted before such encroachment could take place. MR. ZAPPER-Yes. MR. TRAVER-Okay. Any other questions? MR. MAGOWAN-I've got a question with this five foot on the survey there and there's a question, and we've been down this road before when we've let it be a civil and I do not feel that we should approve anything hopefully that it goes civil. We've already,it's backfired twice on us, and I will not be voting for anything that is brought up to go civil. MR. TRAVER-I understand your concern. The information that I've received in the orientation that I got is that if it's reviewed,signed off on and stamped and the Town accepts it we have to consider it valid. MR. MAGOWAN-That's great, and that's fine for what you have learned and I've learned that,too,but I also have been out in the field and I've been in construction and I've seen these issues arising. So,no. MR. ZAPPER-If the neighbor thinks that he owns part of somebody's property,you go to court. MR. PIACENTE-It's the other way around. MR. ZAPPER-All I know is he got a stamped survey saying that this is the property line. MR. TRAVER-Right. Okay. So Board members can always vote against it if they're not comfortable, any other questions, comments from members of the Board before we hear a resolution? Again, this is the second time this has been reviewed and approved. We have a draft resolution. MR. DIXON-We do. I do have a question before we look at that. A little unusual because we don't normally talk about the easements or anything in our resolutions. MR. TRAVER-Right. MR. DIXON-But I would feel more comfortable, the applicant has stated that they would incur the expenses associated with the utilities being placed. MR. DEEB-I do agree that should be on the resolution. MR. TRAVER-Yes. MR. ZAPPER-I have no problem with that. MR. TRAVER-That's fine. MR. ZAPPER-I'm authorized to make that statement from the applicant. MR. TRAVER-It's also in the minutes and part of the record. So that's a good idea. RESOLUTION APPROVING SP#64-2022 FWW 12-2022 DON BERNARD The applicant has submitted an application the Planning Board: Applicant proposes to construct a new single family home of 730 sq. ft. with a deck/porch area of SS5 sq. ft. The new floor area to be 2,643 sq. ft. The applicant's previous home has been demolished as per original approval that expired in June 2022.The applicant proposes the same project with the construction of a new home and maintaining the existing outbuildings. Pursuant to chapter 179-3-040, 179-6-065 &9, site plan for a new floor area in a CEA,hard surfacing within 50 ft. of the shoreline and work within 100 feet of wetlands shall be subject to Planning Board review and approval. Pursuant to relevant sections of the Town of Queensbury Zoning Code-Chapter 179-9-OSO, 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 made a recommendation to the Zoning Board of Appeals on 10/1S/2022; the ZBA approved the variance on 10/19/2022-1 The Planning Board opened a public hearing on the Site plan application on 10/25/2022 and continued the public hearing to 10/25/2022,when it was closed, 22 (Queensbury Planning Board 10/25/2022) 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 10/25/2022; 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 64-2022 &z FRESHWATER WETLANDS 12-2022 DON BERNARDI- Introduced by Michael Dixon who moved for its adoption. According to the draft resolution prepared by Staff with the following: 1) Waivers requested granted:items g.site lighting,h.signage,j.stormwater,k.topography, n traffic, o. commercial alterations/ construction details, p floor plans, q. soil logs, r. construction/demolition disposal s. snow removal as these items are typically associated with commercial projects; 2) The approval is valid for one (1) year from the date of approval. Applicant is responsible for requesting an extension of approval before the one (1)year time frame has expired. 3) 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. 1) Applicant states that they will incur expenses associated with placing utilities underground and will grant easement to neighbors that are impacted. Motion seconded by David Deeb. Duly adopted this 25`h day of October 2022 by the following vote: AYES: Mr. Etu,Mr. Deeb,Mr. Dixon,Mr. Traver NOES: Mr. Longacker,Mr. Stark,Mr. Magowan MR. ZAPPER-Thanks,everybody. MR. TRAVER-The next item on our agenda, this is also under Old Business, is William Mason, Robert and Ruth Finegold. This is Site Plan 67-2022. SITE PLAN NO. 67-2022 SEQR TYPE: TYPE II. WILLIAM MASON/ROBERT &z RUTH FINEGOLD. OWNER(S): ROBERT&z RUTH FINEGOLD. ZONING: WR. LOCATION: 4 ONONDAGA DRIVE. APPLICANT PROPOSES REMOVAL OF EXISTING 768 SQ.FT.HOME TO CONSTRUCT A NEW HOME OF THE SAME FOOTPRINT WITH A SECOND STORY AND BASEMENT. THE NEW FLOOR AREA WIL BE 2,354 SQ. FT. THE PROJECT IS LOCATED IN 23 (Queensbury Planning Board 10/25/2022) THE TAKUNDEWIDE DEVELOPMENT. THE PROJECT INCLUDES A 32 SQ.FT.NEW PORCH AND AN 18 FT SMALLER ACCESS LANDING TO THE EXISTING PORCH. THE PROJECT IS CONNECTED TO THE TAKUNDEWIDE COMMUNITY SEPTIC AND WATER SUPPLY FROM THE LAKE. PURSUANT TO CHAPTER 179-3-040 &z 179-6-065,SITE PLAN FOR NEW FLOOR AREA IN A CEA AND HARD SURFACING SHALL BE SUBJECT TO PLANNING BOARD REVIEW AND APPROVAL. VARIANCE: RELIEF IS SOUGHT FOR FLOOR AREA, SETBACKS AND PERMEABILITY. PLANNING BOARD SHALL PROVIDE A RECOMMENDATION TO THE ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS. CROSS REFERENCE: AV 48-2022. WARREN CO.REFERRAL: OCTOBER 2022. SITE INFORMATION: CEA,TAKUNDEWIDE,APA,LGPC. LOT SIZE: .05 ACRE. TAX MAP NO. 239.8-1-49. SECTION: 179-3-040,179-6-065 WILLIAM MASON,PRESENT MR. TRAVER-Laura? MRS. MOORE-This application is for the removal of the existing home to construct a new home on a similar footprint with a second story and basement. The new floor area will be 2,354 square feet. The project includes a new porch area as well as a smaller access landing, and in regards to the variances,they were received the other evening, and it dealt with setbacks,permeability as well as floor area. MR. TRAVER-Okay. Thank you. Welcome back. MR. MASON-Thank you very much. Bill Mason. MR. TRAVER-So we did look at this previously. This is part of the Takundewide development. We understand that. There was a comment from the County Planning Board saying to encourage discussion about eliminating surface and stormwater runoff during construction. So I assume that that,I mean we've had other projects in the Takundewide area and my recollection is they've all been handled professionally, but they did mention that. So we're going to mention that as well. MR. MASON-Okay. Consider it mentioned. We do handle it with silt fences and so on, and normally, the contractor that I hire to do the excavating takes down the building, removes the material from the ground, and doesn't pile it up. He actually removes it from the site so that we really don't disturb a lot around. When you do that,you end up with a lot of the stuff in the lake and so on, and it ends up to be a much cleaner worksite all the time. We put up silt fences whenever necessary. MR. TRAVER-Yes. Good. Well we appreciate that. MR. MASON-Thank you. MR. TRAVER-And it's noted that you got your variance from the Zoning Board of Appeals. Any changes to what we last reviewed as a result of your chat with the ZBA? MR. MASON-No. MR. TRAVER-Questions,comments from members of the Planning Board? 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 Site Plan 67-2022? I'm not seeing any. Laura, are there any written comments? PUBLIC HEARING OPENED MRS. MOORE-There are no written comments. MR.TRAVER-Okay. Then we'll go ahead and close the public hearing. Members are comfortable moving forward? MR. DEEB-Yes. RESOLUTION APPROVING SP#67-2022 WILLIAM MASON/ROBERT&r RUTH FINEGOLD The applicant has submitted an application the Planning Board: Applicant proposes removal of existing 768 sq.ft.home to construct a new home of the same footprint with a second story and basement.The new floor area will be 2,354 sq.ft.The project is located in the Takundewide development.The project includes a 32 sq.ft.new porch and an 18 ft.smaller access landing to the existing porch. The project is connected to the Takundewide community septic and water supply from the lake.Pursuant to chapter 179-3-040&179- E-065, site plan for new floor area in a CEA and hard surfacing shall be subject to Planning Board review and approval. 24 (Queensbury Planning Board 10/25/2022) Pursuant to relevant sections of the Town of Queensbury Zoning Code-Chapter 179-9-OSO, 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 made a recommendation to the Zoning Board of Appeals on 10/1S/2022; the ZBA approved the variance on 10/19/2022-1 The Planning Board opened a public hearing on the Site plan application on 10/25/2022 and continued the public hearing to 10/25/2022,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 10/25/2022; 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 67-2022 WILLIAM MASON/ROBERT&z RUTH FINEGOLD; Introduced by Michael Dixon who moved for its adoption. According to the draft resolution prepared by Staff with the following: 1) Waivers requested granted: g. site lighting, h. signage, k. topography, 1. landscaping, n traffic, o. commercial alterations/construction details,p floor plans, q. soil logs,r. construction/demolition disposal s. snow removal as these items are typically associated with commercial projects; 2) The approval is valid for one (1) year from the date of approval. Applicant is responsible for requesting an extension of approval before the one (1)year time frame has expired. 3) 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 Motion seconded by Brad Magowan. Duly adopted this 25`h day of October 2022 by the following vote: AYES: Mr. Stark,Mr. Magowan,Mr. Etu,Mr. Deeb,Mr. Dixon,Mr. Longacker, Mr. Traver NOES: NONE MR. TRAVER-You're all set. 25 (Queensbury Planning Board 10/25/2022) MR. DEEB-Good seeing you,Bill. MR. MASON-Thank you very much. Good to see all of you again. MR. TRAVER-The next application on our agenda is Faden Enterprises, and we understand this is to be tabled. SITE PLAN NO. 68-2022 FRESHWATER WETLANDS 13-2022 SPECIAL USE PERMIT 6-2022 SEQR TYPE: IL FADEN ENTERPRISES. AGENT(S): LANSING ENGINEERING. OWNER(S): SARATOGA PRIME PROPERTIES,LLC. ZONING: CI. LOCATION: 1471 STATE ROUTE 9. APPLICANT PROPOSES REMOVAL OF AN EXISTING BUILDING ON THE SITE TO CONSTRUCT 3 NEW BUILDINGS AND ASSOCIATED SITE WORK. THE PROJECT INCLUDES ONE BUILDING OF 8,950 SQ. FT. THAT IS DESIGNATED AS 3 TENANT SPACES;2,000 SQ. FT. FOR A DRIVE-THRU, 2,500 SQ. FT. FOR A RESTAURANT, AND 8,355 SQ. FT. FOR RETAIL SPACE. THE SECOND AND THIRD BUILDINGS WILL CONTAIN A TOTAL OF 24 UNITS OF SELF-STORAGE IN 3,480 SQ.FT. EACH BUILDING WILL BE 1,740 SQ.FT.AND HAVE 12 UNITS. PURSUANT TO CHAPTER 179-3-040, 179-10-040,&z 94,SITE PLAN FOR NEW COMMERCIAL DEVELOPMENT AND SELF-STORAGE FACILITY, HARD SURFACING WITHIN 50 FT. OF A SHORELINE/WETLANDS, FRESHWATER WETLANDS PERMIT,AND SPECIAL USE PERMIT FOR SELF-STORAGE FACILITY SHALL BE SUBJECT TO PLANNING BOARD REVIEW AND APPROVAL. CROSS REFERENCE: SP 43-2002,SP 34-2004,SP 8-2006,SP 52-2011,SP 59-2014, SP 45-2015,SV 48-2014,DISC 1-2022,AV 49-2022. WARREN CO.REFERRAL: OCTOBER 2022. SITE INFORMATION: TRAVEL CORRIDOR OVERLAY. LOT SIZE: 199 ACRES. TAX MAP NO.288.-1-58. SECTION: 179-3-040,179-10-040,94. MR. TRAVER-Until December,Laura,do I recall? MRS. MOORE-Yes, this application is being tabled to December. Correct. So it will be the second meeting in December. MR. TRAVER-Okay. Second meeting. So second meeting I have as December 15. MRS. MOORE-Correct. MR. TRAVER-Okay. MRS. MOORE-And then do you want to open the public hearing and leave that open? MR. TRAVER-Yes, thank you. So we will, this is Faden Enterprises, Site Plan 65-2022, Freshwater Wetlands 13-2022 and Special Use Permit 6-2022 is being tabled to the December 15 Planning Board meeting where we'll get updated plans. So we will open the public hearing. PUBLIC HEARING OPENED MR. TRAVER-And we will leave the public hearing open for that December appearance when that application comes before us again. Do we have a tabling resolution? RESOLUTION TABLING SP#65-2022 FWW 13-2022 SUP 6-2022 FADEN ENTERPRISES Applicant proposes removal of an existing building on the site to construct 3 new buildings and associated site work. The project includes one building of 5,355 sq.ft.that is designated as 3 tenant spaces:2,000 sq. ft. for a drive-thru, 2,500 sq. ft. for a restaurant, and 3,555 sq. ft. for retail space. The second and third buildings will contain a total of 24 units of self-storage in 3,4SO sq.ft.Each building will be 1,740 sq.ft.and have 12 units.Pursuant to chapter 179-3-040,179-10-040,&94,site plan for new commercial development and self-storage facility,hard surfacing within 50 ft. of a shoreline/wetlands,freshwater wetlands permit, and special use permit for self-storage facility shall be subject to Planning Board review and approval. MOTION TO TABLE SITE PLAN 68-2022,FRESHWATER WETLANDS 13-2022&z SPECIAL USE PERMIT 6-2022 FADEN ENTERPRISES. Introduced by Michael Dixon who moved for its adoption, seconded by Brad Magowan. Tabled until the December 15,2022 Planning Board meeting with information due by November 15,2022. Duly adopted this 25`h day of October 2022 by the following vote: AYES: Mr. Stark,Mr. Magowan,Mr. Etu,Mr. Deeb,Mr. Dixon,Mr. Longacker, Mr. Traver NOES: NONE 26 (Queensbury Planning Board 10/25/2022) MR. TRAVER-All right. The next application,actually the next two applications,are from Renee&Tom West. They had two configurations as you may recall for the plan that they were planning on developing along the lake. SITE PLAN NO.70-2022 FRESHWATER WETLANDS 14-2022 SEQR TYPE: II. RENEE&z TOM WEST. AGENT(S): EDP. OWNER(S): RENEE DESORMEAU WEST. ZONING: WR. LOCATION: 79 KNOX ROAD. APPLICANT PROPOSES TO DEMOLISH AN EXISTING HOME TO CONSTRUCT ANEW 4,652 SQ.FT.FOOTPRINT HOME WITH ATTACHED GARAGE. THE FLOOR AREA IS TO BE 6,500. THE HOME HEIGHT WILL BE 27 FT., 11.5 INCHES ON A 1.22 ACRE PARCEL. THE PROJECT INCLUDES NEW SEPTIC SYSTEM, STORMWATER CONTROLS AND PERMEABLE DRIVEWAY AREAS. THE PROJECT WILL BE WITHIN 100 FEET OF THE WETLAND. PURSUANT TO CHAPTER 179-3-040,179-6-065,94 AND 147, SITE PLAN REVIEW FOR NEW FLOOR AREA, HARD SURFACING WITHIN 50 FT. OF THE SHORELINE,SITE WORK WITHIN 100 FT. OF WETLANDS AND STORMWATER CONTROL DEVICE SHALL BE SUBJECT TO PLANNING BOARD REVIEW AND APPROVAL. CROSS REFERENCE: AV 52-2022. WARREN CO.REFERRAL: OCTOBER 2022. SITE INFORMATION: APA,LGPC,CEA,WETLANDS. LOT SIZE: 1.22 ACRES. TAX MAP NO. 239.7-1-16. SECTION: 179-3-040,179-6-065,94,147. MR. TRAVER-And the first one, at least on my list, Site Plan 70-2022 and Freshwater Wetlands 14-2022 has been withdrawn, and that is because their alternate plan, which we will be looking at this evening, which is Site Plan 71-2022 and Freshwater Wetlands Permit 15-2022 which advocated for a separate detached garage as opposed to an attached garage,received the variance. SITE PLAN NO.71-2022 FRESHWATER WETLANDS 15-2022 SEQR TYPE: TYPE II. RENEE &z TOM WEST. AGENT(S): EDP. OWNER(S): RENEE DESORMEAU WEST. ZONING: WR. LOCATION: 79 KNOX ROAD. APPLICANT PROPOSES TO DEMOLISH AN EXISTING HOME TO CONSTRUCT A NEW 3,315 SQ. FT. FOOTPRINT HOME WITH DETACHED 1,100 SQ. FT. GARAGE. THE FLOOR AREA IS TO BE 8,720 SQ. FT. TOTAL. THE HOME WILL HAVE A HEIGHT OF 27 FT., 8 INCHES, THE GARAGE HEIGHT WILL BE 27 FT. , 11.5 INCHES ON A PARCEL OF 1.22 ACRES. THE PROJECT INCLUDES ANEW SEPTIC SYSTEM,STORMWATER CONTROLS, PERMEABLE DRIVEWAY AREAS AND LANDSCAPING. THE PROJECT WORK WILL BE WITHIN 100 FT. OF THE WETLAND. PURSUANT TO CHAPTER 179-3-040,179-6- 065,94 AND 147,SITE PLAN FOR NEW FLOOR AREA,HARD SURFACING WITHIN 50 FT. OF THE SHORELINE, SITE WORK WITHIN 100 FT. OF WETLANDS AND STORMWATER CONTROL DEVICES SHALL BE SUBJECT TO PLANNING BOARD REVIEW AND APPROVAL. VARIANCE: RELIEF IS SOUGHT FOR STORMWATER CONTROL DEVICE SETBACK AND GARAGE HEIGHT. PLANNING BOARD SHALL MAKE A RECOMMENDATION TO THE ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS. CROSS REFERENCE: AV 53-2022. WARREN CO.REFERRAL: OCTOBER 2022. SITE INFORMATION: APA, LGPC, CEA, WETLANDS. LOT SIZE: 1.22 ACRES. TAX MAP NO.239.7-1-16. SECTION: 179-3-040,179-6-065,94,147. DENNIS MAC ELROY, REPRESENTING APPLICANT,PRESENT MR. TRAVER-So the first version,70-2022,has been withdrawn, and we will now hear Site Plan 71-2022 and Freshwater Wetlands Permit 15-2022. Laura? MRS. MOORE-Okay. So this application is to demolish the existing home and to construct a new home that includes a 3,315 square foot footprint for the house, as well as a detached garage of 1,100 square feet. Total floor area is 8,720. The home is to be 27 feet 8 inches and the garage height will be 27 feet 11 and a half inches. The applicant did receive their variances in reference to setbacks to the wetland, for stormwater devices and to the lake, as well as a height variance. MR. TRAVER-Okay. Thank you. Good evening. MR. MAC ELROY-Good evening. I'm Dennis MacElroy with Environmental Design,representing Renee and Tom West for the site plan application. Unfortunately they are out of Town and couldn't make it tonight,but we were glad to receive the variance approval from the ZBA last Wednesday which enabled us to move forward with what really was their preferred plan,Curtain Number Two,the detached garage. So the site plan is effectively very similar. It involved a new State of the Art technology for wastewater system, a new septic system. It uses enhanced treatment technology. Stormwater management is provided. One of the variances that was issued was related to that setback,the not 100 feet as currently existing, it's something greater than 35 feet. There's several different stormwater devices. The project meets all the different other standards for permeability and floor area ratio. So we're in good standing there. It's a situation where it's an improved site condition based on the wastewater and stormwater. The applicants wanted to have a year round residence and this was the way to achieve that was through a teardown and a re-build. It's a 1.2 acre lot. It's a good-sized lot, and very flat,other than the,what would 27 (Queensbury Planning Board 10/25/2022) be the northeast corner. So there's really,runoff issues and what not are not,this isn't the type of property that there should be the concern about many of our steeper properties along the lakeshore are. So I think we've provided a reasonable design for an improvement to a property that has been in their family for over 60 years. MR. TRAVER-Are there any changes to the plan from your conversation with the ZBA since we last saw you? MR. MAC ELROY-No, other than the note, the plan requirement would have a note on it saying no kitchen. No kitchen facilities in the detached garage. MR. TRAVER-Okay. MR. MAC ELROY-That's a result of those discussions. MR. TRAVER-Yes. Okay. Thank you. Questions,comments from members of the Board? MR. MAGOWAN-It really is a beautiful property. MR. TRAVER-Yes. MR. MAGOWAN-And like you said,really flat. MR. TRAVER-We do have a public hearing on this application as well. Is there anyone that wanted to address the Planning Board on Site Plan 71-2022 and Freshwater Wetlands Permit 15-2022? Yes,sir. PUBLIC HEARING OPENED CHRIS NAVITSKY MR. NAVITSKY-Thank you, Mr. Chairman, Board. Chris Navitsky, Lake George Waterkeeper. We recognize and support the project that is implementing stormwater management. We also like the building setback much further back from the lake than usual, as well as the enhanced wastewater treatment. We do request of the Board to consider a requirement of restoration of shoreline buffers along all shorelines including wetlands, as per the Town Code. We feel it's necessary due to the amount of stormwater being infiltrated. As they said, they're putting several stormwater devices around the site, including one that required a variance. It is grass sloped,minimal slope,but it is grass down to the lake with a small buffer that,although the trees are there,the buffer should be enhanced as per the Town Code with shrubs and perennials along that entire shoreline. We do know that there are some concerns on excessive algae in that area and the more buffer planting, the more nutrient take up, as well as concerns about shallow depth to groundwater which was mentioned during the Zoning Board. So I would request that consideration for condition. Thank you. MR. TRAVER-Okay. Thank you. Is there anyone else that wanted to address the Planning Board on this application? I'm not seeing any. Are there written comments,Laura? MRS. MOORE-There are written comments. This is, "Hi, Craig, Luise and I looked over Mr. and Mrs. West's proposal to erect new structures at 75 Knox Road. If I understand the proposal correctly, there are two possibilities. Luise and I have no objections to either proposal. In fact,we think the project would not harm the environment and would in fact significantly enhance our paradisiacal part of East Lake George. Regards, Luise and Rolf Ahlers 105 Knox Road, Lake George, NY 12545" And then this one is, "Craig,I am writing in support of the proposals including the option without the structure attaching the two story garage to the main house. This would eliminate bulky appearance and open the area with less impermeable surface. Thank you,Bob Glandon 63 Knox Rd." Similar approval, or similar support from Stephen Ballas and then,"Please include this letter to be read into the record at the public hearing for both variances and site plan. "My wife Bonnie and I own the property to the south of the Wests at 73 Knox Road. We are writing this letter in support of the improvements proposed in their application. We have shared a common bay and lakefront with the West family since we purchased our home in 19 S5. They have always been conscientious in their support of Lake George, as well as ardent supporters of the LGA and Lake George conservancy. Mr. West has volunteered countless hours in legal and environmental advice and advocacy to both groups. We feel their proposal will only improve the character of our neighborhood and will not in any way be detrimental to nearby properties. Furthermore,the upgrades to a state of the at wastewater and stormwater system will only improve and enhance our beautiful and pristine lake. Thank you for your attention to this matter and know that we are fully supportive of their proposed changes. Sincerely, Stuart and Bonnie Rosenberg" 73 Knox Road. MR. TRAVER-Okay. Thank you. So with that we will close the public hearing. 2S (Queensbury Planning Board 10/25/2022) PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED MR.TRAVER-You heard largely favorable public comment,aside from the concern about the requirement of the shoreline buffering. Can you comment on that? There is a Code requirement. Well,you're well familiar with that. MR. MAC ELROY-Correct. And I've offered an opinion on that in the past that it's I think somewhat overstated. There is an existing buffer along that shoreline. The West's actually,and I think you can kind of see that. It may not be within 35,but it's the area where there's any potential for upland runoff, not from the pervious surface that exists,17 new trees in that area. MR.TRAVER-Well,I appreciate what you're saying. I think that the concern is not necessarily just runoff, but it is the uptake of the nutrients to avoid them going into the lake, especially in this area,because we have had some HAB's there and it's,you know, any additional controls we can add. MR. MAC ELROY-In addition to whatever exists currently, because the regs do say where no shoreline buffer exists, then, well what qualifies as a shoreline buffer? Is it devoid of trees to begin with and then this 35 foot area? Is that it? I think that there's some flaws in the way that that was written. It built upon the previous Ordinance which talked about the 15 feet, but the numbers are what's. Chris had mentioned the wetlands, because that applies to the wetland. Now the wetland borders the whole western side of that property and if you applied the numbers to that,there'd be 17 trees, 232 shrubs, and 462 herbaceous plants along the edge of an existing wetlands which is filled with vegetation,shrubs along that edge,happens to be bordering my property. It is my property,the wetland,my family's property. So I'm quite familiar with what exists there. So MR.DIXON-1 thought I had heard mostly from the Waterkeeper that the concern was the actual shoreline buffer,not the adjacent wetland. MR. MAC ELROY-Right. MR. DIXON-Do you think you can bring it on the shore into Code compliance and move your project forward? MR. MAC ELROY-Those specific numbers, and, Laura, you have them in your Staff Notes, along the shoreline area,I think it was eight trees which we certainly have along there. We certainly don't need the number of shrubs,but we supplemented the plan,the planting plan,in your packet with some additional planting,but it doesn't necessarily hit the numbers,the math of what that may require. MR. TRAVER-So I guess the question is would you be willing to enhance the buffer area where it's thinnest? MR.MAC ELROY-Yes,I think the Wests have demonstrated their good faith in planting without anybody dictating to them what they should do. So I think I don't know how we do that at this point. Do we supplement it further? There's additional plantings that are part of the plan. MR. TRAVER-That would be fine. MR. MAC ELROY-Well,I mean we already have some on here. So are you suggesting that we add some more and make that as part of the final plan? MR. TRAVER-Well,if there are areas that are less than the requirement,understanding that there's some natural buffering there already,but if they would be willing to add something to that additional,to at least get closer to what the Code asks for. MR. MAC ELROY-Okay, and then do we need to return to this Board for that? MR. TRAVER-No,I don't think that's necessary. MR. DEE&We could put in the resolution additional shoreline buffering. MR.MAGO WAN-I mean what I'm looking for under the magnifying glass of what's here with the pictures, all right,it looks like it's pretty much a three foot vegetation of grass and,it's more of a natural,it wasn't a planted,before the rock shoreline. MR. TRAVER-Right. MR.MAGOWAN-It looks pretty much even along the whole,and then you have,you know,then you have the beach area which is open, and then you have the rocks over there. Now is that called the west side, looking at the picture from the lake,would that be on the right. Correct? 29 (Queensbury Planning Board 10/25/2022) MR. MAC ELROY-I'm not sure where you're talking about. On the other side of the beach? MR. MAGOWAN-Right. MR. MAC ELROY-That would be the southerly side of the property I would say, and that borders the Rosenburg property. MR. MAGOWAN-This first picture here. It looks like there's a silt fence up there,piece of machinery. MR. MAC ELROY-Well that's the rock wall. That was related to the planting that they had done previously. That was from earlier this summer when they planted the 17 additional trees up in that area and that's a rock, a stepped rock wall. There may be another photo that shows that,Laura. Right there. Yes.So that was done earlier this year,just something that they had wanted to do. It wasn't subject to any review or approval. MR. MAGOWAN-No, I'm not talking about that one. I'm talking the top one where it looks like machinery's over here and the beach,but I'm looking across that whole shoreline. MR. MAC ELROY-That machinery may have been on Rosenburg's property. MR. MAGOWAN-It looks like the neighbors. So, I mean, I guess what we're asking for is you do have that,you know,you have the trees to the north side,nice established trees,but I think what the Chairman and what we've asked everybody who does work, and I know you've stated for a long time you disagree with some of the numbers. MR. MAC ELROY-We've also supplemented in those cases as well. It's not like we just said,no,this is what exists and the applicants don't want to add anymore. We're supplementing them. MR. MAGOWAN-Right, and it's pretty flat, but it does slope toward the lake. So I guess what we're asking is what we could do to secure that shoreline vegetation a little bit more. MRS. MOORE-So if you look at the plan that's in your packet,besides the current plan,the original plan shows near that beach area, whatever this dock system is that's out there, that they're putting supplemental plantings behind that. MR. MAGOWAN-All right. So you're adding more. MR. TRAVER-And that's the plan that was withdrawn. MRS. MOORE-No. MR. MAC ELROY-It's the same. MRS. MOORE-It's the same. MR. MAC ELROY-It's the same site plan. The only difference is the garage, whether it was attached or not. MR. TRAVER-So there's already a plan beyond. MR. MAC ELROY-Sheet Nine in your packets shows the shoreline buffer plan, which supplements the existing. MR. MAGOWAN-Okay. MR. DEEB-And it's Code compliant. MR. MAC ELROY-Well I won't say that it meets those numbers that are prescribed in the. MR. TRAVER-But it's enhanced from what's there now. MR. MAC ELROY-Correct. Yes. MR. MAGOWAN-With a gradual slope. I didn't see. Thank you. MR. TRAVER-Very good. All right. Any other questions, comments from members of the Board? No? All right. So I guess we're ready to hear that resolution. 30 (Queensbury Planning Board 10/25/2022) RESOLUTION APPROVING SP#71-2022 FWW 15-2022 RENEE&r TOM WEST The applicant has submitted an application the Planning Board: Applicant proposes to demolish an existing home to construct a new 3,315 sq. ft. footprint home with detached 1,100 sq. ft. garage. The floor area is to be 6,500 sq. ft. total. The home will have a height of 27 ft., S inches,the garage height will be 27 ft., 11.5 inches on a parcel of 1.22 acres. The project includes a new septic system, stormwater controls, permeable driveway areas and landscaping. The project work will be within 100 ft. of the wetland. Pursuant to chapter 179-3-040,179-6-065,94 and 147,site plan for new floor area,hard surfacing within 50 ft. of the shoreline, site work within 100 ft. of wetlands and stormwater control device shall be subject to Planning Board review and approval. Pursuant to relevant sections of the Town of Queensbury Zoning Code-Chapter 179-9-OSO, 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 made a recommendation to the Zoning Board of Appeals on 10/1S/2022; the ZBA approved the variance on 10/19/2022-1 The Planning Board opened a public hearing on the Site plan application on 10/25/2022 and continued the public hearing to 10/25/2022,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 10/25/2022; 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 71-2022 &z FRESHWATER WETLANDS 15-2022 RENEE&z TOM WEST,Introduced by Michael Dixon who moved for its adoption. According to the draft resolution prepared by Staff with the following: 1) Waivers requested granted:h. signage,n traffic,o. commercial alterations/construction details,r. construction/demolition disposal s. snow removal as these items are typically associated with commercial projects; 2) The approval is valid for one (1) year from the date of approval. Applicant is responsible for requesting an extension of approval before the one (1)year time frame has expired; 3) 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; 31 (Queensbury Planning Board 10/25/2022) 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. 1) No kitchen facilities will be included in the detached garage(note on final plans). Motion seconded by Brad Magowan. Duly adopted this 25`h day of October 2022 by the following vote: AYES: Mr. Etu,Mr. Deeb,Mr. Dixon,Mr. Longacker,Mr. Stark,Mr. Magowan,Mr. Traver NOES: NONE MR. TRAVER-You're all set. MR. MAC ELROY-Thank you very much. MR. TRAVER-The next section of our agenda is New Business, and the first item is Alisha and Michael Griffey. This is Site Plan 66-2022. NEW BUSINESS: SITE PLAN NO.66-2022 SEQR TYPE: TYPE II. ALISHA&z MICHAEL GRIFFEY AGENT(S): EDP (BRANDON FERGUSON). OWNER(S): SAME AS APPLICANT. ZONING: WR. LOCATION: 26 TALL TIMBERS ROAD. APPLICANT PROPOSES A NEW DRIVEWAY CONFIGURATION TO HAVE ACCESS FROM AN ADJOINING LOT FROM ASSEMBLY POINT ROAD. PROJECT WORK INCLUDES 5,470 SQ. FT. OF NEW DRIVEWAY SURFACE WITH STORMWATER MANAGEMENT AND SOME RETAINING WALLS. SITE DISTURBANCE IS 23, 00 SQ. FT. THE EXISTING RESIDENCE AND OUTBUILDINGS TO REMAIN UNCHANGED. THE PROJECT INCLUDES MERGING TWO LOTS. PURSUANT TO CHAPTER 179-3-040,SITE PLAN FOR SITE DEVELOPMENT IN THE WR ZONE FOR A NEW DRIVEWAY AND MAJOR STORMWATER SHALL BE SUBJECT TO PLANNING BOARD REVIEW AND APPROVAL. WARREN CO. REFERRAL: OCTOBER 2022. SITE INFORMATION: APA,LGPC,CEA. LOT SIZE: 1.79 ACRES. TAX MAP NO.239.16-1-23,239.16-1-24. SECTION: 179-3-040 BRANDON FERGUSON,REPRESENTING APPLICANTS,PRESENT MR. TRAVER-Laura? MRS.MOORE-This application is to develop a new driveway configuration to access an adjoining lot from Assembly Point Road. Project work includes 5,470 square feet of new driveway. I'm sorry, it's not the adjoining lot. It's from the lot that the applicant owns. It would be in addition to existing access to other lots, but this is from the applicant's property itself. Site disturbance is 23,000 square feet. The project includes merging two lots and I have a copy of the deed that shows that those two lots are merged. MR. TRAVER-Okay. Thank you. Good evening. MR. FERGUSON-Good evening. Brandon Ferguson with Environmental Design Partnership. I'm here tonight representing Alisha and Michael Griffey. Unfortunately they're out of town right now. So they weren't able to be here tonight. This existing property is 2.79 acres located at the end of Tall Timbers Lane which is a private road in the Town. It also has frontage on Old Assembly Point Road. On the property now is an existing single family residence. There's a small cottage, a dock, a patio area going down to the lake. Their access right now is through Tall Timbers and I don't know if you've ever driven down that road,but it's kind of a windy, confusing, narrow private road, and they're kind of the last ones on it, and what they want to do is they want to construct a private driveway from Old Assembly Point Road to access their existing residence. So we've walked the site. We laid out what we thought would best fit on the property with the existing topography and site features, and we came up with a plan. We tried to minimize clearing on the site for this driveway,but gains them that access they're looking for. We did this on a Major stormwater design even though it's under the 15,000 square feet,because of the slopes it was a Major design. That's under review with LaBella right now. We got a comment letter from them Friday and we've already responded and re-submitted stuff to the Town today. So I'll open it back up to the Board if you have any questions. MR. DEEB-There were 1S comments on that. MR. FERGUSON-There were 1S comments. I will say that the first three or four are kind of generic,just saying this is what the project is. There was another standard comment in there on fill in the system, because these are,the soils are a little limited on the site. So the proposed stormwater areas will be in fill, bring in material to construct these in order to allow them to infiltrate properly. A couple were on a small little labeling errors I would say,labeled differently on one plan than the other,but really I mean we went 32 (Queensbury Planning Board 10/25/2022) through all these comments. There wasn't anything in there that we felt was major that we can't overcome with LaBella. We turned it around pretty quickly,got stuff back to them. MR. TRAVER-What about Number Six? One hundred feet from two adjoining wastewater systems. MR. FERGUSON-So on this plan right here you can see the existing wastewater system on the northern property is within 100 feet of what we're calling Stormwater Management area Number One. However, they are,the we advanced it with LaBella,which is a common way we've advanced it in the past,is that we are on a kind of linear plane with that existing wastewater system. It's not above and uphill of it. It's actually about the same elevation and we're actually in a different drainage corridor. There's actually a high point in that existing drive into Tall Timbers Lane,you have to come over a high point to get to the Griffey's. We're on that one side of the high point,that existing wastewater which is a raised system is on the other side. It's common way we've advanced them in the past,but there's no way for the water from the stormwater management system to get over it and impact that system. It's a different drainage corridor. It's all going to be going down to the lake,not moving laterally over to that system. MR. TRAVER-But you were given an option to demonstrate that a lesser separation will not adversely affect the functioning of the leach field. MR. FERGUSON-Yes. MR. TRAVER-And you're confident you can do that? MR. FERGUSON-Yes. MR. TRAVER-Okay. Thank you. Other questions,comments from members of the Board? MR. MAGOWAN-Yes. You bring up that wastewater system right below the house,but then you look at where the existing road is coming off of Tall Timbers Road,it's got the neighbor's existing wastewater system right on the road,but my question would be it's very interesting. It looks like this used to be the access to all these houses along that way, and then as they did it it looks like each one of them ended up putting in a driveway and eventually this is the last one. MR. FERGUSON-Yes,the property to the north,they did. They had previously installed a driveway for their access. I mean Tall Timbers is a narrow kind of tough little private road coming down. We think this is an improvement. This is going to grant them their own access. It's going to take that traffic that's Pretty much bisecting through other people's property, allow them to access their property. MR. MAGOWAN-Cutting through two people's property to get to yours. So that used to be the main route to get to these camps. That's what they were,camps,not homes. MR. FERGUSON-Yes. MR. MAGOWAN-So,yes, I mean it sure is quite an existing design, and I think you laid it out well with the land. My question would be what are you doing with that other driveway that comes in? Are you going to be taking that out? MR.FERGUSON-We are planning on taking it out. We are kind of starting to enter discussions with the neighbor. So what happens now is the neighbor to the south also has some access. I don't know if they have deeded access for Tall Timbers or if they just use it, but they do sometimes drive through there as well. So the Griffey's are kind of working with them to maybe allow them access on their new driveway. MR. MAGOWAN-Is it like an easement? MR. FERGUSON-Yes,so Tall Timbers is essentially a private road. So it's an easement that goes through each. MR. MAGOWAN-So it was an easement coming up,and there's probably more than four homes on that, or four camps at one time,but right now there's four that seem to, and I don't know if it continues down. MR. FERGUSON-Yes, it continues down a little bit then it kind of goes into Burnt Ridge, but also removing the driveway on our property is not going to remove very much. This is we're coming in on that one end, and it does provide a secondary access to some of these properties. If there's an emergency on one end, somebody can come down, emergency vehicle can get in there, they can come in through one of these private driveways,or by,let's say something happens at the Griffey's. They comedown Tall Timbers. So there's some benefits to having those dual accesses and like I said right now it's kind of a shared maintenance and shared agreement between the private landowners. At this point,if they evolve around private driveways there'll probably be a discussion between those landowners,but that's kind of outside the realm of this particular project. 33 (Queensbury Planning Board 10/25/2022) MR. MAGOWAN-I'm good. MR. TRAVER-Other questions,comments from members of the Board? MR. ETU=Is there not an existing paved driveway to that southern home already? MR. FERGUSON-So they also have,the southern home, I don't know if the driveway goes all the way to their house off Burnt Ridge. They have access off Burnt Ridge as well. I'm not 1000/o sure what their primary access is,but I know,talking with the Griffey's,that they do allow them access through,especially certain times of the year when Burnt Ridge,their existing driveway is not as easily accessible. MR. TRAVER-There is a public hearing on this application. Is there anyone in the audience that wanted to address the Planning Board on this application? Yes,sir. PUBLIC HEARING OPENED CHRIS NAVITSKY MR. NAVITSKY-Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Chris Navitsky, Lake George Waterkeeper. We do have concerns about the proposed disturbance on the steep slopes within the Critical Environmental Area and the ability of this site to provide the proper management of the increased runoff due to the lack of soils present and the shallow depth to bedrock. They have a note on that. One of the sheets, I think it's that sheet right there,that says there's about six to twelve inches of soil. Although soil will be placed for the stormwater basins, there will not be adequate soil down gradient of the infiltration basins for the infiltrated water to go and it will result in groundwater problems and saturated soils. You brought in four feet of fill, thereabouts, for the infiltration basins, and you only have six inches, a foot below. So you're going to be squeezing all that water kind of forcing it. It'll be exacerbated by the removal of all the mature vegetation,the root systems which hold those soils together and the extensive grading proposed. All this disturbance is up gradient of the Dunton's which is to the north,which will be impacted by the increased groundwater. You talked about potential of impacts to their septic system which the middle drainage area,Number Two,does go towards and where the stormwater management plans on their property were not properly constructed and actually had to be recently re-submitted, and that showed part of the problems of the lack of soils there. So we feel the Planning Board needs to determine the necessity of this project with the amount of disturbance on slopes,I mean we've got slopes 25 to 400/o here. Hundreds of feet of retaining walls. The whole driveway is lined with retaining walls, some of them on both sides. Especially where there's already access to the building. So we understand the desire to have their own driveway,but with this amount of disturbance and,you know,you're really trying to take that much water and put it into that much soil once it's down gradient, and what's that really going to do? It's going to cause groundwater problems down gradient. Thank you. MR. TRAVER-Okay. Thank you. Is there anyone else in the audience that wanted to comment on this application? Yes,sir. Would you get on the microphone and state your name for the record,please. PETER BROTHERS MR. BROTHERS-Sure. My name is Peter Brothers, and I am the son of property owner John Brothers located at 12 Tall Timbers Road on this shared access driveway. I guess just a couple of adjustments here as I read along. I also have an additional comment from a neighbor who wants to submit their correspondence for the record,to be read into the record,Ted Dabrowski of 34 Old Assembly Point Road, voicing concerns about this project. Without further ado I'll read the communication here. It is with regret I feel the need to oppose this application and here is why I need to do this. As the lead health care proxy for my father, I have a responsibility for my father, Dr. Reverend John T. Brothers,who at 94 years old, needs some assistance re-siding at his property at 12 Tall Timbers Road. During the time the development project was started for Mary Lou Dunton next door to us at 1S Tall Timbers Road,who's next door to Griffrey,26 Tall Timbers Road,we have seen major stormwater problems. The problems include but are not limited to damage to recently installed steps from our parking lot,erosion of our septic system which was installed about 2010 as well as potential structural foundation issues with her house. From the start of this project,the silt fence marking boundaries was,from what I could visualize there,being right next door,haphazard,decorative at best,and the first time in 51 years that my father with late mother who owned this property,I noticed it was impossible a couple of years ago to see the bottom of the lake in our innermost covered boat slip due to runoff from next door which has a sandy bottom,two feet deep at the front of the slip to about five foot deep at the entry of the boat slip. Never before has this happened in the 51 years that I've witnessed with my parents owning this property. When Queensbury Zoning Officer Bruce Frank came here in March,April or late early May,he said, to paraphrase, the plans were stamped certified by a licensed engineer so it must be in compliance with Code. Obviously independent engineering report,but it was submitted with regard to this plan at 1S Tall Timbers Road regarding a concern that I raised, the Lake George Water Keeper, Chris Navitsky,it shows what was stamped and certified by the Town of Queensbury not really reflected in the physical layout of the project. Mr. Navitsky's report 34 (Queensbury Planning Board 10/25/2022) submitted May 22 and five months later,only within the last week or two,submitted plans for remediation of the situation. Apparently not going far enough to address the stormwater runoff onto our property, 12 Tall Timbers Road. MR. TRAVER-Excuse me,sir,can I just ask you a brief question? MR.BROTHERS-Sure. MR. TRAVER-How proximate is your property to this project? MR.BROTHERS-We're two doors to the north. MR. TRAVER-Two doors to the north. Okay. I'm sorry to interrupt. MR.BROTHERS-That's fine. Please, anytime. Sure. I would be reluctant hereto point the finger,point the blame. It is clear there are four parties involved,the Town of Queensbury,engineer Dennis MacElroy, McCall Construction and Mary Lou Dunton. Someone needs to be held accountable for the problems they created as it impacts Lake George water quality, addressing any potential negligence involved and potential for that. The ice skating rink surrounding our house in the winter that results from stormwater runoff from Mary Lou's property next door at 1S Tall Timbers Road in the winter is detrimental and dangerous not only for my father to get to his medical appointments. It's also dangerous for his healthcare providers coming to the house on a daily basis to care for my father,John T.Brothers. People can fall,break hips, arms and specifically when my dad needed to go to the hospital for evaluation in March. The EMS people arrived and said it was too dangerous to bring a stretcher. In this case I got my dad up to my car in a wheelchair with the assistance of a neighbor. Personally,it is a challenge for me to bring this concern before you as I've known Dennis MacElroy for a long time, many years, and not necessarily pointing the finger at him or his firm, Environmental Design Partnership, yet if I were in his shoes I may have been reluctant to represent in this particular case just until this particular matter with us and next door is resolved and the Griffey's have been nice neighbors,not wanting to derail their plans,yet I am concerned with the current problems with next door, with Mary Lou Dunton's stormwater emptying onto our property and we have this proposal for the same thing relatively 26 Tall Timbers Road,to compound the problem already existing between us and Mary Lou Dunton next door at 1S Tall Timbers Road that needs to be resolved. I'm concerned for public safety,particularly truck drivers for fuel,septic,garbage,fire,EMS that come in and out of our shared access driveway as a result of the ice buildup that is much more substantial in the last several years as a result of the project at 1S Tall Timbers Road. Pertaining to the concrete stone steps I mentioned earlier in this communication that were installed about seven years ago at our carport walkway. They were done by a highly regarded professional tradesman referred by a contractor neighbor of mine and ours and had seen good work by him for other projects. In our addition our septic system currently suffering from erosion as a result of the stormwater from next door was installed by Chris Crandall of Crandall Excavating about 2010. I forget exactly the date. Chris Crandall does good work, and I doubt that even the systems that he installed in even more precarious situations than ours last less than 20 to 25 years. So to have his system with some erosion already starting,it's getting more serious after only 10 years with our particular parcel being mound already. It's very,very concerning and a contractor,neighbor developer friend of mine who does projects up and down the east coast told me in so many words everyone should control their stormwater. I agree with the State. As for the Griffey application,I wouldn't be prepared to consider approving it,in my opinion,this evening, and this is in no way criticizing the Griffey's and my position in opposing this application this evening is with the lack of stormwater management next door with us at 1S Tall Timbers Road by the same engineering firm causing major problems for us at 12 Tall Timbers Road and the stormwater management controls were promised and not delivered and with this project right now I feel could compound these problems. These problems could be compounded by this proposal with the stormwater management runoff, stormwater runoff. Certainly you've heard from Mr. Navitsky earlier, and he stated his comments and I'd defer to him with regard to this project, and a couple of neighbors, a couple of contractors working on our property doing odd jobs said really you don't have to be an engineer to realize the problem., and a good friend of mine, an RPI mechanical engineer grad stated that he could clearly see the stormwater from next door running onto our property and I've also got the independent report of Mr. Navitsky that only recently the plans have been submitted from next door to try to address the situation. However,it's not known that really it will take care of that problem. I will leave you with his report as well. MR. TRAVER-You can give that to Laura directly. MR.BROTHERS-Certainly. Thank you. I appreciate it. MR. TRAVER-Thank you. MR. MAGOWAN-Peter, while you're up there, looking over, it gradually slopes, everything gradually slopes toward your property. MR.BROTHERS-Yes. 35 (Queensbury Planning Board 10/25/2022) MR. MAGOWAN-All right,and basically you were talking about the Dunton the problem has started. MR.BROTHERS-Yes. MR. MAGOWAN-Do they have any retaining walls or? MR.BROTHERS-The plans specifically,I don't have those in front of me. MR. MAGOWAN-I just see a driveway, but it looks everything slopes gradually down in, but also over toward your house. MR.BROTHERS-Yes. MR.MAGOWAN-I guess my question,you have a lot of questions with the previous driveways there from the neighbor,which is not this particular application. MR.BROTHERS-Right. That's correct. MR. MAGOWAN-And you say that Queensbury is working on the stormwater. MR.BROTHERS-To the best of my knowledge the plans were submitted by Dennis MacElroy to address the problems,but I don't believe plans do adequately address the problem. MR. MAGOWAN-Thank you. MR. TRAVER-Other questions,comments from members of the Board? MRS.MOO RE-I do have two other public comment letters. Do you want me to read those into the record? MR. TRAVER-Okay. Yes. MRS. MOORE-And if you could provide me the letters that you,or the information and the letter. This one is addressed to Mr. Traver. "Thank you for the opportunity to comment on the Site Plan Application No. 66-2022 for 26 Tall Timbers Road submitted by Alisha and Sean Griffey. We own 30 Tall Timbers Road next door to (and south of) the Griffey property. After reviewing the Griffey Driveway Plans, Site Plan Application and Stormwater Report we have no objection to the project as presented. Due to the existing power line right-of-ways that run through the Griffey property,the forest canopy is already fairly open which minimizes the necessary tree cutting. Also,the driveway will be well away from the shore so the project will not have a visual impact from the lake. Since the Griffey's neighbors on both sides(Simms and Dunton)have already constructed their own separate driveway access from Old Assembly Point Road this project will also eliminate traffic through the neighboring Dunton/Brothers/DellaBella properties via the original 100+ year old(narrow and difficult)right of way. Unless there issues come to light as part of the review process,we support approval Application No.66-2022. Sincerely,Barbara and Lenton Simms" And this is, "Hello, I live directly next to the Griffeys at 1S Tall Timbers Rd. I am writing in support of their application for a new driveway located at 26 Tall Timbers Rd. I have had the pleasure of getting to know them. Their application makes very good sense. Currently,the right of way is Tall Timbers Rd. It is shared by four homes,including myself and their property. It is quite hard to navigate all year long. In emergency situations Fire and Rescue vehicles cannot pass on the road. It is indeed a concern. Having proper access is a high priority. Precious time in those situations could make a huge difference in the outcome of an emergency. I, again, fully support their application, and encourage their approval. Sincerely,Mary Lou Dunton 1S Tall Timbers Rd." And then this is written,it's from Ted Dabrowski at 34 Old Assembly Point Road. It says,"Dear Planning Board Members,"Regarding the specific application for Griffey at 26 Tall Timbers Road,I have serious reservations about this proposal due to lack of action at 1S Tall Timbers Road next door for remediation of storm water being disposed onto the property at 12 Tall Timbers Road owned by John T. Brothers. An independent engineering report detailed specific findings with concern about the storm water at 1S Tall Timbers Road as a result of the new road property owner Mary Lou Dunton had put in place before her building project on her residential structure. Much of the storm water if not all continues to spill onto the property owned by John T. Brothers at 12 Tall Timbers Road due to lack of action by parties involved with the project at 1S Tall Timbers Road. The Town of Queensbury was informed of an independent engineering report by Lake George Waterkeeper Chris Navitsky back in May 2022 and during the last 5 months,nothing has been done.It is only in the last week or so that a remediation plan for correction by Mary Lou Dunton and her parties involved has been submitted for correcting errors as a result of their actions where what was stamped and certified for approval for a new road for 1S Tall Timbers is not reflected in the final physical layout of her driveway. Other problems on property at 12 Tall Timbers Road include but are not limited to septic field erosion, ruined stone steps recently installed from driveway along with home foundation. During my visits in the winter to see John Brothers, it is like a skating rink throughout his property, making it dangerous for anyone which includes caregivers for John Brothers which are required due to Dr.Brothers being 94 years 36 (Queensbury Planning Board 10/25/2022) old and needing some assistance. I feel at the very least,this board owes the courtesy to John Brothers and fellow property owners nearby to remediate the problem created by Mary Lou Dunton and/or her parties involved in her project at 1S Tall Timbers Road before even considering the exact same type of project next door to Mary Lou Dunton. Also, final signoff for approval should involve a review by Lake George Waterkeeper Chris Navitsky to make sure it is not detrimental to the lake and incorporate his recommendations." MR. TRAVER-Is that it? MRS. MOORE-That is all,yes. MR. TRAVER-Okay. Thank you,Laura. So we will close the public hearing. PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED MR.TRAVER-So you've heard a lot of public comment,huge issues with stormwater. It sounds like there's a feeling, and despite your displayed plans,that this project will contribute to additional stormwater. MR. FERGUSON-I mean my understanding is that a lot of the concern is with the property to the north, which obviously these owners do not control,but I can speak on that a little bit. I am somewhat familiar with that. Dennis from our office recently got me involved,and I met out there with Craig a couple of times to kind of go over some possible solutions where the driveway was not constructed as per plan, and actually one of the solutions we talked about,this plan right here would help assist. As you mentioned earlier about the removal of Tall Timbers or a portion of Tall Timbers. If the Griffey's had their own access, that would be an option that we could discuss possibly with Ms. Dunton, and that would allow her to remove impervious area off her solve. That would help solve her existing issue, that existing issue of stormwater running off the site, off her impervious driveway. So I think while that's a separate project and separate thing that's being dealt with with the Town,I don't want to hold the Griffey's responsible for something that's going on on a different site. Their proposed project actually lets another option come into play over on the Dunton's for a solution. As well as the other stormwater comments, as you know you have LaBella to review it and we've worked with them a number of times with a very similar stormwater designs that they have approved that have been constructed and have been operating efficiently for a number of years now. I know there are limited soils on the site. We're not changing the amount of water going off the site. So right now the water comes down,lands on essentially bare rock on that site and runs off. When we do our modeling we don't take that into account. We model it as the pre- existing condition as,we don't look at it as exposed bedrock here and there. So we're very conservative in our modeling of our stormwater. We are adding soils onto the site in accordance with what LaBella asked for in the letter which we already had provided which was coming up with a soil filled design in those stormwater areas that matches the infiltration rate of the existing soils. So that when you're putting the stormwater into that infiltration device it doesn't just rush through,hit a less permeable soil,and run out. It trickles through at the same rate that the soil below it can accept it. MR. TRAVER-What about the concern about the relatively thin soil cover surrounding the stormwater device? MR.FERGUSON-So,I mean,that same cover exists throughout the site. We went through the entire site. In most areas it's about a foot of cover over the rock right now,but that is an existing condition that we're trying to work with. Like I said right now water falls on them,the same things happen. There's water falling, soaking through that first 12 inches,hitting the rock and running towards the lake. What we're doing is we're trying to put it into an area,let it slow down,let it treat, and this is actually going to make it go through three,four feet of soil before it gets to that rock. It's going to slow it down,allow,you know, these are going to be vegetated areas, allow for some uptake with the plants. That's going to be planted, and then when it hits that existing soil at a rate that's at or slower than what the existing soils can accept, then it gets absorbed and runs in the same direction it does now which is toward the lake. MR. TRAVER-What about the concern about the vegetation being removed,the root systems and so on? MR. FERGUSON-So we really try to limit disturbance on the site. That's why we have so many walls in there. So we've kept it a very narrow corridor. We don't want,you know,if we took away some of these walls, we'd be grading out , you know, by the time you catch up to the grades, three on one slopes. It expands out quite a ways,and you're removing a lot more trees. So there is some cut through there. There is going to be some tree removal along that driveway route. The trees outside will not be removed. A lot of them are uphill of that driveway and will not be impacted. MR. TRAVER-Okay. Other questions,comments from members of the Board? MR. LONGACKER-Comment Number 12 from LaBella, where they say that portions of the pond. I'm guessing that they mean stormwater management area number three. It says the grading plan doesn't necessarily match the model,the Hydro CAD model. I'm looking at that myself. Do you plan on changing 37 (Queensbury Planning Board 10/25/2022) those grades there? Because they do look like, you know, if your water droplet's going to follow the contours there, I don't see how it's going to get into that swale what would be on the south side of the driveway. MR. FERGUSON-Right now we have kind of a minimal cross slope on that driveway. We can defiantly increase that cross slope in order to allow it to really drain over in that direction. MR. DIXON-I think the Waterkeeper brought up some very, well makes some very good observations. This driveway that's going in,when I'm looking at the grade to it, especially on the western portion. I'm struggling envisioning where all this water is going to go. It looks like it's going to head right down that driveway,head towards the lake,and a portion is going to head north. This time of year people just think in terms of rainwater. In a few months I would imagine there's going to be salt put down so vehicles can get up and down that road and God bless you if you can make it up and down that road without any salt. I think that's going to be a challenge. So I think,from what I'm seeing here, is,yes,you made provisions for some catch basins,but once they freeze over,they're not going to catch anything. It appears that there's a percentage of water that's going to go back out onto Assembly Point Road and the other percentage is going to go on that new driveway to the west,and some of that is going to continue down towards the lake untreated. So then if we go back to our prior conversation, too, we kicked it off, the only reason the homeowner wants this driveway is just so that they have their private entrance. MR. FERGUSON-Yes. So I mean right now the majority of homes along this corridor have their own driveways. I think theirs might be the last that doesn't have their own private access, and there is a long, twisty,I know I was expressed,100 year old access through there that is not really conducive. It's relatively narrow. I think it's only eight feet in width in certain spots. Sothis would provide a more efficient access to their property as well as they just purchased this property,and if there's any future things they want to do with the home on there,it's going to provide them access to any further construction if they ever come back with something else. Right now we're just asking for the driveway,but,yes,I mean,you know,right now that Tall Timbers Lane is a,I mean you have to drive around a garage that has the corner cutoff because that looks like there was an issue with people hitting it. So it's not greatest access right now to the property. That's at the very end of it, and like I said,this has been granted to a couple of the neighbors as well previously to have their own access. MR. MAGOWAN-The problem I see is when the previous driveway was built and you mentioned that it wasn't built as per the design. MR. FERGUSON-Yes. MR.MAGOWAN-Now we have a problem. So what is going to guarantee me that this is going to be built as per design? MR. FERGUSON-1 mean you can ask for an engineer's certification at the end. I don't know if that's something you can make as a part of the approval. Yes,I mean,if you get a contractor in there and they're digging along and they decide to change something. I mean as the engineers,unless we're called about it, we don't have control over it at that moment. It comes down to the Town,unfortunately. MR. MAGOWAN-Yes, we've had this problem where, you know, we agree to something, you know it's very heart wrenching,you know,to hear that neighbors down the hill,the septic's eroding away and their stones are eroding away and it's been brought up that wasn't done right, and I'm looking at this hard packed paved surface coming off of Tall Timbers that goes to all the properties and starts all the way up there at the Simms, and all that water's running right down,you know, right toward the garage. That must be the garage that the corner was cut off because everybody was kind of hitting it. So,you know,it's kind of hard for me to agree to another driveway when the last one was put in that we have issues with and it hasn't been addressed or fixed. My one concern is to make sure that this driveway,because,you know,we have problems along Old Assembly Point Road,we always have with stormwater and that,and like I say,it's a gradual slope that goes to the north,but it also goes down,and once you pave that and you put up those, the stone walls, all right, retaining walls, all right,you're channeling that paved driveway, and you only have a foot of soil to work with, and then you've got rock. So where's all that water from that driveway going to go all the way down to that little shallow retention down there at the bottom which is right down the road? MR. FERGUSON-1 mean we have three shallow retention areas along the road. We also have a stone trench that follows along the,I think you kind of can see it on the. MR. MAGOWAN-Yes,you have a stone trench that's a foot deep of stone that goes onto rock. That is nothing but a rock hump up there. MR. FERGUSON-Yes, actually that side of the road with the stone trench is actually going to be infill as well. That's why we've got the retaining wall there,just to try to minimize grading area. The road kind of 3S (Queensbury Planning Board 10/25/2022) follows existing grade and then one sides a little bit of fill. One side's a little bit of cut to make it a little flatter area. MR. MAGOWAN-So you still don't have that large separation between that and to me a rock ledge. MR. FERGUSON-Yes,I understand what you're saying. Also rock ledge,I mean,like you're saying,there is shallow rock on this site, which lends itself naturally in existing conditions to higher runoff rates and when we model this thing, we use the same software we do on every other site and we look at it and we make our assumptions and we try to be as conservative as we can with them. We look at this thing as if there was no cabin on there, and if there was no clearing there existing. We compare this site to if it was fully wooded as it was 100 years ago when we do our stormwater modeling and then whatever we have for our post development has to be better than that for runoff rates and volumes for those storm events. MR. MAGOWAN-I appreciate you saying that,but we have a stormwater issue on Assembly Point Road, and God rest his soul, I just read that he passed away, Paul Schonewolf, who sat on this Board for many years,all right,was an advocate for stormwater on this road,and nothing's been done,and now he's passed away. Now we want to put another driveway in there when the one before it is failing. I have a little problem with that right now. MR.FERGUSON-I know what you're saying about the one before it,the one next to it. I hate to hold this owner responsible for something on another owner's property. You're holding up this little project because of something that happened on a neighboring property that the Griffey's had no control over. They don't control the Duntons. They don't have the ability to force them to fix something. MR. MAGOWAN-Yes, but if this one doesn't come out as per your design, as perfect as it should, and retain,and like I said,I've been in the field enough where I've argued with engineers saying,you know,you go for your modeling. You go for your software and you have a lot more education than I do in that department and I don't go that far,but I'm the one that's in the trench. I'm the one that learned from the trench up, you know, so the school of hard knocks, but, you know, I look at this, and I look at this channeling with the wall and the paved driveway, and down there in that shallow rock, four feet's not much and then you get that January thaw, and then,bingo,re-freezes. That retention at the bottom's not going to be doing anything except going across the road and creating havoc. So that means,geez, we've got to put more salt down and more brine,because that's a brine road,you know,so we've been using brine. So, you know I'm a little hesitant when I hear we have a problem with the drive that, the next driveway up,to approve another driveway until we protect that road,because that road goes,it doesn't matter how many driveways are on that road, and that road is the road and the water. MR.TRAVER-Yes,to me the concern is really about context,and the fact that there's an unresolved pretty severe stormwater issue in that area, understanding that it's not the fault of this application, but it's all about context. It sounds as though there's some possible solutions to the existing stormwater issues in this area that are underway or may happen and I think if we had a stormwater situation in this area that was managed, then bringing this project along would be easier to envision. Assuming that it's 1000/o effective. If it's 900/o effective,then you're still going to get some runoff which I think we have to logically assume there will be,and to add that to a pre-existing stormwater problem I think is the issue. I think the problem is timing of doing this. MR. DEEB-Can you enhance the stormwater on that property alone? Is there any way you can enhance the stormwater management? MR. FERGUSON-On Griffey's? In what way? MR.DEEB-Less runoff. We don't want to exacerbate the problem on the two roads. You've got Assembly Point Road and then the other road. There's so many problems there, and I know Brad's concerned. . I'm concerned with having more problems in the future. MR. TRAVER-Especially with the current unresolved issues. MR. DEEB-But if we could really,really control stormwater on that property,I think we could consider a project,but we're between a rock and a hard place MR. MAGOWAN-Do you want to know the way I look at it, a simple way, and you're not going to like this,put more of a snake,doubling the size or quadrupling the length of the driveway. Snake it up through. MR. FERGUSON-Are you talking about on the Tall Timbers side? MR. MAGOWAN-No, up your driveway, you know, snake it, weave it back and forth more across the property. That straight run from there all the way down, and it does slope and it does, at the bottom of that driveway you're 3S9 feet and halfway up. It's not a whole lot,but you're talking 394,395, 396,397. 39 (Queensbury Planning Board 10/25/2022) MR. TRAVER-It doesn't take much. MR. MAGOWAN-But it's such a gradual slope from all the way up top. MR. DIXON-And I know in the past we've talked about,unfortunately it's not our project. I think we've got some wonderful ideas. I'm not comfortable approving it in its current format. I think if you were to sharpen your pencil,you might be able to come up with some alternate plans,including that Tall Timbers Road. If it's so horrible, I would almost look to you removing that section of driveway so you can create some sort of catch basin right there and something to absolutely keep away from the lake. All I see is water running down towards that lake and that water in the spring,fall and winter is going to be laden with salt. On the other side,on Assembly Point Road,there's,you've got to have some measures to catch that water as it's coming down the driveway,whether they're those small drains that you put within the blacktop and larger catch basin across the whole bottom,but I think you've got some additional work to do,but that's my opinion right now. We'll see what the Board thinks going forward here. MR. TRAVER-Again, I think, aside from the specifics of the design, I think it's a matter of timing. If the existing stormwater issues get resolved or ameliorated, then it might be a more appropriate time to consider something that may or may not cause some stormwater new issues,but right now it seems like it would be foolish to get involved in this project when we have septic systems getting eroded and,you know, these kinds of issues. MR. FERGUSON-My one concern would be now you're relying on a separate property owner to resolve an issue in order to allow. MR. TRAVER-Understood,but we have to consider the context. MR. DIXON-When you're saying a separate property owner,because I think if you can. MR. FERGUSON-Well, I'm talking specifically about what the Chairman's talking about with the existing stormwater issue over on, I think you're talking about the one on the Dunton property to the north. Correct? MR. TRAVER-Yes,I believe so. MR. DEEB-I agree. Your client shouldn't be penalized for that. They had nothing to do with that. MR. MAGOWAN-That's why I asked if you were going to be removing that. I mean I look at the top of that driveway that goes over toward the Brothers',all right,and I see that big loop, and then you have that big driveway come up, what is that, a turnaround on the neighbors,but that just,it's just an open paved area that goes that way. MR. FERGUSON-And I don't disagree with you on that. I think this driveway helps give us an option, when we work with that other property owner, if this driveway was approved, we have the option to discuss with these two property owners and get them together and say, hey, if you're no longer needing this access,let's look at removing it,but I can't go to the Dunton's and say,hey, we want to cut out your driveway now because then if the Griffey's do this driveway,they won't have access to their property. MR. ETU-You could go to the Dunton's and ask for a perpetual easement over their poorly designed but existing driveway and not have a new driveway whatsoever. MR. FERGUSON-Over their existing driveway? MR. ETU-Over the Dunton's new driveway, and if she's talking about emergency vehicles, I assume that other driveways are for emergency vehicles. MR. FERGUSON-Yes,I mean I don't think that would solve her issue. MR. ETU-Who's issue? MR. FERGUSON-The Dunton's with the stormwater,you know, I think the Griffey's having a driveway actually gives you more opportunity on the Dunton's property to solve what has become an issue over there. It allows you to remove impervious area on that property that you wouldn't be allowed to do. Because right now,like you said, that,being on the Dunton's property, that existing turnaround/parking area and really Tall Timbers Lane,until the property line with the Griffey's,the property line is really the high point in that road and then it pitches to the north and south. Really from that property line everything's shedding down that existing driveway, or existing Tall Timbers, in my site observation, and then flowing onto that neighbor's property to the north and that's a straight shot with that existing paver right there that having this driveway gives us an opportunity,but it's hard because they're two separate 40 (Queensbury Planning Board 10/25/2022) property owners and it's hard to say, hey, Griffey's, can you give up your easement when they don't have an approved access. MR.TRAVER-Maybe this needs to be coordinated in someway. Well,we've spent a lot of time discussing this. I guess I'd like to sort of poll the Board and see how members feel about the application as it stands before. Warren,how do you feel about it? MR. LONGACKER-I think I'm a little more comfortable I think that maybe some other members are. I know it's kind of a little bit different,like I said,from previous applications,but I'd almost like to see the response to LaBella's comments first. Again to the comment that I brought up about that last third of the driveway. I'd like to see that re-graded, and also comments number five and six, and just see what their response it to your response for number four and five for the infiltration areas,as well as the test pit. That's my thought. MR. TRAVER-Okay. MR. LONGACKER-See what the answers are. MR. TRAVER-Okay. So what we have done in some cases, particularly when there've been a lot of comments,is we've asked the applicant to deal with the Town Engineer and come back when they have a signoff. Is that something you would consider? MR. LONGACKER-I'd probably be more amenable to that. Yes. MR. TRAVER-Okay. Brad,what do you think? MR. MAGOWAN-I would like to see what more we could do to guarantee this water's going to stay on this property. Right up there at the top,the S and it swirls around,you also have a curve,the driveway to curve this way to go toward the Dunton's. I mean why would it have to be that way if it's for this house here? Do you follow what I'm saying,that little curve up there? And I'd really like to see what we could do to eliminate that driveway to stop that stormwater at the top of the existing Tall Timbers easement,to stop it from going toward the Dunton's. Because from what I'm looking at,it looks like,like I said,that's the top, and that goes from the Griffey's here to the Dunton's down to the Brothers. So you have that straight,long,you know,I'd really like to see something corrected and this might be a good time to ask the Dunton's what they can do to help. MR. TRAVER-David,what do you think? MR.DEEB-I'd like to see them enhance stormwater on the site,so water doesn't go off the property. Then he has every right in the world. MR. TRAVER-What do you think,Mike? MR. DIXON-I think there can be more mitigation measures. I would recommend that we table this and give you a chance to work on a better design, as well as I would, again, our Waterkeeper is a wonderful resource. I encourage people to reach out to him and ask for some guidance. He may be able to provide some suggestions. Because, again, my concerns are still what's heading towards the lake and what's heading towards Assembly Point Road. MR. TRAVER-What do you think? MR. STARK-I agree with Mike. I'm not comfortable moving forward. I think we should table it. MR. TRAVER-Okay. MR. ETU-I agree. I echo everything that everybody said. Just as Chris said,what is the necessity of this project? While you may enjoy the luxury of a driveway,it doesn't seem like. Have you secured a curb cut agreement? MR. FERGUSON-No,not at this time. MR. TRAVER-So where we're at,it sounds as though,if we call a vote on this application as it stands, I probably would fail. So the recommendation I would say would be to have it tabled. Talk to LaBella more about the details. The suggestion to reach out to the Waterkeeper is not a bad one because he's got a lot of experience in dealing with stormwater. Although that's not necessary. That's entirely up to you,but I think that with the concern about the stormwater, and again, even though this is a standalone project, keep in mind the context of the other issues that are going on in that area. So you can work with LaBella, work with the designs,take some of the suggestions that were offered tonight,and maybe you don't want to make any changes to the plan,you just want to try to get a signoff from LaBella. If you can come back 41 (Queensbury Planning Board 10/25/2022) and LaBella has no issues with what you're proposing, that's going to be helpful,but I would also at the same time encourage you to consider any potential changes that might help with that context if you know what I mean. So it's up to you. You can ask us to table it or you can ask us to call a vote. MR. FERGUSON-Yes,I think we would ask you to table it at this point. MR. TRAVER-Okay. How much time do you think you would like? MR. FERGUSON-A little bit of that is going to depend on LaBella. MR. TRAVER-Right. MR. FERGUSON-I mean we submitted this in August and we just got a comment letter Friday. They're not exactly quick on stuff. MR. TRAVER-I know we have some agenda issues as well. Laura,what do you suggest? MRS. MOORE-So you can table this potentially to the first meeting in December. MR. TRAVER-First meeting in December. MR. FERGUSON-That would be the next available meeting. MR. TRAVER-So that would give you until November 15`h to give an updated response to us and to the Town. MR. FERGUSON-Okay. MRS.MOORE-Hopefully by then we'll have a response from their recent submission which they did today. MR. TRAVER-The first meeting is December 13`h. So that'll be a December 13 meeting here which is the Tuesday, the second Tuesday of the month, and then the response would be by Tuesday the 15`h of November. MR.FERGUSON-Yes. So I mean we already responded. Hopefully if they can turnaround any additional comments they have and we can work with them and we can work with the Dunton's as well in the meantime and hopefully have it all sorted out for you. MR. TRAVER-All right. So let's hear a motion. MS. GAGLIARDI-Excuse me,. Mr. Chairman,were you going to open the public hearing? MR. TRAVER-Yes. Thank you. So if we're tabling this, we will leave the public hearing open. So we will re-open that. So you are aware of that as well. PUBLIC HEARING RE-OPENED MR. TRAVER-The public hearing will be open when you come back in December. Thank you,Maria. RESOLUTION TABLING SP#66-2022 ALISHA&MICHAEL GRIFFEY Applicant proposes a new driveway configuration to have access from Assembly Point Road.Project work includes 5,470 sq.ft.of new driveway surface with stormwater management and stone retaining walls.Site disturbance is 23,000 sq. ft. The existing residence and outbuildings to remain unchanged. The project includes merging two lots. Pursuant to chapter 179-3-040,site plan for site development in the WR zone for a new driveway and major stormwater shall be subject to Planning Board review and approval. MOTION TO TABLE SITE PLAN 66-2022 ALISHA&z MICHAEL GRIFFEY. Introduced by Michael Dixon who moved for its adoption Tabled until the December 13,2022 Planning Board meeting with information due by November 15,2022. Motion seconded by Brad Magowan. Duly adopted this 25`h day of October 2022 by the following vote: AYES: Mr. Stark,Mr. Magowan,Mr. Etu,Mr. Deeb,Mr. Dixon,Mr. Longacker, Mr. Traver NOES: NONE MR. TRAVER-We'll see you in December. 42 (Queensbury Planning Board 10/25/2022) MR. FERGUSON-Sounds good. Thank you. MR. TRAVER-So the next application before us under New Business is Matthew Flansburg, Target Corporation,Site Plan 65-2022. SITE PLAN NO. 65-2022 SEQR TYPE: TYPE II. MICHAEL FLANSBURG/TARGET CORP. AGENT(S): KIMLEY-HORN. OWNER(S): TARGET CORPORATION. ZONING: ESC. LOCATION 578 AVIATION ROAD. APPLICANT PROPOSES TO UPDATE THE TARGET STORE FACADE BY RELOCATING THE EXISTING CVS SIGN AND INSTALLING A NEW BLOCK BACKER WITH NEW 77.1 SQ. FT. DRIVE-UP SIGN. THE BLOCK BACKER MATERIAL FOR THE NEW SIGN WOULD BE SIMILAR IN COLOR TO THE BLOCKER BEHIND THE EXISTING WHITE TARGET LOGO. PURSUANT TO CHAPTER 179-3-040,SITE PLAN REVIEW FOR FACADE ALTERATION SHALL BE SUBJECT TO PLANNING BOARD REVIEW AND APPROVAL. CROSS REFERENCE: SP (M) 12-02, SP 40-2019, SV 6-2022. WARREN CO. REFERRAL: OCTOBER 2022. SITE INFORMATION: MALL AREA. LOT SIZE: 8.13 ACRES. TAX MAP NO. 302.5-1-92.12. SECTION: 179-3-040. CASEY LIEBERMAN,REPRESENTING APPLICANT,PRESENT MR. TRAVER-Laura? MRS. MOORE-So this applicant proposes to update the Target store facade by re-locating the existing CVS sign and installing anew block backer with anew 77.1 square foot drive up sign. The blocker material for the new sign would be similar in color to the blocker behind the existing white Target logo, and the only thing I noted was in regards to the new drive up sign and the car logo as well as new arrangement for the parking area where they don't lose parking. They just have enough space so that they can get carts in between the cars. So they can actually deliver out to the parked cars. MR. TRAVER-Gotcha. Thank you. Welcome. Hi, I'm Casey Lieberman. I'm a civil engineer at Kimley-Horn and I am Target's representative as their regional program manager. So today I'm here for just the facade improvements,but it is in reference to the proposed drive up improvements as well that didn't need any planning approvals which we got from Craig and Laura back in September. So I'm not sure if you're all familiar with the drive up program but it's an essentially just an order pick up but you stay in your car and the employees bring your orders out to you and so it's had great success nationwide so we're pretty much just expanding the number of spaces. It's really just re-striping, adding signage. That's about it. So with that, Target's also doing facade improvements. So there's going to be the addition of a drive up wall sign which is 77 square feet and it's shown on the north elevation. So it's going to be directly across from where the drive up spaces are being placed. It's really there for wayfinding purposes. So when customers are pulling in to the parking lot, they know exactly where to find the drive up spaces,which is right across from them. It won't cause any negative effects to the traffic flow, anything like that. It'll just ease the customer's way of finding their way there and with that we're also going to be adding efface behind that drive up sign. There's existing efface on the building right now behind the existing bullseye. This is just going to match the character of the building. One more thing is they're re-locating the existing CVS sign over to the left side of the north elevation. MR. TRAVER-Okay. Well the drive up has become quite popular and all of the,or many of the retailers have come in with projects that relate to that. So that's not unexpected. MR. DEEB-Do you get a lot of use out of the drive ups? MS. LIEBERMAN-Yes. And the best part about it is it's like a two minute turnover rate. So pull in,the employee brings your order out to you and you're gone. MR. DEEB-Do you have to text them that you're there? MS. LIEBERMAN-Yes. On the app,the space you pull into says what space number it is. You just mark that,and they bring it right out to you. MR. MAGOWAN-Dave,you've got to get with the times. MR. DEE&Well I've had groceries brought to the car during COVID. I haven't used it since. MR. MAGOWAN-Well they've gone trifold since then. MR. TRAVER-Yes. 43 (Queensbury Planning Board 10/25/2022) MR. DIXON-Do you have any additional lighting that's going to go in? MS. LIEBERMAN-Within the parking lot,no. It will just use what's existing. MR. TRAVER-There is a public hearing on this application. Since we don't have an audience any longer, I guess there's no one in the audience. Are there written comments? PUBLIC HEARING OPENED MRS. MOORE-There are no written comments. MR. TRAVER-All right. Then we will close the public hearing. PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED MR. TRAVER-Does anyone have any concerns? Do we feel comfortable moving forward on this? MR. ETU-I'm just curious,who's Matthew Flansburg? MS. LIEBERMAN-He's one of,like a senior owner of Target. MR. ETU-Okay. MR. TRAVER-Do you want to go ahead and process that resolution? RESOLUTION APPROVING SP#65-2022 MATTHEW FLANSBURG/TARGET CORP. The applicant has submitted an application to the Planning Board: Applicant proposes to update the Target store facade by relocating the existing CVS sign and installing a new block backer with new 77.1 sq. ft. Drive-Up sign. The block backer material for the new sign would be similar in color to the blocker behind the existing white Target logo.Pursuant to chapter 179-3-040,site plan review for facade alteration shall be subject to Planning Board review and approval. Pursuant to relevant sections of the Town of Queensbury Zoning Code-Chapter 179-9-OSO, 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 10/25/2022 and continued the public hearing to 10/25/2022when 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 10/25/2022; 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; 65-2022 MATTHEW FLANSBURG/TARGET CORP. Introduced by Michael Dixon who moved for its adoption; Per the draft provided by staff conditioned upon the following conditions: 1) Waivers request granted:g.site lighting,h.signage,j.stormwater,k.topography,1.landscaping,n traffic,p floor plans,q.soil logs,r.construction/demolition disposal s.snow removal as the project is only associated with the north face of the Target Building for signs. 2) The approval is valid for one (1) year from the date of approval. Applicant is responsible for requesting an extension of approval before the one (1)year time frame has expired. 3) 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; 44 (Queensbury Planning Board 10/25/2022) 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 Warren Longacker.Duly adopted this 25`h day of October 2022 by the following vote: AYES: Mr. Longacker,Mr. Stark,Mr. Magowan,Mr. Etu,Mr. Deeb,Mr. Dixon,Mr. Traver NOES: NONE MR. DEEB-You had to wait all that time. MS. LIEBERMAN-For a sign. I drove like five hours to be here, too,but I got approved. That's all that matters. MR. TRAVER-Would you like some of these plans back? MS. LIEBERMAN-They're all yours. You can hang them on your wall. Nice and colorful. MRS.MOORE-I'll take them because they eventually need final plans and I'll communicate that,you'll get a resolution and then they just get placed on a resolution sheet and we'll use these if you include the resolution sheet. MS. LIEBERMAN-Thankyou,guys. MR.TRAVER-Is there any other business before the Board this evening? I'll entertain a motion to adjourn. MR. DEEB-So moved. MOTION TO ADJOURN THE QUEENSBURY PLANNING BOARD MEETING OF OCTOBER 25TK 2022,Introduced by David Deeb who moved for its adoption,seconded by Michael Dixon: Duly adopted this 25`h day of October,2022,by the following vote: AYES: Mr. Deeb,Mr. Dixon, Mr. Longacker,Mr. Stark,Mr. Magowan,Mr. Etu,Mr. Traver NOES: NONE MR. TRAVER-We stand adjourned. Thank you,everyone. See you next month. On motion meeting was adjourned. RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED, Stephen Traver,Chairman 45