The URL can be used to link to this page

05-15-2018 015/115/2018) QUEENSBURY PLANNING BOARD MEETING FIRST REGULAR MEETING MAY 15, 2018 INDEX Site Plan No. 57-2015 Queensbury Partners 1. REQUEST FOR EXTENSION Tax Map No. 289.19-1-27 Site Plan No. 27-2017 Seaton Property Holdings 2. Special Use Permit 7-2017 Tax Map No. 308.16-1-55, -56, -58, & -61 FURTHER TABLING REQUEST Site Plan No. 67-2017 Gregory Teresi 3. FURTHER TABLING REQUEST Tax Map No. 239.18-1-27.2 RESOLUTION RE: Chairman Traver's Letter to Town Board 3. Site Plan No. 14-2018 Seavey Family Trust 4. Tax Map No. 289.11-1-27 Site Plan No. 22-2018 Tabassum "Toby" Sheikh 14. MODIFICATION Tax Map No. 266.3-1-78 Site Plan No. 26-2018 Randolph, Jr. & Denise Bardin 20. Tax Map No. 252.-1-33(main) 252.-1-57, 56 (access) Site Plan No. 33-2018 Community Chapel of WGF 22. ZBA RECOMMENDATION Tax Map No. 309.10-2-69 Subdivision No. 5-2018 Scott Rowland 26. PRELIMINARY STAGE Tax Map No. 301.5-1-3 Subdivision No. 6-2018 FINAL STAGE ZBA RECOMMENDATION Site Plan No. 36-2018 Faden Enterprises 29. Tax Map No. 296.17-1-49 Site Plan No. 37-2018 Faden Enterprises 30. Tax Map No. 296.17-1-47 Site Plan No. 35-2018 1454 State Route 9L 32. Tax Map No. 288.12-1-21 Site Plan No. 32-2018 James S. Brown 38. Tax Map No. 253.-1-24(access) 253.-1-23(main) THESE ARE NOT OFFICIALLY ADOPTED MINUTES AND ARE SUBJECT TO BOARD AND STAFF REVISIONS. REVISIONS WILL APPEAR ON THE FOLLOWING MONTHS MINUTES (IF ANY) AND WILL STATE SUCH APPROVAL OF SAID MINUTES. QUEENSBURY PLANNING BOARD MEETING ,I 015/115/2018) FIRST REGULAR MEETING MAY 15, 2018 7:00 P.M. MEMBERS PRESENT STEPHEN TRAVER, CHAIRMAN CHRIS HUNSINGER, VICE CHAIRMAN DAVID DEEB, SECRETARY MICHAEL VALENTINE JOHN SHAFER JAMIE WHITE MICHAEL DIXON, ALTERNATE LAND USE PLANNER-LAURA MOORE STENOGRAPHER-MARIA GAGLIARDI MR. TRAVER-Good evening, everyone. Welcome to the Town of Queensbury Planning Board meeting for Tuesday, May 15, 2018. This is the first meeting for the month of May and the 11 th meeting thus far for the Year of 2018. There should be some draft agendas on the table at the back of the room. If you have your cell phone or other electronic device if you would turn it off or turn the volume down that would be most helpful. Also we need to let you that in case of emergency there are emergency exits in the building. They are marked by illuminated signs. You'll see two of them in this room. There's a third one over here, and of course also the main ones that you came in on. We have some administrative items this evening to begin our agenda. The first being approval of minutes from the March 13th, March 20th and March 27th Planning Board meetings. Do we have any amendments to those meetings or do we have a motion to approve? APPROVAL OF MINUTES March 13, 2018 March 20, 2018 March 27, 2018 MOTION TO APPROVE THE QUEENSBURY PLANNING BOARD MEETING MINUTES OF MARCH 13 TH, 20 , AND 27 1H, 2018, Introduced by David Deeb who moved for its adoption, seconded by Michael Valentine: Duly adopted this 15th day of May, 2018, by the following vote: AYES: Mr. Deeb, Ms. White, Mr. Shafer, Mr. Dixon, Mr. Valentine, Mr. Traver NOES: NONE ABSENT: Mr. Hunsinger MR. TRAVER-Next we have Site Plan 57-2017 for Queensbury Partners. ADMINISTRATIVE ITEMS SITE PLAN 57-2015 QUEENSBURY PARTNERS — REQUEST FOR EXTENSION OF APPROVAL TO DECEMBER 31, 2018 MR. TRAVER-They've requested an extension of their approval to December 31St of 2018. Laura, can you give us some background on that? MRS. MOORE-Right. So the Board members received a letter prepared by Mike O'Connor dated April 5th of 2018, and what had happened was the purchaser of the project area had withdrawn his offer, and there's some details about a rental market for this area that I won't go into details. So the applicant is pursuing still selling that property and will be hopefully resolving that by December 31 at. If not he'll be back. MR. TRAVER-Okay. 015/115/2018) MRS. MOORE-So I don't know if Mike wants to add anything, but that's the gist of it. MR. TRAVER-All right. Thank you, and we have a motion. We have a motion to that effect in our packet. RESOLUTION EXTENDING APPROVAL OF PUD SP # 57-2015 QUEENSBURY PARTNERS The applicant has submitted an application to the Planning Board for Site Plan approval pursuant to Article 9 of the Town Zoning Ordinance for: a Planned Unit Development (PUD) consisting of office, business retail and multi-family uses. The proposed mixed use density is for 142 residential units and 56,180 sq. ft. of commercial space. Activities also include land disturbance for installation of a parking areas, parking garage, sidewalks and drive areas along with associated infrastructure and utilities for the project. Pursuant to Chapter 179.12 PUD of the Zoning Ordinance, Planned Unit Developments are subject to Planning Board review and approval. MOTION TO APPROVE A SIX MONTH EXTENSION FOR SITE PLAN NO. 57-2015 QUEENSBURY PARTNERS, Introduced by David Deeb, who moved for its adoption, seconded by John Shafer: Duly adopted this 15th day of May, 2018 by the following vote: AYES: Mr. Deeb, Ms. White, Mr. Shafer, Mr. Dixon, Mr. Valentine, Mr. Traver NOES: NONE ABSENT: Mr. Hunsinger MR. TRAVER-Next we have another Administrative Item. Site Plan 27-2017 and Special Use Permit 7-2017 for Seaton Properties. SITE PLAN 27-2017 & SPECIAL USE PERMIT 7-2017 SEATON PROPERTIES — FURTHER TABLE APPLICATION/DENY WITHOUT PREJUDICE MR. TRAVER-They're asking for a tabling. MRS. MOORE-Yes. So it's further tabling of this application. I anticipate the Town Board resolving the Zoning Code language shortly. So I would ask you to table it to the first meeting in August, which would be August 21 St MR. TRAVER-Okay. August 21St RESOLUTION TABLING SP 27-2017 & SUP 7-2017 SEATON PROPERTIES Applicant proposes operation of a wood processing facility with a new 15,000 sq. ft. enclosed pole barn for wood products and to install two 1,200 sq. ft. kiln units on the site. Project includes merger of lots 308.16-1-55, -56, -58 & 61. Project includes continued auto facility for C& J automotive and current use of expanded material storage area. Project includes maintaining 4 existing buildings on the merged properties, additional clearing, installation of a gravel parking area and material storage area (logs, woodchips etc.). Pursuant to Chapter 179- 3-040 and 179-10-040 of the Zoning Ordinance, light manufacturing — wood products, logging company, and Special Use Permit for wood product facility shall be subject to Planning Board review and approval. MOTION TO TABLE SITE PLAN 27-2017 & SPECIAL USE PERMIT 7-2017 SEATON PROPERTY HOLDINGS, Introduced by David Deeb who moved for its adoption, seconded by Michael Valentine; Tabled until the August 21 St, 2018 Planning Board meeting. Duly adopted this 15th day of May, 2018 by the following vote: AYES: Ms. White, Mr. Shafer, Mr. Dixon, Mr. Valentine, Mr. Deeb, Mr. Traver NOES: NONE ABSENT: Mr. Hunsinger 3 015/115/2018) MR. TRAVER-And next we have Site Plan 67-2017 for Gregory Teresi, requesting a further tabling to the second meeting in June, which would be June 26, 2018. SITE PLAN 67-2017 GREGORY TERESI — FURTHER TABLE — SECOND MEETING IN JUNE — 6/26/18 MR. TRAVER-Laura? MRS. MOORE-So I communicated with the applicant as well as our Town Counsel and it was asked if we could move it to the June 26th meeting. So that's why it's being tabled. MR. TRAVER-Okay. And we have the draft motion. RESOLUTION TABLING SP # 67-2017 GREGORY TERESI The applicant has submitted an application to the Planning Board: Applicant proposes to construct a 1,812 sq. ft., 3 bedroom home and associated site work. Project occurs on 15% slope and includes stormwater management, permeable pavers, with septic system on adjoining lot. Pursuant to Chapter 179-6-060 of the Zoning Ordinance, new construction occurring within 50' of 15% slopes shall be subject to Planning Board review and approval. MOTION TO TABLE SITE PLAN NO. 67-2017 GREGORY TERESI, Introduced by David Deeb who moved for its adoption: Tabled to the June 26, 2018 Planning Board meeting for submission of details of the wall. With a submission date of May 15th, 2018. Motion seconded by John Shafer. Duly adopted this 15th day of May, 2018 by the following vote: MR. TRAVER-Any discussion? MR. VALENTINE-The submission date is today then? MRS. MOORE-Right. I know. I do have information in-house that is being shared with the Town Engineer. MR. TRAVER-Okay. Any further discussion? Maria, can we have the vote, please? AYES: Mr. Shafer, Mr. Dixon, Mr. Valentine, Mr. Deeb, Ms. White, Mr. Traver NOES: NONE ABSENT: Mr. Hunsinger MR. TRAVER-And the last item we have, Board members are aware that I have drafted a letter in response to a concern that's come to our attention actually fairly regularly over the last few years regarding unapproved development. I've circulated a draft of that letter. I've made some amendments to it, and I would ask, unless people feel there needs to be further discussion or they have further amendments, that someone make a motion that, as Chair, that I send this letter to the Town Board and associated Staff. RESOLUTION RE: CHAIRMAN TRAVER'S LETTER RE: UNAPPROVED DEVELOPMENT MOTION THAT STEPHEN TRAVER, QUEENSBURY PLANNING BOARD CHAIRMAN, SEND HIS LETTER REGARDING UNAPPROVED DEVELOPMENT TO THE QUEENSBURY TOWN BOARD AND ASSOCIATED STAFF, Introduced by John Shafer who moved for its adoption, Motion Seconded by Michael Valentine. Duly adopted this 15th day of May, 2018, by the following vote: AYES: Mr. Deeb, Ms. White, Mr. Shafer, Mr. Dixon, Mr. Valentine, Mr. Traver NOES: NONE ABSENT: Mr. Hunsinger 4 015/115/2018) MR. TRAVER-All right, and that concludes the, well, actually, no. We have one more Administrative Item. We have an item of a bit of unfinished business from last month which has to do with Site Plan 14-2018, the Seavey Family Trust. SITE PLAN NO. 14-2018 SEAR TYPE: TYPE II. SEAVEY FAMILY TRUST. AGENT(S): MICHAEL J. O'CONNOR. OWNER(S): ESTATE OF BARBARA C. BARRY. ZONING: WR. LOCATION: 3 GLEN HALL DRIVE. APPLICANT PROPOSES A (REVISED) 1,019 SQ. FT. (FOOTPRINT), 2,035 SQ. FT. FLOOR AREA HOME. PROJECT INCLUDES SITE WORK, TERRACED GRADING FROM GLEN HALL, OR WITH WALKWAYS TO NEW HOME. PURSUANT TO CHAPTER 179-6-050 & 179-6-060 OF THE ZONING ORDINANCE, HARD SURFACING WITHIN 50 FT. OF SHORELINE AND CONSTRUCTION WITHIN 50 FT. OF 15% SLOPES SHALL BE SUBJECT TO PLANNING BOARD REVIEW AND APPROVAL. CROSS REFERENCE: 2006-753 DEMO OF CABIN/PORCH, AV 8-2018. WARREN CO. REFERRAL: N/A. LOT SIZE: .21 ACRE. TAX MAP NO. 289.11-1-27. SECTION: 179- 6-050 & 179-6-060 MICHAEL O'CONNOR & TOM CENTER, REPRESENTING APPLICANT, PRESENT MR. TRAVER-And I understand the applicant is here before us again. I'd welcome them back to the table, and, Laura, you want to review for us where we stand on this? MRS. MOORE-Right. So this is an open item due to the fact that the Board didn't come to a majority vote. So the Board actually does have to complete the review process so that a majority vote is taken. Or the majority vote taken could take the form of tabling the application with guidance on why you're tabling it, approval, approval with conditions, or sometimes I've seen the Board table it asking for assistance from Town Counsel in preparing a denial resolution. So there's additional information. The applicant has provided hard copies of information that was provided at the last meeting. I now have additional hard copies if the Board members want to have a hard copy in front of them. I also have a flash drive that the applicant has provided that shows that information about the house location and the adjoining neighbor's property's house. MR. TRAVER-Okay. So to review, we basically, as an action taken before us, we either approve, deny or table, and we did none of those things. We basically, there was a motion to approve which was voted down and then we took no further action. So the applicant is before us again tonight so that we may take one of those actions. MRS. MOORE-Right. MR. VALENTINE-But at the time of the meeting, the applicant could have requested a vote right after that for an approval, for a tabling or for an affirmative vote. Right? MRS. MOORE-Yes. They could have. MR. VALENTINE-They could have. MRS. MOORE-They could have pursued the vote issue. At this time, just as a reminder, the public hearing has been closed. So just so you're aware of that. MR. TRAVER-Right. Okay. So welcome back. MR. O'CONNOR-Thank you, Mr. Chairman, members of the Board. Again for your record I'm Michael O'Connor. I represent the applicant, and the applicant, Robert Seavey, is here today. He actually can probably add a little bit to what we're going to present to you, and Tom Center is the project engineer. Basically I went through the minutes of the April 24th meeting, and I think there's some points there that really needed to be clarified. I have some new information as well that perhaps will change the mind of some of the members of the Board that weren't convinced that this was something to be approved. I had a discussion with Craig Brown after the meeting and it was my belief that some of the votes were swayed by the discussion as to whether or not a den should be counted as a bedroom and whether or not the septic system for a two bedroom home was adequate in size for this structure. If you look at Section 179-9-080 for the requirements for Site Plan approval you won't find either of those two discussions or issues as legitimate reasons to vote against the project. You can't say or guess someone intends to violate the zoning law and that's sufficient reason for not voting in favor of a project. It's pure speculation whether or not somebody would use the den, or the room that's called a den, as a bedroom, and I think that swayed some people, but I think you have to put that out of your mind. The Zoning Administrator has looked at it. The Enforcement Officer has looked at it. In fact I think you have a letter in your packet today from Dave Hatin saying that this is a two I:~ 015/115/2018) bedroom home and that the septic system is properly sized per our regulations for a two bedroom home. So those two issues shouldn't be part of your thought process when you're thinking about approving this. I mean, do we have a stormwater problem? Do we have a traffic problem? Do we have a grading problem? Those are typical site plan issues, and if you don't see one of those issues in this particular application I think you're obligated to probably vote in favor of it. I missed some points last time so I want to be sure I cover them. So I wrote them down and will try not to be too long. MR. TRAVER-Mike, excuse me. If I could just make sure I understand your point regarding the bedroom. I understand your position is that the application should not be denied on the basis of speculating about what future use. MR. O'CONNOR-Right. MR. TRAVER-But I don't think that's what happened. I mean it wasn't, and I'm not disagreeing with you. I'm just saying that my recollection of what happened was there was a long discussion, and a number of items, not just the bedroom, were brought up and sufficient number of individuals voted down the motion to approve, and they weren't specific about the reasons why they didn't vote for the approval motion. That's a different thing, I think, than what, in other words, you're not saying that someone can't vote against an approval motion. You're saying that the application can't be denied solely on the basis of speculation about? Okay. I just want to make that clear. I'm not sure that was clear to everyone. MR. O'CONNOR-Okay. There seemed to be a common theme, particularly with Mr. Magowan who's not here today, that was his big theme, and he actually summed up his opposition to it on that basis, and I don't know, and I don't mean to put words in somebody's mouth, but Mr. Shafer was concerned about the capacity of the septic system, and he pointed that out in his discussion. MR. SHAFER-The wastewater issue is not why I voted against it, but I think I raised the point that the Health Department guidelines in sizing a septic and wastewater system says that, it talks about a garbage disposals, it talks about other things within the house, and it also suggests, in those guidelines, that other rooms such as dens, whatever, be considered an extra bedroom for purposes of sizing the septic, the tank and the wastewater leach field. They're guidelines, and they just suggest that those extra rooms could be used, and I guess I just had a question about whether that had been done or not. MR. O'CONNOR-Okay. MR. SHAFER-And most of us who do this on a daily basis use the State Health Department guidelines in sizing septic tanks and leach fields. MR. O'CONNOR-Okay. I presume that Dave Hatin did that in making his approval of the septic system and the Town Board considered his approval or his recommendation when they approved the septic system variance. Because they approved two 1500 gallon septic tanks for this structure, and they gave a specific variance for that. MR. SHAFER-Holding tanks. MR. O'CONNOR-Two holding tanks. Specifically as to some of the comments from the public. The neighbor, Mr. Gansle I think it is, had two points that he addressed to the Board. He thought he was treated unfairly because the Zoning Board moved the house three feet closer to him than from the Burke house. But if you take a look at it, the Burke home, or a portion of it, not the whole home but actually it is an offset. The whole house is not four feet. That with the 4.7 feet, the distance between a portion of his house that sticks out, the property line, the 12 foot setback, makes his house, or makes him 16 feet 7 inches from our new structure. The other problem is actually 24 feet separating. Because that property, the house on that property is further inset into that lot. So even though we have only six feet of separation on our side, he's got 18 feet on his side of the line. So I think the Zoning Board was just balancing, or trying to balance between the three properties the location of the house and its impact on two people. MR. VALENTINE-In that regard, too, those measurements that the Zoning Board looked at were on the plan dealing with side yard setbacks to the property line. They weren't necessarily the distances between the structures also. MR. O'CONNOR-1 don't think they treated them unfairly. They didn't give us preferential treatment. They just took a look at the three structures and said how it could be best suited for that particular site. The second comment that he made was as to the holding tank being placed 6 015/115/2018) in the middle of his right of way. That is our right to do that. When somebody has a right of way they have a right to have access over the right of way. They can't be interfered with legally. But for us to use his sub surface for a holding tank I don't believe is unreasonable. Disruption of his use probably to put the two tanks in would be one day, maybe two days. So I don't think that that was a comment that should have been considered that we were for some reason going to interfere with his right of way through our property because we were going to put holding tanks underneath the bed, a portion of that right of way. MR. TRAVER-Mike, may I ask you a question? The holding tank within the right of way, and again we know in that area around Glen Lake there's a lot of these narrow, if you will, setback issues. It's not unusual, and there are a lot of right of ways as well. Is it relatively common for the holding tank to be placed within a right of way? MR. O'CONNOR-If you have to, yes. If you buy a holding tank or even a septic system, septic tank, with a travel top, it's built purposely to withstand traffic. My point, part of the systems are under pavement with a particular construction top on them. MR. TRAVER-So this is, in effect, a holding tank designed to be put in the right of way? MR. CENTER-Yes, it's traffic rated, both tanks, with steel covers and concrete risers. Everything constructed for a tractor trailer to withstand. MR. TRAVER-And with regards to the concern about the disruption. The installation perhaps would be a day. Would that be similar on the occasions when they're being pumped out? MR. CENTER-It would be half an hour. I mean you're looking at, a truck would come in. One truck would empty one tank and then they'd have to come back for the second one, about 2,000 gallons. So depending on which truck they brought in. MR. TRAVER-And do you have any anticipation of how often that might occur? MR. CENTER-It depends on the use. It's one of those things you can't predict. I mean this is a seasonal camp. So, you know, in the summertime it could be once a week, once every other week, once a month. MR. TRAVER-That's what I mean. MR. CENTER-From my experience everybody's different. It depends, you know, maybe most people get them pumped out before the season starts, and then, you know, right before the holidays so they have capacity for both Fourth of July and Memorial Day, but you have to couch that with it depends on how much use you get. MR. TRAVER-Okay. Thank you. MR. O'CONNOR-That's also part of the contrary argument, too, the fact that this den is going to be used as a bedroom. Mr. Seavey is going to be paying for that tank pump out, and he's going to be very careful and conservative as to the creation of water waste. I have people that live two places over from me that are on a holding tank. They go to great lengths to avoid the truck coming in. I think it costs like $200 bucks now for a truck to come to your site. I'd also make a comment on, this has been decided by the Zoning Board whether this residence will fit in with the character of the neighborhood. That's part of their tests that they have. That's one of the five tests for an Area Variance, whether it will be detrimental to the neighborhood or to the environment, and they said no. Whether or not it would be detrimental to the character of the neighborhood. Mr. Burke indicated to the Board that his house was about a 1,000 square foot house and that the house proposed by the Seavey's would be out of character because it's going to be a larger house. Actually if you look at his house, his house is probably as large, if not a little bit larger, than, or his land use is a little bit larger than what Mr. Seavey is proposing. And I did some calculations based on the records of the tax office here as to what his house actually contains and I believe it's 2,088 square feet when you consider the house and the fact that it has a basement that could be counted as living space, even if it's unfinished, and he has a two car garage on the site. MR. TRAVER-You're talking about floor area. MR. O'CONNOR-Floor area ratio. We comply with the existing Floor Area Ratio and he was saying that his house was much different and there would be a difference in character. MR. TRAVER-And I'm sorry what's the, it's right here, 2,035 square feet. 7 015/115/2018) MR. O'CONNOR-Yes. 2,038 1 think I it is. Okay. Tom has actually done a presentation which I'd like to have you look at. Because I think again it emphasizes, clarifies the fact of what the actual impact will be on the Burke property which is the property that everybody seems to be most concerned about. MR. CENTER-If you want to zoom in a little more to that bottom frame. So what we did, from the Town of Queensbury Assessor's information on line, we took the footprint of the house from the Assessor's website and overlaid the footprint onto the plans for the same square footage. MR. TRAVER-This is the Burke house? MR. CENTER-This is the Burke house. This is the house that was considered the close proximity, and the nature of the windows, what we tried to do to show. What I did is go out and measure the locations of where the three windows on the side of the house. I think it was a little bit deceiving when the surveyors picked it up. They just picked up the one corner. They didn't go all the way around that house. So I went off of that corner using the Assessor's information and put the entire footprint of the house and laid that in on this plan to get an idea. So that one window right here, I also took some pictures and we'll look at them afterwards. So we have this one window right here which is a small, about two foot by three and a half foot window. It's about nine feet off the ground. There's two windows over here on what would be the second floor above the basement, the main living area if you will. I'll call that the first floor underneath. Underneath this section right here is, as you'll see, five foot plus basement area, unfinished basement it says on the Assessor's tax map. I believe Mr. Burke said he used it as a workshop previously when he was last here. And that's the area that we looked at and added in as potential living space, which would meet today's criteria for anything above five feet or five and a half feet of being potential living space. So if we look over here, we have the two existing trees that we're going to leave. I slid the two new trees that we propose down further to come closer in line with that one window on the closest portion, the four foot portion. If you go to the next one. MR. TRAVER-And the privacy fence is on the other side. Is it not? MR. CENTER-No, the privacy fence is on this side also. So you can see that the windows, the very first window, the closest window, is actually a little bit forward of the proposed deck, and you can see the two trees right here that are going to remain. Remember there's a third tree that's right in this area that we're proposing to remove. We'll go to the next, go to the first photo. So this is the first photo. So these trees right here, those are those three trees. This is the large 36 inch, 12 inch, and the other 12 inch that's going to be removed. If you go to the next picture, Laura. Kind of had to slide over a little bit. So this is looking right down, you see the garage above. You see that middle tree. You can see that window and you can see where the building juts in and then you can see the two windows that are on the first floor, and you're looking at the Burke residence from approximately the center, just forward of the patio area. We'll go to the next picture, and this is looking from the property corner back up at the Burke house. So the Burke house is, I'm sorry, this is Gansle. You're looking at the Gansle house. So the Gansle house sits back a little bit more, has that deck, has that patio, it has the small porch here, and this is also two stories on the front side. So we'll go to the next photo. MR. VALENTINE-Your perspective on that one again? MR. CENTER-1 was at the property corner, at the property corner of Gansle and Seavey, looking up at that stone. MR. VALENTINE-That's where you've got your iron rod? MR. CENTER-Yes, exactly. Standing right there. So we'll go to the next one. Okay. Now this one right here, I'm standing where the end of the patio would be looking at the Burke house, right down in line, almost, you know, just a little bit forward to that window. We'll go to the next photo. Now I'm standing right here. I'm at the point, this is where the house would actually be, the middle of the house. Obviously I'm at ground level, the deck would be above me, but this is actually where the edge of the house would line up with the back side. It would actually be beyond further back from the house of Burke. MR. VALENTINE-How are you within the, say left to right? MR. CENTER-I'm in about the middle of the parcel looking that way. So I'm about in the middle of the parcel looking back, and this is right about the elevation here is what the elevation of the basement would be, which would be 180. 8 015/115/2018) MR. VALENTINE-The tree on the right, is that the? MR. CENTER-That's the one that's going to be removed. MR. VALENTINE-Okay, and those on the left that are hidden by the leaves? MR. CENTER-Yes, that all is removed. The next tree is up, that remains in there. We'll go to the next photo. Now I turned around. I'm down looking at the Gansle property from the edge of the patio looking over towards the Gansle parcel. And that's that direction, and we'll go to the next photo. And the next one I'm at the edge of the house at Elevation 180 looking at, so you can still see that we're back beyond the patio, the porch. They actually have a view looking straight across us. So it kind of shows the perspective. I think there were some thoughts when we were here before that this house, that the Burke house sat back the other way of where it actually sits opposite more to the north if you will as opposed to the lakeside. And we tried to kind of enhance that to show that we are already further back from these two houses. So we accomplished that after the first meeting before we went to the Zoning Board. So we actually do sit a little bit back from the closest house which would be the Burke house. MR. O'CONNOR-Okay. Another thing which I don't think we made a point of. This is the elevation that faces the Burke property. When we first started this we had a window in this room that was toward the front of the Seavey property. We removed that so that there'd be no question that at that point we weren't aware that this house was actually behind his house for the most part. So we removed that. The only window on this house is a bathroom window at the very back of the house, which is well beyond the Burke residence. Almost back to where the Burke garage is. So it has nothing to do with privacy or invasion of privacy. We looked at that floor plan, too. I talked to Robert about the den, okay. If you look at both the den and the master bedroom, they're on the lower level floor plan that was part of the package that we gave you. MR. CENTER-It would be in the first packet for the last meeting. It wouldn't be in this one. MR. TRAVER-Okay. MR. CENTER-Laura might have it. MR. O'CONNOR-If you take a look at both those rooms, they both have sliding doors on the front toward the lake which is natural. This is on the ground level. So a good portion of both of those rooms is taken up in the front. You aren't going to have furniture and what not right up to those sliding glass doors because you're going to have to have room to get in and out of either the master bedroom which opens out onto the deck and patio or the den. There was comment made that the den is as big as the master bedroom. We talked about that and we can make it a little shorter if that's a concern for the people that are thinking well you're going to use it as a bedroom. If we made it 10 feet 10 and a half inches, we would stick that foot someplace in the back into the bedroom. On the master bedroom side you can see that that whole side is the master bedroom suite. It's got the master bedroom. It's got the bath. It's got closets and it's got the bathroom there and behind it is a staircase that goes up to the next level. MR. TRAVER-Excuse me, Mike. So right now the den is 11 feet 10 and a half inches. So you would make it 10. MR. O'CONNOR-Ten, ten. MR. TRAVER-Ten feet and a half inches, take a foot off the den. So that would further extend the infrastructure that's in the back of the den. MR. O'CONNOR-Right, and if you look at the bath that's on behind that, that bath is actually the bathroom for the guest bedroom which is in the back corner of the house. It does have an entrance way from the general hallway that goes down through the center of the house, so that if somebody's in the den area they do have a bathroom to go to without going directly into somebody's bedroom, and those are things I don't know if we really got into that type of detail before. MR. TRAVER-We did not. MR. SHAFER-What does the change in the den size do to the overall dimension of the house? MR. O'CONNOR-Nothing. 9 015/115/2018) MR. SHAFER-It doesn't change that at all? MR. CENTER-It would make Bedroom Two 11 feet 8 and a half inches. So you would add it to the interior. MR. O'CONNOR-We're within the Floor Area Ratio. We're just trying to downsize a room that people thought might be used as a bedroom. MR. VALENTINE-Could I come back to your overall rationale for shrinking that five foot? Why are you offering that? MR. O'CONNOR-So show that we're trying to answer questions that were raised. We don't intend to use that as a bedroom. MR. VALENTINE-And I thought you established that you weren't going to use it as a bedroom. MR. DEEB-That's why I don't think it makes a difference. MR. VALENTINE-It doesn't. MR. DEEB-It doesn't really make a difference either way. MR. O'CONNOR-We offer it, okay. We offer it. MR. VALENTINE-1 don't know if there's a reason to do that. MR. DEEB-I don't think they have to. MR. O'CONNOR-Okay. My client would tell me there's a lot of things he doesn't think we should have offered. But, Mr. Dixon, you weren't here, but we're putting in stormwater catch basins on the back of our property which really doesn't serve the stormwater that we generate from our site. It will serve the stormwater that's generated on the Mackowiak property, the Hannan property and the Gansle property that run down through those properties, through our property and actually goes to the Burke property. MR. DIXON-1 actually have a question for you, then. So listening to the conversation I know at the last meeting there was a great deal of discussion just about the overall size, and I know you addressed that as far as Mr. Burke's property next door. Have the three of you had anymore conversations as far as reducing it down to about 1800 square feet instead of the 2,000? MR. O'CONNOR-Bob, why don't you talk about why you have this size. ROBERT SEAVEY MR. SEAVEY-The size of this house is a copy of my house in Florida. Except it's all on one level instead of being two levels. The master bedroom is exactly a copy of my bedroom in Florida. The same thing in reference to the other bedrooms. It's a copy of it. I have a den in my house that's 14 by 14 because I added on to my house. I have a lanai that was 10 by 30. It's now 24 by 30, and I added 14 by 14 on as a den. I have a huge desk in there. I have all kinds of stuff in there that nobody can sleep in there and have no intentions of it being a bedroom. It's strictly a man cave for me because I watch different things on t.v. than my wife does, which is nothing but that room will be used by me more than anybody else. MR. SHAFER-Following up on Mike's question, and I asked that same question the last meeting and got actually the same answer that it replicates your existing house down south, but if you look at this parcel, and I understand floor area ratio, but what's happening here is that you have a very narrow, long lot and you've plopped down on that long narrow lot a square house, and I think that's what gives some of us heartburn because that ends up with very small setbacks. Six feet on one side and twelve feet on the other. So you have a 30 by 32 foot house, almost square, plopped down on a very severely rectangular lot, and that's, I think gives me the heartburn anyway. Because that ends up with very, very severe setbacks. MR. VALENTINE-But he's already received the Area Variance that he needs to do that. MR. DEEB-The variances are approved. MR. TRAVER-Okay. Anything else? °10 015/115/2018) MR. O'CONNOR-Alongside the house, one of the conditions the ZBA gave us, well, two combined conditions. I'm trying to make sure that we don't make some changes that says we've got to go back to the ZBA, to be honest with you. We agreed to put three, 6 foot arborvitae underneath the deck on the Burke's side. I don't know how I get there, but I would extend, and that would be the whole length of our house, that six feet that now we can do it because we have 12 foot setback where before we had a 6 foot setback. We've gotten a little bit away from the house, and then build basically a hedge around that wall, or along that side, but I would like to lessen the height of the privacy fence on the top. Maybe that's not in your purview. MR. TRAVER-We can make that a condition. MR. O'CONNOR-So I'd have to go back to the Zoning Board. If you looked at the house plans, you see where that privacy fence is. They're all on that side, and in between you and, this is the staircase. The privacy fence is on the outside of the staircase toward the Burke residence and it's six feet high. If you're standing on the deck and this side of the staircase, you can't see over that fence down to the ground. I guess you could if you were seven or eight feet tall, but if you're my height you would not see it. MR. TRAVER-Okay, and I don't know if the hedge would address the house size? Would that help in any way with the size of the house on the lot? I mean, that's the visibility issue certainly from the neighbors. Okay. MR. O'CONNOR-Basically that's our presentation. If you have any other questions we'd be glad to answer them. MR. TRAVER-Questions, comments from members of the Planning Board for the applicant? MR. DEEB-One of my objections was the use of the den as a bedroom. I didn't have a problem with the size of the house because you exceed the, you meet the FAR standards. Everything is Code compliant. So I guess what I have to add to this is that when a project like this comes along, we see a den come in, but we just have to trust that the applicant is going to use it as a den. We can't assume that he's going to use it as a bedroom, and I think if we start making those assumptions we're going down a slippery slope there. So that was my objection. MR. TRAVER-Did you see the letter from Dave Hatin? MR. DEEB-Yes, and I understand that, and I knew it was Code compliant. I just had a problem with the den. I believe he's a man of his word. I just feel that it sends a red flag, but it's nothing that we really can legislate. We have to trust that that's not going to be used as a bedroom. MR. TRAVER-Well, and we deal with, you know, just as a matter of history, it's not unusual for the Planning Board to deal with issues of projection into the future. We'll have someone come in with an applicant and we have public comment, people will say, now you're going to have everyone doing whatever it is that they're doing and we have to anticipate, you know, ten times the traffic or ten times, you know, whatever it is, because if this person is now building something here where there was nothing, now everybody's going to build, and it's just not practical for us to do that. So it's not terribly unusual for us to deal with hypotheticals or whatever, and we do have to focus on what we have before us. MR. DEEB-And we can't base it on assumption. MR. TRAVER-Right. I mean, well, yes, not if we feel. MR. SEAVEY-1 give you my word that that room will never be a bedroom while I live. MR. TRAVER-And the other thing is, you know, you can always, should you ever need to make it a bedroom, you can always come back and make that change or whatever. So are there other questions at this point? MR. DIXON-Mr. Chairman, I know there was conversation also as far as stormwater runoff. I know it's being addressed on here, but we're spending so much time on the size of the property that we didn't even talk as far as, there's going to be snow removal I'm assuming. Where does the snow go? Where does that melt? The peak on the roof going towards Burke's property as well as the other property, you've got all the snow melt coming off of there. Behind Burke's property there appears to be some sort of septic tank that looks like it would be well within 50 feet of the well that's being proposed by the applicant. So I don't think. 015/115/2018) MR. CENTER-The new well is 50 feet from those existing tanks. We've relocated the well from the last plan when Mr. Burke or Mr. Gansle brought up where his tanks were, we located his tanks based on his approved plan and we relocated the new well within 50 feet. Mr. Gansle actually has a septic variance to be within 45 feet of the existing well on Mr. Seavey's property. So when Mr. Gansle got approval for his holding tanks, he got approval with a variance to be within I believe it's 47, 45 feet from Mr. Seavey's well. The stormwater, all the stormwater design has been reviewed and signed off by the Town Engineer. So we actually came into this meeting with all those questions answered. That's why we changed to permeable pavers. One of the things with permeable pavers it does allow, if snow is left on them, it allows the snow to melt down through and melt into the pavements, the pavers and the stone beneath. I'm not sure if Mr. Seavey plans on utilizing it during wintertime, but it's got a sloped area. It certainly can, the snow can be pushed forward down the slope in that area as far as the pavement is concerned, and then we've got six feet on either side of it, the stone drainage on either side of the roof that drains down to the patio below with another infiltration reservoir underneath the patio underneath. So there is no overhang over the property. Everything is within the confines. MR. TRAVER-So does that answer your concern? MR. DIXON-Yes, absolutely. MR. TRAVER-Any other questions from members of the Board? MR. VALENTINE-You won't be therein the winter. Right? MR. SEAVEY-That is correct. MR. VALENTINE-No, I'm just thinking for snow removal. MR. TRAVER-Actually Glen Lake is nicer than Florida in my opinion. MR. SEAVEY-It's too cold. MR. TRAVER-It is cold. Okay. So we're now in a situation, if there are no other questions, where we need to act on this application, and as we discussed in the beginning, we basically have, there are three choices before us. We talked about some new information. There's a question about guidelines for sizing of septic regarding dens and so on, but basically we either have to approve this application, deny the application or table the application seeking additional information, and I'll open it up for discussion on those points. How are people feeling? MR. VALENTINE-I'd make a motion for approval of this plan. MR. TRAVER-Okay. I believe we have a draft. Correct? MR. DEEB-Yes, I've got it. RESOLUTION APPROVING SP # 14-2018 SEAVEY FAMILY TRUST The applicant has submitted an application to the Planning Board, Applicant proposes a (revised) 1,019 sq. ft. (footprint), 2,035 sq. ft. floor area home. Project includes site work, terraced grading from Glen Hall, or with walkways to new home. Pursuant to Chapter 179-6- 050 & 179-6-060 of the Zoning Ordinance, hard surfacing within 50 ft. of shoreline and construction within 50 ft. of 15% slopes shall be subject to Planning Board review and approval. Pursuant to relevant sections of the Town of Queensbury Zoning Code-Chapter 179-9-080, the Planning Board has determined that this proposal satisfies the requirements as stated in the Zoning Code; The Planning Board opened a public hearing on the Site plan application on 4/24/2018 and continued the public hearing to 04/24/2018, when it was closed, The Planning Board has reviewed the application materials submitted by the applicant and all comments made at the public hearing and submitted in writing through and including 05/15/2018; The Planning Board determines that the application complies with the review considerations and standards set forth in Article 9 of the Zoning Ordinance for Site Plan approval, 015/115/2018) MOTION TO APPROVE SITE PLAN 14-2018 SEAVEY FAMILY TRUST; Introduced by David Deeb who moved for its adoption. According to the draft resolution prepared by Staff with the following: 1) Waivers requested granted; 2. Adherence to the items outlined in the follow-up letter sent with this resolution. a) The limits of clearing will constitute a no-cut buffer zone, orange construction fencing shall be installed around these areas and field verified by Community Development staff; b) If applicable, the Sanitary Sewer connection plan must be submitted to the Wastewater Department for its review, approval, permitting and inspection; c) If curb cuts are being added or changed a driveway permit is required. A building permit will not be issued until the approved driveway permit has been provided to the Planning Office; d) If application was referred to engineering then Engineering sign-off required prior to signature of Zoning Administrator of the approved plans; e) Final approved plans should have dimensions and setbacks noted on the site plan/survey, floor plans and elevation for the existing rooms and proposed rooms in the building and site improvements; f) If required, the applicant must submit a copy of the following to the Town: a. The project NOI (Notice of Intent) for coverage under the current "NYSDEC SPDES General Permit from Construction Activity" prior to the start of any site work. b. The project NOT (Notice of Termination) upon completion of the project; c. The applicant must maintain on their project site, for review by staff: 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 I) And the conditions that were given to this Site Plan by the Zoning Board of Appeals, including One through Six. Motion seconded by John Shafer. Duly adopted this 15th day of May, 2018 by the following vote: MR. TRAVER-Any discussion on the motion? MRS. MOORE-Can I just identify one item? In this one under L you've identified that it's including Items One through Six in the Zoning Board of Appeals. So you had discussion about the screening issue. Do you wish to continue to include that in your motion? And you can. I just want to highlight that discussion about the screening. MR. HUNSINGER-That's a good point, because the applicant could always go back to the ZBA and ask for relief for those. MRS. MOORE-Right. So the Planning Board's asking for those same conditions. Do you just want to leave them at the Zoning Board level, or do you feel that you would also have them as your conditions? MR. VALENTINE-My thought was they were staying because Michael was saying he didn't want to go back to the ZBA. MR. TRAVER-That's correct. It would be normal that they would remain. '13 015/115/2018) MR. DEEB-So we'll leave it. MR. O'CONNOR-They actually remain whether you include them or don't include them because the Zoning Board, as I tried to point out on what they considered when they made their approval. MR. TRAVER-You wouldn't be here without those. MR. O'CONNOR-Well, we wouldn't be here without their approvals, but when their conditions are made, they stand, separate from you. You can incorporate them if you want, if you feel more comfortable doing it, but you don't have to. MRS. MOORE-So I guess my point is that if the applicant were to change his mind or come back with an alternate plan, then he would be coming back to both Boards. MR. TRAVER-Right. Understood. Yes. MRS. MOORE-All right. MR. VALENTINE-The other question I had is in the resolution it made reference to correspondence. Should we note that that correspondence includes? MRS. MOORE-You should include the Dave Hatin letter. I can read that into the record. Typically I should have read that before you made the motion, but that's up to you. MR. HUNSINGER-It's an interesting point because the resolution talks about materials submitted through and including 4/24, so it really should read through today. MRS. MOORE-Yes, 5/15. MR. TRAVER-Yes, amend that, because that is part of the record. MR. HUNSINGER-So I would make an amendment to amend the resolution to include, there's actually three references to 4/24/18. MR. TRAVER-Yes, through today, good point. MR. VALENTINE-And then the point I was looking at was that after waivers that Number Two, Dave, adherence to items outlined in the follow up letter. Do you want to make another reference to that May 8th e-mail or letter? MR. TRAVER-From Dave Hatin? MRS. MOORE-No, so you've included that as it's now with the amendment. MR. O'CONNOR-1 think the follow up letter is the general letter that you get saying before you start construction you have to do this and you have to do that. MR. TRAVER-It's an acknowledgement of this process. MR. O'CONNOR-Yes. MR. DEEB-Okay. I will amend the resolution to read all materials submitted up until and including 5/15/2018. Does that work? MR. TRAVER-Yes. AYES: Mr. Deeb, Ms. White, Mr. Shafer, Mr. Dixon, Mr. Valentine, Mr. Hunsinger, Mr. Traver NOES: NONE MR. TRAVER-All right. You're all set. MR. O'CONNOR-We thank you. MR. TRAVER-All right, and the next section of our agenda is for Tabled Items. Item being Toby Sheikh, application Site Plan Modification 22-2018. 015/115/2018) TABLED ITEMS: SITE PLAN MODIFICATION 22-2018 SEAR TYPE: UNLISTED. TABASSUM SHEIK. OWNER(S): ASAD PETROLEUM INC. ZONING: NC. LOCATION: 985 STATE ROUTE 149. APPLICANT PROPOSES REVISED MODIFICATION TO FUEL CANOPIES AND BUILDING LIGHTING. LIGHTING CHANGES INCLUDE NUMBER OF LIGHTS, FIXTURES AND BRIGHTNESS. PURSUANT TO CHAPTER 179-9-120 OF THE ZONING ORDINANCE, MODIFICATIONS TO AN EXISTING SITE PLAN SHALL BE SUBJECT TO PLANNING BOARD REVIEW AND APPROVAL. CROSS REFERENCE: SP 36-2015, SP PZ 157-2016, SV 2-2018, MULTIPLE SP, BP, SP. WARREN CO. REFERRAL: MARCH 2018. SITE INFORMATION: APA. LOT SIZE: 3.63 ACRES. TAX MAP NO. 266.3-1-78. SECTION: 179-9-120. ED WARD, REPRESENTING APPLICANT, PRESENT; TOBY SHEIKH, PRESENT MR. TRAVER-Laura? MRS. MOORE-So I'm just trying to pull this up on the screen so you can see some of the changes that have been made, but the gist of it is we asked Toby to go back and discuss with a lighting professional information about the entire site as well as the canopy and the building itself. So the applicant is proposing to reduce the light fixture wattage, the foot candles as well as to add two cut off fixtures to be placed on the canopy and shining towards or down lit between the canopy and the store and then those are the major components of it was the canopy brightness. MR. TRAVER-Okay. Thanks, Laura. Good evening. So this is fairly straightforward I think at this point. The entire reason that we had you go back and do some follow up work was regarding lighting. We have an updated site plan and some Staff comments regarding the changes that in some cases are fairly significant in reducing the foot candles and the fixtures and so on. So that's good. MR. WARD-My name's Ed Ward. I'm with Haanen Engineering. Toby hired Haanen to evaluate the existing lighting and the proposed changes to comply as was stated before. So basically what was stated before I evaluated some new fixtures under the canopies, the lower levels, some cut off fixtures to increase the lighting levels between the gas pumps, the canopies and the store itself, and the results are what we have on the plans here, they fulfill the requirements. So what's not on your lighting plans is the decorative lighting that Toby would want to add that would shine on the building. So it's not part of the area lighting, it wouldn't affect the foot candles here, but full disclosure. MR. TRAVER-Okay. Questions, comments from members of the Planning Board? MR. VALENTINE-So in effect on the canopies, particular the gas canopy, that has been decreased to, or revised to 17.1 foot candles? MR. WARD-Yes. MR. VALENTINE-Because we were looking at 29 something last time. So you knocked it down. MR. WARD-And similar with the diesel canopies. That was around 20 and to 23. MR. VALENTINE-Twenty-three I believe, and then the wall lighting, the lamps around the building, the fixtures have been changed then, to downcast? MR. WARD-Yes. Part of the changes, they were cut offs, shielding, so that they shine down. MR. VALENTINE-And the recessed lighting as I call it the porch or entrance area, whatever it is, they're staying as they are? There wasn't any big impact from those. MR. WARD-Yes. MR. SHEIKH-Half a candle or one candle I think. It's nota lot. MR. VALENTINE-And it's recessed. That lighting is just down on the walk area. '115 015/115/2018) MS. WHITE-So why is the diesel canopy still at a higher rate than what was approved? Substantially higher? What's the reasoning for that remaining at the 23? MR. TRAVER-The original approval was for 10, and it came in at 29 and you dropped it down to 17.1. MR. VALENTINE-No, no, that's the gas. MS. WHITE-Under the diesel it's still at 23. MR. TRAVER-I'm sorry. It was originally 10 and it's at 23. MS. WHITE-I'm just curious why that's still so high, you know, compared to the other one. MR. WARD-Well, I mean, we tried to leave the same amount of fixtures, basically one over for each filling station spot, and in using that fixture that's basically the way the geometry of, the layout of the gas pumps come out. MS. WHITE-Because there's six fixtures in a smaller area? Is that why? MR. WARD-1 mean, why is it 23 versus say 20, versus the other one? MS. WHITE-Versus the 17 under the other canopy. MR. WARD-Right. It's a relatively insignificant difference. You wouldn't notice five foot candles I don't think it's high. It's the layout of the lighting in there and the geometry of the poles and the pumps themselves. So you're going to get plus or minus three foot candles is relatively small compared, you know, because. MS. WHITE-Well it's twice as much as what was approved however. So that's significant in my mind. MR. WARD-The ten versus twenty? MS. WHITE-Correct. MR. VALENTINE-Well I think the question goes back, I think what Jamie is going to is why is it 17 and that was okay to get it to 17 with the gas but the diesel has to be 23? MS. WHITE-Right. If we're going to make it to 17, why isn't it 17 everywhere? MR. VALENTINE-We had another application come through last week and they talked about the need to be able to see into your wallet to grab their right credit cards. Do the guys at the diesel need more light to get their credit card out? MR. SHEIKH-Also this is where you check the oil, you do all other stuff. It's not just area lighting. It's just like in the drive thru window. You've got to see the wallet. You've got to see the credit card. You've got to count the money, all that stuff, but I mean I'm just saying, but again it's the same fixture I'm putting on the other side and the gas canopy, and I think it's a smaller area probably that's why. The gas canopy is 114 feet long and the diesel canopy is only 60 feet long. So that's probably a little bit. MR. TRAVER-So it's more concentrated. MR. SHEIKH-But again on the other side the gas, the cars are smaller, not as high. The diesel trucks are about 14, 15 feet high. MS. WHITE-It's the same concentration. MR. TRAVER-We do have a public hearing on this application as well. Are there any other questions before we go to the public hearing? Then we'll open a public hearing and ask if there are members of the audience that wanted to address the Planning Board on this application this evening. I'm not seeing any. Laura, are there any written comments? PUBLIC HEARING OPEN MRS. MOORE-There are no written comments. '16 015/115/2018) MR. TRAVER-Okay. Then we'll close the public hearing. PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED MR. TRAVER-Other questions, comments? MR. HUNSINGER-1 think I was one that was kind of pressing them a lot. I just appreciate your willingness to cooperate and compromise. I think you've really come a long way. MR. TRAVER-Yes. It's certainly better than it was. And it is not an easy process without changing the entire design. To lower the wattage is one thing, because there are limits on what they can do to the design to start with. MRS. MOORE-Can I just interrupt. You mentioned some decorative lighting and we never got back in touch understanding what that was. So the Board's not familiar with the terminology of decorative lighting. So we're only familiar with the plot plan that we have in front of us. MR. WARD-What Toby has in mind is basically like a wall wash on the end of his building, right on the front roofline. I know he's requested. MR. TRAVER-A wall wash, is that what you said? MR. WARD-Yes. MR. TRAVER-Okay. Can you explain what that is? MR. WARD-Basically a light that just would shine on the end of the gable end of the building because right now this building is really dark. You have the gas canopies, that shows up, and there's a little bit of lighting underneath this porch's entrance, but most of it. MR. TRAVER-So this would be like a floodlight that lights up the whole end of the building? MR. WARD-Floodlight's an exaggeration. It would be around 50 to 70 watts, yes, it's directed at the end of the building. MR. DEEB-Is it directed on the building? MR. WARD-On the building. MR. DEEB-On the building itself. MR. WARD-Right. So it's not area lighting. MR. SHEIKH-Blue color so it would be just like my canopy. MR. TRAVER-Okay. So by decorative I'm guessing that you mean that it illustrates the building without adding to the ambient lighting? In other words, the existence of that decorative lighting, is that included in that lighting plan in terms of the foot candle? MR. WARD-No, because it wouldn't shine on the surface areas. MR. TRAVER-Understood. MR. VALENTINE-Is this on the drive thru end or the other end? You're saying on the end of the building. MR. WARD-The east side, the east, west and the front. MR. DIXON-Would these fixtures be attached to the building or are you going to need another pole? MR. WARD-No, attached. MR. TRAVER-All right. Any further questions or comments regarding the decorative lighting? MR. DEEB-You say you're going to have three of them? MR. WARD-There'll be one on each end and on the porch, in the entrance. ,1.7 015/115/2018) MR. DEEB-How many total? MR. SHEIKH-Six. MR. WARD-Six. MR. DEEB-And what wattage? MR. WARD-Fifty watts. MR. TRAVER-And were they part of the original proposal? No? So let me make sure I understand this. So we sent you away to reduce the lighting and you added six lights? Okay. I just wanted to make sure I understood. That's the new math. All right. MS. WHITE-There's not one of these spec reports on this decorative lighting included in this packet? MR. WARD-No. MS. WHITE-Okay. MR. VALENTINE-It's entirely new. MR. TRAVER-Entirely new. MR. DEEB-That's something else that has to be addressed. MR. SHEIKH-If you can allow it it would look nicer. That's all it is. Nothing is being added to the area lighting. MR. TRAVER-So, Laura, just clarification regarding your staff. You obviously were aware of it because you mentioned it to us this evening. Do you feel that it needs to be added? Is it absent from the plan and therefore that's an issue? MRS. MOORE-It's absent. I understand the point that it's not shining on the surface, but it is a new feature that we haven't seen before. We do see it, or where I've seen it and how I'm thinking it's being described is that say the Holiday Inn has those green fixture light, like accent lighting. MR. TRAVER-Right. MRS. MOORE-So I think it's something similar to that. I just, I don't know what it is, other than I have the impression of what it is. MR. TRAVER-Yes. Well I know we've seen it before. I guess my question is, in terms of process, do we need to have the plan amended to reflect that additional six lights? MRS. MOORE-So if you were to look at this application and you were comfortable with the description, you could include that information in this application this evening. MR. TRAVER-And condition it that the as built would include those features? MRS. MOORE-Yes. MR. TRAVER-Okay. All right. MR. DEEB-I'm not sure I'm comfortable with doing that at this point. AUDIENCE MEMBER-It's as big as that light on your wall right there except more shade, exactly. That's a wall washer. MR. SHEIKH-Yes, it's just going to be on the wall. MR. DEEB-I'm a little uncomfortable without having more information adding it to the site plan. I mean this was just thrown at us tonight. '18 015/115/2018) MR. TRAVER-Okay. Well let's poll the Board. I guess the question is they took their original plan, modified it, made an effort to modify it as we had requested, and they also added six fixtures that were not part of the original plan. Do members of the Board feel that we need to table this and have the plan revised and before us again with these new fixtures, or are we okay with going ahead with a conditional approval? MR. DEEB-Why can't we approve this? Those lights aren't on this resolution. We can do this. MR. TRAVER-So in other words they would not be able to add these lights. MR. DEEB-Right. If they want to come back and make a new submission. MR. TRAVER-Okay. So you haven't installed them yet. MR. SHEIKH-No, nothing is installed. MR. TRAVER-Okay. All right. Are members comfortable with that option, then? MS. WHITE-Much more so. MR. TRAVER-Okay. MR. SHAFER-Do we know how the resulting application compares to Code? I haven't heard any discussion about that. MR. TRAVER-1 guess that would be a question for Laura. MRS. MOORE-So you just asked if it was compliant with Code. Lighting is a discussion item with the Board. There's some guidance in our Town Code. So it is. MR. TRAVER-The answer is yes and no. MRS. MOORE-Right. Because there is some guidance about the parking lot lighting, the canopy lighting, and you the Board have said can you reduce it to be consistent with say the neighboring lighting or you've reduced it because it appears to be too bright as you've observed. So in reference to guidance I can pull that guidance. MR. SHAFER-Let me ask it differently. Are we violating any Town Code by approving this application? MR. TRAVER-No. MRS. MOORE-No, you are not. MR. TRAVER-So to the applicant, just to clarify where we're at as I understand it with the new lighting that you've added to the application, there are basically two, it appears that there are two choices. We can consider the application that we have before us without the decorative lighting that you just described, the six lights, in which case perhaps you'll get an approval or whatever. Or if you wish to add the decorative lighting, the building wash, or I'm sorry whatever you called it before with the six lights, you could amend your plan, we could table it. You could come back with the amended plan and we could look at that. So what we have before us does not include those new lights. Correct? So that's what we're looking at this evening. So if we give you an approval tonight, which we haven't done yet, but if we were you understand it would be without the building wash or the six additional lights. So do you want to stand on what we have before us or do you want to add those features and come back next month or whenever we can get you back on the agenda and you can present the new application with the features that you wish to add to what you had before? MR. SHEIKH-1 think we will go without adding those lights so you can approve this and if I have to put some lights I can come back. MR. TRAVER-Okay. MR. VALENTINE-So you took from behind Door Number Three. MR. TRAVER-So just to clarify, what we have in front of us does not include the six decorative lights that were part of our discussions earlier. How do Board members feel? Are we ready to move forward on this? Okay. We also need to reaffirm an earlier SEQR review that we '19 015/115/2018) performed on this application. Are members comfortable that the changes made in the Site Plan that we have before us this evening do not add any environmental impacts that would require us to re-review SEAR? I mean they actually reduced the lighting impact. So I'm comfortable if everyone else is. Then there should be a re-affirmation motion in there. RESOLUTION RE-AFFIRMING NEGATIVE SEAR. DEC. FOR SP MOD # 22-2018 TOBY SHEIKH The applicant proposes modification to fuel canopies and building lighting. Lighting changes include number of lights, fixtures and brightness. Pursuant to Chapter 179-9-120 of the Zoning Ordinance, modifications to an existing site plan shall be subject to Planning Board review and approval. The Planning Board has determined that the proposed project and Planning Board action is subject to review under the State Environmental Quality Review Act; The proposed action considered by this Board is Unlisted in the Department of Environmental Conservation Regulations implementing the State Environmental Quality Review Act and the regulations of the Town of Queensbury; No Federal or other agencies are involved; Part 1 of the Short EAF has been completed by the applicant; Whereas, the Planning Board adopted Resolution Site Plan 36-2015 on 6/23/2015 and reaffirmed same for Site Plan Modification PZ 157-2016 on 6/21/2016, adopting SEQRA determination of non-significance, and Upon review of the information recorded on the EAF, it is the conclusion of the Town of Queensbury Planning Board as lead agency reaffirms that this project will result in no significant adverse impacts on the environment, and, therefore, an environmental impact statement need not be prepared. Accordingly, this negative declaration is issued. MOTION TO REAFFIRM NEGATIVE DECLARATION FOR THE PROPOSED SITE PLAN (MODIFICATION) 22-2018 TABASSUM SHEIKH. Introduced by David Deeb who moved for its adoption, seconded by Chris Hunsinger. Duly adopted this 15th day of May, 2018, by the following vote: AYES: Mr. Deeb, Ms. White, Mr. Shafer, Mr. Hunsinger, Mr. Dixon, Mr. Valentine, Mr. Traver NOES: NONE MR. TRAVER-All right, and then next we have the Site Plan motion. RESOLUTION APPROVING SP MOD # 22-2018 TOBY SHEIKH The applicant has submitted an application to the Planning Board for Site Plan approval pursuant to Article 9 of the Town zoning Ordinance for: Applicant proposes modification to fuel canopies and building lighting. Lighting changes include number of lights, fixtures and brightness. Pursuant to Chapter 179-9-120 of the Zoning Ordinance, modifications to an existing site plan shall be subject to Planning Board review and approval. Pursuant to relevant sections of the Town of Queensbury Zoning Code-Chapter 179-9-080, the Planning Board has determined that this proposal satisfies the requirements as stated in the Zoning Code; As required by General Municipal Law Section 239-m the site plan application was referred to the Warren County Planning Department for its recommendation; The Planning Board has reviewed the potential environmental impacts of the project, pursuant to the State Environmental Quality Review Act (SEQRA) and adopted a SEQRA Negative Declaration — Determination of Non-Significance The Planning Board opened a public hearing on the Site plan application on 03/20/2018 and continued the public hearing to 05/15/2018, when it was closed, 015/115/2018) 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 05/15/2018; The Planning Board determines that the application complies with the review considerations and standards set forth in Article 9 of the Zoning Ordinance for Site Plan approval, MOTION TO APPROVE SITE PLAN MODIFICATION 22-2018 TABASSUM SHEIKH. Introduced by David Deeb who moved for its adoption; Per the draft provided by staff conditioned upon the following conditions: 1) Waivers requestrg anted: 2) Adherence to the items outlined in the follow-up letter sent with this resolution. a) If application was referred to engineering, then engineering sign-off required prior to signature of Zoning Administrator of the approved plans; b) Final approved plans should have dimensions and setbacks noted on the site plan/survey, floor plans and elevation for the existing rooms and proposed rooms in the building and site improvements, c) Final approved plans, in compliance with the Site Plan, must be submitted to the Community Development Department before any further review by the Zoning Administrator or Building and Codes personnel; d) The applicant must meet with Staff after approval and prior to issuance of Building Permit and/or the beginning of any site work; e) Subsequent issuance of further permits, including building permits is dependent on compliance with this and all other conditions of this resolution; f) As-built plans to certify that the site plan is developed according to the approved plans to be provided prior to issuance of the certificate of occupancy; g) Resolution to be placed on final plans in its entirety and legible. Motion seconded by Michael Valentine. Duly adopted this 15th day of May, 2018 by the following vote: AYES: Ms. White, Mr. Shafer, Mr. Hunsinger, Mr. Dixon, Mr. Valentine, Mr. Deeb, Mr. Traver NOES: NONE MR. TRAVER-All right. You're all set. MR. SHEIKH-Thank you. MR. WARD-Thank you. MR. DEEB-Good luck. MR. TRAVER-Okay. Next we have, under Tabled Items, Randolph and Denise Bardin, Site Plan 28-2018 and Freshwater Wetland 2-2018. SITE PLAN NO. 28-2018 FWW 2-2018 SEAR TYPE: TYPE II. RANDOLPH, JR. & DENISE BARDIN. AGENT(S): HUTCHINS ENGINEERING. OWNER(S): SAME AS APPLICANT. ZONING: LC-10A. LOCATION: 97 WOODCHUCK HILL ROAD. APPLICANT PROPOSES TO CONSTRUCT A 2,755 SQ. FT. (FOOTPRINT) HOME ON AN 18.81 ACRE VACANT PARCEL. PARCEL IS ACCESSED THROUGH A SHARED DRIVE ACROSS TWO SOUTHERLY PARCELS AT THE END OF WOODCHUCK HILL RD. PROJECT ALSO INCLUDES DRIVEWAY CONSTRUCTION — PORTION WITHIN 100 FT. OF WETLANDS, UTILITIES, WASTEWATER & STORMWATER MANAGEMENT. PURSUANT TO CHAPTER 179-6-060 OF THE ZONING ORDINANCE, CONSTRUCTION WITHIN 50 FT. OF 15% SLOPES AND DRIVEWAY GREATER THAN 10% AND CHAPTER 94 WETLAND WORK WITHIN 100 FT. OF WETLAND SHALL BE SUBJECT TO PLANNING BOARD REVIEW AND APPROVAL. CROSS REFERENCE: N/A. WARREN CO. REFERRAL: 015/115/2018) N/A. SITE INFORMATION: APA, WETLANDS. LOT SIZE: 18.81 ACRES. TAX MAP NO. 252.-1-33(MAIN) 252.-1-57, - 56(ACCESS). SECTION: 179-6-060, CHAPTER 94. LUCAS DOBIE, REPRESENTING APPLICANT, PRESENT; DENISE BARDIN, PRESENT MRS. MOORE-So the applicant was tabled at last month's meeting because we identified that there was, the driveway work was within 100 feet of the designated wetland area. The applicant indicated it's about 82 feet from the designated wetland area. The wetland is about 9.5 acres in size, however on the applicant's project site it's 1.7. So there were no outstanding issues about the house development. It was just adding this additional review process. MR. TRAVER-Okay. So otherwise the application has not changed from what we looked at. MRS. MOORE-Correct. MR. TRAVER-Okay. Welcome back. MR. DOBIE-Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and good evening, Board. You're probably tired of seeing us. That's the third time in five weeks I believe. Thank you for accommodating us and thank you to Staff for allowing us to turn this application around so we could get back and for the record again Lucas Dobie with Hutchins Engineering and the applicant Denise Bardin. Subsequent to our last meeting they closed on their home in Northumberland and so we've got to get them a house going this summer hopefully. That's what we're targeting here. As Staff said, as Laura said we're right about 80 feet with our disturbance from the wetland which is shown in orange on our map and the 100 foot, the setback from the wetland is shown in purple. So we're just, it just catches us on the corner of the driveway, mainly a culvert outfall. We looked at moving the driveway but it still wasn't worth it for the extensive site work and the change, re-work in our road profile. So we asked to apply for our permit and we'd be happy to answer any questions and hopefully we can get our approval and hope to begin work this summer. Thank you for having us. MR. TRAVER-All right. Any questions from members of the Board. We looked at this pretty extensively the last time you were here and discovered this issue. MR. SHAFER-I looked on the drawing and I couldn't see the results of the perc test for Perc Test Three. MR. DOBIE-Right. We haven't gotten to that yet, Mr. Shafer. MR. SHAFER-I see. MR. DOBIE-That's part of our engineering comments to work through that filtration tests and perc tests, yes. MR. SHAFER-Okay. MR. TRAVER-We do have a public hearing on this application. Is there anyone in the audience that wanted to address the Planning Board on this application? Laura, do we have any written comment? PUBLIC HEARING OPENED MRS. MOORE-I have no written comment. MR. TRAVER-Then I'll close the public hearing. This is a SEQR Type II. So no SEQR review is required. If there are no other questions or comments, I guess we're ready for a motion. RESOLUTION APPROVING SP #28-2018 & FWW 2-2018 BARDIN The applicant has submitted an application to the Planning Board: Applicant proposes to construct a 2,755 sq. ft. (footprint) home on an 18.81 acre vacant parcel. Parcel is accessed through a shared drive across two southerly parcels at the end of Woodchuck Hill Rd. Project also includes driveway construction —portion within 100 f of wetlands, utilities, waste water & stormwater management. Pursuant to Chapter 179-6-060 of the Zoning Ordinance, construction within 50 ft. of 15% slopes and driveway greater than 10% and Chapter 94 Wetland work within 100 ft. of wetland shall be subject to Planning Board review and approval. 015/115/2018) Pursuant to relevant sections of the Town of Queensbury Zoning Code-Chapter 179-9-080, the Planning Board has determined that this proposal satisfies the requirements as stated in the Zoning Code; As required by General Municipal Law Section 239-m the site plan application was referred to the Warren County Planning Department for its recommendation; The Planning Board opened a public hearing on the Site plan application on 04/24/2018 and continued the public hearing to 05/15/2018, when it was closed, The Planning Board has reviewed the application materials submitted by the applicant and all comments made at the public hearing and submitted in writing through and including 05/15/2018; The Planning Board determines that the application complies with the review considerations and standards set forth in Article 9 of the Zoning Ordinance for Site Plan approval, MOTION TO APPROVE SITE PLAN 28-2018 & FRESHWATER WETLANDS PERMIT 2-2018; Introduced by David Deeb who moved for its adoption. According to the draft resolution prepared by Staff with the following: 1) Waivers requested granted; 2. Adherence to the items outlined in the follow-up letter sent with this resolution. a) The limits of clearing will constitute a no-cut buffer zone, orange construction fencing shall be installed around these areas and field verified by Community Development staff; b) If applicable, the Sanitary Sewer connection plan must be submitted to the Wastewater Department for its review, approval, permitting and inspection; c) If curb cuts are being added or changed a driveway permit is required. A building permit will not be issued until the approved driveway permit has been provided to the Planning Office; d) If application was referred to engineering then Engineering sign-off required prior to signature of Zoning Administrator of the approved plans; e) Final approved plans should have dimensions and setbacks noted on the site plan/survey, floor plans and elevation for the existing rooms and proposed rooms in the building and site improvements;- f) If required, the applicant must submit a copy of the following to the Town: a. The project NOI (Notice of Intent) for coverage under the current "NYSDEC SPDES General Permit from Construction Activity" prior to the start of any site work. b. The project NOT (Notice of Termination) upon completion of the project; c. The applicant must maintain on their project site, for review by staff: i. The approved final plans that have been stamped by the Town Zoning Administrator. These plans must include the project SWPPP (Storm Water Pollution Prevention Plan) when such a plan was prepared and approved; ii. The project NOI and proof of coverage under the current NYSDEC SPDES General Permit, or an individual SPDES permit issued for the project if required. g) Final approved plans, in compliance with the Site Plan, must be submitted to the Community Development Department before any further review by the Zoning Administrator or Building and Codes personnel; h) The applicant must meet with Staff after approval and prior to issuance of Building Permit and/or the beginning of any site work; i) Subsequent issuance of further permits, including building permits is dependent on compliance with this and all other conditions of this resolution; j) As-built plans to certify that the site plan is developed according to the approved plans to be provided prior to issuance of the certificate of occupancy. k) This resolution is to be placed in its entirety on the final plans Motion seconded by Jamie White. Duly adopted this 15th day of May, 2018 by the following vote: AYES: Mr. Shafer, Mr. Hunsinger, Mr. Dixon, Mr. Valentine, Mr. Deeb, Ms. White, Mr. Traver NOES: NONE 015/115/2018) MR. TRAVER-You're all set. MR. DOBIE-Very good. Thank you so much for working with us. MR. TRAVER-We're moving on to the next section of our agenda which is Planning Board Recommendations. The first application is Community Chapel of WGF, Site Plan 33-2018. PLANNING BOARD RECOMMENDATIONS TO THE ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS SITE PLAN NO. 33-2018 SEAR TYPE: UNLISTED. COMMUNITY CHAPEL OF WGF. OWNER(S): SAME AS APPLICANT. ZONING: MS. LOCATION: 55 MAIN STREET. APPLICANT PROPOSES TO COMPLETE A 20 X 20 SQ. FT. CARPORT ADDITION TO EXISTING CHURCH TO BE USED FOR COVERED ACCESS TO CHURCH BUILDING. PURSUANT TO CHAPTER 179-3-040 OF TH ZONING ORDINANCE, ADDITION TO EXISTING BUILDING IN MAIN STREET ZONE SHALL BE SUBJECT TO PLANNING BOARD REVIEW AND APPROVAL. VARIANCE: RELIEF REQUESTED FOR SETBACKS. PLANNING BOARD SHALL PROVIDE A RECOMMENDATION TO THE ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS. CROSS REF: N/A. WARREN CO. REFERRAL: MAY 2018. LOT SIZE: .12 ACRE. TAX MAP NO. 309.10-2-69. SECTION: 179-3-040 MIKE BARBONE & DAPHNE COMBS, REPRESENTING APPLICANT, PRESENT MR. TRAVER-Laura? MRS. MOORE-Okay. So this applicant has already started a 20 by 20 square foot carport addition to an existing church. The purpose of the carport is to allow patrons to park there and have coverage when they access the building as well as to have cars there for where the minister parks. MR. TRAVER-Okay. So I'm sorry I have to ask, in view of the letter that we talked about earlier, would this qualify as unapproved development. MRS. MOORE-Yes, it does. MR. TRAVER-Okay. Thank you. Good evening. MS. COMBS-Hi. MR. BARBONE-Good evening. MR. TRAVER-So do you want to tell us about your project? MS. COMBS-My name is Daphne Combs. I'm the Treasurer of the Community Chapel and we would like to cover the area where the minister parks so that he can get in and out of the car without slopping through the snow at the end of the entryway. MR. TRAVER-Okay. And how did you find out that you needed to come before the Planning Board? MS. COMBS-Dave Hatin sent us a letter. MR. TRAVER-Okay. That usually works. MS. COMBS-Well I was begging for a drain because the water pools right there at the bottom of our entryway and Tommy Vanness came and assessed the area and then Dave Hatin came along and said halt. MR. TRAVER-Right. Okay. Well I note that the variance you're seeking could be considered relatively extreme because there's a 20 foot setback required and your setback is one foot. MR. BARBONE-Well there is no setback with the church. The church is on the property line. MS. COMBS-Yes, the road is like, it's right there. MR. TRAVER-It's right there, yes. MR. BARBONE-1 don't know where or how you're going to say what the setback is for the church. How it was built without a setback is beyond me. 1:,4 015/115/2018) MR. TRAVER-Right. MS. COMBS-1 think the road was not there. MR. TRAVER-Really? MR. DEEB-Do you know what year? MS. COMBS-A long time ago they put the road in and it came right up through the building. Because our manse, used to be the other side and that was the church yard. MR. BARBONE-We were trying to solve two problems. One is the plowing job. When they come around from Broad Street, Main Street, when they make that turn, they dump snow. Whatever's on that road gets dumped in that little alleyway. MR. TRAVER-And how is covering that going to prevent that? MR. BARBONE-Well one is there was also a water problem we're trying to solve also, which we were trying to deal with DPW trying to get a well in, but evidently that's not working out too well. So we're trying to get an awning over it so at least the older people can walk through. If I don't shovel it they don't get through. So at least we can get the path. This year we had some snow. You can't get in and out of that church without shoveling. MR. TRAVER-Okay. So we're basically looking at sort of a pre-existing, nonconforming structure, I guess, is what it amounts to. Questions, comments from members of the Planning Board? This is a recommendation regarding the variance. MR. BARBONE-We also have a handicap ramp there that comes to the street, and there's also a door right at the edge of the building that goes downstairs to the basement. MS. COMBS-That has handicap access. MR. TRAVER-How does the handicap, is a ramp inside the building or a lift? MS. COMBS-It's a chair. MR. BARBONE-A chair that goes down, goes downstairs to the lower level. MR. TRAVER-Okay. MR. DEEB-Are you going to gutter it? MR. BARBONE-We've done it. We've done a lot of work prior to putting the roof on. MR. DEEB-Are you going to gutter the carport? MR. BARBONE-We've got gutters. MS. COMBS-We've got gutters on. MR. VALENTINE-Is there parking, on street parking on Newcomb? MS. COMBS-Well, no, but people do park there. MR. HUNSINGER-So where do people park that go to the church? MS. COMBS-We have the property on the other corner of Newcomb was our manse and I purchased it a few years ago from the church. I've since sold it, but we kept a right of way for that back lot of that other side to be our parking lot. So everybody parks over there and then they have to walk up and around across the street into the back of the building. A lot of our parishioners are 80 plus years old. Our minister is 86, and it's difficult for him to get across the street in the wintertime or even when it's just like rain because the puddle gets so huge. We have our public dinners and all the old folks have to come in the back door. We've actually put a pallet there a few times so that they can get over the huge puddle that just puddles right there because the water comes right around the corner from Main Street and before we put the asphalt in there it was going right into our basement, coming right around and right into the 015/115/2018) basement. So at least now it's pooling at the end, but if Tommy Vanness would put a drain in for me we would be good to go. MR. VALENTINE-You're looking for somebody to do something. MS. COMBS-No, I've asked, we're fighting with him too to get them to put a drain in. MR. BARBONE-We also need a drain. With all the water, when they crowned the road, well the other half of the crown is going through to the church. MS. COMBS-And it kind of went like this. So it went. MR. TRAVER-Interesting. Wow. MR. SHAFER-Question. What percent complete is the application you're asking for? MR. BARBONE-Fifty percent. It's just framed. MS. COMBS-Just the frame. It's a great pergola right now. MR. VALENTINE-There's a note in our notes, comments that says on the drainage plan that says that the applicant has indicated that the pitch of the carport is to the existing grass area along the edge of the property line. I wonder, where do you have any grass area? MR. BARBONE-Well, there is none because the property line is the other property. MS. COMBS-There's grass on the other property, not this property. MR. BARBONE-The gutter company came and they put a drywell in. We've got the water going into a drywell. Because we were trying to get the water not to go through the basement window. MR. VALENTINE-1 think one of the drawings showed that the carport, that the roof slants from the back of the building towards the rear? MR. BARBONE-Yes. MR. VALENTINE-All right. So that's where you're talking about where the gutter raises off of that. MR. BARBONE-Correct. MR. VALENTINE-So there is a curb cut in the road, or maybe there's not even a curb. MR. BARBONE-There is no curb cut. The curb cut is the road. When they crowned the road, the road is crowned to the building. So we get all the water from Broad Street, Main Street to that building. MR. DEEB-And you were there first. MR. BARBONE-And we were there first. MR. TRAVER-Yes. MR. BARBONE-I'm kind of laughing when you're talking about setbacks because there is no setback. MS. COMBS-We're like right there. MR. TRAVER-One foot. MR. BARBONE-And we're not exceeding the property. We're not exceeding the building. We're going within the building because we can, because the building, if you step outside the building you're on the road. Even if you step out on the back you're on the other property. MR. TRAVER-Okay. Any other questions or comments for the variance referral for the ZBA? I think we have a resolution. 1:'6 015/115/2018) RESOLUTION RE: ZBA RECOMMENDATION RE: Z-AV-28-2018 COMMUNITY CHAPEL The applicant has submitted an application for the following: Applicant proposes to complete a 20 x 20 sq. ft. carport addition to an existing church to be used for covered access to church building. Pursuant to Chapter 179-3-040 of the Zoning Ordinance, addition to existing building in Main Street zone shall be subject to Planning Board review and approval. Variance: Relief requested for setbacks. Planning Board shall provide a recommendation to the Zoning Board of Appeals. The Town of Queensbury Zoning Ordinance, per Section 179-9-070 J 2 b. requires the Planning Board to provide a written recommendation to the Zoning Board of Appeals for projects that require both Zoning Board of Appeals & Planning Board approval; The Planning Board has briefly reviewed and discussed this application, the relief request in the variance application as well as the potential impacts of this project on the neighborhood and surrounding community, and found that: MOTION TO MAKE A RECOMMENDATION ON BEHALF OF THE PLANNING BOARD TO THE ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS FOR AREA VARIANCE NO. 28-2018 COMMUNITY CHAPEL OF WEST GLENS FALLS. Introduced by David Deeb who moved its adoption, and a) The Planning Board, based on a limited review, has not identified any significant adverse impacts that cannot be mitigated with current project proposal. Motion seconded by John Shafer. Duly adopted this 15th day of May, 2018 by the following vote: MS. GAGLIARDI-Can I just get your name, sir? I'm sorry. MR. BARBONE-Mike Barbone. AYES: Mr. Deeb, Ms. White, Mr. Shafer, Mr. Dixon, Mr. Hunsinger, Mr. Valentine, Mr. Traver NOES: NONE MR. TRAVER-All right. You're off to the ZBA. MS. COMBS-Thank you so much. MR. TRAVER-Next under Planning Board Recommendations we have Scott Rowland, Subdivision Preliminary Stage 5-2018 and Final Stage 6-2018. Relief is sought for road frontage and second garage. SUBDIVISION PRELIMINARY STAGE 5-2018 SUBDIVISION FINAL STAGE 6-2018 SEAR TYPE: UNLISTED. SCOTT ROWLAND. OWNER(S): ERIN MILLER. ZONING: MDR. LOCATION: 749 WEST MOUNTAIN ROAD. APPLICANT PROPOSES A TWO LOT SUBDIVISION OF 4.37 ACRE PARCEL— LOT 1 TO BE 2.01 ACRES AND LOT 2 TO BE 2.36 ACRES. PROJECT PARCEL HAS 360 FT. ROAD FRONTAGE — 180 FT. IS PROPOSED FOR EACH. THE EXISTING HOME IS TO REMAIN ON LOT 1 AND A NEW HOME TO BE CONSTRUCTED ON LOT 2. PURSUANT TO CHAPTER 183 OF THE ZONING ORDINANCE, SUBDIVISION OF LAND SHALL BE SUBJECT TO PLANNING BOARD REVIEW AND APPROVAL. VARIANCE: RELIEF IS SOUGHT FOR ROAD FRONTAGE AND SECOND GARAGE. PLANNING BOARD SHALL PROVIDE A RECOMMENDATION TO THE ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS. CROSS REFERENCE: AV 27-2018. WARREN CO. REFERRAL: N/A. LOT SIZE: 4.37 ACRES. TAX MAP NO. 302.5-1-3. SECTION: CHAPTER 183. SCOTT ROWLAND, PRESENT MR. TRAVER-Good evening. MR. ROWLAND-Good evening. My name's Scott Rowland. It's pretty self-explanatory. It's four acres so I can build a house up there. There's a garage, an existing garage already there. MR. TRAVER-And this is to be a shared driveway. MR. ROWLAND-No. 015/115/2018) MR. TRAVER-I'm sorry. My apologies. Okay. Sorry about that. Okay. You're requesting a waiver from Sketch. You have 180 feet of road frontage for the two lots, or proposing for the two lots and there's a requirement for 200. So you're looking for a variance for 20 feet of road frontage for each of the two newly created lots. Correct? MR. ROWLAND-Yes. MR. TRAVER-Questions, comments from members of the Planning Board? MR. VALENTINE-1 have a discrepancy which I brought up before with tax maps and this one comes out as 5.52 acres on the tax map yet we're dealing with two pieces here that say 4. Something and then there's a difference of 1.15 acres between the two which is substantial for what's being requested here. So I don't know, and, Laura, you're notes on one of them you had started right off the top stating 5.52, but when I'm through with the rest of it, with that reference to 4. something. MR. ROWLAND-My surveyor came up with that number. MRS. MOORE-The 4.37. MR. ROWLAND-When I had it surveyed it went down to four acres. MR. TRAVER-So it's not a gore. It's just an error in the calculation of the size. MR. ROWLAND-Yes. MR. VALENTINE-1 don't know where the error is but it makes a difference when you're dealing with, the one lot obviously your intent is to get just to the two acres. MR. ROWLAND-Right. MR. VALENTINE-And I'm looking at the swimming pool on that lot and saying why is the property line as being formed so close to the pool when it can be moved. There's going to be a variance request on that at some point. It wasn't a part of this record? There's no variance for? MRS. MOORE-No. There's not a variance for the pool. MR. ROWLAND-No. The pool will be 10 feet off the property line. I made sure of that. MR. VALENTINE-Well that property line comes right down. MR. ROWLAND-That's a fenced area. The pool itself, that's the fenced area around the pool. The pool is actually 10 feet inside of that fenced area. MRS. MOORE-We do it from the water's edge of the pool. MR. ROWLAND-Yes. MR. TRAVER-And I think the intent was to make it 180 each. Right? MR. ROWLAND-Right. It gives us 20 feet of relief on both of them. MR. TRAVER-Right. MR. SHAFER-And you kept that long narrow strip to make it two? MR. ROWLAND-Make it two acres. Yes. Not that we want to do it, but we had to do it. MR. VALENTINE-Well, the other thing I was thinking, if you moved that line that's there coming down from the fen point up there and came down so that you went away from the pool, you would wind up with that lot there, the one being retained, at least having lawn area in front of the pool that goes with the house and everything there, rather than having that be part of. MR. ROWLAND-Like I said, the only thing I was looking at was to make sure I had 180 feet. The owners now only want two acres and I get the rest. �:"gig 015/115/2018) MR. VALENTINE-Well 180 doesn't matter because there's going to be variances on both lots now. MR. ROWLAND-1 wanted to make it look like I was doing my best to make sure I got that. I mean, that's basically what I did. MR. TRAVER-So you'd rather not make any adjustments to the lot size at this time. MR. ROWLAND-No, not at this point because I'd like to start building as soon as possible. MR. TRAVER-Right. Okay. MR. ROWLAND-I'm at that point where, I mean if we have some lot line adjustments later on, if you guys approve of it, that's fine with me, but right now I started this, last September I started this. MR. HUNSINGER-I mean I appreciate your comments but I also agree with my colleague here. It just seems silly to draw a strange shaped lot just for the sake of complying with a crazy Code. MR. ROWLAND-1 don't disagree. I mean, like I said, I'd be willing to change the lot sizes with no problem at all, as long as I can continue to move forward. That's my biggest thing is I'd like to try to build a house this year, and I'm building it myself. I mean, I tried to get the 180 feet of road frontage because we were on a main corridor so I wanted to try to do that, and then keep my lot sizes the same. I mean if I could have drawn a straight line from straight up, give me 100 feet, give them the rest, I would have done that, but, you know. MR. VALENTINE-My first question, I'd called Laura before and asked her, I said, okay, why isn't this presented as 200 and 160 and have only one lot here, but then I looked at the layout of it and you can see the "Y". It just doesn't make any sense for me to have that line right against the pool like that and the lawn area become part of what will be. MR. ROWLAND-And they have a lot of lawn area on the other side of where the house is. MR. DEEB-And it is Code compliant. It's what he wants. MR. VALENTINE-1 understand. I understand. It just doesn't, when you have time to do it from the beginning and do something that's. MR. ROWLAND-We are related. We're cousins. MR. TRAVER-So again, the question before us this evening is the variance, whether we want to send a recommendation to the ZBA regarding a 180 versus 200. MR. SHAFER-And there's a second garage. MR. TRAVER-There's a second garage, yes. That's a pre-existing. MR. ROWLAND-A pre-existing garage that's been there. MR. SHAFER-What's it being used for? MR. ROWLAND-A man cave. That houses a snow plow to plow that parcel and then another parcel down the road. Really. It's storage. I'll be storing wood there for my house. MR. TRAVER-And that's pre-existing. MR. ROWLAND-It's pre-existing yes. It's been there a long time. I will paint it. MR. TRAVER-All right. Any other questions or comments? MR. VALENTINE-How are you going to use that long stem on the back of that behind you? That's not you or it won't be you? MR. ROWLAND-It's woods. It's never really been used. Other than for hunting purposes. And that's all. It's behind them anyway. I don't foresee anybody every developing up in there. It's pretty steep. MR. DEEB-The base of the mountain? 015/115/2018) MR. ROWLAND-Yes. It's right at the base of the mountain. The area that I'm considering building a house on is already cleared. There's already clearing there. I'd be taking down one pine tree. Only because I don't like pine trees. As you can tell from the last windstorm we don't need more pine trees. It's already cleared. The house would go right in the clearing. MR. VALENTINE-Can I come back to my initial point, that discrepancy between 5.52 and 4 something? Because the two lots, if, say whatever you come back later on and say yes I'm going to do a lot line adjustment and do something, okay, you can't really mess around with your 2.36 acres either, you know. Say you did something to the 2.01, all right, that's going to be, that Miller's keeping, you're so tight with the two acres that if you do any adjustment you have the chance of being under two acres on what will be your own lot. I just have a problem with that not matching up with the tax map. MRS. MOORE-To us, as Staff, when the surveyor has done that survey we've considered that to be the more accurate versus the GIS. MR. TRAVER-In other words it never was the five acres. It just was an error. MR. ROWLAND-Yes, you're talking GIS goes flat at the mountain. Now you're going this way, not. MR. VALENTINE-How does the record carry through on the tax records? MRS. MOORE-It'll be updated to the survey. MR. ROWLAND-1 mean, trust me, I lost an acre of property. I was looking at it, too. MR. VALENTINE-Or you'd be paying taxes, too. MR. ROWLAND-Well, the previous owner, I mean Erin's father actually paid taxes on it for his entire life. MR. TRAVER-All right. Anything else? We do have a resolution for a referral to the ZBA. If there are no other questions or comments, we can go ahead and hear that resolution. RESOLUTION RE: ZBA RESOLUTION RE: Z-AV-27-2018 SCOTT ROWLAND The applicant has submitted an application for the following: Applicant proposes a two lot subdivision of 4.37 acre parcel — Lot 1 to be 2.01 acres and Lot 2 to be 2.36 acres. Project parcel has 360 ft. road frontage — 180 ft. is proposed for each. The existing home is to remain on Lot 1 and a new home to be constructed on Lot 2. Pursuant to Chapter 183 of the Zoning Ordinance, subdivision of land shall be subject to Planning Board review and approval. Variance: Relief is sought for road frontage and second garage. Planning Board shall provide a recommendation to the Zoning Board of Appeals. The Town of Queensbury Zoning Ordinance, per Section 179-9-070 J 2 b. requires the Planning Board to provide a written recommendation to the Zoning Board of Appeals for projects that require both Zoning Board of Appeals & Planning Board approval; The Planning Board has briefly reviewed and discussed this application, the relief request in the variance application as well as the potential impacts of this project on the neighborhood and surrounding community, and found that: MOTION TO MAKE A RECOMMENDATION ON BEHALF OF THE PLANNING BOARD TO THE ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS FOR AREA VARIANCE NO. 27-2018 SCOTT ROWLAND. Introduced by David Deeb who moved its adoption, and a) The Planning Board, based on a limited review, has not identified any significant adverse impacts that cannot be mitigated with current project proposal. Motion seconded by John Shafer. Duly adopted this 15th day of May, 2018 by the following vote: AYES: Ms. White, Mr. Shafer, Mr. Hunsinger, Mr. Dixon, Mr. Deeb, Mr. Valentine, Mr. Traver NOES: NONE 30 015/115/2018) MR. TRAVER-All right. You're off to the ZBA. MR. ROWLAND-Thank you. MR. TRAVER-Okay, and next we have Faden Enterprises, Site Plan 36-2018 SITE PLAN NO. 36-2018 SEAR TYPE: UNLISTED. FADEN ENTERPRISES, INC. AGENT(S): LANSING ENGINEERING. OWNER(S): 894 REALTY, LLC. ZONING: CM. LOCATION: 894 NYS ROUTE 9. APPLICANT PROPOSES TO DEMOLISH AN EXISTING BUILDING TO CONSTRUCT AN 11,400 SQ. FT. SINGLE STORY BUILDING MULTI-TENANT COMMERCIAL BUILDING. PROJECT SITE WORK INCLUDES MAJOR GRADING AND FILLING, NEW ACCESS RIGHT-IN/RIGHT-OUT, AND INTERCONNECT TO ADJOINING RESTAURANT. PURSUANT TO CHAPTER 179-3-040 OF THE ZONING ORDINANCE, NEW COMMERCIAL BUILDINGS IN THE COMMERCIAL INTENSIVE ZONE SHALL BE SUBJECT TO PLANNING BOARD REVIEW AND APPROVAL. VARIANCE: RELIEF IS SOUGHT FOR SETBACK ON MONTRAY ROAD AND PARKING REQUIREMENTS. PLANNING BOARD SHALL PROVIDE A RECOMMENDATION TO THE ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS. CROSS REFERENCE: SP 37-2018; AV 34-2018. WARREN CO. REFERRAL: MAY 2018. LOT SIZE: 1.22 +/- ACRES. TAX MAP NO. 295.17-1-49. SECTION: 179-3-040, 179-4- 090. SITE PLAN NO. 37-2018 FADEN ENTERPRISES, INC. AGENT(S): LANSING ENGINEERING. OWNER(S): EVEREST ENTERPRISES, LLC. ZONING: CM. LOCATION: 900 STATE ROUTE 9. APPLICANT PROPOSES NEW PARKING IMPROVEMENTS & INTER-CONNECT TO NEIGHBORING PARCEL. ADDITIONAL HARD SURFACING AND ADJUSTMENT TO THE PARKING AREA FOR DRIVE AISLE AND NEW PARKING SPACES. PURSUANT TO CHAPTER 179 OF THE ZONING ORDINANCE SITE WORK ON AN EXISTING COMMERCIAL PROPERTY WITH NO SITE PLAN REVIEW WITHIN 7 YEARS SHALL BE SUBJECT TO PLANNING BOARD REVIEW AND APPROVAL. VARIANCE: RELIEF IS SOUGHT FOR PERMEABILITY LESS THAN 30 PERCENT. PLANNING BOARD SHALL MAKE A RECOMMENDATION TO THE ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS. CROSS REFERENCE: SP 36-2017; AV 35-2018. WARREN CO. REFERRAL: MAY 2018. SITE INFORMATION: TRAVEL CORRIDOR OVERLAY ZONE. LOT SIZE: 1.72 ACRES. TAX MAP NO. 296.17-1-47. SECTION: 179-3-040, 179-4-090, 179-9-020. SCOTT LANSING, REPRESENTING APPLICANT, PRESENT; RUSS FADEN, PRESENT MR. TRAVER-And, Laura, I understand we've received some new information today. MRS. MOORE-Yes. So I had a conversation with Chris Harrington towards the end of the day. He's our Director of Water and Wastewater Department, and he identified this parcel site as not being in the sewer district. So that is a problem for the applicant. We were not aware that it wasn't in the sewer district and so what happens is that the applicant has to go through I believe it's called a map plan and report for an extension of the district. That is with the Town Board and in our case we have, as the Planning Board reviews this application, the Town Board application process has to be complete before we start our process. There is an opportunity, and I'm going to try to work through that detail in reference to SEAR. So I may re-visit that on Thursday in reference to this project determining if the Board can do something to further this application or give some assistance to it in reference to SEAR, but at this time the applicant's going to go through a brief presentation of both projects, but it's really at a stay at a moment until we resolve the extension of the district. MR. TRAVER-So after a brief discussion with the applicant we would table it to Thursday night? MRS. MOORE-That would just be the Planning Board recommendation. Currently the application before this Board is a Planning Board recommendation. You can't move forward with the recommendation. We don't have the plan for that component. MR. TRAVER-Right. MRS. MOORE-So the way the review process works is that on Thursday we've actually scheduled a public hearing not knowing that information. So there is a public hearing to be opened. So if we do that at that time and I discern that we can talk about SEQR at that time, we may be able to do that. Right now I'm not certain. I'm going to evaluate that. MR. TRAVER-So we really can't do anything tonight other than just have discussion with them. All right. Thank you, Laura. Good evening. 3°� 015/115/2018) MR. LANSING-Good evening. My name is Scott Lansing with Lansing Engineering. I'm also here tonight with Mr. Russell Faden, the applicant for the project. As was mentioned we were thrown a curve ball this afternoon on this. It was quite a surprise to us that this project is not in the sewer district given the development around the area, the intensity of the development around the area. Nevertheless it is something that we do have to deal with and we're fully confident that it is something that we will be successful in extending the district. So as far as the Planning Board not necessarily knowing what they are reviewing, we can say with a fair degree of confidence that what you are seeing this evening is what we will be pursuing. Also on that note whatever this Board can do, whatever the Town can do to try to help with that sewer district would be greatly appreciated in that the applicant does have hardship, along with an approved project more or less across the street where they have some fill that they're excavating from their site and this site does need some fill. So it would be an intrinsic cost savings for both the applicants. So anything the Town could do to help us out that would be greatly appreciated. Just some background on the project, the existing conditions. The parcel is located at 894 Route 9, approximately 1.3 acres. It is a Commercial Moderate zone. There is one existing building on the parcel. The drawing all the way to the left does show the existing conditions on the parcel. So as you can see it is basically all wooded. There is one structure on the corner of the lot, the southwest corner of the lot that's approximately 1300 square feet in size. Our estimate is that is an existing residence converted to a commercial structure. There are some parking spaces to the north of that, approximately six spaces. The surrounding use is obviously a pretty highly utilized commercial retail corridor. So all the surrounding uses do comply with the underlying zoning. As far as the proposed conditions, the next drawing over, the drawing in the middle does represent what we are proposing for the site. So there would be the demolition of the existing structure. We are proposing one new structure that would be a single story. We do have a conceptual rendering on the bottom left of what that structure would look like. Kind of an Adirondack theme type of fagade. That overall structure is 11,400 square feet. It is proposed to be a multi-tenant building. Right now as far as tenants Subway is anticipated as one of the tenants, approximately 2500 square feet. So there'd be about 8900 square feet of space left over for additional tenant space. As far as access to the site we are proposing a full in access and right out only for the parcel. As far as green space on this parcel, we are approximately 52.3% green space overall on the parcel. So we exceed the 30% requirement by a fair amount. Parking, the restaurant would require 15 spaces and the balance of the space retail would require 45 spaces. So that would be 60 spaces overall. We are proposing 60 spaces over, however there are 15 middle spaces that are proposed to be off the site to the north in an agreement with the Pizzeria Uno restaurant which is immediately to the north. So the applicant has been working with the owner of that parcel. The exact legalities of the easements or things of that nature have not been ironed out just yet but that is something that they are working towards. So there are 15 spaces to the north that would help us to create the 60 spaces overall we would need for our parcel. As far as stormwater it would be managed on site so all the impervious areas would be collected and sent to an infiltration gallery. So all stormwater would be infiltrated back into the soil. Public water is proposed and public sewer will be proposed with the hopeful sewer district extension for the project. The project does include three variances. Two of them are on the 894 Route 9 parcel, our specific parcel. The first is a front yard setback. We do have a double frontage lot in that Route 9 goes north/south on the west and left side of the parcel and then Montray Road is on the south side. We meet the front yard setback of 75 feet on Route 9 which we feel is in the primary street, primary road frontage of Montray Road. Given it's a double frontage of lot there is some hardship there in that to provide 75 feet on Montray would put our structure a fair distance back. So what we are proposing, instead of the 75 feet, is 24.6 feet. So there'd be roughly relief of about 50.4 feet from that 75 foot setback. Just one thing to note, I mean we do have a double frontage lot. Our view on this is when you look at the parcel from Route 9 we kind of picture it the front yard on Route 9 and then if you were to evaluate it as two side yard setbacks we technically meet the Code as far as side yard setbacks. Side yard setbacks require 20 feet minimum with a 50 feet overall for both of those, and we do meet that if you add up what the dimensions are for the property line on the two sides we do meet that 20 foot minimum and 50 foot overall. So just food for thought. Something to consider. We're obviously requesting the variance but just to give you some idea of how we evaluated the building and how it is configured on the parcel. The second variance on 894 Route 9 is the access aisle on the neighboring parcel. Because our parking spaces are off our parcel to the north of the Pizzeria Uno parcel we do have an access aisle that is utilized to gain access to some of those spaces on the portion of the parcel. That's already something that's stated as not permitted in the Code. So we would be requesting a variance from that in the Code. So that's it for the two variances on the 894 parcel. With the parking spaces located on the Pizzeria Uno parcel we do have 15 spaces that are proposed on that parcel and there is a green space variance that we are requesting on that parcel. Again, the green space is required to be 30%. The existing conditions for Pizzeria Uno right now is 26.2%. So it is a little bit less than what the current green space requirements are. With the addition of those parking spaces we are proposing to bring that down to 17.3% for the 015/115/2018) Pizzeria Uno parcel. So it's approximately a 12% relief from the 30%. In looking at that, we did take a look at both the Pizzeria Uno parcel and the 894 parcel, and we looked at that as kind of an overall. For the 894 parcel we have 52.3% green space, and on the 900 Route 9 parcel, the Pizzeria Uno parcel, we have 17.3%. If you do the weighted average on those, because the Pizzeria Uno parcel is slightly larger, overall for the two parcels combined we have 32.6% green space. So when you combine the two parcels together we're over the 30%. When you look at them independently one is less and the other one is clearly more. One other thing to note, as far as the green space, I think one of the primary goals for that is to not have that impervious area more impervious soils. I would like to note that the parking spaces we are proposing, not only on our parcel, but on the 900 Route 9 parcel, the Pizzeria Uno parcel, are proposed to be collected and directed to an infiltration gallery which is pervious and will infiltrate that water back into the ground, and our stormwater calculations indicate that everything would be infiltrated up to the 50 year storm event. So there would be a slight discharge from the 50 year storm events. Everything up to that 50 year event would be infiltrated completely into the ground. So that's essentially it for the application that we are proposing. Again, whatever we can do with this Board to try to advance it, to work with the adjoining parcel on the soil would be helpful. Thank you. MR. TRAVER-As you know we discussed it with Laura's assistance before the meeting this evening and it sounds as though progress could possibly be made this coming Thursday. So it's certainly in everyone's interest that this move ahead, and I'm sure the Town and Laura and her staff will do whatever they can to assist in moving forward. So thank you very much. MR. LANSING-Okay. Thank you. MS. WHITE-Can I still ask a question, or should I hold off? MR. TRAVER-Well, Thursday I think is going to be the actual review of this. MS. WHITE-Okay. MR. TRAVER-So I would say that at this point to probably wait until Thursday. MRS. MOORE-There's further review. Today's a Planning Board recommendation, and since it's not moving forward and there's no public hearing you're not actually tabling an application. On Thursday, due to the fact that we have a public hearing scheduled, we'll come up with a draft resolution that includes that Planning Board recommendation and notice that the public hearing was opened, and then if there's any other details we can add to that motion we'll do that at that time. MR. TRAVER-Yes, thank you. MR. LANSING-Okay. Thank you. MR. TRAVER-Next we move to New Business, and the first item under New Business is 1454 State Route 9, LLC. NEW BUSINESS: SITE PLAN NO. 35-2018 SEAR TYPE: UNLISTED. 1454 STATE ROUTE 9, LLC. AGENT(S): HUTCHINS ENGINEERING. OWNER(S): SAME AS APPLICANT. ZONING: CI. LOCATION: 1454 STATE ROUTE 9. APPLICANT PROPOSES REMOVAL OF 10,067 SQ. FT. OF RESTAURANT AND HOTEL BUILDING TO CONSTRUCT A 12,444 SQ. FT. BUILDING — NEW COMMERCIAL USE AND ASSOCIATED SITE WORK. BUILDING TO BE SINGLE STORY AND CONSISTENT WITH ADJOINING OUTLET BUILDINGS. PURSUANT TO CHAPTER 179-3-040 OF THE ZONING ORDINANCE, NEW COMMERCIAL CONSTRUCTION SHALL BE SUBJECT TO PLANNING BOARD REVIEW AND APPROVAL. CROSS REFERENCE: SEE LIST. WARREN CO. REFERRAL: MAY 2018. SITE INFORMATION: TRAVEL CORRIDOR OVERLAY ZONE. LOT SIZE: 3.37 ACRES. TAX MAP NO. 288.12-1-21. SECTION: 179-3-040. JON LAPPER & TOM HUTCHINS, REPRESENTING APPLICANT, PRESENT MR. TRAVER-Good evening. MR. LAPPER-Good evening, everyone. For the record, Jon Lapper with Tom Hutchins, Hutchins Engineering, and Dave Kenny and Dave Kenny. We were here last month talking about the adjacent site, Adirondack Factory Outlet, and at that time I mentioned that we'd be 31Y 015/115/2018) back this month for this site in front of the Clarion. So the goal here is both to move the buildings next door back to the same setback, the required setback of 75 feet, the same on this site, and to have a series of buildings with similar architecture so it will blend better than what's there now. MR. TRAVER-It's essentially an extension of the same project. MR. LAPPER-It really is, but it's a separate ownership. MR. TRAVER-Right. MR. LAPPER-It's the Kenny family but just a different entity. So what we talked about last time, just in terms of making this all work better, more seamlessly, like it was one in terms of visibility, certainly visual but also in terms of traffic and parking, no variances. The restaurant that's proposed to be demolished has been there a long time and was kind of tired. The Clarion will be better behind a brand new Outlet building than that restaurant. So that's the big picture. I'll ask Tom to walk you through the details of the Site Plan. The green space is just a very minor change from what's there now, and Tom's done a stormwater plan. We got the engineering letter with just very minor comments on the stormwater plan. MR. TRAVER-Good. Thank you. MR. HUTCHINS-Good evening. Tom Hutchins. I'll be quick and brief. The first sheet is basically a demolition plan. The hatched area you see is the area to be impacted. You can see the existing restaurant. It kind of sticks out off a portion of the hill. This is the restaurant building which will be removed and this is a portion of the hotel building which will be removed to clean that area up and then the new building, the 12,000 square foot building, will be placed in that general location. You can see it on, right in that same location will be the new building. It will be compliant with setbacks. We're compliant with parking. We're compliant with permeability. We believe we're compliant with all the zoning requirements. Stormwater. We have made some improvements. This site is, presently it drains a lot to adjoining properties and we're taking care of that. That entire building will infiltrate into the ground and we're going to make some improvements in this area. In the front parking area a lot of it runs now down in this area, and we're making some improvements back in here with this small little section of parking, all in the form of infiltration systems. MR. TRAVER-That's a big improvement. That stormwater is a real issue. MR. HUTCHINS-Yes, in this particular one it goes both ways. MR. LAPPER-It was built before anybody knew anything about it. MR. HUNSINGER-Well as I said it was a big drain just to the south by that parking area. MR. HUTCHINS-Down here, on the adjoining parcel which catches a lot of it, and that one will be improved as part of the project we talked about last week. So in a nutshell that's it. I'd like to turn it over for any questions. MR. TRAVER-Questions, comments from members of the Board? MR. VALENTINE-Your cross connection, is that going to be one way or two way between? MR. HUTCH INS-Through here? MR. VALENTINE-No, it in back behind the retail. MR. HUTCHINS-This way? MR. VALENTINE-The opening? MR. HUTCHINS-I'm sorry. That's one way. MR. VALENTINE-One way from this site over to the other? MR. HUTCHINS-This will be entering and this, I don't know what was your vision there, Dave? Was that one or two? Because we also, it doesn't show here, but there's also an access aisle down through here. Cross access from both sides. That's a 24 foot width. So it could be two. 31,11 015/115/2018) DAVE KENNY MR. KENNY-Thirty feet wide, but that's an access road in general. MR. SHAFER-Tom, going to or from the hotel carport can come in either from the north or the south? MR. HUTCHINS-Yes. MR. DIXON-Do you still feel that you're going to have enough parking for the existing hotel that's going to be remaining? Because it looks like they may be in competition for the retail space. MR. LAPPER-There's parking behind the hotel as well. MR. HUTCHINS-We do, and there's parking allocated for the hotel. They're very comfortable with the level of parking at this point. There is a slight reduction with the project. There's a slight reduction in overall parking. However, it's compliant and they're really confident that it's adequate. MR. TRAVER-Okay. There is a public hearing on this application. Is there anyone here who wanted to address the Planning Board on this application? I'm not seeing anyone. Laura, is there any written comments? PUBLIC HEARING OPENED MRS. MOORE-I don't believe there is any written comment. MR. SHAFER-The plan shows work going outside the property lines. MR. TRAVER-No written public comments. So we'll go ahead and close the public hearing. PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED MR. TRAVER-And you had a question. MR. SHAFER-The plan shows work going beyond the property lines. Do we need something specific in that regard for the Planning Board? MR. HUTCHINS-Well, there's presently shared access across parcels, the parcel to the south and the small portion of the parcel to the north. So there's presently shared access. Well they're not counting on, but they're affiliated ownership and that'll remain. MR. SHAFER-Will there be easements between the three parcels then? MR. LAPPER-Cross easements, yes. MR. SHAFER-My question really was a process one for the Board. Whether we need to do something specifically in the resolution acknowledging that work goes beyond the property line? MR. LAPPER-So all three properties are controlled by the Kennys. MR. SHAFER-I understand that. MR. TRAVER-If there are pre-existing easements then we wouldn't need to worry about it. If it was something new that needed to be created, then we would probably condition that. Is this a pre-existing? MR. LAPPER-So to the south there's a pre-existing easement for Adirondack Factory Outlets. We had to do that for a bank financing previously. So that's all deeded and recorded. To the north there probably isn't, to the McCormack. MR. KENNY-There's an easement to McCormack. MR. LAPPER-But not to you yourself because there was no reason to do that. MR. VALENTINE-But you wouldn't have an easement there if you haven't demolished the building yet. 3115 015/115/2018) MR. KENNY-1 wouldn't have an easement there, we own the property, that roadway, we have an easement over that roadway, when we go across that property, but my property cuts the next property over, which is that roadway, which we have easements over. We have recorded easements over that roadway. MS. WHITE-So is that the case, all of the easements are already in place? MR. KENNY-Well, I know the one between the Clarion and the north is. MR. LAPPER-You didn't grant easement to yourself from the property to the north. MR. KENNY-Why would I do that? MR. LAPPER-Because they're in separate ownership. They're separate entities. This one is 1454 State Route 9. MR. TRAVER-Well, we can condition that an easement be created should it be needed. MS. WHITE-At the point the property was ever sold, you'd want that in place, that's all. MR. TRAVER-Jon, I think we could probably condition that an easement be created should it be needed. MR. LAPPER-That's absolutely acceptable. MR. KENNY-That's fine. MR. DIXON-Can I just throw one thought out? MR. TRAVER-Sure. MR. DIXON-And it's purely a recommendation. I'm not going to say it's a requirement at all, but as retail, the larger retailers are doing construction like this, I just encourage people to think of, as far as charging stations for battery vehicles. People driving Teslas have money and they need to charge. While they're charging they shop. MR. KENNY-That's a great idea. MR. TRAVER-And I happen to know, because of some other projects that the Town's involved in, that I've been helping with, that there's some NYSERTA grant money available as well. You might be able to tap into. MR. LAPPER-The Kennys are very receptive to that. MR. TRAVER-The only issue with the Tesla charge, I believe that they only work on the Tesla vehicles. They're not universal. MR. DIXON-But we know that the Chevy Volts are out there now. MS. WHITE-So not necessarily a Tesla, but an electric car. MR. TRAVER-And there is a Queensbury Clean Energy Committee that I suspect would be happy to help you with that. You can contact them through the Town. There's actually now a hyperlink on the Town website that you can reach out to. Any other comments or questions? MR. DEEB-This has nothing to do with the Site Plan, I know your retail is really tough on the other end. Why would you build another retail? MR. KENNY-Well, we feel when it's tough is the right time. We're going to a convention next week in Vegas and we're trying to re-develop the strip as a much nicer place to come to. Hopefully we'll attract new tenants. Is it going to happen? We're hoping that by really improving the drive, we met with the State and other people. It's got to be cleaned up. It's 30 years old. MR. DEEB-And you're closer to the other retails. 36 015/115/2018) MR. KENNY-And we think we're going to have to go more like the other outlets, bring in big craft stores from Maine and stuff. We may not be strictly outlets. If it's really done nice, the cars the traffic and everything is still there. How do you re-invent the wheel a little bit. We have to spend the money. If we don't, people are going to leave. We better spend the money before it happens. We're trying. We're going to go to the convention next week, Saturday, Sunday, Monday, Tuesday. We're going to take the restaurant down this week. The restaurant is an eyesore. MR. LAPPER-The timing of this is perfect because they'll be able to go to the convention and say that this is now approved. MR. TRAVER-All right. Any other questions or comments? This is an Unlisted SEQR application. So we need to do the SEQR review. With regard to engineering, we know that they are improving stormwater and certainly they're improving the view shed by having this match the other approved project. Do the Board members feel there are any, and we talked about a charging station, though that's not part of the application that's in front of us, but do Board members have any environmental concerns that would warrant our pursing the entire SEQR review, or can we go with the SEQR resolution that we have? MS. WHITE-Did you have any issues with the engineering requirements? MR. HUTCHINS-No. They're mostly stormwater housekeeping. MR. HUNSINGER-1 think we would be remiss if we didn't talk about traffic. I guess my own personal feeling is, you know, you're basically trading off a restaurant for a retail space. So if there's any change in traffic problems it would be negligible. It certainly wouldn't cause any further traffic concerns. MR. TRAVER-Well, yes, I would think. The only difference might be that a restaurant might have spikes like at noontime and dinnertime whereas retail would be more consistent traffic. MR. HUNSINGER-Right. MR. TRAVER-But in terms of the flow, I don't know that it would. MR. HUNSINGER-Like I said, I just think we would be remiss if we didn't talk about it. MR. TRAVER-Yes. MR. SHAFER-Question. Tom, had you looked at the trip generation rates out of the ITE Manual for those two retail versus restaurant? MR. HUTCHINS-Versus restaurant and hotel? No, I have not. MR. KENNY-What I would say is the goal here is with widening the road and making it 75 feet, connecting the access points and the sidewalks in, we're hoping to make the shopper eventually a two and a half hour stop or a three hour stop versus a twenty minute stop. So they can just pull in once and shop. MR. TRAVER-More pedestrian friendly, yes. MR. KENNY-More pedestrian friendly, and hopefully with good tenants and new tenants they'll spend three hours there. We don't know what tenants will be there. MR. VALENTINE-So you're looking for women, then, right? MR. TRAVER-1 was just thinking the same thing. MR. KENNY-So instead of going up there, stopping at one store and leaving. They'll go there for four or five hours. MR. HUNSINGER-1 think the interconnection will help. MR. KENNY-We met with the engineers that the Town hired and Creighton Manning. They looked at this and said this gives the opportunity to make a turning lane in there much better. They like the idea of everything being pushed back 75 feet. 3.7 015/115/2018) MR. TRAVER-So we have a draft SEQR resolution before us. I guess we can go ahead and pursue that. RESOLUTION GRANTING A NEGATIVE SEQR DEC. SP # 35-2018 1454 STATE ROUTE 9, LLC The applicant proposes removal of 10,067 sq. ft. of restaurant and hotel building to construct a 12,444 sq. ft. building — new commercial use and associated site work. Building to be single story and consistent with adjoining outlet buildings. Pursuant to Chapter 179-3-040 of the Zoning Ordinance, new commercial construction shall be subject to Planning Board review and approval. The Planning Board has determined that the proposed project and Planning Board action is subject to review under the State Environmental Quality Review Act; The proposed action considered by this Board is Unlisted in the Department of Environmental Conservation Regulations implementing the State Environmental Quality Review Act and the regulations of the Town of Queensbury; No Federal or other agencies are involved; Part 1 of the Short EAF has been completed by the applicant; Upon review of the information recorded on this EAF, it is the conclusion of the Town of Queensbury Planning Board as lead agency that this project will result in no significant adverse impacts on the environment, and, therefore, an environmental impact statement need not be prepared. Accordingly, this negative declaration is issued. MOTION TO GRANT A NEGATIVE DECLARATION FOR SITE PLAN 35-2018 1454 STATE ROUTE 9, LLC, Introduced by David Deeb who moved for its adoption. As per the resolution prepared by staff. 1. Part II of the short EAF has been reviewed and completed by the Planning Board. 2. Part III of the short EAF is not necessary because the Planning Board did not identify potentially moderate to large impacts. Motion seconded by Chris Hunsinger. Duly adopted this 15th day of May, 2018 by the following vote: AYES: Mr. Shafer, Mr. Hunsinger, Mr. Dixon, Mr. Valentine, Mr. Deeb, Ms. White, Mr. Traver NOES: NONE MR. TRAVER-Okay. So then we can move to Site Plan. We didn't talk about any conditions. I'm not sure that we uncovered any that aren't covered by the draft resolution and the engineering signoff. So I guess we're ready for that motion, too. RESOLUTION APPROVING SP # 35-2018 1454 STATE ROUTE 9, LLC The applicant has submitted an application to the Planning Board: Applicant proposes removal of 10,067 sq. ft. of restaurant and hotel building to construct a 12,444 sq. ft. building — new commercial use and associated site work. Building to be single story and consistent with adjoining outlet buildings. Pursuant to Chapter 179-3-040 of the Zoning Ordinance, new commercial construction shall be subject to Planning Board review and approval. Pursuant to relevant sections of the Town of Queensbury Zoning Code-Chapter 179-9-080, the Planning Board has determined that this proposal satisfies the requirements as stated in the Zoning Code; As required by General Municipal Law Section 239-m the site plan application was referred to the Warren County Planning Department for its recommendation; The Planning Board has reviewed the potential environmental impacts of the project, pursuant to the State Environmental Quality Review Act (SEQRA) and adopted a SEQRA Negative Declaration — Determination of Non-Significance 1Y g 015/115/2018) The Planning Board opened a public hearing on the Site plan application on 05/15/2018 and continued the public hearing to 05/15/2018, when it was closed, The Planning Board has reviewed the application materials submitted by the applicant and all comments made at the public hearing and submitted in writing through and including 05/15/2018; The Planning Board determines that the application complies with the review considerations and standards set forth in Article 9 of the Zoning Ordinance for Site Plan approval, MOTION TO APPROVE SITE PLAN 35-2018 1454 STATE ROUTE 9, LLC. Introduced by David Deeb who moved for its adoption. According to the draft resolution prepared by Staff with the following: 1) Waivers requested granted; 2. Adherence to the items outlined in the follow-up letter sent with this resolution. a) The limits of clearing will constitute a no-cut buffer zone, orange construction fencing shall be installed around these areas and field verified by Community Development staff; b) If applicable, the Sanitary Sewer connection plan must be submitted to the Wastewater Department for its review, approval, permitting and inspection; c) If curb cuts are being added or changed a driveway permit is required. A building permit will not be issued until the approved driveway permit has been provided to the Planning Office; d) If application was referred to engineering then Engineering sign-off required prior to signature of Zoning Administrator of the approved plans; e) Final approved plans should have dimensions and setbacks noted on the site plan/survey, floor plans and elevation for the existing rooms and proposed rooms in the building and site improvements;- f) If required, the applicant must submit a copy of the following to the Town: a. The project NOI (Notice of Intent) for coverage under the current "NYSDEC SPDES General Permit from Construction Activity" prior to the start of any site work. b. The project NOT (Notice of Termination) upon completion of the project; c. The applicant must maintain on their project site, for review by staff: 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. I) That an access easement be created for the north parcel should it be needed. Motion seconded by Chris Hunsinger. Duly adopted this 15th day of May, 2018 by the following vote: MR. VALENTINE-This is one item we haven't even said, but I like the color combination, and this is a personal, but I like the color combination. Does that conform to any other parcels in there? You had the burgundy and the light green. MR. KENNY-Burgundy and light green. That conforms with everything. MR. TRAVER-Yes, it matches the previous project we looked at the last time. MR. VALENTINE-All right. You can tell how much I shop. 39 015/115/2018) MR. HUNSINGER-And it's the Adirondack theme that's talked about. MR. KENNY-The one thing we haven't discussed yet is we're looking into hopefully because that next parcel over connects to the bike path and bring a path so they can bike into the site. MR. TRAVER-That would be nice. How are they going to carry all their shopping bags? MR. HUNSINGER-It's really interesting some of the people you meet on the bike trail from out of town and they find the bike trail and they use it a lot. It's a real asset that I don't think people realize. MR. TRAVER-We have a motion before us. Okay. Maria, can we have the vote please. AYES: Mr. Hunsinger, Mr. Dixon, Mr. Valentine, Mr. Deeb, Ms. White, Mr. Shafer, Mr. Traver NOES: NONE MR. TRAVER-All right. You're all set. MR. LAPPER-Thanks, everybody. MR. TRAVER-All right. Next under New Business we have James S. Brown, Site Plan 32- 2018. SITE PLAN NO. 32-2018 SEAR TYPE: UNLISTED. JAMES S. BROWN. OWNER(S): SAME AS APPLICANT. ZONING: LC-10A. LOCATION: 1918 RIDGE ROAD. APPLICANT PROPOSES TO INSTALL A 10,440 SQ. FT., 870 FT. DRIVEWAY ON AN EXISTING VACANT PARCEL WITH FUTURE PLANS TO CONSTRUCT A HOME/CAMP. PROJECT INCLUDES DRIVEWAY ACROSS ADJOINING PARCEL FOR ACCESS. PURSUANT TO CHAPTER 179-3-040 & 179-6-060 OF THE ZONING ORDINANCE DRIVEWAY GREATER THAN 10% SHALL BE SUBJECT TO PLANNING BOARD REVIEW AND APPROVAL. CROSS REFERENCE: N/A WARREN CO. REFERRAL: MAY 2018. SITE INFORMATION: LGPC. LOT SIZE: 45 ACRES (TOTAL TWO PARCELS). TAX MAP NO. 253.1-24 (ACCESS) & 253.1-23 (MAIN). SECTION: 179-3-040; 179-6-060. JAMES BROWN, PRESENT MR. TRAVER-Laura? MRS. MOORE-This applicant proposes an 870 length driveway. This is approximately 10,400 square feet. The idea is to access this property, create this driveway for the purpose of enjoyment of this property. Maybe 20 years from now, maybe 10 years from now it may be a building, but that would be at a late date, but this project is specifically just for the driveway. I will relay that we're in some communications with Chazen in reference to some of the engineering comments. The applicant has prepared a response letter. I'm talking to Chazen to confirm those responses that the applicant has provided, and as the Board moves forward that information will be forwarded to Chazen for review. MR. TRAVER-Okay. Yes, one of the concerns that I had in reviewing the engineering comments, I know that this does require a SEQR review and I wasn't sure, and of course we'll discuss this as we move forward this evening, but I had questions about whether or not we could actually perform SEQR with the information that's been provided thus far. MRS. MOORE-Yes. So I did take another look at it, in reference to SEAR, and I explained to the Chairman that I would take another look, only because I wasn't 100% sure about whether it required SEAR, and there's nothing in the Type II list or the Type I list. So it's truly an Unlisted Action. I cannot put it under a Type II action. I haven't identified one that would be relevant to this project. MR. VALENTINE-Just a driveway, then. MRS. MOORE-Just a driveway. MR. HUNSINGER-1 was going to say, if he was proposing a house it would be Type 11. MRS. MOORE-Absolutely. Yes. 015/115/2018) MR. VALENTINE-But that was a point that was brought up in Chazen's letter, too is a complete full plan of development. MRS. MOORE-Right. MR. TRAVER-Yes, because under Number Five in the Chazen letter he talks about the driveway, but we're getting a bit ahead of ourselves. So I'll welcome the applicant. Good evening. MR. BROWN-Good evening. So the plan is it's currently an existing logging road. MR. TRAVER-I'm sorry, if you could just state your name, please. MR. BROWN-James Brown, owner of the property. MR. TRAVER-Okay. MR. BROWN-So there's an existing logging road there. It goes through pretty much bedrock and all steep slopes are just large shot rock. Currently there's an 80 foot driveway up there, and then from there it shallows out. These are all drawn by hand sketches. So professionally I have a masters in construction management and engineering and I've been working in the civil field for about 10 years building access roads and wind farms. So the steepest sections are shown from this culvert upwards, and then also if you drive by you'll see this section here that's existing. This is also roughly the same grade as here. So this is all large rock and you'll see on the property it's mostly bedrock. In through here is certainly not as steep. So not as much of an issue for runoff there. So the plan is to improve roughly six inches of fill throughout the entire profile, and you will have grades in excess of probably 16 degrees is the most. So it's steep. And the plan is just to access the property at this point, you know, and in 10 years I could see a house, could be five years, but I have no immediate plan to build a house. MR. TRAVER-So you're really improving access. It's almost not even a driveway at this point because it's not going to something. You're just improving, trying to get into the access. MR. BROWN-I'd like to get up there. There's some trees down, firewood would be good. Anyway, I don't know if you guys have walked it at all. So there's an area, that first probably 200 foot is loaded with ticks. You go past that the ticks pretty much go away. So I just also every time I walk in would not like to get ticks. MR. SHAFER-The property's been logged? MR. BROWN-Not since I've owned it. I just met my neighbor. So he may know better than 1. Maybe within the last 10 years, but I don't know. RICH COMBS MR. COMBS-Well, it's back probably, I know the intermediate owner cut a bunch of trees up there. MR. TRAVER-Sir, if you don't mind, would you come up to the table and get on the record for us? MR. COMBS-Sure. MR. TRAVER-We do take minutes of these meetings and your comments are instructional. MR. COMBS-Sure. MRS. MOORE-Do you want to officially open the public hearing as part of this individual's comments? MR. TRAVER-Yes, I guess with that we'll open the public hearing. Yes. PUBLIC HEARING OPENED MR. COMBS-My name is Rich Combs and I own the four Queensbury lots to the south of James and I have a lot into Fort Ann on the top of that. So I'm kind of his south neighbor, right above Lisa Daigle. So I just came to meet James. We weren't sure who he was. So we figured we'd wait him out, but I've heard Lisa Daigle say good things about Jim. And there's a 015/115/2018) lot of Browns around here and I wasn't sure exactly which Brown. So I wanted to meet him and good neighbors are important so it's good to introduce myself and say hello, but I've got all the old Nolan's survey maps of the property and the Blaze's and I'm here right along the line there. But it's good to be a good neighbor and kind of work together a little bit. And it's a piece of the rock, but where you're going is actually more of a gradual incline up diagonally. So I was looking at the GIS map or the GPS map in Planning and you can see bird's eye when you're looking down it's more of a leveled gradual up, instead of going right up the ledges. So right near me it's a lot of, I've got log roads, too, but there's a lot of steepness, but the path you're taking is more gradual. MR. BROWN-It's the best option to get up there now. MR. TRAVER-One of the questions was the history of the logging. Do you know, by any chance, when this parcel was logged last? MR. COMBS-Some partial logging was done by a previous owner, probably 10 years ago. Some logs were cut up in there but they cobbed it. MR. BROWN-It looked like he just cut it down for the view almost. MR. COMBS-They should have taken what they cut, but I believe the husband died or they had to sell it. I think it went for taxes. I'm not sure exactly what happened but those people went away. MR. BROWN-Yes, I ended up purchasing it from the husband and wife who are divorced now, but I purchased it from them because he was going to lose it to taxes. MR. COMBS-So basically probably it was logged by the Nolan's some, conservatively, 30 years ago, 25, 30 years ago just like our property was logged probably 30 years ago, but everything has grown up to be pretty big now. So, you know, regular oaks are generally this big, maples. So it's a pretty good piece of property. There's a lot of deer there. MR. SHAFER-1 hit one right on 9L as a matter of fact. MR. COMBS-Well Mike Muller's favorite spot was, what he hit 12 deer by the apple tree there by the Harris'. So there's been some really bad accidents with the deer there. MR. TRAVER-Well thank you very much. MR. COMBS-So shall I leave now or? MR. BROWN-No. MR. COMBS-But it's important to be welcoming and I'm a good neighbor. So I want to be supportive. You know Ginny back there we're classmates actually. So good to have a good neighbor, and the Saville's on the south side are very good. Bought up some of the property from Harris, things like that. So the neighbors are good. MR. TRAVER-Okay. Questions from members of the Planning Board/ MR. HUNSINGER-So I'm confused what we're going to be doing this evening. MRS. MOORE-So it's up to the Board whether you want to have the, condition the application on resolving engineering comments. There appears to be quite a few of them. So in the past when I've seen that happen the Board has tabled the application to another date. MR. TRAVER-In other words table it to come back with the engineering resolved. MRS. MOORE-Either engineering resolved or to the point where engineering is, I don't know if a good word is resolved. MR. TRAVER-1 mean I guess my concern was the engineering couldn't be, the analysis couldn't really be complete because there was some missing information, and that was really what my concern was. MR. HUNSINGER-Then the other question I had, I guess I'm still confused, on the one drawing that was submitted there's an alternate route. 015/115/2018) MR. BROWN-Yes, the alternate route, when I first started reading through things it said you should consider alternate routes to see if there are, and I put in an alternate route. It's not the preferred route, and I don't think it's the preferred way to do it, but an alternate route. It doesn't make sense. MR. TRAVER-It doesn't need to be included. MR. BROWN-Okay. I'll remove it. And that's, in the notes I said I'll just remove that. I put it in because it does slightly reduce the grade, but it's not a reasonable means of getting up that slope. MR. DIXON-James once you get up in there you don't have any intent on just starting to clear cut or anything, do you? MR. BROWN-No. I've cut down some trees. I don't like hemlocks as much. So I cut down some trees, I cut down like five trees or something, but no. MR. TRAVER-I think you can clear up to an acre on a parcel without. MRS. MOORE-Right. So there's a timber harvesting management that he would identify and if that requires a permit he would go through that permitting process as administrative. If it triggered something greater than that, then it would be back before this Board. MR. TRAVER-Right. So there is a process if you did want to. MR. BROWN-Yes. I don't have, there's a clearing already, the road goes to a clearing, and if I were to do anything it would probably be there. MR. TRAVER-Probably a prior owner was speculating they might do something with it. Much as you are. MR. BROWN-Yes. MR. TRAVER-That's understood. So do you understand, have you see the letter from the Town Engineer? MR. BROWN-1 have. My primary concern, and I think this maybe speaks to one of your concerns as well, is that it should be submitted and put together by a P.E. So I'm not a P.E., but I've built hundreds of foot of access road. I realize it still doesn't meet the requirement as stated by Chazen, and it sounds like that's not necessarily in the Code anywhere where it's required, but it is a concern. MR. TRAVER-So the recommendation is that you can certainly, I mean you should contact Chazen directly and work with Laura and her staff to resolve these things. It looks like what we're going to be doing is giving you an opportunity to do that and then come back to us with some of these concerns that the engineer has that result in kind of gaps of the analysis that's possible for us this evening to resolve some of those issues. You don't have to necessarily come back with a signoff from engineering, but certainly, you know, I think the concern is that the engineer really wasn't sure, in some cases, which way to go, and you should be able to resolve that by working with the Town and the Town engineer. MR. BROWN-Yes, it's been good so far, so I agree. MR. TRAVER-Yes. So that's what, I think that's what we're moving toward this evening. How do members of the Board feel? MR. SHAFER-That's fine. MR. TRAVER-Okay. MR. HUNSINGER-I think Laura was kind of. MRS. MOORE-I was just going to comment about being prepared by a professional engineer. There is not language in our Code to identify that plans have to be prepared by a professional engineer, and that's the whole point of going through the planning and zoning process is that you don't always have to be the professional licensed individuals. , 015/115/2018) MS. WHITE-It just has to be enough that we could understand and make a decision based on that. MRS. MOORE-That you can understand, and there's elements that at times when working with an applicant that I give the applicant guidance that says you make want to work with another professional, professional engineer, surveyor or some other profession individual that can provide additional detail that our Town Engineer or our Town staff is looking for. In this case I think the applicant could have that communication with Staff and with Chazen and potentially move forward. MR. TRAVER-Yes. And part of where I was going with that is the applicant has indicated that he has an advanced degree in some of this planning. So that might be sufficient, as long as you can appease the Town Engineer basically and Laura and her team you should be in good shape. So, Laura, what are your thoughts in terms of process and time? MRS. MOORE-So I would suggest tabling the application until the first July meeting and that gives the applicant enough time to go through communicating with Chazen and Staff and identifying if there's anything that needs to be updated. MR. TRAVER-So we'd be looking at a tabling to July 17. MRS. MOORE-Yes, if that works for the applicant. If it doesn't at that time, if the applicant finds that that date doesn't work, then we may further table it depending on what the applicant needs. So June's deadline has already passed. MR. VALENTINE-Okay. MR. BROWN-Sooner than later. So I'll pick up the phone and start conversing with him. MR. TRAVER-Yes, and so then if you're able to submit the updated information in a few weeks by June 15, then we can put you on the July 17, the first meeting in July. MR. COMBS-I've got a question. So in other words, I mean, if he knows that he's going to put IB 4 down, he's going to create some drainage where there's a problem, and he creates a good pad of IB 4, which really packs, and also that he puts culverts in where he needs to put culverts in for drainage and actually can prove that he's running at the best possible runnage route up through which is not up the ledge, which is. MR. TRAVER-Yes, those are all items which would be part of the engineering analysis. So in other words as he refines what he's doing, partially in response to the information that he's already received from the engineer, then in that dialogue the comment letter from the engineer will, should be reduced in size to items that are more easily clarified and understood, and at that point perhaps at a level where we can give a conditioned approval would be the goal, and if he can do that in the next few weeks then, again, we'd be looking at the first meeting in July, and, yes, so that's where we'd be going. MR. COMBS-Because that's what it takes up in there is to put down a packable material that doesn't wash. MR. TRAVER-Well, thank you for your comments this evening. MR. COMBS-Any time. MR. TRAVER-Laura, were there any written comments? MRS. MOORE-Not at this time, no. MR. TRAVER-I guess we'll leave the public hearing open at this stage because we're tabling it. MRS. MOORE-Yes. MR. TRAVER-Yes. Okay. MR. DEEB-Are we ready? MR. TRAVER-We are. RESOLUTION TABLING SP # 32-2018 JAMES S. BROWN 414 015/115/2018) The applicant has submitted an application to the Planning Board for Site Plan approval pursuant to Article 9 of the Town zoning Ordinance for: Applicant proposes to install a 10,440 sq. ft., 870 ft. driveway on an existing vacant parcel with future plans to construct a home/camp. Project includes driveway across adjoining parcel for access. Pursuant to Chapter 179-3-040 & 179-6-060 of the Zoning Ordinance, driveway greater than 10% shall be subject to Planning Board review and approval. MOTION TO TABLE SITE PLAN NO. 32-2018 JAMES S. BROWN, Introduced by David Deeb who moved for its adoption, Tabled to the Queensbury Planning Board meeting of July 17, 2018 with a submission date of June 15, 2018. Motion seconded by Chris Hunsinger. Duly adopted this 15th day of May, 2018, by the following vote: AYES: Ms. White, Mr. Shafer, Mr. Hunsinger, Mr. Dixon, Mr. Valentine, Mr. Deeb, Mr. Traver NOES: NONE MR. TRAVER-All right. Good luck. We'll see you in July. MR. BROWN-Thank you. MR. TRAVER-The only other item before us this evening, the only other thing I wanted to mention is I will be unable to join you on Thursday evening, and Chris has agreed to Chair the meeting Thursday night. All right. I don't believe we have anything else before us. I will do my best to work with Laura to try and get that letter out this week. So if we have nothing else, I'll entertain a motion to adjourn. MR. HUNSINGER-Motion to adjourn. MOTION TO ADJOURN THE QUEENSBURY PLANNING BOARD MEETING OF MAY 15th, 2018, Introduced by Chris Hunsinger who moved for its adoption, seconded by David Deeb: Duly adopted this 15th day of May, 2018, by the following vote: AYES: Mr. Valentine, Mr. Hunsinger, Mr. Deeb, Ms. White, Mr. Shafer, Mr. Dixon, Mr. Traver NOES: NONE MR. TRAVER-We stand adjourned. Thank you. On motion meeting was adjourned. RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED, Stephen Traver, Chairman