Loading...
06-20-2019 (Queensbury Planning Board 06/20/2019) QUEENSBURYPLANNING BOARD MEETING SECOND REGULAR MEETING .TUNE 20, 2019 INDEX Site Plan No. 29-2019 Reece Rudolph 1. Tax Map No. 289.6-1-34 Site Plan No. 16-2019 Alex & Michelle Wilcox 2. Tax Map No. 278.20-1-3 Site Plan No. 36-2019 AngioDynamics, Inc. 17. Tax Map No. 297.8-1-10 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. 1 (Queensbury Planning Board 06/20/2019) QUEENSBURY PLANNING BOARD MEETING SECOND REGULAR MEETING JUNE 20, 2019 7:00 P.M. MEMBERS PRESENT CHRIS HUNSINGER, ACTING CHAIRMAN DAVID DEEB, SECRETARY JAMIE WHITE JOHN SHAFER MICHAEL VALENTINE BRAD MAGOWAN MICHAEL DIXON, ALTERNATE LAND USE PLANNER-LAURA MOORE STENOGRAPHER-MARIA GAGLIARDI MR. HUNSINGER-I'll call to order the meeting of the Town of Queensbury Planning Board on Thursday, June 20t", 2019. I wasn't keeping track of what meeting this was for the year. So we'll defer that until July. Before we start the meeting I do want to point out the emergency exits. In the event of emergency please find the nearest exit. They're here and in the front and we'll give directions on which way to proceed. We only have three scheduled items and one item scheduled to be tabled this evening. The first is Reece Rudolph, Site Plan 29-2019. TABLED ITEMS SITE PLAN NO. 29-2019 SEQR TYPE: TYPE II. REECE RUDOLPH. AGENT(S): DAVID HUTCHINSON. OWNER(S): SAME AS APPLICANT. ZONING: WR. LOCATION: 24 NACY RD. APPLICANT PROPOSES TO REMOVE HALF STORY ROOF AREA OF 392 SQ. FT.TO REPLACE WITH A SECOND STORY OF 715 SQ. FT. THE ADDITION IS TO HAVE TWO BEDROOMS AND BEDROOM DOWNSTAIRS TO BE CONVERTED TO OTHER LIVING SPACE. THE HOUSE IS A PRE-EXISTING NON-CONFORMING STRUCTURE. NO OTHER CHANGES TO THE SITE ARE PROPOSED. PURSUANT TO CHAPTER 179-3- 040 OF THE ZONING ORDINANCE,EXPANSION OF A NON-CONFORMING STRUCTURE IN A CEA SHALL BE SUBJECT TO PLANNING BOARD REVIEW AND APPROVAL. Variance: Relief is sought for FLOOR AREA RATIO AND permeability REQUIREMENTS. CROSS REFERENCE: 91653-2495 SEPTIC ALT. 1991. WARREN CO. PLANNING: N/A. SITE INFORMATION: CEA, GLEN LAKE. LOT SIZE: .21 ACRES. TAX MAP NO. 289.6- 1-34. SECTION: 179-3-040. MR. HUNSINGER-Laura. MRS. MOORE-So the other evening at the Zoning Board of Appeals the Zoning Board of Appeals requested, or the applicant was asked whether he would like the application tabled. The Board, all of them indicated that they were not in favor of the project as proposed. They were concerned with the amount of relief requested from the floor area, and so they have moved it to their first meeting in August and so it would go to the Planning Board's second meeting in August. MR. HUNSINGER-That would be August 27t". Is there anyone here for that project this evening? We will open the public hearing and leave the public hearing open. PUBLIC HEARING OPENED 2 (Queensbury Planning Board 06/20/2019) MR. HUNSINGER-And with that I will entertain a motion. RESOLUTION TABLING SP # 29-2019 REECE RUDOLPH 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 remove half story roof area of 392 sq. ft. to replace with a second story of 715 sq. ft. The addition is to have two bedrooms and bedroom downstairs to be converted to other living space. The house is a pre-existing and non-conforming structure. No other changes to the site are proposed. Pursuant to Chapter 179-3-040 of the Zoning Ordinance, expansion of a non- conforming structure shall be subject to Planning Board review and approval. MOTION TO TABLE SITE PLAN 29-2019 REECE RUDOLPH, Introduced by David Deeb who moved for its adoption, seconded by Brad Magowan: Tabled until the August 27, 2019 Planning Board meeting with information due by July 15, 2019. Duly adopted this 20t" day of June, 2019 by the following vote: AYES: Mr. Deeb, Ms. White, Mr. Shafer, Mr. Magowan, Mr. Valentine, Mr. Dixon, Mr. Hunsinger NOES: NONE ABSENT: Mr. Traver MR. HUNSINGER-The next item on the agenda is Site Plan 16-2019 for Alex and Michelle Wilcox. SITE PLAN NO. 16-2019 SEQR TYPE: TYPE II. ALEX & MICHELLE WILCOX. OWNER(S): THOMAS DU BOIS. ZONING: RR-3A. LOCATION: CORNER WALKUP RD. & MOON HILL RD. (REVISED) APPLICANT PROPOSES CONSTRUCTION OF A 2,616 SQ. FT. SINGLE FAMILY HOME WITH ASSOCIATED SITE WORK. THE HOUSE TO BE CONSTRUCTED IS LOCATED WITHIN 50 FT. OF 15% SLOPES. THE SITE INCLUDES GRADING, LOT CLEARING FOR HOUSE, SEPTIC AND WELL. PURSUANT TO CHAPTER 179-6-060 OF THE ZONING ORDINANCE, CONSTRUCTION OCCURRING WITHIN 50 FT. OF 15% SLOPES SHALL BE SUBJECT TO PLANNING BOARD REVIEW AND APPROVAL. CROSS REFERENCE: AV 32-2018 (VOIDED), DISC 1-2019; WARREN CO. REFERRAL: APRIL 2019. SITE INFORMATION: STEEP SLOPES. LOT SIZE: 1.93 ACRES. TAX MAP NO. 278.20-1-3. SECTION: 179-6-060. ALEX & MICHELLE WILCOX, PRESENT MR. HUNSINGER-Laura. MRS. MOORE-So the applicant had gone to the Zoning Board of Appeals last evening with a revised plan for making a reduced sized house as requested by the Zoning Board of Appeals. So now in front of you what you also have is a plan that shows a footprint of 2,616 square feet and also what occurred with this project is the applicant moved the house 75 feet from the east property line further to the west. So the 75 foot setback and the Zoning Board granted all three setback variances, that was from Moon Hill, Walkup, and the east property line. MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. Thank you. Good evening. 3 (Queensbury Planning Board 06/20/2019) MR. WILCOX-My name is Alex Wilcox. This is my wife Michelle Wilcox. I am a contractor and carpenter. I grew up in Lake George and went to school there for most of my life. I've always been eager to return to Lake George and the Queensbury area. So when my wife and I found the property for sale on 0 Walkup Road it seemed like the perfect opportunity. We are in the process of purchasing the property at 0 Walkup Road from the current landowners Tom and Ellen Dubois. We are planning on building our home at this site. We have had a topographical survey, stormwater management and grading plan completed by C.T. Male. We'd welcome any questions you may have about our proposed home. MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. Questions, comments from the Board. MS. WHITE-I think I just want to say I appreciate the willingness to compromise. It's a lot to go through. MR. DEEB-I know we discussed the driveway at one point. I remember you saying something about egress and ingress. MR. WILCOX-Yes. So on our first set of plans we had a temporary construction access located down on the lower part of the property, but we've removed that. So now more than ever the U-shaped driveway would help for construction access in the sense of coming down the hill and kind of swooping in and being able to return back and then go, continue back down on Moon Hill. We are in talks with the County for approval for that U-shaped driveway. That's all dependent on the County's, I guess, decision on if they would allow two curb cuts or one. They kind of wanted the land to be finalized, to be ours first before they did a site meeting out there. MR. SHAFER-Have you discussed removing the guardrail? MR. WILCOX-Yes, so it's a W guardrail out there right now and they said that basically with the plans and the surveyor would come out and locate the location of where we need the curb cut to be indicated, and if we did the U-shaped they might just get rid of the guardrail in that section, he was saying, and there's a natural occurring berm there. So as far as visually from Moon Hill of how everything is with that berm there, you only kind of see like that second story as you're swooping down as far as the height of how our home is located on the property. MR. HUNSINGER-Any other questions, comments from the Board? We do have a public hearing scheduled. I know there's some written comments, but before we do that, are there any people that would like to address the Board? Okay. And I would just ask anybody who would like to address the Board to state your name for the record and speak clearly into the microphone. We do tape the meeting and the tape is used to transcribe the minutes. PUBLIC HEARING OPEN LYNSEY WHITING MRS. WHITING-Hi. Good evening Planning Board members of the Town of Queensbury. My name is Lynsey Whiting and I reside at 49 Walkup Road with my husband Kevin Whiting. We are here tonight to protect and uphold our Town's Comprehensive Plan. This land deserves to be protected. With three strong no votes at last night's Zoning Board meeting I hope that that will show you that this project needs great examination. I hope tonight the Planning Board represents the land we love so much and truly listen to these residents' concerns that seem to be continuously ignored. I have lived on Walkup with my family for over 30 years and I consider myself to be a lifetime resident. For over 30 years my family and neighbors have maintained, preserved and enhanced the area around Walkup. We have 4 (Queensbury Planning Board 06/20/2019) all respected the rural residential code. I truly feel our lives have been blessed by living in one of Queensbury's natural beauty's. I have many concerns regarding the proposed project on the corner of Moon Hill and Walkup by the Wilcox and Dubois parties and greatly feel my family and neighbors and the environment will be negatively affected. The Wilcoxs' state that their proposed project is consistent with the vision, goals and policies of our Town Comprehensive Plan, and I believe it is not at all consistent. Our Town vows to protect important natural areas and view sheds, especially unique landforms like ridges and slopes. The size of this project doesn't live in harmony with its own lot and required three variances to be granted by a split Board of three to four last night. I hope our Planning Board will take great notice to those three Board members who upheld the Code last night. The proposed excavation and removal of mature trees for the proposed home plus the excavation for a septic and well, plus surpassing the 100 foot setback on multiple sides will have an adverse impact on the natural environment. Their proposed project will forever change the landscape and rural design. This proposal is not consistent with maintaining the natural area and view shed. The corner of Walkup Road is a part of the natural slope and the backdrop of the wetlands. The hardwoods and pines act as habitat for wildlife and as a natural buffer from noise and light pollution from Moon Hill. The wetlands and wildlife of Walkup deserve to be protected and allow for variances and approvals will no doubt adversely impact this rural residential district. Our Town is about sustaining lifelong residents. All of Walkup residents have resided here for 30, 40 if not more years, all of whom have maintained and preserved our rural neighborhood, yet all of our opinions don't seem to matter right now. Our Town is active and Walkup has and continues to be a positive, walkable neighborhood. In fact neighbors from Sunnyside, Dream Lake, Tee Hill, Martindale, Glen Lake and Moon Hill recreate on this now natural, rural road. Deconstructing minimally three-quarters of an acre on a 1.9 corner lot will have a negative impact to the natural view shed. Walkup reflects and maintains the rural heritage and natural environment of our Town. Our rural residential codes are written with great intentions and we must honor and maintain the preservation of its rural character and protect the natural environment. This proposed project does not abide by multiple codes and I feel that a variance should not be given. KEVIN WHITING MR. WHITING-I just want to touch on a couple of points. I'm Kevin Whiting. I live on 49 Walkup. I mean that's a corner lot, okay, and no matter where you live, whether it's in the city or if you're out in a rural district, a corner lot has certain responsibilities, and we all know that going into it. If you live on a corner lot in Glens Falls and you're not shoveling your sidewalk you're going to get nine letters saying you need to do that. So granting some of those variances on the corner I thought were kind of outrageous because they kind of addressed the County's property, the little triangle between Walkup and Moon Hill. That's County owned, and they say, well, you know, it's wooded and it increases the buffer. Well that's an access and that thing is overgrown right now. Someday the Town is going to cut all that stuff down so they can access it for something. So once that's gone, that's gone, and there goes all that buffer that you're talking about on Walkup. It's nothing personal against the Wilcoxs'. Who wouldn't want to have a house there if you were allowed to build one. If you stand where the driveway is going to be and you look behind it you have a beautiful view of French Mountain, and if you look the other way you'll see the marsh. The only people whose views will not change by this house being built is theirs because they're going to be the only house not looking at another house. A lot of people recreate on Walkup. They go there and watch the birds. It's an Audubon Society, you know, and area for watching birds and stuff and if you put a big house right at the top of the ridge overlooking a watershed, it's going to light it up. Right now the moon's the only thing you see when you look out there. There's not a single light from Moon Hill that you see from Walkup at night. It's completely dark. The Comprehensive Plan talks about the lifelong residents. I grew up on Tee Hill and it's amazing the construction that's gone on in that area. It's so packed in. It's just amazing, but there are still open lots that are available. The guardrail situation. Anyone who's ever driven that road in the wintertime knows that every time 5 (Queensbury Planning Board 06/20/2019) there's a severe storm it's not uncommon to see a sedan stuck there halfway out or a whole line of traffic. I'm sure the firemen have pulled plenty of people out of those curves, and if you look at a map of where all the accidents are in Town, I can only imagine there'd be an exclamation point on this turn, and to remove guardrails there is, I mean for their sake, you're going to have a car fly right into your front yard. It's crazy in my opinion. I'm not trying to offend anybody. One of their representations, arguments yesterday was well the property's been for sale for four years and nobody's tried to buy it. They said they should have bought it. If you don't own it, you don't have a right to say anything about it, and to an extent I can totally appreciate that, but it's not people's responsibility on Walkup to go around and buy up every piece of land in Town that touches water because it could be the right thing to do. None of us are people of incredible means. These aren't our second homes. We don't come up here from down South for a few months in the summer. We live here. We moved into the RR-3 zone for a reason. We love it. We love the space. We love the beauty of the road, and I just think it would be a shame to put a house this big with not making that many modifications to the house since the last proposal. Making a three car garage a little bit smaller doesn't seem like that big of a consolidation. Cutting a construction road from Walkup all the way up to Moon Hill just seems like insanity. If you had a rainstorm like we had today, on a day when they're cutting that septic tank, they're cutting that driveway, Dream Lake's going to rise two inches with sediment. It's insane. That shot from space doesn't show that the property is like this. It looks a lot better on the map. That pretty much covers everything. Thank you for your time. MR. HUNSINGER-Anyone else? Yes, sir. PHILLIP ROBERTSON MR. ROBERTSON-Good evening. My name is Phillip Robertson. I live on 37 Walkup Road. I have a letter that I wrote, but I just want to re-iterate a few other thing that I'm concerned about. The original application was for a 3300 square foot house. It was denied by Craig Brown and they had to go for a variance for what they finally were approved for. They claim now it's 2600 square feet, the three levels of the house comes to 4169 square feet plus an 896 square foot garage. My concern is with the removal of the trees, which would have to be a substantial number to put this 82 foot long 40 foot wide house three stories tall on the property, it's going to stick out like a sore thumb. In addition to having the septic system clearing. That with the runoff from the very large roofs would have a serious impact on the Glen Lake brook and its ecosystem and the angle, as Kevin said, is very steep and it will certainly exacerbate the runoff issues. I would suggest in addition that you folks, I think Mr. Hunsinger was an author of the Queensbury rural residential land use plan. If you pay close attention to Pages 19 through 31 you'll see that this is counter to most everything on that plan. So that's all I have to say. MR. HUNSINGER-Thank you. MR. ROBERTSON-Thank you very much. ED HAYES MR. HAYES-Good evening, guys. Ed Hayes. Walkup Road, also, 55. I've been there 31 years. My daughter and Kevin spoke. Just basically what they said I'm in agreement with. I just want to paint a little bit of a picture. Walkup is a very early road. It wasn't even a road of Queensbury's. It was a farm road way back when. It's still kind of farmy there. There's a barn across the road from our house. When you walk from Bay Road up to Moon Hill, along Walkup Road, that entire road there is nothing on the south side of that road except the 100 year old barn. Who knows how long that's going to be standing. Over the years they've built up Moon Hill tremendously, which is up on a hill just south of Walkup Road. You really don't, you absolutely do not see one house from Walkup Road anyplace on 6 (Queensbury Planning Board 06/20/2019) Walkup Road. You may see a twinkle of light at night. So what they're proposing now is to take down these trees on the end of the road, and the house will most definitely be, because it's only 1.9 acres, will definitely be visible at that point, ruining two or three of the homes that are existing on Walkup Road, ruining their quietness, their view of what it's been like for 100 years now. So I guess I'd shorten it up and say that I'm looking to see them not to say not be approved, but cut down the size of the height of the house so it's not as much of a sore thumb sticking out. Because I know that's a buildable lot but there are mitigating circumstances. That's pretty much it. MR. HUNSINGER-Are there written comments, Laura? MRS. MOORE-There is a written comment. MR. HUNSINGER-There was an e-mail comment. Is that the one you're going to read? MRS. MOORE-I believe that's the one you sent today, correct? Yes. If you'd like me to read that into the record. MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. Thank you. MRS. MOORE-So this is addressed to the Queensbury Planning Board. "In 1979 I purchased the land I currently own on Walkup Road. My home is to the North and directly across from this proposed building site. I have spent the last 40 years designing, building and working on my rural country homestead at 37 Walkup Road. I recently retired so that I could finally enjoy the fruits of my labor and spend my retirement years at this rural home in our quiet peaceful neighborhood. I originally chose this particular area because of the rural feel and seclusion that Walkup Road offers. I was able to purchase nearly 20 acres and situate my modest home 185 ft. from the road and 105 ft. from neighbors land to the East so that it was not within the view of any of my surrounding neighbors. The setback rules were not as strict as they are presently, however, I felt it was the neighborly thing to do at that time. I consulted with my neighbors before I began construction and both Dave Dutra & Harold Rathburn were receptive to my vision of the small country home I was planning. I did not take down any trees when my original home was constructed back in 1980/81, nor did I remove any trees when I built my 2 bay Carriage Shed Garage in 1990. In 2001 my wife and I constructed an addition and took great pains to marry that to the West side of the original home so that it was the least intrusive to the landscape or viewscapes. I can count on one hand the total number of trees that were required to be removed for this project. In fact the beavers in Glen Lake Brook took down more trees than I did that year. Each construction project was within the building code rules of the time and no variances were ever required as I played by the Town Of Queensbury rules of the day. I have endured the construction of several homes close to my place since I originally built my dream home next to the brook down in the hollow of Walkup Road. Most have abided by the Queensbury Codes and Comprehensive Plan for Rural Residential Neighborhoods. Each of these building projects took one to more than two years to complete and the nature of the landscape makes for many noisy months or years while the construction drags on, echoing thru this normally quiet valley. I would welcome a modest structure that is more befitting to this area, however, this proposed structure does not fit. This proposed project will not only be intrusive & a detriment to the neighborhood but will likely take years due to its scope. The relief requested is quite substantial to the Ordinance requirements. It does not comply with current RR3 codes, setbacks or grade requirements and the original 2300 sq. ft. building along with 988 sq. ft. garage has already been denied by Craig Brown.In actuality the original proposed project was closer to 4,200 sq. ft. with 1120 sq. ft. garage. This is not appropriate for this non-conforming lot size. The revised application has a few little concessions however the main three story structure and setbacks appear virtually unchanged so the house is still 4200 sq. ft. with a reduced garage size of 896 sq. ft., still making it a 5100 sq. ft. three story structure at the top of a newly cleared hill. This proposed project 7 (Queensbury Planning Board 06/20/2019) is counter to almost everything that the Queensbury Comprehensive Plan for Rural Residential Neighborhoods clearly spells out! The building is located at the very top of a steep hill with gables facing to the down side of the hill. The removal of a good many if not all of the 90'tall pines would be required in order to shoehorn the proposed 82' by 40' wide 3 story structure which is situated on the 210' wide non-conforming piece of property with the tall side facing Walkup road and my home. This will most certainly impact the viewscapes we all currently enjoy. The proposed site work and construction alters the essential character of the neighborhood. This will all have a negative impact on my life. It will have a long term negative impact on not only me but all my neighbors, both emotionally and physically not to mention financially as our property values will be impacted as our rural neighborhood turns into another Queensbury development. In addition the site work and subsequent proposed buildings will be detrimental to the Glen Lake Brook Eco system at the bottom edge of this property for years to come. I play by the Town of Queensbury rules and always have. For 4 decades I have faithfully paid my taxes, which are substantial on 20 acres. I am asking that Queensbury play by their established rules and deny these variances on this subject property that the applicant still does not even own! That did not happen. I was under the impression that the Zoning Board was here to protect us and should not consider this 82'structure at the top of that ridge as it will have an adverse effect and most certainly impact the physical and environmental conditions in this neighborhood. If anything, a much smaller structure would be in order so it has less of an impact here, both visually and environmentally. I value what I have built and paid for over my lifetime and intend to do my best to keep any construction to a reasonable level in order to keep this still beautiful rural area of Queensbury, rural. It appears the applicant has hired an attorney so maybe it is time for the folks in our neighborhood to do the same should litigation become necessary to stop this proposed construction. Thank you for your consideration regarding this matter. Philip Robertson" MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. Thank you. Were there any other comments? MRS. MOORE-There were no other written comments. MR. HUNSINGER-Then we will close the public hearing. PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED MR. HUNSINGER-If you want to come back to the table. One of the comments that was made during the public hearing was the number of accidents on Moon Hill Road, on the guardrail or on the curve. Is there any record, do you have any record of those? MR. WILCOX-I don't know of any record. Dr. Dimick who would be our adjoining lot on Moon Hill, has mentioned that there's two to three accidents a year, but he did state last night that they usually happen before they even hit the guardrail. I mean not knowing much about guardrails, but that guardrail doesn't look like it's ever been hit. I don't know if it just recently got repaired, but again that's a County thing I think in the sense of talking with them and figuring out the best plan. They did say in one of their comments that they will allow at least one access on Moon Hill. MR. HUNSINGER-Any other questions from the Board? MR. SHAFER-Did you say one access? MR. WILCOX-They said they would at least allow one access. MR. SHAFER-But your drawing shows two. 8 (Queensbury Planning Board 06/20/2019) MR. WILCOX-I know it shows two, but as far as the County goes, on what they would recommend, from one of the e-mails that I got back from the Town, the County. MR. DIXON-Had you given anymore thought to the driveway? I know we talked a little bit about that earlier. MR. WILCOX-Yes, so I was talking with C.T. Male as far as square footage, and again I am taking, my wife and I are taking all of the comments from people on Walkup Road or anybody to heart. We really are and we hope to show that we will be great neighbors in the future and now, and as far as that goes, the trees is part of the bit thing. So we wanted to keep, I know you guys talked about a, a turnaround is kind of what we're looking for, but to do that would be even more like a parking lot type of style in front of the house. So that's why we kind of with C.T. Male the U kind of in and out and again now that the garage is smaller as well there's less driveway and square footage there as well. So even less room to hang a turnaround, but touching base on that, we are planning on keeping as many trees as physically possible and other than that. MR. SHAFER-What drove the size of the house and/or the garage? You talked about the garage being smaller. MR. WILCOX-It's still a three car garage. So the big thing is, obviously we have two vehicles and eventually we plan on having a family and this is going to be our forever home. So kind of out of sight out of mind, and I do have a small boat and a trailer so for now that would fill the third bay of the garage, and the size of the home is well, I mean way back when I was a young kid and my dream growing up I wanted to have a very large family. I know we're a little late on that start. We want to have a very large family, but that's the size of the house and again, being a Lake George native coming back and just wanting to set up roots for our forever home in the area. MS. WHITE-There seems to be some differing numbers. Can you give us a final number? What's the square footage of the house right now? MR. WILCOX-So the square footage of the house is 2915 square feet. Laura Moore wrote it down on one of the things. It's very close, within a couple of feet. Yes, that's the first and second story of the house. MRS. MOORE-So if you look in the Site Data sheet there's a value of the footprint of the house and then there's also porches and decks. So if you add the 477 and 2916 and you get that full footprint with the decks on it. So everything's there. It's just adding those numbers together. What Mr. Robertson had identified, and I talked with him earlier, this reference to floor area, where you take each of the floors and you determine that square footage. Again, in Rural Residential zone there's not a requirement for a certain floor area. So I did not personally calculate those. I typically do not when it's involved in the review of the plan like in the Waterfront Residential zone where you have a 22% requirement. I typically look at the footprint of the building in knowing that when it's arranged on the site how that fits on the site and if it requires a variance it goes to the Zoning Board. I give them guidance about what the setback requirements are. MR. HUNSINGER-So you were talking about the Site Development Data Sheet. The only thing that's missing there is the square footage of the second floor, to answer Jamie's question, what's the total square footage of the house. MRS. MOORE-So if I looked at the floor area, right. MR. HUNSINGER-Because it has the first floor and the porches and decks. 9 (Queensbury Planning Board 06/20/2019) MR. WILCOX-But that also includes the garage, too. MR. HUNSINGER-As far as square footage. MR. MAGOWAN-Question for Laura. What were the concerns of the Zoning Board? Why were the three? MRS. MOORE-So they were concerned about the setback relief being requested. Ultimately there were four of them that granted it and three that did not, and they thought, the three that did not thought that the lot, that the house was too large for the lot, and at this point the setbacks stand. The setbacks were granted by the Zoning Board, and that's the purview of the Zoning Board. MRS. WILCOX-So I did really quickly add together the first and second floor, the square footage based on the architecture program that we designed that house with. So between the first and the second floor the living area is 2,956 square feet for the actual living area. MR. WILCOX-And that's on Page 16 and 17 in your packet. The floor plan, it shows living area, 1721 plus 1235. MR. DEEB-What's the footprint? MRS. WILCOX-The footprint is 2616. Plus the porches. So those have to be added in for 477. MR. MAGOWAN-I have another question for you guys. Now I know the road. I know the corner. I know the ice that's usually on the south side because, you know, across the street I've seen that built up on the corner, but listening to the residents, you found a nice piece of property. Now say you had a house there, you know one of their houses, and someone wanted to come in and build the Taj Mahal on top of the hill. How would you feel? I'm not trying to make you feel guilty or anything, but I'm just, you know, because that basically is a knoll, and I remember before years ago that the houses that are in that little new, the new section that kind of backs up to Walkup, they were thinking of mining that. Weren't they going to mine it? And then someone bought it and put in a house and placed it in there nice so that it doesn't obstruct anybody, and that's the only concern I have, you know, driving that road all the time and seeing it and looking up, and you're really putting, and you're asking for three variances on the setbacks and all that, and I really do not feel comfortable with the two curb cuts. I just know that corner and I know the winters, and like I said, I'm not getting a warm fuzzy feeling here. MR. WILCOX-No, I understand. I mean the curve was a concern of ours. I mean the biggest thing is, I mean, A, we didn't want to put the house at the bottom of the hill because of the water flow and that especially with also concerns now of the residents that live on Walkup, that would be even closer and more visible to them. With the house being set into the hillside with basically just that one side, yes, technically from the backside it would look like three, but with the decks it's going to be broken up, but if you, I know you said you drive by there all the time, and probably at least five months or six months out of the year with the tree and foliage that we have right now that we plan on leaving up, especially with the deed restrictions with this lot that would have to remain at least a 20 foot buffer zone, plus for trees, but again, we're going to leave as many as possible up and even plant more along that ridge, along that side because, you know, they don't want to see us. We probably don't want to see them in the sense of that we're on a hill, but touching base on how would we feel if we came in, if someone came in and like say I was in this house but my potential neighbor, I would probably approach it just like he did. He came to the first meeting and voiced his concerns in a, just like kind of a Devil's Advocate type of a way, knowing that it was a vacant lot, and I took everything, again, that everyone said to heart and we worked with him and 10 (Queensbury Planning Board 06/20/2019) adjusted our house 20 feet farther away. I know as Kevin Whiting mentioned that last night our lawyer was kind of bringing up the point of we're taking 145 feet from Walkup Road, from the road, not the setback, because of that kind of bonus little triangle there. Yes there are not very many trees there right now, but on the top ridge where basically the property line is all those trees are going to remain. It's very thin. There's really not a lot of foliage or, you know, there's some saplings down there but it's not like fully wooded. It's not doing anything to visually, you know, provide anymore cover for where our house will be, but on top of the ridge it's pretty thick. I mean we want to leave it that way. We don't really want to have our house be seen. The colors of our house are going to be in fitting with more of an Adirondack style. It's not going to be like a yellow house on a hill sticking out like a sore thumb. It's going to be, you know, trying to fit the area as best as possible. MR. MAGOWAN-Did you look into maybe purchasing some of the land off of the County? MR. WILCOX-For that? We talked to our lawyer about that, for the triangle there, and she really didn't get anywhere with that, just because it is a, it's kind of like a swale. It's kind of like a, there's not like a well there, but it's kind of like a water flow type of thing. MR. MAGOWAN-Like a retention ditch. MR. WILCOX-Yes. MR. MAGOWAN-Because of the hill. MR. WILCOX-Moon Hill, yes, and our plan, too, for the stormwater, I know there were some concerns brought up about when we're building and the length of the project. Nine months is the full length of when we have to build, and as far as the stormwater goes, as far as silt fence, it's all on that plan showing that, you know, to contain any water flow and construction when all the excavators are moving around in there and we do get a storm we are covered on that, on that front. MR. SHAFER-Question. Have you had the septic system designed, the wastewater treatment system? MR. WILCOX-I have not yet. The perc test is going to be, we were waiting to actually get through this process. Because I talked to Craig Brown about that and he said that was probably good in the sense I had Dennis MacElroy, he walked the site with me and he also was, you know, as far as the perc ability on the site, especially the mottles that C.T. Male pulled, was the A type soils, so high perc, and that we should be able to do an infiltrator system for the septic which'll reduce the size which'll also reduce how many trees that we most likely will have to cut down for the septic area and leach field. MR. SHAFER-The reason for my question is the elevation of the septic system would be about 20 feet lower than the house. There are Health Department rules about how slope and height can be between the house and septic system. The question is whether or not that's within them. MR. WILCOX-Yes. Dennis MacElroy commented on that. Basically it'll go down and it'll go into a retention box and then it can get pumped out to that leach field. MR. VALENTINE-Brad, what was your question, what was your inquiry about getting land with the triangular piece with the County? What would that benefit? They've already got the variance for the lot size. What are you looking at that for? MR. MAGOWAN-Well that would, well I understand that, but I'm wondering if we can get it down a little lower. 11 (Queensbury Planning Board 06/20/2019) MR. VALENTINE-Well, I'm looking at this and I'm saying okay you've got that existing parcel here and it has an existing topography. It's been that way, and I'm looking and saying okay maybe that piece of land has been there long enough, maybe the cost, your purchase cost of the land, may offset, or may have, there's some offsetting costs on that that you can mitigate some of these things, and I think what you're saying is I don't know if we can get it lower by looking at the topo, but the height on it is a big issue, and the height generates the visual impact. I don't know what you can do with that because even on the plan here it says that the maximum, or for the building height it says proposed, to be determined. MRS. WILCOX-And that's including the basement, the 35 that we have listed, because the basement on the backside is walkout. MR. VALENTINE-So you're saying 32 or 35. MR. WILCOX-Yes, depending on the pitch of that roof. MR. VALENTINE-The height, like I said, that seems to be, the imposition of that for the area, the visual impact seems to be sort of the overriding thing, and you have, your appeals were granted by the Zoning Board, and it puts us in a position in a way that, okay, what you wanted you have received. So you're coming back and now it's time to address the issues that this Board has to deal with, and those would be site plan, where you set the house. Obviously you can't set the house where you would have to without having had the variances that you've shown on this map here where the house setting would be. Where it can go in here, and I know what Brad's looking at is the same thing, is there any area where this can be sited and drop down on it. If you can drop down 10 feet anywhere in here, and I'm not sure that can be done. I'm not going to do that design work, but I think that's something that shouldn't, I still think that's something that has to be looked at. That drives the concern for the people in the area. The other thing I'm looking at with the building height and the visual impact would be buffering, and you mentioned about we would try and keep as many trees. I would go beyond keeping as many trees as planting more mature three inch caliper trees, and I would strategically place those that they could grow mature into something that is going to block the view at some point, and the other thing as far as appeal, and that, say rural setting, I think I would vote no on this if you press the issue of two curb cuts. It's not necessary and I would have one curb cut with an internal hammerhead turnaround in here, and you're saying it would look like a parking lot. In this area that driveway is not appealing at all, and that's my thoughts on it, and I'd throw those out for anybody else to comment on again, and you can say, Mike you're full of hot air tonight. It doesn't bother me. MR. SHAFER-I would agree with you completely, with one extra caveat, which is with the two driveways, and the County, and I'd be surprised if they agreed to this, would allow you to take out two sections of guardrail, you're left with a short piece. The short piece is actually more dangerous than no piece of guardrail at all. My guess is they will not allow you to do that eventually, and you'll be down to one driveway access anyway. So I'm with Michael on this. I'm not comfortable with the two driveways and a couple of other things that are part of this site plan. MR. DIXON-I guess I'll just throw a comment out there. So I'm just, I run through quick math. So it's not going to be 100% accurate, but the rise from Walkup Road from the far corner from where most of the residents are to about where, on our map here it's saying minimum 100 setback, which is just north of the, what is it, wastewater disposal area. That's about 27 foot rise. So even if you had mature trees there that are, 20, 40 feet high, by the time you getup to the house there's another 18 feet. My rough calculations are about 13 feet of the house would be above the tree line, for mature trees, again, I could be off, 12 (Queensbury Planning Board 06/20/2019) and honestly I can't see the numbers real well. So I can see where the height may have a visual impact. On residential properties we don't usually talk about lighting of any sort. MRS. MOORE-I gave them guidance during our pre-ap meeting that whatever the lighting proposed it has to be downcast. It's a Code requirement, and it can be evaluated by our Code Compliance Officer. MR. DIXON-Again, just on the lighting side, which is a concern of the residents, it could not project, or would not be mounted above the second story and that's going from the basement up. So essentially you're three stories from the back. So it does kind of project kind of high. That road itself, that's a rough road and I'll date myself. I learned to drive on that road, and it really is a horrible corner. It's almost an unbuildable lot, but also the house to the, I believe it would be to the east, your neighbor, that's also not an idea location, but I don't want to say two wrongs make a right either. So I'm struggling with this one because I've got a safety concern on that corner. I understand what the other residents feel. As far as the sight lines, it may intrude upon the, some of that, yes, I'm taking it under consideration, but I'm also understand it's your piece of property, you want to build a home there. You want to make it fit in with the neighborhood. One other question I had, and, Laura, I was hoping you could help me with this. So the neighbor to the east, what did we end up having for a setback for them? Just to see if this is in keeping even with the neighborhood. While Laura's looking that up, I do have one other question. So you'd referenced your neighbor to the east. Now is he accepting of this project now? MRS. WILCOX-Yes. He did attend last night's Zoning Board meeting. We met with him a couple of times because after our Zoning Board meeting in April they met with us outside. We exchanged phone numbers. They met up with us a few times so we could discuss questions and concerns and how to compromise. So we met with them at the land. They came out. We staked it out and showed them where it could be, where could move it, you know, discussed it with our engineers to have them move it So we did make some compromises in communication with them and they were in support of it. MR. DIXON-So did they voice they're in favor of the project at the Zoning Board? MRS. WILCOX-Yesterday, yes, yes, sir. So the neighbor to the east, I do have some information regarding their setbacks. So their eastern setback is 70 feet from the property line and their western setback is 60 feet from the property line and then their front setback is 50 feet from the front side. MR. SHAFER-Fifty? MRS. WILCOX-Yes, sir. MRS. MOORE-So it's about 67 feet from the house to the property line. So then they're also 75 feet more. So I think it jives with what you just gave me. So it's almost 142 to the resident. MR. HUNSINGER-Any other questions, comments from the Board? MR. MAGOWAN-I just, the height is just bothering me. I like the, you know, it's the layout, but what are you going to do with that big basement? You've got a walkout basement in the back. So that's a huge basement, and then I look at the, you know, open from below off of the master bedroom. I mean that's just, with a huge window looking out, what is that, to the north? MRS. WILCOX-Yes. 13 (Queensbury Planning Board 06/20/2019) MS. WHITE-But they're under the requirements for the height. MR. MAGOWAN-I know it's under the requirements but I'm just looking at this sitting on top of the knoll. MR. WILCOX-I mean, again, we talked with C.T. Male a lot about this property, and trying and, you know, positioning this house and re-positioning it, again, 20 feet towards the west, and sitting it towards the hillside, and, yes, from the backside yes it technically obviously is, call it what it is, three stories on that backside. It'll be a little, obviously still that height, but, you know, with that back porch and, you know, say if you took the foundation, just for a second, out of the equation, that height of that house would not change that peak of the house, you know, because you'd still have to have a foundation underneath the house. MR. MAGOWAN-Well, yes, I was thinking more of turning the basement area, you know, with the open back, you know, dropping everything down. MR. WILCOX-You're saying so not do a walkout. You would say put dirt around that foundation. MR. MAGOWAN-No, no, no. Still have the walkout, but it's really the best type of situation you have, and it's something like my house that someday I hope to build when I get to that point would be a ranch with a walkout basement so I can utilize under, you know, the basement as a living area where you're not, you know you'd have one wall where you'd probably have small windows, but I'm wondering if you, I just, I know you're under the height, but it's just the wrong place for such a tall house. Do you see where I'm coming from? MR. WILCOX-I understand. MR. MAGOWAN-I mean I'm just, you know, once the trees are cut, that's it, and now, to me it seems like it's going to be a lighthouse. It's going to be a big light up on top of the hill, and I just, and I see how much you've gone through and all the work that you've put into this and the money that has been spent to achieve that, but my main two concerns are really the driveway cut and really the house being too big for the hill. MR. HUNSINGER-Any other comments? MR. WILCOX-I'm not opposed to doing a single access and doing a hammerhead driveway. That is something, you know, that we were kind of waiting on to see what the County came up with whatever we wanted to be the safest. We kept on saying it the whole time is safeness, and as far as what C.T. Male was saying, that's what they thought was that, yes, was the crescent, but again, whichever is definitely the safest. And as far as, I think I mentioned it previously, keeping as many trees as possible, but also I did mention that we do plan on planting a whole lot more. We want to make sure that we are good neighbors. That is one of our utmost, we've never owned a home before and we've been, this has been our dream and we've been saving our pennies and this has been just a big thing for us that it finally could happen and I hope you see our vision. MR. DEEB-Well I think you've got to be careful, too. I think we all agree on the ingress. It would be wise just to make a single ingress with a turnaround. As far as the height goes, I think we have to be careful about being overly intrusive as a Board. I know we have oversight in some of this, but they're within the limits and I just think we have to walk a fine line. MRS. MOORE-Would you propose doing a polling? 14 (Queensbury Planning Board 06/20/2019) MR. HUNSINGER-Well, I was about to say, it sounds like there's a majority of the Board that would be for a single access point. So my question is would that necessitate a revised site plan and review by the Board? MRS. MOORE-If you made that a condition, yes. MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. So it really sounds like we're moving towards a tabling resolution at this point. MRS. MOORE-So if this Board wishes to have a single cut and the applicant meets with the County highway and they say you need two curb cuts, that you would end up coming back to the Board to receive the second curb cut because you as a Board conditioned it. MR. HUNSINGER-Yes. MR. DIXON-I guess my only other concern that we might run into, if we feel that this may not be a project that we end up supporting, depending on how the vote goes, I'd hate to see people spend a great deal of money, and I'm not trying to sway anybody. I'm just throwing that out as a concern. MR. HUNSINGER-That was going to be my next question. Thank you. Yes. MR. SHAFER-Well I still have the concern about the elevation distance between the house and the septic system. Would it be appropriate for Dennis to do a letter that it could be designed appropriately within the Town Code? MRS. MOORE-If that's something that you're looking for, then yes. If that's who the applicant is going to work with. If the applicant is working with that engineer. Right now the applicant has had discussions with the engineer about designing that septic system. MR. HUNSINGER-Well you can move your septic closer to the house. MR. MAGOWAN-Well, yes, I mean the septic was just drawn in there. They haven't even designed, I mean it's out in the north forty there. You can pull that in a little closer. MR. HUNSINGER-Right. MR. MAGOWAN-And I'm sure they're going to run it through the basement floor. MR. SHAFER-The slope is the same regardless of the distances. MR. MAGOWAN-Correct. MR. SHAFER-It's 20 feet of elevation and 60 feet lateral. No matter where you put it it's the same slope from the house to the septic system. I would just like some assurance that a guy like Dennis could design that perfectly within the Health Department standards. MR. VALENTINE-Is there any reason why the house itself, John was saying the distance between the septic system and the house, is there any reason why the house is not setback further or you just didn't want a longer driveway? MR. WILCOX-No, I mean, as far as just like the topographical map, kind of when you place the house on it I think it's a little misconstrued. Again we worked with C.T. Male and we kind of put the house on the property trying, last time trying to center it to abide a little bit better by the setbacks and then we pushed it back as far as we kind of could with the stormwater management plan. When they did the plan up top, trying to contain all the water 15 (Queensbury Planning Board 06/20/2019) on site was the goal, not to worsen the already existing lot. So pushing the house back farther is something we could do, but again the farther we push it back then the farther we get, we get closer to Walkup Road. So again taking all comments into consideration from the first meeting, we decided to not push it back any farther than we already had it placed. MR. VALENTINE-Because if I go right by the wording where it says dwelling your finished floor elevation that's about 410. Going back to the start of where your septic is is 395. I mean you could drop 10 feet there and utilize that savings on your overall height. Again, I really hate on this side trying to sit here and tell somebody how to design it, but I'm just thinking of that. I was wondering why that wouldn't have been taken into consideration. MR. WILCOX-And we're taking all of everyone's concerns and criticisms to heart and if that's something that needs to be done then we will go forth that way with the engineer. It's just, again, trying to keep our house as far away from Walkup Road as possible and again planting as many trees as possible down there. MR. SHAFER-Following up on Michael's design ideas, you've got the widest part of the house in the narrowest part of the lot. In other words if the house were rotated this way it would be longer front to back as the lot is longer front to back. MR. WILCOX-As far as how this house is designed, I would be just looking right at the, if we were to spin it, we would be looking right at the direct neighbor, and I understand what you're saying there because the first time we went to the Zoning Board we were talking about maybe positioning the garage to like the back side of the house so you're not as wide, but I asked C.T. Male about that, and as far as the grading of the driveway, we'd be coming into a concern there because of the fire department access and everything like that. So that kind of was an option that we tried to explore, but couldn't really bring it to fruition on that. MR. MAGOWAN-Why, just speaking off the cuff here, if you move it back to where the septic is, right, why didn't we want to come off of Walkup Road with the driveway? MR. WILCOX-I mean the biggest thing is that we wanted to be more on top of the hill because of the water flow. We don't want to be at the bottom, because obviously there's a very steep hill and just how all the stormwater management is designed is to make it so it's relatively flatter on top and then all the water would flow down the hill behind the house. MR. HUNSINGER-So at this point there's at least two issues that the Board would like to see addressed. One is a single access, a single egress and then the second one is verification that the septic system can be properly designed. I'm not phrasing it well, but that was your concern. So I think we're moving towards a tabling motion. MR. MAGOWAN-And I don't have a good feeling with that sitting up on top of that hill and the size. MR. HUNSINGER-Yes, that would be the same comment. MR. MAGOWAN-I didn't hear you say that. MR. DIXON-I second that. MR. HUNSINGER-I mean I'm concerned with it, too, but I don't know if my concern is great enough to say that I wouldn't approve what's proposed. Is that fair? Okay. So would anyone like to make a motion to table this? The question would be, you know, how quickly. 16 (Queensbury Planning Board 06/20/2019) MRS. MOORE-It would be for August with a July 15" deadline if the applicant feels that that would work in their timeframe. There's no room on our July agenda at this time. MR. VALENTINE-What does the applicant have to bring back to us? MRS. MOORE-Well, if these are the two concerns that you're having it tabled for, one is the curb cut and the second is to confirm the site can accommodate a septic system. MR. VALENTINE-So that would be just a change in this plan to show the one driveway. You wouldn't have a curb cut permit issued, yet. MRS. MOORE-No, but he said they can also communicate with the County and see if the County can provide some comment back so there'd be supporting information besides just the applicant saying they've had discussions. MR. VALENTINE-And then a letter from Dennis. I think that the issues were brought up from people, I think some of us don't want to be saying too much. I mean there are issues that are here. We don't want to sit here and say you should do it this way or you have to do it that way. That's what we're trying to shy away from, but there are things that are out there. MR. HUNSINGER-Right. You've heard our concerns and if you feel there's a way to address them, I think that'll be beneficial. MRS. WILCOX-Thank you. MR. HUNSINGER-So would someone like to make that motion? MRS. MOORE-You would also re-open the public hearing. MR. HUNSINGER-So we will re-open the public hearing and leave the public hearing open because the project will be changing and we'll give the public another chance to comment. We are going to table this to our August 20t" meeting at which time we'll take additional public comment. RESOLUTION TABLING SP # 16-2019 ALEX & MICHELLE WILCOX The applicant has submitted an application to the Planning Board for Site Plan approval pursuant to Article 9 of the Town zoning Ordinance for: (Revised) Applicant proposes construction of a 2,616 sq. ft. single family home single family home with 477 sq. ft. of porches and associated site work. The house to be constructed is located within 50 ft. of 15% slopes. The site includes grading, lot clearing for house, septic and well. Pursuant to Chapter 179-6-060 of the Zoning Ordinance, construction occurring within 50 ft. of 15% slopes shall be subject to Planning Board review and approval. MOTION TO TABLE SITE PLAN NO. 16-2019 ALEX & MICHELLE WILCOX, Introduced by David Deeb who moved for its adoption, Tabled to the August 20t", 2019 Town Planning Board meeting with submissions by July 151" The two issues to be addressed are the curb cut to be a single entry and verification of the septic system by the engineer. Duly adopted this 201" day of June, 2019, by the following vote: AYES: Ms. White, Mr. Shafer, Mr. Magowan, Mr. Valentine, Mr. Dixon, Mr. Deeb, Mr. Hunsinger 17 (Queensbury Planning Board 06/20/2019) NOES: NONE ABSENT: Mr. Traver MR. HUNSINGER-Thank you. MRS. WILCOX-Thank you so much. We appreciate it. MR. HUNSINGER-All right. Our last item on the agenda is Old Business, Site Plan 36-2019 for AngioDynamics, Inc. OLD BUSINESS: SITE PLAN NO. 36-2019 SEQR TYPE: UNLISTED. ANGIODYNAMICS, INC. AGENT(S): DAN RYAN, PE. OWNER(S): SAME AS APPLICANT. ZONING: CLI. LOCATION: 603 QUEENSBURY AVENUE. APPLICANT PROPOSES TO DEMOLISH A PORTION OF THE EXISTING OFFICE BUILDING (6,890 +/-SQ. FT. FOOTPRINT)THAT IS ONE STORY TO CONSTRUCT A TWO STORY, 8,586 SQ. FT. FOOTPRINT OFFICE ADDITION. THE PROJECT ALSO INCLUDES A 1,500 SQ. FT. PAVILION FOR COMPANY EVENTS. APPLICANT REQUESTS WAIVERS FROM SITE LIGHTING AND LANDSCAPING. PURSUANT TO CHAPTER 179-3-040 OF THE ZONING ORDINANCE, COMMERCIAL CONSTRUCTION SHALL BE SUBJECT TO PLANNING BOARD REVIEW AND APPROVAL. CROSS REFERENCE: SP 37-2006, SP 33-2007, SP 17-2010.E WARREN CO. REFERRAL: JUNE 2019. SITE INFORMATION: WETLANDS. LOT SIZE: 12.97 ACRES. TAX MAP NO. 297.8-1-10. SECTION: 179-3-040. DAN RYAN, REPRESENTING APPLICANT, PRESENT MRS. MOORE-So the application for AngioDynamics, the variance was based on the pavilion. The variance was granted last night. So in front of this Board is not only the pavilion but also the proposed demolition of a portion of the front of the building from a one story to convert it to a two story office building. So in your packets is the type of floor plans and the elevations. MR. HUNSINGER-Thank you. Good evening. MR. RYAN-I'm Dan Ryan on behalf of AngioDynamics. I'll cover, I know we talked about this briefly a couple of nights ago. I'll hit some of the finer points related to site planning for this project, which includes both the pavilion, detached pavilion structure, which is off to the side of the existing facility on the north side of the property, and then the demolition component which is almost a tradeoff for a footprint of office space but a doubling of the square footage of usable space. So it went from a one story to a two story. Laura, could I also have you pull up the renderings of the elevations. I think it's important to cover that. There's a couple of points I want to make there. It will be a more modern looking building. Obviously most of the facility, it's kind of a primary facility for manufacturing and distribution. They do have other office facilities, but they do need more office area for training and for administrative assistance and support, and so a lot of the existing employees that need office space are then pushed into manufacturing space and they need that to expand manufacturing. So they're trying to find a home for everybody in one collective area. So that's ultimately the goal of the office re-development. The project ultimately will create less impervious. It's almost exactly the same. It's a slight decrease. So from a site planning perspective I would say there's a minimal amount of work. We are removing some asphalt, demolishing a building and essentially building everything right back in that same area, in terms of the office area. Connecting to existing water and sewer facilities. Being in an industrial park we have access to sewer here. So none of that is really a concern. 18 (Queensbury Planning Board 06/20/2019) There's a couple of different water connections and water services on the property. So we'll be able to meet the facility demands, the fire safety demands that are needed. We did receive engineering review comments for the stormwater. Provided very limited stormwater mitigation because again it is a net reduction in impervious area but we are addressing the stormwater with a design system. A couple of other comments. I don't see anything there of substance in terms of requiring project change. So I think all those can be dealt with fairly easily with a response. In terms of the landscaping and lighting, basically the entire site has been developed with manufacturing buildings. There's been an extensive amount of landscaping for the parking lots, around the periphery of the property installed. All of that will remain. The only landscaping to be removed is the immediate low-lying landscaping around the existing one story building. So we did ask for a couple of waivers regarding lighting and landscaping. Basically they will be building a two story office building and then some of that sidewalk area and space right around the building they'll be putting similar low-lying landscaping. It's just really hard to nail down who wants what in a big company. People make decisions. We really couldn't get to a point where a whole landscape plan could be developed for the little small areas. So they'd like to leave that as, you know, designated on the site plan as being landscaped but nothing specific being identified. Regarding lighting, all the site lighting will remain the same, with the exception of building lighting. So we're proposing some exterior downcast building lighting to accent the face of the building and to help illuminate some of the sidewalks. Regarding the design of the building, again, I think one thing I just wanted to point out, because I don't know if it's clear in the application, and, Laura, if you could scan down to that sheet. MRS. MOORE-I can't find the elevation drawings sheet. MR. RYAN-Okay. You all have the renderings here. So basically it provides renderings from the street views of the two story office building, and then you'll see off to the side there's a similar looking wall system. What they're trying to do is blend some of the industrial manufacturing buildings with the office buildings and they're just doing that for aesthetics. So I just did want to point out that there will be some new face panels and fascias and the fagade put on the two sides just around the office area. So again that long stretch of break now along the left side of the new office building is the existing building with a new face on it. So we are doing some of that to help blend in, too. MR. HUNSINGER-So is that area office or is that area manufacturing? MR. RYAN-Right now it's like a 30 foot high manufacturing building and it's warehouse space as well. All we're going to do is face is so that it matches and blends with the office structure. MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. MR. RYAN-So it's not changing the building. MS. WHITE-Just the fact that you're building a pavilion for your employees. MR. RYAN-I'll tell you they treat their employees like superstars. This is really amazing. They take everything they need and want into consideration. It is pretty fantastic. I don't have any other comments to add. Obviously I'll answer any questions anybody has. MR. HUNSINGER-Questions, comments from the Board? MR. DIXON-I've got a question for you real quick. So with this addition, this modification, are they looking at adding jobs where it may impact any of the parking that you're aware of? 19 (Queensbury Planning Board 06/20/2019) MR. RYAN-We did provide calculations for the required parking. They do exceed the required parking. They've historically had about three to four hundred spaces depending on what building was lacking at the time. They built two, they've had two buildings over the years for manufacturing and distribution. Because a lot of the office space is going to be re-locating people that are occupying important manufacturing space, they don't anticipate a large jump in the number of occupants of the office space essentially. Also a good portion of the office space is for training and so they do want to bring people in for training for their manufacturing employees. So I don't have a 100% answer for you other than I do know that there is the possibility of adding employees to help support the expansion of the manufacturing. MR. DIXON-Well let me put it this way. Do you feel that you have enough parking to handle expansion for the future? MR. RYAN-I do, and I'll tell you what. The parking that they have is adequate. They do have a lot of maneuvering space for their delivery trucks that have designated spaces that they don't currently use. So there is some extra space for overflow. I think the calculation per the Code is like two hundred and something spaces, and I think they have closer to three hundred. So there is a little bit of excess in terms of the total number of spaces. This project I think was taking away a couple of spaces, and that was about it. MR. DIXON-I think it's a good project for the Town and the landscaping I'm not overly concerned with. The company takes very good care of the property already. MR. RYAN-Absolutely. MR. HUNSINGER-I was going to say, for an industrial site that's one of the most attractive. It really is. I don't mean that lightly. Other questions or comments? We have a public hearing scheduled this evening. There's nobody left in the audience. Were there any written comments? PUBLIC HEARING OPENED MRS. MOORE-There were no written comments. MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. So we will open the public hearing and close the public hearing. PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED MR. HUNSINGER-This is an Unlisted SEQR. Were there any SEQR concerns? Any environmental concerns that the Board has that could be considered significant? Okay. RESOLUTION GRANTING A NEGATIVE SEQR DEC. SP # 36-2019 ANGIODYNAMICS The applicant proposes to demolish a portion of the existing office building (6,890 +/- sq. ft. footprint) that is one story to construct a two story, 8,586 sq. ft. footprint office addition. The project also includes a 1,500 sq. ft. pavilion for company events. Applicant requests waivers from site lighting and landscaping. Pursuant to Chapter 179-3-040 of the Zoning Ordinance, 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; 20 (Queensbury Planning Board 06/20/2019) 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 36-2019 ANGIODYNAMICS, INC. 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 Brad Magowan. Duly adopted this 20t" day of June, 2019 by the following vote: AYES: Mr. Shafer, Mr. Magowan, Mr. Valentine, Mr. Dixon, Mr. Deeb, Ms. White, Mr. Hunsinger NOES: NONE ABSENT: Mr. Traver MR. HUNSINGER-Any further questions or comments from the Board? RESOLUTION APPROVING SP # 36-2019 ANGIODYNAMICS, INC. The applicant has submitted an application to the Planning Board for Site Plan approval pursuant to Article 9 of the Town zoning Ordinance for: Applicant proposes to demolish a portion of the existing office building (6,890 +/- sq. ft. footprint) that is one story to construct a two story, 8,586 sq. ft. footprint office addition. The project also includes a 1,500 sq. ft. pavilion for company events. Applicant requests waivers from site lighting and landscaping. Pursuant to Chapter 179-3-040 of the Zoning Ordinance, 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; 21 (Queensbury Planning Board 06/20/2019) The Planning Board opened a public hearing on the Site plan application on 06/20/2019 and continued the public hearing to 06/20/2019, 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 06/20/2019; 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 36-2019 ANGIODYNAMICS, INC., Introduced by David Deeb who moved for its adoption; Per the draft provided by staff conditioned upon the following conditions: 1) Waivers request granted: g. site lighting, h. signage, k. topography, I. landscaping, n traffic, o. commercial alterations/ construction details, q. soil logs, r. construction/demolition disposal s. snow removal. 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 Brad Magowan. Duly adopted this 20th day of June, 2019 by the following vote: AYES: Mr. Magowan, Mr. Valentine, Mr. Dixon, Mr. Deeb, Ms. White, Mr. Shafer, Mr. Hunsinger NOES: NONE ABSENT: Mr. Traver MR. HUNSINGER-I meant to add, I do like the design. I think you did a nice job. I like the color scheme. MR. RYAN-Yes, and I know they've had other designs in front of this Board and I think this is the nicest one they've done. MR. HUNSINGER-We have no other items scheduled to be discussed. Would anyone like to make a motion to adjourn? MR. DEEB-So moved. 22 (Queensbury Planning Board 06/20/2019) MR. MAGOWAN-I'll second it. MOTION TO ADJOURN THE QUEENSBURY PLANNING BOARD MEETING OF JUNE 20, 2019, Introduced by David Deeb who moved for its adoption, seconded by Brad Magowan: Duly adopted this 20t" day of June, 2019, by the following vote: AYES: Mr. Magowan, Mr. Deeb, Ms. White, Mr. Valentine, Mr. Shafer, Mr. Dixon, Mr. Hunsinger ABSENT: Mr. Traver MR. HUNSINGER-We are adjourned. RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED, Chris Hunsinger, Acting Chairman 23