Loading...
09-25-2019 (Queensbury Planning Board 09/25/2019) QUEENSBURY PLANNING BOARD MEETING THIRD REGULAR MEETING SEPTEMBER 25, 2019 INDEX Site Plan No. 61-2019 Heidi & Simon Taflan 1. Tax Map No. 240.5-1-5 Site Plan No. 59-2019 Mark Posniewski 9. Tax Map No. 309.10-1-32 Site Plan No. 57-2019 Michael Chrys 19. Freshwater Wetlands Permit 6-2019 Tax Map No. 226.19-1-37 Site Plan No. 56-2019 Garner Holdings 26. Freshwater Wetlands Permit 5-2019 Tax Map No. 226.19-1-48, -49 Subdivision No. 7-2019 JP Gross Properties, LLC 33. SKETCH PLAN Tax Map No. 307.-1-22 THESE ARE NOT OFFICIALLY ADOPTED MINUTES AND ARE SUBJECT TO BOARD AND STAFF REVISIONS. REVISIONS WILL APPEAR ON THE FOLLOWING MONTH’S MINUTES (IF ANY) AND WILL STATE SUCH APPROVAL OF SAID MINUTES. QUEENSBURY PLANNING BOARD MEETING 1 (Queensbury Planning Board 09/25/2019) THIRD REGULAR MEETING SEPTEMBER 25, 2019 7:00 P.M. MEMBERS PRESENT STEPHEN TRAVER, CHAIRMAN CHRIS HUNSINGER, VICE CHAIRMAN DAVID DEEB, SECRETARY JAMIE WHITE BRAD MAGOWAN JOHN SHAFER MICHAEL DIXON, ALTERNATE MEMBERS ABSENT MICHAEL VALENTINE LAND USE PLANNER-LAURA MOORE STENOGRAPHER-MARIA GAGLIARDI MR. TRAVER-Good evening, ladies and gentlemen. Welcome to the Town of Queensbury Planning Board thth meeting for Wednesday, September 25. This is a special third meeting for this month and this is the 20 meeting for 2019. Please observe the illuminated exit signs. In the case of an emergency those are your routes out. There are additional exits over there and the way most of you came in I think. If you have an electronic device, cell phone or other device, please turn it off or at least turn the ringer off so we’re not interrupted by the noise, and this time I’ll remember to turn mine off as well so it won’t embarrass me in the middle of the meeting. We have no additional administrative items this evening. So we can move right into our agenda and the first section of that agenda is New Business, and the first item is Heidi and Simon Taflan, Site Plan 61-2019. NEW BUSINESS: SITE PLAN NO. 61-2019 SEQR TYPE: TYPE II. HEIDI & SIMON TAFLAN. AGENT(S): HUTCHINS ENGINEERING. OWNER(S): SAME AS APPLICANT. ZONING: WR. LOCATION: 50 RUSSELL HARRIS ROAD. APPLICANT PROPOSES TO DEMO AN EXITING 650 SQ. FT. HOME TO CONSTRUCT A 2,020 SQ. FT. (FOOTPRINT), 3,514 SQ. FT. (FLOOR AREA) SINGLE FAMILY HOME. PROJECT INCLUDES A PLANTING PLAN FOR SHORELINE. PROJECT HAD NEW SEPTIC SYSTEM INSTALLED IN 2017. PURSUANT TO CHAPTER 179-6-065 OF THE ZONING ORDINANCE, CONSTRUCTION IN A CEA SHALL BE SUBJECT TO PLANNING BOARD REVIEW AND APPROVAL. CROSS REFERENCE: SP 53-2012 SUNDECK, BOTH 495- 2016 SEPTIC VAR. WARREN CO. REFERRAL: SEPTEMBER 2019. SITE INFORMATION: APA, LGP, CEA. LOT SIZE: .53 ACRES. TAX MAP NO. 240.5-1-5. SECTION: 179-6-065. TOM HUTCHINS, REPRESENTING APPLICANTS, PRESENT MR. TRAVER-Laura? MRS. MOORE-This applicant proposes to demo an existing 650 square foot home to construct a 2,020 square foot home, footprint. The floor area is 3,514. The project includes a planting plan for the shoreline and the project had a new septic system installed in 2017. MR. TRAVER-Okay. Thank you. Good evening. MR. HUTCHINS-Good evening, Board. I’m Tom Hutchins, Hutchins Engineering. I’m here with John Taflan or Simon Taflan. He goes by John, and owner/applicant, and their family has owned this property for 40 some years. SIMON TAFLAN MR. TAFLAN-Since 1937. 2 (Queensbury Planning Board 09/25/2019) MR. HUTCHINS-And this is just over a half acre parcel at 50 Russell Harris Road and they propose to improve the residence. What we’ve presented is a plan that’s compliant with setbacks, heights, floor area ratio, permeability. It’s compliant with everything. We are here because we are obviously expanding the floor area in a Critical Environmental Area. We haven’t requested any variances and the site was specifically designed with that in mind so we didn’t have to do that. It’s a relatively flat site. Very flat up near the road and then it slopes slightly down towards the lake, but not a lot of significant slope. There was a new enhanced septic system installed in 2017 for a four bedroom design with the intent that this may come down the road this project. So they’re all set there and we’ve included, well we think we’ve done a pretty good project, and with that we’ll turn it over to the Board for questions. Do you want to add anything? MR. TAFLAN-The family’s owned the house since 1937. It’s the same cabin that was built in 1937. It was built on sawed off stumps. We spent the last 20 years just trying to keep it from falling into the lake itself. So it’s time. Sad, but it’s time to replace it. I appreciate your support. MR. TRAVER-Okay. There were a couple of issues, I’m sure you’re aware, in the engineering comments related to test pits and wells and septics nearby. MR. HUTCHINS-Yes. There are no wells nearby. Essentially the entire area is on lake water, and we’ve shown our septic system. So without any wells the location of the adjoining septic system, the adjoining septic system to the north is very obvious. It’s a mound system and our system it’s obvious it’s a peat filter. So it’s exposed and brought up so again there are no wells in the area. With regard to test pits, I utilized the information from Jarrett Engineers when they did the wastewater design, just two years ago for the test pits. In lieu of digging up their yard in early August when everybody gets together. I probably should have incorporated those on the plans but I’ll do that. MR. TRAVER-And you think you can make the engineer happy with those? MR. HUTCHINS-Yes. MR. TRAVER-Questions, comments from members of the Board? MR. SHAFER-What material will the driveway be? MR. HUTCHINS-Gravel drive. MR. SHAFER-Gravel drive. MR. TRAVER-We do have a public hearing on this application. Are there folks in the audience that wanted to address the Planning Board on this application this evening? Yes, sir. We do have one speaker. If you could give up the table. PUBLIC HEARING OPENED CHRIS NAVITSKY MR. NAVITSKY-Good evening. Chris Navitsky, Lake George Water Keeper. We’re not opposed to the project that’s proposed. It was our hope that we submitted a couple of recommendations that we feel would improve the property. For the record we met the family several years ago, maybe 10 years ago, to talk about ways to mitigate impacts from offsite really onto their property. So we know that they have the best intentions. We would like to see a little bit of stormwater management expanded. Right now the plan is to address the runoff from the existing, or I’m sorry the runoff from the proposed impervious cover, which is what the Code requires. We would encourage the applicant and the Board to consider conditioning, expanding that to address some of the runoff from the existing impervious cover. Again in our view that’s the only way that we can improve the lake. If we don’t address the existing, the lake will stay at the condition it is now. If we try to address that the best that we can, we can actually improve water quality. We did have question about the amount of fill that was proposed around the building. It appeared to be about two feet. I did speak with John’s wife earlier and she provided some information. We just felt that if that was reduced that would eliminate some additional grading that maybe required as well as possibly reduce the project cost. The last recommendation, they do intend to keep many of the trees there. We just recommend that they provide protective measures around those trees because we know what happens when contractors are there and owners are away from the site. So that way those 3 (Queensbury Planning Board 09/25/2019) can be protected as they wish, as well as protect the wastewater treatment area, which a lot of times may get damaged. Thank you. MR. TRAVER-Could I just ask, back on your comment on stormwater, is it your assessment that the stormwater does not fully address the impervious areas on site. MR. NAVITSKY-It doesn’t address all the impervious area. The Code requires that it address the new impervious area, and Tom’s drawings indicate that, that they propose I think it was 1400 or 2400 square feet of additional impervious and they provide the management for that, but there is 3400 existing that will not receive any management and I think if the proposed areas are expanded a bit then we could at least try to address some of that which is grandfathered if you want to say. MR. TRAVER-Okay. Thank you. MR. NAVITSKY-Thanks. MRS. MOORE-And just to confirm, you don’t want me to read the letter into the record? MR. NAVITSKY-No, you don’t have to. MRS. MOORE-Okay. MR. TRAVER-But we will put it in the file. Right. MRS. MOORE-There is a letter that’s written by the Water Keeper in regards to this project. Yes. MR. TRAVER-Okay. MR. TRAVER-Is there anyone else in the audience that wanted to address the Planning Board on this application? I’m not seeing anybody. Are there any other written comments, Laura? MRS. MOORE-There are no other written comments. MR. TRAVER-Okay. MR. MAGOWAN-We’ve got a hand back there. MR. TRAVER-Okay. MR. TAFLAN-My whole neighborhood’s back there. MR. TRAVER-I’m sorry. I didn’t see you. My apologies. MR. MAGOWAN-You loaded up the meeting. ROBERT SPATH MR. SPATH-I’m Robert Spath. I live at 60 Russell Harris Road. I just wanted to speak in favor of the proposed project. As mentioned, the camp was first built and the shoreline is really, no offense but it’s a little decrepit and in need of replacement. Definitely a good project. it would certainly enhance the character of the neighborhood. And the stormwater on the east of the road is pretty close to being almost in perfect condition in terms of transporting the water to a swale 500 feet or so to the south, which should alleviate some of the issues on their side of the road. Thanks. MR. TRAVER-Thank you. MR. TAFLAN-We have done a lot over about the last five years or so to address some of the stormwater runoff from, primarily you can see the road. There’s a road, an easement that Russell Harris Road runs, the north end of the property and there is runoff from that. We’ve created some management to keep that from running into the lake. So we think we’ve got that mostly licked right now. 4 (Queensbury Planning Board 09/25/2019) MR. TRAVER-Let me see, before we close the public hearing, is there anyone else that would like to address the Planning Board on this application? You said there were no other written comments? MRS. MOORE-No. MR. TRAVER-Okay. All right. Then we will close the public hearing, and we’re back with the applicant. PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED MR. TRAVER-So the one question raised, you heard the discussion obviously from Mr. Navitsky regarding pre-existing impervious. Is there any stormwater management associated with that that was pre- existing? MR. HUTCHINS-Chris and I differ a little bit on our numbers because there’s significantly more into the sizing of the stormwater areas than just the new areas, but regardless, what we don’t include in the stormwater design are two sheds which are on the other side of the road, which was just addressed that the other side of the road is managed fairly well. We don’t specifically size a stormwater measure to include the Town road that runs through the property. That’s the remaining impervious area that is not included within the calcs. Now realistically some of that is going to run to these devices and it’s going to be managed. It’s not specifically indicated in the sizing calculations for these devices. Now John and I were talking tonight that I mean we could eek a little bit more stormwater treatment area if necessary out of the central area inside the drive, and I think we’re certainly willing to do that and it would involve a little bit more material to bring the driveway up some, and I know fill has also been mentioned but it would make for a nicer driveway and you could get a little bit more stormwater in there that would get basically what runs off the Town road. MR. TRAVER-Well even if it is more than what is strictly required, it is in a CEA and we’re concerned about the long term protection of the lake. So any consideration you could give to that would be very much appreciated. Other questions, comments from members of the Board? MS. WHITE-Since you’re going to a pretty large space, why do you need two sheds? Because the Town of Queensbury actually just usually says one shed. MR. TAFLAN-One shed. Okay. MR. HUTCHINS-Well they’ve been there. The intent was to keep them. MS. WHITE-It’s quite a bit more space. Are two sheds really necessary? MR. TAFLAN-Well, as we look at it, so the structure does have a garage in the plan, and so we intend to use that garage. So two sheds are probably not necessary. MR. TRAVER-So you might be willing to remove one of them? MR. TAFLAN-Yes. MR. TRAVER-Other questions, comments? MR. DIXON-Mr. Chairman, I see in the Staff comments there’s a reminder to the applicant that lighting is to be downcast. MR. HUTCHINS-Any exterior lighting has to be compliant. MR. TRAVER-It’s, I assume, typical residential lighting. MR. HUTCHINS-Yes, and we’re okay with a dark sky compliant condition. MR. TRAVER-That’s important. Thank you. MR. DIXON-And as far as the dock goes, there’s no renovations proposed for the dock area? MR. TAFLAN-For the dock, no. No, sir. The dock took four years to build. I’m not doing another one. 5 (Queensbury Planning Board 09/25/2019) MR. TRAVER-All right. Any other questions, comments, concerns before we move to a motion? MR. DEEB-Did you mentioned lighting? MR. TRAVER-Yes, we did. MR. DEEB-So we’ll make that a condition. No? But we’re going to include stormwater mitigation, to expand it MR. TRAVER-Well it’s not required. They’re offering to do that. So I would say not a condition. It’s an offer than the applicant made, but it is compliant as it is. MR. SHAFER-So what is the follow up that the applicant does what he said he would, if it’s not made a condition? MRS. MOORE-So I was just going to interrupt. The stormwater I would probably do as a condition, only because we need to hold the applicant to what. MR. DEEB-That’s what I thought. MRS. MOORE-The residential lighting is already a part of Code. MR. TRAVER-Right. So we need specific numbers on the change in stormwater. Right? MR. HUTCHINS-I think we can say that we’re willing to construct an additional stormwater area within the circular driveway area. MR. TRAVER-Okay. All right. MR. TAFLAN-It’s pretty much right there already. We just need to improve it I think. MR. TRAVER-Okay. All right. So I think we’re working on a resolution now. MR. DEEB-You said in the driveway, Tom? MR. HUTCHINS-Some additional stormwater measures within the circular driveway. MR. MAGOWAN-Driveway circle. MR. TAFLAN-See there’s a circular driveway out there. It’s just grass and gravel right now. MR. HUTCHINS-It’s an earthen drive and in this area here we can construction some additional stormwater management. MR. DEEB-Okay. MS. WHITE-And we’ll put in there only one shed? MRS. MOORE-I guess does the rest of the Board, if the rest of the Board. So that’s the question, if the Board is in agreement. MR. DEEB-The sheds have been there. I don’t see the need. MR. HUNSINGER-But I’d throw it back to Staff because that’s code enforcement. You’re only allowed one shed. MRS. MOORE-No, there’s other requirements in reference to sheds. So it could be a square footage issue. MR. DIXON-Well I think the total out buildings, there’s a total square footage for the outbuildings. MRS. MOORE-So the question is does the Planning Board wish to have that shed removed? 6 (Queensbury Planning Board 09/25/2019) MR. DEEB-The sheds have been there so long and the neighbors don’t seem to mind. I don’t have a problem with leaving the sheds. MR. TRAVER-Yes, I mean I heard the applicant offer to remove the shed once this new home constructed and they have re-located their storage to the garage. Myself I don’t feel that it needs to be a formal condition, but we’ll have a draft motion shortly and we’ll see how people vote on it. So we’re ready to hear that motion. MR. DEEB-All right. RESOLUTION APPROVING SP # 61-2019 HEIDI & SIMON TAFLAN 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 demo an existing 650 sq. ft. home to construct a 2,020 sq. ft. (footprint), 3,514 sq. ft. (floor area) single family home. Project includes a planting plan for shoreline. Project had new septic system installed in 2017. Pursuant to Chapter 179-6-065 of the Zoning Ordinance, construction in a CEA shall be subject to Planning Board review and approval. Pursuant to relevant sections of the Town of Queensbury Zoning Code-Chapter 179-9-080, the Planning Board has determined that this proposal satisfies the requirements as stated in the Zoning Code; As required by General Municipal Law Section 239-m the site plan application was referred to the Warren County Planning Department for its recommendation; The Planning Board opened a public hearing on the Site plan application on 09/25/2019 and continued the public hearing to 09/25/2019, 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 09/25/2019; 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 61-2019 HEIDI & SIMON TAFLAN. 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, j. stormwater, k. topography, l. landscaping, n traffic, o. commercial alterations/ construction details, p floor plans, 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. h) An additional stormwater measure to be built in the circular driveway. th Motion seconded by Michael Dixon. Duly adopted this 25 day of September, 2019 by the following vote: 7 (Queensbury Planning Board 09/25/2019) MRS. MOORE-So I can clarify the accessory structures. So accessory structure up to two totaling no more than 500 square feet shall be permitted, used in all residential zoning districts on parcels of three acres or less. In regards to the Adirondack Park I think it’s accessory structures over 100 square feet need to meet building setbacks. So it is two, but they can total no more than 500. MR. HUTCHINS-And these total 216. MRS. MOORE-Right. MR. TRAVER-Okay. So it is Code compliant. MRS. MOORE-It is Code compliant. MR. TRAVER-Thank you, Laura. AYES: Mr. Deeb, Mr. Shafer, Mr. Hunsinger, Mr. Magowan, Mr. Dixon, Mr. Traver NOES: Ms. White ABSENT: Mr. Valentine MR. TRAVER-You’re all set. MR. HUTCHINS-Thank you. MR. TRAVER-All right. Next under New Business, and this is also under unapproved development, which we’re getting seemingly more and more of, this is Mark Posniewski, application Site Plan 59-2019. SITE PLAN NO. 59-2019 SEQR TYPE: TYPE II. MARK POSNIEWSKI. OWNER(S): JOURNEY KERCHNER/POA FOR FELICIA PIRRONE. ZONING: MS. LOCATION: 93 MAIN STREET. APPLICANT PROPOSES TO MAINTAIN CLEARED TREES AND TO BRING IN FILL, LEVEL LAND AND PLANT GRASS. PURSUANT TO CHAPTER 179-9-020 OF THE ZONING ORDINANCE SITE PREPARATION SHALL BE SUBJECT TO PLANNING BOARD REVIEW AND APPROVAL. CROSS REFERENCE: DEMO 445-2019. WARREN CO. REFERRAL: SEPTEMBER 2019. LOT SIZE: .38 ACRE. TAX MAP NO. 309.10-1-32. SECTION: 179-9- 020. JEREMY KERCHNER, REPRESENTING APPLICANT, PRESENT MR. TRAVER-Laura? MRS. MOORE-So the applicant proposes to maintain cleared trees and to bring in fill, level the land and plant grass. The intent here is to be able to market the site. They did get permission to demo the building and it’s my understanding, this may be explained, that the trees were into the building so they removed the trees around the building and then further cleared the rest of the lot. MR. TRAVER-Right. Like cutting a perfect circle with a pair of scissors, right? Once you get into it you keep right on trucking. The problem is it’s a violation. MR. KERCHNER-Right. My name is Jeremy Kerchner. I’m the owner of the lot that they applied the permit for, or was the owner of the lot. They are now. So I was issued a demolition permit for the home, which included the surrounding trees, which was kind of a vague description I suppose. The lot is 299 feet deep. So the house was about 20 feet offset from the road and then another 30 feet deep and then trees off our back porch which was another 15 feet. There’s probably another 30 feet of trees that we cleared. When I called the Building and Codes to talk to Craig Brown about it there was a verbal confirmation that, yes, we could remove the trees. Of course it wasn’t ever really defined as to which trees we could remove. While we had the excavator there they cleared the entirety of the lot which that verbiage also existed in our demo permit to clear and level the lot. So there were some assumptions made there, but I suppose I understood clear and level the lot as clear and level the lot, not apply individually for the trees. MR. TRAVER-Okay. So this was done in order to clear the site and market the site. MR. KERCHNER-That’s correct. 8 (Queensbury Planning Board 09/25/2019) MR. TRAVER-Can you talk about the buffering between this site and the surrounding properties? MR. KERCHNER-Sure. So, again, Craig Brown asked us to put an orange construction fence on the side of the house and the front street which we did. One of the neighbors, we blocked off the Lox of Bagels, 91 Main Street. We blocked off all the parking spots there with their help so that no one parked in that area during construction and that was it. MR. TRAVER-So there’s no buffering between the adjacent properties in terms of vegetative buffer or anything like that? MR. KERCHNER-No, there is not. MRS. MOORE-Just to clarify, so maybe the applicant doesn’t understand this, is that there is a requirement between different uses in a zone. So between a commercial use and a residential use a 50 foot vegetative buffer is supposed to be maintained or some other type of screening between the two uses. So there may be a discussion about is there an opportunity to put in a fence or some landscaping on that particular side of the neighbor that is still residential use. Just so you understand where the comment’s coming from. MR. KERCHNER-I understand. So there wasn’t a buffer before. I mean it was our house. MR. TRAVER-Well there were 30 feet of trees you said, right? MR. KERCHNER-Well, correct, yes. MR. TRAVER-For our purposes we would consider that a buffer. MR. KERCHNER-Understood. So, no it’s a clear view now from the 91 Main Street paved parking lot to the 95 Main Street home. MR. TRAVER-Okay. Well there is a requirement for buffering as you heard from Staff. So we will need to address that somehow. MR. KERCHNER-Sure. Questions, comments from members of the Planning Board? MR. KERCHNER-They did include in their, in their plans, to re-seed, and I’m sure they’d be amicable to having a tree buffer or something of that sort, a fence or something like that. MS. WHITE-So it’s your property now but Mark Posniewski is the applicant and they are the owners of Lox of Bagels? MR. KERCHNER-That’s correct. It’s no longer my property since this process started. MS. WHITE-Okay. MR. SHAFER-What is the intent for the lot? MR. KERCHNER-It’s going to remain undeveloped but they do want to seed and grass the lot for now. MR. SHAFER-Residential or commercial? MR. KERCHNER-Not residential. There’s no development planned currently, but they won’t be adding residential there. MS. WHITE-Okay. MR. MAGOWAN-So who owns the lot? MR. KERCHNER-Posniewski. MR. MAGOWAN-Lox of Bagels. 9 (Queensbury Planning Board 09/25/2019) MR. KERCHNER-Correct. MR. MAGOWAN-Okay. MR. KERCHNER-And I signed as a representative on the permit, too, to be here today. MR. MAGOWAN-So basically you’ve clear cut, well removed the trees and demo’d. MR. KERCHNER-That’s correct. That entire highlighted area. MR. MAGOWAN-And there’s still a residential between you and, what is it, Pizza Hut? MR. KERCHNER-That’s correct. MRS. MOORE-Yes. MR. DEEB-That’s your home? MR. KERCHNER-No, that house still exists, 95 Main Street, in between 93 Main Street which is the lot that was cleared and Pizza Hut. There’s still a house there. MR. DEEB-Is there anybody living in it? MR. KERCHNER-Yes. MR. MAGOWAN-So basically you’re here pretty much because you went further than. MR. KERCHNER-Correct. MR. MAGOWAN-Due to everything that was done, and we’re asking for you to seed it. MRS. MOORE-They’ve offered to. MR. KERCHNER-We’ve offered to do that, just to beautify the lot. It’s currently clean fill, leveled clean fill. MR. DEEB-You’re going to have to do some re-planting of trees. MR. TRAVER-Well for the buffer area, yes. MR. DEEB-For the buffer area. MR. KERCHNER-Or a fence? MRS. MOORE-A fence is an approvable buffer. Putting up a fence is an approved buffer option. MR. KERCHNER-Okay. MR. TRAVER-Does it have to be a certain height and type? MRS. MOORE-It can be a stockade up to six feet up to the back of the house. MR. TRAVER-Six feet you said, stockade fence. MRS. MOORE-Yes, it could be. MR. TRAVER-That might be preferable for this type of property to trees. MR. KERCHNER-I would guess so. MR. TRAVER-If he would like to do that. So we can maybe add that. 10 (Queensbury Planning Board 09/25/2019) MR. KERCHNER-Yes, I can certainly work with that recommendation. I think that’s reasonable. MS. WHITE-And working with Staff to make sure you’re within the guidelines. MR. KERCHNER-Absolutely. MR. HUNSINGER-It’s actually kind of ironic. I don’t drive down Main Street very often, but I happened to drive down that day when the house was being torn down, and what was so noticeable was that they took down like half the house. So you could see it was like the house was cut in half and you could see inside. It was weird. MR. TRAVER-Yes. MR. MAGOWAN-Kind of looked like a tornado came down. MR. HUNSINGER-Yes. MR. KERCHNER-We started at 11 a.m. on a Tuesday and it was down by 7 o’clock. It was pretty wild. MR. DEEB-Are we talking on the east side or both sides? MRS. MOORE-At the moment on the east side. I was going to say, the east side is commercial. The west side is commercial to residential. MR. KERCHNER-So the west side is where we’d need some kind of buffer. MR. TRAVER-Right. MS. WHITE-Between the residence and the commercial. MR. HUNSINGER-I just assumed they were going to expand the parking into there. MR. KERCHNER-That’s certainly the intention. They also own the two lots behind. So I think they were adding to that fully. I don’t know if they have plans to re-do the building, but I know they’re not paving immediately because they want grass. MR. DEEB-How deep should the fence be? MRS. MOORE-That’s a discussion item. MR. DEEB-How deep is the lot? MR. KERCHNER-299. MR. DEEB-That’s a long fence. MR. TRAVER-Yes. MRS. MOORE-So, I mean you have a public hearing. Maybe there’s information available if an audience member is speaking this evening. MR. TRAVER-Yes, okay. MR. KERCHNER-Yes, we can work with the regular approval process to do whatever barricade. MR. TRAVER-That’s good. All right. We do have a public hearing on this application. Are there folks in the audience that wanted to address the Planning Board regarding this application? Yes, sir. We do have an individual that would like to speak to the Board. Sir, if you could come up to the table, get on the microphone so you’re in our minutes, and please introduce yourself. Good evening. PUBLIC HEARING OPENED 11 (Queensbury Planning Board 09/25/2019) FADDOUL MONSOUR MR. MONSOUR-Good evening. Mr. Monsour. I live at 95 Main Street, adjacent to the house that was torn down. Lox of Bagels, I believe Mark Posniewski, he bought the property. It showed the sale in the paper. He opened me up to the world now. I have a privacy fence between me and Pizza Hut and I would like a privacy fence between me and Lox of Bagels, and that’s that. He took away the privacy. He took away, the house is gone. The trees are gone. MR. TRAVER-We’ve been discussing a six foot stockade fence to do that. MR. MONSOUR-Whatever Pizza Hut’s got. Something similar I would like. MR. TRAVER-Okay. MR. MONSOUR-Who’s responsible for that? MR. TRAVER-That would be the applicant. MR. MONSOUR-Who would be responsible for it. MR. TRAVER-That’s right. MR. MONSOUR-Not Lox of Bagels. MR. TRAVER-Well the same owner. MR. DEEB-The same owner. He owns the property. MR. MONSOUR-I know he bought the property. He owns that piece of property all the way down to Speedway gas station. He owns a piece of property over on Pine Street next to it, and I know he’s looking to develop that whole section, but the wife is happy. She was born in West Glens Falls and she wants to live in West Glens Falls. I would sell it, but she’s not going to sign off. So I’m there. I gave up. So that’s it, plus I was asking $325,000 and I don’t know if anybody was looking to come up with that kind of money. I don’t think she would have signed off. I guess that’s about it. Jennifer. She represents the Fourth Ward, Jennifer Switzer. MR. TRAVER-Yes. MR. MONSOUR-Is she usually here at the meetings? MR. TRAVER-Not usually, sometimes. Not usually. MR. MONSOUR-She’s hard to get a hold of sometimes. She did make a phone call to me but then I called back and I never made contact. Is there anybody else I could speak to? MR. TRAVER-You’re speaking to them. The Planning Board is considering this application for the clearing of that property which includes the discussion of the buffering, the fence that you’re speaking of. MR. MONSOUR-All right. MR. TRAVER-So if you have any other concerns about this application, this is your opportunity to let us know. You mentioned the privacy fence. MR. MONSOUR-Yes. MR. TRAVER-Is there anything else that you’re concerned about? MR. MONSOUR-No, that’s it for now. MR. DEEB-How deep is your property? 12 (Queensbury Planning Board 09/25/2019) MR. MONSOUR-299 feet deep. 55 by 299. MR. DEEB-I was just wondering how far back the fence. MR. MONSOUR-It goes all the way back, well, Pizza Hut didn’t go back all the way. If they went back as far as Pizza Hut I’d be more than happy. I think Pizza Hut stopped. I don’t know if they stopped because there’s a tree on the other side of the fence. When they put their fence up, they still own about another four foot on my side, and there’s a tree on that side that the woodpeckers put about three holes almost all the way through it and someday it’s going to come down and I think they were going to take it down and they haven’t done it yet. So I think they stopped short of that tree. I don’t know if that’s the reason, but that’s good enough for me anyway. MR. MAGOWAN-Is that the first tree coming back on your driveway? Does the fence stop at the beginning of Pizza Hut? MR. MONSOUR-No, the tree is about. MR. MAGOWAN-Is it this one back here? MR. MONSOUR-Yes, it’s a big pine tree, sits back about 150 feet. MR. MAGOWAN-All right. So about halfway down. MR. MONSOUR-Yes. MR. MAGOWAN-So that fence goes right back to the back side of Pizza Hut say. MR. MONSOUR-Yes. MR. TRAVER-So if this new fence goes back 150 feet. MR. MONSOUR-Yes, I’m not 100% sure, but they’re eight foot sections down through there. So probably pretty close to 150 or so they went down. They didn’t go all the way. That’s good enough. If they went down as far as the end of his parking lot over there I’d be happy. MR. TRAVER-Well, 20 sections, if they’re 8 feet, 20 sections would be 160 feet. That would be more than adequate then, it sounds like. Right? MR. MONSOUR-Yes. MR. TRAVER-Okay. Anything else? MR. MONSOUR-No, that’s it. MR. TRAVER-Thank you very much. MR. MONSOUR-Thank you. Have a good evening. MR. TRAVER-Is there anyone else that wanted to address the Planning Board that are here tonight? Are there any written comments, Laura? MRS. MOORE-No written comments. MR. TRAVER-All right. Then we will close the public hearing and we will ask the applicant to return. PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED MR. TRAVER-So it sounds as though the current neighbor is looking at 20 sections of eight foot stockade, six foot tall fence would be adequate. So instead of having to go all the way back, you can go back what would be the equivalent of 160 feet. 13 (Queensbury Planning Board 09/25/2019) MR. DEEB-You have to decide where you want to start the fence. The Pizza Hut fence doesn’t start at the front of the lot. So that can make the length a little longer MR. TRAVER-Right. Good point. So then how far is it from the end of the lot to the beginning of the fence? MR. KERCHNER-You can see it there. It’s about to the front of 95 Main Street’s house is where it starts. It’s just past the front of his house I would say. MR. TRAVER-Okay. So then the total length would be slightly more than 160 feet. MR. KERCHNER-If it goes back that number of sections, correct. Would you want us to pull the fence all the way to the sidewalk? MR. HUNSINGER-No. MR. KERCHNER-Or start it where Pizza Hut’s fence starts. MR. HUNSINGER-Yes. I mean looking at the picture it looks like it’s about 10 feet off the sidewalk. MR. KERCHNER-Yes. You wouldn’t want to bring it all the way to the sidewalk. MR. HUNSINGER-No, no that would not be Code. MR. KERCHNER-No. There is a large fence on the Lox of Bagels property on 91 Main Street that is offset right about to where you would want to start that fence. MR. TRAVER-Okay. Well that’s commercial to commercial. We’re concerned about the other side. MR. KERCHNER-I know. I’m just using it as a, you know, it would look correct coming off that side. MR. TRAVER-Gotcha. MR. TRAVER-Okay. All right. So that then would address the buffer issue and satisfy the neighbor it sounds like. MR. HUNSINGER-You can actually see the shadow of the fence on that. MR. TRAVER-Yes. MR. KERCHNER-Yes, that’s correct. Yes, just past the front of his porch, the front entryway. MRS. MOORE-So you’re proposing to start it just at the front of the home and then back? MR. KERCHNER-Yes, it would cosmetically look good. MR. MAGOWAN-Why don’t we say even with the Pizza Hut fence. MR. DEEB-Pizza Hut doesn’t go to the front of his house, though. MR. KERCHNER-It goes past it. MR. DEEB-Okay. So do you want to start it at Pizza Hut? MR. MAGOWAN-You’d like to see the front yard, not a fence. MR. HUNSINGER-Yes, right. MR. KERCHNER-We could start it with his home would probably look correct cosmetically. MR. MAGOWAN-And you say there’s another fence on the Lox of Bagels side. 14 (Queensbury Planning Board 09/25/2019) MR. KERCHNER-There is nothing separating 90, Lox of Bagels is 91. There’s nothing separating 91 and 93. MR. TRAVER-Well that’s not part of this application anyway. MR. MAGOWAN-Well, no, I’m just wondering if there was a fence there, you know, what we don’t want is a zigzagging looking fence. So what we want to do is get a line of sight. MR. KERCHNER-It would be a straight line separating 93 and 95. MR. MAGOWAN-That’s what I would like to see. Wherever the fence starts at Pizza Hut that would start there and would go back. MR. KERCHNER-That makes perfect sense to me. MR. TRAVER-We’ll make it parallel to the fence. MS. WHITE-Starting and ending the same as the Pizza Hut fence. MR. TRAVER-Yes. So matching, I guess matching Pizza Hut. MR. DIXON-Just a quick question. So the fence on the Pizza Hut side, I mean, is it Code compliant by today’s standards? If it’s that close to the road. MRS. MOORE-So in commercial zones the fence is something that is considered under Site Plan. So you’re reviewing it as a Site Plan. If you would like it to be six feet at the road, that is a decision that you can make. I’m not certain that would be the best, only because you’re not necessarily interfering with the line of sight, but it is appearance. So I’m not sure, I don’t know where the fence starts at Pizza Hut. MR. DEEB-Well it could start at the front of Monsours’ house and then goes to the length of the Pizza Hut fence. That should suffice, MR. TRAVER-Yes, it sounds like it. MR. DEEB-And it would look more sightly. MR. TRAVER-Yes, I like that solution. MRS. MOORE-So there is another question in regards to the planting plan that was presented. So he has his seven additional trees. Do you think there’s anticipation of more trees than seven, or does the Board have any comments about seven trees and the grass? MR. DEEB-I’d like to see a few more trees. MS. WHITE-Seven existing trees? MR. SHAFER-Where did the seven come from, Laura? MRS. MOORE-I’m counting this planting plan right here. MR. KERCHNER-That’s to be planted. MRS. MOORE-To be planted. MR. TRAVER-Well the only question I would have is it sounds as though there’s another shoe to drop with regards to this property because there’s going to be some kind of development. So really I see it as an interim thing. MR. HUNSINGER-I do, too. MR. TRAVER-I would say this planting plan at this point in time, this phase of this piece of property, is adequate to me. Plus the fence. 15 (Queensbury Planning Board 09/25/2019) MR. HUNSINGER-Because they’re going to be coming back for Site Plan Review anyway. MR. TRAVER-Yes. So, okay, and that’s part of their submitted plan. So we don’t have to add anything. Okay. Any other questions, comments? All right. I guess we’re ready for a motion. RESOLUTION APPROVING SP # 59-2019 MARK POSNIEWSKI 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 maintain cleared trees and to bring in fill, level land and plant grass. Pursuant to Chapter 179-9-020 of the Zoning Ordinance site preparation shall be subject to Planning Board review and approval. Pursuant to relevant sections of the Town of Queensbury Zoning Code-Chapter 179-9-080, the Planning Board has determined that this proposal satisfies the requirements as stated in the Zoning Code; As required by General Municipal Law Section 239-m the site plan application was referred to the Warren County Planning Department for its recommendation; The Planning Board opened a public hearing on the Site plan application on 9/25/2019 and continued the public hearing to 09/25/2019, 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 09/25/2019; 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 59-2019 MARK POSNIEWSKI. 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, j. stormwater, k. topography, n traffic, o. commercial alterations/ construction details, p floor plans, 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. h) A six foot stockade fence to be added as a buffer on the west side of the property starting from the front of the house at 95 Main Street and matching the length of the Pizza Hut fence. th Motion seconded by Chris Hunsinger. Duly adopted this 25 day of September, 2019 by the following vote: MR. TRAVER-Any discussion? MR. MAGOWAN-You said starting at the house. Are we starting at the house or are we starting with where the Pizza Hut starts? 16 (Queensbury Planning Board 09/25/2019) MR. DEEB-We’re starting at the house, Brad. MR. HUNSINGER-Yes, the front of the house. MR. DEEB-The front of the house. That’s what we decided, and it looks better. MR. MAGOWAN-Not in line with the Pizza Hut fence. All right. AYES: Ms. White, Mr. Shafer, Mr. Hunsinger, Mr. Magowan, Mr. Dixon, Mr. Deeb, Mr. Traver NOES: NONE ABSENT: Mr. Valentine MR. TRAVER-You’re all set. Good luck. MR. KERCHNER-Thank you very much. MR. TRAVER-The next item on our agenda is Michael Chrys, Site Plan 57-2019 and Freshwater Wetlands Permit 6-2019. SITE PLAN NO. 57-2019 FRESHWATER WETLANDS PERMIT 6-2019 SEQR TYPE: TYPE II. MICHAEL CHRYS. OWNER(S): SAME AS APPLICANT. ZONING: WR. LOCATION: FOREST LANE. APPLICANT PROPOSES 896 SQ. FT. HOME WITH A 2,112 SQ. FT. FLOOR AREA. PROJECT INCLUDES SITE WORK FOR SEPTIC, STORMWATER AND SITE GRADING. PROJECT IS ALSO WITHIN 100 FT. OF WETLAND. PROJECT PREVIOUS APPROVAL HAS EXPIRED – THERE ARE NO CHANGES TO THE APPLICATION. PURSUANT TO CHAPTER 179-3-040 & CHAPTER 94 OF THE ZONING ORDINANCE, PROJECT WORK WITHIN 100 FT. OF A WETLAND BOUNDARY SHALL BE SUBJECT TO PLANNING BOARD REVIEW AND APPROVAL. CROSS REFERENCE: SP 49-2018. WARREN CO. REFERRAL: SEPTEMBER 2019. SITE INFORMATION: APA, LGP, CEA. LOT SIZE: 7.27 ACRES. TAX MAP NO. 226.19-1-37. SECTION: 179-3-040, CHAPTER 94, 179- 6-065. JON LAPPER & DEVIN DICKINSON, REPRESENTING APPLICANT, PRESENT MR. TRAVER-Laura? MRS. MOORE-This applicant proposes an 896 square foot home with a 2,112 square foot floor area. Project includes site work for septic, stormwater and site grading. The project is also within 100 feet of a wetland. The previous approval has expired and there are no changes to the application. MR. TRAVER-So, Laura, this was a, I’m not sure I remember this. Do you know when this was reviewed? MR. LAPPER-About a year ago. MRS. MOORE-This particular one that we’re looking at now was reviewed in 2018. MR. TRAVER-2018. Okay. All right. Thank you. Good evening. MR. LAPPER-Hi, everyone. For the record Jon Lapper with Devin Dickinson from D.L. Dickinson and Associates. So we were here in the spring of ’18, a little more than a year ago, and what happened here was that Devin had finalized the plan with the Town Engineer comments and submitted it to Laura before the year expired, but because of a miscommunication between the two of them because the house plans weren’t submitted yet it should have been applied for as an extension to get another year. So that didn’t happen. So we had to re-apply, but compared to what the Chairman said earlier about unapproved projects, this was like a pre-approved project, actually, nothing has changed here. MR. TRAVER-We don’t get many of those. MR. LAPPER-So we had full Chazen stormwater review and signoff. The Board approved it. Dave Hatin approved the septic system on this. So nothing’s changed. Of course it’s near a wetland on Assembly 17 (Queensbury Planning Board 09/25/2019) Point which is why we’re here for Site Plan Review but there’s no impact on the wetland. We went through that all with the Board last time. Very modest houses. This one and the next one are adjacent houses, but they’re on separate applications, but I’m speaking of both. So I’ll just ask Devin to give you the particulars briefly of the size of the house and how the development was laid out. MR. TRAVER-Okay. MR. LAPPER-It’s absolutely the same as last time. MR. DICKINSON-Like Jon said, Devin Dickinson for the record. So like Jon said as well, this is a modest house. It’s a three bedroom home. We have a Minor stormwater, falls under the Minor stormwater criteria. We have porous pavers in the driveway. This particular lot has two infiltration basins. We are going to treat all the new impervious water. The septic system is an Elgin system. So it’s a slightly upgraded system , helps us reduce our footprint as well as well at the same time. This will also be serviced by a drilled well. So other than that, we meet all the Town requirements. The first time around we did our typical back and forth with Chazen, got the signoff. Also again reiterate what Jon said. Like I always do I sit down with Dave beforehand to make sure once we have site plan this will be an acceptable septic system. MR. TRAVER-Okay. Anything else? MR. LAPPER-No. Questions, comments from members of the Board? MR. MAGOWAN-Refresh my memory. Weren’t there two houses on either side of the road when you came in for this one? MR. DICKINSON-Yes. That’s actually the next one on the agenda. MR. MAGOWAN-Okay. I was going to say, I thought there were two houses. I remember this. MR. LAPPER-We’re here for both. MR. MAGOWAN-Okay. MR. TRAVER-Yes, we’re doing them one at a time. We do have a public hearing on this application. Are there folks in the audience that wanted to address the Planning Board on this application? Yes, sir. PUBLIC HEARING OPENED PAUL SCHONEWOLF MR. SCHONEWOLF-Paul Schonewolf, 239 Assembly Point Road. I was not here for the last one but I was here for the one before that and at that time I’m not sure we approved it because there was an issue, but it got approved. I understand, and then the second one got approved. Is that true? Now there are three lots there, right? Or did they combine them? MRS. MOORE-This particular house is on one lot. The house across the street has two lots. MR. SCHONEWOLF-That’s the one across the street. Okay. MR. TRAVER-That’s the next one on the agenda. MR. SCHONEWOLF-Okay. All right. My issue, and it’s not an issue, but I just would hope that you would consider the fact that there’s only about eight buildable lots left on Assembly Point and when you don’t, when you have a situation like you have now with empty lots not built they become dumps, old trees, brush and everything else, and in this particular location we have three spots like that, and I’d like to support what they’re trying to do and build their house. If you’ll recall in this particular area it was run down for a long time and then along came somebody named the Kitchens and built a house at the end, which is gorgeous and another guy built one two blocks up. So the area has grown and it’s gotten a lot better, and I think if you go along with these plans, unless there’s something I don’t know about them that is wrong, I think it’ll be for the good of all, but that may be the end. We have a problem up there and besides the deer, we have a problem with just people looking for places to dump things because there 18 (Queensbury Planning Board 09/25/2019) isn’t too much land, and Dr. Kelly has the biggest part of the land which is the forever wild area which is close to this. It’s across the street from it. So I know that people have been concerned, but if you get some building done and it takes a guy like this particular owner here who’s got some money that he can put behind it, because there’s quite a bit of fill that’s required and it’ll have to be done right. So that being said, I hope you approve it. And it’s nice to see you all again. MR. MAGOWAN-Paul, I’ve got a question for you. Being the mayor of Assembly Point that I’ve heard, but I mean overall with the development going on there, you know I know we have some other areas that there’s been storm runoff to the lake, but you’ve seen actually pretty much living down there at the end of the street, do you feel that this will not add to the effect of sheeting going down to the lake? MR. SCHONEWOLF-It’s not even a factor. MR. MAGOWAN-Okay. MR. SCHONEWOLF-It’s so far away from the lake. I mean I’m between this and the lake. They can always say that some water may come up my front lawn and go into the lake. It’s minimal compared to the fact that the Town has a road there with a drain underneath the road which dumps right into the lake. So when the Town cleans that act up maybe we can talk about it, but in the meantime, no, it’s not a factor. It’s just like Kitchens and really it wasn’t a factor or Dave’s up the street. We’re doing what we can to clean the place up. It takes money. We’ve got to find some people with money. That’s all. MR. MAGOWAN-Okay. Thank you. Thank you, Paul, and it’s good seeing you again. MR. TRAVER-All right. Is there anyone else in the audience that wanted to speak? Yes, ma’am. SHIRLEY MERCAL MS. MERCAL-Shirley Mercal. I also live on Assembly Point. I just had a question. If the well does not produce drinking water, is there another possibility for water for this house? Because as you may know Kitchens’ well is unusable. They have to hook up to the water for Shore Colony. They’re on Shore Colony during the summer and their house is unusable, even for showering, in the winter months. MR. TRAVER-We will certainly ask the applicant that. Their plans reflect that they intend to drill a well to supply water. So I’m assuming that, and I can’t speak to that other project. MS. MERCAL-There are a number of wells which have been tried to be drilled on Assembly Point which do not produce drinkable water. MR. HUNSINGER-So is the water contaminated? MS. MERCAL-Sulfur. MR. HUNSINGER-Sulfur. MR. TRAVER-We’ll ask the applicant that. MS. MERCAL-And it is wetlands. I mean everybody’s talking about, you know, not impacting the lake, but we’re developing more and more wetlands. I think that’s a consideration. When is enough enough was asked at the last meeting and here we go again with more applications. Anyway. MR. TRAVER-Thank you. Is there anybody else who wanted to address the Planning Board on this? Yes. CHRIS NAVITSKY MR. NAVITSKY-Thank you. Chris Navitsky, Lake George Water Keeper. Not much has changed on this application, but one thing that has changed in the last year is the Town Code, because now there’s a section in the Town Code 179-6-050 D1 that says there now has to be a 75 foot, your removal of vegetation within 75 feet of a wetland is prohibited. So that is a big change regarding this application. So to me it seems this application is in violation of that. That was put in by the Town Board I believe in May. So I think that that needs to be addressed because if the application has lapsed and they needed to re-apply, then that clearly seems to need a variance. I still have concerns that the septic system is within 100 feet 19 (Queensbury Planning Board 09/25/2019) of the wetlands because it is a fill system and the separation distance for fill systems is from the toe of the slope, not from the actual pipes or the Elgin system or whatever you’re putting in. I agree that the application hasn’t changed because some of the numbers on the stormwater calculations still are just based on the footprint of the building and not the actual taking into account the eaves of the building. So the impervious cover actually includes all the eaves. That’s on the plans. That hasn’t changed. I agree with that. So I think you need to find out whether this project requires a variance now due to the change in the Town Code. Thank you. MR. TRAVER-Thank you. Is there anyone else that wants to address the Planning Board on this application? Are there any written comments, Laura? MRS. MOORE-There are written comments. This one’s addressed to the Planning Board. “Comments presented at the 2018 public hearing are repeated here and augmented to re-inforce certain concerns. My family resides on the west side of Forest Rd at the intersection with Cherry Tree Lane, a paper road, and directly opposite the subject properties. While I am not qualified to comment on the merits of development within the wetlands area, I do have expertise as a first responder to comment on safety issues. As I discussed with the owner of the subject properties, I have two concerns: 1. Adequacy of off- street parking. 2. Confusion regarding the location of Cherry Tree Lane for emergency response OFF- STREET PARKING Lack of adequate off-street parking is a chronic problem at a number of residences on Assembly Point. Residents tend to have numerous visitors, especially on summer weekends, with insufficient space for parking. As a result, cars line up in the streets of the neighborhood, reducing the roads to a single lane. If this were a once-a-summer party, that would be understandable, however many of these instances occur regularly. The designated parking areas in the subject properties appear to accommodate only two vehicles, which is the code as I understand it. Given the probability that the residents will have guests on a regular basis, the need for additional parking must be anticipated and provided in such a way as to not impact neighbors' use of Forest Road. An alternative exists to mitigate parking concerns that can benefit all. Cherry Tree Lane, a paper road, should be developed to service these two lots which have Cherry Tree Lane addresses. On-street parking on Cherry Tree Lane by visitors will reduce the impact on Forest Road neighbors. Specifically, I request the approval of this application should be contingent upon development of Cherry Tree Lane into a dead-end street intersecting with Forest Road. EMERGENCY RESPONSE As a first responder, I am aware of the difficulty of locating emergency destinations, especially when similar street names can cause confusion. These subject properties are designated with Cherry Tree Lane locations. As described below in the Cherry Tree Lane paragraphs, one must access Cherry Tree from either Honeysuckle Lane or from Forest Road. The western portion of the road (currently a paper road) is inaccessible from Honeysuckle Lane. Response by emergency services to a dispatch at a Cherry Tree Lane address is likely to be delayed as the driver attempts to sort out which of the two dead-end streets (with the same name) is the destination. I recommend below that the western dead-end portion of Cherry Tree Lane be developed, and also recommend that it be renamed, in order to remediate the two anticipated problems. I also note that a member of the board dismissed this recommendation when it was presented last year. It is important to respond to that comment. The member indicated that renaming the street was not necessary because he felt that emergency responders "knew their areas." That may have been true in the past, however, the current reality is that emergency responders do not know the subtleties of their coverage areas. Most EMS responders, for example, are not local volunteers and are not residents of North Queensbury. As such, the expected familiarity with the area does not exist. I strongly recommend that the Board take positive action to prevent creating another confusing street address by requiring that the western end of the paper street Cherry Tree Lane be renamed and that development of the street be a contingency of approval. CHERRY TREE LANE This street was created in 1957 as a paper road as part of the Shore Colony sub-division. It was designed as an east-west connector between Honeysuckle Lane and Forest Road, running parallel to and south of North Lane. Currently, the east end of Cherry Tree Lane is a dead-end street and serves a couple of residences off Honeysuckle Lane. The remainder of the street remains a paper road that traverses through a wetland to Forest Rd. As such, I presume the road will never be developed as a though street, but the west end should be developed as a dead-end street to serve the subject properties (as indicated in the below map). I propose that construction of a western dead-end street be required to provide emergency access to the side and rear portions of the subject lots. The dead- end street could also be available for periodic overflow parking that experience tells me will be inevitable. IN SUMMARY If the Board re-approves the site plans, I recommend the Board: 1. Require development of a dead-end street at the western end of Cherry Tree Lane. 2. Require re-naming the recommended dead-end street to avoid conflict and confusion with the eastern dead-end of Cherry Tree Lane. 3. Require that on-street parking for these properties be designated on the rename Cherry Tree Lane and that routine parking on Forest Road be prohibited. Thank you, Dave Wilcox” 20 (Queensbury Planning Board 09/25/2019) MR. TRAVER-Okay. Thank you, Laura. Were there any other written comments? MRS. MOORE-No. MR. TRAVER-Construction of this road that this letter discusses I think it outside the purview of this Board. MRS. MOORE-That’s correct. MR. TRAVER-Okay. Thank you. All right. We will close the public hearing. PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED MR. TRAVER-We will ask the applicant to return. MR. SCHONEWOLF-I just wanted to add one thing to that. I don’t know if the Town Board knows this, but I’m a member of the fire department as is the guy that just wrote the letter, and we now have computerized dispatch. So there’s no more guesswork. When they give an alarm it shows up here, and when I look down it not only shows where the alarm is but the cross streets. MR. TRAVER-Right. I understand that. MR. SCHONEWOLF-The EMS don’t live here but they can get there. Thank you. MR. TRAVER-Okay. So it sounds from public comment one of the significant issues that was raised was the change in the Code. Can you address that? MR. LAPPER-It wasn’t raised by Staff when we submitted this. I believe that that was the Freshwater Wetlands issue not a variance issue, but Laura’s looking at it now. MRS. MOORE-I’m trying to look it up now. MR. TRAVER-Okay. We’ll give Laura a minute to check into that. MR. LAPPER-There’s not much on that site other than some scrubby stuff. MR. TRAVER-Right, but the scrubby stuff still does some work for us. MR. LAPPER-And it’ll be re-vegetated after the stormwater system is put in. In terms of Chris’ comments, Chazen fully signed off on the stormwater plan. MR. TRAVER-Right. Understood. One more reason why it would have been good to apply for an extension rather than re-apply. MR. LAPPER-Absolutely. MR. TRAVER-Okay. Do members of the Board have any other questions, follow up? MR. HUNSINGER-Could I just make a comment? MR. TRAVER-Yes. MR. HUNSINGER-The general information on the application. MR. DEEB-It’s pretty sparse. MR. HUNSINGER-Yes. MR. HUNSINGER-If we could get that complete for the record, that would be a good thing. MS. WHITE-It’s blank. 21 (Queensbury Planning Board 09/25/2019) MR. HUNSINGER-There’s only a few cells filled in. Page Two of the Site Plan application. General information. MS. WHITE-Do you want me to pull it for you? MR. LAPPER-Yes, that would be the contact information. MR. HUNSINGER-Yes. MR. LAPPER-The owner’s name is down there. The applicant is the same. So that’s why. MR. HUNSINGER-Yes, and I realize that. MR. LAPPER-And the agent, I think on the other application it was filled in, but on this one I did see my name on there. Devin did the application. MR. HUNSINGER-You had a few more on the next one. MR. TRAVER-Are both of you here for the next application as well? MR. LAPPER-Yes. MR. TRAVER-Okay. Laura? MRS. MOORE-I can read this verbatim but it just takes me a minute to review it. MR. TRAVER-Okay. I was going to say, if you want some more time, would it be appropriate for us to sort of hold this for a few minutes and process the next application? MRS. MOORE-That would be a good idea. MR. TRAVER-Okay. So why don’t we do that. So we’re not done with this one, but why don’t we go ahead and consider Site Plan 56-2019 for Garner Holdings, and we’ll start there and we’ll return to the other one once we have some preliminary information from Laura and we’ll see where we have to go from there. SITE PLAN NO. 56-2019 FRESHWATER WETLANDS PERMIT 5-2019 SEQR TYPE TYPE II. GARNER HOLDINGS. OWNER(S): SAME AS APPLICANT. ZONING: WR. LOCATION: FOREST LANE. APPLICANT PROPOSES 896 SQ. FT. HOME WITH 2,112 SQ. FT. FLOOR AREA. PROJECT INCLUDES SITE WORK FOR SEPTIC, STORMWATER AND SITE GRADING. PROJECT PREVIOUS APPROVAL HAS EXPIRED – APPLICATION REMAINS THE SAME WITH NO CHANGES. PURSUANT TO CHAPTER 19-3-040 & CHAPTER 94 OF THE ZONING ORDINANCE, PROJECT WORK WITHIN 100 FT. OF A WETLAND BOUNDARY SHALL BE SUBJECT TO PLANNING BOARD REVIEW AND APPROVAL. CROSS REFERENCE: SP 50-2018. WARREN CO. REFERRAL: SEPTEMBER 2019. SITE INFORMATION: APA, LGP, CEA. LOT SIZE: .54 ACRE. TAX MAP NO. 226.19-1-48, -49 SECTION: 179-3-040, CHAPTER 94, 179-6-065. JON LAPPER & DEVIN DICKINSON, REPRESENTING APPLICANT, PRESENT MR. TRAVER-So if you would re-introduce yourselves and we’ll proceed. MR. LAPPER-Certainly. For the record Jon Lapper with Devin Dickinson. I’ll ask that my comments on the prior application be repeated here. It’s the same approved application that lapsed because it didn’t get its application for extension fully approved by the Planning Board, fully approved by Chazen, and the septic system was approved by Dave Hatin and the same, as Devin said, a very modest site, house with pervious pavers in the parking area. The same thing that fits the lot, a small house that fits the lot. The stormwater is all dealt with on site. MR. TRAVER-Now one difference with this is that there’s two lots involved, and one of the conditions is that the lots are going to be merged. Is that correct? MR. LAPPER-Absolutely. 22 (Queensbury Planning Board 09/25/2019) MR. TRAVER-Okay. So that’s one of the conditions that we put on there. I’m trying to recall. Is this likely to be impacted, hypothetically, by the same Code change, the 75 foot? MR. LAPPER-They both are. MR. TRAVER-Okay. That’s what I thought. Okay. Anything else on this one? MR. LAPPER-No. MR. TRAVER-Questions from members of the Planning Board? We do have a public hearing. Are there folks in the audience that wanted to give public comment on the Garner Holdings application? Yes. PUBLIC HEARING OPENED CHRIS NAVITSKY MR. NAVITSKY-Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Chris Navitsky, Lake George Water Keeper again. My comments will be the first question is about the application of 179-6-050 B 1 about the 75 foot natural buffer and restriction of vegetative cutting. Now that’s vegetative cutting of woody vegetation greater than one inch I believe that’s what the Code was, and that was really in response by the Town Board to, you know, protect the negative effects and impacts to the wetlands from excavation, clearing and realizing the importance of wetlands and what we’ve been losing. Secondly I feel that this project actually probably has a greater impact because they are proposing to put a well within 10 feet of a wetland. So you think about what it takes to build a well, to drive the drill rig down, to clear around that area, and then once you drill, where do you put all the fines? Those are going to be discharged within 10 feet of a wetland. So I don’t see how that could qualify for a wetland permit. Clearly there’d be impacts. You’re pumping a well. You’re discharging all that. So I think this one actually has a greater impact than the prior application. Again there are questions about the septic system, it being a fill system within 200 feet of a shoreline and with the steep slopes right there. So those are my comments. Thank you. MR. TRAVER-Okay. Thank you. Anyone else? Are there written comments on this application, Laura? MRS. MOORE-The same written comment Dave Wilcox submitted for the prior application. MR. TRAVER-Okay. Thank you. Have you finished your analysis? MRS. MOORE-Yes. So I’m going to read this verbatim and then explain some information. It says “Within 35 feet extending inland from all points along the mean high-water mark of all lakes and ponds and within 75 feet of all regulated streams, wetlands and rivers, no vegetation may be removed within the first six feet from the shoreline and no woody vegetation greater than one inch in dbh may be removed between the six-foot mark and the thirty-five-foot or 75 foot mark respectively. This area shall be maintained as an undisturbed natural buffer strip.” That’s the Code that was changed in May of 2019. So further down in that Section there’s a Letter D, which is called a “Cutting plan As an alternative to the above sub sections, a special cutting plan allowing greater cutting may be permitted by the Planning Board.” So it is still within your discretion versus potentially a variance. So it doesn’t say it’s a variance. It still says it’s within the right of the Planning Board. MR. TRAVER-Okay. Thank you, Laura. Okay. So any comments on what Laura has read to us? MR. LAPPER-No. It’s the same thing that’s the Freshwater Wetlands Permit. We think this is a modest project and we think the wetlands will be better protected by the stormwater systems that’ll be implemented in this case. MRS. MOORE-I will just follow up. What they may include is some additional information about the vegetation that’s within that 75 feet so that it’s written in the plan. MR. DICKINSON-So I have a question, Laura, to clarify, then, are you looking for a formal planting plan or something that shows the existing vegetation? MRS. MOORE-And what you’d be removing. 23 (Queensbury Planning Board 09/25/2019) MR. DICKINSON-Okay. I think it’s mostly kind of brushy material in the shaded area if that’s really what it is, say mixed brush, scrub brush. MRS. MOORE-And that would be potentially a condition of the Board. MR. MAGOWAN-I have a question. On the well. MR. TRAVER-Which well? Because we’re back on the Chrys application right now. MR. MAGOWAN-All right. That one I’m okay with. MR. TRAVER-Okay. And what about the issue of the wetland? I understand we need to decide whether a variance is required or whether we want to? No? MR. MAGOWAN-Well the corner of the house to the wetland looks like it’s 75, or 74 feet, and then the vegetation cut back looks a little less than halfway and we had six to thirty feet. MRS. MOORE-The way it reads is that no vegetation may be removed within the first six feet from the shoreline and no woody vegetation greater than one inch, and right at the moment we understand there’s scrub brush. I don’t know if there’s any information that tells me if there’s vegetation that’s one inch or greater, and that’s what, potentially, a planting plan would demonstrate. MR. TRAVER-So we would request a planting plan. Yes, okay. With a planting plan we would be better able to determine what the potential impact would be. MRS. MOORE-A cutting plan. So the applicant has indicated that there’s scrub brush between here and the shoreline within 75 feet of the shoreline. He’s proposing to demonstrate, as either a condition or a review for your Board, what vegetation is going to be removed and potentially what vegetation is greater than one inch. MR. TRAVER-Okay. All right. MR. LAPPER-The only area that that would cover would be the area around the stormwater basin. That’s the only really within 75 feet because we’re staying away from everything else except the stormwater in the back of the house, but we certainly can provide that. MR. TRAVER-Okay. All right. So what you would do is provide us with information regarding what’s there and how you would transition that after the. MR. LAPPER-The construction. MR. TRAVER-The construction and replace it, presumably add the buffer back. MR. LAPPER-Yes, to add vegetation. MR. TRAVER-And this is for the Chrys application. We’re doing Chrys right now. MR. LAPPER-Yes. MR. TRAVER-All right. So how long would it take you to get that together for us? MR. DICKINSON-What would be the deadline if we came back next month? MRS. MOORE-If you come in for October, I do have some room on October’s agenda. So it would be up to the Board to make a determination how quickly you could turn that around and make that the deadline. MR. LAPPER-We could get it back to you in a week. MR. TRAVER-Okay. I mean we’ve already missed the deadline. MRS. MOORE-If you’re tabling this application to. 24 (Queensbury Planning Board 09/25/2019) MR. TRAVER-Just for that. MRS. MOORE-You’re imposing the deadline. MR. TRAVER-Yes. Understood. All right. How do Board members feel about that with the Chrys application? Get some additional information to address the new Code. MR. SHAFER-I’m not familiar with the details of the lot, but it sounded like, from the description, that as Laura read the details of the Code, they could meet that Code quite readily with a cutting or planting plan. MR. TRAVER-And that’s what we’re offering to provide. MR. SHAFER-So my question is could we approve this consistent with their providing such a plan consistent with the Code? MR. TRAVER-Well, they’re going to come back with a plan that we’re going to look at, and presumably, if their plan represents a reasonable response to this, which I’m sure it will, then at that point if we’re comfortable I would say we could approve it. MR. HUNSINGER-Yes, going out on site visits, too, I think would clarify that for us when we go over this again. We had already approved it once. MR. TRAVER-Yes, exactly. MR. HUNSINGER-Nothing changed. MR. TRAVER-Well, except the Code. MR. HUNSINGER-Except the Code. MR. TRAVER-Yes. Are Board members comfortable with that in response? MS. WHITE-Yes. MR. TRAVER-Okay. All right. So then Laura said she’s willing to accommodate this on the October schedule which we’re already past the deadline but we’re just asking for relatively simple updated information. MR. LAPPER-We appreciate it. MR. TRAVER-So if we do a simple tabling motion, then. MRS. MOORE-You can place it on the first October meeting. th MR. DEEB-The 15. MR. TRAVER-There’s still only two meetings, right? MRS. MOORE-We are still at two meetings for October. th MR. TRAVER-All right. So Tuesday, October 15. MRS. MOORE-It’s an alternative cutting plan. MR. TRAVER-Yes, an alternative cutting plan to detail the existing vegetation and a re-planting plan. MR. LAPPER-Thank you. We’re happy to provide that. MR. DIXON-Mr. Chairman, may I ask a quick question? Just about the well. And I don’t know how that really fits in with us, whether you’ve had a usable well or not, but the comment was brought up that the well is a Sulphur well. 25 (Queensbury Planning Board 09/25/2019) MR. LAPPER-So Shore Colony has a system, but it’s a summer system and not a winter system. So if you want to use the house full time, you have to have a well for the winter. Under the Building Code you’re supposed to have a well because there’s no seasonal homes under the State Building Code anymore. So if there is Sulphur it would have to be treated. You’d have to put in an expensive treatment system. MR. MAGOWAN-She didn’t say Sulphur. She said unusable. MR. LAPPER-My answer is that there are homes all around there that have wells. MR. DICKINSON-It’s hard to know without knowing more about it, testing. MR. TRAVER-Yes, you’d have to test it. Let me put it this way. Are you confident that if there’s a need to further treat the water that comes out of the well for drinking purposes you’re able to do that? MR. LAPPER-Yes. MR. TRAVER-Okay. That’s, I think, the main concern. Right? MR. DIXON-Yes. And you have the space to put the extra equipment. MR. LAPPER-Yes, in the utility room. MR. DIXON-Okay. Thank you. MR. TRAVER-Okay. So are we ready for that tabling motion? MS. GAGLIARDI-Mr. Chairman, you should re-open the public hearing because I think you closed it, if you’re going to table it. MR. TRAVER-Right. Thank you for reminding me of that. So we had previously closed the public hearing, but because we’re tabling this application to next month we will re-open it, and we will leave it open. PUBLIC HEARING RE-OPENED MR. TRAVER-And re-hear public comment next month. Thank you, Maria. I forgot that. So I guess we’re ready for that motion. RESOLUTION TABLING SP 57-2019 FWW 6-2019 MICHAEL CHRYS The applicant has submitted an application to the Planning Board: Applicant proposes to construct new single family home, 896 sq. ft. (footprint) and 2112 sq. ft. floor area. Project includes site work for septic, stormwater, and site grading. Project has a permeable driveway. Project previous approval has expired – there are no changes to the application. Pursuant to Chapter 179-3-040, 179-6-065 and Chapter 94 of the Zoning Ordinance, project work within 100 ft. of a wetland boundary shall be subject to Planning Board review and approval. MOTION TO TABLE SITE PLAN NO. 57-2019 & FRESHWATER WETLANDS PERMIT 6-2019 MICHAEL CHRYS, Introduced by David Deeb who moved for its adoption, th Tabled to the October 15, 2019 Planning Board meeting. So applicant can submit alternative cutting and vegetation plan. th Seconded by Brad Magowan. Duly adopted this 25 day of September, 2019, by the following vote: AYES: Mr. Shafer, Mr. Hunsinger, Mr. Magowan, Mr. Dixon, Mr. Deeb, Ms. White, Mr. Traver NOES: NONE ABSENT: Mr. Valentine MR. LAPPER-Thank you. 26 (Queensbury Planning Board 09/25/2019) MR. TRAVER-All right. So now we’re back on the agenda with the Garner Holdings application, and the question also came from public comment regarding the proximity of the well to the wetland. Can you address that? MR. LAPPER-Yes. MR. DICKINSON-So when they drill wells it’s part of their responsibility to trap any of the tailings. They do that in a number of ways. I’m proposing to put some silt fence there. We could do some additional measures to add to that. We could do a silt fence with the silt socks or hay bale or something to that effect. Sometimes they’ll excavate a small area to trap some of that tailing as well. MR. TRAVER-But I think that’s the concern is that that’s going to be very close. MR. LAPPER-It’s a short-term construction impact which is typical but it can be mitigated by being extra careful to protect it and Devin can submit that plan to protect the wetlands during the drilling of the well. MS. WHITE-My naïveté. Is there anywhere else that that well can go that’s not so close? MR. LAPPER-Because of the distance from the septic system, that’s where it has to be because the main thing is to protect the well. The septic’s, they’re diagonally on the site, far from the setback. So it’s better to put it there and protect the wetland during the drilling. MR. TRAVER-So it looks as though we’re going to be tabling this application as well because of the same information for the cutting. Would you be able to provide us perhaps from the, I don’t know if you’ve gone to bid yet or contract or whatever, but can you give us information on specifically how that well drilling would be handled in view of the serious nature and proximity to the wetland? You mentioned there might be some extra precaution taken . MR. MAGOWAN-Yes. Silt fence is not going to do it. You need an absorption or an area to, you know, a hole to, and then that has to be cleaned and mitigated and brought back. MR. TRAVER-I understand that theoretically it’s a short-term impact, but nevertheless it’s important. MR. LAPPER-Totally legitimate. We’ll provide that. MR. TRAVER-Okay. All right. So the same plus the details on the well drilling, protection of the wetlands and mitigation afterwards. Anything else from members of the Board? MR. SHAFER-Do you have any sense of the depths of the wells in that locale? MR. DICKINSON-I’m not familiar with that area specifically so I’m not sure. Wells are tough anyway because you know you can have a neighbor with a 200 foot well and the other guy’s got a 600 foot well. MR. SHAFER-Mine is 625. MR. TRAVER-As with the other application, note that although the public hearing was previously closed, because we are tabling we will re-open the public hearing and leave it open until this application is re- th heard, and, Laura, where should we place this? Do you want this also on October 15? th MRS. MOORE-Also on October 15. MR. TRAVER-Okay. All right, and we’re still at two meetings for October, right? MRS. MOORE-Yes. MR. LAPPER-We haven’t ruined that for you yet. MR. TRAVER-Okay. I’m just kidding, Laura. RESOUTION TABLING SP # 56-2019 & FWW 5-2019 GARNER HOLDINGS 27 (Queensbury Planning Board 09/25/2019) The applicant has submitted an application to the Planning Board: Applicant proposes to construct new single family home, 896 sq. ft. (footprint) and 2112 sq. ft. floor area. Project includes site work for septic, stormwater, and site grading. Project has a permeable driveway. Project previous approval has expired – application remains the same with no changes. Pursuant to Chapter 179-3-040, 179-6-065 and Chapter 94 of the Zoning Ordinance, project work within 100 ft. of a wetland boundary shall be subject to Planning Board review and approval. MOTION TO TABLE SITE PLAN NO. 56-2019 & FRESHWATER WETLANDS PERMIT 5-2019 GARNER HOLDINGS, Introduced by David Deeb who moved for its adoption, th Tabled to the October 15, 2019 Planning Board meeting so the applicant can submit an alternative cutting and vegetation plan and also to submit with a well drilling with the details. th Seconded by Brad Magowan. Duly adopted this 25 day of September, 2019, by the following vote: AYES: Mr. Hunsinger, Mr. Magowan, Mr. Dixon, Mr. Deeb, Ms. White, Mr. Shafer, Mr. Traver NOES: NONE ABSENT: Mr. Valentine MR. TRAVER-All right. We’ll see you next month. MR. LAPPER-Thank you. MR. TRAVER-The next item on our agenda is a Sketch Plan discussion, Sketch Plan 7-2019, JP Gross Properties, LLC SUBDIVISION SKETCH PLAN 7-2019 SEQR TYPE: UNLISTED. JP GROSS PROPERTIES, LLC. AGENT(S): TRAVIS MITCHELL. OWNER(S): SAME AS APPLICANT. ZONING: MDR/LC-10A/RR-5A LOCATION: LUZERNE ROAD. APPLICANT PROPOES A CONSERVATION SUBDIVISION OF 50.52 ACRES FOR ELEVEN RESIDENTIAL LOTS – LOT 1 TO HAVE ACCESS ON TWIN MOUNTAIN DRIVE AND LOT 11 TO HAVE ACCESS ON TUTHILL ROAD. REMAINING LOTS TO BE PART OF A CUL-DE-SAC WITH ACCESS TO LUZERNE ROAD. DEEDED GREENSPACE TO BE 34.41 ACRES. PURSUANT TO CHAPTER 183 OF THE ZONING ORDINANCE, SUBDIVISION OF LAND SHALL BE SUBJECT TO PLANNING BOARD REVIEW AND APPROVAL. CROSS REFERENCE: SUB SKETCH 3-2015. WARREN CO. REFERRAL: N/A. SITE INFORMATION: APA, STEEP SLOPES. LOT SIZE: 50.52 ACRES. TAX MAP NO. 307.-1-22. SECTION: CHAPTER 183. OWEN TROELSTRA, REPRESENTING APPLICANT, PRESENT MRS. MOORE-So this is for a discussion item at Sketch Plan. The applicant proposes a conservation subdivision of 50.52 acre parcel for eleven residential lots, with Lot 1 to have access on Twin Mountain Drive and Lot 11 to have access on Tuthill Road, and the remaining to have their own cul-de-sac off of Luzerne Road. MR. TRAVER-Okay. Thank you. Good evening. MR. TROELSTRA-My name’s Owen Troelstra. I’m with Environmental Design Partnership, and I’m here to discuss the Sketch Plan for the Gross Properties off of Luzerne Road. The site is a 50 acre site and through the available calculations we’ve determined that eleven lots were allowed with the bonus of clustering, and as Laura said there’s nine lots off of a new road, approximately 450 foot long cul-de-sac road, and the other two would have access off Twin Mountain Drive and Tuthill Road. I’m here to answer any questions that the Board might have. I know there’s some discussion about the open space that’s proposed. Currently we’re proposing that it be deed restricted to be permanently non-developable or green area and the reason for that is it’s a relatively small user or residence. If it was put into common ownership with this property, HOA or something, there’d only be 11 people that would share the burden of supporting this site. Now it would be inherent of the property owners of each lot that has the deed restriction would have to maintain or be responsible for their little portion of it and it wouldn’t be burdened with the HOA or any other part of or anything that would come wrong with that. Again, I’m just here to discuss what the Board thinks about his and I’m available to answer any questions you might have. 28 (Queensbury Planning Board 09/25/2019) MR. TRAVER-Okay. Questions, comments from members of the Board? MR. HUNSINGER-I just kind of wanted to play Devil’s advocate for a minute. MR. TRAVER-Sure. MR. HUNSINGER-I just don’t see the public benefit for a conservation subdivision. I don’t have a problem with what you’re trying to do. I just don’t see really how it’s a conservation subdivision. And I know you’re doing it so you can get the bonus, the extra two lots, but I mean Staff put into Staff comments, and it says may. So it’s not required, but it says may be used for hiking trails, cross country skiing, snowshoeing, etcetera, and if they’re going to be private property on a slope that you really can’t use the land, I don’t know, I’m just skeptical. MR. TRAVER-So you’re questioning whether it would qualify as a conservation subdivision. MR. HUNSINGER-I guess they use the word may, and we haven’t seen a real conservation subdivision in a long time either. So it’s not like we’re seeing one every few months or even once a year where we have some litmus test or, you know, something else to compare it to. So, seeing how this is the first one we’ve seen in several years. Maybe Laura can remember the last one. MRS. MOORE-I was going to say, John Clendon was one. MR. MAGOWAN-John Clendon, yes, Rush Pond. MR. HUNSINGER-Yes, but they were giving the recreational land to the Town for use as recreation, whereas this will remain in private hands. MR. TRAVER-Part of an HOA or something. MR. HUNSINGER-Yes. MR. TRAVER-So the implication would be if it’s not a conservation then they would be nine lots and not eleven. MR. HUNSINGER-Right. MR. TRAVER-Okay. MR. HUNSINGER-Like I said, I don’t have a problem with it. I think it’s a pretty decent design. There’s some steep slopes there, but, you know the location of the individual houses obviously, you know they just drop them down there. There’s a couple of them where there’s an obvious spot where they’d want to put the house and it’s not where it’s shown, but other than that, I don’t really have a problem with it. MR. TRAVER-So, Laura, forgive my ignorance, but the definition of a conservation subdivision, are there qualifications for the green space? Does it need to be usable? Can it be potentially steep slopes? MRS. MOORE-That’s where the word “may” comes into play. You’re determining. You can give guidance to an applicant that says that they, you’d like to see something a bit different and how the open space is being used. Because as is being mentioned it’s 11 homeowners that are using it and it’s not, there’s not a true benefit to link it to another green space. So I have the same concern. MR. TRAVER-Sure. MR. SHAFER-Would the public have access to this private property? MR. TROELSTRA-No. Currently that is not in the proposal. MR. TRAVER-So it sounds as though what I’m hearing is that this design as a conservation subdivision doesn’t really fit the intent of that, because, you know, the conservation part, if you will, is not public. It doesn’t add to the recreation space for the Town. It remains private, and there’s a question whether that conservation space is really usable for anything other than green space or stormwater management or something. 29 (Queensbury Planning Board 09/25/2019) MR. TROELSTRA-I think a benefit it, it does benefit the developer that he gets two more lots. MR. TRAVER-Well that’s, yes. MR. TROELSTRA-If there were only nine lots then there’s no mechanism to keep this in green. So there’s a little bit of a give and take there. I think if we only proposed nine lots then there’s no reason to keep any of this in green space. MR. TRAVER-Keep any of it what? I’m not sure I understand. MRS. MOORE-So further development could occur, or a different type of development would be possible, I guess. MR. MAGOWAN-I think your slopes are over 15%. I mean that’s a mountainside there I’d call it. MR. TROELSTRA-Yes, I see what you’re saying, but there’s definitely a mechanism here that does not allow any development in that area. So I can review it with the applicant, but what I’m hearing is more of a public use for this open area, to have these eleven lots. MR. TRAVER-Well there’s limited experience in the Town with conservation subdivisions, but what experience there has been has been something which adds to recreation access, adds to the public’s access to recreation areas, that type of thing, and it doesn’t sound as though that’s really going to fit with this particular model that you’re proposing, and so that the impression, unfortunately I suppose for the applicant, is that, the initial impression is that it’s being presented as a conservation subdivision in order to get the density, not in order to add to the public recreation space, and that’s not really fitting with the intent that makes this attractive for us to approve in that context, if you understand what I’m saying. MR. TROELSTRA-Okay. Understood. MR. HUNSINGER-I mean, I can think of like, just as an example, you know, and you’d be structuring it differently, but, you know, maybe the entire parcel would be available for the individual homeowners, and maybe put in some biking trails, mountain bike trails. MR. TRAVER-Yes, or a toboggan. MR. HUNSINGER-Something, you know. Right now it’s just steep slopes with woods that you’re going to say, hey, we’ll keep them as steep slopes and woods. MRS. MOORE-So in 2015 you also saw a similar proposal, the same lots, I can’t remember how many lots this ended up being, but this interconnected out here. So this, I would guess, would be more lots. MR. MAGOWAN-Where was that? MR. TROELSTRA-It’s the same property. MRS. MOORE-The same property, 13 lots. MR. TROELSTRA-Did that require variances? MRS. MOORE-That would have required variances. MS. WHITE-It came as a Sketch Plan Review. MR. HUNSINGER-Like I said, we’re having a discussion, you know, Sketch Plan Review. MRS. MOORE-So, again, what Chris had mentioned, the parcel, so the open space would be its own parcel. MR. TROELSTRA-Now in the past, the previous one, were they publicly owned? Did they, you said something about the one dedicated to the Town. Is there a preference with that? 30 (Queensbury Planning Board 09/25/2019) MRS. MOORE-There’s probably, it’s nice to tie it into existing green space, but I don’t know if there’s a tie in in this case, but the previous one, John Clendon, they tied in from a property owned by Finch Pruyn, they tied it in to the Rush Pond Trail and it actually made a connector. MR. HUNSINGER-I mean that’s almost the other extreme, you know. MRS. MOORE-Correct, it’s the most extreme. It’s unusual and I have to look at some others and maybe the one on Sweet Road was a conservation, and I can’t remember if that one was or wasn’t. MS. WHITE-Pretty small. MR. MAGOWAN-Tell Joe that if he wants to do that, he could do a public extreme zip line, a public one. Tell Joe that, Brad said that would be a nice conservative thing to do for this project. MR. HUNSINGER-Or hunting preserve. I don’t know. MR. TRAVER-Yes, there you go. MR. TROELSTRA-Luzerne Road’s extreme enough. MR. TRAVER-So are you getting enough information from us for Sketch? MR. TROELSTRA-I think so. I know that the applicant was, the preference was something similar to this because he believed that the homeowner would like to have that as part of their land. It’s more desirable to them. MR. HUNSINGER-Then do it that way, because right now you have eleven lots, two that are gigantic, that are open space. Make the nine lots smaller and then have a homeowners association or something. So the people that live there can use it for passive recreation. MR. TRAVER-Yes, that would work. MR. MAGOWAN-They could cut their firewood and stuff like that. MR. HUNSINGER-Go hunting. Go tobogganing. MR. TROELSTRA-All right. I mean that seems to be the main issue with this plan is just that. MR. TRAVER-Well it’s the fact that they’re seeking a conservation subdivision. That doesn’t seem like that’s going to fit with this location and this design. MR. HUNSINGER-I mean I think your design is certainly superior to that other one from years ago which was a standard subdivision. This is much better. That’s just my opinion. MS. WHITE-I agree. MR. TRAVER-Yes, it’s just the numbers. MR. HUNSINGER-I think the design meets the definition of a conservation subdivision. Now you have to think about what the use is for that green space, what the public benefit is, and if it’s only to those homeowners, I think that’s okay. MR. TRAVER-Yes. MR. HUNSINGER-If that’s the intent. It doesn’t have to occur to the whole Town. MR. TRAVER-And that would add to the value of the property. MR. TROELSTRA-All right. Talking about next, do I come back at this level with that decided? Maybe a meeting next month or something? If I can come back in an October meeting. 31 (Queensbury Planning Board 09/25/2019) MR. TRAVER-Well, either take the feedback we’ve given you. You’re certainly welcome, it might be wise if you, given the history of this property, come back with an updated Sketch for another conversation, but certainly if you wanted to, right, Laura, they could go ahead with a full application. MRS. MOORE-Correct. MR. TROELSTRA-Full application, and if you had an HOA common, similar layout but with an HOA open space, or a common open space that benefits all those users. MR. TRAVER-It sounds as though that approach would be, it certainly would be more supportive than trying to get a conservation subdivision. MRS. MOORE-Yes, so more definition of what that space is. MR. TRAVER-Yes. MR. TROELSTRA-Okay. MR. SHAFER-And whether there’s any way to tie that space into Town recreation opportunities. MR. TROELSTRA-So we could come back with a full app. MR. TRAVER-If you want, sure, or you could come back for another discussion at Sketch. MR. HUNSINGER-Yes, whichever you prefer. MR> TROELSTRA-Okay. And when would the deadline be? th MRS. MOORE-So it would be October 15 to be on November’s agenda. MR. TROELSTRA-All right. MRS. MOORE-And we would still have to do the pre-application meetings, too. MR. TROELSTRA-All right. Very good. Thank you. MR. TRAVER-Thank you. We’ll see you in November. Anything else before the Board this evening? I guess we can entertain a motion to adjourn. TH MOTION TO ADJOURN THE QUEENSBURY PLANNING BOARD MEETING OF SEPTEMBER 25, 2019, Introduced by John Shafer who moved for its adoption, seconded by David Deeb: th Duly adopted this 25 day of September, 2019, by the following vote: AYES: Mr. Deeb, Ms. White, Mr. Shafer, Mr. Hunsinger, Mr. Magowan, Mr. Dixon, Mr. Traver NOES: NONE ABSENT: Mr. Valentine MR. TRAVER-We stand adjourned. On motion meeting was adjourned. RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED, Stephen Traver, Chairman 32