Loading...
02-25-2020 (Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 02/25/2020) QUEENSBURY PLANNING BOARD MEETING SECOND REGULAR MEETING FEBRUARY 25, 2020 INDEX Site Plan No. 78-2019 Tillman Infrastructure 1. FURTHER TABLING Tax Map No. 288.8-1-21 Site Plan No. 8-2020 Thomas Heinzelman 2. Tax Map No. 289.7-1-19 Site Plan No. 5-2020 Aftab (Sam) Bhatti 3. Tax Map No. 302.5-1-51 Site Plan No. 53-2019 APEX Capital, LLC 4. Tax Map No. 307.-1-29; 315.5-1-3.2; 315.5-1-2 Site Plan No. 9-2020 Kathy Sanders 4. ZBA RECOMMENDATION Tax Map No. 289.17-1-42 Site Plan No. 4-2020 AREC 34, LLC – U Haul 12. Special Use Permit 1-2020 Tax Map No. 303.19-1-71 Site Plan No. 6-2020 Jason Southwood 21. Tax Map No. 296.13-1-68 Subdivision No. 2-2020 JP Gross Properties, LLC 29. 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. 1 (Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 02/25/2020) QUEENSBURY PLANNING BOARD MEETING SECOND REGULAR MEETING FEBRUARY 25, 2020 7:00 P.M. MEMBERS PRESENT STEPHEN TRAVER, CHAIRMAN CHRIS HUNSINGER, VICE CHAIRMAN DAVID DEEB, SECRETARY BRAD MAGOWAN JAMIE WHITE MICHAEL VALENTINE MICHAEL DIXON, ALTERNATE MEMBERS ABSENT JOHN SHAFER LAND USE PLANNER-LAURA MOORE STENOGRAPHER-MARIA GAGLIARDI MR. TRAVER-Good evening, everyone. Welcome to the Town of Queensbury Planning Board meeting th for Tuesday, February 25, 2020. This is our second meeting for the month of February and our fourth meeting thus far for the year. Please note the illuminated emergency exit signs. In the event that we have an emergency, that is your way out. There should be extra agendas on the table at the rear of the room should you need them. If you have an electronic device, a cell phone, if you would please either turn it off or turn the ringer off so that it does not disturb our meeting, that would be appreciated. I also want to let folks know that we have a few administrative items, including some agenda items that we know are going to be tabled and at least one that we anticipate tabling. So if there are people in the audience that are here for public hearing for Heinzelman, Bhatti, Tillman, or Apex Capital, be advised that we anticipate tabling those items and the details will be announced. With that we’ll start our agenda. The first item is an administrative item for scheduling of a third meeting of the Planning Board in the month of March to accommodate the caseload. And I think we have a draft motion to that effect. MR. DEEB-Yes, we do. RESOLUTION SCHEDULING A THIRD MEETING FOR MARCH 2020 PLANNING BOARD MOTION TO HAVE A SPECIAL (QUEENSBURY TOWN PLANNING BOARD) MEETING ON MARCH 31, 2020. Introduced by David Deeb who moved for its adoption, seconded by Michael Valentine: th Duly adopted this 25 day of February, 2020 by the following vote: AYES: Mr. Deeb, Ms. White, Mr. Dixon, Mr. Hunsinger, Mr. Magowan, Mr. Valentine, Mr. Traver NOES: NONE ABSENT: Mr. Shafer MR. TRAVER-Next we have a request for further tabling for Tillman Infrastructure, Site Plan 78-2019. ADMINISTRATIVE ITEM: SITE PLAN 78-2019 TILLMAN INFRASTRUCTURE REQUEST FOR FURTHER TABLING TO MARCH 24, 2020 MR. TRAVER-Laura> MRS. MOORE-Tillman is requesting tabling because they needed to provide information for their upcoming, information to the Zoning Board of Appeals. They provided that information by the February deadline for the March meeting. So I have that information MR. TRAVER-Okay. So they’re to be moved to the March 24 agenda. MRS. MOORE-Correct. 2 (Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 02/25/2020) MR. TRAVER-Okay. RESOLUTION TABLING SP # 78-2019 TILLMAN INFRASTRUCTURE The applicant has submitted an application to the Planning Board for Site Plan approval pursuant to Article 9 of the Town zoning Ordinance for: Applicant proposes to install a 260 ft. lattice tower for up to three tenants. Project includes site work for a 360 ft. road with lease area of 100 ft. x 100 ft. The plans show location of pads for tenants. Site to be gravel and lease area to have fence enclosure. Tower is to have a light on top to be compliant with the FCC. Pursuant to Chapter 179-5-130 of the Zoning Ordinance, telecommunications towers shall be subject to Planning Board review and approval. Applicant requests further tabling to March 24, 2020. MOTION TO GRANT FURTHER TABLING OF SITE PLAN 78-2019 TILLMAN INFRASTRUCTURE. Introduced by David Deeb who moved for its adoption, seconded by Brad Magowan. Tabled until the March 24, 2020 Planning Board meeting. th Duly adopted this 25 day of February, 2020 by the following vote: AYES: Ms. White, Mr. Dixon, Mr. Hunsinger, Mr. Magowan, Mr. Valentine, Mr. Deeb, Mr. Traver NOES: NONE ABSENT: Mr. Shafer MR. TRAVER-Next we have two items under Old Business that we need to table due to issues with public notice for I guess the ZBA, the first being Site Plan 8-2020 for Thomas Heinzelman. That’s to be tabled until the March 24, 2020 meeting and I believe we have a draft. OLD BUSINESS: SITE PLAN NO. 8-2020 SEQR TYPE: TYPE II. THOMAS HEINZELMAN. AGENT(S): HUTCHINS ENGINEERING. OWNER(S): SAME AS APPLICANT. ZONING: WR. LOCATION: 52 REARDON ROAD. APPLICANT PROPOSES TO REMOVE AN EXISTING 740 SQ. FT. HOME AND 715 SQ. FT. PORCHES FOR CONSTRUCTION OF A NEW HOME – 1,510 SQ. FT. FOOTPRINT AND 2,604 SQ. FT. FLOOR AREA. SITE WORK INCLUDES GRADING, NEW WELL AND NEW SEPTIC (SEPTIC ON ADJOINING PROPERTY). PROJECT PROPOSES ADDITIONAL SHORELINE PLANTING AREA. PURSUANT TO CHAPTER 179-3-040 OF THE ZONING ORDINANCE, CONSTRUCTION IN A CEA SHALL BE SUBJECT TO PLANNING BOARD REVIEW AND APPROVAL CROSS REFERENCE: AV 26-2004 DECK. WARREN CO. REFERRAL: N/A SITE INFORMATION: GLEN LAKE. LOT SIZE: .30 ACRE. TAX MAP NO. 289.7-1-19. SECTION: 179-3-040. MRS. MOORE-And just to note, the public hearing should be opened. MR. TRAVER-Okay. I thought that was open already? MRS. MOORE-For Heinzelman? MR. TRAVER-Yes. No? MRS. MOORE-No. MR. TRAVER-All right. Well then we will, is there anyone in the audience here tonight to discuss Heinzelman Site Plan 8-2020? We will open the public hearing. PUBLIC HEARING OPENED th MR. TRAVER-We’re tabling so we’ll leave the public hearing open pending our review on March 24. MOTION TO TABLE SITE PLAN # 8-2020 THOMAS HEINZELMAN Applicant proposes to remove an existing home 740 sq. ft. home and 715 sq. ft. porches for construction of a new home - 1,510 sq. ft. footprint and 2,604 sq. ft. floor area. Site work includes grading, new well and new septic (septic on adjoining property). Project proposes additional shoreline planting area. Pursuant to Chapter 179-3-040 of the Zoning Ordinance, construction in a CEA shall be subject to Planning Board review and approval. 3 (Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 02/25/2020) MOTION TO TABLE SITE PLAN 8-2020 THOMAS HEINZELMAN. Introduced by David Deeb who moved for its adoption, seconded by Brad Magowan: Tabled until the March 24, 2020 Planning Board meeting. th Duly adopted this 25 day of February, 2020 by the following vote: AYES: Mr. Dixon, Mr. Hunsinger, Mr. Magowan, Mr. Valentine, Mr. Deeb, Ms. White, Mr. Traver NOES: NONE ABSENT: Mr. Shafer MR. TRAVER-Next also under Old Business we have Sam Bhatti and for the same reason, that application, SITE PLAN NO. 5-2020 SEQR TYPE: TYPE II. AFTAB (SAM) BHATTI. OWNER(S): SAME AS APPLICANT. ZONING: CI. LOCATION: 547 AVIATION ROAD. APPLICANT PROPOSES TO UPDATE AN EXISTING “QUALITY INN” TO ENCLOSE AN EXISTING 288 SQ. FT. PORCH TO CREATE A SUNROOM OFF OF NATATORIUM (ENCLOSED POOL). ALSO IS A NEW 240 SQ. FT. COVERED PORCH TO REAR OF THE BUILDING FOR GUESTS. THE EXISTING SITE HAS TWO LODGING ESTABLISHMENTS THAT SHARE PARKING AND ACCESS TO AVIATION ROAD. PURSUANT TO CHAPTER 179-3-040 OF THE ZONING ORDINANCE COMMERCIAL CONSTRUCTION SHALL BE SUBJECT TO PLANNING BOARD REVIEW AND APPROVAL. VARIANCE: RELIEF IS SOUGHT FOR SETBACK AND FAR. PLANNING BOARD SHALL PROVIDE A RECOMMENDATION TO THE ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS. CROSS REFERENCE: SP 20-2003, AV 85-2002, AV 55-2002 HOTEL; SP 1-2011, AV 3-2011 CANOPY; SP 82-2019, MANY OTHERS WARREN CO. REFERRAL: FEBRUARY 2020. SITE INFORMATION: TRAVEL CORRIDOR OVERLAY. LOT SIZE: 2.19 ACRES. TAX MAP NO. 302.5-1-51. SECTION: 179-3-040. MR. TRAVER-Site Plan 5-2020, is also going to be moved and heard on March 24, and I’m assuming we need to open the public hearing for that and leave it open as well. So I will ask is there anyone here that wants to discuss the Sam Bhatti application, Site Plan 5-2020? That public hearing is now open. PUBLIC HEARING OPENED MR. TRAVER-And we will leave it open pending our re-hearing the application again on March 24. And I believe we have a draft tabling resolution for that. RESOLUTION TABLING SP # 5-2020 AFTAB (SAM) BHATTI Applicant proposes to update an existing “Quality Inn” to enclose an existing 288 sq. ft. porch to create a sunroom off of natatorium (enclosed swimming pool). Also is a new 240 sq. ft. covered porch to rear of the building for guests. The existing site has two lodging establishments that share parking and access to Aviation Road. Pursuant to Chapter 179-3-040 of the Zoning Ordinance commercial construction shall be subject to Planning Board review and approval. MOTION TO TABLE SITE PLAN 5-2020 AFTAB BHATTI. Introduced by David Deeb who moved for its adoption, seconded by Michael Dixon: Tabled until the March 24, 2020 Planning Board meeting. th Duly adopted this 25 day of February, 2020 by the following vote: AYES: Mr. Hunsinger, Mr. Magowan, Mr. Valentine, Mr. Deeb, Ms. White, Mr. Dixon, Mr. Traver NOES: NONE ABSENT: Mr. Shafer MR. TRAVER-Last but not least, we have an application, also under Old Business, for Apex Capital, LLC, Site Plan 53-2019. Recall that earlier today we received some updated engineering comments, and in conversations with Staff today it was revealed that there’s an ongoing discussion with Apex Capital regarding those comments and working to come to a resolution. It appears that the plan now as I understand it, Laura, is to table to allow time for those discussions until the first meeting in April which, st according to my calendar, is April 21. 4 (Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 02/25/2020) MRS. MOORE-Correct. SITE PLAN NO. 53-2019 SEQR TYPE: UNLISTED. APEX CAPITAL, LLC. AGENT(S): STUDIO A LANDSCAPE ARCH. DPC. OWNER(S): SAME AS APPLICANT. ZONING: RC/MDR. LOCATION: 59 WEST MT. ROAD (MAIN); 47 & 53 WEST MT. RD. (PARKING). (SEQR) APPLICANT PROPOSES EXPANSION OF THE WEST MOUNTAIN SKI AREA PARKING LOT, CONSTRUCTION OF A ZIP LINE ATTRACTION, APPROVAL OF AN EXISTING MOUNTAIN BIKING VENUE AND OTHER ASSOCIATED PROJECTS. PROJECT ALSO INCLUDES A TOWN BOARD REFERRAL FOR A PETITION FOR ZONE CHANGE PARCELS 315.5-1-3.2 AND 315.5-1-2 FROM MODERATE DENSITY TO RECREATION COMMERCIAL. THE PARCELS ARE TO BE USED FOR OVERFLOW PARKING. PURSUANT TO CHAPTER 179-15-040 TOWN BOARD MAY REFER PROPOSED AMENDMENTS TO THE PLANNING BOARD FOR RECOMMENDATION, AND PURSUANT TO CHAPTER 179-3-040 OF THE ZONING ORDINANCE, EXPANSION OF A RECREATION CENTER SHALL BE SUBJECT TO PLANNING BOARD REVIEW AND APPROVAL. PLANNING BOARD TO REVIEW SEQR. CROSS REFERENCE: AV 92-2002 CREATE 2 NONCONFORMING LOTS, SP 22-2008 ADDITIONS & DECK, SP 34-2011 ALPINE SLIDE & ZIP FLYER, SP 61-2011 SHED ADDITION; SP 60-2018; PZ 584- 2019 RE-ZONING. WARREN CO. REFERRAL: SEPTEMBER 2019. LOT SIZE: 382.34. TAX MAP NO. 307.-1-29, 315.5-1-3.2 315.5-1-2. SECTION: 179-3-040. JON LAPPER, REPRESENTING APPLICANT, PRESENT MR. TRAVER-Okay. Is there a representative of the applicant that wanted to comment on that? MR. LAPPER-What you said is perfect. We’ll try and get settled with Chazen before we bother you. MR. TRAVER-Okay. Very good, and we opened the public hearing on that as well, I assume, Laura, right? MRS. MOORE-It’s been continuous. MR. TRAVER-So it’s going to remain open. So again I’ll let people know Apex Capital, LLC, Site Plan 53- st 2019, the public hearing is open and will remain open pending further review on April 21. PUBLIC HEARING OPEN MR. TRAVER-So with that we’ll entertain a motion to table. RESOLUTION TABLING SP # 53-2019 APEX CAPITAL, LLC MOTION TO TABLE SITE PLAN/ RECOMMENDATION SITE PLAN 53-2019 APEX CAPITAL, LLC , Introduced by David Deeb who moved for its adoption, seconded by Brad Magowan: st Tabled until the Town of Queensbury Planning Board meeting of April 21, 2020. th Duly adopted this 25 day of February, 2020 by the following vote: AYES: Mr. Magowan, Mr. Valentine, Mr. Deeb, Ms. White, Mr. Dixon, Mr. Hunsinger, Mr. Traver NOES: NONE ABSENT: Mr. Shafer MR. TRAVER-All right. Good luck. We’ll see you in April. So, next we move to our regular agenda and the first item is under Planning Board Recommendations and that is for Kathy Sanders, Site Plan 9-2020. PLANNING BOARD RECOMMENDATION TO THE ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS SITE PLAN NO. 9-2020 SEQR TYPE: TYPE II. KATHY SANDERS. AGENT(S): REDBUD DESIGN LA. OWNER(S): SAME AS APPLICANT. ZONING: WR. LOCATION: 119 BIRDSALL ROAD. APPLICANT PROPOSES TO RENOVATE AN EXISTING 1,245 SQ. FT. (FOOTPRINT) HOME WITH A SECOND STORY AND AN OPEN DECK ADDITION TO AN EXISTING DECK. THE HOME HAS AN EXISTING FLOOR AREA OF 3,971 SQ. FT. AND PROPOSED IS 5,856 SQ. FT. PROJECT INCLUDES SITE WORK FOR RETAINING WALLS ON LAND, REPAIRS OF SHORELINE RETAINING WALL, LANDSCAPING, STORMWATER MANAGEMENT AND A NEW SEPTIC SYSTEM. PURSUANT TO CHAPTER 179-3-040 & 179-6-050 OF THE ZONING ORDINANCE, NEW CONSTRUCTION IN A CEA AND HARD SURFACING SHALL BE SUBJECT TO PLANNING BOARD REVIEW AND APPROVAL. VARIANCE: RELIEF IS SOUGHT FOR FAR, HEIGHT, SETBACK AND PERMEABILITY. PLANNING BOARD SHALL PROVIDE A 5 (Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 02/25/2020) RECOMMENDATION TO THE ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS. CROSS REFERENCE: AV 26- 2019 DOCK REPLACEMENT; WARREN CO. REFERRAL: N/A. SITE INFORMATION: GLEN LAKE LOT SIZE: 0.45 ACRES TAX MAP NO. 289.17-1-42. SECTION: 179-3-040, 179-6-050 GEFF REDICK, REPRESENTING APPLICANT, PRESENT; KATHY SANDERS, PRESENT MR. TRAVER-Laura? MRS. MOORE-So this applicant proposes to renovate an existing 1,245 square foot footprint home with a second story and an open deck addition to an existing deck. The home has an existing floor area of 3,971 square feet and the proposed is 5,856 square feet. The project includes sit e work for retaining walls on land as well as repairing the shoreline retaining wall. New landscaping is to be installed, stormwater management and a new septic system. The relief requested is for floor are ratio, height, setbacks and permeability. MR. TRAVER-Thank you. Good evening. Welcome. MS. SANDERS-Thanks. MR. REDICK-Thank you. MR. TRAVER-If you would state your name for the record and tell us about your project. MS. SANDERS-I’m Kathy Sanders and the project is to basically renovate a current existing home on Glen Lake in Queensbury. MR. TRAVER-Okay. So the process before us this evening is a referral from the ZBA for a recommendation, an initial review. So this is not the Site Plan process. This is discussing the variances that you are looking at. Then you would go to the ZBA for a review before them and then finally to us for the actual Site Plan Review. So with that, do you want to discuss the variances, tell us about our project and discuss the variances and the reasons behind them and so on? MR. REDICK-Sure. So, excuse me, my name is Geff Redick. I’m from Redbud Design architecture. We’ve worked with Kathy to design the Site Plan after the architectural drawings were developed. Can I use this as part of the presentation? MR. TRAVER-Sure. Absolutely. Take the mic with you. MR. REDICK-So in essence what we’re talking about right now is taking the existing home, modifying it per the architectural plans, and all the details are obviously in your plan, and as part of that we’re also going to be modifying the site. So the home is currently at a one story house with a sunroom on the side. It is going to be modified to add a second story to both this portion and this portion, add a new deck here and then modify an existing deck over in here on that part of the house, and on the front of the house we’re going to have a covered porch that’s facing the street. So as part of the overall design we’ve gone to great lengths to do a couple of things. One, remove impervious areas. We’ve actually in sum total created more permeability on the site, even though we’ve added more structure to the site. We’ve removed a shed over on this side. We’ve removed some driveway over in here. We’ve removed an old walkway that was on this side over here. So those kinds of removals in conjunction with other things that are going on on the site has helped them improve the permeability. Relative to the shoreline, there’s a couple of things that we want to do here, too. We’ve got, we understand per the requirements to vegetate the shoreline because it’s in a Critical Environmental Area. MR. TRAVER-Yes, buffering. Yes. MR. REDICK-Correct. We recognize a couple of things, and they’re noted in the Staff Notes, that we are short on a few plant materials. We want to try and do something a little bit different here, and the reason that we’re short on those plant materials is this part of the shoreline along Glen Lake is known to be a pedestrian access point for neighbors to be able to walk across neighboring properties from one to the other. We actually did all the site work and what not on the neighboring property probably seven or eight years ago, and that was part of the design of that property that the shoreline within 10, 15 feet of it, everybody recognizes that their neighbors walk from one property to the next all the way around the shore. The requirements for the shoreline plantings really take that small area down there and put a lot of plants into a small zone. It makes it difficult to incorporate all those plants. So what we’re proposing to do is actually take that shoreline retaining wall which currently is built out of pressure treated timbers, pull those out, rebuild those and then pitch the land backwards, and then install a small rain garden in here that will allow all of that surface water to shed back into a rain garden rather than shed toward the lake. And then that rain garden also will capture water that’s going to come from this side of the house toward the rain garden and get into that same zone. So we’re, instead of using the plant materials and vegetation, the root systems of that whole zone being planted, we’re maintaining that pedestrian pathway through 6 (Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 02/25/2020) that zone and then allowing the rain garden to actually do that work, you know, preventing the contaminants from getting to the shoreline. And then our other goal, too, is to rebuild, there’s a series of retaining walls that are between the house and the shoreline. We want to rebuild those to be in keeping with the rest of the site, the rest of the neighborhood. Currently they’re built out of a concrete masonry block and then clade, the base of those blocks are actually clade with wood which is kind of an odd application. That’s not something you would normally see, and they don’t really serve the site. They’re not holding things together the way we’d like them to. So we want to come in with a natural boulder wall that we can actually build a series of, or two levels of boulder walls and then vegetate between those and then that, actually that would literally look like most of the other houses that are in that area as well. MR. TRAVER-Has that wall design been reviewed by DEC yet? MR. REDICK-It has not, but that is something that has to be done and we recognize that. To come back to the character of the house and the site, the owner has also, the majority of the house is currently built as All a log home. So we’re going to maintain that log home character. We’re not going to take any of that out, and then the second story of the house is going to be of a more traditional construction where it would be sided with a concrete siding, very low maintenance. The upgrades to the house also include obviously windows and doors, better insulation values, those kinds of elements. So again I’ve already talked about the grade from the shoreline. So we’re currently required to have a minimum of two trees of three inches or greater planted along the shoreline. So these are existing trees. This one is definitely on the neighbor’s property. This is currently almost on the property line. Virtually it is on the property line, and then we have two large mature trees that are on this side. Technically they are off the property, but they are large existing evergreens, white pines, although I believe this one up here is in. So we’re going to extra efforts to make sure that those trees, although they’re not on our property, aren’t going to get impacted by the construction that’s proposed between the house and the shoreline. So it’s our hope that maybe this Board recognizes that this tree is part of that overall planting scheme that’s along the shoreline. The other thing that we’re concerned about, too, is that trying to incorporate another tree down in this zone with a large mature tree might negatively impact views from neighboring properties toward the lake. So when we come to the shrub component or the perennial component, actually we have 42 of the required 42 perennials within the zone, and then the shrubs we’re short by about 12, but again, I wanted to make sure that the Board recognizes that we’re going to efforts to actually re-grade all of this to get it to come back to the rain garden and all this area to actually go down into this rain garden as well to keep all of that out of the lake. MR. TRAVER-So getting back to the trees. You point out some trees that are nearby but not actually on the applicant’s property. Correct? MR. REDICK-Yes. MR. TRAVER-And the plan at this point does not include adding any trees on the property? MR. REDICK-No. So within the vegetated shoreline, yes, we’re adding one large maple here. MR. TRAVER-Okay. MR. REDICK-That’s definite. There are several other trees that are going to be added, but they’re not in that Critical Environmental Area. MR. TRAVER-Understood. Okay. MR. REDICK-So in essence with the relief requests, the existing house footprint does not change. So the existing setbacks that the current house has are the exact same as the proposed setbacks with the new house. Both side line setbacks and lake setbacks. So there is no change to that element. Technically it does not meet Code. The true challenge then becomes the height variance that we’re asking for. I don’t have that depicted here, but I was hoping I could show the Board. MR. TRAVER-Well it’s 31 feet 4 inches where 28 feet is the maximum allowed. MR. REDICK-Correct. So the architects actually provided me with this drawing that actually graphically illustrates where that change is, and I don’t know if this is good enough for you to be able to see. MR. TRAVER-Yes, we can see it. MR. REDICK-But the highlighted area is the true area that is only in violation according to what the architect suggests. So if you can see on this elevation drawing here, it’s a very small area of the peak of the roof and this is the same area here in the alternate elevation. So it’s only that small portion of the roof that actually violates the height restrictions. We wanted to make sure that the Board could see this because it is not nearly, we don’t believe it’s as dramatic as what it seems to be mathematically. 7 (Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 02/25/2020) MR. TRAVER-Okay. MR. REDICK-So in essence I think that’s really all I have to present. MR. TRAVER-Okay. Thank you for that. Questions, comments from members of the Board? MR. DEEB-When you replace the wall, what are you going to replace it with? MR. REDICK-The wall at the shoreline? MR. DEEB-Yes. MR. REDICK-We want to replace it with boulders. MR. DEEB-Boulders, not timber. MR. REDICK-Correct, not timber. MR. DEEB-Okay. MR. REDICK-And the goal is to have it battered significantly so that we can do a couple of things. We want to put drainage behind the walls to batter it significantly so that animals and what not can actually get out of the lake if they need to and climb up through those walls and under walls, and it’s all going to be dry stack construction, no concrete or mortar or anything like that, just boulders set into the shoreline. MR. DEEB-I like boulders better. MR. VALENTINE-Does that require agency approval outside of us as far as placement? MR. TRAVER-From DEC. MR. REDICK-Yes. MR. VALENTINE-Would you mind explaining, Geff, I didn’t get the directional flows in there, and I’m wondering, isn’t there a saturation of the soils already down there? And then you’re going to be directing flow to that area? I’m not seeing it myself. MR. REDICK-Okay. So saturation of the soils, because it’s at the shoreline, I would agree, but it’s all very sandy soils in that area anyway. Significantly so. So in essence right now what happens is from here, from this general zone here, everything pitches towards the lakeshore. Our intention is to reverse that pitch. So that saturation level doesn’t change, whether you’re pitching it one way or the other. Our goal is to have it instead pitched back this way so that we can get it into a rain garden here and not allow any of those kinds of fertilizers or anything like that. MR. TRAVER-Stormwater. MR. REDICK-Exactly, stormwater, getting to the lake. So in essence this is the primary area where water and what not is going to be getting into the lake. If we have heavy, heavy rains, maybe some of this area gets overflowed a little, overflows a little bit, but the reality is because of the sandy soils we believe that everything, and it’s not as though we’re actually capturing stormwater for the entire site. It’s really just this general area in here and this this other area between the lakeshore and the walls of the stairs. MR. VALENTINE-In that same area, let me throw out, adding to the Chairman’s point, you’re looking to sort of take credit for existing trees that are not on your property as far as sort of negating the need to put the number of trees in? MR. REDICK-I wouldn’t say I’m asking for credit for the neighboring trees, but I do believe that this tree truly straddles the property. MR. VALENTINE-And what should happen if that tree dies? MR. REDICK-I think another tree should be planted. MR. VALENTINE-By whom? MR. REDICK-The owner. MR. VALENTINE-You’re going to stipulate that within the approvals, then? 8 (Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 02/25/2020) MR. REDICK-Sure. MR. VALENTINE-Okay. MR. TRAVER-Any other questions, comments from members of the Board? MR. HUNSINGER-I want to focus on two of the variance requests. The first one is the elevation. I’m not quite sure I agree with your analysis. I wonder if Staff might have a comment on that. Because my understanding of, when you talk about elevation, you take it from the lowest point on the property, but it would affect the entire roof line not just that little corner. MRS. MOORE-Right. So I think what you’re trying to show is that only that section of the corner is 31 feet. The rest of it due to the elevation is at 28. I mean that’s just looking at this one. MR. TRAVER-I’m not sure if I have that. MR. HUNSINGER-Yes, we have that in our packets. MRS. MOORE-Right. So what this doesn’t show is the total height, from here to. MR. TRAVER-It’s because of the ground elevation. MRS. MOORE-Ground elevation. MR. HUNSINGER-Right, but you take the measure from the lowest ground point, and the entire roof line is too tall, not just that little peak. MRS. MOORE-Right, but he’s, so this elevation grade right here is what he’s saying. So say where the, is that a chimney, that height is at 28 from this lowest point. Am I not explaining it? MR. HUNSINGER-Understood. MRS. MOORE-You’re saying that from this point all the way through the bottom elevation. MR. HUNSINGER-In order to not need a variance request the entire roof line would have to come down to that second line. MRS. MOORE-Correct. Yes. MR. HUNSINGER-Yes. So it’s not just the little peak in the back of the house. It’s the entire roof line that’s too tall. MS. SANDERS-Note the elevation is different in the back. MR. HUNSINGER-Yes. Understood. Maybe I’m not explaining right. MS. WHITE-It’s like a technicality. MR. TRAVER-It’s an interpretation of the Code that the height measurement is taken from the lowest point on the site. So the lowest point on the site is obviously on this picture to the left. Right? MRS. MOORE-Yes. MR. TRAVER-So even though the ground elevation at this point goes up hill, and therefore the distance from the top of the roof to the ground is less than it is on the left side, nevertheless since you measure it from the lowest point, that point, if you go up to the roof, that height then becomes the value that is used, and that extends to the entire construction. MS. SANDERS-It’s my understanding of the Code that the level, that the measurement is made at each individual point. MR. TRAVER-Each individual point. MS. SANDERS-Each individual point. MR. TRAVER-And what’s the difference between points? In other words, is it every inch, every foot? How do you interpret this? MR. VALENTINE-What is every point? 9 (Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 02/25/2020) MR. TRAVER-Yes. How do you measure what a point is? How do you even find what a point is? MS. SANDERS-It’s my understanding that it’s every part of the land, wherever that land is. MR. TRAVER-Okay. MR. VALENTINE-So the measurement in the back is from that back roof line to the ground that’s there? MS. SANDERS-Yes. MR. VALENTINE-But it’s different, you’re saying, from that peak that you’re showing in green in relation to the ground level in the front. Those are going to be different each time, that difference between ground level and roof line. MS. WHITE-Define time. How often? That’s what Steve’s trying to say. MR. TRAVER-Yes. Right. I don’t think, I mean that’s something that perhaps the ZBA can clarify. MR. HUNSINGER-They’ll wrestle with it more than we will. MR. TRAVER-Yes. I mean that’s something that is really a discussion for, because you’re requesting a variance which is a zoning issue not a planning issue, but that’s certainly a discussion because that’s one of the variances you’re requesting. You’ll want to try to argue that point before the ZBA really not us, but it’s our interpretation of the Code, I think we agree, that the lowest point then sets the standard for the structure, not just for a single undefined point, but again, that’s our interpretation, and the Zoning Board, it’s possible they’ll have a different, certainly you do, you have a different, and that’s for you to argue to get your variance for them. MR. HUNSINGER-The other variance request I want to talk about is the floor area ratio. I certainly understand the side setbacks, and you’re not encroaching any further than what exists, and I appreciate that. MR. TRAVER-Very characteristic of that area. MR. HUNSINGER-Right. Yes, but the floor area ratio, certainly there are some controls within floor area ratio to try to get closer to the requirement. So I just wondered if you could comment on that. MR. REDICK-Yes we recognize that we are in excess of what the floor area ratio suggests. We’ve removed one of the sheds that’s on the property. There’s another option to maybe remove a portion of the existing garage off the back of the house to reduce that number. I think the owner is open to that discussion. To fully achieve the full floor area ratio I don’t think is something, I think we’d want to continue to ask for that relief. MR. HUNSINGER-Yes. I mean the request that you’re making is pretty significant. I didn’t do the percentage. MR. TRAVER-Well it’s proposed 30 and the maximum is 22. MR. HUNSINGER-Right. MR. TRAVER-It is quite an increase. It sounds like there’s some room for discussion there possibly with the ZBA with regards to the variance. So there may be a way to get a variance and yet compromise on the amount of the variance. MR. REDICK-Yes. MR. HUNSINGER-I mean four variance requests on one project is pretty significant. Typically it’s one or two. Like I said I certainly understand the size requests because you’re not encroaching any further, but the other two you do have some control over. So those are the ones to kind of focus on for discussion purposes and for you to validate, walk us through the logic for how you arrived at the final plan of where you are, and that’s I guess really what the suggest is, is, you know, the total allowable floor area is 4300 and you’re proposing 5800. So that’s a pretty significant variance request. I just wonder what the logic was. How you arrived at where the end product is. MR. REDICK-I’m at a little bit of a loss right now because I didn’t design the house. MR. HUNSINGER-Right. 10 (Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 02/25/2020) MR. REDICK-So we’d have to go back in our discussions with the owner and the architect to make sure that I understand where exactly they came from. MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. MS. SANDERS-Yes, I think most of the area is really in keeping with the existing floor plan, but then also finding room for utilities. So I think where a lot of that floor plan is over is in trying to accommodate a space underneath the current carport where we can put utilities so that that provides more living space for a rec room and the family bedrooms. So that house right now is one bedroom and I’m trying to facilitate room for four bedrooms. MR. TRAVER-So that’s making your case for the floor area ratio. MS. SANDERS-Yes. MR. HUNSINGER-’Well, I mean, just one comment. Looking at the plan, and Laura has the right floor plan up, the large deck on the one side of the house, your existing porches and decks are 76 square feet and you’re proposing 380, and, you know, I look at that and I say, well, you know, if you’re asking for a variance request, is that large deck really necessary? So those are the kinds of questions that I would just normally ask any applicant coming in for relief so significant like what you’re asking. MS. SANDERS-Yes, I mean I think the deck is just a really nice way to accent that particular sunroom area and also provide a very easy way to barbecue, right off the kitchen, right off the family room area, and it squares off the house. It just accents, just from the lake view it just adds to. MR. HUNSINGER-I mean I don’t disagree with you, but again you’re asking for a variance request. So you need to be able to justify the extent of your request. Thirty percent, that’s pretty significant. MS. SANDERS-Well, I agree it is. I think the changes that I’m making add value to the property, go a long way to protect the lake I think. I think I’m really adding some really great fixtures to this property, and taking into consideration a lot of things about protecting the lake. MR. TRAVER-Other questions, comments from members of the Board? MR. DIXON-I have a question and a comment. So the buffer zone down by the shore, I know that the issue was discussed a little bit as far as the plantings and everything as far as why we don’t have plantings closer to the shoreline, but, and we can address more of this in the Site Plan, but I would like a little more effort maybe to get the plantings closer to the lake. It discourages people from trying to put fertilizer down which is prohibited down there anyway, but by having some level of planting down there I think it helps to keep the lawn back away should you ever sell the property. I think it helps. So that’s just a thought on that. MR. TRAVER-So increasing the buffering. MR. DIXON-Yes. If the landscaping could be tweaked a little bit so that we could have a little bit more buffer from the lake, and then as far as, once we get into Site Plan Review, but just to put it in more thought process, where the driveway is, it pitches toward the house. I’m thinking you might want to consider some sort of catch basin or whatever at that location so we catch the rain water runoff before it makes it past the house and heads towards the lake. So just food for thought right now but we’ll have more discussions at the Site Plan. MR. TRAVER-Okay. Well thus far I’m hearing, in terms of our referral, clarification on the verification of the height variance that’s actually being proposed as interpreted by the applicant, further discussion on the floor area ratio in regards to some of the design elements, specifically the deck and possibly the garage. Did you mention something about possibly, there might be some flexibility on FAR, and generally there’s some concern expressed regarding the shoreline buffering . Those were the three areas I guess that I heard for our referral. How do people feel about that? MS. WHITE-I’d just like to confirm my feeling that this is a significant request. MR. TRAVER-For FAR. Yes. Okay. Anything else? Other comments? Okay. Then I think we are about to have a motion. MR. REDICK-If I might. Understanding that your position is that there’s a significant request. Is there kind of a position where it starts to become it’s not significant anymore? MR. TRAVER-That’s a ZBA. That’s a negotiation that you would have with the ZBA and their interpretation of the amount of the request. We’re simply looking at the numbers at this point, and one of our main roles at this stage is simply to do an initial review, short of Site Plan, with regard to the 11 (Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 02/25/2020) variances, what the issues seem to be going into a discussion with the ZBA. So then it’s up to you and the ZBA to say they think it’s not a problem or they think it is or whatever your justification, your argument for why these variances are reasonable and should be approved. They may say possibly that, offer a compromise. That’s a discussion that you need to have with them and then you would come back to us after that discussion and those issues have been resolved and then we would take a look at the specific structure in terms of the planning piece of it. So these are, our comments are not by any means reflective of any decision that’s coming from the ZBA. This is just comment on our part, things that we note in our initial review of this as we refer this on now to the ZBA. It doesn’t reflect what the ZBA is going to do. There are times when we have projects that refer to the ZBA and we work together and sometimes they will come back and they don’t agree with our comments or they find additional comments. It really depends on, each project is unique. So I don’t know if that’s helpful, but that’s kind of my, and I’m not speaking for everybody here but that’s kind of my sense of what it’s for. So do we have a draft motion at this stage? All right. MR. DEEB-The ZBA is a little tougher, sometimes, not always. We have to send that to them with our concerns and then that’s something that you work with them. RESOLUTION RE: ZBA RECOMMENDATION RE: AV # 6-2020 KATHY SANDERS The applicant has submitted an application for the following: Applicant proposes to renovate an existing 1,245 sq. ft. (footprint) home with a second story and an open deck addition to an existing deck. The home has an existing floor area of 3,971 sq. ft. and proposed is 5,856 sq. ft. Project includes site work for retaining walls on land, repairs of shoreline retaining wall, landscaping, stormwater management and a new septic system. Pursuant to Chapter 179-3-040 & 179-6-050 of the Zoning Ordinance, new construction in a CEA and hard surfacing shall be subject to Planning Board review and approval. Variance: Relief is sought for FAR, height, setback and permeability. Planning Board shall provide a recommendation to the Zoning Board of Appeals. The Town of Queensbury Zoning Ordinance, per Section 179-9-070 J 2 b. requires the Planning Board to provide a written recommendation to the Zoning Board of Appeals for projects that require both Zoning Board of Appeals & Planning Board approval; The Planning Board has briefly reviewed and discussed this application, the relief request in the variance application as well as the potential impacts of this project on the neighborhood and surrounding community, and found that: MOTION TO MAKE A RECOMMENDATION ON BEHALF OF THE PLANNING BOARD TO THE ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS FOR AREA VARIANCE NO. 6-2020 KATHY SANDERS. Introduced by David Deeb who moved its adoption, and b) The Planning Board, based on a limited review, has identified the following areas of concern: 1) Clarification of height variances 2) Further discussion of floor area ratio 3) Shoreline buffering with added plantings th Motion seconded by Michael Valentine. Duly adopted this 25 day of February, 2020 by the following vote: MR. DEEB-Further discussion of the floor area ratio including the deck and garage. MRS. MOORE-Can I just provide some clarification? In reference to the open deck, that’s not counted in the floor area ratio. So everything that’s, the second story is what’s triggering the floor area. MR. DEEB-So we’ll eliminate the deck. MR. TRAVER-Eliminate the specific reference to anything and just generally talk about the floor area ratio. MR. DEEB-Per the discussion of floor area ratio. AYES: Mr. Magowan, Mr. Valentine, Mr. Deeb, Ms. White, Mr. Dixon, Mr. Hunsinger, Mr. Traver NOES: NONE ABSENT: Mr. Shafer MR. TRAVER-You’re off to the ZBA. Good luck. MR. REDICK-Thank you. MS. SANDERS-Thank you. Thanks for your input. I appreciate it. 12 (Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 02/25/2020) MR. TRAVER-Sure. The next application we have is under Old Business, and that is for AREC, 34, LLC for U Haul, Site Plan 4-2020 and Special Use Permit 1-2020. OLD BUSINESS: SITE PLAN NO. 4-2020 SPECIAL USE PERMIT SEQR TYPE: UNLISTED. AREC 34, LLC – UHAUL. AGENT(S): ENVIRONMENTAL DESIGN PARTNERSHIP, LLP. OWNER(S): SAME AS APPLICANT. ZONING: CLI. LOCATION: 308 DIX AVENUE. SEQR: APPLICANT PROPOSES TO CONVERT 65,850 SQ. FT. OF AN EXISTING 170,130 SQ. FT. BUILDING INTO CLIMATE CONTROLLED SELF-STORAGE WITH 641 UNITS AND SOME RETAIL/RENTAL SPACE AND TO ADD 10 DRIVE-UP SELF-STORAGE BUILDINGS WITH A TOTAL OF 147 UNITS. OTHER SITE MODIFICATIONS INCLUDE REPAIRS TO EXISTING CURBING AND CATCH BASINS AND THE REMOVAL OF BRUSH FROM EXISTING STORMWATER MANAGEMENT AREAS. PETITION FOR ZONE CHANGE: PROJECT INCLUDES A TOWN BOARD REFERRAL FOR ZONING LANGUAGE CHANGE FOR ALLOWABLE USES IN THE COMMERCIAL LIGHT INDUSTRIAL ZONE TO INCLUDE INTERIOR SELF-STORAGE AND TO BE CONSISTENT WITH THE NEIGHBORHOOD COMMERCIAL THAT ALLOWS INTERIOR SELF-STORAGE PROJECTS, PROJECTS WOULD BE SUBJECT TO SITE PLAN AND SPECIAL USE PERMIT. PURSUANT TO CHAPTER 179-15-040, THE TOWN BOARD MAY REFER PROPOSED ZONING AMENDMENTS TO THE PLANNING BOARD FOR RECOMMENDATION AND PURSUANT TO CHAPTER 179-3-040 OF THE ZONING ORDINANCE, A NEW COMMERCIAL USE SHALL BE SUBJECT TO PLANNING BOARD REVIEW AND APPROVAL. CROSS REFERENCE: SP 33- 1993, UV 59-1994, PZ 798-2019 PETITION FOR ZONE CHANGE. WARREN CO. REFERRAL: TOWN BOARD REFERRAL. LOT SIZE: 29.35 ACRES. TAX MAP NO. 303.19-1-71. SECTION: CLI. JON LAPPER & BRANDON FERGUSON, REPRESENTING APPLICANT, PRESENT MR. TRAVER-:Laura? MRS. MOORE-So this applicant is back before this Board. They were requested to address some information in regards to building elevations, the use of the U Haul store, and if they were going to do any other external projects to the site. I’ve gone through a bit of discussion today. I e-mailed out the note explaining that the applicant has responded to those comments that I suggested. So in reference to the signage, the applicant is aware that they’ll probably have to come back for a sign variance with the Zoning Board of Appeals at a later time and then in reference to building elevation they did provide the information about dimensions, about the signage that would appear in the architecture. Again, some of those features you are going to end up discussing at Site Plan, but we think the applicant provided at this time, so when you’re going through the process of reviewing, you’ll have that information available to you. The lighting plans, the applicant reduced to 20 feet and the average of the site goes down to two. They will identify that there are some areas that might be dark, but again that may not affect this particular site plan based on the use, and then I did note that you could continue the review in reference to SEQR and make a recommendation to the Town Board. MR. TRAVER-Okay. Thank you. Good evening. MR. LAPPER-Good evening. For the record Jon Lapper with Brandon Ferguson from Environmental Design and Ben is the regional manager for U Haul. He was here last time. As Laura said we’re hoping to be able to get a SEQR determination and recommendation to the Town Board so that we can go back to the Town Board for the public hearing and address the zoning issue and then come back and finalize the Site Plan and Special Use Permit issues with the Planning Board in a month or so. We did make the submissions to address the additional items that you had requested. In general this is an adaptable use of a long vacant site after K-Mart left. It works really well for indoor storage which is safer, better in terms of the seasons. There are a couple of anomalies here because then the Town Board allowed indoor storage in Neighborhood Commercial zones by the high school, they were concerned about garage doors on the outside because of the Neighborhood Commercial zone which is so much more residential. That seemed like a sensitive issue. In a Commercial Light Industrial we think that’s less of an issue. We have existing garage doors which are permitted, and in order to have the cars be able to drive in in this weather protected area so that they can then go into their storage units inside the building with a hand cart and unload or load their cars, it’s necessary to add one more garage door that mark the façade and two of them larger so that they can accommodate larger vehicles. So we’re hoping that the Town Board will tweak that language in the Commercial Light Industrial zone different than they did in the Neighborhood Commercial. So there are a couple of things that are still up in the area. Another one is Laura mentioned that we may need sign variances. We’re still looking and that, and if we do, we will apply for that separately. MR. TRAVER-Well you would need a sign variance. 13 (Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 02/25/2020) MR. LAPPER-If we keep the signs that are on the building now. So they’re looking at that. MR. TRAVER-Right. MR. LAPPER-And then there’s an outdoor storage area in the back, which U Haul they do a covered area which is you need, it’s much nicer if you have a boat or an RV because you don’t have to worry about shoveling snow and other things. Right now that’s not a permitted use in the CLI zone although you’d think it would be in the Commercial Light Industrial. So the Town was all ready for another applicant looking at that. If it doesn’t happen fast enough we’ll have to pursue that with the Town Board if it’s not in the proposed amendment for the zone. That’s something else that. MR. TRAVER-It was on your proposal but you removed it. MR. LAPPER-No, we’re not asking you to look at it because it’s not proposed to be a permitted use at this point but we expect that we’ll talk to the Town Board and either we’ll address that afterwards, you know, not segmentation, it’s something that’s not permitted now, but we think it will ultimately be permitted, especially with what they’re proposing with the covered roof and it’s kind of nicer than typical outdoor storage. So those are the issues that are still sort of in flux but when we get to the Town Board we’ll address all of those. So with that said, Laura also mentioned the lighting plan. You made it clear the last time that the new standard in Queensbury is to go from the 40 foot pole height to the 20 foot which is much nicer to look at from off site. The average is fine and there’s not a spillage issue but it does create some interior areas where there may be darker spots, not dark, but we feel that because of the nature of this use, we won’t get a lot of night time people and there’s plenty of light for them. So it’s not a safety issue here and we can talk about that more in Site Plan Review as well, but we think that we’ve submitted enough information for you to be able to go through SEQR and provide a recommendation. We’re here to answer any questions. MR. TRAVER-Okay. Thank you. Questions from members of the Board? Did everybody get the updated information from Laura? MR. VALENTINE-E-mailed you mean? MR. TRAVER-Yes. MR. VALENTINE-I never looked at my e-mail today. MR. TRAVER-Okay. Well the applicant represented really the changes they made. They’re proposal is being revised, and we’re not looking at Site Plan tonight. We’re just looking at, potentially looking at the environmental review, but there were some issues that we’ve identified in the past that were, until recently remained on the application, the garage doors, the light poles. MR. VALENTINE-I’m not sure what you mean by garage doors. You mean the doors for each individual storage unit, is that what you’re saying? MR. TRAVER-No. MRS. MOORE-No. MR. TRAVER-There are roller doors on the outside of the building that I guess are not. MR. LAPPER-So the way the Town Board did the Special Use Permit standards for interior storage, you’re not supposed to have garage doors. This was done for the old Sokol’s Market by the High School, and they didn’t want to see garage doors on the outside. So the rule is if you have garage doors you can keep them, but you can’t add garage doors. So this is the area that was. MR. VALENTINE-Is this the little alcove area, the reconfiguration? MR. LAPPER-Yes, it was the old auto service center for K-Mart. So there’s all doors there, but we need to move one to make it work where the retail is going to be here and we need to make two a little bit, two feet larger to get larger vehicles. So that would require a variance under the current zone, but we’re hoping that the Town Board will change that. MR. VALENTINE-As far as comments, we’re not doing any comments on Site Plan tonight as far as looking at this at all? MR. TRAVER-Well, our goal tonight, ideally, would be to do SEQR, right? 14 (Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 02/25/2020) MRS. MOORE-Correct. I mean if you have Site Plan questions that relate to the SEQR form, I would ask them. So I don’t know quite why he, I guess you can ask Site Plan questions, but just remember that those are going to be re-heard at a later time, too. MR. TRAVER-Yes, well I guess it’s really a clarification of process, I mean how you envision the application since it involves the us and the Town Board. There’s a referral regarding the zoning to the Town Board, the first step obviously being SEQR. Would you, is it reasonable to talk about making a zoning referral at this stage? MRS. MOORE-Back to the Town Board? I would think so, yes. That’s why that note came out. I know they’re in the crosshairs of getting information from the applicant, and I was able to coordinate that and resolve some of the questions that I had as Staff, and I’m comfortable with the Board moving forward as long as you’re comfortable. MR. TRAVER-Yes, and the only concern on that is the recent changes in information. It doesn’t sound like everybody has access to that. I mean that’s to be determined, I guess, but there might be some concern about that. I don’t know how that would affect at least SEQR. MRS. MOORE-Right. So, Mike, would you prefer that the applicant go through some of that information? MR. VALENTINE-I don’t want to take up anybody’s time and make it wasted to go through. MRS. MOORE-I don’t think you’re the only one. MR. VALENTINE-Okay. MRS. MOORE-So I don’t think it would hurt. MR. VALENTINE-Well I’m just looking at it overall and maybe I can just throw out some things, Jon. I’m looking at the, like the façade of the building, and are they storage bay areas up above there that look like they have doors on them? MRS. MOORE-I don’t believe they’re storage bays. MR. FERGUSON-They’re going to be faux doors on the side of the building. MRS. MOORE-It’s just a façade feature. MR. TRAVER-It’s part of the façade. MR. VALENTINE-Okay. Then if I ask you that and you’ve got façade on that building, there’s no façade shown on those individual storage units that come right out onto facing Dix Avenue or right at the intersection of Quaker back here, and quite frankly those buildings look like they have dumpsters plopped on the site, and if you’re going to the extent of putting facades on the building like that. MR. TRAVER-Isn’t that the outdoor storage? MR. LAPPER-Yes. MRS. MOORE-Yes. MR. TRAVER-Yes, so you’re talking about removing that, correct? Because that’s not a permanent. MR. VALENTINE-No, no. I’m looking at these right here, on those. MRS. MOORE-The exterior pods is what I would call them. MR. VALENTINE-Yes. They look like miniature mobile homes or storage, things just plopped there. For the frontage they’re just unattractive as anything. MR. LAPPER-So in this zone outdoor storage units are permitted. The irony here is that what happens inside the building is what’s not permitted in Queensbury yet, but the outdoor storage units, because it’s Commercial Light Industrial, are permitted. MR. VALENTINE-All right, but I raised this same question on Bay when Michael came here, and I just look at these. This is a great landowner use. There’s no infrastructure, no anything required at all for these uses. It’s so nice, but I’m not, and I’m not the applicant. I’m not presenting that. it would be a great thing I put a little four wall thing up with a roof and I don’t have to do anything. What I’m saying is it’s an inexpensive land use, and I’m looking at these things. Even that, the self-storage units that the trade 15 (Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 02/25/2020) industry has standards that they promote in their literature for outdoor storage. They call for on frontage of streets to have false frontages, false roof lines. The extent that stuff has been going on these renderings here for the building, the main thing, it’s just an affront to have those things sitting right close to the street line looking like that, and that’s why I didn’t want to go too much into something that may not be applicable, but I don’t want to let that go too far. MR. DEEB-I was going to bring that up also. I was thinking that we had to have a certain conceptualized style on these buildings. I know they’re allowed, and that’s fine, but I think they should be at least done properly so they’re not an eyesore. The one on Bay Street that Mike’s referring to, somehow it needs much more. MR. VALENTINE-Well the only thing we did on that was we pushed the landscaping to hide it. MR. DEEB-Yes, and somehow that didn’t occur, and I think that we don’t want an eyesore for people, that’s a very heavily traveled area, MR. LAPPER-So they’ll be back here for Site Plan Review and the visual look of those buildings is certainly something that you have the right, at Site Plan, Special Use Permit, to talk about, and we’re starting the process because we’re not allowed to do the thing that you can’t see which, you know, Mike said that it’s not that expensive of a project, but we submitted the interior floor plan, and most of the storage is all inside the K-Mart building. MR. VALENTINE-I was going to say there’s where the, that’s where the money is involved. MR. LAPPER-Yes. MR. VALENTINE-But I’m saying this stuff out here, anybody that owns, you go out further, the whole rural country, Washington County, Vermont, all over, and out in the middle of nowhere somebody’s plopped six, eight, ten units, and you don’t have to do anything. MR. LAPPER-Most of this project is indoors. There’s not that much outdoor storage. MR. VALENTINE-There’s 13 of these things. MR. LAPPER-There are a number of them, but it’s not as big as what’s going on inside the building. Though certainly that’s a legitimate issue to talk about how they’re screened and what they look like when we get back for Site Plan Review. We’re just trying to get the Town Board. Not to ignore that, we’re trying to get to the Town Board and deal with the zoning, properly get back here and deal with the Site Plan and Special Use Permit. MR. DEEB-We’ve got to deal with the Town on the issue that you’re talking about. MR. LAPPER-Because right now we can’t do the interior storage as a permitted use. MR. VALENTINE-To be truthful I just want to make that point now so we didn’t go too far before. MR. DEEB-Do it now so we can address it early, before Site Plan. MR. LAPPER-Duly noted. We’ll come back and be ready to talk about that. MR. VALENTINE-Okay. This is not a true reflection of what’s on the site plan then? MR. LAPPER-No. MR. VALENTINE-Because there’s an extra unit here. MR. LAPPER-Correct. That’s absolutely correct. MR. VALENTINE-Okay. MR. MAGOWAN-Well the other thing I noticed, in comparison there, thank you for removing some of the units there up along Bay, but I see that you left parking space there. I don’t know why we couldn’t create a little bit more green, but I also noticed that you’re going to be taking down quite a bit of trees. Existing trees to be removed. It looks like eight, you know, up there on the corner of Quaker and Dix. MR. VALENTINE-Well we don’t have a landscape, I looked at the same thing you did, Brad. We don’t have a landscaping plan to see what they might come back with. 16 (Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 02/25/2020) MR. FERGUSON-Yes. So we do have some planting on here. We are showing a number of red maples being planted along that frontage as well as some shrubs and perennials and stuff being planted close to the parking lot as well to kind of give it a layered landscaping in that area. Those are kind of evergreen trees in there now but they’re kind of scattered throughout. There’s no real plan to them. We’re looking at cleaning up that frontage and adding those maple trees along the frontage, and then some shrubs and everything a little further back. MR. VALENTINE-Well you know what’s funny on that, to Brad’s point, is that where I and J are, they have those evergreens around those and there’s nothing symbolizing tree removal there, but you are removing in this area which is funny that that’s that buffer area between the road and the units MR. FERGUSON-Yes, that might be on the plan because we were showing some plantings going in along that parking lot on Dix Ave., however it might have just been an oversight. That existing vegetation may remain there as well. We’ll look at it a little closer and see if that’s the vegetation we want there, but I would say there would be plantings there, whether it’s the shrubs that are there now. MR. VALENTINE-So you’re not saying that you’re going to come back with a plan that says trees to be removed? MR. LAPPER-Right. MR. FERGUSON-Yes, we didn’t have those existing trees on this plan. The guy in our office did the planting plan. So he threw some shrubs in that area, but we’ll look closer at what the existing plants are and see if they’re something we can keep there. We’re showing maples along Dix Ave. as well. MR. MAGOWAN-Well the other question I have, on the first one there, along Dix Avenue in front of the stormwater, right outside of the garage, basically the whole length of the building, and then over here, on the new plan there, you’ve got the highlighted dots around there. So it went from parking spots on one to, but I’m not really seeing what it is, where the 37 is. MR. FERGUSON-Yes, it looks like vehicle queueing. So they have rental trucks and stuff, and one thing that was in addition to that plan as well was that canopy area on that, what is it, the north end of the building. So what people do is they’ll pull into the canopy area. The U Haul employees come in and they’ll clean up the truck and they’ll pull over to the queuing area for the next person to come in and rent and take it out. The queuing levels change on demand and everything. So they might have two cars there. MR. MAGOWAN-So you just highlighted that? MR. FERGUSON-Yes, they’re thinking they’re going to put the cars, while the new customer, before the new customer comes in to take them out, they’ll back them in there. The new customer comes in. They give them the keys. They go pull it out and take off. MR. MAGOWAN-All right, and I’m just trying to figure out, what does the TM-5 mean? MR. FERGUSON-That’s a type of plant. So the TM-5 is a dense spreading yew. MR. MAGOWAN-So that’s going to be right up against the grass. MR. FERGUSON-Yes, that would be along that parking edge there. MR. MAGOWAN-And you still feel that you needed Building I and J all the way over there? MR. FERGUSON-Yes, so we moved a few buildings over there. MR. MAGOWAN-And I thank you for that. I see that you did that and you moved them down there. MR. FERGUSON-I think U Haul has kind of found that more of an ideal spot for a couple of buildings, but it’s something that I think we can definitely discuss in Site Plan as well. MR. MAGOWAN-I mean because you know how I just love that huge parking lot. MR. TRAVER-So how do Board members feel with regard to reviewing SEQR for this project at this stage, the environmental impacts? Okay? MR. VALENTINE-Yes. MR. TRAVER-Okay. All right. Well let’s take a look at that. We have a SEQR resolution. Are there environmental, with the changes proposed generally with regard to environment and this update=d 17 (Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 02/25/2020) proposal, are there concerns that Board members have with regard to SEQR that requires additional review? MRS. MOORE-Sorry to interrupt, but do you want me to go through the highlights of Part II? MR. TRAVER-Sure. MS. WHITE-Yes. MRS. MOORE-So I just pulled it up, up here so you can all look at that. MR. TRAVER-Yes. MRS. MOORE-So Part II, Impact on Land Proposed action may involve construction on, or physical alteration of, the land surface of the proposed site. Yes, but is it relevant to the project? MR. TRAVER-Right. MRS. MOORE-I would say it would be no or small impact, but that’s you. So you want to go through each one of them, or do you just want me to highlight that? MR. TRAVER-I would highlight them, and if we need to drill down we certainly can. MRS. MOORE-All right. So Number Two is Impact on Geological Features The proposed action may result in the modification or destruction of, or inhibit access to, any unique or unusual land forms on the site. MR. HUNSINGER-I think we’re good. MRS. MOORE-Okay. Impacts on Surface Water The proposed action may affect one or more wetlands or other surface water bodies. MR. MAGOWAN-No. MRS. MOORE-Impact on Groundwater The proposed action may result in new or additional use of ground water, or may have the potential to introduce contaminants to ground water or an aquifer. MR. VALENTINE-No. MR. TRAVER-No. MRS. MOORE-Impact on Flooding The proposed action in development on lands subject to flooding. MR. VALENTINE-No. MR. HUNSINGER-No. MR. TRAVER-No. MRS. MOORE-Impact on Air The proposed action may include a State regulated air emission source. MR. TRAVER-No. MR. HUNSINGER-No. MRS. MOORE-Impact on Plants and Animals The proposed action may result in a loss of flora or fauna. MR. HUNSINGER-I hope not. MRS. MOORE-Impact on Agricultural Resources The proposed action may impact agricultural resources. MR. TRAVER-No. MR. VALENTINE-No. MRS. MOORE-Impact on Aesthetic Resources The land use of the proposed action are obviously different from, or in sharp contrast to, current land use patterns between the proposed project and a scenic or aesthetic resource. 18 (Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 02/25/2020) MR. TRAVER-No. MR. HUNSINGER-No. MRS. MOORE-Impact on Historic and Archeologic Resources The proposed action may occur in or adjacent to an historic or archaeological resource. MR. TRAVER-No. MR. HUNSINGER-Isn’t there an archeological resource nearby, though? MR. TRAVER-Nearby? MR. HUNSINGER-Nearby. MR. FERGUSON-I don’t believe there’s anything on site. MR. HUNSINGER-Yes, not on site. MRS. MOORE-Right. So I think the only site that’s nearby if there’s something would be addressed in the Ceiba Geigy site. Is that what you’re thinking of? No? Okay. Number Eleven, Impact on Open Space and Recreation The proposed action may result in loss of recreational opportunities or a reduction of an open space resource as designated in any adopted municipal open space plan. MR. TRAVER-No. MRS. MOORE-Number Twelve Impact on Critical Environmental Areas The proposed action may be located within or adjacent to a critical environmental area. MR. TRAVER-No. MR. HUNSINGER-No. MRS. MOORE-Impact on Transportation The proposed action may result in a change in existing transportation systems. MR. TRAVER-No. MRS. MOORE-Number Fourteen, Impact on Energy The proposed action may cause an increase in the use of any form of energy. MR. TRAVER-No. MRS. MOORE-Impact on Noise, Odor and Light The proposed action may result in an increase in noise, odors, or outdoor lighting. MR. HUNSINGER-No. MR. TRAVER-No. MRS. MOORE-Number Sixteen, Impact on Human Health The proposed action may have an impact on human health from exposure to new or existing sources of contaminants. MR. TRAVER-No. MRS. MOORE-Consistency with Community Plans The proposed action is not consistent with adopted land use plans. MR. VALENTINE-Is not? MR. HUNSINGER-I remember doing the training on that and Mark saying that. MRS. MOORE-I don’t like double negatives. MR. HUNSINGER-Yes, there’s a couple in there. MR. VALENTINE-So the answer would be no. 19 (Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 02/25/2020) MRS. MOORE-Consistent with existing community character and the proposed project is inconsistent with the community character. MR. HUNSINGER-No. MR. TRAVER-No. MRS. MOORE-And that’s it. MR. TRAVER-All right. Thank you, Laura. So we have a draft SEQR resolution. I believe we have reviewed the SEQR. Do people feel comfortable moving forward on that? MR. HUNSINGER-Yes. MS. WHITE-Yes. MR. TRAVER-Okay. We have a draft resolution. RESOLUTION GRANTING A NEGATIVE SEQR DEC. SP # 4-202 & SUP 1-2020 AREC, 34, LLC The applicant proposes: SEQR: Applicant proposes to convert 65,850 sq. ft. of an existing 170,130 sq. ft. building into climate controlled self-storage with 641 units and some retail/rental space and to add 10 drive-up self-storage buildings with a total of 147 units. Other site modifications include repairs to existing curbing and catch basins and the removal of brush from existing stormwater management areas. Petition for Zone Change: Project includes a Town Board referral for zoning language change for allowable uses in the Commercial Light Industrial zone to include interior self-storage and to be consistent with the Neighborhood Commercial that allows interior self-storage projects, projects would be subject to site plan and special use permit. Pursuant to Chapter 179-15-040, the Town Board may refer proposed zoning amendments to the Planning Board for recommendation and pursuant to Chapter 179-3-040 of the Zoning Ordinance, a new commercial use shall be subject to Planning Board review and approval. The Planning Board has determined that the proposed project and Planning Board action is subject to review under the State Environmental Quality Review Act; The proposed action considered by this Board is Unlisted in the Department of Environmental Conservation Regulations implementing the State Environmental Quality Review Act and the regulations of the Town of Queensbury; No Federal or other agencies are involved; Part 1 of the Long EAF has been completed by the applicant; Upon review of the information recorded on this EAF, it is the conclusion of the Town of Queensbury Planning Board as lead agency that this project will result in no significant adverse impacts on the environment, and, therefore, an environmental impact statement need not be prepared. Accordingly, this negative declaration is issued. MOTION TO GRANT A NEGATIVE DECLARATION FOR SITE PLAN 4-2020 & SPECIAL USE PERMIT 1-2020 AREC 34, LLC / UHAUL. Introduced by David Deeb who moved for its adoption. As per the resolution prepared by staff. 1. Part II of the long EAF has been reviewed and completed by the Planning Board. 2.. Part III of the long EAF is not necessary because the Planning Board did not identify potentially moderate to large impacts. th Motion seconded by Brad Magowan. Duly adopted this 25 day of February, 2020 by the following vote: AYES: Mr. Hunsinger, Mr. Magowan, Mr. Valentine, Mr. Deeb, Ms. White, Mr. Dixon, Mr. Traver NOES: NONE ABSENT: Mr. Shafer MR. TRAVER-All right. So now we can move on to Planning Board Recommendation to the Town Board for Zoning Change. Now obviously, Laura, to clarify this process, obviously the applicant is going to have some discussion with the Town Board . So to what extent, I mean we can’t be terribly specific about our recommendation other than in a general sense. Right? 20 (Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 02/25/2020) MRS. MOORE-Correct, and that’s why it’s either favorable or unfavorable. MR. TRAVER-Right. MRS. MOORE-And you could highlight something out of the materials that’s of benefit to the area. That’s up to you. MR. TRAVER-Sure. Well I heard general comments, I think, from members that it’s a re-use of the site and is positive. It’s subject to further Site Plan Review, There are some visual issues that we need to work on but it sounds like the applicant is certainly willing to work with us on that. So I feel that we can make a favorable recommendation for their zoning request. MR. HUNSINGER-I wanted to add, the only specific issue that came up is the exterior garage doors and I don’t think we need to make an issue of it at all. In fact I think in this case it makes for a better project. MR. TRAVER-Well if you’re going to have interior. MR. DEEB-It’s totally different than the other. I mean this is a much larger building, but I would emphasize the visual impact. I can’t tell you how important that is. Mike and I both agree on that. We don’t need anything down there on that corner. MR. LAPPER-We’ll come back with more landscaping. MR. DEEB-I’m sorry to harp on it, but. MR. TRAVER-Well the good news is there’s a lot of options to address that. MR. DEEB-They have all kinds of designs they can make these out of, and it’s going to look attractive. MR. TRAVER-And it’s not going to require a huge change or a huge investment. MR. LAPPER-And even the maple trees, the street trees that aren’t there now, they’ll soften it up and we’ll look at the architecture of the storage units, too. MR. DEEB-Yes, okay. MR. HUNSINGER-I mean not that I’m suggesting that you do this, but one of the self storage projects that I’ve seen that’s attractive is off Exit 10 and they actually built brick gable ends. So it almost looks like houses. MR. TRAVER-On the individual buildings? MR. HUNSINGER-Yes. Brick gable ends that face the road. MR. VALENTINE-You get off Exit 10, take a left and head down to Route 9 and it’s right on your left hand side on the corner. It’s a, I agree. MR. TRAVER-It’s an example of how to dress it up. MR. DEEB-Just take a look at it. MR. LAPPER-I do a lot of work with Mark. He does good stuff. MR. TRAVER-All right. So I think we’re ready for that resolution. RESOLUTION RE: TOWN BOARD RECOMMENDATION RE: SP # 4-2020 & SUP 1-2020 AREC 34 Whereas, an application has been made to the Town of Queensbury Town Board for a zoning change. The Town Board referred this application to the Planning Board for an advisory recommendation pursuant to Section 179-15-020; Whereas, the applicant proposes a zoning language change for allowable uses in the Commercial Light Industrial zone to include interior self-storage and to be consistent with the Neighborhood Commercial zone that allows interior self-storage. Whereas, the Planning Board will review the applicant’s site plan for parcel 303.19-1-71 pursuant to the requirements of Section 179-9-020, and special use permit Section 179-10; 21 (Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 02/25/2020) Whereas, the State Environmental Quality Review Act has been completed by the Queensbury Planning Board and has issued a negative declaration; Now, therefore, be it resolved, that we find the following: MOTION FOR RECOMMENDATION TO THE TOWN BOARD AS FAVORABLE FOR ZONING REQUEST; Introduced by David Deeb who moved its adoption, and th Motion seconded by Brad Magowan. Duly adopted this 25 day of February, 2020 by the following vote: AYES: Mr. Valentine, Mr. Magowan, Mr. Hunsinger, Mr. Dixon, Ms. White, Mr. Deeb, Mr. Traver NOES: NONE ABSENT: Mr. Shafer MR. TRAVER-You’re off to the Town Board. MR. LAPPER-We’ll come back after the Town Board and work out the details with you. MR. TRAVER-Okay. The next item we have on our agenda is under New Business. Jason Southwood, Site Plan 6-2020. NEW BUSINESS: SITE PLAN NO. 6-2020 SEQR TYPE: TYPE II JASON SOUTHWOOD. OWNER(S): SAME AS APPLICANT. ZONING: CM. LOCATION: 974 STATE ROUTE 9. APPLICANT REQUESTS TO MAINTAIN A CURRENTLY DISTURBED AREA REMOVAL OF VEGETATION, SHRUBS & TREES – INTENTION IS TO PLANT GRASS IN THE SPRING OF 2020. PROJECT SITE CONTAINS AN EXISTING COMMERCIAL BUILDING FOR TWO TENANTS, CURRENTLY OCCUPIED, AND AN EXISTING STORAGE BUILDING. APPLICANT TO USE AREA FOR PERSONAL STORAGE, I.E. TRAILERS AND BOATS, AND TO PLACE A 120 SQ. FT. SHED. PURSUANT TO CHAPTER 179-9-020 & ARTICLE 8 – 179-8-060 OF THE ZONING ORDINANCE, SITE PREPARATION AND BUFFER ZONES SHALL BE SUBJECT TO PLANNING BOARD REVIEW AND APPROVAL. CROSS REFERENCE: SP PZ 53-2016, AV PZ 65-2019, SP PZ 106-2016 AND MANY CO’S & SIGNS. WARREN CO. REFERRAL: FEBRUARY 2020. SITE INFORMATION: TRAVEL CORRIDOR. LOT SIZE: .66 ACRES. TAX MAP NO. 296.13-1-68. SECTION: 179-9-020 & ARTICLE 8 – 179-8-060. JASON SOUTHWOOD, PRESENT MR. TRAVER-Laura? MRS. MOORE-This applicant requests to maintain a currently disturbed area, removal of vegetation, shrubs and trees. The intention is to plant some grass in the spring of 2020 as well as some plantings along the fence line. The project contains an existing commercial building with two existing tenants that are currently occupying that building. There’s an existing storage building in the back and the applicant proposes personal storage in the back including trailers and boats. MR. TRAVER-Okay. Thank you. Good evening. MR. SOUTHWOOD-I’m Jason Southwood and I own the property at 974 State Route 9. I bought it three or four years ago. You can see on the drawing in the back area I cut down trees and removed leaves and vines and dead trees. Most of the vegetation back there was dead, probably 85 to 90% of it, a lot of it got pushed over by my hand, but I basically got tired of it falling on my boat in the wintertime, my trailers. It broke the skylight. It broke through the shrink wrap and it was just more hassle than it was worth, but I didn’t know you couldn’t cut down trees with apparently something like 50 feet of a property line. There’s currently fence there now. It’s not a privacy fence just a chain link probably four foot high fence now. If you’re facing north looking at that fence to the right is Winchip. He’s got an old bulldozer back there and scrap metal. To the left is a house probably 150 give or take feet away. So I don’t know if anybody complained or not. Currently there’s a brush pile there right now that I really wasn’t aware of anything until Mr. Frank got a hold of me and he said stop doing what you’re doing. Okay. So I didn’t remove the brush pile. I didn’t get to plant any grass, and I’m proposing now, and I probably would have anyway, along every fence post put up arborvitaes, probably six footers, 10 to 12 arborvitaes along that fence line, I don’t mind doing that. As far as the shed goes, I really have no intentions of putting a shed there now, a 10 by 12 shed, but we just kind of drew that in there in case in the future, I don’t have to come back and re- 22 (Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 02/25/2020) apply for it, and if you look, this in your packet, this map here from 2016 that was approved actually says grass area, and there’s no grass back there. It doesn’t say trees, scrub brush, brush line, must maintain, nothing, so I really had no idea, and I didn’t even know about this actually grass area until Mr. Frank got a hold of me and that’s when I went back and looked at the paperwork and said where it says there’s grass area, but there’s no grass here. So that’s actually what I was going to do because he said well you can’t have dirt there and I said well there’s not going to be dirt there. I’m not done yet, and so I had to kind of stop and most of the stuff, like I said, was dead anyway. You’ve got a couple of pictures of the trees that were cut down, logged up in eight foot lengths. If the stormwater in October didn’t bring them down, the one a couple of weeks ago, it would have been a complete insurance nightmare. MR. TRAVER-So your intention is to basically clean it up and plant grass. MR. SOUTHWOOD-Yes, that’s it, and I’ll do a tree line right along the back. I don’t know if anybody complained. I’ll guarantee you Winchip with a bulldozer and scrap metal probably didn’t. Maybe the house 150 away did, but there’s also trees on other side of that fence, and there’s the whole tree, shrub. Basically what I took down it’s all garbage, but it’s somebody else’s, and it’s not on my property. Yes, I figured I wasn’t building anything so I didn’t need a permit. You own the property, you can cut down what you want to cut down. I learn something new every day. MR. TRAVER-Okay. Questions, comments from members of the Board? MR. DEEB-How many boats do you store there? MR. SOUTHWOOD-How many boats? Currently there’s two. Just during the wintertime. MR. DEEB-Are they yours? MR. SOUTHWOOD-Yes, they’re mine. MR. DEEB-Okay. MR. SOUTHWOOD-And I have some trailers, a 20 foot enclosed car hauler, like a tool trailer, and a couple of open trailers. MR. DEEB-So just your stuff. MR. SOUTHWOOD-Yes. It’s not a business. I’m not charging anybody. There’s not people coming and going. It’s always just me back there. MR. DEEB-It’s a small piece of property. MR. SOUTHWOOD-Yes, it’s six tenths of an acre or so I think. Along the sides there’s still tree lines there. Cumberland Farms is, if you’re facing north to the right. There’s a day spa to the left in that building, and in that area there’s nobody back there. There’s not even parking back there on either one of those properties. Even driving by on the road you’ve got to break your neck to even see back there. It’s not like an eyesore from the road or anything. MR. VALENTINE-The fence line shown in the pictures with your log there, is that fence line, is that the property line? This is showing trees around. So are these trees that are shown on the aerial. MR. SOUTHWOOD-Are they to the left of the building? MR. VALENTINE-No, well to the right of the building as you. MR. SOUTHWOOD-Those trees, those logs you see are on the east side of the building next to Cumberland Farms. They’re just stacked up there temporarily, but I didn’t want to move them after Mr. Frank got a hold of me so I figured I’d wait. There’s big brush pile there now and I figure MacGuire will come and he’s got a big hauler and truck and he’ll get rid of it all. So, yes, along the east side whatever trees were still there along the property line are there. On the west side whatever trees were there are still there. It’s just the rear of the property. MR. VALENTINE-So that fence line, as I’m looking at it, that doesn’t go all the way to the back, to your rear property line. MR. SOUTHWOOD-The fence line on the lower there? MR. VALENTINE-This fence line here, going along the back. Is that fence line at the rear property line or is there more property here behind it? 23 (Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 02/25/2020) MR. SOUTHWOOD-From that picture I think it goes further back . MR. VALENTINE-All right. So the trees that are still standing back there are your trees then? MRS. MOORE-So the fence line is the property line to the adjoining neighbor. MR. SOUTHWOOD-The whole reader is enclosed. MRS. MOORE-Right, but you’re saying, are you asking about the rear of the property? MR. VALENTINE-Well I’m assuming I’m looking at the rear of the property from these photos. MRS. MOORE-Right. MR. MAGOWAN-Look on this right here, S-2. All right. If you look at S-2 you’ll see the back property line and it’s got the fence posts all along. It looks like the fence is your fence. MR. SOUTHWOOD-Yes. It was there when I got there. I assume it’s ours. I take care of it. MR. MAGOWAN-Well the S-2 does show that fence line. MR. VALENTINE-Well that’s my question. Laura answered it. It says the fence is the property line. That’s what I was asking. MR. MAGOWAN-Right. That’s what I’d understand from looking at S-2. It looks like that fence line is the property line. MR. VALENTINE-Okay. MR. MAGOWAN-And what were the majority of the trees that you cut down? MR. SOUTHWOOD-Mostly pine. Most of them no bigger than three or four inches, other than probably eight to ten big ones. MR. MAGOWAN-That pile looks a little bit larger than three to four inches. MR. SOUTHWOOD-No, those ones, probably about 10 of them are that size there, but some of them are probably 50 feet high that you drop pretty carefully, but most of them are, even those there, most of the branches except for the very, very top are all dead, and everything would drop on the ground.. I mean the wind blew. MR. DIXON-So what are you thinking of putting back by the chain link fence now? MR. SOUTHWOOD-I can do a six foot privacy fence or I thought arborvitaes would look a little bit nicer. It’s all sand back there so digging is not really an issue. I mean obviously I can’t do it this time of the year, but other than that, I’d put the arborvitaes. Six footers would grow and fill in nice, versus a fence that’s going to fade and break and stain, and there’s other branches back there from the other properties that could easily fall on that fence. I pull branches still off the fence line and if you go back there you can see that it’s all bent all the time. So I’d probably just end up wrecking the fence. So arborvitaes are probably the way to go, but I’m hoping to. MR. TRAVER-So there is discussion in the Staff Notes with regard to the buffering. How do members, and the applicant is proposing 10 trees. MR. SOUTHWOOD-I think 12. They’re usually about three feet wide. I think every fence post is probably eight feet. MR. DIXON-You’re 129 feet, 130 feet across the back. Yes. So you’re proposing about 10 feet apart before the arborvitae. MR. SOUTHWOOD-I was going to put them along where the fence posts were to start. So if they’re three foot wide now, you know, a foot and a half on each side of the fence post and then they’ll most likely grow together and probably have a hedgerow someday. MR. VALENTINE-Looking at the plan, it says grassed area. I feel kind of funny just responding to somebody’s telephone call and just saying hey, buddy, you, you know, whatever. Grassed area, replace it with grassed area that said it was approved before. MR. TRAVER-Right. Evidently just grew in. 24 (Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 02/25/2020) MR. VALENTINE-Right, but I’m not going to sit here and say every five feet on center you’ve got to throw on a whole bunch of trees or something. MR. TRAVER-But he’s offering. MR. VALENTINE-I know he’s offering that, and I don’t want to go overboard and start specifying something different. Arborvitaes are a common tree and they’ll fill in and they’ll hold except for the deer that eat mine all the time. MR. TRAVER-Yes, they’re like candy to them. All right. So you’re comfortable with the application. MR. VALENTINE-Yes. MR. DEEB-Yes. MR. TRAVER-=How do other Board members feel? MR. DIXON-I think Mike makes a very good point. I mean if it was approved prior to, then I don’t think we should go overboard. MR. TRAVER-Yes, well you know my beef is unapproved development, and I saw this and I said, well, wait a minute it says, you know, to your point, and I said all right. MR. DEEB-So you’re going to put in 12 trees instead of 10 you said. MR. SOUTHWOOD-Yes, I think I put 12 on the application. MR. DEEB-You’ve got 10. MR. SOUTHWOOD-Does it? MS. WHITE-If he puts in trees and plants grass we’re all good. MR. TRAVER-So I think the condition, and we have a. MRS. MOORE-You have a public hearing, too. MR. TRAVER-Yes, thank you. There is a public hearing on this application. Is there anyone that wanted to comment? Yes, ma’am. If you would come up and get on the mic for us so that we have it in the minutes, please. Good evening. PUBLIC HEARING OPENED ALLYSSA DAWKINS MRS. DAWKINS-My name is Allyssa Dawkins and I own Body Relief right next door to Mr. Southwood’s property. On the north side of Mr. Southwood’s property. There were considerable trees that were taken down. It was done on a weekend, and I think that he should, I don’t have a problem with him having it grass, but to have all the trailers, boats and whatever else on the property, there’s no buffer. My clientele in the back, it’s an eyesore. It’s an absolute eyesore. If he could do a buffer like he talked about from the north end and the residential area. I don’t cut down my trees to my residential buffer or north or south ends. MR. TRAVER-Well, the application is a little unique in that some time ago it was approved that that area not be trees and brush but be grass, and evidently it went fallow or whatever and grew up and what his plan now is to, his intention is to complete the prior approval which is to turn that area into grass, and he’s talking about planting trees around. MRS. DAWKINS-It was always treed there. Even before he bought it the trees were there. MR. TRAVER-Well we have a pre-existing Site Plan approval that was prior approval stating that it was allowed to be grass. So whether the intention at that time, and I don’t know if the applicant owned it at that time that that was done, but the intention evidently was to make that a grass area and if that didn’t happen, the applicant is proposing to do it now. MRS. DAWKINS-With no buffer around the property line? MR. TRAVER-Well he’s had discussions with us about planting arborvitae in that area, Anything else:? 25 (Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 02/25/2020) MRS. DAWKINS-Okay. All right. No. MR. TRAVER-Okay. Thank you. MRS. DAWKINS-Thank you. MR. TRAVER-Anyone else want to comment on this application? Are there any written comments, Laura? MRS. MOORE-There are no written comments. MR. TRAVER-Okay. Well we’ll close the public hearing then on this. PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED MR. TRAVER-And the applicant can return to the table. MR. SOUTHWOOD-Just to address her concerns, her parking lot ends before that area. So I don’t know if you can kind of picture this area back here, the trees I took down. Her parking lot ends here, and then she has wooded area over here. Nothing from here near the tree line, the few trees that were along the fence, have been removed. So that’s all still existing to what was there. MR. TRAVER-It sounded as though her concern was now removing whatever vegetation was on the main body of the property where you have your boats and trailers and so on is now being restored to the previously approved Site Plan in that it’s going to be turned into a grass area, and that will increase the grass area of whatever you have back there. MR. SOUTHWOOD-It’s hard to explain. It doesn’t, but just the way the angles are, and these things have always been there and that’s why I got rid of them because I was tired of the trees wrecking it, and so it’s not like I added anything new. I’m not renting out space there. I’m not adding anything, but if I can fit a few more arborvitaes along her fence line, I’ll throw them in. I don’t care. MR. TRAVER-Yes, it sounds like, you know, there’s a concern about buffering. So anything that you can offer, that would be helpful. MR. MAGOWAN-Actually I think the way you pull into her parking lot, you come in on the side and around the back. So it’s that peripheral view that it’s open between the building and the parking lot. If you close that off and maybe put up a decorative fence or something. MR. SOUTHWOOD-Because our dumpster was back there and Mr. Frank, when we bought the place, made us put up a fence for that and he was happy and everybody was happy and nobody’s said anything in four years. That tree line is still there when you pull in there. It’s still there. So when you pull in her lot, you could always, if you look kitty corner like that, see the trailers. So taking down those trees had no effect on it. If anybody would want to say anything it’s the people, I said north, it’s to the east, would be the Winchip and the house that’s 150 feet away. Those would be the only people, and there is vegetation on the other side so in the spring when that comes in you’re not going to see it anyway. MR. TRAVER-Well I think we have a draft resolution that discusses your plantings. MR. DIXON-Excuse me, Mr. Chairman, before we do that, the shed, though, that you’re proposing removing that from the application, then, the 10 by 12 shed? MRS. MOORE-So the reason why the shed is on there and maybe you could pinpoint a time. There’s two things about the project itself, but in reference to the shed, it’s placed on there because all sheds in commercial zones require site plan review. So the applicant was trying to avoid coming back in five years for a shed that he might have placed on the property without approval. So now it’s placed on there as something to be done in the future. My understanding that maybe between now and five years from now, and it doesn’t require a permit. MR. TRAVER-So you’re saying include it as part of the approval if we don’t object to it? MRS. MOORE-Right. If the Board says, the applicant says t’s not going to be for ten years and you, as the Board, say, look that’s too long of a time period, you should come back for site plan review, you could do that, too. I don’t have a preference, I just thought the opportunity to get that information on the application in case the applicant wished to do that in the future. MR. TRAVER-So a time window for putting the shed there if he decides he wants one. MRS. MOORE-You could do that. 26 (Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 02/25/2020) MR. TRAVER-Okay. MRS. MOORE-In reference to the plantings and making the lawn area, I would include a timeframe for that. So my guess would be by September of 2020 all of the work should be completed so that Bruce has a timeframe to go out and say what’s the status, it’s done. MR. TRAVER-Okay. MR. VALENTINE-Mr. Southwood, do you know where you would intend to put that shed on there? Using that one up there. MR. TRAVER-It’s on the plan. MR. VALENTINE-I understand but I don’t see it there and I don’t know where it is. My thought is I’m wondering if it could be re-located to form some kind of a blockage between the two parking lots. MRS. MOORE-You mean like this? MR. MAGOWAN-Isn’t the shed right there in the back? MRS. MOORE-No, that’s the. MR. SOUTHWOOD-That’s another building that was there. MS. WHITE-It’s the quilt shop. MR. SOUTHWOOD-It used to be a quilt shop, yes. MS. WHITE-That’s where I used to quilt. MRS. MOORE-So something like that. I don’t know if it would interfere with the traffic. MR. VALENTINE-Well I’m just thinking it’s 10 by 12 and you pick up 12 feet of visual blockage between. MR. SOUTHWOOD-Well, yes, maybe this will help. I don’t have a specific. I’m not married to anywhere really, as long as it doesn’t block the flow of traffic. We put it right here in the drawing, a 10 by 12 right here, and now that my neighbor here has an issue, maybe she would have an issue with that. I don’t know. Maybe it would help. Maybe it wouldn’t. I don’t know. It doesn’t matter to me. I can put it in that corner. The only thing I was told, Craig Brown said five feet from a property line. So, I mean, there’s plenty of room anywhere back here to put it. I’m not concerned with where, and like I said, I have no intentions of doing it right now. Maybe a year, maybe in two years. I just figured we were here, why come back and waste everybody’s time for a 10 by 12 shed that doesn’t require a permit . We might as well just get it done MR. MAGOWAN-On the trees with your neighbor there on the north side. You see where the road wraps around the back of the shed building there now, but see all that clump of trees is gone. Right? MR. SOUTHWOOD-So right here, this is her property here. She always drove in here, there were always trailers and boats right in here. This is an aerial view, but always. So when you go in, you could always see. This row of trees is still here. There’s a brush pile here, and all this is gone and there’s like a thin row of trees here, but you can see where it starts to pick up the gravel and t hen the pavement starts here. so it’s not like I can plant trees all along here. That’s all paved pretty much on both our sides. So you’d have to dig up blacktop. I mean that’s way beyond the scope of what’s going on in the back anyway, but like I said, where there’s dirt here, this is the gravel road here. I mean if you wanted to do like three or four arborvitaes right in here, if that helps, but I think with those trees there on her side it’s already done. MR. MAGOWAN-Well I’m just saying that clump of trees right in front right off the corner of the shed. Right there. They’re all gone, right? MR. SOUTHWOOD-Gone. MR. MAGOWAN-All right. So see that opens up the whole backyard and it takes out, if you had the trailers over there in the other grassy area or in the back of the shed. So I could see your point of opening up that buffer. MR. SOUTHWOOD-But these trees never blocked those trailers anyway. This is an aerial view so these branches are way up high. There’s no, those trailers were there anyway. 27 (Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 02/25/2020) MR. MAGOWAN-You have a lot of scrub brush and everything that are lower. MR. SOUTHWOOD-Yes. So the scrub brush, it started probably back ion here, and then you can see how these trees, they just over hung this dirt road right here even you can see. So everything was underneath there, wherever it could get squeezed in, but, yes, they were always there, since 2016. MR. MAGOWAN-Whatever you could do to put some more buffer on that north side. MR. SOUTHWOOD-Well like I said, so here’s the end of our pavement here, and here’s her parking lot here. Even if I started right here and put three or four arborvitaes, you still, when you came in, you could still see right past them. MR. MAGOWAN-So what about angling that along that curb? MR. SOUTHWOOD-Angling what? MR. MAGOWAN-Bring the arborvitaes along the curb. MR. SOUTHWOOD-Then that interferes with this whole ring road around. MR. MAGOWAN-No, no, on the backside. Go up a little higher. Right along there. MR. SOUTHWOOD-Right along here? MR. MAGOWAN-Yes, or back a little bit further. Do you know what I’m saying? MR. SOUTHWOOD-You’re saying at the end of the ring road. MR. MAGOWAN-You said she’s got the pine trees. So, yes. MR. SOUTHWOOD-All this vegetation’s still here. This brush here and tree line right there is still there, maybe a foot, two foot out from the fence, and there’s currently, right here there’s a large brush pile right now. I don’t have a problem with it. I don’t know if it’s going to help. MR. TRAVER-Yes, well let’s get something specific together so the applicant can move forward. So he’s putting 12 arborvitae along the fence line and we’re talking about adding more along the back driveway. We need to be pretty specific so the applicant. MR. DEEB-I don’t see where he’s going to put them on that side. MR. SOUTHWOOD0-I can take a look at that but I can’t guarantee anything there. I mean there’s been crushed stone down there forever. It could be rock solid. I don’t even know if I could get the trees in there. I can look at it. If I can do it I will. I’m not looking to make enemies of neighbors. So if I can help out, I don’t have a problem. MR. TRAVER-Right. MR. TRAVER-So what do you have for a draft approval now in terms of conditions? MR. DEEB-Twelve arborvitaes to be planted on the rear property line, approval of shed placement for five years to 2025. MR. TRAVER-Okay. Approval of the shed placement as depicted on the application?> Because he has a shed shown generally on the application. So we’re approving that location? MR. SOUTHWOOD-If you approve that location, we’re probably putting those arborvitaes there, like Mr. Magowan wanted. Both can’t go there. MR. DEEB-You could move the shed to the back. MR. SOUTHWOOD-I can. I’m just talking about proposed right now where it is. MR. DEEB-That’s not going to impact anybody. MR. TRAVER-Okay. MR. DEEB-So why don’t we just leave that, then. MR. TRAVER-All right. 28 (Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 02/25/2020) MR. SOUTHWOOD-Just as long as it’s five feet from the fence line on either side. MR. TRAVER-Yes. All right. Well we have a draft resolution. Let’s see what happens with that. I think we’ve talked quite a bit about this. MR. DEEB-Approval of the shed location towards the back of the property. MRS. MOORE-You could just say a compliant location. MR. TRAVER-Approval of shed placement per the Code. MS. WHITE-Talk to Staff. MR. DEEB-Okay. RESOLUTION APPROVING SP # 6-2020 JASON SOUTHWOOD 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 requests to maintain a currently disturbed area removal of vegetation, shrubs & trees – intention is to plant grass in the Spring of 2020. Project site contains an existing commercial building for two tenants, currently occupied, and an existing storage building. Applicant to use area for personal storage, i.e. trailers and boats, and to place a 120 sq. ft. shed. Pursuant to Chapter 179-9-020 & Article 8 – 179-8-060 of the Zoning Ordinance, site preparation and buffer zones 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 02/25/2020 and continued the public hearing to 02/25/2020, 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 02/25/2020; 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 6-2020 JASON SOUTHWOOD; Introduced by David Deeb who moved for its adoption; Per the draft provided by staff conditioned upon the following conditions: 1) Waivers request granted: items g. site lighting, h. signage, j. stormwater, k. topography, n traffic, o. commercial alterations/ construction details, p floor plans, q. soil logs, r. construction/demolition disposal s. snow removal. 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) Twelve arborvitae to be planted on the rear property line. i) Approval of compliant shed placement for five years to 2025. j) Planting to be completed by September 2020. th Motion seconded by Jamie White. Duly adopted this 25 day of February, 2020 by the following vote: 29 (Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 02/25/2020) MS. WHITE-Do we also mentioned that the grass needs to be seeded prior to 2020? MR. TRAVER-That’s in the prior approval. MRS. MOORE-That the entire project should be completed by September 2020 MR. SOUTHWOOD-I’ll have it done before then. MRS. MOORE-So, just to clarify, you’re not suggesting putting plantings on the north property line? MR. DEEB-No. MR. TRAVER-No. MR. MAGOWAN-Well he said he would. MR. TRAVER-He said he would look at it but we’re not conditioning the approval on it. MR. SOUTHWOOD-Yes, if I can do it, I’ll do it. What’s three or four more trees. MR. TRAVER-Yes, I appreciate it. AYES: Mr. Dixon, Mr. Hunsinger, Mr. Magowan, Mr. Valentine, Mr. Deeb, Ms. White, Mr. Traver NOES: NONE ABSENT: Mr. Shafer MR. TRAVER-Good luck. Thank you. MR. SOUTHWOOD-Thank you. MR. TRAVER-The next item under New Business is a Sketch Plan for a Subdivision Plan 2-2020 for JP Gross Properties, LLC. SUBDIVISION SKETCH PLAN 2-2020 SEQR TYPE: UNLISTED. JP GROSS PROPERTIES, LLC. AGENT(S): TRAVIS MITCHELL/OWEN SPEULSTRA, EDP. OWNER(S): SAME AS APPLICANT. ZONING: MDR/LC-10A/RR-5A. LOCATION: LUZERNE ROAD. APPLICANT PROPOSES A 12 LOT RESIDENTIAL CONSERVATION SUBDIVISION. THE LOTS ARE DIVIDED WITH: LOT 2 – LOT 10 OF LOT SIZE RANGE 1.45 ACRE TO 0.79 ACRE WITH ACCESS FROM LUZERNE ROAD; LOT 1 OF 1.50 ACRE WITH ACCESS FROM TWIN MOUNTAIN DRIVE; LOT 11 OF 13.2 ACRES WITH ACCESS FROM TUTHILL ROAD. PROJECT INCLUDES LOT 12 OF 25.5 ACRES TO BE DEEDED OPEN SPACE. PURSUANT TO CHAPTER 183 OF THE ZONING ORDINANCE, SKETCH PLANS MAY BE BROUGHT BEFORE THE PLANNING BOARD FOR DISCUSSION. CROSS REFERENCE: SUB SKETCH 3-2015, SUB SKETCH 7-2019. 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 SPEULSTRA, REPRESENTING APPLICANT, PRESENT MR. TRAVER-Laura? MRS. MOORE-The applicant proposes a 12 lot residential subdivision. Lot Two through Ten ranging in size from 1.45 acres to 0.79 acres and then Lot One of 1.5, access from Twin Mountain Drive, Lot Eleven of 13.2 acres with access from Tuthill. The project includes Lot Twelve of 25.5 acres to be deeded as open space. I did outline some of the information previously in reference to having a conservation subdivision and the applicant has recently provided an updated drawing that’s coming up now for us to look at as part of this discussion. MR. TRAVER-And that’s different than what we have? It’s newer than what we have? MRS. MOORE-I think it’s newer. I’m not quite sure. MR. SPEULSTRA-Owen Speulstra with Environmental Design Partnership. The plan that you have, this th is a color rendering of the plan that was submitted on the 15 or so of last month I believe. So we were here I believe in September. The Board had recommended that we have, instead of open space being on individual lots and deed restricted in that manner, that we have one open space lot to be deeded to either a Homeowners Association or I guess the options are Homeowners Association or dedicated to the Town. I believe in this situation it would make more sense for a Homeowners Association because the Town 30 (Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 02/25/2020) doesn’t have any contiguous park lands with this site. So that’s what’s in front of you. Just to give you a brief update, we have done some test holes for septic and stormwater. We’re starting that process. We’ve also worked in concert with the Water Department and we’re looking at water pressures and flows. The pressures are marginal so we’re working through those issues and we’re so close to the water tank, but I wanted to get in front of you guys again just to discuss this and make sure you’re okay with the direction it’s going, with deeded, with one open space lot that’s going to be a Homeowners Association and the configuration that’s shown in front of you. I know that the use of the open space is another item that’s still kind of up in flux. You have passive recreational use. This is a steep area. I don’t see much other uses other than maybe a hiking through that area so it’s very steep. There’s some APA wetlands in this area, too, that we have to deal with. So again, we’re just here to give you a brief update, make sure that you don’t see any glaring red flags, nothing that would pump the brakes at this moment and continue the design of this site. MR. VALENTINE-Are there any trail systems anywhere around? I’m saying not even right now to connect to, but in a future time, is there something else that there, maybe there’s a stipulation that can be put in about future use of the open space? Or is there a land conservancy group in the Town? MRS. MOORE-We do have a land conservancy group, and just as he mentioned, I’m not, this site, it’s so steep. MR. VALENTINE-Well we just put a challenge up to each other here. MR. HUNSINGER-We’re going to toboggan it. MR. VALENTINE-Yes. MS. WHITE-I was going to say I’d join you on a hike. I don’t know about tobogganing down. MRS. MOORE-So I wouldn’t be certain that that would be, because usually when they do the land conservation they’re looking for something to add to an existing system, and I’m not certain that this is that route that would be taken, and the other part of this is because there’s two outside lots versus a conservation subdivision, it doesn’t meet the definition of a conservation subdivision. So there’s a little bit of a discussion, and again, conservation subdivision is a discussion. . Does it meet that. So I agree with Owen. They’re in this process of trying to move forward, but if the Board, the Board gave some direction. There was a different plan set, and you definitely gave some guidance as to that wasn’t it, that wouldn’t be what you were looking for, and you came back to this cul de sac issue, and I think this is where, if this project is to move forward, the Board needs to think about that conservation subdivision and what that means. MR. TRAVER-And if it were not considered a conservation subdivision, it would impact the density basically. Right? MRS. MOORE-It would impact the density and the applicant would be subject to area variances, and I’m not saying that the cul de sac is not the best route, but you would just have some additional review process. MR. HUNSINGER-So the cynical person says your property’s too steep to do anything with anyway. And assuming, if it were a flat piece of paper and you’re doing a conservation subdivision, my two specific thoughts are make Lot 11 much smaller, and give the acreage to Lot 12 so you’re making the conservation lot bigger because it doesn’t need to be 13 acres, Lot 11 doesn’t. And then the other thought is I would move the entire cul de sac, and I don’t know which direction, make all of those lots smaller, because those are pretty big lots. Some of them are, you know, 1.4 acres, 1.0 acres, 1.0 acres, 1.1 acres. To me that doesn’t, to me that’s not a conservation subdivision. To me a conservation subdivision is more a cluster subdivision where the lots are a little smaller and the open space is maximized., but I think you’re still back to the questions that even you raised, what do you do with the empty lot, like what’s the value of it. Hiking is certainly one. There’s the new hiking trails across from Glen Lake. They’re very steep, you know, it’s a fun hike, but that’s the. MR. DIXON-I’m not familiar with the wetlands back there. I’ve never been back there hiking. I don’t know if it’s anything of substance to go visit. MR. HUNSINGER-Yes. MR. VALENTINE-Well the wetlands looks to be the un steepest, but there again. MR. MAGOWAN-Well usually it does seek its own level. MR. VALENTINE-But then you could look and say okay how could you get a trail through wetlands, you know, instead of just another regulatory problem. 31 (Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 02/25/2020) MRS. MOORE-Right. So there’s no, right now there’s certain lots that don’t have specific access to it or frontage on it. MR. HUNSINGER-Right. Yes. MRS. MOORE-So coming up with that area where they would enter this system, that’s unknown. MR. HUNSINGER-Yes. MRS. MOORE-I think with the lots, though, you mentioned making them as small as possible, but I would also be contemplative of putting my, all my utilities plus that outdoor porch, that shed and that pool that ultimately one or two of those lots are going to want. So putting all those pieces. MR. HUNSINGER-I don’t literally mean make the lots as small as possible but 1.4 acres to me is not a conservation cluster lot. MRS. MOORE-Right, and then you also get to discuss setbacks., So if you look at it and say, say if you looked at a PUD and they wanted to do the deck like Hiland does and they constantly come in for deck variances, I want to avoid that sort of situation where they’re constantly coming back for a deck or a pol that doesn’t meet the setbacks. MS. WHITE-And so have that in place a ahead of time. MRS. MOORE-Yes. MR. VALENTINE-You’ve definitely got a lot of land here that’s unusable. MRS. MOORE-Well to who? I don’t know if it’s unusable. I can’t define that. MR. VALENTINE-Well it’s unusual to somebody that wants to build a house on some of it. MRS. MOORE-Right. There you go. MR. MAGOWAN-I don’t have a problem with it. I kind of like the larger lots. It may be something that may be a good selling point, but, you know, the other 25 acres that basically is not, I mean how do you separate that so, I mean, do you set that up with a Homeowners Association where, you know, everybody. MR. TRAVER-That’s what he’s talking about. MR. SPEULSTRA-Yes, it definitely could be that kind of configuration and there’s also the question of access, and I think we could have some kind of easement along this property line here to access, so everybody in this area could access that rear site or even a small sliver of land. MR. VALENTINE-You’re just saying between lots. MR. SPEULSTRA-Between lots. MR. VALENTINE-Like between Six and Seven has the most open area between lots to get to that. MR. MAGOWAN-Yes, but you’re going right into the depth of the wetlands. MR. VALENTINE-Yes. MR. SPEULSTRA-I was thinking maybe eight or nine. MR. MAGOWAN-Yes, I was going to say it looks like eight or nine and then they could go around the wetlands. MR. VALENTINE-Well and then the other thing is, Chris and I were just looking at, you could make a connection on that to go on. I’ll call it the north side. Go on the north side of the wetlands. You could get a trail going through a moderate steep area and make a connection back up to Lilac Lane. Maybe there’s a way to put a trail head at the end of Lilac for parking or something, and you can create that from Lilac and follow. That’s not steep going from 400 something, 460 like that, going up to the 510 where that arrow of yours comes up to that point, and then just paralleling the wetland as you come down and get it to where you’re saying, between Seven and Eight, Eight and Nine. MR. TRAVER-So with that guidance, are we comfortable with the conservation subdivision? MR. DEEB-Does that other lot have to be that big? 32 (Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 02/25/2020) MR. SPEULSTRA-Well that was, I think Mr. Hunsinger talked about that. MR. DEEB-Is there a reason you made it that big? MR. SPEULSTRA-Just trying to balance the open space requirement of 50% with the lots. So it’s a 50 acre lot. So 25 acres has to be open space. MR. DEEB-I see. Okay. MR. SPEULSTRA-So, no, it doesn’t. MR. HUNSINGER-So maybe Lot 11 we say isn’t really part of the conservation subdivision, make sure it’s five acres and it’s a standard lot for RR-5. I’m just throwing it out there. MR. SPEULSTRA-Okay. MR. HUNSINGER-And then give the extra acreage to Lot 12. MR. SPEULSTRA-I don’t see a problem with that. MR. DIXON-I know Lots Seven and Eight, it would be nice if the northern border were pulled back a little bit to get it farther away from the wetlands. Because people traditionally they’re going to try to clear that property, even if it’s restricted. MR. SPEULSTRA-Yes, so pull away from the wetlands a little bit, Seven and Eight, the western property line. So what I recall north is off the page. So west and east. So, yes, we could pull that lot line, the rear lot line of Seven and Eight away from the wetlands a little bit. MR. DIXON-What’s our new Town setback for wetlands? Is it 25? MRS. MOORE-It’s 75. So a building can’t be closer than 75, but if you work within 100 feet of a wetland it triggers site plan review. So if you, wherever that construction is, it’s also a conservation subdivision so that’s part of the discussion. So in this case you’d identify there’s a wetland. They’re doing construction. Here’s the setbacks to that wetland. MR. SPEULSTRA-And they’re APA wetlands. MRS. MOORE-APA wetlands. So they have other jurisdictions. MR. SPEULSTRA-We’re dealing with the APA on that, too. MR. VALENTINE-Can we submit something to Travis for design, a seven man design team here? MR. DEEB-He’s joking here. MR. TRAVER-Well I think he’s gotten some good feedback with regard to 11, the idea of some linkage to the vacant property from the residential area.. That at least justifies some access as residential use. Is here any other guidance that Board members want to give the applicant? We are at Sketch. Do you have any specific questions, follow up questions for us? MR. SPEULSTRA-No, I mean it was the use of the open space and just make sure that there were no serious red flags. I think I got my input. MR. TRAVER-Yes, I think linkage to the residential area is important. . I guess what concerned me a little bit was the question of whether this really represents a conservation easement, and understand the topography is an issue, but I mean without any access and the wetland is really more of a barrier to the conservation area and this subdivision. So adding some linkage helps with that I think. So I guess that’s all we have for you, unless you have some specific questions. MR. SPEULSTRA-Very good. I appreciate your time. MR. TRAVER-Okay. Yes, thank you. Let’s see. We talked about our third meeting next month. Is there any other business before the Planning Board this evening? If not we’ll entertain a motion to adjourn. MR. HUNSINGER-So moved. MOTION TO ADJOURN THE QUEENSBURY PLANNING BOARD MEETING OF FEBRUARY 25, 2020, Introduced by Chris Hunsinger who moved for its adoption, seconded by David Deeb: 33 (Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 02/25/2020) th Duly adopted this 25 day of February, 2020, by the following vote: AYES: Ms. White, Mr. Deeb, Mr. Valentine, Mr. Dixon, Mr. Deeb, Mr. Magowan, Mr. Traver NOES: NONE ABSENT: Mr. Shafer MR. TRAVER-We stand adjourned. Thank you, everybody. On motion meeting was adjourned. RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED, Stephen Traver, Chairman 34