Loading...
06-16-2020 (Queensbury Planning Board 06/16/2020) QUEENSBURY PLANNING BOARD MEETING FIRST REGULAR MEETING JUNE 16, 2020 INDEX Site Plan No. 11-2020 Ronald Miller 1. ZBA RECOMMENDATION Tax Map No. 227.9-1-5 Site Plan No. 12-2020 Kevin & Annie Dineen 3. ZBA RECOMMENDATION Tax Map No. 289.17-1-46 Site Plan No. 14-2020 Adam Leonardo 5. ZBA RECOMMENDATION Tax Map No. 289.11-1-17 Site Plan No. 15-2020 Frank & Erin Steinbach 7. Tax Map No. 226.19-2-18 Site Plan No. 20-2020 Michael & Gail Dawson 10. Tax Map No. 308.16-2-4.3 Subdivision No. 7-2020 Clear Brook, LLC 13. PRELIMINARY STAGE Tax Map No. 316.14-1-6 (portion) Subdivision No. 3-2020 Werner Greyling 18. PRELIMINARY STAGE Tax Map No. 309.15-1-64 Subdivision No. 4-2020 FINAL STAGE Subdivision No. 5-2020 Native Development Assoc., LLC 22. PRELIMINARY STAGE Tax Map No. 308.20-1-9.2 Subdivision No. 6-2020 FINAL STAGE 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 06/16/2020) QUEENSBURY PLANNING BOARD MEETING FIRST REGULAR MEETING JUNE 16, 2020 7:00 P.M. MEMBERS PRESENT STEPHEN TRAVER, CHAIRMAN CHRIS HUNSINGER, VICE CHAIRMAN DAVID DEEB, SECRETARY BRAD MAGOWAN JAMIE WHITE JOHN SHAFER MICHAEL DIXON, ALTERNATE MEMBERS ABSENT MICHAEL VALENTINE LAND USE PLANNER-LAURA MOORE STENOGRAPHER-MARIA GAGLIARDI th MR. TRAVER-Welcome to the Town of Queensbury Planning Board meeting for Tuesday, June 16, 2020. This is our first meeting for the month of June and our sixth meeting thus far for 2020 and to add to the complexity it’s our second meeting being held under the COVID Pandemic. We have one administrative thth item for approval of minutes for the February 18 and February 25 Planning Board minutes. If you have an electronic device if you would either turn it off or turn the ringer off so as not to disturb our proceedings this evening. Also note behind us the illuminated exit signs. In case of an emergency that is your way out. The public hearing will have a call in availability to folks that are observing the proceedings not in person but on the Town’s YouTube channel. That phone number, when we get to public hearings, is 518-761- 8225, and I will repeat that number at the appropriate time. Applicants and representatives coming up to speak at the microphone, I believe there’s some sanitizing materials there in between. When you’re done if you would just wipe off the microphone for the next available person. I see that everyone is wearing a stthth mask. So we will proceed with approval of minutes for January 21, January 28, February 18 and th February 25. MR. DEEB-Okay. APPROVAL OF MINUTES st January 21, 2020 th January 28, 2020 th February 18, 2020 th February 25, 2020 MOTION TO APPROVE THE QUEENSBURY PLANNING BOARD MEETING MINUTES OF STTHTHTH JANUARY 21 & JANUARY 28, 2020 & FEBRUARY 18 & FEBRUARY 25, 2020, Introduced by David Deeb who moved for its adoption, seconded by Brad Magowan: th Duly adopted this 16 day of June, 2020, by the following vote: AYES: Mr. Deeb, Ms. White, Mr. Shafer, Mr. Hunsinger, Mr. Magowan, Mr. Dixon, Mr. Traver NOES: NONE ABSTAINED: Mr. Shafer (on 2/25/2020 only) ABSENT: Mr. Valentine MR. TRAVER-Next we move to our regular agenda, the first section being recommendations to the Zoning Board of Appeals, and the first item is Site Plan 11-2020 for Ronald Miller. PLANNING BOARD RECOMMENDATION TO THE ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS SITE PLAN NO. 11-2020 SEQR TYPE: TYPE II. RONALD MILLER. AGENT(S): JARRETT ENGINEERS, PLLC. OWNER(S): SAME AS APPLICANT. ZONING: WR. LOCATION: 107 2 (Queensbury Planning Board 06/16/2020) ROCKHURST ROAD. APPLICANT PROPOSES TO REMOVE AN EXISTING 282 SQ. FT. DECK TO CONSTRUCT A 282 SQ. FT. DECK WITH A 63 SQ. FT. ADDITION AND A 50 SQ. FT. STAIR AND LANDING AREA. PROJECT INCLUDES REPAIR OF BOATHOUSE FOUNDATION AND NEW PLANTINGS AT SHORELINE. PURSUANT TO CHAPTER 179-3-040 OF THE ZONING ORDINANCE, EXPANSION OF A NON-CONFORMING STRUCTURE AND HARD SURFACE WITHIN 50 FT. OF SHORELINE SHALL BE SUBJECT TO PLANNING BOARD REVIEW AND APPROVAL. VARIANCE: RELIEF IS SOUGHT FOR SETBACK AND PERMEABILITY. PLANNING BOARD SHALL MAKE A RECOMMENDATION TO THE ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS. CROSS REFERENCE: AV 73-1996; SP 57-2012 & AV 50-2012 PATIO & LANDSCAPING; WARREN CO. REFERRAL: MARCH 2020. SITE INFORMATION: APA, LGPC. LOT SIZE: .19 ACRES. TAX MAP NO. 227.9-1-5. SECTION: 179-3-040. TOM JARRETT, REPRESENTING APPLICANT, PRESENT MR. TRAVER-Laura? MRS. MOORE-So this applicant proposes to remove a portion of an existing deck of 282 square feet and the construct a 282 square foot deck with a 63 square foot addition and a 50 square foot stair and landing area. The project includes repair of boathouse foundation and new plantings at shoreline. Relief is sought for setbacks and permeability. MR. TRAVER-Okay. Thank you. Good evening. MR. JARRETT-Good evening. For the record, Tom Jarrett. I guess that’s more important now that you can’t tell who’s speaking. MR. TRAVER-Right. MR. JARRETT-Representing the Millers, and Ron Miller is with me in the audience tonight, and he will endeavor to correct me if I misspeak about anything. This should be a fairly straightforward application for you. We are trying to replace an existing deck on the north side of the house, and extend it slightly, the intent was laterally parallel to the lake, not closer to the lake as you’ll see in the overhead. Unfortunately there’s a technicality. The shoreline gets closer when you get to the north corner of that new deck extension. So we’re actually eight inches closer to the lake than we were before, even though the intent was to keep it the same. We need variances for modification of a pre-existing, non-conforming structure, that deck setback, permeability, which theoretically I thought we were aggravating. Ron corrected me tonight that we’re actually not. The patio underneath the deck, see right there, that right there I thought was being extended, that little section of patio, 26 square feet. He tells me that was built 10 years ago under the prior approval. So we really technically don’t need that increase in permeability or that variance, but it’s in there, it’s listed. So you can review that as well, and then there’s a repair of the boathouse which is technically a structure at a zero setback. We’ve listed that as well. You’ll see photographs or an isometric drawing of the proposed deck in your package, I hope, that clarifies what he’ trying to do. Right there is the isometric drawing of the proposed deck, and there’s some photographs of the existing conditions. So it should be fairly straightforward unless the application was confusing and I’ll certainly open it up for questions. MR. TRAVER-Okay. Questions, comments from members of the Planning Board? I have one. There’s a comment in the Staff Notes, additional retaining walls and a patio were to be constructed closer to the shoreline but the applicant has removed those items from the current plan. MR. JARRETT-They were not constructed years ago under that approval and they’re not being constructed now as part of the application. MR. TRAVER-Okay. Note under SEQR this is Type II. There’s no public hearing on this application because it is a recommendation. Anyone have any comment, discussion? MR. HUNSINGER-I just thought the changes were pretty minimal. I didn’t really have any concerns. MR. TRAVER-Okay. So does anyone have any concerns to bring forward to the ZBA? I’m not hearing any. Okay. Then I guess we’re ready for that motion. RESOLUTION RE: ZBA RECOMMENDATION RE: AV # 7-2020 RONALD MILLER The applicant has submitted an application for the following: Applicant proposes to remove an existing 282 sq. ft. deck to construct a 282 sq. ft. deck with a 63 sq. ft. addition and a 50 sq. ft. stair and landing area. Project includes repair of boathouse foundation and new plantings at shoreline. Pursuant to Chapter 179-3-040 of the Zoning Ordinance, expansion of a pre-existing non-conforming structure and hard surface within 50 ft. of shoreline shall be subject to Planning Board review and approval. Variance: Relief is sought 3 (Queensbury Planning Board 06/16/2020) for setback and permeability. Planning Board shall make 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. 7-2020 RONALD MILLER. Introduced by David Deeb who moved its adoption, and a) The Planning Board, based on a limited review, has not identified any significant adverse impacts that cannot be mitigated with current project proposal. th Motion seconded by Brad Magowan. Duly adopted this 16 day of June, 2020 by the following vote: AYES: Ms. White, Mr. Shafer, Mr. Hunsinger, Mr. Magowan, Mr. Dixon, Mr. Deeb, Mr. Traver NOES: NONE ABSENT: Mr. Valentine MR. JARRETT-Thank you much. Hopefully I’ll see you next week. MR. TRAVER-Okay. The next item also under Planning Board Recommendations is Kevin & Annie Dineen, Site Plan 12-2020. SITE PLAN NO. 12-2020 SEQR TYPE: TYPE II. KEVIN & ANNIE DINEEN. AGENT(S): ETHAN HALL. OWNER(S): SAME AS APPLICANT. ZONING: WR. LOCATION: 149 BIRDSALL ROAD. APPLICANT PROPOSES TO CONSTRUCT A 135 SQ. FT. ENTRY MUDROOM AND RECONFIGURE THE KITCHEN ENTRY AND RELOCATE DECK STAIRS OF EXISTING SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENCE. THE EXISTING HOME HAS A FLOOR AREA OF 4588 SQ. FT. AND PROPOSED IS 4,723 SQ. FT. PURSUANT TO CHAPTER 179-3-040 OF THE ZONING ORDINANCE, NEW FLOOR AREA IN A CEA SHALL BE SUBJECT TO PLANNING BOARD REVIEW AND APPROVAL. VARIANCE: RELIEF IS SOUGHT FOR SETBACKS AND PERMEABILITY. PLANNING BOARD SHALL PROVIDE A RECOMMENDATION TO THE ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS. CROSS REFERENCE: SP 11-2007, SP 26-2012, SP PZ 202-2016, AV PZ 208-2016, AV 24-2012, AV 10-2020. WARREN CO. REFERRAL: N/A. LOT SIZE: .62 ACRE. TAX MAP NO. 289.17-1-46. SECTION: 179-3-040. ETHAN HALL, REPRESENTING APPLICANTS, PRESENT MR. TRAVER-Laura? MRS. MOORE-This applicant proposes to construct a 135 square foot entry mudroom and reconfigure the kitchen entry and relocate the deck stairs of existing single family home. The project was seen previously for something similar that they’ve now modified that entry to include just 135 square feet versus the other proposal and relief is sought for setbacks and permeability. MR. TRAVER-Okay. Thank you. Good evening. MR. HALL-Good evening. For the record Ethan Hall principal with Rucinski Hall Architecture here tonight representing Kevin & Annie Dineen. This project was in front of this Board back in 2016. It received approval at that point. There were some modifications to the garage and the mudroom that we’re doing now. They undertook the garage portion of it, but did not undertake the mudroom portion of it. They’ve made some modifications to it so we’re back to get it re-approved. It’s slightly smaller than what we had done before. So the setbacks are basically the same, and a little more permeability than what we had last time. The current approval, the current site is 65.4, and with this we’ll be 64.8. MR. TRAVER-That is very slight. MR. HALL-Very slight. MR. TRAVER-Okay. Anything else? 4 (Queensbury Planning Board 06/16/2020) MR. HALL-No. MR. TRAVER-Okay. Questions, comments from members of the Board? We did look at this before. I know it was quite a while ago. MR. HALL-2016 is when we had the original approval, and they did do the portion of it which was the garage expansion, but they just didn’t get around to doing this and their approval ran out. So we’re basically getting back to that now. MR. TRAVER-This is a recommendation to the ZBA. So there is no public hearing. Under SEQR it is considered a Type II. Any comments or questions for the applicant? Any concerns regarding our referral? I see a few members still looking at the plans. So we’ll give it a second. MR. HUNSINGER-I thought the changes were pretty minimal. MR. DEEB-Yes. MR. HUNSINGER-Similar to the last application. MR. TRAVER-Yes, it’s slightly better than what was approved the first time. MR. MAGOWAN-I appreciate you coming in with better numbers. That’s what we like to hear. MR. TRAVER-All right. So any concerns from Board members on this for our recommendation? Okay. Then I guess we’re ready to hear that motion as well. RESOLUTION RE: ZBA RECOMMENDATION RE: AV # 10-2020 KEVIN & ANNIE DINEEN The applicant has submitted an application for the following: Applicant proposes to construct 135 sq. ft. entry mudroom and reconfigure the kitchen entry and relocate deck stairs of existing single family residence. The existing home has a floor area of 4588 sq. ft. and proposed is 4,723 sq. ft. Pursuant to Chapter 179-3-040 of the Zoning Ordinance, new floor area in a CEA shall be subject to Planning Board review and approval. Variance: Relief is sought for setbacks 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. 10-2020 KEVIN & ANNIE DINEEN. Introduced by David Deeb who moved its adoption, and a) The Planning Board, based on a limited review, has not identified any significant adverse impacts that cannot be mitigated with current project proposal. th Motion seconded by John Shafer. Duly adopted this 16 day of June, 2020 by the following vote: AYES: Mr. Shafer, Mr. Hunsinger, Mr. Magowan, Mr. Dixon, Mr. Deeb, Ms. White, Mr. Traver NOES: NONE ABSENT: Mr. Valentine MR. TRAVER-All right. You’re off to the ZBA. MR. HALL-Thank you very much. MR. MAGOWAN-Thank you. MR. TRAVER-The next item on our agenda, also under Planning Board recommendations is Adam Leonardo, Site Plan 14-2020. 5 (Queensbury Planning Board 06/16/2020) SITE PLAN NO. 14-2020 SEQR TYPE: TYPE II. ADAM LEONARDO. AGENT(S): JARRETT ENGINEERING. OWNER(S): SAME AS APPLICANT. ZONING: WR. LOCATION: 12 HALL ROAD EXT. APPLICANT PROPOSES TO REMOVE A 606 SQ. FT. HOME WITH 82 SQ. FT. DECK TO CONSTRUCT AN 888 SQ. FT. HOME WITH A 288 SQ. FT. DECK. EXISTING FLOOR AREA IS 606 SQ. FT. AND NEW FLOOR AREA TO BE 2,173 SQ. FT. PROJECT INCLUDES NEW PLANTING PLAN FOR SHORELINE AND STORMWATER FOR SITE. PURSUANT TO CHAPTER 179-3-040 OF THE ZONING ORDINANCE, NEW FLOOR AREA IN A CEA SHALL BE SUBJECT TO PLANNING BOARD REVIEW AND APPROVAL. VARIANCE: RELIEF IS SOUGHT FOR SETBACKS, FLOOR AREA AND HEIGHT. THE PLANNING BOARD SHALL PROVIDE A RECOMMENDATION TO THE ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS. CROSS REFERENCE: BOH 23- 2012 SEPTIC; 2019 SEPTIC VARIANCES; WARREN CO. REFERRAL: N/A. SITE INFORMATION: GLEN LAKE. LOT SIZE: .22 ACRES. TAX MAP NO. 289.11-1-17. SECTION: 179-3-040. TOM JARRETT, REPRESENTING APPLICANT, PRESENT; ADAM LEONARDO, PRESENT MR. TRAVER-Laura? MRS. MOORE-The applicant proposes to remove a 606 square foot home with an 82 square foot deck to construct on the footprint of a home with 888 square feet with a 288 square foot deck. The existing floor area is 606 square feet. The new floor area is to be 2,173 square feet. Relief is sought for setbacks, floor area and it says height but that has been resolved. MR. TRAVER-Okay. Thank you. Good evening. Hello again. MR. JARRETT-Tom Jarrett of Jarrett Engineers. I’m representing the Leonardos. Adam is here. This is a project where the Leonardos have bought an old camp. I’ll call it distressed. I used the term tired maybe too many times. This is a distressed camp. They are planning to upgrade the site and upgrade the house. The house would be somewhat larger than the existing. The existing is very tiny, and a slightly larger deck. Now they’re moving the new house closer to the lake which needs a variance because they want to accommodate parking with stormwater and a new wastewater system. The setback would be just over 44 feet in lieu of the 50 foot required, but in the context of the neighborhood I think it’s very reasonable to request. The house to the north is actually closer to the lake and the one to the south is around a bend and really doesn’t come into play at all. We also need setback variances, two side line setback variances. The Floor Area Ratio variance. The Leonardos have worked diligently to try to get the size of the house down and they got it very close to compliant but they really need the space they’ve got planned in the structure right now. So they need to ask for this variance for one percent I believe it is, and lastly permeability which was very difficult impossible to achieve virtually on this site it’s so small, very, very small property. There are engineering comments outstanding. I’m not sure exactly where they stand, but most of those are perfunctory. There are some issues with setbacks, and I don’t know if the Board wants to get into those tonight or not. We’ll do it next week if you so desire or tonight if you wish. MR. TRAVER-Could you tell us about the shoreline planting? Is that compliant with the new regulations? MR. JARRETT-I believe it is. That was our intent and we will make sure it is. Laura, did you happen to take a look at that at all? MRS. MOORE-I did take a look at it and again it’s discretionary with the Board. If the Board feels that’s a sufficient amount of plantings then they can move forward with that. I was comfortable with what they had. MR. JARRETT-Our intent was to make it compliant and Adam is willing to cooperate with the Board and with Staff if that’s something reasonable. That berm will limit runoff to the lake and then be planted to be an aesthetic landscape berm. MR. TRAVER-Okay. Thank you. Comments, questions from members of the Planning Board? MR. SHAFER-Tom, I noticed the floor plan has three bedrooms and a sleeping loft. MR. JARRETT-Yes. MR. SHAFER-Was the Pur-A-Flow system, is that being designed as four bedrooms? MR. JARRETT-I believe it is. I’ll call on Adam because he worked with another engineer on design of that wastewater system. MR. LEONARDO-Yes, that was designed for four bedrooms. MR. TRAVER-Could you just state your name for the record, please. 6 (Queensbury Planning Board 06/16/2020) MR. LEONARDO-Adam Leonardo. MR. TRAVER-Thank you. MR. HUNSINGER-Tom, you said there were setback issues? MR. JARRETT-Yes. MR. HUNSINGER-You mean other than the variance. MR. JARRETT-Yes. Technical setbacks, stormwater and wastewater. Chazen has identified the setback issues that small lots on Glen Lake, Sunnyside and Lake George have with meeting all the setbacks for stormwater and wastewater. We’ve done our best, and we’ve actually moved the stormwater system again a little bit better in compliance but we’re still out of compliance. I did talk to Sean directly by phone and he understands in the context of lots like this you can’t really achieve all the setbacks. You do the best you can. Right now there’s no stormwater management. Wastewater is an old antiquated dry well, and we’re vastly improving the situation. So I’m hoping he puts that in the context of a letter back to us, to the Board. MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. Thank you. MR. DIXON-I do have a question for you. The deck that’s going to be on the lake facing part of the house there, is there going to be anything under that deck? Are you planning on pouring concrete, permeable pavers? MR. LEONARDO-I was planning on putting pavers down, and I believe that’s factored into the permeability. MR. JARRETT-I believe it is. As I recall it was. Yes. MR. TRAVER-For the permeability. Right? MR. JARRETT-Yes. MR. TRAVER-Other questions, comments? There is no public hearing on this as it’s a referral to the ZBA. Under SEQR it is Type II. Does anyone have any issues they want to put forward in their recommendation to the ZBA that have not been discussed by the applicant? We do have the engineering comments that will come back to us for Site Plan. MR. JARRETT-I’m hoping they’ll come back in the next week with everything’s resolved, but. MR. TRAVER-Yes. MR. HUNSINGER-I was glad to see the height variance went away. Because I had questions on that. MR. JARRETT-Yes, we had to work on that a little bit. The structure was a little bit out of compliance originally. MR. HUNSINGER-Good. MR. TRAVER-All right. I guess we’re ready for our recommendation. RESOLUTION RE: ZBA RECOMMENDATION RE: AV # 11-2020 ADAM LEONARDO The applicant has submitted an application for the following: Applicant proposes to remove a 606 sq. ft. home with 82 sq. ft. deck to construct an 888 sq. ft. home with a 288 sq. ft. deck. Existing floor area is 606 sq. ft. and new floor area to be 2,173 sq. ft. Project includes new planting plan for shoreline and stormwater for site. Pursuant to Chapter 179-3-040 of the Zoning Ordinance, new floor area in a CEA shall be subject to Planning Board review and approval. Variance: Relief is sought for setbacks, floor area and height. The 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: 7 (Queensbury Planning Board 06/16/2020) MOTION TO MAKE A RECOMMENDATION ON BEHALF OF THE PLANNING BOARD TO THE ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS FOR AREA VARIANCE NO. 11-2020 ADAM LEONARDO. Introduced by David Deeb who moved its adoption, and a) The Planning Board, based on a limited review, has not identified any significant adverse impacts that cannot be mitigated with current project proposal. th Motion seconded by Brad Magowan. Duly adopted this 16 day of June, 2020 by the following vote: AYES: Mr. Shafer, Mr. Hunsinger, Mr. Magowan, Mr. Dixon, Mr. Deeb, Ms. White, Mr. Traver NOES: NONE ABSENT: Mr. Valentine MR. JARRETT-Again, thank you. Hopefully I’ll see you next week. MR. TRAVER-Okay. Next we move to the New Business section of our agenda, and the first item under New Business is Frank & Erin Steinbach, Site Plan 15-2020. NEW BUSINESS: SITE PLAN NO. 15-2020 SEQR TYPE: TYPE II. FRANK & ERIN STEINBACH. AGENT(S): AJA ARCHITECTURE & PLANNING. OWNER(S): SAME AS APPLICANT. ZONING: WR. LOCATION: 211 ASSEMBLY POINT ROAD. APPLICANT PROPOSES TO CONSTRUCT A 154 SQ. FT. ADDITION TO THE REAR PORTION OF THE HOME WHERE A PORTION OF THE DECK IS TO BE REMOVED. SITE WORK INCLUDES UPDATING CONCRETE STEPS AT FRONT OF HOME WITH NEW STEPS AND LANDSCAPING. PURSUANT TO CHAPTER 179- 3-040 & 179-6-050 OF THE ZONING ORDINANCE, NEW FLOOR AREA IN A CEA AND HARD SURFACING WITHIN 50 FT. OF THE SHORELINE SHALL BE SUBJECT TO PLANNING BOARD REVIEW AND APPROVAL. CROSS REFERENCE: SP 38-1995 ADDITION, SEP-0657-2019. WARREN CO. REFERRAL: MARCH 2020. SITE INFORMATION: APA, LGPC. LOT SIZE: .22 ACRES. TAX MAP NO. 226.19-2-18. SECTION: 179-3-040. 179-6-050. ANDY ALLISON, REPRESENTING APPLICANT, PRESENT; FRANK STEINBACH, PRESENT MR. TRAVER-Laura? MRS. MOORE-This applicant proposes to construct a 154 square foot addition to the rear portion of the home where a portion of the deck is to be removed. Site work includes updating concrete steps at front of home with new steps and landscaping. It also includes façade alterations just strictly on the front of the building and this is hard surfacing within 50 feet of the shoreline across the street from the project site. MR. TRAVER-Okay. Good evening. MR. ALLISON-Hi. Good evening, everybody. Andy Allison with AJ Architecture representing Frank & Erin Steinbach. Frank is with us and he’ll tell me when I get out of line. So as Laura said this is actually a pretty small project. They’re on Assembly Point. The road separates them from the lake. The house is quite close to the road itself, and the major thing that they’re doing out front is this old set of stairs which aren’t really Code compliant and they’re also failing. They want to rip those out and in place of those put in a planter bed. So we’re actually going to remove the concrete that’s there and replace that with permeable surfaces and then wrap around that with a new set of stone stairs that would be Code compliant, upgradable and maintainable. So that’s the major impact there. We don’t really extend too much closer to the lake with the new blue stone stairs that’ll be there from what the old ones did.. We’re just sort of shifting them to the west and putting a planter bed. So that’s the major component there. The other piece on the lakeside is this elevation right here. They just want to dress that up a little bit., So we’re building sort of a false gable on the one side and then we’re going to re-side that to match the existing siding on the house. This is that new false gable that we’re going to build on just slightly bumps out from the existing gable, just the width of a stud, and put on a new roof which will help address the scale of that, really pretty up the front part of the house. So that’s the whole scope of work out there. In the back they are going to be removing, here we can see a photo of it down here, a paver patio that’s in the back, and in lieu of where a portion of that is we’re going to put a small addition that would house like a little mud area/laundry room on the first floor. Laura, maybe we can go to either the floor plan or the site plan. That’s fine right there. This is what’s being removed, this large deck, and then we’re going to replace that with this addition and then a wooden deck off the side of it that does not exceed the extent of the existing deck. So in the calculation you can see that we’re subtracting out 200 square feet of decking, but we’re replacing that with 154 square feet of building. So we’re actually pretty even on permeability when this is all said 8 (Queensbury Planning Board 06/16/2020) and done. There’s no impact to the rear yard setbacks with that addition. So we’re not really touching any of the setback side. MR. TRAVER-Thank you. Questions, comments from members of the Planning Board? MR. MAGOWAN-Yes. I don’t know why, but I got stuck on this plan and I just kept going over and over it, and tried to figure out why. You did a really nice job. I like it. What you’re doing is taking your home and really taking the home and everything I like about it, but then the interior renovations just caught my eye. That is such great thinking. I just really, it’s really a small minimal thing that you’re doing to really bring some more enjoyment out of the house. So I like it. MR. DEEB-I have a question. On the Staff comments we’ve got grading and, drainage plan, sediment and erosion control. Plan shows new pathway for the front entrance. Sediment and erosion control may be needed to minimize impacts to the lake. MR. ALLISON-During construction you’re saying? Yes. So this, they will add filter fabric all along. MR. DIXON-I have a question for you. So on the north side since the roof lines all pitch that way, and it’s a very small, small lot, are you doing anything for drainage to keep that runoff on the property? It doesn’t looking like there’s existing guttering or anything of that nature. MR. ALLISON-Most of the runoff right now actually does get caught. It doesn’t cross the road and sheet flow. It gets caught at the end of the driveway and kind of runs down to the west and hits the lawn area there. So it’s odd you bring that up because the Steinbachs originally wanted to do something to address in the front. They wanted to actually berm, take that grass berm and pull it back closer to the house. It’s a flat area in there. We advised them it would be too much work within the shoreline and the driveway and would upset the applecart. So we pulled away from that, but then the natural drainage right now does come down and kind of runs to the west and to this yard area over here, but we’re not putting in any new structures. MR. DIXON-I know it’s a very tight property and any time you have an opportunity to improve it. That’s one thing I would just encourage. If there’s any additional adjustments that you could make to try to keep more water on there, because it is so close to the lake. It’s a small property. MR. ALLISON-Everything kind of gets caught on the deck and kind of runs back into there. MR. STEINBACH-I know you guys like to hear names. I’m Frank Steinbach. At present, no, there are no gutters on the house, but yes it’s something that we’ve discussed. Additionally down the road what we would like to do is do some foundation work. The foundation is compromised and I’ve discussed it with my wife, as with everything, it’s money, but eventually we plan on having some work done on the foundation. When that’s done we’ll probably put some type of better drainage around the perimeter of the house. MR. MAGOWAN-Well right now the gutters might help your foundation a little, too. MR. STEINBACH-Yes. MR. MAGOWAN-I mean get that water, if you can get it away and get it controlled a little bit more. MR. STEINBACH-Yes. We will have gutters on it before the end of this season. MR. DIXON-On the plan also you’re showing an outdoor shower on the back. Is that new to the property? MR. STEINBACH-No. That was there. It’s no longer there. It’s been removed. MR. DIXON-Okay. Thank you. MR. STEINBACH-You’re welcome. MR. TRAVER-There is public comment on this application. Is there anyone in the audience that wanted to address the Planning Board on this application? I’m not seeing any hands. The public is also invited to call in to the Town phone line for the Planning Board if you have public comment. That number to call in is 518-761-8225. The phone is here before us and we’ll give a couple of minutes for folks to call in if they wish. PUBLIC HEARING OPENED MR. DEEB-Frank, you did say you’re going to put gutters on before the end of the season? 9 (Queensbury Planning Board 06/16/2020) MR. STEINBACH-Yes. MR. DEEB-Okay. So we won’t put it on as a condition. MR. TRAVER-All right. We have not received any phone calls on this application. So are there any last questions for the applicant before we move to a motion? All right. Hearing none, I guess we’re ready to entertain a motion for this application. RESOLUTION APPROVING SP # 15-2020 FRANK & ERIN STEINBACH 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 construct a 154 sq. ft. addition to the rear portion of the home where a portion of the deck is to be removed. Site work includes updating concrete steps at front of home with new steps and landscaping. Pursuant to Chapter 179-3-040 & 179-6- 050 of the Zoning Ordinance, new floor area in a CEA and hard surfacing within 50 ft. of the shoreline shall be subject to Planning Board review and approval. Pursuant to relevant sections of the Town of Queensbury Zoning Code-Chapter 179-9-080, 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 06/16/2020 and continued the public hearing to 06/16/2020, 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 06/16/2020; 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 15-2020 FRANK & ERIN STEINBACH; Introduced by David Deeb who moved for its adoption; Per the draft provided by staff conditioned upon the following conditions: 1) Waivers request granted: g. site lighting, h. signage, j. stormwater, k. topography, n traffic, o. commercial alterations/ construction details, 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 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. th Motion seconded by John Shafer. Duly adopted this 16 day of June, 2020 by the following vote: AYES: Mr. Hunsinger, Mr. Magowan, Mr. Dixon, Mr. Deeb, Ms. White, Mr. Shafer, Mr. Traver NOES: NONE ABSENT: Mr. Valentine MR. TRAVER-You’re all set. MR. ALLISON-Thank you. 10 (Queensbury Planning Board 06/16/2020) MR. TRAVER-The next item on our agenda, also under New Business, is Michael & Gail Dawson, Site Plan 20-2020. SITE PLAN NO. 20-2020 SEQR TYPE: UNLISTED. MICHAEL & GAIL DAWSON. AGENT(S): HUTCHINS ENGINEERING. OWNER(S): SAME AS APPLICANT. ZONING: CLI. LOCATION: 44 CAREY ROAD. APPLICANT PROPOSES A NEW 7,100 SQ. FT. BUILDING WITH WAREHOUSE, SHOP & OFFICE SPACE WITHIN CAREY INDUSTRIAL PARK. PROJECT INCLUDES ASSOCIATED SITE WORK FOR LIGHTING, LANDSCAPING AND STORMWATER. PURSUANT TO CHAPTER 19-3-040 OF THE ZONING ORDINANCE, NEW COMMERCIAL CONSTRUCTION SHALL BE SUBJECT TO PLANNING BOARD REVIEW AND APPROVAL. CROSS REFERENCE: N/A. WARREN CO. REFERRAL: N/A. SITE INFORMATION: CAREY INDUSTRIAL PARK. LOT SIZE: 2.63 ACRES. TAX MAP NO. 308.16- 2-4.3. SECTION: 179-3-040. TOM HUTCHINS & JON LAPPER, REPRESENTING APPLICANTS, PRESENT MR. TRAVER-Laura? MRS. MOORE-This project occurs in the Carey Industrial Park. The applicant proposes a new 7,100 square foot building with warehouse, shop and office space. Site work is to include lighting, landscaping and stormwater. I note, under Staff Notes, there’s a comment about signage, and the applicant is addressing that. MR. TRAVER-Okay. Thank you. Good evening. MR. LAPPER-For the record Jon Lapper with Tom Hutchins. So by way of introduction, Mike and Gail Dawson own General Roofing. They live on Assembly Point and they’ve been renting on Big Boom Road for years from Doug Mabey. They bought this lot, one of the last available lots in the Carey Industrial Park, so that they could design a facility just for their needs. They’re a commercial roofing company. They do big school district buildings, state buildings, just so they can own it themselves, design it themselves and not be renting. So it’s a nice opportunity for them nearby where they want it on one of the last lots available. Tom’s done the site plan. MR. HUTCHINS-Good evening, Board. Tom Hutchins. Laura summarized this quite well in her Staff comments I thought. I’d just add a couple of things. The majority of their business is done off site. I was told today 99% of their deliveries are delivered direct to a job site. They have seven to eight office employees, and usually one employee in a very small fabrication shop where they make like edge metal strips and some specialized roofing related generally sheet metal products, but the bulk of the deliveries and materials, equipment get delivered direct to the job site and won’t come here. They have almost no customer contact at their office. With regard to the sign that Laura brought up, we had shown a standing sign out near the road, but there will be no standing sign. There will be one sign compliant with their name and logo that will be building mounted, and with that it’s a very, very flat site, all deep, well drained sands. We have public water. We have public sewer. All the stormwater is contained on site. There is no off site runoff. Building’s generally sloped. There’s stormwater controls around the entire perimeter. The building is built up a little bit. It all runs away, and with that I’ll turn it over for questions. MR. TRAVER-Questions, comments from members of the Board? MS. WHITE-Could you just talk about the lighting? The number of lighting fixtures. MR. HUTCHINS-Yes, we have, and there was a little bit of confusion in our plan. We’ve shown one single standing, I’m sorry, two single 20 foot pole lights on the front between the, if you’d flip up to the lighting plan, Laura, one more. We’ve got one, two single pole lights on the front of the building and one double and there’s no more freestanding lights. We had more initially and then meeting with the owners they said we don’t those back there. So the remainder of the building is building mounted and, yes, the schedule didn’t get updated when those others got pulled off. MS. WHITE-That answers my question. Thank you. MR. HUNSINGER-So there’s no lights on the building? MR. HUTCHINS-No, there’s lights on the building. There’s no pole lights beyond the front parking area toward the rear. MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. MR. DIXON-I think it’s a nice plan that you put forth, especially with the neighborhood that’s in the northwest corner. The impact is, there’s no impact. MR. HUNSINGER-Yes. 11 (Queensbury Planning Board 06/16/2020) MR. TRAVER-We do have a public hearing on this application. Is there anyone in the audience that wanted to address the Planning Board tonight on this application? I’m not seeing anyone. I’ll remind folks again that may be viewing us on the Town YouTube channel that there’s an opportunity now to place a call to the Planning Board at 518-761-8225 if you wish to comment on the Michael & Gail Dawson application, Site Plan 20-2020, and we’ll give folks a couple of minutes to call if they wish. MR. HUNSINGER-So is the rear of the property just for future expansion? MR. HUTCHINS-Potentially. MR. HUNSINGER-Do they anticipate that? MR. HUTCHINS-Not at the present time. It’s been considered, and when they get the right fit and the right use then, yes, they might consider that. MR. HUNSINGER-It’s a pretty straightforward project, especially in an industrial park like this. MR. DEEB-This is the last lot in the Park? MR. LAPPER-We’ve got some more coming up at the end of the meeting. MR. HUNSINGER-That’s across the street. MR. HUTCHINS-I drove through it the other day. There looked like a couple of other vacant lots, but it was the last available lot as I understand. MR. LAPPER-Yes, the others are sold. MR. HUNSINGER-Wow. Amazing what sewer will do for an industrial park. MR. HUTCHINS-And there’s a tap right there for every parcel. MR. TRAVER-Laura, this is listed as SEQR Unlisted? MRS. MOORE-Yes, it’s greater than 4,000 square feet, commercial. MR. TRAVER-So we’re doing a SEQR review. MRS. MOORE-Yes. MR. TRAVER-Because I did not see a, there is one, okay. I missed it. Sorry about that. All right. We haven’t received any phone calls so we’ll close the public hearing. PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED MR. TRAVER-This is an Unlisted action under SEQR. So we have a SEQR review to conduct. Does anyone have any environmental impact concerns regarding this application? MR. HUNSINGER-No. MS. WHITE-None. MR. TRAVER-All right. Then I guess we’re ready for a SEQR resolution. RESOLUTION GRANTING A NEGATIVE SEQR DEC. SP # 20-2020 MICHAEL & GAIL DAWSON The applicant proposes a new 7,100 sq. ft. building with warehouse, shop & office space within Carey Industrial Park. Project includes associated site work for lighting, landscaping and stormwater. Pursuant to Chapter 179-3-040 of the Zoning Ordinance, new commercial construction shall be subject to Planning Board review and approval. The Planning Board has determined that the proposed project and Planning Board action is subject to review under the State Environmental Quality Review Act; The proposed action considered by this Board is Unlisted in the Department of Environmental Conservation Regulations implementing the State Environmental Quality Review Act and the regulations of the Town of Queensbury; 12 (Queensbury Planning Board 06/16/2020) No Federal or other agencies are involved; Part 1 of the Short EAF has been completed by the applicant; Upon review of the information recorded on this EAF, it is the conclusion of the Town of Queensbury Planning Board as lead agency that this project will result in no significant adverse impacts on the environment, and, therefore, an environmental impact statement need not be prepared. Accordingly, this negative declaration is issued. MOTION TO GRANT A NEGATIVE DECLARATION FOR SITE PLAN 20-2020 MICHAEL & GAIL DAWSON. Introduced by David Deeb who moved for its adoption. As per the resolution prepared by staff. 1. Part II of the Short EAF has been reviewed and completed by the Planning Board. 2. Part III of the Short EAF is not necessary because the Planning Board did not identify potentially moderate to large impacts. th Motion seconded by Brad Magowan. Duly adopted this 16 day of June, 2020 by the following vote: AYES: Mr. Magowan, Mr. Dixon, Mr. Deeb, Ms. White, Mr. Shafer, Mr. Hunsinger, Mr. Traver NOES: NONE ABSENT: Mr. Valentine MR. TRAVER-All right. Are we ready to move forward on the plan itself? Okay., I guess we have a motion for that. RESOLUTION APPROVING SP # 20-2020 MICHAEL & GAIL DAWSON The applicant has submitted an application to the Planning Board: Applicant proposes a new 7,100 sq. ft. building with warehouse, shop & office space within Carey Industrial Park. Project includes associated site work for lighting, landscaping and stormwater. Pursuant to Chapter 179-3-040 of the Zoning Ordinance, new commercial construction shall be subject to Planning Board review and approval. Pursuant to relevant sections of the Town of Queensbury Zoning Code-Chapter 179-9-080, the Planning Board has determined that this proposal satisfies the requirements as stated in the Zoning Code; As required by General Municipal Law Section 239-m the site plan application was referred to the Warren County Planning Department for its recommendation; The Planning Board has reviewed the potential environmental impacts of the project, pursuant to the State Environmental Quality Review Act (SEQRA) and adopted a SEQRA Negative Declaration – Determination of Non-Significance; The Planning Board opened a public hearing on the Site plan application on 06/16/2020 and continued the public hearing to 06/16/2020, 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 06/16/2020; 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 20-2020 MICHAEL & GAIL DAWSON. Introduced by David Deeb who moved for its adoption. According to the draft resolution prepared by Staff with the following: 1) Waivers requested granted; h. signage (note signage explained as a wall sign only) 2. Adherence to the items outlined in the follow-up letter sent with this resolution. a) The limits of clearing will constitute a no-cut buffer zone, orange construction fencing shall be installed around these areas and field verified by Community Development staff; b) If applicable, the Sanitary Sewer connection plan must be submitted to the Wastewater Department for its review, approval, permitting and inspection; 13 (Queensbury Planning Board 06/16/2020) c) If curb cuts are being added or changed a driveway permit is required. A building permit will not be issued until the approved driveway permit has been provided to the Planning Office; d) If application was referred to engineering then Engineering sign-off required prior to signature of Zoning Administrator of the approved plans; e) Final approved plans should have dimensions and setbacks noted on the site plan/survey, floor plans and elevation for the existing rooms and proposed rooms in the building and site improvements;- f) If required, the applicant must submit a copy of the following to the Town: a. The project NOI (Notice of Intent) for coverage under the current "NYSDEC SPDES General Permit from Construction Activity" prior to the start of any site work. b. The project NOT (Notice of Termination) upon completion of the project; c. The applicant must maintain on their project site, for review by staff: i. The approved final plans that have been stamped by the Town Zoning Administrator. These plans must include the project SWPPP (Storm Water Pollution Prevention Plan) when such a plan was prepared and approved; ii. The project NOI and proof of coverage under the current NYSDEC SPDES General Permit, or an individual SPDES permit issued for the project if required. g) Final approved plans, in compliance with the Site Plan, must be submitted to the Community Development Department before any further review by the Zoning Administrator or Building and Codes personnel; h) The applicant must meet with Staff after approval and prior to issuance of Building Permit and/or the beginning of any site work; i) Subsequent issuance of further permits, including building permits is dependent on compliance with this and all other conditions of this resolution; j) As-built plans to certify that the site plan is developed according to the approved plans to be provided prior to issuance of the certificate of occupancy. k) This resolution is to be placed in its entirety on the final plans th Motion seconded by Chris Hunsinger. Duly adopted this 16 day of June, 2020 by the following vote: AYES: Mr. Dixon, Mr. Deeb, Ms. White, Mr. Shafer, Mr. Hunsinger, Mr. Magowan, Mr. Traver NOES: NONE ABSENT: Mr. Valentine MR. TRAVER-You’re all set. MR. HUTCHINS-Thank you. MR. HUNSINGER-Good luck. MR. TRAVER-The next item on our agenda is Clear Brook, LLC, Subdivision Preliminary Stage 7-2020. SUBDIVISION PRELIMINARY STAGE 7-2020 SEQR TYPE: UNLISTED. CLEAR BROOK, LLC. AGENT(S): HUTCHINS ENGINEERING. OWNER(S): EXCESS LAND, LLC. ZONING: WR. LOCATION: BIG BOOM ROAD. APPLICANT PROPOSES TO COMPLETE THE CLEAR BROOK 12 LOT SUBDIVISION WITH A TWO LOT SUBDIVISION OF 83.62 ACRE LOT INTO 78.6 ACRES AND 5.02 ACRES FOR TWO RESIDENTIAL HOMES. SITE WORK TO INCLUDE CONNECTION TO TOWN WATER FOR LOT 13 AND A WELL FOR LOT 14. ASSOCIATED SITE WORK INCLUDES CLEARING FOR DRIVEWAY, HOME AND SEPTIC. PURSUANT TO CHAPTER 183 OF THE ZONING ORDINANCE, SUBDIVISION OF LAND SHALL BE SUBJECT TO PLANNING BOARD REVIEW AND APPROVAL. CROSS REFERENCE: SUB SKETCH PLAN 4-2018; AV 54- 2018, SUB (P) 13-2018, FWW 6-2018, SUB (F) 4-2019, SUB (S) 1-2020. WARREN CO. REFERRAL: N/A LOT SIZE: 83.62 ACRES. TAX MAP NO. 316.14-1-6 (PORTION). SECTION: CHAPTER 183. TOM HUTCHINS, REPRESENTING APPLICANT, PRESENT MR. TRAVER-Laura? MRS. MOORE-The applicant proposes to complete the Clear Brook subdivision, a two lot subdivision of the remaining lot. This is proposed to be a 78.6 lot and a 5.02 acre lot described as two residential lots. MR. TRAVER-Okay. Thank you. Good evening. Welcome back. MR. HUTCHINS-Good evening. Thank you. You’ve seen this before. We were here for Sketch, January I believe. At that time we were working with the water district to deal with a somewhat complicated water district extension and a district boundary that ran through the central portion of this project. We 14 (Queensbury Planning Board 06/16/2020) submitted this in March under the hope I guess that that water district extension would be resolved. It is not yet resolved. That’s our quest to extend the water district is still with the Town Board and the Water Department. However, we have consulted with the Water Department on the small lot of this two lot subdivision which he has indicated, and I’ve got an e-mail from him. I assume you have it, that a district extension is not necessary for construction on what we’re calling Lot 13, and without that resolved, Lot 14, we’re still kind of up in the air. So I think what the owners would like to do is, and I don’t see them here. They were supposed to be here. I think what we would like to do is proceed with the Lot 13 and we can take development of Lot 14 off the table for this time, if that makes sense to the Board. MR. TRAVER-So you’re still looking for the subdivision, but you’re not going to do anything with 14 at this time. MR. HUTCHINS-At this time. MR. TRAVER-Okay. Laura, do you have any comment on that? MRS. MOORE-So we sort of discussed this with the applicant and there’s other items potentially occurring with that remaining lot and so in turn this would be similar to what you did with this original subdivision where you left one as an undevelopable lot at this time. So any use of that lot would potentially come in for review if it meets those requirements. MR. HUTCHINS-And there are still some discussions ongoing of alternative uses for that final lot which is a very, very unique lot. MR. TRAVER-It certainly is. MR. SHAFER-Tom, are those discussions far enough along where they could be set as conditions? MRS. MOORE-So I’m going to jump in. So I wouldn’t necessarily call them conditions in case they fall through then the entire subdivision falls through. MR. SHAFER-It’s a gamble. MRS. MOORE-And they’re not up to this Board. So if we were looking at the dedication of something and you, the Planning Board, says we want the Town Board to take this land and they decide not to, then the whole subdivision falls apart. So it’s really, if the Town Board wishes to take this land then it’s a separate action, up to them. You can’t dictate what the Town Board does. MR. TRAVER-Right. MR. MAGOWAN-So it’s not based on the well. It’s basically based on if they want to give the land over to Queensbury. Is that what I’m hearing? MRS. MOORE-Potentially, and it’s not a give. MR. MAGOWAN-Well, I just thought one was going to be hooked up to Town water and one was going to be on a well. MRS. MOORE-So that’s part of the issue. MR. MAGOWAN-But I mean if it goes either or, I mean that wouldn’t hold it up. I mean if you can’t make it in the district, what’s wrong with a well? Why can’t you have it? MRS. MOORE-That’s up to the Water Department. I don’t think that’s the direction that he was leaning toward. MR. MAGOWAN-All right. It’s just so confusing. If it’s not there, it’s not there. Put a well in. MR. DEEB-Well would we be better off tabling this, the whole thing? MR. HUNSINGER-That’s what I was wondering. MR. DEEB-Because I think that it’s getting pretty complicated. MRS. MOORE-Well the process would still be the same. It’s still a two lot subdivision. The process doesn’t go away. MR. TRAVER-Yes, it’s just a line on a map really. 15 (Queensbury Planning Board 06/16/2020) MRS. MOORE-So what that opportunity is to do with that remaining lot is, you know, discussed in the future. MR. TRAVER-That’s a separate issue. MRS. MOORE-It’s a separate issue and more or less what the Board would be looking at is there’s two lots, one remaining lot to be residential and the larger lot to be undevelopable. Similar to what you did. MR. HUTCHINS-And the applicant is interested in the Lot 13, the five acre lot. There’s interest in that property, and that’s a very straightforward site. It’s high and dry sand. MR. MAGOWAN-I’ve seen a lot of For Sale signs on the road and I actually pulled in and drove back in and looked at them. I mean they’ve done a nice job opening that up and placing it. It’s peaceful back there. MR. HUTCHINS-Yes, you might recall that the 12 lot subdivision there were two shared drives, and they have roughed those in. They’re not constructed by any means, but they have roughed them in so people can access and they found it difficult to generate much interest for somebody in one lot when the driveway is shared drive. So they’ve roughed them in and that helps with that, but at this point, Preliminary Stage, we’d be willing to take the development of Lot 14 off the table, come back with a final that doesn’t show that and keep moving forward the process with Lot 13. MR. TRAVER-Laura, with regard to SEQR, since we’re just dealing with the subdivision aspect of it, we should be able to go forward. Correct? MRS. MOORE-Yes. MR. TRAVER-Yes, okay. All right. We do have a public comment period on this application. Is there anyone in the audience that wanted to address the Planning Board? Yes, sir. I see someone with their hand raised. MRS. MOORE-Tom, can you just wipe that down. PUBLIC HEARING OPENED KEVIN MATUSZAK MR. MATUSZAK-Good evening. I live at 420 Big Boom Road. The Lot 13 that they’re referring to would be in a flood area. I see it every year, even at the bottom of the road where I live it always floods. Now in that place that they want to build Lot 13, that’s where Finch and Pruyn used that as a logging facility and they clear cut the property for their logs and they have problems in the springtime because all the water gathers there and it actually goes in to the creek. They filled it in with the brush and the logs when they logged it, but it’s kind of hard to put a foundation there if they decided to. Even where I live at 420, and I’m at the top of the hill, my basement floods. So I don’t know how you’re going to build a house down that low. That whole field during the springtime or if you get a hurricane, I’ve seen the water come right across that road. So I don’t know how you could allow somebody to build a house down there. Now I’m going on to Lot 14, okay. The water line goes across that bridge and that bridge was built for that water line. It wasn’t designed for anybody to travel across it or heavy trucks or anything like that. It was designed especially for the turtles. I remember the planning of this. There’s special tubing that goes underneath that bridge that’s for the turtles to get through from one side to the other. MR. TRAVER-Many of us actually visited that site and that bridge. So we’re familiar with it. MR. MATUSZAK-Yes. I mean it’s not designed for traffic. I mean it wasn’t designed for that. For quick bypass, yes that was it, but originally in the plans that went with South Glens Falls and the Town of Queensbury, that bridge was specifically designed for the turtles so they could pass underneath that. So any construction vehicles or heavy concrete trucks that go across there, who’s to say it’s not going to damage the tunnels, you know, or the water line. Thy build a house out there, how are they going to get off that island with that one access. There’s no other access out there, on or off. MR. TRAVER-Well, just so that you’re aware, what we’re looking at tonight is the subdivision of the land, not the specific design of a home or any of those site plan issues. We’re looking at just basically dividing the property line. MR. MATUSZAK-Okay. Well, I’m bringing these points up because a lot of it has to do, anything below my house is flood area. I mean, Joe DeSantis, he owns the billboards. I care take the property for him all the way up to the Town Park. The only time I can do it is in the summer like right now where it’s dry. If it rains there’s going to be water right on top and all the way across there. It’s the same thing over in that 16 (Queensbury Planning Board 06/16/2020) section. I’m just putting this out there so that people understand when this property, they want to develop a house, it’s not suitable. MR. TRAVER-Yes. Well thank you for your insight. MR. MATUSZAK-Okay. Thank you very much. MR. TRAVER-Sure. Is there anyone else in the audience that wanted to address the Planning Board on this application? We do have, as with the other projects, we do have the phone in option for folks that are viewing the Town YouTube channel. If you wish to call in and comment on the Clear Brook, LLC Subdivision Preliminary Stage 7-2020, you may do so at 518-761-8225 and we’ll wait a minute or two for anyone potentially watching live who wishes to call under the public hearing. MR. HUNSINGER-So do you have any comments about his comments? I mean we do have test pit information from a couple of test pits. MR. HUTCHINS-On Lot 13 where we’re showing it is on the high ground. There is a portion, a fair portion of Lot 13 that is down the bank. It’s not the area we’re showing, it’s not the building area. We understand that. Where we’re showing the, in fact the road there that was Finch Pruyn’s access road, we call it a loop road because it goes all the way around the parcel, and north of that we’re on high ground. There is groundwater, particularly seasonally, on many of these parcels, four, five, six feet, shallower as you go further out. That’s going to be a consideration on many of them, but where we’re showing the house site, we’re aware of it and it’s high and dry and well drained. MR. HUNSINGER-Yes. You have two test pits right there on Lot 13. MR. HUTCHINS-Yes. MR. TRAVER-We have not received any phone calls from the public. So we’re going to go ahead and close the public hearing on this application. PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED MR. TRAVER-This is an Unlisted action under SEQR. So we do have a SEQR resolution to consider. Discussion on SEQR? Does anyone have any environmental concerns? At this stage we’re basically looking at a line on a map. We’re not getting into the details quite yet. I think we have a SEQR resolution. RESOLUTION GRANTING A NEGATIVE SEQR DEC. SUB # 7-2020 CLEAR BROOK, LLC The applicant proposes to complete the Clear Brook 12 lot subdivision with a two lot subdivision of 83.62 acre lot into 78.6 acres and 5.02 acres for two residential homes. Site work to include connection to Town water for Lot 13 and a well for Lot 14. Associated site work includes clearing for driveway, home and septic. Pursuant to Chapter 183 of the Zoning Ordinance, subdivision of land 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; Part 2 of the Long EAF has been reviewed by the Planning Board; 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 SUBDIVISION PRELIMINARY STAGE 7-2020 CLEAR BROOK, LLC. Introduced by David Deeb who moved for its adoption, seconded by John Shafer; As per the resolution prepared by staff. 17 (Queensbury Planning Board 06/16/2020) 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 Duly adopted this 16 day of June, 2020 by the following vote: MR. DIXON-Did we need to exclude Lot 14 in the SEQR? MR. TRAVER-No, not at this point. No, we’re just looking at the subdivision. AYES: Mr. Deeb, Ms. White, Mr. Shafer, Mr. Hunsinger, Mr. Magowan, Mr. Dixon, Mr. Traver NOES: NONE ABSENT: Mr. Valentine MR. TRAVER-All right. Next we consider the Preliminary Stage of the subdivision, understanding the updated information from the applicant’s representative that there are still some outstanding issues regarding the specifics of what development may take place, but they still wish to go ahead with the subdivision of the property. So any final questions, comments on this subdivision aspect of it only? Okay. I think we have a resolution on that. RESOLUTION APPROVING PRELIMINARY STAGE SUB # 7-2020 CLEAR BROOK, LLC A subdivision application has been made to the Queensbury Planning Board for the following: Applicant proposes to complete the Clear Brook 12 lot subdivision with a two lot subdivision of 83.62 acre lot into 78.6 acres and 5.02 acres for two residential homes. Site work to include connection to Town water for Lot 13 and a well for Lot 14. Associated site work includes clearing for driveway, home and septic. Pursuant to Chapter 183 of the Zoning Ordinance, subdivision of land shall be subject to Planning Board review and approval. Pursuant to relevant sections of the Town of Queensbury Zoning Code-Chapter A-183, the Planning Board has determined that this proposal satisfies the requirements as stated in the Zoning Code; The requirements of the State Environmental Quality Review Act have been considered and the Planning Board has adopted a SEQRA Negative Declaration A public hearing was scheduled and held on 06/16/2020; This application is supported with all documentation, public comment, and application material in the file of record; MOTION TO APPROVE SUBDIVISION PRELIMINARY STAGE 7-2020 CLEAR BROOK, LLC. Introduced by David Deeb who moved its adoption. With the condition that lot 14 will not be developed at this time and lot 13 to be a residential lot. th Motion seconded by Brad Magowan. Duly adopted this 16 day of June, 2020 by the following vote: MS. WHITE-Do we need to specific that Lot 14 is not residential at this time? Correct? MRS. MOORE-Yes, you do. MR. HUNSINGER-Yes, I was waiting for discussion to ask the sequence. MS. WHITE-That was discussion. MR. TRAVER-So we’re putting a condition on Preliminary Stage? Is that the suggestion? MRS. MOORE-It would be like similar to what we did with that previous lot, at this time Lot 14 not to be developed. MR. HUTCHINS-Yes, I believe the wording was something to the effect that Lot 14 will not be developed at this time. MR. TRAVER-Okay. So that’s a condition of the Preliminary Stage then. MR. DEEB-Let me re-do this. 18 (Queensbury Planning Board 06/16/2020) MR. HUNSINGER-Well you can just make an amendment. AYES: Ms. White, Mr. Shafer, Mr. Hunsinger, Mr. Magowan, Mr. Dixon, Mr. Deeb, Mr. Traver NOES: NONE ABSENT: Mr. Valentine MR. TRAVER-All right. MR. DEEB-Well good luck with the rest of it. MR. TRAVER-The next item on our agenda, also under New Business, is Werner Greyling, Subdivision Preliminary Stage 3-2020 and Subdivision Final Stage 4-2020. SUBDIVISION PRELIMINARY STAGE 3-2020 SUBDIVISION FINAL STAGE 4-2020 SEQR TYPE: UNLISTED. WERNER GREYLING. AGENT(S): NICHOLAS KETTER. OWNER(S): SAME AS APPLICANT. ZONING: NR. LOCATION: 55 RICHARDSON STREET. APPLICANT PROPOSES A THREE LOT SUBDIVISION: LOT 1 – 1.75 ACRE HAS AN EXISTING HOME TO REMAIN WITH ACCESSORY NONCOMPLIANT STRUCTURE. LOTS 2 AND 3 TO BE SOLD AS VACANT. PURSUANT TO CHAPTER 183 OF THE ZONING ORDINANCE, SUBDIVISION OF LAND SHALL BE SUBJECT TO PLANNING BOARD REVIEW AND APPROVAL. CROSS REFERENCE: 2000-721 GARAGE, 95224-287 ADDITION, 2000034-252 CARPORT. WARREN CO. REFERRAL: N/A. LOT SIZE: 4.20 ACRES. TAX MAP NO. 309.15-1-64. SECTION: CHAPTER 183. NICK KETTER, REPRESENTING APPLICANT, PRESENT MR. TRAVER-Laura? MRS. MOORE-This applicant proposes a three lot subdivision, Lot 1, 1.75 acres has an existing home to remain with an accessory noncompliant structure. Lot 2 & 3 are to be sold as vacant and it’s not a shared driveway at this time, separate driveways. MR. TRAVER-Thank you, Laura. Good evening. MR. KETTER-Good evening. Nick Ketter for the record. So Werner Greyling is the property owner, Neighborhood Residential, 4.2 acres, looking to maximize the value of his land and subdivide the property. So he’s proposing a three lot subdivision. Initially we were going to go for a four lot subdivision and try to have that noncompliant accessory structure in the back have a shared driveway, but ultimately we put that together just as one lot so one lot that would be existing house and existing septic, two new proposed lots that fall within the Code setbacks and all of those things. MR. TRAVER-Okay. Thank you. Questions, comments from members of the Board? MR. MAGOWAN-Well, Nick, I want to thank you for talking him out of the fourth and going with the three. All right. MR. KETTER-Yes, we would have had to have applied for variances and it would have been a mess. MR. HUNSINGER-One of the questions I had is there’s a topo map where you show removal of most of the trees. They’re actually, you can’t really tell on the aerial shot, but looking at the other map it looks like they’re mostly on Lot 1. So I just wondered why you’re proposing to eliminate all those trees. MR. KETTER-That was, I guess, partially a mistake. The trees aren’t going to be totally removed. It really was just, it really was just to indicate that there could be some removal for where that house would be constructed, but really going to try to disturb as, I guess what I was trying to show with that is even if all those trees were removed it still would be less than the percentage that could be disturbed, but really that’s not what they’re ultimately going to be doing, want to try to preserve the nature as best as possible. MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. Yes, when you look at the other map that you’ve provided and it has the red, y yellow and green borders, the vast majority of the trees are on Lot 1. MR. KETTER-Yes. MR. HUNSINGER-So I just didn’t understand why you were showing them. 19 (Queensbury Planning Board 06/16/2020) MR. KETTER-And that additional topo, again, if we had initially started as like a four lot it could potentially have been due to that as well. I mean once we switched it to three lot we adjusted the drawing and adjusted the lot lines and made the other two lots a little bit bigger. MR. TRAVER-Other questions? MR. SHAFER-Are there wetlands on the property? MR. KETTER-No, none. MR. TRAVER-We do have a public hearing on this application. Are there folks in the audience that wanted to address the Planning Board on this project? I’m not seeing any. We will open it up to folks that may be observing this on the Town YouTube channel and will invite the public to call in public comment at 518-761-8225. This is for Werner Greyling, Subdivision Preliminary Stage 3-2020 and Subdivision Final Stage 4-2020. We’ll give folks a couple of minutes to call in. PUBLIC HEARING OPENED MR. TRAVER-This is also, under SEQR is an Unlisted application. So we do have a SEQR resolution to deal with this evening. Does anyone have any environmental impact concerns? MR. DEEB-Just to make sure that those trees can stay, then. MR. KETTER-Yes. MR. DEEB-=That’s a concern. Even though it shows at site plan. MRS. MOORE-Actually the Board may consider adding that as a requirement, update the clearing information for the Final. MR. DEEB-Yes, I’d be more comfortable with that. MR. TRAVER-Okay. We can make that as one of the conditions. MR. DEEB-Of Final Stage. MR. TRAVER-Preliminary Stage I would say. Right, Laura? MRS. MOORE-As long as it’s in there. MR. TRAVER-As long as it’s in there. Okay. All right. I haven’t received any phone calls so we’ll go ahead and close the public hearing on this application. PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED MR. TRAVER-Discussion about the tree cutting. Is there any other concerns regarding SEQR? MS. WHITE-Are there any written comments? MR. TRAVER-Good point. I forgot to ask about that, didn’t I. Glad you reminded me. All right. Well if there’s no concerns regarding SEQR, we can go ahead and process that resolution. RESOLUTION GRANTING SEQR NEG. DECLARATION SUB # 3-2020 WERNER GREYLING The applicant proposes a three lot subdivision: Lot 1 – 1.75 acre has an existing home to remain with accessory noncompliant structure. Lots 2 and 3 to be sold as vacant. Pursuant to Chapter 183 of the Zoning Ordinance, subdivision of land 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; 20 (Queensbury Planning Board 06/16/2020) Part 2 of the Long EAF has been reviewed by the Planning Board; 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 SUBDIVISION PRELIMINARY STAGE 3-2020 WERNER GREYLING. Introduced by David Deeb who moved for its adoption, seconded by Michael Dixon; 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 Duly adopted this 16 day of June, 2020 by the following vote: AYES: Mr. Hunsinger, Mr. Magowan, Mr. Dixon, Mr. Deeb, Ms. White, Mr. Shafer, Mr. Traver NOES: NONE ABSENT: Mr. Valentine MR. TRAVER-Next we have a resolution for Preliminary Stage. There was discussion regarding the tree cutting. The applicant had indicated that was not going to occur. So the clearing limits need to be adjusted, and we want to reflect on the potential approval that the tree cutting not to occur, or to occur in a manner that we, if we want to be specific about any tree cutting we can do that. MRS. MOORE-I would just indicate that the tree clearing is to be revised. MR. TRAVER-Is to be revised. Okay. Any further discussion on Preliminary Stage? All right. I guess we’re ready to entertain a motion for Preliminary. RESOLUTION APPROVING PRELIMINARY STAGE SUB # 3-2020 WERNER GREYLING A subdivision application has been made to the Queensbury Planning Board for the following: Applicant proposes a three lot subdivision: Lot 1 – 1.75 acre has an existing home to remain with accessory noncompliant structure. Lots 2 and 3 to be sold as vacant. Pursuant to Chapter 183 of the Zoning Ordinance, subdivision of land shall be subject to Planning Board review and approval. Pursuant to relevant sections of the Town of Queensbury Zoning Code-Chapter A-183, the Planning Board has determined that this proposal satisfies the requirements as stated in the Zoning Code; The requirements of the State Environmental Quality Review Act have been considered and the Planning Board has adopted a SEQRA Negative Declaration A public hearing was scheduled and held on 06/16/2020; This application is supported with all documentation, public comment, and application material in the file of record; MOTION TO APPROVE SUBDIVISION PRELIMINARY STAGE 3-2020 WERNER GREYLING. Introduced by David Deeb who moved for its adoption. With the condition that clearing plan to be revised as part of final. th Motion seconded by Brad Magowan. Duly adopted this 16 day of June, 2020 by the following vote: MRS. MOORE-And also that you have waived the Sketch Plan. MR. DEEB-Well we have waivers on the Final. MRS. MOORE-That’s fine. You can do them there. Thank you. AYES: Mr. Magowan, Mr. Dixon, Mr. Deeb, Ms. White, Mr. Shafer, Mr. Hunsinger, Mr. Traver 21 (Queensbury Planning Board 06/16/2020) NOES: NONE ABSENT: Mr. Valentine MR. TRAVER-All right. Next we can consider the Final Stage Subdivision. Before we move to that, does anyone have any questions, follow up questions for the applicant. MR. DEEB-We’re going to waive the Sketch also. I’ll add that. MR. TRAVER-I guess we’re ready for a resolution. RESOLUTION APPROVING FINAL STAGE SUB # 4-2020 WERNER GREYLING A subdivision application has been made to the Queensbury Planning Board for the following: Applicant proposes a three lot subdivision: Lot 1 – 1.75 acre has an existing home to remain with accessory noncompliant structure. Lots 2 and 3 to be sold as vacant. Pursuant to Chapter 183 of the Zoning Ordinance, subdivision of land shall be subject to Planning Board review and approval. Pursuant to relevant sections of the Town of Queensbury Zoning Code-Chapter A-183, the Planning Board has determined that this proposal satisfies the requirements as stated in the Zoning Code; A public hearing was scheduled and held on 06/16/2020; This application is supported with all documentation, public comment, and application material in the file of record; MOTION TO APPROVE SUBDIVISION FINAL STAGE 4-2020 WERNER GREYLING. Introduced by David Deeb who moved its adoption. 1. The requirements of the State Environmental Quality Review Act have been considered and the Planning Board has adopted a SEQRA Negative Declaration; and if the application is a modification, the requirements of the State Environmental Quality Review Act have been considered, and the proposed modification\[s\] do not result in any new or significantly different environmental impacts, and, therefore, no further SEQRA review is necessary; 2. Waiver requests granted: sketch plan stage, stormwater and grading; 3. The limits of clearing will constitute a no-cut buffer zone, orange construction fencing shall be installed around these areas and field verified by Community Development staff 4. Engineering sign-off required prior to signature of Planning Board Chairman. 5. The applicant must submit a copy of the following to the Town: a) The project NOI (Notice of Intent) for coverage under the current NYSDEC SPDES General Permit or for coverage under an individual SPDES prior to the start of any site work. b) The project NOT (Notice of Termination) upon completion of the project; and 6. The applicant must maintain on their project site, for review by staff: a) The approved final that have been stamped by the Town Zoning Administrator. These plans must include the project SWPPP (Storm Water Pollution Prevention Plan) when such a plan was prepared and approved; and b) The project NOI and proof of coverage under the current NYSDEC SPDES General Permit, or an individual SPDES permit issued for the project. 7. Final approved plans, in compliance with the Subdivision, must be submitted to the Community Development Department before any further review by the Zoning Administrator or Building and Codes personnel. 8. The applicant must meet with Staff after approval and prior to issuance of Building Permit and/or the beginning of any site work. 9. Subsequent issuance of further permits, including building permits is dependent on compliance with this and all other conditions of this resolution; 10. As-built plans to certify that the subdivision is developed according to the approved plans to be provided prior to issuance of the certificate of occupancy; 11. That the clearing plan be revised. 22 (Queensbury Planning Board 06/16/2020) th Motion seconded by Brad Magowan. Duly adopted this 16 day of June, 2020 by the following vote: MR. HUNSINGER-Do we need to say anything about the clearing plan? MRS. MOORE-You may include it. MR. DEEB-All right. AYES: Mr. Dixon, Mr. Deeb, Ms. White, Mr. Shafer, Mr. Hunsinger, Mr. Magowan, Mr. Traver NOES: NONE ABSENT: Mr. Valentine MR. TRAVER-You’re all set. MR. KETTER-Thank you very much. MR. TRAVER-Next on our agenda also under New Business we have Native Development Assoc., LLC, Subdivision Preliminary Stage 5-2020 and Subdivision Final Stage 6-2020. SUBDIVISION PRELIMINARY STAGE 5-2020 SUBDIVISION FINAL STAGE 6-2020 SEQR TYPE: UNLISTED. NATIVE DEVELOPMENT ASSOC., LLC. AGENT(S): ABD ENGINEERS, LLP. OWNER(S): SAME AS APPLICANT. ZONING: CLI. LOCATION: 24 NATIVE DRIVE. APPLICANT PROPOSES FIVE LOT SUBDIVISION WITH ROAD CONSTRUCTION FROM THE EXISTING NATIVE ROAD FROM CAREY ROAD. LOT 1 – 11.32 ACRES, LOT 2 – 2.01 ACRES, LOT 3 – 8.24 ACRES, LOT 4 – 6.94 ACRES, LOT 5 – 3.75 ACRES AND ROW – 1.11 ACRES. PROJECT INCLUDES STORMWATER MANAGEMENT, GRADING, AND EROSION CONTROL. ROW ROAD GREATER THAN 1000 FT. IS A PLANNING BOARD DISCUSSION. PURSUANT TO CHAPTER 183 OF THE ZONING ORDINANCE, SUBDIVISION OF LAND SHALL BE SUBJECT TO PLANNING BOARD REVIEW AND APPROVAL. CROSS REFERENCE: SP 69-2017, SP 14-2019. LOT SIZE: 33.37 ACRES. TAX MAP NO. 308.20-1-9.2. SECTION: CHAPTER 183. JON LAPPER, REPRESENTING APPLICANT, PRESENT MR. TRAVER-Laura? MRS. MOORE-This applicant proposes a five lot subdivision with road construction from the existing Native Road from Carey Road. Again, it’s off of the Carey Industrial Park. Lot 1 is to be approximately 11.32 acres; Lot 2 is 2.01 acres; Lot 3 is 8.24 acres; Lot 4 is 6.94 acres and Lot 5 is 3.75 acres and the right of way is 1.11 acres. The project includes stormwater management, grading and erosion control. The right of way road is greater than 1000 feet and is a Planning Board discussion. MR. TRAVER-Okay. Thank you. Welcome back. MR. LAPPER-Good evening, everyone. For the record Jon Lapper. So this was the original Native Textiles building that went vacant for 10 years while they were trying to sell it at the back of the Carey Industrial Park. Funny we were just talking about this. So Native Development bought it with the idea of creating some more industrial lots. Right now with COVID and just in general there aren’t a lot of industrial lots, industrial warehouse buildings available in the community. So when they bought it the building was empty, 100,000 square feet. They’ve now fully leased it which is a good sign and they’ve got people talking about these lots. So we’ve been working with Laura while the Board wasn’t in business to get to this point sort of refined. Luigi Palleschi from ABD is here to discuss the engineering. We do have that Chazen letter. The issue here is that all of the lots will be subject to Site Plan Review and we’re trying to guess what’s the most likely that people are going to want but when we know what that is they’ll be coming in on an individual basis. ABD’s job was to show that all the stormwater could be handled when the big buildings are done, but right now the design for the road, for what’s anticipated on the lots, but again they’ll be subject to individual Site Plan. So the goal is to get it subdivided so they have something to market and hopefully get back soon with some Site Plans to build some buildings. One of the owners is Tim Barber who’s here who owns JAG construction, builds metal buildings all over the Capital District. So he’s hoping that he’ll get to build some buildings here soon. So that’s the general introduction. MR. TRAVER-Okay. Thank you. LUIGI PALLESCHI MR. PALLESCHI-Thank you, Jon. Good evening. Luigi Palleschi with ABD Engineers. I’m here tonight for 24 Native as Jon had mentioned. The overall parcel is 33.4 +/- acres. It’s zoned in the CLI, Commercial 23 (Queensbury Planning Board 06/16/2020) Light Industrial district. It currently has 117,000 square foot existing warehouse building that is fully occupied right now. It’s occupied with flux space, so multiple tenants are in there. The project’s located at the end of an existing road called Native Drive. It’s off of the Carey Industrial Park. It’s bordered on the north by some vacant land, on the east by the Carey Industrial Park. On the south is Town of Queensbury recreational areas, and over to the west is more recreational area owned by the Town as well as a church and some single family residential homes. We’re proposing a five lot subdivision. The acreage varies from two acres to eleven acres. We’re proposing to extend Native Drive with a cul de sac. The extension is approximately 600 feet of extension. However, it’s just over 1,000 feet from the intersection of Carey Road. It’s about 1200 in total from the intersection of Carey Road to the end of the cul de sac. Each of these lots would have frontage on the cul de sac or the extension of the road. We would propose that the roadway would be dedicated to the Town. The utilities would be extended. There’s existing public utilities for both water and sewer at the end of the dead end here on Native Drive. It’s a force main for the sewer main. It’s a two inch I believe. I’ve been in touch with Chris Harrington, the Town sewer and water superintendent and we’ve been working back and forth with a few details as to how to make the connection and make the extension for both water and sewer. There will be stormwater design. We have designed the stormwater I should say, what they call a master SWPPP. As Jon had mentioned, we don’t know what the specific tenant would be for any of these lots, but what we’re doing is we’re doing our best guess to get the size of buildings that are typical in this area, the needs that are out there. So what we have designed right now is a stormwater management practice that is in conformance with New York State DEC stormwater regulations. We’re taking advantage of the soils out there being sandy and infiltration for our stormwater practice which is a DEC recommendation. So the roadway will have catch basins and storm piping that will be conveyed to our on-site stormwater practice, and the way I have this master SWPPP designed right now is I’m taking into consideration all the impervious area that you see on our proposed site plan and going into one practice that’s in the middle of the site. There is a natural ravine that runs through the site. So it makes it perfect for us to take our impervious surfaces and collect the water in that area and then discharge it just south of here, which then is immediately discharging into the river. The comments we received from Chazen, I had a chance to go through every item, and we can certainly address every item. They’re technical in nature. We’re used to seeing those technical comments, and the one thing that I’ll certainly have further discussion with Chazen about is the classification of this dam. Even though we are proposing this driveway to get to Lot 4, it would require fill. However, I’ve got a 60 inch culvert pipe underneath that driveway and the way the stormwater is designed right now is we’re designing, you know, not only what the DEC requires, but what the Town requirement is, is that 50 year volume, and what that maximum volume within that infiltration basin is it’s only going to peak about three and a half feet higher than the bottom of that basin. So a lot of times when you think dam, dam classifications is when you’re 10 feet, 15 feet of water storm behind this dam, but we’re only proposing three and a half feet of water, maximum water that could potentially reach that point, and then I’ve got a 60 inch culvert pipe that will convey the entire stormwater event downstream. So I’ll certainly have further discussion with Chazen on that. I don’t see why we can’t resolve any of the comments that they’ve addressed in their letter. So we’ll certainly address that and provide any further calculations that they need. That’s the stormwater end, and then like I said the utilities, I’ve had a conversation with Chris Harrington and just a couple of more details that are needed for the extension of water and sewer, which we can certainly address, but again, the applicant is looking for this Board to provide the five lot subdivision so that they can build the extension of this road and market the five lots to the tenants that are in need right now, especially during these hard times, where office warehousing, I shouldn’t say office. It’s really warehousing is what’s needed in this near future. So anything we can do to answer any questions tonight we’re here to answer your questions. MR. TRAVER-Okay. Thank you. Questions, comments from members of the Planning Board? MR. MAGOWAN-I just want to say, Tim, when you came in there buying the Native Textile building with a plan and I just want to say congratulations for filling that up and getting that. This is another project that I looked over. I think it’s what we needed for Queensbury and that sewer has really made a great improvement for there, because for the longest time it seemed to not want to take off and now it’s filling up. So I like the project, and like you said it’s something that we’re going to need, we’ll need in the future. MR. DIXON-As you go forward, Lots 3 and 4, as we proceed, would you entertain a 50 foot setback on the western side, since there’s residential over there? Now it’s showing a 30 foot setback. MR. PALLESCHI-Yes, right. So we, the setback is 30 feet. We are aware of the 30 foot buffer that’s required on a residential. Right now we’re proposing a solid fencing along the back there. We had positioned the building along that side because we thought maybe the building would be better than having a tractor trailer or a car parking right there in their backyard. So a building actually provides a buffer as well, but we are proposing a fence and without really knowing what the specific tenant is and what the real shape of that building footprint may be, it’s hard to say and we want to just keep it flexible right now. We’ll certainly be back in for site plan review when we’re ready for that particular lot, but, yes, we are aware of that buffer and anything we can do to provide a fence we’ll certainly look at that. MR. DIXON-Thank you. 24 (Queensbury Planning Board 06/16/2020) MR. SHAFER-Laura, I didn’t get Chazen comments. Were they available? MRS. MOORE-As far as I know they were available. It may have been the time when Sunny may have not sent them out. I apologize. I mean I can post those now if you want to see them or share the one file. I guess do you want to go through some of the comments? MR. PALLESCHI-Yes. I kind of highlighted five of the most important that I feel were important. I think one of them I touched on was the master SWPPP. The other one was the dam peak elevation, again only three and a half feet where we’re peaking on a 100 year storm. The other thing that they were looking for is adding additional erosion control measures on our plans. So as far as phasing I think I talked a little bit about the phasing where our intent is to build the extension of the road, get the public utilities extended and get that infiltration basin in for the drainage of the roadway and then we would come in on a lot by lot basis for each individual lot. So in regards to like the erosion and sediment control with phasing, they just wanted a little more detail on our plan for topsoil stockpile area, silt fence location, things like that that we can certainly add that detail to the plan. MR. SHAFER-And you’re comfortable that you can satisfy all of those comments? MR. PALLESCHI-Correct. Yes, and then another item, I think, so when we prepared the SWPPP, in the SWPPP we stated that this does cover the whole drainage area of what you see here, but then later on, I was going to ask them tonight, but later on they talk about providing more details on a lot by lot basis. So like that was in this letter, and we will certainly be back on a lot by lot basis to provide the detail that they’re looking for on that lot by lot basis. MRS. MOORE-I’ll add, if you’re considering a condition you would say site plan review for each of those lots. MR. HUNSINGER-So in your presentation it sounds like stormwater will be handled off site? MR. PALLESCHI-So right now I have it handled as one practice for everything you see right now. MR. HUNSINGER-Right. MR. PALLESCHI-Depending on what changes are made on a lot by lot basis, I may need to increase that storage and if I don’t have it in this area that’s already proposed we can do on site stormwater mitigation on each individual lot as needed. MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. MR. PALLESCHI-So, yes, because of the sandy soils we can provide underground infiltration basins, you can do galleries, things like that under the pavement. MR. HUNSINGER-I thought I heard you say that stormwater would be discharged off site into the river. MR. PALLESCHI-That’s correct. So everything’s going to be collected in that center area and be controlled by outlet control structures because the DEC manual requires that we have to infiltrate what they call the water quality volume, which is the first flush, you get all the treatment in that area, and then you need to design the one, the ten and the hundred year storm events, and there’s an outlet control structure that releases that little bit amount, depending on what the storm event does. So that’s all been prepared in a SWPPP and a stormwater management report that has been provided. MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. MR. DEEB-Can you give me the number of comments that you have? MR. PALLESCHI-So it’s hard to say because there’s a, b’s and c’s here on some of them, but the number at the end is 33. MR. DEEB-I thought there might be a few. MR. PALLESCHI-And again, a lot of the, like towards the end the comments are related to like the notice of intent form, and I don’t know if you’re familiar with that, but that gets reviewed and some of those comments are just checking the box correctly, and that usually get, the NOI doesn’t get done until after approvals and prior to submission to DEC. So we would obtain that permit prior to construction. MR. HUNSINGER-I mean of course the threshold for us is if in the process of answering Chazen’s comment letter it changes the design of the project he has to come back. So there is sort of that failsafe for the Planning Board. 25 (Queensbury Planning Board 06/16/2020) MR. TRAVER-Right. MR. HUNSINGER-Because I mean I don’t know how many people have read the letter, but. MR. TRAVER-Plus Site Plan. MR. HUNSINGER-Plus Site Plan. MR. PALLESCHI-But I think all we’re asking for tonight is like the subdivision. Right? The extension of the roadway and those details for the extension of the roadway, we’re showing that we have plenty of storage capacity for the intent that we’re looking for. I think that the more detail into the stormwater review is going to come on a lot by lot basis, and I think by having this master SWPPP you kind of start with the overall concept and then as we go lot by lot you kind of take that master SWPPP and we can revise it and then see how much is left as you get to that last developable lot. MR. HUNSINGER-So can we talk about the lot lines? I mean one of the comments that I had was on that Building Two, which is. MR. PALLESCHI-The one in the middle there? MR. HUNSINGER-Yes. It’s two acres and you show a 20,000 square foot building, and I was just curious why you drew the lines where you did, why you would draw that lot so much smaller than the others. Is it so you could provide maximum choices for customers, maximum opportunities? MR. PALLESCHI-Yes, that’s exactly right. We’re trying to provide a mix of size buildings, right. So our building sizes are varying from the addition, that 40,000 to a standalone building that’s 20,000, but then we have a 60 and a 100,000 square foot building. So we’re trying to provide some flexibility for marketing purposes. Those building sizes could go up, could go down depending on the user, but that’s what we’re trying to provide and also, you know, as far as how the lines were created is basically to meet the zoning district, right, the minimum lot frontage, the minimum lot area and the green space behind it. So every lot here is in conformance to that frontage, lot area and green space. MR. HUNSINGER-How many lot line adjustments would you anticipate? MR. LAPPER-It depends on what kind of tenants. MR. PALLESCHI-Right. MR. HUNSINGER-Yes. MR. LAPPER-This seems a good place to start. MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. MR. HUNSINGER-It’s kind of an interesting exercise because you know it’s like we’re going to approve something and we’re kind of all acknowledging the fact that it’s probably going to change, especially if every lot comes in for site plan review. MR. LAPPER-It was designed to avoid variances like Luigi said. It’s a kind of odd lot and this way everything can conform. STEVE SPRINGER MR. SPRINGER-My name’s Steve Springer and I’m one of the owners of this. Also the reason that the lots are, one of the reasons that we did this also was for financing, because it’s a bear to finance something like this. So this actually gives us a first shot so that we can go in and talk to our existing banks and say, look, we’re going to, we have one bank that has a mortgage on the whole place. So what we have to do to move forward on these is we have to cut out the main piece, which is the existing 117,000, and then we’ll work with banks to start to put together deals on the other properties. So what this does is this gives us, it’s really the first main lot is the one that’s really difficult as far as cutting that out because on the next deal, then we changed our financing arrangements that we have on the property. So that, you know, when you say where are the lot lines going to be. Well on that main building those lot lines will probably be exactly where they are. MR. HUNSINGER-Right. MR. SPRINGER-That’ll be the next piece we’re moving forward because we don’t have millions of dollars. So that will provide us the mechanism where we can go and talk to the bank and say, look, here’s that deal that you guys have and here’s this other deal so that it’s clear to the banks what they’re investing in, because 26 (Queensbury Planning Board 06/16/2020) it’s not one bank that’s going to pick this deal up. They try to pick up a little piece of it and they work together. Too much risk for one guy. MR. HUNSINGER-Sure. MR. SPRINGER-And there’s been a lot of interest on the part of the bank. So that’s really encouraging, and they’re smaller banks. It’s not like a Chase or something. It’s Greene County and Adirondack, you know, Glens Falls National and those guys that are interested in picking up a 20% piece of the deal. So we kind of drove where those lot lines were or why we actually, why we ended up with that plan, too, and as he said we don’t know what size tenant we’ll have really at the end of the day, but we didn’t want to turn people away because they didn’t see the size building they were looking for. MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. Yes. Thank you. MR. TRAVER-Other questions or comments from members of the Board? MR. HUNSINGER-No, I think it’s an interesting project. MR. TRAVER-Yes, it sure is. It’s encouraging to see it happen. MR. HUNSINGER-Absolutely. MR. TRAVER-We do have a public hearing available on this application. Is there anyone in the audience, and don’t see anyone in the audience that wants to address this. Are there any written comments, Laura? PUBLIC HEARING OPENED MRS. MOORE-There is one written comment. MR. TRAVER-Okay. MRS. MOORE-This is addressed to the Chair, Stephen Traver from Warren County EDC, Ed Bartholomew, “Dear Stephen: As President and CEO of Economic Development Corporation, Warren County (EDC) I would like to express full support for JAG Group’s proposed development of up to (4) new light industrial buildings on the 33 acre property they purchased in the Carey Park, Queensbury several years ago, specifically 24 Native Drive. This is an important project for the Town and region as there is currently very limited first class modern industrial space for expanding local companies and potential incoming firms seeking to establish new operations in the area. As the re-start ramps up and business activity begins to rebuild it will be even more important to have an adequate level of available existing building inventory, so we do not lose opportunities to secure investment and well-=paying skilled jobs. EDC believes there may be opportunities to capture potential medical equipment and other manufacturing supply chain “re-shoring” by firms resulting from the current pandemic crisis and other sectors it is anticipated there will be government requirements coming to have higher percentage of suppliers located within the U.S. This new development will give Queensbury and the region an opportunity to compete for these jobs and investments. Since JAG Group acquired the former 116,000 SF vacant Native Building in 2017, they have invested significant dollars to make repairs and improvements to the facility and have as a result, attracted three tenants from the region that needed additional space and have filled the building. EDC greatly appreciates the Town’s desire to grow commercial and industrial businesses surrounding Exit 18 Corinth Road corridor. The long-range visionary infrastructure investments made by the Town over recent years including expansion of sanitary sewer along Corinth Road to Carey Park and others have served to attract new interest of companies with well-paying year- round jobs. I welcome any questions or comments you may have about our support for the JAG Group development. EDC is pleased to be a strong supporter of this important project.” MR. TRAVER-Thank you, Laura. I’ll remind the public that may be observing this discussion on our Town YouTube channel that there’s an opportunity now for you to call in to make public comment on this application, Native Development Assoc., LLC, Subdivision Preliminary Stage 5-2020 and Subdivision Final Stage 6-2020. The number to call is 518-761-8225. And for the Board, this is an Unlisted action. So under SEQR we may consider a SEQR resolution, and again this is obviously not yet for the individual construction of the lots but rather just for the subdivision itself. Does anyone have any concerns, comments regarding SEQR? Okay. I guess we’re ready to entertain a motion for SEQR MRS. MOORE-Before you do that, do you want to close the public hearing? MR. TRAVER-Yes. Thank you, Laura. We have not received any phone calls. So we’ll go ahead and close our public hearing on this application and proceed to entertain a SEQR resolution. PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED 27 (Queensbury Planning Board 06/16/2020) RESOLUTION GRANTING A NEGATIVE SEQR DEC. SUB # 5-2020 PRELIM. STG. NATIVE DEV. The applicant proposes a five lot subdivision with road construction from the existing Native Road from Carey Road. Lot 1 – 11.32 acres, Lot 2 – 2.01 acres, Lot 3 – 8.24 acres, Lot 4 – 6.94 acres, Lot 5 – 3.75 acres and ROW - 1.11 acres. Project includes stormwater management, grading and erosion control. ROW road greater than 1000 ft. is a Planning Board discussion. Pursuant to Chapter 183 of the Zoning Ordinance, subdivision of land 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; Part 2 of the Long EAF has been reviewed by the Planning Board; 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 SUBDIVISION PRELIMINARY STAGE 5-2020 NATIVE DEVELOPMENT ASSOCIATION, LLC. Introduced by David Deeb who moved for its adoption, seconded by Brad Magowan; 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 Duly adopted this 16 day of June, 2020 by the following vote: AYES: Ms. White, Mr. Shafer, Mr. Hunsinger, Mr. Magowan, Mr. Dixon, Mr. Deeb, Mr. Traver NOES: NONE ABSENT: Mr. Valentine MR. TRAVER-So next we can proceed to consider the Preliminary Stage approval for the subdivision. I know that one condition that we discussed was that the individual lots would be subject to site plan review. Is there any other discussion on Preliminary? MR. DEEB-Did you want that on Preliminary or Final? MR. HUNSINGER-Yes that would go on Final. MR. TRAVER-Final. Okay. MR. DEEB-Yes, I have it on Final. MR. TRAVER-All right. So then we’re looking at Preliminary. RESOLUTION APPROVING PRELIMINARY STG. SUB # 5-2020 NATIVE DEVELOPMENT A subdivision application has been made to the Queensbury Planning Board for the following: Applicant proposes five lot subdivision with road construction from the existing Native Road from Carey Road. Lot 1 – 11.32 acres, Lot 2 – 2.01 acres, Lot 3 – 8.24 acres, Lot 4 – 6.94 acres, Lot 5 – 3.75 acres and ROW - 1.11 acres. Project includes stormwater management, grading and erosion control. ROW road greater than 1000 ft. is a Planning Board discussion. Pursuant to Chapter 183 of the Zoning Ordinance, subdivision of land shall be subject to Planning Board review and approval. 28 (Queensbury Planning Board 06/16/2020) Pursuant to relevant sections of the Town of Queensbury Zoning Code-Chapter A-183, the Planning Board has determined that this proposal satisfies the requirements as stated in the Zoning Code; The requirements of the State Environmental Quality Review Act have been considered and the Planning Board has adopted a SEQRA Negative Declaration A public hearing was scheduled and held on 06/16/2020; This application is supported with all documentation, public comment, and application material in the file of record; MOTION TO APPROVE SUBDIVISION PRELIMINARY STAGE 5-2020 NATIVE DEVELOPMENT ASSOCIATION, LLC. Introduced by David Deeb who moved for its adoption. th Motion seconded by Jamie White. Duly adopted this 16 day of June, 2020 by the following vote: AYES: Mr. Shafer, Mr. Hunsinger, Mr. Magowan, Mr. Dixon, Mr. Deeb, Ms. White, Mr. Traver NOES: NONE ABSENT: Mr. Valentine MR. TRAVER-So next we move to the consideration of the Final Stage approval for the Subdivision which has a number of conditions. We want to add the condition that the individual lot development is subject to site plan review. Are there any other considerations or conditions? MRS. MOORE-I have a suggestion, in reference to the buffer, the applicant is proposing a 6 foot fence instead of a 50 foot buffer and that should be considered in your waiver requests, granting that buffer, and then the other one is waiver from Sketch and the third one is in reference to getting input from the Town Highway Department. MR. TRAVER-Okay. We need to be specific on the input from the Highway Department, do we not? MRS. MOORE-You need to gather information that the road is going to be compliant with the Town’s requirements. MR. TRAVER-Okay. MS. WHITE-So we’re approving a six foot fence tonight? Wouldn’t that be a site plan requirement? MRS. MOORE-At the moment within your subdivision application because it’s, the way the subdivision’s drawn up, it can be a discussion item again, but at this point it’s within your subdivision. MR. DEEB-So we’re just going to waive the buffer. Is that correct? MR. LAPPER-We’ll agree to come back and talk about that at site plan, once we know what the building’s going to look like. MR. TRAVER-Yes. MS. WHITE-Okay. I’m more comfortable with that. MR. HUNSINGER-Yes, me, too. MR. TRAVER-Yes. MRS. MOORE-So I guess that’s a note that should be added to the plans on the waivers discussed at site plan for that lot. MR. TRAVER-We can add that as a condition. Yes. So add the condition that the six foot fence in lieu of a fifty foot buffer will be discussed. MR. DEEB-I have buffer to be discussed at site plan. MR. TRAVER-Right. Exactly. MR. SHAFER-Mr. Chairman, at some point I would ask the question about traffic. I don’t know whether it’s at this stage or whether it ought to be done on each individual lot, but you take the accumulated traffic from Lot 1, Lot 2, Lot 3, Lot 4, Lot 5, bring it out at a single location onto Corinth Road. 29 (Queensbury Planning Board 06/16/2020) MR. LAPPER-So there really are two. Carey Road is a loop road. So there’s the west and the east side. MR. SHAFER-Correct. Is there a signal at either end of Carey? MR. LAPPER-Just a stop sign. MR. SHAFER-Stop signs. MR. LAPPER-There hasn’t been a traffic issue. That’s a County road, Corinth Road. MR. SHAFER-I’m just looking ahead into the future with five new buildings, four new buildings. MR. LAPPER-And I think that right now because we don’t, we can certainly look at the maximum, what the buildings are going to be, but until we really know if there’s one large building, we’ll deal with traffic at that point. MR. SHAFER-I’m just saying that I will raise that question at some point in terms of the traffic impact on Corinth Road. MR. LAPPER-Hopefully we’ll have a lot of traffic and we’ll have to deal with it. MR. SHAFER-And I guess if a traffic signal is needed, what the spacing would be on either side. MR. TRAVER-We need to have the Highway Department confirm that the proposed road is compliant. Right, Laura? MRS. MOORE-Yes. MR. LAPPER-That’s fine because that’s the intention to make it a Town road. MR. MAGOWAN-Tim, how many different tenants do you guys have in that building? TIM BARBER MR. BARBER-Three. MR. MAGOWAN-That’s a big building. That was your plan. That worked out great. MRS. MOORE-Did you also include the Water Department signoff? That’s the same with the Highway, you’re going to need some information from the Water and Wastewater Department and I know th4ey’ve had discussions with that Department. MR. LAPPER-That’s fine. MR. DEEB-I’ve got it. RESOLUTION APPROVING FINAL STG. SUB # 6-2020 NATIVE DEVELOPMENT ASSOC., LLC A subdivision application has been made to the Queensbury Planning Board for the following: Applicant proposes five lot subdivision with road construction from the existing Native Road from Carey Road. Lot 1 – 11.32 acres, Lot 2 – 2.01 acres, Lot 3 – 8.24 acres, Lot 4 – 6.94 acres, Lot 5 – 3.75 acres and ROW - 1.11 acres. Project includes stormwater management, grading and erosion control. ROW road greater than 1000 ft. is a Planning Board discussion. Pursuant to Chapter 183 of the Zoning Ordinance, subdivision of land shall be subject to Planning Board review and approval. Pursuant to relevant sections of the Town of Queensbury Zoning Code-Chapter A-183, the Planning Board has determined that this proposal satisfies the requirements as stated in the Zoning Code; A public hearing was scheduled and held on 06/16/2020; This application is supported with all documentation, public comment, and application material in the file of record; MOTION TO APPROVE SUBDIVISION FINAL STAGE 6-2020 NATIVE DEVELOPMENT ASSOCIATION, LLC. Introduced by David Deeb who moved for its adoption. 1. The requirements of the State Environmental Quality Review Act have been considered and the Planning Board has adopted a SEQRA Negative Declaration; and if the application is a 30 (Queensbury Planning Board 06/16/2020) modification, the requirements of the State Environmental Quality Review Act have been considered, and the proposed modification\[s\] do not result in any new or significantly different environmental impacts, and, therefore, no further SEQRA review is necessary; 2. Waiver requests granted: sketch plan stage, buffer requirement, length of road 3. The limits of clearing will constitute a no-cut buffer zone, orange construction fencing shall be installed around these areas and field verified by Community Development staff 4. Engineering sign-off required prior to signature of Planning Board Chairman. 5. The applicant must submit a copy of the following to the Town: a) The project NOI (Notice of Intent) for coverage under the current NYSDEC SPDES General Permit or for coverage under an individual SPDES prior to the start of any site work. b) The project NOT (Notice of Termination) upon completion of the project; and 6. The applicant must maintain on their project site, for review by staff: a) The approved final that have been stamped by the Town Zoning Administrator. These plans must include the project SWPPP (Storm Water Pollution Prevention Plan) when such a plan was prepared and approved; and b) The project NOI and proof of coverage under the current NYSDEC SPDES General Permit, or an individual SPDES permit issued for the project. 7. Final approved plans, in compliance with the Subdivision, must be submitted to the Community Development Department before any further review by the Zoning Administrator or Building and Codes personnel. 8. The applicant must meet with Staff after approval and prior to issuance of Building Permit and/or the beginning of any site work. 9. Subsequent issuance of further permits, including building permits is dependent on compliance with this and all other conditions of this resolution; 10. As-built plans to certify that the subdivision is developed according to the approved plans to be provided prior to issuance of the certificate of occupancy; 11. Site plan review required for all lots as they are developed. 12. Obtain information from Highway Department for code compliant road. 13. Buffer to be discussed at Site Plan Review. 14. Signoff from Water/Wastewater Dept and Wastewater Dept. and Engineering, th Motion seconded by Brad Magowan. Duly adopted this 16 day of June, 2020 by the following vote: MR. DEEB-Waiver requests granted, including stormwater management, grading, landscaping and lighting plans, including sketch. MRS. MOORE-I’m going to interrupt you on that. A waiver has not been granted for, they supplied stormwater management. MR. DEEB-So scratch stormwater management. MR. TRAVER-Yes, so we’re wavering Sketch but we’re not wavering stormwater management. AYES: Mr. Magowan, Mr. Dixon, Mr. Deeb, Ms. White, Mr. Shafer, Mr. Hunsinger, Mr. Traver NOES: NONE ABSENT: Mr. Valentine MR. LAPPER-Thanks, everybody. MR. TRAVER-Is there anything further before the Board tonight? If not, we’ll entertain a motion to adjourn. 31 (Queensbury Planning Board 06/16/2020) MR. DEEB-So moved. TH MOTION TO ADJOURN THE QUEENSBURY PLANNING BOARD MEETING OF JUNE 16, 2020, Introduced by David Deeb who moved for its adoption, seconded by John Shafer: th Duly adopted this 16 day of June, 2020, by the following vote: AYES: Mr. Shafer, Mr. Hunsinger, Mr. Magowan, Mr. Dixon, Mr. Deeb, Ms. White, Mr. Traver NOES: NONE ABSENT: Mr. Valentine MR. TRAVER-We stand adjourned. We’ll see everyone on Tuesday. On motion meeting was adjourned. RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED, Stephen Traver, Chairman 32