Loading...
07-28-2020 (Queensbury Planning Board 07/28/2020) QUEENSBURY PLANNING BOARD MEETING SECOND REGULAR MEETING JULY 28, 2020 INDEX Site Plan No. 18-2020 Frederick & Linda McKinney 1. Tax Map No. 226.16-1-13 Site Plan No. 21-2020 David Hartmann 6. Tax Map No. 239.12-2-15 Site Plan No. 23-2020 Mary Harris & Anne Walsh 7. Tax Map No. 239.7-1-23 Site Plan No. 24-2020 Marcia Parker 9. Tax Map No. 316.5-1-8.1 Site Plan No. 26-2020 Adirondack Winery 12. Tax Map No. 309.17-1-14 Site Plan No. 25-2020 Chris Abele 19. Tax Map No. 227.9-1-12 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 07/28/2020) QUEENSBURY PLANNING BOARD MEETING SECOND REGULAR MEETING JULY 28, 2020 7:00 P.M. MEMBERS PRESENT STEPHEN TRAVER, CHAIRMAN CHRIS HUNSINGER, VICE CHAIRMAN DAVID DEEB, SECRETARY JOHN SHAFER BRAD MAGOWAN JAMIE WHITE MICHAEL DIXON, ALTERNATE MEMBERS ABSENT MICHAEL VALENTINE LAND USE PLANNER-LAURA MOORE STENOGRAPHER-MARIA GAGLIARDI MR. TRAVER-Good evening, ladies and gentlemen. Welcome to the Town of Queensbury Planning Board th meeting for Tuesday, July 28, 2020. This is our second meeting for July, our ninth meeting for 2020 and our fifth meeting under the COVID guidelines during the pandemic. You’ll note the illuminated exit signs. If we have an emergency for some reasons those are the exits. If you have an electronic device, cell phone or other device, please either silence it or turn it off so it will not interrupt our meeting. We do have items tonight which are subject to public hearing and the Town is providing a YouTube channel so that members of the public not in attendance can observe and comment on tonight’s meeting, and I will alert members who are observing the meeting on the YouTube channel that should they wish to issue public comment when those applications come up, the number to call is 518-761-8225, and I’ll repeat that number when we open public hearings. We have no administrative items this evening.. The first section of our agenda is under Old Business and the first application is Frederick & Linda McKinney, Site Plan 18-2020. OLD BUSINESS: SITE PLAN NO. 18-2020 SEQR TYPE: TYPE II. FREDERICK & LINDA MCKINNEY. AGENT(S): HUTCHINS ENGINEERING. OWNER(S): SAME AS APPLICANT. ZONING: WR. LOCATION: 23 MASON ROAD. APPLICANT PROPOSES A TWO STORY ADDITION OF 430 SQ. FT. THAT IS 860 SQ. FT. OF FLOOR AREA AND TO RAISE THE ROOF LINE OF A PORTION OF THE HOME, TO CREATE A FULL SECOND STORY FOR MECHANICAL, SITTING AREA, BATHROOMS AND BEDROOMS AND A NEW ADDITION FOR GARAGE. PURSUANT TO CHAPTER 179-3-040 & 179-6-065 OF THE ZONING ORDINANCE, NEW FLOOR AREA AND EXPANSION OF A NON-CONFORMING STRUCTURE SHALL BE SUBJECT TO PLANNING BOARD REVIEW AND APPROVAL. CROSS REFERENCE: AV 7-2000, SP 13-2000 SUNDECK; 98692-7193 STORAGE BUILDING. WARREN CO. REFERRAL: JULY 2020. SITE INFORMATION: LG PARK, APA, CEA. LOT SIZE: .75 ACRE. TAX MAP NO. 226.16-1-13. SECTION: 179-3-040, 179-6-065. JON LAPPER, REPRESENTING APPLICANT, PRESENT; FRED MC KINNEY, PRESENT MR. TRAVER-Laura? MRS. MOORE-Okay. This applicant proposes a two story addition of a 530 square feet that is 860 square feet of floor area and to raise the roof line of a portion of the home, to create a full second story that includes mechanical, sitting area, bathrooms and bedrooms as well as a new addition for the garage. The applicant did receive the variances that were requested at the Zoning Board and the item that I have up on the screen identifies the new planting area as well as the permeable pavers for the sidewalk area. MR. DEEB-Excuse me, Laura, did you say 530 square feet or 430? MRS. MOORE-I said 430. MR. DEEB-I thought you said 530. Maybe I misheard. Okay. MR. TRAVER-It does say 430 on the Staff Notes that she provided. Good evening. Welcome. 2 (Queensbury Planning Board 07/28/2020) MR. LAPPER-Good evening, everyone. For the record, Jon Lapper with Luke Dobie of Hutchins Engineering and the applicants Fred and Didi are here. Laura pretty much summed it up. We got into a lot of detail with you last week at the recommendation. We got the variances. The changes that we made for you tonight are what we discussed with you last time, as Laura just said., The planting area on the north side of the boathouse is new along the shore, and Luke changed all of the pavers to permeable pavers which basically gained just about one percent in terms of permeability, and beyond that it’s just that all of the minor proposed changes are not on the lake frontage of the house, and to address stormwater and again the Zoning Board was very supportive of all that. So we’re here to answer any questions. MR. TRAVER-Okay. I know the one item that we discussed very briefly last time at the end was the shoreline buffering, and you had indicated that you would hopefully be prepared to respond to that. So can you describe how you plan to meet the shoreline buffer requirements? MR. LAPPER-So more than sufficient mature trees are on the site to meet that requirement in the Code, and what I had mentioned last time, because of the steps into the lake which were historic here and the location of the boathouse, we added the whole area on the north side of the boathouse along the shore which wasn’t there last time, last week, as a planting bed, a mulch bed with new shrubs. So that plus the existing trees is what we’re proposing to address that, and there is, there’s stormwater devices on the other side of the house that are going to be added now and an upgraded septic system. MR. TRAVER-Okay. Questions, comments from members of the Planning Board? MR. SHAFER-Well, following up on the plantings, Mr. Lapper, I see that if you plant on the north side of the boathouse which is already in the northerly part of the lot, that’s only about 20% of the shorefront. MR. LAPPER-And that’s true. What we talked about last time was that the McKinney’s bought this property a long time ago and they don’t have a lot of distance between the house and the lake. So that lakeshore, which is grass, is very important to them for usability. They also have a sea wall so it’s not a situation where anything’s running into the lake because it’s stopped by the sea wall. So we did, at your request, add the planting area, which is admittedly probably about 20%, but it’s a very unique piece of property with the sea wall and with the stairs. MR. SHAFER-Where is the sea wall? MR. LAPPER-The whole frontage. MR. TRAVER-Well I think we can appreciate that it’s a unique property, but it’s also a unique lake, and so the buffering requirements are very important an I think it would be helpful if we had, and I understand there’s this stairwell that goes down to the lakefront, but there’s still plenty of room where there could be some buffering, on I guess what would be the south side of the boathouse, surrounding the stairwell. I mean right now that’s lawn essentially. MR. LAPPER-That’s right, but again, because the sea wall’s there the stormwater doesn’t go into the lake. Do you want to discuss that? MR. MC KINNEY-All the construction is on the road side. MR. LAPPER-Yes, but what they’re talking about is the new regulations that regulation the shorefront. MR. TRAVER-Good evening. If you could state your name for the record, please, for our minutes. MR. MC KINNEY-I’m Fred McKinney, 23 Mason Road. MR. TRAVER-Good evening. MR. MC KINNEY-At the request last week, we made a change and added a buffer to the north, but as Jon said, the house is quite close to the lake, so to put a big buffer there would be very restrictive, and we find that the grass does a tremendous job with mitigating runoff into the lake. We have a sea wall. We just feel that that is very adequate. We’re great stewards of the lake. We’ve been there for many years. Nobody cares about the lake more than we do. We drink the water and we uphold to the highest standards to the lake, and, you know, we have always maintained the property. I don’t know if you got up there on an inspection, but it’s relatively flat land, and we aren’t seeing a lot of runoff, and now with the stormwater management that we’re proposing, we’re even going to have less runoff with the new project. So if it was brand new construction I could understand, but we aren’t touching anything on the lake side. It’s all on the back side. MR. TRAVER-Well I understand, and your point is well taken about the proximity of the house to the lake, and quite honestly that raises the issue of the importance of the buffering, and I also can understand your not wanting a huge buffer area, but right now it is just, there’s no buffer at all in a significant portion 3 (Queensbury Planning Board 07/28/2020) of that lakefront, and although you’re not proposing to disturb the lakefront area, one of our tasks is to try to improve the environmental protection of the lake, which is why the buffering was added to the zoning. So I would ask that, well, again, I guess I should ask for other Board members to comment how they feel about it. How does the Board feel about buffering in that area? MR. MAGOWAN-Well I’ll speak up. I did have a chance to drive by and take a look. It is a well - established front lawn with three inch, twelve inch, fourteen inch trees, six inch. It’s got some big tree growth in there. The slope is very minimal. You’re really only talking from the front of the house, 325 down to, you know, you’re talking. MR. TRAVER-It’s about five feet. I think the lake is at 320. MR. MAGOWAN-Five feet, but the sea wall is quite substantial, and what you’re not, there is a lip there, and what you’re not getting is you’re not going to get that sheeting runoff as you would on any other thing. I mean it’s going to hit that sea wall and it’s going to drop down, if that’s the case. I mean I feel that they’ve gained some pervious on the back in what they’re doing with the patio stone that’s on the back. They’ve done a little on the north. I mean I’m happy with what they’ve proposed. MR. TRAVER-Okay. Other comments? MR. HUNSINGER-You read the buffer requirements, you know, it was commented about the large trees. I think you clearly meet the large tree requirement, but the other one, you know, the native shrubs or plants, you know, you need to put one for every 350 square feet. So it’s not like it’s a huge burden to add some of the plantings that are required. A seven to twenty-four inch native shrub for every three hundred and fifty square feet of ground cover. It’s really not a lot that’s required to meet the Town Code. MR. LAPPER-It’s more about changing the character of it. MR. MC KINNEY-Yes. It’s the character and the steps going down the lake, that setback is about 17 feet back in. That goes back to probably the 1930’s or 40’s. It’s quite historical. Just the character, and we talked about buffering on the south, but it would really, really take away from that property and, you know, with it being five feet of elevation from the house to the wall, and with the turf that we have, we see no runoff. We see a much larger problem that’s not incurred by us, but runoff coming down the street, you know, uncontrolled and running into the lake. That’s a problem, you know, winter and spring. I mean it’s terrible, but we have, you can look where the runoff comes down off the road in the spring there’s moss there. Any place along the front of our property, there’s absolutely nothing and that to me is a testament that we aren’t getting a lot of runoff from our yard into the lake. MR. TRAVER-We do have a public hearing on this application, and again I’ll remind members of the public that may be viewing the broadcast on the Town’s YouTube channel, that should they wish to make public comment, they can do so by calling 518-761-8225, and that public hearing is now open. And I’ll ask Laura, are there any written comments? PUBLIC HEARING OPENED MRS. MOORE-Yes, there is a written comment. This is addressed to Whom It May Concern. The address is 27 Mason Road. “Please let this letter serve as my approval for the proposed project at 23 Mason Road, Cleverdale, NY. We can see no adverse impacts to the lake or the local neighborhood, and in fact believe it will enhance our neighborhood by increasing the value and beauty of their property. The McKinney’s were kind enough to show us their proposed changes, and we think it’s an attractive project and would improve our and surrounding properties and make it a more interesting and beautiful place to live. We are in full support. Sincerely, MA FC 2012 Trust, by: Homa Kolahi, trustee” MR. TRAVER-Okay. MR. MC KINNEY-We also have a second letter that was sent and that wasn’t read in last week. That letter’s property owners to the north, and the property owners to the south are in total support. MR. DEEB-I’m just looking at the requirements for the buffering, and if the site project doesn’t meet the requirement for buffering, then I think we have to address it a little more, but if it meets the requirements, then I don’t think it needs anymore discussion. MR. TRAVER-Yes, well I think it certainly meets part of the requirement. There’s no question about that. MR. DEEB-Well we have regulations. We have regulations that are in place. MR. TRAVER-Right. That’s right, and that’s what we’re discussing. Other comments on the buffer or any other aspect of the application? 4 (Queensbury Planning Board 07/28/2020) MRS. MOORE-I’m going to read the second letter. Is that all right? MR. TRAVER-Go ahead, Laura. Thank you. MRS. MOORE-On behalf of the Amirsaleh family, we wish to give our full support to Frederick and Linda McKinney on their building project. We live next door to the south of Fred and Didi at 19 Mason Road for well over 20 years and they’ve truly been great neighbors over time. They’ve been conscientious, respectful and a pleasure to have next door. The McKinney’s are conscious of their environment, constantly seeking ways to improve their home and land without impacting their neighbors, the lake or roadside structures. I appreciate that they kept us aware of their plans prior to finalizing their decision. Knowing renovations will take some time to complete, they have demonstrated good neighboring by notifying us about their plans and addressing all our concerns. I can confidently say we are fully behind their project. Thank you for your time. I hope you will not hesitate to contact us if you have any questions. MR. TRAVER-Okay. Thank you, Laura. Thank you, Jon. All right. So if we set the buffering aside for a second, are there any other aspects? Yes, Mike. I’m sorry, you were interrupted. MR. DIXON-I was just going to comment, you know, I noticed, again, most of the construction was not on the lakeside, and I thought they did a fantastic job with that. They put in the pavers, got rid of an extra strip of concrete and they did make improvements on the lakeside as well, too. So overall I think they improved that aspect of it, even if they may not meet every aspect of the buffer that we’re looking for, but I did think it was an improvement. MR. TRAVER-Okay. Any other comments? Okay. MR. SHAFER-Mr. Chairman, I guess I would reinforce the buffering idea. I mean it’s interesting that it’s a historic step and that’s lawn that the applicant likes, and they’re concerned about restricting the view which shrubs would not do. I just haven’t heard any rationale against planting a few shrubs and/or ground cover along the lake. That’s what the whole regulation was put in place for, to protect the lake. MR. TRAVER-Right, understood. Yes. Okay. MR. DEEB-We just can’t arbitrarily say, no, we’re going to let it go. It’s a slippery slope. MR. TRAVER-Well, we’ve had, I think a robust discussion with the applicant on the issue of the buffering. The applicant has basically represented that they’re presenting the application as presented. So I think the next step would be to vote on a resolution. Unless, did you have anything else you wanted to offer? MR. LAPPER-So I guess we got the sense last time because of the agreement on the permeable pavers and that we talked at the end about the area on the north side of the boathouse that we thought that that was sufficient for the Board and obviously. MR. TRAVER-I think we left it that we would have to have more discussion about the buffering. That’s my recollection. MR. LAPPER-I understand. MR. HUNSINGER-Can we scroll down so we can see what’s proposed on the north end? Because that wasn’t on the original submission. Can you scroll down, Laura? So you have four shrubs going in there. MR. LAPPER-Yes, but it’s the plantings and mulch bed. MR. HUNSINGER-So you only need nine, you need nine shrubs if my math’s correct, to meet the requirements. You’ve proposed four. So I don’t know, I have a hard time believing you couldn’t find space on that lot to find room for five more shrubs. MR. TRAVER-Yes, especially if you go to the, you know, maybe a couple on each side of the steps. MR. HUNSINGER-Put them in the other corner of the lot. There’s places where you could put them. MS. WHITE-That’s what I was thinking, Chris, on the south side. MR. MAGOWAN-Put them on the south side, right. MS. WHITE-Counterbalance. We’re not talking trees, we’re talking shrubs. MR. TRAVER-Well they’re discussing it. MR. HUNSINGER-Seven inch to twenty-four inch. 5 (Queensbury Planning Board 07/28/2020) MR. LAPPER-Okay, agreed. We’ll add five more shrubs on the south side. MR. TRAVER-Okay. MR. LAPPER-We’ll have Lucas do it and submit it to Laura, nice size like the ones on the north side. MR. MAGOWAN-Thank you. MR. DEEB-Thank you, Jon. MR. HUNSINGER-Thank you. MR. TRAVER-All right. So we’re working on that for the resolution. That is definitely an improvement over what is existing there. So are we ready, then, for that? IS the Board ready to move ahead? MR. SHAFER-Yes. MR. DEEB-Yes MR. TRAVER-All right. So let’s hear that motion. And I will close the public hearing. PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED 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 a two story addition of 430 sq. ft. that is 860 sq. ft. of floor area and to raise the roof line of a portion of the home, to create a full second story for mechanical, sitting area, bathrooms and bedrooms and a new addition for garage. Pursuant to Chapter 179-3-040 & 179-6-065 of the Zoning Ordinance, new floor area and expansion of a non-conforming structure 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 made a recommendation to the Zoning Board of Appeals on 07/21/2020; the ZBA approved the variance requests on 07/22/2020; The Planning Board opened a public hearing on the Site plan application on 07/28/2020 and continued the public hearing to 07/28/2020, 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 07/28/2020; 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 18-2020 FREDERICK & LINDA MCKINNEY; Introduced by David Deeb who moved for its adoption; Per the draft provided by staff conditioned upon the following conditions: 1) Waivers request granted: g. site lighting, h. signage, j. stormwater, k. topography, l. landscaping, n traffic, o. commercial alterations/ construction details, p floor plans, q. soil logs, r. construction/demolition disposal s. snow removal. 2) The approval is valid for one (1) year from the date of approval. You are responsible for requesting an extension of approval before the one (1) year time frame has expired if you have not yet applied for a building permit or commenced significant site work. 3) Adherence to the items outlined in the follow-up letter sent with this resolution. a) If application was referred to engineering, then engineering sign-off required prior to signature of Zoning Administrator of the approved plans; b) Final approved plans should have dimensions and setbacks noted on the site plan/survey, floor plans and elevation for the existing rooms and proposed rooms in the building and site improvements, c) Final approved plans, in compliance with the Site Plan, must be submitted to the Community Development Department before any further review by the Zoning Administrator or Building and Codes personnel; 6 (Queensbury Planning Board 07/28/2020) d) The applicant must meet with Staff after approval and prior to issuance of Building Permit and/or the beginning of any site work; e) Subsequent issuance of further permits, including building permits is dependent on compliance with this and all other conditions of this resolution; f) As-built plans to certify that the site plan is developed according to the approved plans to be provided prior to issuance of the certificate of occupancy; g) Resolution to be placed on final plans in its entirety and legible. h) Five more shrubs to be planted on the south side of the property (shoreline). th Motion seconded by Jamie White. Duly adopted this 28 day of July, 2020 by the following vote: MR. SHAFER-The motion said on the south side of the property? MR. TRAVER-Yes. MR. SHAFER-Did we mean that? You’re talking about along the lakeside. MR. HUNSINGER-Yes. It has to be within 30 feet of the lake. MR. TRAVER-Yes, that’s the buffering. MR. SHAFER-You’re okay with on the south side as the language? MR. TRAVER-Yes. It’s part of the buffering so it does need to be within that zone, and Jon certainly understands that, and it’s going to be submitted to the Town, amended. AYES: Mr. Deeb, Ms. White, Mr. Shafer, Mr. Hunsinger, Mr. Magowan, Mr. Dixon, Mr. Traver NOES: NONE ABSENT: Mr. Valentine MR. TRAVER-You’re all set. MR. LAPPER-Thanks, everybody. MR. DEEB-Thank you. MR. TRAVER-The next application, David Hartmann, Site Plan 21-2020. SITE PLAN NO. 21-2020 SEQR TYPE: TYPE II. DAVID HARTMANN. OWNER(S): SAME AS APPLICANT. ZONING: WR. LOCATION: 51 ASSEMBLY POINT ROAD. APPLICANT PROPOSES TO REMOVE A 1,513.2 SQ. FT. HOME (FOOTPRINT) TO CONSTRUCT A 1,771.6 SQ. FT. (FOOTPRINT) HOME WITH A FLOOR AREA OF 3,474.5 SQ. FT. PROJECT INCLUDES SITE WORK FOR STORMWATER, LANDSCAPING, AND SEPTIC. PURSUANT TO CHAPTER 179- 3-040 & 179-6-065 OF THE ZONING ORDINANCE, WORK WITHIN 50 FT. OF 15% SLOPES AND NEW FLOOR AREA IN A CEA SHALL BE SUBJECT TO PLANNING BOARD REVIEW AND APPROVAL. VARIANCE: RELIEF IS SOUGHT FOR SETBACK, HEIGHT AND FLOOR AREA. THE PLANNING BOARD SHALL PROVIDE A RECOMMENDATION TO THE ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS. CROSS REFERENCE: SP 71-2014, RC-0749-2019, 2010-275 DOCK. WARREN CO. REFERRAL: JULY 2020. SITE INFORMATION: LG PARK, APA, CEA. LOT SIZE: .28 ACRE. TAX MAP NO. 239.12-2-15. SECTION: 179-3-040, 179-6-065. MR. TRAVER-Recall that that application was tabled I believe until August. MRS. MOORE-Until September. MR. TRAVER-Until September. Thank you, Laura. So if those listening or observing us on the Town YouTube channel, the David Hartmann application, Site Plan 21-2020 has been tabled to September. So the public comment period on that will be left open, and we’ll entertain the application and the public comment on that at that time. MRS. MOORE-You wouldn’t open that public hearing because it’s probably going to change and we’ll have to re-advertise. MR. TRAVER-Okay. So I should not open the public hearing then? MRS. MOORE-Correct. 7 (Queensbury Planning Board 07/28/2020) MR. TRAVER-All right. Sorry. So the application will not be opened this evening but we will open it obviously when it comes before us, hopefully in September. MR. MAGOWAN-Do we know what date, Mr. Chairman? MR. TRAVER-Yes, we have that. I believe it was the first meeting in September. th MR. MAGOWAN-The 15. th MR. TRAVER-Which would be, yes, I believe it’s the 15. That’s the first meeting in September. th MR. HUNSINGER-Yes, the 15. MR. TRAVER-So the next application on our list also under Old Business is Mary Harris & Ann Harris, Site Plan 23-2020. SITE PLAN NO. 23-2020 SEQR TYPE: TYPE II. MARY HARRIS & ANNE WALSH. AGENT(S): HUTCHINS ENGINEERING. OWNER(S): SAME AS APPLICANTS. ZONING: WR. LOCATION: 20 KNOX ROAD. APPLICANT PROPOSES A SINGLE STORY 585 SQ. FT. ADDITION TO AN EXISTING 1,875 SQ. FT. HOME. NEW FLOOR AREA IS PROPOSED TO BE 3010 SQ. FT. (22.1%), AND EXISTING IS 1,890 SQ. FT. (13.1%). PROJECT INCLUDES NEW SEPTIC SYSTEM AND ASSOCIATED SITE WORK. PURSUANT TO CHAPTER 179-6-065 OF THE ZONING ORDINANCE, NEW CONSTRUCTION IN A CEA AN EXPANSION OF A NON- CONFORMING STRUCTURE SHALL BE SUBJECT TO PLANNING BOARD REVIEW AND APPROVAL. CROSS REFERENCE: BP 2015-463 DOCK. WARREN CO. REFERRAL: JULY 2020. SITE INFORMATION: LG PARK, APA, CEA. LOT SIZE: .31 ACRE. TAX MAP NO. 239.7- 1-23. SECTION: 179-6-065. LUCAS DOBIE, REPRESENTING APPLICANT, PRESENT MR. TRAVER-Laura? MRS. MOORE-This applicant is proposing a 585 square foot addition to an existing 1,875 square foot home. The project includes a basement underneath the single story addition and they did receive their variances from the Zoning Board of Appeals as well. MR. TRAVER-Okay. Thank you, Laura. Good evening. MR. DOBIE-Thank you, Mr. Chairman and Staff. Good evening, Board, for the record Lucas Dobie with Hutchins Engineering, and with me is our clients, John and Ginny Harris, who are the applicants, and Mrs. Harris is half owner of the property. Again, we discussed this quite extensively last week. My recollection basically a 16 foot 3 by 36 foot addition, one story addition to the east side of the home, and also to re-model the existing home for their year round residence and to have more space for their grandchildren as well. We’re proposing new septic, a pump up absorption field a nice absorption bed. I’m very comfortable with the design. We received our Area Variances last week and we’re here to ask for your Site Plan approval. They would like to begin construction this fall. Thank you very much for your time and consideration. MR. TRAVER-Okay. I see you did receive your variance. Were there any changes made as a result of your discussion with the ZBA? MR. DOBIE-There was not, Mr. Chairman. MR. TRAVER-Okay. Thank you. Questions, comments from members of the Planning Board? We did look at this. It’s fairly straightforward. MR. DEEB-Minimal changes. MR. TRAVER-Okay. MR. DIXON-Mr. Chairman, could I ask a question? MR. TRAVER-Sure. MR. DIXON-I’m just curious. So we had the discussion as far as the lake water supply last week. Is that the sole source of water for the house? MR. DOBIE-That is correct, Mr. Dixon. 8 (Queensbury Planning Board 07/28/2020) MR. DIXON-Internally is any of that going to be upgraded? Have you got check valves in place so nothing’s going to come back out to the lake? MR. DOBIE-Right. There’ll be new pressure system, filtration I would imagine, probably UV treatment as well. MARY HARRIS MRS. HARRIS-We have UV now. MR. DOBIE-They have UV now. MR. DIXON-What are your plans if the line breaks because it’s under, goes under the road. MR. DOBIE-Yes, that would be a catastrophe to say the least, but I imagine there would be a directional bore, with permission from the Highway Department. We’d bore out into Harris Bay there. MR. DIXON-As long as you’ve got a plan in place. MR. TRAVER-We do have a public hearing on this application. Is there anyone in the audience that wanted to comment on this application? As I reminded folks observing us on the YouTube channel, if they wish to comment, I remind them again, 518-761-8225 is the number to call, and I’ll ask Laura, are there any written comments? PUBLIC HEARING OPENED MRS. MOORE-Yes. There are written comments. So this is addressed to the Planning Board. “I, Betty Spawn, have been friends with Mary Harris and Anne Walsh for more than 60 years. I approve the addition on their home located at 20 Knox Rd, Lake George, NY 12845. Regards, Betty F. Spawn” The next one’s addressed to David Deeb. “I reside at 30 Knox Road, one house separates me from both applicants, Mary Harris and Anne Walsh. I have known this family for decades I condone their application, including any variances this project might require. For many reasons, I’m sure all known to you, the Town of Queensbury plus New York State must do every single thing we can to keep anyone of near-retirement age in our great New York State. Thank you for your time. Jean Wanamaker 30 Knox Road” MR. TRAVER-Is that it? MRS. MOORE-Yes, it is. MR. TRAVER-Okay. Thank you, Laura. I’ve not received any phone calls. So we’ll go ahead and close the public hearing on this application. Is there any other questions, comments from members of the Planning Board? Are we ready to move forward? All right. I guess we’re ready to entertain a motion. RESOLUTION APPROVING SP # 21-2020 MARY HARRIS & ANNE WALSH 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 a single story 585 sq. ft. addition to an existing 1,875 sq. ft. home. New floor area is proposed to be 3010 sq. ft. (22.1%), and existing is 1,890 sq. ft. (13.1%). Project includes new septic system and associated site work. Pursuant to Chapter 179-6-065 of the Zoning Ordinance, new construction in a CEA and expansion of a non-conforming structure 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 made a recommendation to the Zoning Board of Appeals on 07/21/2020; the ZBA approved the variance requests on 07/22/2020; The Planning Board opened a public hearing on the Site plan application on 07/28/2020 and continued the public hearing to 07/28/2020, 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 07/28/2020; 9 (Queensbury Planning Board 07/28/2020) 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 23-2020 MARY HARRIS & ANNE WALSH; Introduced by David Deeb who moved for its adoption; Per the draft provided by staff conditioned upon the following conditions: 1) Waivers request granted: g. site lighting, h. signage, j. stormwater, k. topography, l. landscaping, n traffic, o. commercial alterations/ construction details, p floor plans, q. soil logs, r. construction/demolition disposal s. snow removal. 2) The approval is valid for one (1) year from the date of approval. You are responsible for requesting an extension of approval before the one (1) year time frame has expired if you have not yet applied for a building permit or commenced significant site work. 3) Adherence to the items outlined in the follow-up letter sent with this resolution. a) If application was referred to engineering, then engineering sign-off required prior to signature of Zoning Administrator of the approved plans; b) Final approved plans should have dimensions and setbacks noted on the site plan/survey, floor plans and elevation for the existing rooms and proposed rooms in the building and site improvements. c) Final approved plans, in compliance with the Site Plan, must be submitted to the Community Development Department before any further review by the Zoning Administrator or Building and Codes personnel; d) The applicant must meet with Staff after approval and prior to issuance of Building Permit and/or the beginning of any site work; e) Subsequent issuance of further permits, including building permits is dependent on compliance with this and all other conditions of this resolution; f) As-built plans to certify that the site plan is developed according to the approved plans to be provided prior to issuance of the certificate of occupancy; g) Resolution to be placed on final plans in its entirety and legible. th Motion seconded by Brad Magowan. Duly adopted this 28 day of 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-You’re all set. Good luck. MR. DOBIE-Thank you very much, Board. MR. TRAVER-We next move on our agenda to the area of New Business. The first application under New Business is Marcia Parker, Site Plan 24-2020. NEW BUSINESS: SITE PLAN NO. 24-2020 SEQR TYPE: TYPE II. MARCIA PARKER. AGENT(S): HUTCHINS ENGINEERING. OWNER(S): SAME AS APPLICANT. ZONING: WR. LOCATION: 11 SPERRY ROAD. APPLICANT PROPOSES TO COMPLETE CONSTRUCTION OF A GRAVEL MULCH PATH. PROPOSAL IS TO CONSTRUCT A 300 FT. LONG, 6 FT. WIDE GRAVEL PATH ON SLOPES IN EXCESS OF 20%. FURTHER, APPLICANT PROPOSES A 40’ X 8’ GRAVEL TURN AROUND ADJACENT TO THE HUDSON RIVER SHORELINE. APPLICANT SITE PLAN 77-2012 FOR THIS PROJECT HAS SINCE EXPIRED. PURSUANT TO CHAPTER 179-6-050 OF THE ZONING ORDINANCE, HARD SURFACING WITHIN 50 FT. OF SHORELINE SHALL BE SUBJECT TO PLANNING BOARD REVIEW AND APPROVAL. CROSS REFERENCE: SP 77-2012. WARREN CO. REFERRAL: JULY 2020. SITE INFORMATION: HUDSON RIVER. LOT SIZE: 1.48 ACRES. TAX MAP NO. 316.5-1-8.1 SECTION: 179-6-050. TOM HUTCHINS, REPRESENTING APPLICANT, PRESENT MR. TRAVER-Laura? MRS. MOORE-This applicant proposes to complete construction of a gravel mulch path. This is approximately 200 feet in length and six feet wide approximately on slopes in excess of 20%. This application was before this Board in 2012. It received approval and it’s since expired. The project has not changed. 10 (Queensbury Planning Board 07/28/2020) MR. TRAVER-So we’ve already reviewed it in 2012 and it just lapsed and the applicant now wishes to complete the previous approval. MRS. MOORE-Correct. MR. TRAVER-Okay. Thank you. Good evening. MR. HUTCHINS-Good evening. I’m Tom Hutchins, Hutchins Engineering, here with Marcia Parker. Laura said it all. This was approved in 2012 or 2013 and it’s a little bit of a tricky construction. It went through Town Planning and frankly they didn’t realize that the approvals had an expiration. So we’re here for renewal, per say, actually a re-approval. MR. TRAVER-And are there any changes to what they’re proposing now versus what was approved back in 2012? MR. HUTCHINS-No, no changes. MR. TRAVER-Okay. Questions, comments from members of the Board? MS. WHITE-There are no changes to anything to anything that would affect us, changes to the laws? MRS. MOORE-It’s not clear what you’re asking. MS. WHITE-Just because it has been a while, have there been any changes in Town laws? MRS. MOORE-No, there has not been. MS. WHITE-Thank you. MR. MAGOWAN-I do remember this project and it’s quite an undertaking just to get down to the river a little easier, but I do remember this project and I know we went over it pretty good, and I remember walking out and taking a look at it. You did a nice job putting it together, Tom. MR. HUTCHINS-It’s been challenging construction, yes. MR. MAGOWAN-I think you might have had the easier job just drawing it out. MR. TRAVER-We do have a public comment on this application, and I will remind people on line that are observing us that should they wish to comment on this application, Site Plan 24-2020, I’ll remind them again, the number to call is 518-761-8225, and I’ll ask Laura, are there any written comments? PUBLIC HEARING OPENED MRS. MOORE-There were no written comments. MR. TRAVER-Okay. Thank you. MR. SHAFER-Tom, what happens down at the water’s edge? It looks like on the drawing there’s about a five foot drop at the end of the path. MR. HUTCHINS-Yes, there’s a drop near the end of the path, there’s kind of a sand-ish kind of the bottom, the level varies quite a bit over the course of a season, but it doesn’t come up above the bank there. So we’ve re-aligned that bank there. MR. SHAFER-That bank will be finished somehow? MR. HUTCHINS-Eventually, yes. MR. DIXON-Since I wasn’t here the last time, I guess one thing that jumped out me, I mean that’s a steep grade and it’s a straight shot. Runoff, I imagine many of you had that discussion. Were you all content with the mitigation plan to make sure runoff doesn’t go right into the river? MR. MAGOWAN-Yes, I was. MR. HUTCHINS-Yes, it was reviewed by your engineer, site engineer, your current engineer, and we went back and forth on it. Yes, we’ve got a ditch line there. MR. DIXON-Thank you. 11 (Queensbury Planning Board 07/28/2020) MR. HUTCHINS-As much vegetation as we can possibly have in there. MR. DIXON-And it’s a very. MR. HUTCHINS-It’s very steep, no doubt. MR. DIXON-Is it going to be just seasonal use, in the summer to get boats down there, nothing in the winter? MR. HUTCHINS-Yes. I mean you could snowshoe down there, it would be walkable. You could sled but that probably wouldn’t be a good idea. MR. DIXON-Thank you. MR. HUTCHINS-If you see it in the field there’s not a way to serpentine this with these side slopes. I mean there’s a lot of vegetation on these side slopes that we’re maintaining. MR. TRAVER-Other questions, comments? I’m sorry if I asked you already, Laura, but are there any written comments? MRS. MOORE-There were no written comments. MR. TRAVER-Okay, and we have not received any phone calls on this. So we’ll go ahead and close the public hearing. If there are no other questions for the applicant, we’ll entertain a motion. RESOLUTION APPROVING SP # 24-2020 MARCIA PARKER 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 complete construction of a gravel mulch path. Proposal is to construct a 300 ft. long, 6 ft. wide gravel path on slopes in excess of 20%. Further, applicant proposes a 40’x 8’ gravel turn around adjacent to the Hudson River shoreline. Applicant Site Plan 77-2012 for this project has since expired. Pursuant to Chapter 179-6-050 of the Zoning Ordinance, hard surfacing within 50 ft. of 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 07/28/2020 and continued the public hearing to 07/28/2020, 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 07/28/2020; 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 24-2020 MARCIA PARKER; Introduced by David Deeb who moved for its adoption; Per the draft provided by staff conditioned upon the following conditions: 1) Waivers request granted: n traffic, o. commercial alterations/ construction details, p floor plans, q. soil logs, r. construction/demolition disposal s. snow removal. 2) The approval is valid for one (1) year from the date of approval. You are responsible for requesting an extension of approval before the one (1) year time frame has expired if you have not yet applied for a building permit or commenced significant site work. 3) Adherence to the items outlined in the follow-up letter sent with this resolution. a) If application was referred to engineering, then engineering sign-off required prior to signature of Zoning Administrator of the approved plans; b) Final approved plans should have dimensions and setbacks noted on the site plan/survey, floor plans and elevation for the existing rooms and proposed rooms in the building and site improvements, c) Final approved plans, in compliance with the Site Plan, must be submitted to the Community Development Department before any further review by the Zoning Administrator or Building and Codes personnel; 12 (Queensbury Planning Board 07/28/2020) 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 Brad Magowan. Duly adopted this 28 day of July, 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-You’re all set. Thank you. MR. HUTCHINS-Thank you. MR. TRAVER-All right. Thank you. So next we have, also under New Business, Adirondack Winery, Site Plan 26-2020. SITE PLAN NO. 26-2020 SEQR TYPE: UNLISTED. ADIRONDACK WINERY. AGENT(S): LUIGI PALLESCHI, PE, ABD. OWNER(S): TIM BARBER, 395 BIG BAY ROAD, LLC. ZONING: CLI. LOCATION: 395 BIG BAY ROAD APPLICANT PROPOSES TO CONSTRUCT A NEW COMMERCIAL BUILDING OF 11,100 SQ. FT. INCLUDING A 50’ X 30’ COVERED PAD AND A 60’ BY 30’ OPEN PAD. PROJECT SITE INCLUDES AN EXISTING 6,650 SQ. FT. COMMERCIAL BUILDING FOR A WINE FACILITY. SITE WORK INCLUDES NEW PAVEMENT, GRAVEL AREAS AND SIDEWALKS ON SITE. SITE WORK ALSO INCLUDES GRADING AND STORMWATER, SNOW STORAGE AND LANDSCAPING. PURSUANT TO CHAPTER 179-3- 040 OF THE ZONING ORDINANCE, NEW COMMERCIAL CONSTRUCTION SHALL BE SUBJECT TO PLANNING BOARD REVIEW AND APPROVAL. CROSS REFERENCE: SP 24- 1995; SV 36-2009. WARREN CO. REFERRAL: JULY 2020. LOT SIZE: 2.03 ACRES. TAX MAP NO. 309.17-1-14. SECTION: 179-3-040. LUIGI PALLESCHI & TIM BARBER, REPRESENTING APPLICANT, PRESENT MR. TRAVER-Laura? MRS. MOORE-The applicant proposes to construct a new commercial building of 11,100 square feet including a 50’ by 30’ covered pad and a 60’ by 30’ open pad. The project includes an existing 6,650 square foot commercial building, that’s an existing building on site, a current wine facility. The site work includes new paving, gravel areas and sidewalks. The project did go before the Town Engineer and they did provide comment. MR. TRAVER-Okay. Thank you, Laura. Good evening. MR. PALLESCHI-Good evening. Luigi Palleschi here with ABD Engineers. Also with me tonight is the owner of Adirondack Winery. MICHAEL PARDY MR. PARDY-Michael. MR. PALLESCHI-And Tim Barber of JAG. We’re here tonight for 395 Big Bay Road. The existing facility there is Adirondack Winery. The existing building is a 6,650 plus or minus square foot. The existing building, one story, where they do a lot of their wine making, wine production, office space, and they do sell wine out of there as well. The current parcel is in the Light Industrial zone. It is about two acres, as outlined on the Site Plan. There are two existing curb cuts off of Big Bay Road, if you’ve been out there. The two curb cuts a little bit of parking were directly in front of the building. What we would like to propose is eliminating that parking in the front, creating more green space. The curb cuts would be approximately in the same location. So as you enter into the site you would have your parking lot and we’re proposing an 11,100 plus or minus square foot additional space so that they can increase their wine making production and storage. The building is approximately 195 feet back from the right of way, sits j just behind the existing building. With the current operation, 30 parking spaces are required. We are providing 49 parking spaces. The majority of those parking spaces will be paved, and the pavement is up to the proposed 11,000 square foot addition and then beyond that is a gravel parking as well as gravel access around the building, and then the north side of the site would become a one way exit only. They currently 13 (Queensbury Planning Board 07/28/2020) do their operation on it would be the south side. It’s the existing concrete pad area on the south side of the existing building. That existing concrete pad area will be removed and additional green space will be placed there. New sidewalk to both entrances of the existing building as well as the proposed building are also proposed. On the north side of the 11,000 square foot addition is where they’re going to move their wine making operation from the existing concrete and doing it on the side of the building. So that work will actually be done and hidden from Big Bay Road so it’ll be done behind the existing building. On the backside we have two loading docks where they will receive shipment for their operation. The stormwater on the site doesn’t leave the site. The site in itself is lower than Big Bay Road, and as you go to the west, the drainage does go to the west, but there’s a big berm on the back side of the site. So it’s essentially a big bowl of an area. So stormwater is not an issue. The water will go where it goes now and infiltrate into the ground. We did do test pits out there and it’s beautiful sand with a high percability to accommodate infiltration for the entire facility. Some landscaping is proposed. As I mentioned, parking in the front of the building will be removed and increased green space right along Big Bay Road, but we also have some foundation shrubs that are proposed and a few trees, you know, for the customers coming in and going. Utilities on site are available, Sewer and water are on Big Bay Road. The current condition right now is the existing building is on a septic system. That septic system will be abandoned, and we’re proposing a grinder pump. The Town had recently installed a force main along Big Bay Road. So our grinder pump will tie into that systems, and there’s actually an existing stub lateral that when they installed the Big Bay Road force main we’ll be connecting to that lateral that they provided for us. And then the same thing with water. Water is on Big Bay Road as well. We’ll be installing a new water lateral from the Town main into the new building. We have been in contract with the TDE as well as Chris Harrington regarding the stormwater and regarding the water and sewer, and after reviewing those, we see no issues addressing all of their comments. That’s pretty much it. I’ll turn it over to the Board for any questions that you may have. MR. TRAVER-Okay. This is, under SEQR we are required to do a review, and I am a little concerned about the nature and number of the comments from the Town Engineer. I wonder if you might respond to some of them. MR. PALLESCHI-Yes. I can certainly go through all of those items. Most of them are related to stormwater. MR. TRAVER-Right. MR. PALLESCHI-And as I mentioned earlier, the site’s drainage, the stormwater, doesn’t leave the site. So when it rains now, it goes to a low point at the rear of the site, and it infiltrates right into the ground, and that’s what we’re proposing now. So any new impervious area that we have, as well as the existing, we take that into account so that when it rains you take the impervious and we’re going to send it to the back low point of the site where, you know, we are creating our own basin now. Right now it’s just flatter land, but we’re actually creating a basin to accept that volume of water. It meets the New York State DEC stormwater regulations for infiltration practices. A lot of the comments. MR. TRAVER-Well let me tell you what some of my concerns are. MR. PALLESCHI-Okay. MR. TRAVER-It mainly has to do, and again, under SEQR, stormwater is certainly one of the things that we need to consider, and there seems to be an absence of information, and therefore the Town Engineer is unclear in their remarks to you and to us with regard to how stormwater is going to be managed, and that clearly has an environmental impact. He’s asking for additional information . He’s saying revise your documentation to demonstrate conformance. It’s unclear how runoff will be conveyed to stormwater management. These are all things that we need to consider as well. MR. PALLESCHI-I can answer those, and maybe I should. There’s only 14 comments and I could be brief on all of them. So Number One essentially states that we’re not going for what they call a SPDES permit because a SPDES permit is only required when you have off site discharge, and that’s where I was getting at with my prior comments was there is no off site discharge now and there will be no off site discharge after our development and throughout construction, and that’s what he’s saying here in the comments one and two is that we just have to demonstrate that. MR. TRAVER-Okay. What about Number Five where there’s not adequate storm, or I’m sorry soil testing provided. MR. PALLESCHI-No, so we did the soil testing. okay, and there’s a typo on my plans. It says 0 to 12 inches is what I did my test pit at. It should say 0 to 120 inches. When we did our test pit we went down 10 feet and it’s beautiful sand, no groundwater. MR. HUNSINGER-I was going to say I thought it was all sand over there. 14 (Queensbury Planning Board 07/28/2020) MR. PALLESCHI-Yes. So, you know, that was a typo on my end. I’m telling you 10 feet is what we dug down to and it was nothing but beautiful sand, and again, we’re providing the stormwater for what you see and there’s no off site discharge up and above the 100 year storm event. So we feel very confident that our stormwater plan will meet, and if we need to remove a couple of parking spaces and make that basin bigger, we can certainly do that and work with the TDE, you know, if he wants a little more volume. The other thing he was mentioning is just clarification on when we do claim that we don’t need the permit because there’s no off site discharge, they want to make sure that we’re not going to construct during frozen ground because obviously when the ground is frozen it doesn’t infiltrate as well. So, you know, after discussing with the applicant, we can certainly accommodate and only do the construction when it’s not frozen. We’re hoping to get approval so that we can pull a building permit and begin construction and get it all buttoned up before the end of November for the site work so that we can meet the intent here for the stormwater control. MR. TRAVER-Okay. So I’m changing our pattern a little bit here this evening because of our remote public hearing. I’m going to open the public hearing a little bit early and let people know who are observing us through the YouTube channel that should they wish to comment on this application, they can reach us at 518-761-8225, and I’ll open it up for questions and comments from members of the Planning Board. MR. SHAFER-Following up on your comments, Mr. Chairman, I note on the Chazen letter we were e- nd mailed this on July 22. That’s only six days ago, and when I read this letter, I circled nine substantive comments. So I guess my question is how substantive does the Town Engineer’s letter have to be before we’re not comfortable saying, I mean applicants always say we can deal with the engineer’s comments. MR. TRAVER-Right. MR. SHAFER-So we have to leave here, then, with the faith that the Town Engineer and the applicant will work it out after we do Site Plan approval. MR. TRAVER-Right. Well there’s really, in this case there’s two elements to that. We know from our normal procedures that the applicants have to get a Town Engineer signoff. However in this case we’re also dealing with the Environmental Quality Review Act. So it becomes a question of, and I’ll ask Laura for clarification, but I believe it’s at our discretion in terms of whether we feel comfortable moving forward with the SEQR aspect of it because there is, even though the applicant is representing that they can conform and get a signoff, we have the extra issue of SEQR to deal with in this application this evening, and unless we feel comfortable moving forward with SEQR, we’re basically awaiting the information we need to feel comfortable with that. So that’s one of the things that this Board has to consider. MR. TRAVER-Well when we always discuss the second part of that equation, which is, is there going to be anything substantive changed to impact the Site Plan in the dialogue between the Town Engineer and the applicant. MRS. MOORE-Okay. This comes up, and what will happen is if that Site Plan does change through the design, it potentially would come back to this Board because it’s different than what you approved. Potentially. So if there’s a substantial change that the building has to be adjusted or there’s a new pathway for the drive area because the stormwater had to be increased so much, I’m not certain that’s going to happen in this case, because he already found it’s sand, but again, it is the comfort level of the Board if they wish to table the application until there’s sufficient engineering response. MR. SHAFER-Is there any way we can get these in a more timely manner? MRS. MOORE-So this is how it works. It’s done on purpose. MR. SHAFER-I know that’s how it works. I’m asking. MRS. MOORE-This is the process that was established prior to me. MR. SHAFER-Can’t we give the Town Engineer a deadline? MRS. MOORE-They are on a deadline. They respond prior to the meeting. The applicant is not required to provide this immediate response because we know that there’s a discussion. MR. SHAFER-Normally these letters are one or two pages maybe five or six items. This is pretty substantial. MR. TRAVER-There have been cases, and the Planning Board has instituted a practice that I wouldn’t say it’s common, but it’s not terribly unusual if there are a lot of engineering comments where we will ask the applicant to work with the engineer and we’ll table an application, have them return when they essentially have a signoff. So that there are no outstanding comments, because there is a certain amount of discomfort 15 (Queensbury Planning Board 07/28/2020) I think with the subjective analysis of this Board as a whole and assumptions about what or what not can be accomplished to come to an agreement with the engineer, and as I say, and to Laura’s point, there’ve been occasions where we’ve had outstanding items on the engineering and because of the requirement that the applicant needs that signoff, if we have felt comfortable, we have approved applications and as Laura says if, in getting that signoff, they need to modify their Site Plan, then we would hear it again, but in this case we have the extra step of the State Environmental Quality Review Act to deal with, and that’s actually the next portion of our action on this item is asking how Board members feel moving forward with SEQR. MR. DEEB-Like Laura said, there are protections built in this whole system that if it doesn’t work out he has to come back with another Site Plan. MRS. MOORE-Right. MR. DEEB-Even if we go ahead. So as long as the protections are built in there, I don’t see why we’d have a problem. MR. TRAVER-Well, we’re part of the protection. MR. HUNSINGER-Right. I was going to say, it’s up to us individually to decide if we feel it’s, if we have a comfort level. MR. PALLESCHI-I can tell you that these comments that Chazen has provided, I don’t see any major issues that will affect any layout that you see here. If there’s anything where we need to make more volume, we can certainly deepen the basin to achieve more volume. So I’ve had worse comments that these before, and these are not bad at all, and we could even take a conditional approval that I will address all of these with. MR. TRAVER-It would be conditional in any case. I guess we’re not there yet. We’re still stuck on the environmental review, and I know you’re representing that you can make this site environmentally compatible with stormwater and so on, but that requires, on some level, an assumption on our part, and we have to adjudicate what the environmental impact of this is and absent complete stormwater, one could argue that we don’t have enough information to assure, under the State Environmental Quality Review Act, that there is no environmental impact, even though you represent and we have no reason to doubt that you can come into agreement with the Town, the absence of information in these comments is what is glaring in these comments from the Town Engineer and that’s what concerns me and I think other members of the Board. MR. HUNSINGER-I mean with all due respect to John’s comments, this is not a very complicated project. MR. TRAVER-It’s not. MR. HUNSINGER-And it’s well drained soils. I would share the engineer’s comments that I don’t think there’s any. MS. WHITE-And it’s appropriate to the site. It’s Commercial Light Industrial. MR. HUNSINGER-Right. Absolutely. MS. WHITE-And that’s what they’re proposing. MR. HUNSINGER-Exactly. MS. WHITE-I kind of don’t have a problem with it. MR. HUNSINGER-It’s an approved use. MR. TRAVER-Okay. MR. MAGOWAN-This is also kind of, I don’t want to say a unique property, but it is lower than the road. It almost looks like someone’s taken out a little bit of soil there, you know, with the berm. So it is a bowl type thing, and it is sandy over there. I don’t even know if you’d have to wash some of that sand to re-use it in your concrete mix. I mean it is pretty pure sand. I know that sand over there. So, I mean, I feel pretty comfortable moving forward with the SEQR, knowing the area. MR. TRAVER-Okay. Yes, sir. MR. DIXON-Just a couple of quick questions. I mean, I see the large parking area. It’s a large slab of asphalt. The space between the two Adirondack addition and you headquarters, is that all going to be grass? 16 (Queensbury Planning Board 07/28/2020) MR. PALLESCHI-Yes, so you’re saying on both sides of the sidewalk that you see cutting through? MR. DIXON-Yes. MR. PALLESCHI-That will all be grass. The existing concrete that you see adjoining the existing building will be removed and that will be seeded, top-soiled and seeded with grass. So it’ll be a nice lawn area there. MR. DIXON-All right. Are you planning on putting any additional trees? I saw a couple of shrubs near the building. MR. PALLESCHI-We have three maples right now, spread out in the parking lot area there. MR. DIXON-And in the main parking lot, since you’re going to have hopefully a lot of patrons at some point. Are you going to do the wine tasting and everything there? MR. PALLESCHI-I think there’s plans in the future. We’re not sure yet. Right now we’re just looking at making sure the production is there and you can sell the bottles and I would imagine, you know, especially now with COVID who knows, but I would imagine that it is in the future plans to have some tastings, yes. MR. DIXON-I would just say in the paved area I didn’t see where there’s a storm drain anywhere in the paved area to keep people’s feet dry. MR. PALLESCHI-So everything, the way, if you look at Sheet Two is our grading plan, the parking lot sheets southerly into a swale that gets directed right to the back of the stormwater area. So there is no drainage catch basins or piping. It’s all surface drainage sheet flow, which is actually encouraging, because, you know, now you’re not channeling the water. How many times have you got to walk over that stream line channel in the parking lot going to the grocery store or something. So this is actually being able to sheet it right across. You won’t see a channel of water over the parking lot. MR. DIXON-Thank you. MR. TRAVER-Laura, are there any written comments? PUBLIC HEARING OPENED MRS. MOORE-There is a written comment, addressed to Mr. Deeb. “We are in receipt of your notice of public hearing and would like to say, as a member of the Queensbury community and a close neighbor to the proposed Adirondack Winery, we stand in full support of the economic development of Big Bay Road in this way and feel they will be a fine addition to the Town and our community. In summary, Cranesville Block Company stands in full support of the proposed winery on Big Bay Road. Sincerely, Joseph Tesiero, Secretary Glens Falls Ready Mix” MR. TRAVER-Okay. Thank you, Laura. So next we have to consider SEQR, and I know I’ve spoken about it extensively, but I did think in view of the engineering comments that we should be making a point of discussing it thoroughly. It sounds as though members are okay with going ahead with SEQR. Is that correct? Okay. We do have a draft resolution. Mr. Secretary. I think I need to close the public hearing as well. Right, Laura? MRS. MOORE-Right. MR. TRAVER-Okay. So we’ve closed the public hearing. PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED RESOLUTION GRANTING NEGATIVE SEQR DEC. SP # 26-2020 ADIRONDACK WINERY The applicant proposes to construct a new commercial building of 11,100 sq. ft. including a 50’x30’ covered pad and a 60’x30’ open pad. Project site includes an existing 6,650 sq. ft. commercial building for a wine facility. Site work includes new pavement, gravel areas and sidewalks on site. Site work also includes grading and stormwater, snow storage and landscaping. 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; 17 (Queensbury Planning Board 07/28/2020) The proposed action considered by this Board is Unlisted in the Department of Environmental Conservation Regulations implementing the State Environmental Quality Review Act and the regulations of the Town of Queensbury; No Federal or other agencies are involved; Part 1 of the Short EAF has been completed by the applicant; Upon review of the information recorded on this EAF, it is the conclusion of the Town of Queensbury Planning Board as lead agency that this project will result in no significant adverse impacts on the environment, and, therefore, an environmental impact statement need not be prepared. Accordingly, this negative declaration is issued. MOTION TO GRANT A NEGATIVE DECLARATION FOR SITE PLAN 26-2020 ADIRONDACK WINERY. 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 28 day of July, 2020 by the following vote: MR. SHAFER-Just to clarify. I think this is a terrific project. I was just raising a point about getting those substantive comments only six days before our meeting and is there some way we can get some of these engineering comments worked out before we have to do the trust me Mr. Engineer. MR. TRAVER-Yes, well the timing of the engineering report has been an issue in the past, and the Town and Engineer and the Laura and her team have worked with the Town Engineer to try to make these comments available in a timely fashion, but it is an issue from time to time, and unfortunately that really kind of falls upon us and the applicant to try to address any outstanding issues. We generally also encourage applicants to have strong communication with Laura and her team. That makes it less likely that there’s going to be outstanding comments because she can certainly alert an applicant to potential for problems either with the engineering or with SEQR or any other types of things so that they’re as prepared as they can be coming in. I don’t know if you have anything you want to add to that, Laura. MRS. MOORE-Again, just explaining the engineering is that it’s done on purpose so that the applicant is not rushing to provide these responses and you’re getting half information. This is an opportunity for the Board to say there’s 14 comments. The applicant has the opportunity to explain what those 14 comments are, and it’s under your judgement and how you want to proceed. MR. TRAVER-Okay. Thank you. Any other discussion on the SEQR resolution? All right. I guess we’re ready for a vote, Maria. AYES: Mr. Deeb, Ms. White, Mr. Shafer, Mr. Hunsinger, Mr. Magowan, Mr. Dixon, Mr. Traver NOES: NONE ABSENT: Mr. Valentine MR. TRAVER-All right. So next we move to the Site Plan resolution itself. Are members comfortable moving forward with that? I assume we are. MR. HUNSINGER-So one of the things we didn’t talk about are the elevations. It’s a really nice looking building. MR. PALLESCHI-Yes, so actually we’ve supplied those. Laura, can you pull those up? MR. HUNSINGER-I thought it was striking, with those big floor to ceiling windows like that. MR. TRAVER-Yes. MR. PALLESCHI-Yes, so that’s what you’re going to be looking at from Big Bay Road. You can see on the north side, the right side of the picture there is where the canopy area is, the concrete pad where they’re going to do a lot of their wine making and then the one elevation shows the two loading dock doors in the back and a man door, but, yes, it’ll definitely look nice. 18 (Queensbury Planning Board 07/28/2020) MS. WHITE-Excuse me if I missed it, anticipated job creation. I know it’s not Site Plan but that economic development. MR. PALLESCHI-That’s a good question. How many people do they plan on hiring. MR. PARDY-In the building probably about four. But we’ll add some tasting room and sales staff. We’re pretty limited right now. So maybe up to ten. MS. WHITE-Okay. MR. HUNSINGER-So one of the things we didn’t talk about at all is lighting, site lighting. I didn’t see any pole lights. MR. PALLESCHI-No pole lights are proposed. We’re using building mounted lights. MR. TRAVER-Just wall packs, right? MR. PALLESCHI-Wall packs. MR. HUNSINGER-And they’re all downcast. MR. PALLESCHI-Correct, 16 feet in height. Yes. Right now there’s a couple of wall mounted building lights on the existing building and then we’ll put new lights around the new building. MR. TRAVER-Other questions, comments? All right. I guess we’re ready for a motion. RESOLUTION APPROVING SP # 26-2020 ADIRONDACK WINERY The applicant has submitted an application to the Planning Board to construct a new commercial building of 11,100 sq. ft. including a 50’x30’ covered pad and a 60’x30’ open pad. Project site includes an existing 6,650 sq. ft. commercial building for a wine facility. Site work includes new pavement, gravel areas and sidewalks on site. Site work also includes grading and stormwater, snow storage and landscaping. 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 07/28/2020 and continued the public hearing to 07/28/2020, 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 07/28/2020; 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 26-2020 ADIRONDACK WINERY. Introduced by David Deeb who moved for its adoption. According to the draft resolution prepared by Staff with the following: 1) Waivers requested granted; no waivers were requested. 2) The approval is valid for one (1) year from the date of approval. You are responsible for requesting an extension of approval before the one (1) year time frame has expired if you have not yet applied for a building permit or commenced significant site work. 3) 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; 19 (Queensbury Planning Board 07/28/2020) 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 l) Construction to be done when the ground is not frozen (per stormwater pollution prevention plan). th Motion seconded by Michael Dixon. Duly adopted this 28 day of July, 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-You’re all set. MR. PALLESCHI-Thank you. MR. TRAVER-Next item on our agenda is Chris Abele, Site Plan 25-2020. SITE PLAN NO. 25-2020 SEQR TYPE: TYPE II. CHRIS ABELE. AGENT(S): DENNIS MAC ELROY. OWNER(S): SAME AS APPLICANT. ZONING: WR. LOCATION: 102 ROCKHURST ROAD. APPLICANT PROPOSES TO COMPLETE A PERMEABLE PAVER AREA OF 220 SQ. FT. AND TO INSTALL A SMALL RETAINING WALL. THE EXISTING HOME IS 1,278 SQ. FT. FOOTPRINT AND THERE ARE NO PROPOSED CHANGES. PURSUANT TO CHAPTER 179-6- 050 & 179-9-120 OF THE ZONING ORDINANCE, HARD SURFACING WITHIN 50 FT. OF SHORELINE AND MODIFICATION OF AN APPROVED SITE PLAN SHALL BE SUBJECT TO PLANNING BOARD REVIEW AND APPROVAL. CROSS REFERENCE: SP 29-2014, AV 35-2014, BOATHOUSE & SUNDECK; BOH 12-2014. WARREN CO. REFERRAL: JULY 2020 SITE INFORMATION: LG PARK, APA, CEA. LOT SIZE: .3 ACRE. TAX MAP NO. 227.9-1-12. SECTION: 179-6-050, 179-9-120. NICK, ZEGLEN, REPRESENTING APPLICANT, PRESENT MR. TRAVER-Laura? MRS. MOORE-This applicant proposes to complete a paver patio of 220 square feet, and to install a small retaining wall in that area. The existing home is 1,278 square foot footprint and there are no proposed changes to that. The project before the Planning Board is for a Site Plan with hard surfacing within 50 feet of the shoreline, and a modification of an approve Site Plan. MR. TRAVER-Okay. Thank you, Laura. Good evening. MR. ZEGLEN-Good evening. My name is Nick Zeglen with Environmental Design Partnership. Here on behalf of the applicant, Chris Abele. The applicant is proposing a permeable block paver walkway and 20 (Queensbury Planning Board 07/28/2020) patio at his home at 102 Rockhurst Road. It will be a permeable paver walkway and patio totaling 220 square feet, with a 50% reduction using permeable pavers in the Town it’ll be an increase in impermeable area of less than one percent still over the allowable 75% permeability requirement and it’ll also have a stone reservoir underneath it that will treat the stormwater runoff generated by the patio and also an additional bit of the existing roof will be treated by the stone reservoir. MR. TRAVER-Okay. We do have a public hearing on this application, and I’ll let folks observing our meeting tonight know that should they wish to comment by phone, the number to call is 518-761-8225, and I’ll open it up for questions, comments from members of the Planning Board. This was evidently a project that had been started and was stopped I guess by Code Enforcement. MRS. MOORE-Yes. I believe a neighbor had called in and had discussions with our Zoning Administrator. MR. TRAVER-Okay. Thank you, Laura. Any additional questions for the applicant? MR. DIXON-Just for my clarification, the project that had been started and halted is the one to the north? MR. ZEGLEN-Yes, it’s that area right there. MR. DIXON-Right now there’s crushed stone. MR. ZEGLEN-There’s crushed stone there, yes, that’s the base and then he would put the block pavers. That’s kind of when he stopped. He didn’t put the pavers down. MR. DIXON-Is there anything else on this project that was started that you want to disclose now? MR. ZEGLEN-As far as I’m aware of, that’s what he had started working on and that’s what we were remedying a solution for. MR. TRAVER-Is he installing this permeable patio area himself or did he have a contractor involved? MR. ZEGLEN-I’m not sure. DENNIS MAC ELROY MR. MAC ELROY-He is a contractor. MR. ZEGLEN-He’s a builder himself, yes. MR. TRAVER-He is a contractor. MR. ZEGLEN-So I believe he was doing it himself, yes. MR. HUNSINGER-All the more reason why he should have known better. MR. TRAVER-Right. MR. HUNSINGER-That was my first thought. They were just here in 2014. How could they not know. MR. TRAVER-Yes. MR. HUNSINGER-Right, Brad? Don’t all contractors know you need a building permit? MR. DEEB-You’re a contractor. MR. MAGOWAN-Yes, well especially if you’re going to change things, especially on the lake. It was such a beautiful layout with all the other stone and I see you decided to have, since it is a sloped area, just to build it out to have a little flat area, but you’re right, it was too extensive, and I remember the project. MR. HUNSINGER-Yes. MR. TRAVER-Yes. Are there any written comments, Laura? PUBLIC HEARING OPENED MRS. MOORE-There are no written comments. MR. TRAVER-No written comments. Okay. We have not received any phone calls. So we’ll go ahead and close the public hearing on this application. 21 (Queensbury Planning Board 07/28/2020) PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED MR. TRAVER-Additional comments, questions for the applicant? I guess we’re ready to entertain a motion. RESOLUTION TO APPROVE SP # 25-2020 CHRIS ABELE 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 complete a permeable paver patio area of 220 sq. ft. and to install a small retaining wall. The existing home is 1,278 sq. ft. footprint and there are no proposed changes. Pursuant to Chapter 179-6-050 & 179-9-120 of the Zoning Ordinance, hard surfacing within 50 ft. of shoreline and modification of an approved site plan shall be subject to Planning Board review and approval. Pursuant to relevant sections of the Town of Queensbury Zoning Code-Chapter 179-9-080, the Planning Board has determined that this proposal satisfies the requirements as stated in the Zoning Code; As required by General Municipal Law Section 239-m the site plan application was referred to the Warren County Planning Department for its recommendation; The Planning Board opened a public hearing on the Site plan application on 07/28/2020 and continued the public hearing to 07/28/2020, 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 07/28/2020; 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 25-2020 CHRIS ABELE; Introduced by David Deeb who moved for its adoption; Per the draft provided by staff conditioned upon the following conditions: 1) Waivers request granted: g. site lighting, h. signage, j. stormwater, k. topography, l. landscaping, n traffic, o. commercial alterations/ construction details, p floor plans, q. soil logs, r. construction/demolition disposal s. snow removal. 2) The approval is valid for one (1) year from the date of approval. You are responsible for requesting an extension of approval before the one (1) year time frame has expired if you have not yet applied for a building permit or commenced significant site work. 3) Adherence to the items outlined in the follow-up letter sent with this resolution. a) If application was referred to engineering, then engineering sign-off required prior to signature of Zoning Administrator of the approved plans; b) Final approved plans should have dimensions and setbacks noted on the site plan/survey, floor plans and elevation for the existing rooms and proposed rooms in the building and site improvements, c) Final approved plans, in compliance with the Site Plan, must be submitted to the Community Development Department before any further review by the Zoning Administrator or Building and Codes personnel; d) The applicant must meet with Staff after approval and prior to issuance of Building Permit and/or the beginning of any site work; e) Subsequent issuance of further permits, including building permits is dependent on compliance with this and all other conditions of this resolution; f) As-built plans to certify that the site plan is developed according to the approved plans to be provided prior to issuance of the certificate of occupancy; g) Resolution to be placed on final plans in its entirety and legible. th Motion seconded by Brad Magowan. Duly adopted this 28 day of July, 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. ZEGLEN-Thank you. 22 (Queensbury Planning Board 07/28/2020) MR. MAGOWAN-Now you’re in training here. MR. ZEGLEN-Yes. MR. MAGOWAN-You did a very nice job with that presentation. MR. TRAVER-Is there any other business before the Board this evening? If not, I’ll entertain a motion to adjourn. TH MOTION TO ADJOURN THE QUEENSBURY PLANNING BOARD MEETING OF JULY 28, 2020, Introduced by David Deeb who moved for its adoption, seconded by Chris Hunsinger: th Duly adopted this 28 day of July, 2020, by the following vote: AYES: Mr. Deeb, Ms. White, Mr. Shafer, Mr. Hunsinger, Mr. Magowan, Mr. Valentine, Mr. Traver NOES: NONE ABSENT: Mr. Valentine MR. TRAVER-We stand adjourned, ladies and gentlemen. Thank you very much. On motion meeting was adjourned. RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED, Stephen Traver, Chairman 23