Loading...
08-18-2020 (Queensbury Planning Board 08/18/2020) QUEENSBURY PLANNING BOARD MEETING FIRST REGULAR MEETING AUGUST 18, 2020 INDEX Site Plan 78-2019 Tillman Infrastructure 1. Tax Map No. 288.8-1-21 Site Plan Mod. No. 16-2020 Adirondack Factory Outlet 2. Tax Map No. 288.12-1-22 Site Plan No. 19-2020 Brian Hayward 5. ZBA RECOMMENDATION Tax Map No. 316.17-1-4 Subdivision No. 9-2020 Benjamin Aronson Trust 8. PRELIMINARY STAGE Tax Map No. 266.3-1-76 Subdivision No. 10-2020 FINAL STAGE ZBA RECOMMENDATION Site Plan No. 32-2020 Frank & Cindy Steciuk 10. Freshwater Wetlands Permit 2-2020 Tax Map No. 296.14-1-51 ZBA RECOMMENDATION Site Plan No. 31-2020 R & P Quaker II Realty 14. Tax Map No. 303.15-1-10 Site Plan No. 36-2020 Barbara Woodard 18. Special Use Permit No. 3-2020 Tax Map No. 309.10-2-52 Subdivision Sketch Plan 11-2020 Foothills Builders, LLC 22. Tax Map No. 279.15-1-85 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 08/18/2020) QUEENSBURY PLANNING BOARD MEETING FIRST REGULAR MEETING AUGUST 18, 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 thth meeting for Tuesday, August 18, 2020. This is our first meeting for August, our 10 meeting for 2020 and th our 6 meeting under the new COVID guidelines. If you have an electronic device, and I will remind myself, please turn it off or turn the ringer off so it won’t interrupt our proceedings this evening, and you’ll notice the illuminated exit signs. In the event of an emergency those are the safe exits., With the COVID protocols in place, I would ask speakers to wear a mask. If you’re in the room you should wear a mask, and also to please disinfect the microphone with the wipes when you’re done speaking. I also want to address members of the public who may be viewing this on the Town’s YouTube channel broadcast, and let you know that we do have some public hearings this evening. We have public hearings on Adirondack Factory Outlets, on R & P Quaker II Realty, Barbara Woodard. So if you wish to call in, we have a telephone number provided since our public accommodations are limited obviously under the pandemic. The number to call is 518-761-8225, and the Planning Board will alert you when we open a public hearing on those applications, and also remind you of that number, but should you wish to comment on these applications, just be prepared to do so, and, let’s see, with that, we have a couple of administrative items. thrd The first being approval of minutes for the June 16 and June 23, 2020 Planning Board meetings. APPROVAL OF MINUTES June 16, 2020 June 23, 2020 MOTION TO APPROVE THE QUEENSBURY PLANNING BOARD MEETING MINUTES OF JUNE 16 & JUNE 23, 2020, Introduced by David Deeb who moved for its adoption, seconded by Chris Hunsinger: th Duly adopted this 18 day of August, 2020, by the following vote: AYES: Mr. Deeb, Ms. White, Mr. Shafer, Mr. Hunsinger, Mr. Traver NOES: NONE ABSENT: Mr. Magowan, Mr. Valentine MR. TRAVER-We note on the agenda that there was one additional Administrative Item for the Tillman project requesting a further tabling. ADMINISTRATIVE ITEM TILLMAN INFRASTRUCTURE FURTHER TABLE TO SEPTEMBER 2020 MR. TRAVER-And the Board has been informed that the application since has been withdrawn. So we need to take no action on that in that that application no longer exists. With that, we can move to our regular agenda. The first section of that agenda is tabled items, and the first item is Adirondack Factory Outlet, Site Plan Modification 16-2020. 2 (Queensbury Planning Board 08/18/2020) TABLED ITEM: SITE PLAN MODIFICATION 16-2020 SEQR TYPE: TYPE II. ADIRONDACK FACTORY OUTLET AGENT(S): HUTCHINS ENGINEERING. OWNER(S): SAME AS APPLICANT. ZONING: CI. LOCATION: 1444 STATE ROUTE 9. APPLICANT PROPOSES TO MODIFY THE FAÇADE OF A 102,994 SQ. FT. (FOOTPRINT) ADIRONDACK OUTLET WITH A NEW COLOR SCHEME AND ALIGN FALSE FAÇADE FACE COMPONENTS HORIZONTALLY THEN ALSO REPLACING THE WINDOWS WITH FULL LENGTH TOP TO BOTTOM WINDOWS. THE PROJECT INCLUDES NEW GREEN SPACE AND ADDITIONAL PARKING AS SOME ASPECTS OF PREVIOUS APPROVED PLANS HAVE BEEN STARTED. PURSUANT TO CHAPTER 179-3- 040 OF THE ZONING ORDINANCE, ALTERATIONS TO BUILDING EXTERIOR AND SITE SHALL BE SUBJECT TO PLANNING BOARD REVIEW AND APPROVAL. CROSS REFERENCE: SP 30-2018 (EXPIRED), SP 64-2019. WARREN CO. REFERRAL: MARCH 2020. LOT SIZE: 6.93 ACRES TOTAL. TAX MAP NO. 288.12-1-22. SECTION: 179-3-040 ETHAN HALL, REPRESENTING APPLICANT, PRESENT MR. TRAVER-Laura? MRS. MOORE-This applicant has revised their application. MR. TRAVER-It had to do with the green space. Correct? I think. MRS. MOORE-Correct. This application was revised. We had discussed this regarding green space the last time. The applicant has since explained that the Site Plan done in 64-2019 no further work is going to be done on that. So that in turn actually increases the green space and increases the parking. So the applicant is only focusing on the façade on the north side at this time. I did ask some questions that need to be clarified in reference to whether the applicant is painting the entire building, if there’s additional canopy lighting, things like that. MR. TRAVER-Okay, and as I recall the last discussion, when we heard this application before, the issue for the tabling was that at least in part because the Site Plan as submitted did not match the intent of this updated modification. Correct? So they needed to go back and just modify the formal design of the project. MRS. MOORE-Yes. MR. TRAVER-Okay. Thank you. Welcome back. MR. HALL-Good evening. My name, for your records, is Ethan Hall. I’m a principal with Rucinski Hall Architecture. With me tonight is Laura Kohls. Yes, so when we were here before everything was all set. We are talking strictly about the north side of the building at this point. The façade is just going to be altered to match the buildings that are, the new buildings that are to the north. Once that portion of it gets done, if that goes well and the tenants are happy with it, then we would come back and do the proposal for the south side, but at this point we’re just talking about the north side of the building, and it was strictly this clarification of some stuff going on with the Site Plan. When the initial Site Plan had been submitted, that was when the front part of the building along Route 9 was going to come off. That has since not going to happen. So it was just a clarification the hard surfacing, the number of parking spaces and how things got put together for that. So we’ve got it cleared up with Laura, and we’re at a point now where I think we’re in good shape. MR. TRAVER-Good. Thank you for that. Questions, comments from members of the Board? MR. DEEB-It looks like you took the long way around. MR. HALL-Yes. MR. TRAVER-Not the first time. MR. HALL-No. MR. HUNSINGER-I appreciated the clarifications. It really cleaned up some questions I had. MR. TRAVER-Yes, it cleared up the green space. And while we’re discussing it, I’ll reach out to the public that may be viewing us and let you know that the public hearing remained open on this application because we tabled it before, and if you wish to public comment on the Site Plan Modification 16-2020 for Adirondack Factory Outlet, please call us at 518-761-8225, and I’ll ask Laura, are there any written comments? 3 (Queensbury Planning Board 08/18/2020) PUBLIC HEARING OPEN MRS. MOORE-I have no written comments. MR. TRAVER-Okay. MRS. MOORE-Could you clarify if the painting scheme is going to be for the entire building? MR. HALL-Right now the painting scheme is for the north side of the building only. It’s just the façade that’s being altered. The rest of the building is going to stay as it is for now, and then. MRS. MOORE-And then any new canopy lightings underneath? MR. HALL-All the canopy lighting that’s there is going to stay. The original proposal was that was going to come off and we were going to have to do new lighting, but the canopy is going to stay as it is right now. We’re just going to square off the façade on the top so that it doesn’t saw tooth. MR. DEEB-Is the project going to be completed in phases? MR. HALL-Yes. MR. SHAFER-And Laura had a question about windows. Is that all clarified? MR. HALL-Yes, I believe so. MRS. MOORE-Yes. The windows are only on the north side. MR. HALL-It’s just going to be that north face of the building. If everybody responses well to that, then we would come back. We know we would have to come back to do the south side. MR. TRAVER-Right. MR. HUNSINGER-I have to say I like the new color printer, too. MR. HALL-I think it helped to clarify. MR. HUNSINGER-Absolutely. MR. HALL-I think it helped to clarify what was there versus what’s there now. MR. HUNSINGER-Yes. MR. TRAVER-All right. Well my phone isn’t ringing. So we’re not getting any public comment . We have no written comments. Is there anyone in the audience by any chance that wanted to comment on this application? I’m not seeing anyone. So we’ll go ahead and close the public hearing on that. PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED MR. TRAVER-Do you have any further questions for the applicant from members of the Board? Yes, sir. MR. MAGOWAN-Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I know I just dropped in. I apologize for my tardiness, but, Ethan, I just wanted to compliment you. I know it was kind of a shock last time and it was like everybody’s hands were up, didn’t’ know what to do, and I agree with Chris on the nice color print there of what’s going on, and like I said, I just wanted to thank you for clarifying everything. MR. TRAVER-This is a Type II SEQR. So no SEQR action is required. I guess we’re ready to entertain a motion. RESOLUTION APPROVING SP MOD # 16-2020 ADIRONDACK FACTORY OUTLET The applicant has submitted an application to the Planning Board for Site Plan approval pursuant to Article 9 of the Town zoning Ordinance for: (Revised) Applicant proposes to modify the north side of the façade of a 102,994 sq. ft. (footprint) Adirondack Outlet with a new color scheme and align false façade face components horizontally then also replacing the windows with a full length top to bottom windows. The project includes new greenspace and additional parking as some aspects of previous approved plans have been started. Pursuant to Chapter 179-3-040 of the Zoning Ordinance, alterations to building exterior and site shall be subject to Planning Board review and approval. 4 (Queensbury Planning Board 08/18/2020) 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 May 27, 2020 and continued the public hearing to August 18, 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 August 18, 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 MODIFICATION 16-2020 ADIRONDACK FACTORY OUTLET; 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 Jamie White. Duly adopted this 18 day of August, 2020 by the following vote: MR. TRAVER-Any further discussion on the motion? MRS. MOORE-I’m going to ask for a clarification on the motion. At the top portion of the resolution it doesn’t identify the north side. So I’m going to ask the Board to amend that to ensure that it’s on the north side. MR. DEEB-Okay. So we’ll that H. MRS. MOORE-You don’t have to put it as a condition. MR. TRAVER-It’s in the Draft. MRS. MOORE-The description at the beginning of the resolution. MR. TRAVER-The second sentence right after where it says REVISED in parens. Applicant proposes to modify the façade. Just say the north façade. MR. DEEB-Okay. I’ll revise the resolution to read Applicant proposes to modify the north side of the façade of 102,994 square feet. MRS. MOORE-Okay. AYES: Ms. White, Mr. Shafer, Mr. Hunsinger, Mr. Magowan, Mr. Deeb, Mr. Traver 5 (Queensbury Planning Board 08/18/2020) NOES: NONE ABSENT: Mr. Valentine MR. HALL-Great. Thank you very much. We appreciate it. MR. TRAVER-Next we move to the section on our agenda under Planning Board Recommendations to the ZBA, and the first item is Brian Hayward, Site Plan 19-2020. PLANNING BOARD RECOMMENDATIONS TO THE ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS SITE PLAN NO. 19-2020 SEQR TYPE: TYPE II. BRIAN HAYWARD. AGENT(S): HUTCHINS ENGINEERING. OWNER(S): SAME AS APPLICANT. ZONING: WR. LOCATION: 5 PALMER DRIVE. APPLICANT PROPOSES TO REMOVE AN EXISTING 671 SQ. FT. HOME TO CONSTRUCTION A 1,536 SQ. FT. FOOTPRINT NEW HOME WITH A FLOOR AREA OF 3,072 SQ. FT. PROJECT INCLUDES SITE WORK FOR NEW SEPTIC, STORMWATER AND DRIVEWAY. PURSUANT TO CHAPTER 179-3-040 OF THE ZONING ORDINANCE, A PROJECT THAT OCCURS WITHIN 50 FT. OF 15% SLOPES SHALL BE SUBJECT TO PLANNING BOARD REVIEW AND APPROVAL. VARIANCE: RELIEF IS SOUGHT FOR SETBACKS AND FLOOR AREA. PLANNING BOARD SHALL PROVIDE A RECOMMENDATION TO THE ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS. CROSS REFERENCE: SEP 67-2020, AV 36-2019. WARREN CO. REFERRAL: AUGUST OF 2020 SITE INFORMATION: HUDSON RIVER. LOT SIZE: .26 ACRE. TAX MAP NO. 316.17-1-4. SECTION: 179-3-040. TOM CENTER, REPRESENTING APPLICANT, PRESENT MR. TRAVER-Laura? MRS. MOORE-This applicant proposes to remove an existing 671 square foot home to construct a 1,536 square foot home with a new floor area of 3.072 square feet and relief s sought for setbacks and floor area. MR. TRAVER-Okay. Thank you. Good evening. MR. CENTER-Good evening. Tom Center with Hutchins Engineering. As Laura said, I’m representing Mr. Hayward. We’re just looking for a recommendation to move forward to the Zoning Board for an Area Variance. We started with a modest home, take down re-build, maintain the existing setback on the south side. We did receive a septic variance or well variance actually to construct a well within 65 feet from the neighbor to the north’s septic system and 95 feet from the neighbor to the south’s seepage pit, and the water system will have a water treatment on that. The other Area Variance we’re looking for is for the south property line setback and for five percent for floor area ratio. This house is not going to have a basement in it. So there’s some additional storage. There’s a small one car garage included in the floor area ratio. That’s in the footprint of the building. It’s also confined for parking. The garage will allow for one car. If you have any questions, I’d be happy to answer them. MR. TRAVER-I know that this evening we’re here to discuss the variance but if approved you’d be coming back for Site Plan and I note that there is no discussion of shoreline landscaping, and we do need to be concerned about the buffering. MR. CENTER-The shoreline’s on the opposite side of the road. It’s wooded. It’s fairly steep. We’re not doing any disturbance to the shoreline on the river side. MR. TRAVER-All right. Questions, comments from members of the Planning Board? We have seen a lot of these applications. MR. SHAFER-I have a question. Tom, this is going to be a new house on the same location as the old? MR. CENTER-Correct. It’s going to be a little bit larger but it’s going to maintain the same south side, south wall. MR. SHAFER-Why not center it on the lot instead of retaining the 2.9 feet? MR. CENTER-There’s an issue going to the north where the neighbor’s septic system, seepage pit is on or over the property line, and getting construction vehicles and things in there, we don’t know the exact location. We know about where it is from testing and cameras and things like that. So there’s some concern about trying to build over there. MR. SHAFER-Wouldn’t this be the time to remedy that issue? 6 (Queensbury Planning Board 08/18/2020) MR. CENTER-We have a, the neighbor to the south has no issue with us maintaining the south property, the south line that we have now. We’ve talked with them. It was slightly contentious regarding the seepage pit issues. So we’re maintaining the 12 feet on that and we kept it to the side, and the neighbor that we’ve had discussions with has no issue with what we proposed. MS. WHITE-Do you have a letter to that effect from the neighbor? MR. CENTER-I do not. I can ask him, but we’ve spoken to him. He’s been notified that this is coming up and what we’re planning to do. MS. WHITE-I just find it helpful in kind of understanding why. MR. TRAVER-There is no public hearing on this application at this point because it’s a recommendation to the ZBA. Are there any other questions for the applicant? Are there any concerns regarding the relief that we need to discuss further? Concerns that we want to communicate to the ZBA? MR. HUNSINGER-I just wonder if you could speak to the floor area ratio, because that is fairly significant relief requested. MR. CENTER-The footprint of the house is 1536 square feet. Within that footprint is, since there is no basement, there’s 120, 140 square feet of storage. There’s a small mudroom. There’s a small storage area on the second floor, and then there’s 330 square feet for the garage, the one car garage, in the very front, which allows us to keep that parking narrower and in line. So that’s kind of, if you were to look at it, that would be the difference. Other than that it’s a small modest two bedroom. MR. HUNSINGER-No. It really is a modest house. MR. DEEB-Tom, if you calculated the floor area ratio without the garage, do you know what it would be? MR. CENTER-It was included in the floor area. I did not back it out. MR. DEEB-It would be interesting to know how much that, how close you would be. MR. HUNSINGER-Yes, that’s a good point. And the storage space. MR. CENTER-So allowable is 2,491 square feet. MR. TRAVER-.6. MR. CENTER-And .6. So it’s close to the difference. That storage area and that garage is close to the difference between. MR. DEEB-And there is no basement. MR. CENTER-Correct, and there is no basement . Any basement would be considered floor area. MR. HUNSINGER-That was the other question I had is the area that’s a crawl space. How high is that? MR. CENTER-It’s less than the required that would be for living space, so four feet, four and a half feet. MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. MR. CENTER-It’s basically for mechanicals and for plumbing. MR. TRAVER-There also needs to be some clarification I guess on the wetlands. There’s that application that needs to be filed. MR. CENTER-I did, you’ll see that in the file. Due to COVID, Army Corps is not doing delineations in the field. We did have a delineation done by a wetland biologist who supplied that paperwork to us and that was submitted to Army Corps. I’ve spoken with the gentleman. He said if his letter is acceptable to the Board and there’s nothing that’s prohibiting us from building where the wetland is. If he were to come out he would see the same thing the wetland, but he can’t due to COVID, but he has reviewed it and he has sent a letter that they didn’t take any issues. MR. TRAVER-Well is there any reason why you couldn’t submit an application in any case, regardless of how long it may take for them to respond? MR. CENTER-Well, I could. It took me from February until probably July to get in touch with the gentleman, to get what we got here. While I was trying to get in touch with him, we got this gentleman 7 (Queensbury Planning Board 08/18/2020) to come out and actually do the wetland delineation. You can go out there and walk it, sir. I’ve walked it I’ve paced it. MR. TRAVER-I know it’s quite a distance anyway. MR. CENTER-It is. It is well more than 300 feet away. I think that due diligence has been done here and Army Corps has reviewed it and taken no issue with it. They just can’t come out into the field to do it, and we’ve already. MR. TRAVER-Right, and DEC is not either. MR. CENTER-DEC actually gave a letter but it’s not a DEC wetland. I mean they don’t have any wetlands. They just say there’s no DEC wetlands. So they don’t even come out because there’s no DEC wetlands. MR. TRAVER-And they’re not coming out anyway. MR. CENTER-And they’re not coming out. So Army Corps is the only other one, and, you know, field wise, what if it was 500 feet away? The wetland mapping that’/s out there is a rather broad area that delineates it. So it covers, it’s very gray area. We’re on the edge of it. That’s what kicked it in. We went through and tried to get them out there. It certainly wasn’t for not trying. Like I said, I didn’t speak to the gentleman until July and I’ve been doing this since February, but we did have someone go out there and delineate it. He did offer a letter in response to that. MR. DEEB-I think the letter should suffice. MR. TRAVER-Do you have anything you want to add, Laura? MRS. MOORE-I probably would just encourage them to fill out a permit. As far as the Army Corps e-mail, we would like a more definitive answer. Fill out the application. MR. TRAVER-So fill out the actual permit paperwork itself. Okay. MR. CENTER-I mean I can fill it out, but if they don’t come out, this continues on. MR. TRAVER-Well I mean I think it’s a process issue. If they’re not coming out, that’s on their side, but our side, if you fill out the application, that’s part of our process of looking at the project. I think that’s what Staff is asking for. MR. CENTER-Okay. MR. TRAVER-Okay. Thank you. Anything else? Any other questions, comments from members of the Board? As I mentioned, there’s no public hearing at this stage because this is a recommendation to the ZBA. Does anyone have any concerns that they want to communicate forward for our resolution? All; right. I guess we’re ready to entertain a resolution. RESOLUTION RE: ZBA RECOMMENDATION RE: AV 14-2020 BRIAN HAYWARD The applicant has submitted an application for the following: Applicant proposes to remove an existing 671 sq. ft. home to construct a 1,536 sq. ft. footprint new home with a floor area of 3,072 sq. ft. Project includes site work for new septic, stormwater and driveway. Pursuant to Chapter 179-3-040, 179-6-050 & 179-6-060 of the Zoning Ordinance a project that occurs within 50 ft. of 15% slopes and hard surfacing within 50 ft. of shoreline shall be subject to Planning Board review and approval. Variance: Relief is sought for setbacks and floor area. 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. 14-2020 BRIAN HAYWARD. 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. 8 (Queensbury Planning Board 08/18/2020) th Motion seconded by Brad Magowan. Duly adopted this 18 day of August, 2020 by the following vote: AYES: Mr. Shafer, Mr. Hunsinger, Mr. Magowan, Mr. Deeb, Ms. White, Mr. Traver NOES: NONE ABSTAINED: Mr. Dixon ABSENT: Mr. Valentine MR. TRAVER-You’re off to the ZBA. MR. CENTER-Thank you. MR. DEEB-Good luck. MR. TRAVER-All right. The next item on our agenda is also under Planning Board recommendations. Benjamin Aronson Trust, Subdivision Preliminary Stage 9-2020 and Final Stage 10-2020. SUBDIVISION PRELIMINARY STAGE 9-2020 SUBDIVISION FINAL STAGE 10-2020 SEQR TYPE: UNLISTED. BENJAMIN ARONSON TRUST. AGENT(S): MICHAEL J. MULLER, TRUSTEE. OWNER(S): SAME AS APPLICANT. ZONING: MDR. LOCATION: 1516 RIDGE ROAD. APPLICANT PROPOSES A TWO LOT SUBDIVISION OF 10.32 ACRES. THE TWO LOTS INCLUDE LOT 1 OF 6.10 ACRES WITH A 5,434 SQ. FT. (FOOTPRINT) SINGLE FAMILY HOME AND SHED, AND LOT 2 OF 4.22 ACRES WITH A 3,720 SQ. FT. (FOOTPRINT) GARAGE BUILDING. PURSUANT TO CHAPTER 183 OF THE ZONING ORDINANCE, SUBDIVISION OF LAND SHALL BE SUBJECT TO PLANNING BOARD REVIEW AND APPROVAL. VARIANCE: RELIEF IS SOUGHT FOR ROAD FRONTAGE. THE PLANNING BOARD SHALL PROVIDE A RECOMMENDATION TO THE ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS. CROSS REFERENCE: SP 68- 2017, AV 62-2017 SECOND GARAGE; 2003-740 ADDITION; 2009-486 PORCH. WARREN CO. REFERRAL: SITE INFORMATION: APA. LOT SIZE: 10.32 ACRES. TAX MAP NO. 266.3-1-76. SECTION: CHAPTER 183. MICHAEL MULLER, REPRESENTING APPLICANT, PRESENT MR. TRAVER-Laura? MRS. MOORE-This application is a two lot subdivision of a 10.32 acre parcel. The two lots include 1 lot of 6.10 acres with a single family home and shed, and Lot 2 is 4.22 acres with an existing garage building. The relief requested is for Lot 2 for road frontage. They have 100 feet. They’re required to have 200 feet. MR. TRAVER-Okay. Thank you, Laura. Good evening. MR. MULLER-Good evening. My name is Michael Muller. I’m the Trustee for the Aronson Trust, and I’m here to support the application and answer any questions you’d like. We essentially have a single family house that’s actually not shown depicted on what’s on the board there. There you go. The top lot is actually a large “L” shaped lot. It has a residence on it. It actually has three garages that are attached and associated with that house, and the total acreage on that lot is approximately 10.3 acres. The proposal for subdivision is to create a lot that bisects that northerly lot. It would have six acres, and the southerly lot would have four acres. That would be the residence and those associated attached garages and a separate parcel. And the most southerly lot would be approximately four acres, and that garage is 3,000 square feet. In the Adirondack Park that constitutes a principal building. So in an effort to jockey and try to create lines and all of that, this parcel that would be the most southerly parcel, didn’t have any road frontage. It’s access was through a right of way, a deeded right of way, and so the proposal, I asked the surveyor to get the maximum amount of frontage that would be possible in the zone. The required frontage is actually 100 feet. However Ridge Road is an arterial. So the arterial doubles that requirement. The plan actually is to do nothing that would change any of the configuration of the property. The existing driveway will remain. The existing lawn will remain, and the plan is that that smaller dwelling that is actually facing Ridge Road would be covenants between the properties so that the front parcel basically will look like their lawn. They’ll continue to maintain it, and the back parcel is heavily wooded. The only exposure is actually, it backs right up against Toby’s truck stop, the southerly parcel, and this seems to be the best use for the property. MR. TRAVER-Okay. Thank you. And so the relief is road frontage because the new lot would not meet the minimum. MR. MULLER-Would not meet the double. It meets the minimum. It doesn’t meet the double. 9 (Queensbury Planning Board 08/18/2020) MR. TRAVER-Understood. Questions, comments from members of the Board? MR. MAGOWAN-For the longest time, you know, I go to Toby’s to fuel up and diesel. So I look over. That’s a beautiful garage that he’s got over there and he does maintain his property, and I’m familiar with both sides and so, you know, for me the 100 foot doesn’t bother me. Especially backing up to, right in the corner behind Toby’s there. MR. MULLER-If you go to Toby’s, you know it’s pretty busy. MR. MAGOWAN-It’s a busy spot. MR. HUNSINGER-I just wonder, I don’t know if I missed something. Why you’re doing it? What’s going to be the use for the southernmost lot? MR. MULLER-The same use it is now, private garage. MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. MR. MULLER-I’m going to own it. MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. So, no, there isn’t going to be a house put on there. MR. MULLER-No. That lot’s really not suitable for a house. If you spend five minutes watching the traffic at Toby’s, you typically have, at a minimum, four trucks running their diesels right there, parked right next to the property. On some of the best night’s eight. It is really packed in there, and that’s where the pumps are. You’d be out of your mind to try to put a residence there. MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. MR. MULLER-But it qualifies under our Zoning Ordinance as a principal building. MR. HUNSINGER-Right. MR. MAGOWAN-And on top of that, there’s Dunkin Donuts, and we run on Dunkin Donuts. The cars are constantly shining lights that way. MR. MULLER-I’m not sure which is the better smell, the diesel or the Dunkin Donuts. MR. HUNSINGER-No, I agree with Brad. I don’t have a problem with the road frontage because it’s so close to the intersection. So it’s not like there’s cars going 45 miles an hour when they’re driving by. They’re either slowing down or speeding up at that point. So I don’t think it causes any real issue with the intent of the doubling of the requirement for an arterial. MR. TRAVER-Okay. MR. MULLER-You’ll notice on the application I asked for a lot of waivers because there’s really nothing that’s going to be done different about this property, other than create separate ownership. What you see is what you get. All the plantings are there. All the stormwater and erosion control remains there . The driveway remains the same. There’s no excavation. Nothing. MR. TRAVER-All right. So I’m not hearing any concerns that we want to include in the resolution to the ZBA. I guess we’re ready to entertain a motion. RESOLUTION RE: ZBA RECOMMENDATION RE: AV 24-2020 BENJAMIN ARONSON TRUST The applicant has submitted an application for the following: Applicant proposes a two lot subdivision of 10.32 acres. The two lots include Lot 1 of 6.10 acres with a 5,434 sq. ft. (footprint) single family home and shed, and Lot 2 of 4.22 acres with a 3,720 sq. ft. (footprint) garage building. Pursuant to Chapter 183 of the Zoning Ordinance, subdivision of land shall be subject to Planning Board review and approval. Variance: Relief is sought for road frontage. 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; 10 (Queensbury Planning Board 08/18/2020) 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. 24-2020 BENJAMIN ARONSON TRUST. 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 18day of August, 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 off to the ZBA. MR. MULLER-See you next week. MR. TRAVER-The next application we have before us is Frank & Cindy Steciuk,. This is also a recommendation to the ZBA for Site Plan 32-2020 and Freshwater Wetlands 2-2020. SITE PLAN NO. 32-2020 FRESHWATER WETLANDS PERMIT 2-2020 SEQR TYPE: TYPE II. FRANK & CINDY STECIUK. AGENT(S): DANIEL W. RYAN, PE. OWNER(S): SAME AS APPLICANT. ZONING: MDR. LOCATION: 62 COUNTRY CLUB ROAD. APPLICANT PROPOSES A TWO STORY STRUCTURE OF 2,196 SQ. FT. FOOTPRINT. THE BUILDING USE INCLUDES TWO VEHICLE GARAGE AND A LIVING SPACE WITH RECREATION AREA ON THE SECOND FLOOR. THE PROJECT CONSTRUCTION OF A NEW BUILDING OCCURS WITHIN 100 FT. OF A DESIGNATED WETLANDS REQUIRING A SITE PLAN AND A FRESHWATER WETLANDS PERMIT. THE SITE HAS AN EXISTING 2,898 SQ. FT. (FOOTPRINT) 2-STORY HOME WITH AN UNFINISHED BASEMENT AND ATTACHED GARAGE. ALSO THE SITE HAS A 150 SQ. FT. +/- SHED TO BE REMOVED. PURSUANT TO CHAPTER 179-4-010 AND 95 OF THE ZONING ORDINANCE, WORK WITHIN 100 FT. OF WETLANDS SHALL BE SUBJECT TO PLANNING BOARD REVIEW AND APPROVAL. VARIANCE: RELIEF IS SOUGHT TO HAVE TWO DWELLINGS ON ONE PARCEL WHERE ONLY ONE IS ALLOWED. PLANNING BOARD SHALL PROVIDE A RECOMMENDATION TO THE ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS. CROSS REFERENCE: SUB 5-1983, 99525-7894 SF HOME; 2002-200 SHED; 2003-166 DECK & PORCH; 2003-178 POOL, 2015-023 ALTERATIONS; WARREN CO. REFERRAL: AUGUST 2020. SITE INFORMATION: WETLANDS. LOT SIZE: 2.02 ACRES. TAX MAP NO. 296.14-1-51. SECTION: 179-4-010 & 95. DAN RYAN, REPRESENTING APPLICANTS, PRESENT MR. TRAVER-Laura? MRS. MOORE-The applicant proposes a new two story structure of 2,196 square feet. The building use includes a two vehicle garage and a living space with a recreation area on the second floor, known as a pool house. The relief sought is to have two dwellings on one parcel. MR. TRAVER-Okay. Thank you. Good evening. MR. RYAN-Good evening. Dan Ryan here on behalf of the applicants. As Laura mentioned we’re here for a recommendation to the Zoning Board because the Town does not allow multiple dwellings on some parcels. This would require a variance for that purpose. The intent of the project is ultimately to build a nice pool house. If you’ve been to the property, it’s nicely landscaped. They spent a lot of time on the outdoors. There’s a large cooking patio and a lot of outdoor dining, and so because they do like to entertain with family and friends, the pool house is really the mechanism driving this project. The other component of that is to have a garage that actually is usable for like an F-350 pickup truck these days. Some of the vehicles are difficult to get in the garage. So the first floor would consist of a pool house. We’re calling it a pool house. It’s basically a covered patio. Small bar area and restroom, and the remainder of the first floor would be a two car garage with a storage area behind it, and because it’s a sizeable structure, it seemed fitting to utilize the second floor for some usable space and so they would prefer to use it as living area for guests or family members that do stay on occasion. So that’s what’s driving the multiple dwelling scenario. The two detached structures that both have living space. Ultimately the project only disturbs about 11 (Queensbury Planning Board 08/18/2020) 12,000 square feet, would connect to the existing water supply to the house, and would have a small on- site sewage system just to supplement the sewage from that building. There is, I think was mentioned, some wetlands in the rear of the property closest to the bike path. They are designated or mapped as wetlands. I’ve done my field check. I’m not a wetland specialist, but basically the berm created by the bike path causes runoff to channel along both sides of it, and that area is very wet. If you look at the photos that I’ve provided, you can identify the line where the lawn essentially starts and stops. It’s a couple of feet higher than that drainage channel. So I feel like that that’s well defined, at least for the project in that we’re not really getting too close to that. I think it was like 90 feet, 92 feet to the structure., We do have stormwater mitigation and the plan is to remove some asphalt to the north to build the project and kind of reconfigure it all so that the pool house is centrally located around the pool and that it can function as a garage. So with that I’ll turn it over to the Board to answer any questions that you have. MR. TRAVER-Yes, similar to a similar application we had this evening, the issue of the wetlands with the field work being curtailed due to the pandemic, the Staff is suggesting that you apply for the Army Corps permit. MRS. MOORE-I think it’s DEC in this case. MR. TRAVER-The DEC. MR. RYAN-I think they were DEC mapped wetlands, part of the overall wetlands they put down to Bay Meadows. MR. TRAVER-Yes. MR. RYAN-But we can contact DEC if it was preferred to have a field delineation. I don’t think it’ll change the approximation, but I’ll be happy to do that. I don’t think we’ll have that done for next week. So obviously we have to get through the Zoning Board as well. MR. TRAVER-I think, again, I think because they’re not doing field work I think it was just a process concern If the application could be submitted so that’s been done. That would indicate that it’s in the pipeline, and if they’re unable to respond in a timely fashion then that’s the DEC, but you will have done your due diligence and the application will be on record. MR. RYAN-That’s not a problem. MR. TRAVER-Questions, comments from members of the Board? MS. WHITE-There are wetlands, lots of wetlands in that area. So it wouldn’t be surprising if there’s wetlands on that property. My concern is the Town of Queensbury doesn’t allow two residences on a piece of property. I don’t understand why this would be any different? Why would we set a precedent? So that’s my concern. MR. MAGOWAN-Well to chime in on that one, Jamie, I believe maybe two or three houses down someone did come and wanted to put a garage on their spot, a couple of years ago if I remember correctly, and we had a problem with the wetlands and stuff like that. I know it’s wet, and it’s a beautiful piece of property. I pass it just about every day, and the pond, they do, they keep it up beautifully, but I’m afraid it would be setting a precedence, you know, with the residence. You’re talking downstairs bathroom and an upstairs bathroom and a shower in there, and, you know, that’s two residences right there on one property. So I read this and I overlooked it and I was going to get a feel on the Board, but this one kind of bothers me a little. I’m just not sure what to do. I mean, I understand why, but it’s quite a large structure to an already really looking at a huge house, well it looks huge, but it’s more the property around it that brings it. MR. TRAVER-Yes, well to clarify the issue of precedence, we’re not an adjudicating body so we can’t actually set a legal precedent, but we can set a practice. So there is some potential there for other applicants to say, well, you approved Project X, and therefore, you know, my project is similar. I don’t think we’ve seen a lot of these applications. MS. WHITE-We’ve seen at least one, and I’m pretty sure we’ve said no plumbing, no bathroom in that second garage for that second structure. MR. TRAVER-No bathroom? MS. WHITE-I’m pretty sure that’s what we said. MR. RYAN-It’s my understanding that what drives the living quarters is the kitchen. MRS. MOORE-Correct. 12 (Queensbury Planning Board 08/18/2020) MR. RYAN-That’s the defining practice that the Town of Queensbury has utilized in the past. So without a kitchen it would not be classified as a dwelling. MR. TRAVER-Okay. All right. So those are a couple of items of concern that we want to include in our referral to the ZBA. I’m hearing a concern about the clarification of the wetland so that we know exactly what the impact of that might be, and second of all, you know, the concern that possibly we’re setting a practice by approving a second residence on one. MR. HUNSINGER-Yes, I wasn’t sure if you were going to call this an in-law apartment. MR. RYAN-There is obviously no intention to rent it or utilize it as a permanent residence for anyone. It’s basically, they want to have it as space for family and friends. They do entertain people often and this prevents a lot of people from being within their private home. So it’s for that reason only. MR. HUNSINGER-Yes, and I appreciate the intent, and when I was thinking about this, I was thinking about the whole, you know, whole bed and breakfast issue and, you know, geez, what would stop them from renting this out, you know, on a weekly basis, and we can’t regulate that right now. MR. TRAVER-Well if it changes ownership. MS. WHITE-Yes. The current owners might not be there forever. MR. TRAVER-Regardless of the intent of the applicant, if it does change ownership, you know, who knows what conceivably could happen. Well we’re including that, I believe we’re including those two concerns in our referral, and hopefully those things can be addressed. MR. HUNSINGER-And the whole definition of kitchen I think can be pretty gray as well, you know, because I can understand you wanting to have a bathroom there in a pool house. That makes sense. I don’t have a problem with it, you know, and then okay we’ll add an upstairs room, a bunk room if you call it, and then you start to bring in maybe a little portable cooker, you know, and it starts to become a gray area which is hard to enforce. MR. RYAN-Well, I guess I would object to the fact, in that all site plans need to be enforced. All approvals need to be enforced one way or another. None of it can not be enforced, and so this is no different than saying how many parking spots do I need and is that compliant and is the lighting adequate. I believe it’s the same type of intent here. If it’s not allowed to be a dwelling with a kitchen, if there’s one put in obviously enforcement action can be taken. MR. HUNSINGER-I agree with you. MR. DEEB-That’s a tough enforcement action, though. You’ve got to be able to get in there. It’s different than parking spots and lighting. Lighting is where you can see it. MR. HUNSINGER-I mean there’s plenty of sites all throughout the Town where homeowners violate Code and Building and Codes come out and talk to them and three months later they do something else that’s illegal. I have a neighbor that does that and Code Enforcement’s there quite frequently. MR. RYAN-This applicant’s here willingly, trying to work with the Town, hoping that they can find a way to find common ground so that they can have this functional space, and that’s why we’ve made the application in hopes that we can work through the issues. If there’s concerns, condition of the approval, that can be more strict or restrictive to give the Town adequate enforcement power. They would entertain that. MR. HUNSINGER-I think it’s a good discussion and debate to have. As Jamie pointed out, we haven’t really hashed this out in quite a while. MS. WHITE-Tonight we’re just raising it as a concern. MR. HUNSINGER-Yes, absolutely. MR. DEEB-Would the applicant be amenable to not having living quarters in that? MR. RYAN-I would have to go back to them on that. I mean I think they would still build a garage with a pool house, some type of project. I think that would still happen. It wouldn’t serve all their needs and so they would probably be forced to convert the existing garage to living space or do some other option to accommodate additional living area. MR. DEEB-It’s just a thought. That might be able to solve some of this. 13 (Queensbury Planning Board 08/18/2020) MR. TRAVER-So my understanding is our referral would include our concerns regarding clarification of the wetlands. MR. RYAN-I guess I would like to know, are you asking for a delineation or just reaching out to the agency that oversees those? Because there’s no, I mean getting wetland delineations is almost impossible under the current state of affairs. MR. TRAVER-Right. MR. RYAN-So I guess my argument would be that the only wetlands that would affect this project are along the bike path because nothing is to the north and nothing is to the south. It’s obviously lawn and grass that can be seen in the photos. MR. TRAVER-Right. MR. RYAN-So I guess I would just like a little more clarification what specifically, how I would provide the clarification you guys are requesting about the impacts of the wetlands. MR. TRAVER-Right. Do you have any comment, Laura? MRS. MOORE-I don’t know whether it’s raised a concern, but you can clarify that the applicant is willing to reach out and do the appropriate process to communicate with DEC about the wetlands. MR. RYAN-They would require a permit within 100 feet in their adjacent area basically anyway. So regardless of that, a DEC permit would be necessary in the long term, as a condition of a permitting. I would be happy to reach out to them. I guess just what you’re saying you want clarification of the impacts. I just wanted to know what I would need to provide to satisfy your question. MR. TRAVER-Right. And the reaching out or complying to DEC for clarification on the wetlands I think would be that process. MR. RYAN-Initiating some correspondence with them. MR. TRAVER-Yes, so we can clarify that in our referral. MR. RYAN-Okay, and I’d be happy to bring back whatever. MR. SHAFER-Is it clear that the only wetlands are the drainage of the bikeway itself? MR. RYAN-That’s what’s mapped. So basically it heads north/south along the bike path, and until it gets down to the low point, which is closer to Sweet Road, that’s where it crosses. MR. SHAFER-Would it be helpful to be more clear on the drawings that that is in fact the case? MR. RYAN-I can overlay the map of the wetlands. The problem is the mapped wetlands include the bike path. It’s clearly the wetlands through the bike path. At some point the Town or County did that. MR. HUNSINGER-That’s an old railroad bed. MR. RYAN-That’s what I would define as a drainage channel. That berm, again, is what’s channeling the water. MR. HUNSINGER-Yes, absolutely. MR. TRAVER-Okay. All right. So we have those two items. Is that sufficient for members of the Board for our referral? Okay. I guess we’re ready to hear that motion. MR. DEEB-All right. So I’ll read the motion and if we have to amend it, we’ll amend it. RESOLUTION RE: ZBA RECOMMENDATION RE: AV 25-2020 FRANK & CINDY STECIUK The applicant has submitted an application for the following: Applicant proposes a two story structure of 2,196 sq. ft. footprint. The building use includes two vehicle garage and a living space with a recreation area on the second floor. The project construction of a new building occurs within 100 ft. of a designated wetlands requiring a site plan and a freshwater wetland permit. The site has an existing 2,898 sq. ft. (footprint) 2-story home with an unfinished basement and attached garage. Also the site has a 150 sq. ft. +/- shed to be removed. Pursuant to Chapter 179-4-010 and 95 of the Zoning Ordinance, work within 100 ft. of wetlands shall be subject to Planning Board review and approval. Variance: Relief is sought to have 14 (Queensbury Planning Board 08/18/2020) two dwellings on one parcel where only one is allowed. 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. 25-2020 FRANK & CINDY STECIUK. Introduced by David Deeb who moved its adoption, and b) The Planning Board, based on a limited review, has identified the following areas of concern: 1) Applicant will reach out to DEC for clarification of wetlands. 2) Setting a practice of having two residences on one property. th Motion seconded by Brad Magowan. Duly adopted this 18 day of August, 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 off to the ZBA. MR. DEEB-Good luck. MR. RYAN-All right. Thank you. MR. TRAVER-Next we move to the section of our agenda under New Business, and the first application under New Business is R & T Quaker II Realty, Site Plan 31-2020, and I will again remind members of the viewing public on our YouTube channel that if they wish to comment on this application they should called 518-761-8225 and we’ll be opening the public hearing on this application in a little bit. NEW BUSINESS: SITE PLAN NO. 31-2020 SEQR TYPE: TYPE II. R & P QUAKER II REALTY. AGENT(S): DANIEL W. RYAN, PE. OWNER(S): SAME AS APPLICANT. ZONING: CI. LOCATION: 728 QUAKER ROAD APPLICANT PROPOSES TO CONSTRUCT A 3,600 SQ. FT. ADDITION TO AN EXISTING 14,842 SQ. FT. (FOOTPRINT) BUILDING FOR ADDITIONAL SERVICE BAYS. THE NEW ADDITION IS TO HAVE FIVE OVERHEAD DOORS, TWO AT EACH END (WEST & EAST) AND ONE TO THE SOUTH. PROJECT WORK INCLUDES NEW PAVEMENT AND VEHICLE PARKING AREA ARRANGEMENT UPDATE. PURSUANT TO CHAPTER 179-9-020 OF THE ZONING ORDINANCE, NEW COMMERCIAL CONSTRUCTION SHALL BE SUBJECT TO PLANNING BOARD REVIEW AND APPROVAL. CROSS REFERENCE: SP 49-2011 ADDITION; SP 66-2012 ADDITION; WARREN CO. REFERRAL: AUGUST 2020. SITE INFORMATION: DISPLAY 25 FT. LOT SIZE: 3.25 ACRES. TAX MAP NO. 303.15-1-10. SECTION: 179-9-020. DAN RYAN, REPRESENTING APPLICANT, PRESENT MR. TRAVER-Good evening, again. MR. RYAN-Good evening. Dan Ryan here on behalf of the applicant. This project is the Nemer Chrysler dealership on Quaker Road. Basically, currently the facility does sales and service. A lot of the trucks they sell they can’t service adequately in their existing facility because the overhead doors are too small and the headroom is too low. So the game plan that they’re proposing is to install this addition along the back, a 36 by 100 foot addition, basically to marry up with the rear of the existing service area. There would be two overhead doors on each end on the sides, That would allow for four trucks to be serviced at once. So four vehicle lifts and overhead doors that would be sized adequately to do truck service, and then the rear of the building would be almost mimicking the existing building with an overhead door out the back which is how they exit the vehicles out of the service bay. It would be a compliant project in regards to setbacks. The lighting I know Laura you commented on the lighting and it may be on the site plan but it’s not real evident. Basically there’s three existing wall mounted lights on the rear of the existing 15 (Queensbury Planning Board 08/18/2020) building. Those are just going to be re-located back to the same position on the addition, and that’s basically enough lighting to provide that driving aisle illumination needed around the back. So there wouldn’t be any additional lighting proposed, any pole lights or anything. This property will disturb about 12,500 square feet. A large share of that is already existing asphalt. So really ultimately we’re adding 1650 square feet of impervious. So that’s the additional strip of pavement around the back that’ll allow for hat clearance needed for maneuvering. So that’s the additional impervious on the property. We’ll address the runoff with that stormwater mitigation that’s included in the rear, and we’ll have to re-locate a couple of existing drywells that are a little bit too snug to where the new building would be. So we’re moving that out away from the existing building slightly to capture the existing drainage that does collect today. We did reconfigure the parking layout. Staff was concerned about the parking around the periphery of the site. If you’ve been there, there’s been times or periods when there was a lot of inventory and then there’s times where there’s less inventory and so when they get maxed out, they’ve had a tendency in the past to kind of fill in the perimeter. So we have had discussions and we’ve tried to accommodate as much parking, you know, storage vehicles on the parcel, in a legal, convenient way that allows for proper maneuvering and safety. So we have provided a reconfiguration of all that to get to the allotted maximum number of parking spaces that could be utilized. Currently they’ve had a shortage of inventory. So if you’ve been over there recently there’s fewer vehicles than normal. So I think at this point the intent would be to maintain and re-establish the perimeter pavement area that was approved in the original project and then to provide for this addition on the back basically to allow for these additional truck service bays that they need for service. With that I’d turn everything back over to the Board and if you have any questions I’d be happy to answer those. MR. TRAVER-Okay. Questions comments from members of the Board? MS. WHITE-That was my biggest concern that you just mentioned. If you go by and try and navigate through this lot, you can’t even move, or there times, there are a lot of times, all of those lots, there is so much inventory that it almost, I was kind of surprised to see the approval of the Fire Marshal because it’s so difficult for just a regular size car to get in there, and when you say you reconfigured that so that there would be adequate parking, if you could explain that a little bit better to me, how that’s going to happen so that it’s safe. MR. RYAN-Absolutely. So basically what you’ve been seeing when you’re there is, it depends on the configuration of the cars that they have and what’s moving and what the sale of the week is, and so they’re always moving, shuffling vehicles around. So ultimately they have a stable inventory and then they have to re-locate, shuffle them around in order to sell certain styles of vehicles at certain periods of time. So what I’ve done is gone, reviewed the entire layout of the perimeter and around the buildings to ensure that there’s, one of the concerns that the Fire Marshal had is maneuvering for fire safety, and so I re-checked all of the maneuvering aisles to make sure we had that required clearance for the turning radiuses and aisle widths and so that was incorporated into this layout, and we also were able to achieve an increase in parking spaces from, I think the original was like 140, and we’re getting closer to 160, I think it was 169 maybe, and so those additional 20 spaces, 25 spaces will help alleviate those times when they have the maximum amount of inventory. One of the other things they are researching, and they haven’t had any success, is trying to do parking agreements or sharing land with other commercial properties that aren’t utilizing their parking lots that are large and excessive and unused. They’ve been trying to find a place for other inventory if seasonally they had an excess. So Step One was kind of get the service needs and reconfigure what they have so they can maximize it, and then their second component of, you know, the future part of this, is to expand. They did have a project in front of us coming to this Board this spring for an adjacent parcel and that didn’t work out. So this was the next step to kind of start to make improvements. MS. WHITE-You get people out there that are just moving those cars. MR. RYAN-No rhyme or reason. MS. WHITE-Yes, and I just see that you’re taking up this much more space. In my mind it’s automatically making more of a problem, but if you’re working on it, some off site, and you’ve reorganized the existing. MR. RYAN-Yes, certain times of the year when inventory is high and obviously certain holiday seasons there’s certain times when the vehicles are a little bit high and they want to squeeze them on, but I think they need to get in a different practice which is what do we have allotment for and say where else can we utilize. So t hat’s an ongoing discussion, and that’s the biggest difficulty with sales that have multiple types of manufacturing. It’s not just one vehicle style and one manufacturer. It’s multiple. MS. WHITE-Sure. MR. DEEB-Do the Nemer’s own the building down the street that used to be Hertz? MR. RYAN-I don’t believe they own that. I think they had a statement. 16 (Queensbury Planning Board 08/18/2020) MR. MAGOWAN-They had an agreement with Barrett’s. MR. RYAN-Yes, to use the facility. MR. DEEB-I know they were set up for business there. MR. RYAN-I believe they were using it for some service or maybe some parking. I’m not 100%. MR. DEEB-There’s still a lot of parking on there. MR. MAGOWAN-I thought, I think the whole deal was to move the trucks, because they’ve been having that problem, but I think having two different buildings and it wasn’t walkable because PSM is in between. I think that’s, if I heard correctly before , it was too far, and you know how sales you always have to sit down and then you’ve got to run to the manager and then you’ve got to come back and hour and a half later and say, hey, we’re really close but. I’m only kidding. MR. RYAN-In the budget we did have planned, which was submitted, it was eventually withdrawn, was the building directly behind us, and so we were able to put a connecting driveway to the two so that it made things a little, the flow go better. Unfortunately that deal just didn’t work out. So they’re trying to address the same types of problems, but using their existing site. MR. MAGOWAN-Now I know the lands to the, well, Quaker Road east, Tara Stone’s I mean that’s like been vacant for years. MR. RYAN-It’s very wet. MR. MAGOWAN-Is it? MR. RYAN-Yes. MR. MAGOWAN-But it’s just a parking lot. MR. RYAN-Yes, I think they negotiated with just about everybody adjacent or around them at some point. I don’t know the details of what they’ve pursued. MR. MAGOWAN-But I give you kudos for re-designing, I mean that can be a tight parking spot and I do worry about, there’s quite an inventory there, and if a fire for the emergency vehicles, even though we all have insurance. That’s a lot of insurance payout on cars nowadays as you know, but to increase the parking, I’m comfortable with that. MR. TRAVER-Have you seen the engineering comments? MR. RYAN-I have, yes. MR. TRAVER-Okay. They look like they’re mainly stormwater. There was erosion and sediment control and maintenance. MR. RYAN-Yes, I think they wanted a couple of details added and basically clarifying things. I didn’t see anything in that letter that would require much change to the project in any way. They were more or less clarifications. MR. TRAVER-Okay. MR. DEEB-That’s always been an ongoing problem for 30 years down there is the congestion and the cars in the parking lot parking on the lawns and I don’t understand why Nemer’s just didn’t try and find another spot. MR. HUNSINGER-Well, I remember the last time they were here the big issue was they were parking in the Quaker Road right of way. MR. RYAN-On the road side. MR. HUNSINGER-That has gotten a lot better. MR. RYAN-Yes. They have been on some adjacent properties. That’s been an issue. MR. TRAVER-We will open a public hearing on this application. I have not received any phone calls. I’ll ask Laura, have you gotten any written comments on this? 17 (Queensbury Planning Board 08/18/2020) PUBLIC HEARING OPENED MRS. MOORE-There’s no written comments at this time. MR. TRAVER-Okay. Is there anyone in the audience that wanted to comment on this application? I guess not. All right. Then we’ll go ahead and close the public hearing on this application. PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED MR. TRAVER-Are there any further questions for the applicant? Does the Board feel comfortable moving forward on this? MR. HUNSINGER-The only other question I had was, you talked about the lighting. Do you know if those fixtures are Code compliant? MR. RYAN-I believe they are. Can you pull up the photos possibly in one of those sheets? MR. HUNSINGER-Because now would be the time to switch them out if they aren’t. MR. RYAN-Yes, and we’d be happy to do that. I think they’re downcast off the back of the building for the back overhead door and man door. That picture will show it. Can you zoom in on that photo. MR. MAGOWAN-It looks like two wall packs doesn’t it? MR. RYAN-If you want to just add a notation that we review that and have it be Code compliant downcast, we could change that out. That’s not a problem. MR. HUNSINGER-So this is a great view for the parking congestion. MR. MAGOWAN-That was definitely before the pandemic. MR. RYAN-Actually ran out of vehicles I think at that point. MR. MAGOWAN-The lots are empty now. MR. DIXON-So actually when you’re looking at that view, on the north side, are you interested in putting in any trees in? I see grass, but were you going to do anything with the landscape? MR. RYAN-I mean we weren’t planning to do anything to the north of the building. An existing sewage system is over there. So we haven’t really planned to do much up there in an effort to avoid it basically. So that was kind of the idea. MR. TRAVER-Does the Board feel comfortable moving forward? Okay. I guess we’re ready to entertain a motion. RESOLUTION APPROVING SP # 31-2020 R & P QUAKER II REALTY 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 3,600 sq. ft. addition to an existing 14,842 sq. ft. (footprint) building for additional service bays. The new addition is to have five overhead door, two at each end (west & east) and one to the south. Project work includes new pavement and vehicle parking area arrangement update. Pursuant to Chapter 179-9-020 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 opened a public hearing on the Site plan application on 08/18/2020 and continued the public hearing to 08/18/2020, 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 08/18/2020; 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, 18 (Queensbury Planning Board 08/18/2020) MOTION TO APPROVE SITE PLAN 31-2020 R&P QUAKER II REALTY; Introduced by David Deeb who moved for its adoption; Per the draft provided by staff conditioned upon the following conditions: 1) Waivers requested granted; g. site lighting, h. signage, k. topography, l. landscaping, n traffic, o. commercial alterations/ construction details, 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) 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; 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) Lighting to be updated and Code compliant (new addition). th Motion seconded by . Duly adopted this 18 day of August, 2020 by the following vote: AYES: Mr. Dixon, Mr. Deeb, Ms. White, Mr. Shafer, Mr. Hunsinger, Mr. Magowan, Mr. Traver NOES: NONE MR. RYAN-Thank you very much. MR. DEEB-Good luck. MR. TRAVER-The next application under New Business is Barbara Woodard, Site Plan 36-2020 and Special Use Permit 3-2020. SITE PLAN NO. 36-2020 SPECIAL USE PERMIT 3-2020 SEQR TYPE: TYPE II. BARBARA WOODARD. OWNER(S): SAME AS APPLICANT. ZONING: MS. LOCATION: 4 RICHARDSON STREET. APPLICANT PROPOSES TO RELOCATE A 1,386 DOUBLE WIDE HOME WITH PORCHES AND DECKS TO 4 RICHARDSON STREET. THE SITE HAD AN EXISTING HOME THAT HAS BEEN DEMOLISHED, A POOL PERMIT WAS ISSUED AND WORK STARTED. FENCES ARE ALSO TO BE INSTALLED. PURSUANT TO CHAPTER 179-3-040 AND 179-10 OF THE ZONING ORDINANCE, SINGLE FAMILY HOME IN MAIN STREET ZONING DISTRICT SHALL BE SUBJECT TO PLANNING BOARD REVIEW FOR SITE PLAN AND SPECIAL USE PERMIT REVIEW AND APPROVAL. CROSS REFERENCE: DEMO-118-2020, POOL-232- 2020. WARREN CO. REFERRAL: AUGUST 2020. SITE INFORMATION: MAIN STREET ZONING. LOT SIZE: .41 ACRE. TAX MAP NO. 309.10-2-52. SECTION: 179-3-040. 19 (Queensbury Planning Board 08/18/2020) BARBARA WOODARD, PRESENT MR. TRAVER-Laura? MRS. MOORE-Applicant proposes to relocate a 1386 double wide mobile home with porch and deck to 4 Richardson Street. This applicant was caught in the middle of our Main Street zoning requirements. They were required to have a Special Use Permit and Site Plan Review for the single family home on this lot. The applicant has applied and received building permits to do all the appropriate things that you do with a single family home, and now they’re completing and finishing up the Site Plan and Special Use Permit. MR. TRAVER-Okay. Thank you. Good evening. MRS. WOODARD-Hi. I’m Barbara Woodard and as she said I purchased land on 4 Richardson Street last summer for my retirement and so what I’m asking is to move my permanent home. I have beautiful pictures of it of 4 Richardson from Windsong Drive to move it over to 4 Richardson Street. I have photos of the house that we tore down that was unlivable. Horrible. So we tore the house down, and I have lots of pictures of our home, how we would keep it beautiful. It would look so nice. MRS. MOORE-If you can share those photos with the Board members. MRS. WOODARD-Can I share them please? I’m really proud of our home. This is the old house we tore down. It has a sliding door that was falling right off. MRS. MOORE-So just leave it with them and then you can describe it at the mic. MR. TRAVER-Thank you for that. MRS. WOODARD-Yes. So anyway I put all my pension into this home for my retirement to live the rest of my life out there. We’ve already got our swimming pool there and put up a nice six foot vinyl fence all the way around the lawn. It looks gorgeous. It’s just beautiful. All we’re missing now is our home. It will be perfect. MR. MAGOWAN-You’re even mowing the lawn over there I see. MRS. WOODARD-It’s gorgeous. Have you seen it? It’s it beautiful. Yes. I love it there. My favorite thing was that beautiful maple tree. MR. DEEB-That’s the big tree right in the middle. MRS. WOODARD-It’s gorgeous. That’s what made me buy the property. MR. DEEB-I looked at that and I kept saying, isn’t that going to interfere, is that going to hit the house? MRS. WOODARD-No. MR. DEEB-But the pool’s right behind it. MRS. WOODARD-Right in a nice sunny spot. MR. DEEB-God bless you. That tree could be a problem. MRS. WOODARD-That tree’s not going. MR. DEEB-I don’t want it to go. MRS. WOODARD-A limb might come off in the front. We might have to cut a limb from the front and one from the side, but the neighbors there are all great. We love them all and they love us, and they’re excited that we got rid of the eyesore. MR. TRAVER-Yes. Good. I also wanted to alert folks that may be viewing this meeting on the Town YouTube channel that there is a public hearing that we’ll be opening shortly, and if you wish to comment by phone, the number to call is 518-761-8225, and we’ll open it up for questions, comments from members of the Board. PUBLIC HEARING OPENED MR. TRAVER-The applicant’s basically here because of the Main Street zoning. MR. DIXON-And it’s more of a formality. 20 (Queensbury Planning Board 08/18/2020) MR. TRAVER-Yes. MRS. WOODARD-Nothing will change. The house will go in the same spot the other one was in. So it’s just going to look better. MR. TRAVER-Yes. It was already inspected by the Town prior to being moved. MR. TRAVER-Okay. MR. MAGOWAN-I do have to say when I first read it there you’re classifying it as a, did I see a double wide? MRS. WOODARD-Yes. MR. MAGOWAN-But it’s actually a manufactured home. MRS. WOODARD-Yes, two of them. MR. MAGOWAN-It’s really a modular home. MRS. WOODARD-Kind of. MR. MAGOWAN-Well it comes in two pieces and they put it together. MRS. WOODARD-Yes. MR. MAGOWAN-And I did take a drive through Homestead there and really I can see where you’d want to do some more, and it really is, it’s a nice looking home, and then I drove up and down Richardson and I scratched my head and I would have gone to the VFW to have a soda but you can’t right now, and that’s when I noticed, it really looks, that fence is gorgeous and the pool. I have to say, I don’t want to call it a double wide because it’s really a manufactured modular home, and I have put, believe it or not, a two million dollar modular home together on the lake, and I was just amazed with what it is, and it came in I think 10 or 12 different pieces, and it was put together, but this really looks good, and I think it would be a good place for it. It really is on the edge of the Main Street. I mean Main Street ends right there on Luzerne. MR. TRAVER-Right. MR. MAGOWAN-So you’ve got the VFW. You’ve got the Fire Department. You have the commercial zone. I think it would be a nice spot to retire and you have a beautiful backyard, and do not touch that tree. Take care of it. MRS. WOODARD-I know. I’ve got the application home for the cement slab. I’ve already got a guy ready to go. Once I get the okay he’s going to be probably out there in a couple of days putting that slab down. We have to have all that verified, the tie downs, everything. We will go right through the process just how it’s supposed to be, and I’ll go to Bingo across the street. MR. MAGOWAN-I don’t blame you. That’s a quick walk. MRS. WOODARD-Just my thing. MR. TRAVER-Is there anyone in the audience that wanted to comment on this application? I’m not seeing anyone. Are there any written comments, Laura? MRS. MOORE-There are no written comments. MR. TRAVER-No written comments. So we’ll close the public hearing on this application. PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED MR. TRAVER-Are there any other questions the Board members have for the applicant? Any comments? I think we’re ready to hear a resolution on this. MRS. MOORE-Prior to your resolution I just want to make sure you make it a permanent Special Use Permit. So there’s certain types of Special Use Permits. 21 (Queensbury Planning Board 08/18/2020) MR. TRAVER-Right. Good point. MR. DEEB-Where’s that? MR. HUNSINGER-Isn’t it part of the resolution? MS. WHITE-It’s in there. MR. TRAVER-For the Special Use Permit will be of permanent duration. MS. WHITE-I thought I read it. MRS. MOORE-It was only in my Staff Notes. MS. WHITE-That’s where I read it. MR. DEEB-All right. So we need to add it. What are we adding? MS. WHITE-The word “permanent”. MR. TRAVER-Special Use Permit duration will be permanent. MR. DEEB-Okay. MR. MAGOWAN-While they’re looking at that, I really got a kick out of the title. I mean it was like, this we have to get back to you because this, you know, this is so real looking. MR. TRAVER-It’s funny, Brad, you were talking about the modular thing. I remember being astonished because you remember the Ambrosia Diner we approved as part of Pyramid. MR. MAGOWAN-Yes. MR. TRAVER-That’s actually a modular diner. MR. MAGOWAN-Modular diner. Correct. MR. TRAVER-Yes, and all the time they were here meeting with us the parts were sitting down along the Hudson River somewhere waiting for approval so they could get put together. MR. MAGOWAN-That’s right. They were. RESOLUTION APPROVING SP # 36-2020 & SUP 3-2020 BARBARA WOODARD 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 relocate a 1,386 double wide home with porches and decks to 4 Richardson Street. The site had an existing home that has been demolished, a pool permit was issued and work started. Fences are also to be installed. Pursuant to Chapter 179-3-040 179- 10 of the Zoning Ordinance, Single Family home in Main Street zoning district shall be subject to Planning Board for Site Plan and Special Use Permit 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 08/18/2020 and continued the public hearing to 08/18/2020, 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 08/18/2020; 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 36-2020 & SPECIAL USE PERMIT 3-2020 BARBARA WOODARD; Introduced by David Deeb who moved for its adoption; Per the draft provided by staff conditioned upon the following conditions: 22 (Queensbury Planning Board 08/18/2020) 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. h) Special Use Permit to be permanent. th Motion seconded by Brad Magowan. Duly adopted this 18 day of August, 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. Good luck. MRS. WOODARD-Thank you so, so much. I love my home. MR. MAGOWAN-I can see that you do. MRS. WOODARD-They said it would take like four days to take it apart and put it back together again. MR. MAGOWAN-Thank you for your due diligence. MRS. WOODARD-Stop by and see it now, when it’s done. MR. TRAVER-Next under New Business we have a Sketch Plan discussion with Foothills Builders, LLC, Subdivision Sketch Plan 11-2020. SUBDIVISION SKETCH PLAN 11-2020 SEQR TYPE: UNLISTED. FOOTHILLS BUILDERS, LLC. AGENT(S): STUDIO A – MATTHEW HUNTINGTON, PE. OWNER(S): PATRICIA WELLS. ZONING: MDR. LOCATION: 84 JENKINSVILLE ROAD. APPLICANT PROPOSES 19 LOT RESIDENTIAL SUBDIVISION OF A 16.89 ACRE PARCEL. PROJECT IS TO HAVE ONE ACCESS DRIVE WITH A CUL-DE-SAC. AVERAGE LOT SIZE OF APPROXIMATELY 0.83 ACRE. PURSUANT TO CHAPTER 183 OF THE ZONING ORDINANCE, SUBDIVISION OF LAND SHALL BE SUBJECT TO PLANNING BOARD REVIEW AND APPROVAL. CROSS REFERENCE: N/A. WARREN CO. REFERRAL: N/A. LOT SIZE: 16.89 ACRES. TAX MAP NO. 279.15-1-85. SECTION: CHAPTER 183. MATT HUNTINGTON, REPRESENTING APPLICANT, PRESENT MR. TRAVER-Laura? MRS. MOORE-This applicant proposes a 19 lot residential subdivision. I have noted that the average lot size is approximately .83 acres. There are other variances that need to be applied. In this case as it’s an MDR zone two acres is required, and I identified some Code excerpts. One is the Moderate Density zoning and the other one is Moderate Density residential design requirements. MR. TRAVER-Okay. Thank you. Good evening. 23 (Queensbury Planning Board 08/18/2020) MR. HUNTINGTON-Matt Huntington with Studio A, representing Foothills Builders, and as Laura said, we will be looking for, really the only variance we’d be looking for is the density variance. Since this is MDR, right now it’s two acres per lot. We based our proposed lot size here on the surrounding neighborhood area. Within 500 feet of the site on the map that you’re looking at there, average lot size is about .9, but immediately to the north of that you can see it varies about .3, .4. We’re trying to keep our lots around an acre or so, .8 I think may be the lowest. The reason for this is we feel the site can handle that type of development. Laura, if you don’t mind going to the survey drawing. So on this you can kind of see the squiggly line representing the wooded area to the left on the drawing. So right now it’s currently an open farm field and on the other half or a little bit more of the half is kind of a wooded area. So we went out earlier this spring and performed some test pits out there. We did two out in the farm field area, and we did another two out in the wooded area, and what we came across was no evidence of groundwater, no bedrock, really no restrictive conditions, and pretty good sandy loam material that handles stormwater and wastewater. It’s pretty much an ideal soil for absorption rates on those. So these houses are going to be required to have on-site septic and wells out here, and we were able to lay this thing out, assuming approximately like a 1500 square foot style house with the wastewater area on-site and wells meeting all the separation distances. There’s really not many restrictive conditions on the site. Really we just kind of want to get some feedback from the Board before we went in front of the Zoning Board on this. Just to kind of feel it out. We do feel that the site can accommodate the development over there based on the surrounding 500 feet. We think we’re pretty well in line with lot size. We don’t want to come in here and try to propose these quarter acre lots. We’re trying to keep them right around one acre, and we’d be open to any questions or any feedback that we may have from the Board. MR. TRAVER-Questions, comments from the Board? MR. DEEB-One of the concerns I have is the old landfill up the road. Are you going to have wells for drinking water? MR. HUNTINGTON-I’m not totally familiar with how proximal we are to the landfill. That’s something I can get more information on. MR. DEEB-I think that’s something that probably should be investigated. MR. HUNTINGTON-So all of the existing houses out there are currently on wells. I’m not aware of any issues with them. This will be subject to the Realty Subdivision laws with Department of Health. So as part of that we’re going to have to, as this thing progresses we have to drill test wells there, you know, they would have to get tested for any sort of bacteriological contamination or anything that would be coming from the landfill. That’s part of the steps. We’re very early on in the process right now, which is why we wanted to kind of come in front of you guys and get some feedback on it. We haven’t pursued it even as far as getting the Department of Health involved on the Realty act. I mean this is a standard layout. Everything is to 75A. The wells will be installed in accordance with Department of Health’s Appendix 5A and 5B. MR. HUNSINGER-I think it’s a nice little project. You’re right near the park. I mean you could walk from these houses to the park very easily. What I’d like you to do when you come back is to show the lot, in that one slide you showed us the lot sizes in the adjacent lots, because I was a little concerned that the lots might be a little small, but when you look to all those lots that are to the north, as you pointed out, they’re actually smaller than what you’re proposing. So it’s really not incompatible with the surrounding neighborhood. I don’t know if that’s helpful. MR. HUNTINGTON-Yes, if you look at this drawing on the right, we actually listed the lot sizes. MR. DEEB-It’s a nice layout. MR. HUNSINGER-Yes. It works pretty well. MR. TRAVER-Yes, very practical. MR. DIXON-Mr. Chairman, may I ask two questions or two comments. One on the layout. When you come back, I see how the road comes out to Jenkinsville Road. It would be nice to see actually how the houses across the street are, just so the houses aren’t lining up with their living rooms, and the only other comment I would have, just because I have experience with the development close to my neighborhood is any time you have a circle down there, maybe there should be a landscape plan associated with that because right now the one that’s on the road is a sandpit and I have a hunch it’s going to stay that way. MR. HUNTINGTON-I live in a similar one. I think it’s kind of a wasteland out there. So we’ll certainly propose. MR. DIXON-Or include it in one of these lots so maybe one of the homeowners will maintain it. 24 (Queensbury Planning Board 08/18/2020) MR. TRAVER-Any other comments? Does anyone have, you know, this is going to be subject to variance review because of the lot size, even though it’s generally within the character of the neighborhood as Chris pointed out, but does anyone have any major issues with that? MS. WHITE-I wouldn’t say major, but I think the lots are a little small. MR. TRAVER-I just want to clarify that because that’s specifically pointed out as one of the concerns. MS. WHITE-When the zoning states two acres, and these are at .8, my question is what’s the significant reasoning for us to make that approval? Because they could be bigger. They could have less number of lots. Slightly larger lots, in relation with the two acres that are required. I mean I didn’t hear any reasoning as to why it needs to be that tiny. MR. HUNTINGTON-I think from our end it’s just we’re trying to match what’s out there as well, and, from an engineering perspective, the site can accommodate it relatively easily what we have there, and I believe in MDR if you have public sewer and water you are allowed to go down to an acre, Here we don’t have it, but you are allowed to go down to an acre. So we tried to stay around that acre and we feel that the soils that are on the site are accommodating almost equivalent to if we did have sewer and water because they’re so good for infiltration. They’re great for wastewater infiltration and like I said the infill boundary conditions, stormwater lines. There’s really not a lot of restrictions on the lot itself holding development back, outside of a zoning issue. From just a physical restriction, we feel that the site can accommodate. MR. DEEB-Also it’s much more economically advantageous. MR. HUNTINGTON-That’s never a reason for an Area Variance. So I wasn’t going to throw that one out there. MR. HUNSINGER-Well the tradeoff is if you had bigger lots you’d build bigger houses and charge more. MR. HUNTINGTON-That’s true as well, and, you know, I’m no expert in that. It may be difficult because of the neighborhood surrounding there. They’re smaller lots and there may not be a draw there for the larger houses on the larger lots. MR. SHAFER-Question. The only lots, you’re referring to smaller lots there, the ones immediately to the north. The rest of the lots on Jenkinsville Road are much larger, as are the ones immediately north of that line you’re talking about. I have the same hard time that Jamie has. You’re asking this Board to agree from two acre zoning to .83. That’s a heavy lift. You need to give us some reason other than it’ll fit or the soil can accommodate it or whatever, MR. HUNTINGTON-Well I would like to point out along Jenkinsville Road it is kind of a mix, some are a lot bigger. There are a few there that are one. There’s a .6, a .25. These are all within 500 feet, .56, .44, another 1, a 1.2, then there are some that are 3. These are all along the left hand side of the drawing and then immediately south of the project site is where you’ve got .44 and .25, and some stuff averaging around 1. So we do feel that it’s a pretty mixed conglomeration of lots there, that a lot of them are close to the ones that we’re proposing. MR. SHAFER-But it’s not one acre. It’s .83. MR. HUNTINGTON-That’s the average lot size. I mean a lot on the table. MR. SHAFER-Yes, I saw the table. MR. HUNTINGTON-You’re between .83 and 1 acre or so. So I mean you have some that are in the .9 range and you have some that are 1. MR. TRAVER-Do you have any questions for us? MR. HUNTINGTON-No. I think this is exactly what we were looking for. We were looking for a little bit of feedback and kind of an open discussion on it. MR. TRAVER-Okay. Well we’ll look forward to seeing it as it moves forward. MR. MAGOWAN-Well, can I, you know, if possible could you look into a small reduction there, see if you can get the lots a little bit larger? I mean I understand what you’re backing up to, and I know that neighborhood and that was, boy, they were built a long time ago, 1964 era type, you know, home. You are talking wells. I noticed that the soils, sand it’s pretty sandy out there, and that’s part of the tail end of the nice digging vine there of fill that all the pits have. 25 (Queensbury Planning Board 08/18/2020) MR. HUNTINGTON-Yes, the gravel. MR. MAGOWAN-But I have a tendency to agree with Jamie there. If you’re able to shrink them down and get them a little larger so it doesn’t look so urban like. You are kind of in a country setting. I think you might be able to achieve a little bit more price, land price. MR. HUNTINGTON-Yes, I mean the other thing we can do to help mitigate that is we can install, we can create a landscape plan that’s part of the subdivision development that shows the areas of trees on that wooded area that would be maintained and possibly plant some things. MR. MAGOWAN-I mean, if those are all the things you can do, you know, to me it’s just, you’ve really utilized the land and you’ve really done a nice job, but if we could just add a little more, because you really are, you’re out there in the country and I know a lot of people tend to want to live out there because you’re kind of in your own little nest egg out there, but if you could drop it down three, four lots and make them a little bit larger and do a price comparison, you know, price per lot, it might work out to be the same. MR. HUNSINGER-So kind of along those lines, the map that shows the sample houses on the lots, you know, when I first looked at that, my first thought was where’s the garage go? So if it’s that small the garage is going to go right in front of the house. MS. WHITE-Very regimented. MR. HUNSINGER-Yes, very cold, very regimented. So if there’s like a house design that you had in mind, maybe the models of the houses that you’d planned to put in there will help drive some of the design. MR. MAGOWAN-Good point, Chris. I like that. Yes. MR. HUNSINGER-Because you talk about the way the public views your house and the way that your house presents itself to the public, if all you see is a garage door, that’s just not very welcoming and not very friendly, and that’s what mostly we have in Queensbury unfortunately. A lot of these smaller subdivisions especially. MR. MAGOWAN-I’m glad you brought that up. I was going to go have them move mine right now. MR. HUNTINGTON-Well, I think, too, they have done some developments in Queensbury. You can certainly drive around and look at what they’ve produced. John Clendon being one of the most recent ones. MR. DEEB-We are aware of that. MR. HUNTINGTON-So you can get kind of a feel for the type of product that they provide, and we certainly can reflect that on the plans. MS. WHITE-The one thing that I do like is the smaller houses. We need more smaller houses. We don’t need another development with 4,000 square foot $500,000 homes. There are plenty of people who like smaller homes, but that whole concept. There’s not a lot of 16 acre parcels left MR. TRAVER-All right. Well thank you very much for discussing your project. MR. HUNTINGTON-Yes, thank you. Thank you for the feedback. We appreciate it. MR. DEEB-Good luck. MR. HUNSINGER-You’re welcome. MR. DEEB-Thank you. MR. TRAVER-That concludes our agenda for this evening. I did want to mention or remind the Planning Board that next week we’re going to be convening a little bit early with the Technology Committee we created last year, the Planning & Zoning Technology Committee to talk about expanding technology within the Town. The only thing we’ve really been working on since then has been what’s called the IPad project, and we’re going to get together at, I think it’s 6:15 next Tuesday before our regularly scheduled meeting just to compare notes and talk about what’s been happening with that project and perhaps going forward. So you’re welcome to come, even if you’re not technically a member of that committee. You’re welcome to come a little bit early if you want to hear about what we’ve been doing with technology with the Town. 6:15 next week. So with that, if there’s nothing else before the Board, I’ll entertain a motion to adjourn. MR. HUNSINGER-So moved. 26 (Queensbury Planning Board 08/18/2020) MOTION TO ADJOURN THE QUEENSBURY PLANNING BOARD MEETING OF AUGUST 18, 2020, Introduced by Chris Hunsinger who moved for its adoption, seconded by David Deeb: th Duly adopted this 18 day of August, 2020, by the following vote: AYES: Mr. Hunsinger, Mr. Deeb, Ms. White, Mr. Shafer, Mr. Dixon, Mr. Magowan, Mr. Traver NOES: NONE ABSENT: Mr. Valentine MR. TRAVER-We stand adjourned. Thanks, everybody. On motion meeting was adjourned. RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED, Stephen Traver, Chairman 27