Loading...
10-20-2020 (Queensbury Planning Board 10/20/2020) QUEENSBURY PLANNING BOARD MEETING FIRST REGULAR MEETING OCTOBER 20, 2020 INDEX Site Plan PZ 230-2016 Legacy Land Holdings 2. REQUEST FOR ONE YR. EXTENSION Tax Map No. 296.11-1-48, 49, 54, 55, 60 Site Plan No. 42-2020 Bill Pogonowski 6. ZBA RECOMMENDATION Tax Map No. 239.8-1-7 & 239.8-1-60 Site Plan No. 44-2020 Trevor Flynn 9. ZBA RECOMMENDATION Tax Map No. 239.18-1-22 Site Plan No. 48-2020 Mark Prendeville 11. ZBA RECOMMENDATION Tax Map No. 289.13-1-58 Site Plan No. 49-2020 Jeffrey Godnick 13. ZBA RECOMMENDATION Tax Map No. 289.9-1-84 Subdivision No. 13-2020 JP Gross Properties, LLC 15. SKETCH PLAN Tax Map No. 307.-1-22 Site Plan No. 43-2020 Michael & Mary Jane Bernholz 17. Tax Map No. 239.12-2-94.2 Site Plan No. 45-2020 Foothills Builders 22. Tax Map No. 296.5-1-8 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 10/20/2020) QUEENSBURY PLANNING BOARD MEETING FIRST REGULAR MEETING OCTOBER 20, 2020 7:00 P.M. MEMBERS PRESENT STEPHEN TRAVER, CHAIRMAN CHRIS HUNSINGER, VICE CHAIRMAN DAVID DEEB, SECRETARY BRAD MAGOWAN JAMIE WHITE JOHN SHAFER MICHAEL VALENTINE LAND USE PLANNER-LAURA MOORE STENOGRAPHER-KAREN DWYRE MR. TRAVER-Good evening, ladies and gentlemen and welcome to the Town of Queensbury Planning th Board meeting for Tuesday, October 20. This is our first meeting for the month of October. Our 14 th meeting thus far for 2020 and believe it or not this is our 10 meeting under the pandemic guidelines. If you have a cell phone or other electronic device, if you would either turn it off or turn the ringer off so it will not interrupt our proceedings I would appreciate that, We will be having, there’s at least two applications later in the agenda this evening that will have a public hearing, and I’d like to let the public know that may be viewing his meeting on the Town YouTube channel that when public hearings are available you can call in on the telephone line if you wish, and the number to call is 518-761-8225, and I’ll repeat that number as it becomes relevant later in our agenda. To representatives and members of the audience, if you come up and wish to address the Planning Board during the meeting tonight, there are some sanitary wipes beneath the podium, and if you would, when you’re done, to prepare or the next speaker, if you would wipe down the microphone we would appreciate that. If you’ll notice in the room there are some illuminated exit signs. In the event that we have an emergency, those are the emergency exits. I wanted to mention as well that originally we had scheduled a meeting of the Technology Committee before the meeting tonight. That has been postponed one month at the request of the Supervisor in order to get us some updates and that meeting will now take place November 17 at 6:15 right before the Planning Board meeting that night, and an e-mail meeting invite was sent out to members of that committee, although it’s not a private meeting. So if you would be interested in attending that, you’re welcome to come, and, Laura, the original meeting that was going to be held tonight, I think, is it Kevin Melanowski that’s now the rep from Stored Tech that’s supposed to be working with us? MRS. MOORE-Right. MR. TRAVER-And he was either going to attend or possibly be available by phone? MRS. MOORE-Yes. MR. TRAVER-Would it be possible, or if you haven’t already, would you let him know t at that meeting th is next month on the 17. I know one of the topics that we were interested in discussing has to do with the security related to the IPads and our e-mail. I think you’re aware that I’m a volunteer on the low impact development committee that Chris Navitsky chairs and I had difficulty being able to participate because when I connected to the link to that committee meeting on my Town e-mail I was told that the IT forbids that connection. Of course I couldn’t have used the IPad in its early stages now because there’s no way I can download the application to make it work anyway but we’re going to be addressing that I guess as we move forward, but the whole issue of the security. I mean we’re spending a lot of money on these things. It seems like security is kind of an issue and maybe behind why, some of the reasons why the devices are so locked down. For example, I was able to forward that e-mail from Chris to my employer’s e-mail which has very strong security, and that allowed me to join that meeting with no difficulty. So I’d like to be able to chat with him about that, just to get more information so that we have a better understanding of the whole issue. MRS. MOORE-So really that information comes to myself or Craig and then we work with Stored Tech to resolve those items. So that’s how that functions. MR. TRAVER-Good. Okay, and then if he would be available either in person or maybe by phone or whatever you can let me know before the meeting so that we can ask to get a little bit more background information about issues surrounding security. MRS. MOORE-That’s information that comes to me. I report that back to you. 2 (Queensbury Planning Board 10/20/2020) MR. TRAVER-Okay. That would be great. Thank you. MRS. MOORE-Okay. MR. TRAVER-So on to our regular agenda. The first item is we have the minutes approval from August thth 18 and August 25, and I believe we have a draft motion for that. APPROVAL OF MINUTES th August 18, 2020 th August 25, 2020 MOTION TO APPROVE THE QUEENSBURY PLANNING BOARD MEETING MINUTES OF THTH AUGUST 18 & AUGUST 25, 2020, Introduced by David Deeb who moved for its adoption, seconded by Brad Magowan: th Duly adopted this 20 day of October, 2020, by the following vote: AYES: Mr. Shafer, Ms. White, Mr. Deeb, Mr. Hunsinger, Mr. Magowan, Mr. Valentine, Mr. Traver NOES: NONE MR. TRAVER-We have an Administrative Item, Site Plan PZ 230-2016 Legacy Land Holdings request for an additional one year extension. ADMINISTRATIVE ITEM: SITE PLAN PZ 230-2016 LEGACY LAND HOLDINGS REQUEST FOR ADDITIONAL ONE YEAR EXTENSION BOB SEARS, REPRESENTING APPLICANT, PRESENT MR. TRAVER-And I see, if my notes are correct, Laura, this would be the fourth year in a row they’re asking for an extension. MRS. MOORE-That is correct, and I understand someone from the applicant is present, and I don’t see anybody present at this time. MR. TRAVER-I did see there was a letter with some explanation. MR. DEEB-Bob is here. Bob’s going to talk. MRS. MOORE-Mr. Sears, did you want to speak on behalf of them? MR. TRAVER-If you don’t mind, if you would get up on the mic so we make sure we have your comments in the minutes. MR. SEARS-My name is Bob Sears. I’m the realtor involved with that project. One thing I’d like you to do is to refer to the information from Tom Jarrett regarding that project. If you have any questions, feel free to ask. MR. TRAVER-Well one of the concerns that I had in that letter, it includes some information that doesn’t seem terribly optimistic that we may be in any different position should we grant another extension. It talks about there’s little demand for the space available in the project and some other comments that seem beyond. I mean there was certainly some concern about clarifying and adjusting some issues, but it talks about lack of demand for professional office space. The design was changed to the multi-family residential and then this was found to be financially challenging. I mean is there a sense that something is going to happen with this in a year? MR. SEARS-We hope so. That being said there is a challenge for office space, obviously with COVID but we can do a lot now online so we don’t have to be there personally. So we’re going through that issue right now. This project was done according to the zoning that is there now, and hopefully we’ll have some people that might be interested in being involved with this building. I don’t know when that might happen. Hopefully that will happen this coming year. That has been existing since 2016. It’s zoned for offices and that’s what it’s there for. So we are at the Town to modify that, but at this stage of the game at this time this is where it is. MR. TRAVER-Okay. Anyone have any questions, comments before we consider the motion? 3 (Queensbury Planning Board 10/20/2020) MR. DEEB-Bob, the number one thing here, need to resolve wastewater issue. I don’t think you want to address that. That’s probably for Tom to address. MR. SEARS-That’s already been addressed. MRS. MOORE-Mr. Deeb, that has been addressed and it has been resolved specifically in reference to information being shared by Town Counsel and their counsel. MR. DEEB-Okay. MR. VALENTINE-What was the question? What did you ask? I’m sorry, Dave. MR. DEEB-About Number One. MR. VALENTINE-Okay. MR. DEEB-But Bob’s the realtor. Tom Jarrett’s the engineer. MR. VALENTINE-Mr. Chairman, the question, as I was going through this, my question is just for notes to myself along the top is similar to what you were asking. What’s going to change? What will work here? And what’s the benefit of another extension? As you had said, nothing for this letter, nothing sounded optimistic about saying okay come back next year and we’ll come back and we’ll have another extension, because we still don’t know what to do. MR. TRAVER-That’s certainly a possibility. MR. SEARS-Here’s the situation There are about 16 lots out there, about four or five of them are dedicated to the 27 unit senior housing and the rest of them are for offices. That is shovel ready office sites. There are very few shovel ready office sites in the Town of Queensbury. The sewer is in place. All the infrastructure is in place. All you’ve got to do is put a shovel in the ground and get a site plan approval. So that’s unique in that respect, and all I can say there is that perhaps hopefully soon offices will come along and want to build there, and in my every day endeavors as a real estate agent here in the area, there is not a huge demand for offices. There’s not a whole lot of parcels that are shovel ready to go. So this is an opportunity if you do want to put offices in Queensbury you could look at this site as a possibility. So that’s important that that stay there. It’s important for the Town. It’s important for new development. As far as senior housing goes, there’s a need for senior housing in this area. Hopefully we’ll find somebody that will build in this area. And I mentioned before we are in discussions with the Town of Queensbury now, the Queensbury Town Board, to modify this zoning, but we would like to extend this for another year if we might because this is something that’s ready to go. MR. DEEB-Well I agree, Bob. We’re living in times with extenuating circumstances and I think we’ve got to give them a chance to see what’s going to happen. Things could change in a year. It’s been a tough year for everybody. MR. TRAVER-Absolutely. It has. MR. DEEB-And I think we’ve got to see what shakes out and at least give it a try. MR. SEARS-Thank you, Dave. MR. SHAFER-Mr. Chairman, I was concerned about the second to last paragraph it talks about in conclusion an additional time extension is requested until such time as marketing conditions for professional offices and/or senior housing improve. Is there anything within this climate and with people working at home, etc., etc., that would suggest that within the next year there’s going to be any change? MR. SEARS-All I can say is that this is what’s before us right now. We’re asking for an extension for another year. You can, at the end of this coming year, give something else or have some other discussions, but right now we are involved in discussions. MR. SHAFER-Was there a site plan brought before the Board a year ago? MR. SEARS-I don’t think so. MR. TRAVER-No, not a year ago. It originally came up in 2016. MR. SHAFER-What are we extending to one year, then? What is it we’re extending one year? 4 (Queensbury Planning Board 10/20/2020) MR. TRAVER-The site plan that was approved back in 2016. The request was received a year after approval for a one year extension which was granted. Then another extension, then another extension, and this is another one year. This is the fourth one year extension request. MR. SHAFER-So there was a site plan approved. MR. DEEB-Yes. MR. SHAFER-Four years ago. MR. TRAVER-Yes, five years ago. MR. SHAFER-What is the value of extending it for another year? MR. TRAVER-Well that’s why I was asking questions and I wanted to make the Board available to ask the representative that question, because it has been. MR. SHAFER-If this is not approved, they just come back with a different site plan MR. SEARS-Well, not true. We have a survey map. It’s unfortunate, maybe I should have brought it with me, but I thought that we were beyond that point, but anyway we have about 15 lots out there that have been pre-approved for offices. Okay, and they’re engineered, all set to go, shovel ready, and that’s the way it’s been. We’ve got the two uses out there. One is David Parsons and the other one is oral dentistry and they were sold a number of years ago, but the lots are good. They’re ready to go and in Queensbury right now there are not a whole lot of lots available that are shovel ready, that have been pre-approved for offices. MR. SHAFER-But you wouldn’t lose that momentum you’ve already got, right, if you had to come back? I mean if conditions change. MR. TRAVER-Well, to answer your question, if we didn’t grant an extension and Laura please correct me when I’m wrong, but their approval would go away. So they would not have an approval for a site plan for that site any longer. They would still have a plan, but it would be expired. So they would have to, correct, Laura, they would have to come in with another plan. It could be identical to what they have submitted now. MRS. MOORE-Correct. MR. TRAVER-But rather than have it extended for a year it would lapse and then they would have to re- apply, even if the plans were identical to what they had original proposed. Then we would re-consider it at that time. MR. DEEB-That’s putting an extra financial burden on the applicant and again, we’re going to have such extenuating circumstances. I’d like to give it a shot one more time and if it doesn’t work out next year, they come back, we don’t have to grant them an extension. We can say okay, we have to start from scratch. MR. VALENTINE-Well, let me ask a question to follow up on John. You had said that there are 16 commercial lots there. MR. SEARS-No, well they are commercial, but they’re zoned for and have been approved for offices. MR. VALENTINE-Okay. Out of the 16, how many have sold? MR. SEARS-Two. MR. VALENTINE-Since 2016? MR. SEARS-No, they were sold prior to that. MR. VALENTINE-Okay. We didn’t have COVID four years ago. MR. TRAVER-Right. MR. VALENTINE-Why haven’t they sold? MR. SEARS-Well the main reason why they haven’t sold is because there’s not a real demand for offices. Okay. Because people are consolidating. Also there is, the cost of construction is a little bit more than it used to be. The bottom line is that’s what’s been approved and that’s what the Zoning Code calls for. Okay. So if you decide not to go ahead and approve it for another year, you’re basically going against the Code. The Code is what it is, and the way it’s set up right now, that zoning up there is for office use. 5 (Queensbury Planning Board 10/20/2020) MR. TRAVER-We wouldn’t be changing the zoning on that. That would be a Town Board. MR. SEARS-No. It’s pre-approved office lots. So in other words we would have to go back and start all over again. MR. TRAVER-You’d have to submit a new application, yes, but if you were submitting the same plan, you wouldn’t have to start over again. Your existing plans could be re-submitted with a new application. MR. SEARS-So why go through that process if it’s already in place? MR. VALENTINE-Because in case for some reason, I’m not saying this is the case with you, I would assume why that’s there is if somebody just sits back lackadaisically and doesn’t pursue what that approval is, for whatever reason, then they just keep coming back, coming back, coming back. MR. SEARS-You’re making an assumption that. MR. VALENTINE-No, I’m not making an assumption about you. I stated that right in the very beginning as I started talking. What I’m saying is that there, another extension come back next year for what would be the fifth extension. I think last month we had the sixth or seventh extension on a project. So to be truthful, I’m looking for answers. I’m not getting concrete answers from you. I’m getting, well that’s the way it is. MR. TRAVER-Yes, it’s a marketing issue is seems. MR. VALENTINE-I understand that. Maybe it’s the wrong piece of property in the wrong location for the wrong use. MR. MAGOWAN-\\Excuse me. Can I chime in on this? I’m very familiar with this project. I don’t want to say very familiar, but I know the project. I know what’s been going on. I’ve been watching it. I know that they had two offices in there. I know that they had problems, it’s the right market, it’s a nice market for the land for the offices and where it’s going. I think Bay Road is growing. Now that we have Fowler’s Square coming in. We have, you know, good things happening here at SUNY Adirondack. We’ve had some changes down there near the end, down near Stewart’s. I think it’s coming up this way. It might have been a little bit pre-mature. I think at the time that it went in the market was strong and then all of a sudden it crashed. I know that they’ve got a lot of money tied up in getting to this point and I was in a long economic growth meeting today. We have a new leader. Unfortunately with Ed Bartholomew passed away, and Jim Succland, he’s got some great energy and great ideas. I think we’ve got some movement coming in our direction, and I’d like to extend this because this is a shovel ready opportunity for offices in the Town of Queensbury and in this sector right here which I think has a little growth. There’s very limited in what we can do in Queensbury right now and this is a good spot. We have the doctors across the street. Hudson Headwaters is going like gangbusters over in Carey Park and soon that’s going to be, and they’re just expanding by leaps and bounds. There’s other hospitals, there’s a lot or workings I think coming down the road. I think right now it’s been a tough market. There’s a lot invested and I think it would be a shame to pull the plug because it’s not like there’s a reason why. It’s just, really it’s a great piece of property ready to go and it’s going to flow. MR. SHAFER-Brad, I don’t think our questions have anything to do with killing the project. The only question is whether or not within that one year there’s going to be any additional office space demand in this area. I would raise a question about whether, do we know how much office space vacancy there is now in this area? My guess is there’s quite a bit and the prognosis of all the economists that I’ve. MR. SEARS-Okay. Let me point out one thing. There’s very little Class A office space in Queensbury, okay. Period. Anybody that goes in there that who wants to put, the time is right perhaps to put in some Class A office space. Most of the office space in Queensbury is Class B, and people who are looking at office space, there’s a good demand for Class A office space. These will be new buildings, Class A buildings, if a developer wants to go in there and do that. Queensbury does not have that much of an opportunity for that. These are shovel ready sites ready to be built. All you need to do is go before your Board with a plan showing what building you want to put on the site. MR. TRAVER-Okay. Thank you. So we have a draft resolution. Why don’t we move on that and see what we get. MR. SEARS-Thank you for your time/ MR. DEEB-John, before we move on, I just want to say, we really don’t have a crystal ball. So we really don’t know what’s going to happen this year, but things could turn around. They might not turn around. MR. SHAFER-Yes, but we read about the economists and what they’re predictions are for office space. 6 (Queensbury Planning Board 10/20/2020) MR. DEEB-And I understand that, but Brad’s point has to be taken. MR. SHAFER-Millions of Americans are working from home and they never, in fact, go back to their office space. MR. MAGOWAN-What does it hurt granting the extension? MR. DEEB-Yes, give it a shot and if it doesn’t work then it’s done. MR. SHAFER-I would ask the opposite question. What does it gain? MS. WHITE-And I’ll go on record and say we’ve spent now another 25 minutes discussing the same subject that we discussed last time. There needs to be a limit on how many extensions we provide. MR. TRAVER-Yes. MS. WHITE-We’re debating and talking about this same subject again. MR. TRAVER-Well I think it was worthy of discussion, but I agree. Let’s go with the draft resolution and we’ll see where it goes. RESOLUTION TO APPROVE A 1 YEAR EXTENSION SP PZ 230-2016 LEGACY LAND HOLDINGS The applicant has submitted an application to the Planning Board for: Applicant proposes a partial 3 story, 27 unit senior housing facility with associated site work for parking, stormwater control and landscaping. Project involves lot line adjustments for lots 1, 2, 3, 7, 8, 9, 13 & 14. A portion of the existing pathway is to be increased in width and to be paved within 50 ft. of the stream for emergency access. Pursuant to Chapter 179-3-040 and 179-6-050 of the Zoning Ordinance, senior housing, multi-family housing and fill or hard surfacing within 50 ft. of a stream shall be subject to Planning Board review and approval. Project includes subdivision modification for lot line adjustments for current site plan and SP 4-2011. The Planning Board approved this application on November 15, 2016. A one year extension was granted on October 17, 2017. Additional one year extensions were granted on October 16, 2018 and September 24, 2019. An additional one year extension is requested by the applicant. MOTION TO APPROVE A ONE YEAR EXTENSION FOR SITE PLAN PZ 230-2016 LEGACY LAND HOLDINGS. Introduced by David Deeb who moved for its adoption, st Motion seconded by Brad Magowan. Motion rejected this 21 day of October, 2020 by the following vote: AYES: Mr. Deeb, Mr. Hunsinger, Mr. Magowan, NOES: Mr. Shafer, Mr. Valentine, Ms. White, Mr. Traver Motion Failed due to lack of majority vote. MR. TRAVER-So, what’s the tally? MR. DEEB-Four to three. MRS. DWYRE-Four noes and three yeses. MR. TRAVER-Okay. So the extension is not granted. Is that correct, Laura? MRS. MOORE-Yes. MR. TRAVER-All right. So we move on to the regular agenda. The first section is Planning Board Recommendations. There are no public hearings. Just so folks are aware, there are no public hearings for Planning Board Recommendations. The first item on the agenda under Planning Board Recommendations is Bill Pogonowski, application, Site Plan 42-2020. PLANNING BOARD RECOMMENDATION TO THE ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS: SITE PLAN NO. 42-2020 SEQR TYPE: TYPE II. BILL POGONOWSKI. AGENT(S): ETHAN HALL. OWNER(S): SAME AS APPLICANT. ZONING: WR. LOCATION: 24 RUSSELL HARRIS ROAD. APPLICANT PROPOSES CONSTRUCTION OF A 672 SQ. FT. DETACHED GARAGE WITH A FLOOR AREA OF 1,114 SQ. FT. AND ASSOCIATED SITE WORK. EXISTING HOME IS 1,954 SQ. FT. (FOOTPRINT) WITH A FLOOR AREA OF 3,195 S. FT. THE NEW GARAGE IS TO BE 23’3” IN HEIGHT. PROJECT INCLUDES COMBINING TWO LOTS. 7 (Queensbury Planning Board 10/20/2020) PURSUANT TO CHAPTER 179-3-040 & 179-6-065 OF THE ZONING ORDINANCE, NEW FLOOR AREA IN A CEA SHALL BE SUBJECT TO PLANNING BOARD REVIEW AND APPROVAL. VARIANCE: RELIEF IS SOUGHT FOR FAR AND HEIGHT. PLANNING BOARD SHALL PROVIDE A RECOMMENDATION TO THE ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS. CROSS REFERENCE: AV 27-1999, AV 28-1999. WARREN CO. REFERRAL: OCTOBER 2020. SITE INFORMATION: LGPC, APA, CEA. LOT SIZE: .30 ACRE/.09 ACRE. TAX MAP NO. 239.8-1-7 & 239.8-1-60. SECTION: 179-3-040, 179-6-065. ETHAN HALL, REPRESENTING APPLICANT, PRESENT MR. TRAVER-Laura? MRS. MOORE-The applicant proposes construction of a 672 square foot detached garage with a floor area of 1,114 square feet and associated site work. The existing home has a footprint of 1,954 square feet, floor area of 3,195 square feet. The new garage is proposed to be at 23 feet 3 inches. Relief is requested for floor area and height. MR. TRAVER-Okay. Thank you. Good evening. MR. HALL-Good evening. For your record, my name is Ethan Hall. I’m a principle with Rucinski Hall Architecture. With me tonight is Bill Pogonowski, the owner of the property. Laura, are we looking at lot coverage because we’re increasing lot coverage? Is that not a variance request as well? Current lot coverage is 61.55 percent non-permeable, permeable area, and 75 is required. We’re actually increasing that, but there’s still a variance required for that? I’m just clarifying? MRS. MOORE-You’re improving it. MR. HALL-We’re making it better, but it’s still doesn’t meet the requirement. MRS. MOORE-The Board can include that in their resolution, to clarify. Topically we try to stay to the variances that are listed. MR. HALL-Okay. I just wanted to clarify. So what Bill would like to do, in the drawings on the screen up behind you there, he’d like to have a two car garage. The existing house is a, it’s a higher peaked house. It does sit down closer to the lake off of Russell Harris Road. There is no garage associated with the house currently and he would like to add a garage to the house, to the property. There’s nothing behind it. The property behind it is in a trust for the Bette family. I don’t know if that’s, it’s a vacant piece of land. I don’t know if there’s any intentions to develop that or not. It’s quite a ways away from the lake. MR. TRAVER-Okay. Can you discuss the height? I mean it’s, what, seven feet three inches above the maximum. MR. HALL-Above the 16 feet. The basement of the house itself , part of it’s finished and the other part of it has no basement under it. It’s just a crawl space. So there’s really not a lot of storage in the house itself. To have things like deck furniture and things that get picked up from the lake in the fall and the winter, there’s really no place to put it. So the area above the garage is where we’re looking to add the storage that doesn’t currently exist in the house. MR. TRAVER-Okay. Questions, comments from members of the Board? MR. SHAFER-I just have the same question on height I guess. Ethan, we have an Item Number Six on the agenda tonight that has a very comparable building that does not exceed the height. Why does this have to be so high? I mean the pitch of the roof could be changed, etc., etc. MR. HALL-We could not get down, on the Drawing A-1 that you see there’s a line that’s drawn across there that shows the line of five foot head room. So there’s really, in the middle of the building it’s about shoulder height up to the peak. Anything less than a 9/12 pitch we won’t be able to get a door in there very well either. It’s a nine foot wall on the first floor. He’s got a rather large truck that needs to get inside the lower floor so we need the head room on the lower floor in order to get his vehicle in, and the overhead space is, again, used for storage. MR. DEEB-The lot behind is vacant you said? MR. HALL-The lot behind it is vacant, yes. MR. DEEB-So eventually something could be put there. MR. HALL-I don’t know. I know there’s some wetlands in that area. I don’t know what the development capability of that lot is. 8 (Queensbury Planning Board 10/20/2020) MR. DEEB-But if the height’s that tall, it could impinge on the property behind it. MR. HALL-Possibly. I mean really Russell Harris Road kind of goes up and around from where it is right there. I don’t know that there would be a whole lot to it, but. MR. MAGOWAN-Ethan, are you ready for my brainstorming idea? MR. HALL-Lay it on me. MR. MAGOWAN-That’s quite an extensive roof system and I know we really try to stay within our height limits. The way you’re bringing up the steps and this and that, and I’m just tossing it out there as an idea. You have, you’ve got a nine foot ceiling height in the garage. You’re coming to a gable end. What about lowering the size of that door down and walk into a landing like have three steps up once you get inside the door, have the door open out. MR. HALL-Inside the building you’re talking about? MR. MAGOWAN-Right, and then step it up inside the building and then it would be up there above the ceiling height, then you’d be able to get your door in, three foot up, and then lower your height down the t here feet. MR. HALL-It’s still going to be above the 16 foot height. MR. TRAVER-Yes, it’s over seven feet above the maximum now. MR. HALL-The allowable for a detached garage is only 16 feet. MR. MAGOWAN-Okay. All right, my bad. MR. HALL-And trying to get it down to 16 feet would be not much above, there wouldn’t be much. MR. TRAVER-Well it would be 16 feet. MR. HALL-Right. Ultimately. So, I mean, the usable height, we’ve done them before, but with the usable space in that attic space you can’t stand up inside. I mean we could drop the door down, but even when you get up in that attic space with the nine foot, plus the thickness of the floor, and I’ve done some creative things with the beam work trying to keep the floor thickness down to two by eights, which normally I can’t, you normally can’t get an attic floor for storage framed out of two by eights. Normally you’re looking at two by ten’s, two by twelve’s. I’m trying to keep as much of the floor height down as I can.. MR. TRAVER-Other comments from members of the Board? I think that the variance kind of speaks for itself really in this case. So I’m not really sure that, I mean we’ve had a conversation with the applicant. I mean he certainly knows the situation. So I’m not sure that any specific recommendation is required, unless we really strongly object. MR. DEEB-That’s a pretty tall order. MR. TRAVER-Yes, but I think we’re ready for a draft resolution. MR. DEEB-We could put we have the following area of concern, which could be that the height variance is a little more. MR. TRAVER-You could make a note on there in our referral that we discussed our concern, our height concern with the applicant. Certainly they’ll have a conversation with them I’m sure . MR. TRAVER-It’s seven feet three inches above the maximum allowed. MR. DEEB-Seven foot higher. MR. TRAVER-Twenty three feet, three inches . Sixteen feet is the maximum allowed. So I think it kind of speaks for itself. The applicant has made the case about the large truck and storage space. So it really becomes I think more a ZBA issue. MR. HUNSINGER-And the other thing in his favor here is that he’s as far away from the lake as he can get on the site. MR. HALL-Yes. 9 (Queensbury Planning Board 10/20/2020) MR. HUNSINGER-And the height limitation is to blocks views to the lake, and so they’re doing as much as they can to mitigate that by the placement of the garage in that corner. MR. TRAVER-Yes. MR. HUNSINGER-That’s why you look at every project individually because. MR. TRAVER-Yes. MR. MAGOWAN-Another way, too, you’ve got to walk that lawn furniture all the way up from the lake. That’s quite a hike. MR. HALL-He’s got a young son. That’s not a problem. MR. TRAVER-Well he’s got a truck that needs a nine foot ceiling to get it out of the garage. All right. So are we ready for that resolution? RESOLUTION RE: ZBA RESOLUTION RE: AV # 31-2020 BILL POGONOWSKI The applicant has submitted an application for the following: Applicant proposes construction of a 672 sq. ft. detached garage with a floor area of 1,114 sq. ft. and associated site work. Existing home is 1,954 sq. ft. (footprint) with a floor area of 3,195 sq. ft. The new garage is to be 23’3” in height. Project includes combining two lots. Pursuant to Chapter 179-3-040 & 179-6-065 of the Zoning Ordinance, new floor area in a CEA shall be subject to Planning Board review and approval. Variance: Relief is sought for FAR and height. 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. 31-2020 BILL POGONOWSKI. Introduced by David Deeb who moved its adoption, and a) The Planning Board, based on a limited review, has identified the following areas of concern: 1) The amount of height relief requested th Motion seconded by John Shafer. Duly adopted this 20 day of October 2020 by the following vote: AYES: Mr. Deeb, Mr. Hunsinger, Mr. Magowan, Mr. Shafer, Mr. Valentine, Ms. White, Mr. Traver NOES: NONE MR. HALL-Thank you very much. MR. TRAVER-You’re off to the ZBA. Next on our agenda, also under Planning Board Recommendations, we have Trevor Flynn, Site Plan 44-2020. SITE PLAN NO. 44-2020 SEQR TYPE: TYPE II. TREVOR FLYNN. OWNER(S): JAMES S. DENOOYER. ZONING: RR-5A. LOCATION: 19 LOCKHART LOOP. APPLICANT PROPOSES TWO PORCH ADDITIONS – 81.4 SQ. FT. +/- COVERED ENTRY PORCH, 224 SQ. FT. SCREEN PORCH, RELOCATION OF DRIVEWAY AND TWO DORMER ADDITIONS. EXISTING HOME IS 1,540 SQ. FT. (FOOTPRINT) AND FULL BASEMENT. PURSUANT TO CHAPTER 179-5-065 OF THE ZONING ORDINANCE, NEW FLOOR AREA IN A CEA AND EXPANSION OF A NON- CONFORMING STRUCTURE SHALL BE SUBJECT TO PLANNING BOARD REVIEW AND APPROVAL. VARIANCE: RELIEF IS SOUGHT FOR SETBACKS. PLANNING BOARD SHALL PROVIDE A RECOMMENDATION TO THE ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS. CROSS REFERENCE: N/A. WARREN CO. REFERRAL: OCTOBER 2020. SITE INFORMATION: LGPC, CEA, APA. LOT SIZE: 1.84 ACRE. TAX MAP NO. 239.18-1-22. SECTION: 179-6-065 TREVOR FLYNN, REPRESENTING APPLICANT, PRESENT MR. TRAVER-Good evening. 10 (Queensbury Planning Board 10/20/2020) MRS. MOORE-So this application is for two porch additions. This includes an 81.4 square foot entry porch and a 224 square foot screened porch, relocation of the driveway and two dormer additions. The variance that is sought is for setback and I will note this is Rural Residential Five Acre. MR. TRAVER-Thank you, Laura. MR. FLYNN-Hi. Good evening. My name’s Trevor Flynn representing Mr. and Mrs. Denooyer. They currently have a house on the lake and it’s a couple of stories and they’re looking for a one story retirement home. This property went for sale. As you can tell it’s a front yard setback on all sides. After looking at it and understanding, you know, one story, what does that mean now that you live on it, and addressing some of the issues, some exterior space with a screened porch, a proper front entry. They plan to use the existing detached garage that is there as well for the garage itself, and then adding a dormer around the other side. As mentioned, it’s an existing non-conforming lot. There is an existing septic tank, septic system that’s sized for existing two bedroom house and it’s proposed two bedrooms, and also there’s a well on the house that meets all the requirements from the septic system itself. Since the client has purchased the property, you can see almost all the plantings on the site besides some of the large oaks and hickories have been planted since then. They planted over 90 trees since the sale of the property, and they intend to plant more. We’re currently working with a consultant for a planting plan and the location of the rain gardens, we had them sized, but we wanted to get an exact location to share with the Board. We do not have that at this time. I also wanted to mention that all of the additions are not worsening the existing nonconforming conditions. The proposed front dormer, the current setback from that is 75 feet to the house. The dormer is 88.5 feet away. Off of 9L the detached garage is actually 46 feet away and the proposed screened porch is 58.5 feet away, as well, the entry porch is 72.5 feet away. So we’re not worsening or encroaching on any of the existing nonconforming or worsening it. The overall goal is to bring in more raingardens and address some of the issues that currently exist on site. If you notice the driveway itself, could you go to the next slide, Laura. The property actually slopes down towards Lockhart from the house and existing garage, and it actually introduces all the runoff down that driveway. This was actually a concern that was brought up by the client themselves and they’re looking to re-locate the driveway due to that condition. Since we’re re-locating it we’re actually disturbing more than 1,000 square feet, square footage on the site, triggering a trip to the Planning Board as well. If we were just to do the additions and leave the driveway in place, we’d only be disturbing roughly 500 square feet. We’re trying to do the right thing for the environment and protecting the lake. As far as the architecture itself, we’re not increasing the height of the building in any manner. The front dormer that faces Lockhart, could you go to the next slide. So you’ll see on the bottom right image that’s the dormer that is added facing Lockhart Loop and we’re not increasing the ridge height. We’re staying within that zoning envelope, and then on the image above that is the screened porch, again, not increasing the height, and then bottom left hand corner is the front entry, and then next slide please. This is the view from 9L. Basically you can’t see this from the road right now because of the trees that the client has planted, and then one more slide, please, and then this is the view from the existing driveway from 9L. So they plan on introducing earth tones and natural stone veneer on the base and then also a brown to green shingled roof. I believe that’s it. MR. TRAVER-Okay. Just draw the Board’s attention to the Staff Notes that there’s, we’re missing information on planting and stormwater.. I don’t know how that may affect the Board’s decision on a referral which is for the ZBA for setbacks, but I just wanted to draw your attention to that, and, questions, comments from members of the Board? MR. VALENTINE-The only question related to that is if you go to the ZBA, do you have additional information you plan on having if the ZBA rules favorably on the appeal? Is this other information going to be ready to follow up? MR. TRAVER-Yes, if you come back for Site Plan you’re going to need a complete application which would mean those extra materials would have to be submitted to Laura. MR. FLYNN-That’s our intention that at the next meeting we will come with that stormwater. MR. VALENTINE-I just wanted to make sure to piggyback on your comment. MR. TRAVER-Yes. MR. VALENTINE-Although like you said, to begin with they don’t really play into our variance application. MR. TRAVER-In this case. Other questions, comments? MR. MAGOWAN-Well one of the things I have to say is those trees alone that were put in, I mean for years it was the big brown house on the bend, and let me tell you when they put up those trees, it catches your eyes, and I just want to go on record, when I ask for big trees on a site plan, those are the trees I’m talking about. I mean my God, really, and the way they planted them really desires applause because I think they’ve done a nice job. Overall I think whatever the Denooyers are going to do to this property is 11 (Queensbury Planning Board 10/20/2020) really an improvement. I know the driveway. I think by changing it I think you’re absolutely right. I actually, looking at the pictures and the map, I like the new access. It’s really going to dress that up and I’m sure you’ll come back with the stormwater, but those trees alone, they’re some beautiful trees. MS. WHITE-And I just want to note we appreciate the appropriate size of this house. It’s very, very nicely done. MR. TRAVER-I think we have a draft resolution. RESOLUTION RE: ZBA RESOLUTION RE: AV # 34-2020 TREVOR FLYNN The applicant has submitted an application for the following: Applicant proposes two porch additions – 81.4 sq. ft. +/- covered entry porch, 224 sq. ft. screen porch, relocation of driveway and two dormer additions. Existing home is 1,540 sq. ft. (footprint) and a full basement. Pursuant to Chapter 179-6-065 of the Zoning Ordinance, new floor area in a CEA and expansion of a non-conforming structure shall be subject to Planning Board review and approval. Variance: Relief is sought for setbacks. 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. 34-2020 TREVOR FLYNN. 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 Jamie White. Duly adopted this 20 day of October 2020 by the following vote: AYES: Mr. Deeb, Mr. Hunsinger, Mr. Magowan, Mr. Shafer, Mr. Valentine, Ms. White, Mr. Traver NOES: NONE MR. TRAVER-You’re off to the ZBA. MR. FLYNN-Thank you. MR. TRAVER-The next item on our agenda, also under Planning Board Recommendations to the ZBA, is Mark Prendeville, Site Plan 48-2020. SITE PLAN NO. 48-2020 SEQR TYPE: TYPE II. MARK PRENDEVILLE. AGENT(S): HUTCHINS ENGINEERING. OWNER(S): SAME AS APPLICANT. ZONING: WR. LOCATION: 102 ASH DRIVE. APPLICANT PROPOSES A TWO STORY ADDITION WITH A BASEMENT TO AN EXISTING HOME WITH ASSOCIATED SITE WORK. THE FLOOR AREA OF THE NEW ADDITION IS 3,844 SQ. FT. WITH A 1,518 SQ. FT. FOOTPRINT. PURSUANT TO CHAPTER 179-3-040 & 179-6-065 OF THE ZONING ORDINANCE, NEW FLOOR AREA AND PREVIOUS SHORELINE VEGETATION REMOVAL IN A CEA SHALL BE SUBJECT TO PLANNING BOARD REVIEW AND APPROVAL. VARIANCE: RELIEF IS SOUGHT FOR SETBACKS. PLANNING BOARD SHALL PROVIDE A RECOMMENDATION TO THE ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS. CROSS REFERENCE: 88723-1824 SHED, 90279-8236 DOCK. WARREN CO. REFERRAL: N/A. SITE INFORMATION: GLEN LAKE CEA. LOT SIZE: .62 ACRE. TAX MAP NO. 289.13-1-58. SECTION: 179-3-040, 179-6-065. TOM HUTCHINS, REPRESENTING APPLICANT, PRESENT; MARK PRENDEVILLE, PRESENT MR. TRAVER-Laura? MRS. MOORE-The applicant proposes a two story addition with a basement to an existing home with associated site work. The floor area of the new addition is 3,844 square feet with a footprint of 1,518 square feet. Variance relief is sought for setbacks and height. MR. TRAVER-Okay. Thank you. Good evening. 12 (Queensbury Planning Board 10/20/2020) MR. HUTCHINS-Good evening, Board. I’m Tom Hutchins, Hutchins Engineering, here with applicant Mark Prendeville. This house on Ash Drive I’m told is the oldest remaining house on Glen Lake. I’m not a Glen Lake historian but I can certainly comfortably say it’s certainly one of the oldest houses on Glen Lake. MR. TRAVER-Interesting. MR. HUTCHINS-They propose to do a year round addition. Presently it’s a seasonal house. They do not propose to winterize the existing structure but they’re going to maintain it, upgrade it and have it for summer use. The addition will be constructed for year round use. We’re asking for a side setback variance on the south side property line. As you look at the property line, it kind of hourglasses a little bit. They’re converging particularly on that south side. The existing building is 7.8 feet off that property line, and we’re asking for 10.7 for the addition which will be behind the existing house from the viewpoint of the lake. So it doesn’t meet the 20 foot side setback, but it’s in excess of what’s there we really kind of need it to make this floor plan work. Additionally we’re asking for a minimal height relief. Again the ridge of the addition will be lower than the ridge of the existing house. So the ridge of the new addition will tie in perpendicular to the ridge of the existing house at a lower elevation. You won’t see it from the lake at all, and it will be lower than what’s there, but the ay the architecture worked out for this building, we’re really trying to keep that ridge elevation where it’s at. So it’s nine tenths of a foot above 28 feet and we’re asking for relief there as well. Other aspects, complete replacement of the septic system and additional stormwater controls for the site. Much of the site will be not disturbed and with that I’d turn it over to the Board. MR. TRAVER-Okay. Thank you. Questions, comments from members of the Board? MR. HUNSINGER-Well one of the questions I had was on your Site Plan you have an existing sheds to be re-located, but I didn’t notice on the Site Plan where they were going. MR. HUTCHINS-Good point. Good point. Yes, it’s going up, I can show that. It’s going up in the, further away from the lake. MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. MR. HUTCHINS-One of them’s being removed. It says sheds. It should say existing shed to be removed. MR. HUNSINGER-Right. I saw the notation one to be removed and then the other one to be re-located, but I didn’t see where it was going to be re-located. MR. HUTCHINS-Yes, good point. I don’t have that on there. MR. HUNSINGER-So I just want to clarify for my own, because I had made a comment here, you know, question on the height of the addition, because the original Site Development Data had it as 26 10. So that’s why you submitted the revised Site Development Data because it’s really 28 9, 28.9 feet in height. MR. HUTCHINS-Right. The original data was based on architectural drawings and it’s a function of the existing grade. MR. HUNSINGER-Right. MR. HUTCHINS-When you walk around the entire footprint of the house, the existing grade from that low point to the ridge elevation, yes, that’s correct. MR. HUNSINGER-I mean usually I’m one of the first to say I don’t like the height variances, but in this case since it’s lower than the existing, I really don’t have an issue with it. MR. SHAFER-Tom, I assume perc tests and test pits will be with the Site Plan? MR. HUTCHINS-Yes, I don’t have them on there, but I’ll have that information presented. MR. SHAFER-I noticed there’s unfinished storage. There’s unfinished bonus. Will you accommodate in the design of the septic system the development of either of those two rooms or not? MR. HUTCHINS-I haven’t at this point. It’s the applicant’s plan that these are not bedrooms and they’re not intended to be bedrooms. MR. PRENDEVILLE-It’s not winterized either. MR. HUTCHINS-So I haven’t done that at this point. I could for space. Maybe I’ll look at that between now and next week if we get back. 13 (Queensbury Planning Board 10/20/2020) MR. MAGOWAN-So the shed that’s being removed, is that the old outhouse shed? MR. PRENDEVILLE-No. MR. MAGOWAN-Did that finally fall down? MR. PRENDEVILLE-No, it’s still standing. MR. MAGOWAN-Good, good. That’s a relic. It goes with the age of that house I believe. That is a gorgeous old house. MR. TRAVER-Concerns, comments regarding the setbacks and height for our referral to the ZBA? Anything that we want to add specifically? All right, we have a draft motion. RESOLUTION RE: ZBA RECOMMENDATION RE: AV # 37-2020 MARK PRENDEVILLE The applicant has submitted an application for the following: Applicant proposes a two story addition with a basement to an existing home with associated site work. The floor area of the new addition is 3,844 sq. ft. with a 1,518 sq. ft. footprint. Pursuant to Chapter 179-3-040 & 179-6-065 of the Zoning Ordinance, new floor area and previous shoreline vegetation removal in a CEA shall be subject to Planning Board review and approval. Variance: Relief is sought for setbacks and height. 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. 37-2020 MARK PRENDEVILLE. Introduced by David Deeb who moved its adoption, and a) The Planning Board, based on a limited review, has not identified any significant adverse impacts that cannot be mitigated with current project proposal. th Motion seconded by Brad Magowan. Duly adopted this 20 day of October 2020 by the following vote: AYES: Mr. Deeb, Mr. Hunsinger, Mr. Magowan, Mr. Shafer, Mr. Valentine, Ms. White, Mr. Traver NOES: NONE MR. PRENDEVILLE-Thank you. MR. TRAVER-You’re off to the ZBA. Next we move to the next section of our agenda which is Unapproved Development. This is also a recommendation to the ZBA and the applicant is Jeffrey Godnick, Site Plan 49-2020. UNAPPROVED DEVELOPMENT (PLANNING BOARD RECOMMENDATION TO THE ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS) SITE PLAN NO. 49-2020 SEQR TYPE: TYPE II. JEFFREY GODNICK. AGENT(S): JON C. LAPPER, ESQ. OWNER(S): SAME AS APPLICANT. ZONING: WR. LOCATION: 312 GLEN LAKE ROAD APPLICANT REQUESTS TO MAINTAIN A 188 SQ. FT., 10 FT. HIGH SHED TO REPLACE A SHED THAT HAS BEEN REMOVED. THE EXISTING HOME IS 4,259 SQ. FT. (FOOTPRINT) WITH A FLOOR AREA OF 3,931 SQ. FT., WHICH INCLUDES 188 SQ. FT. SHED. PURSUANT TO CHAPTER 179-6-065 OF THE ZONING ORDINANCE, NEW FLOOR AREA IN A CEA SHALL BE SUBJECT TO PLANNING BOARD REVIEW AND APPROVAL. VARIANCE: RELIEF IS SOUGHT FOR SETBACKS, PERMEABILITY & FLOOR AREA RATIO. CROSS REFERENCE: AV 71-1994, SP 95-21323, 2008-016 DOCK. WARREN CO. REFERRAL: N/A. SITE INFORMATION: GLEN LAKE CEA. LOT SIZE: .49 ACRE. TAX MAP NO. 289.9-1-84. SECTION: 179-6-065. JON LAPPER, REPRESENTING APPLICANT, PRESENT 14 (Queensbury Planning Board 10/20/2020) MR. TRAVER-Laura? MRS. MOORE-This applicant proposes to maintain a 188 square foot, 10 foot high shed to replace a shed that has been removed and variances, relief is sought for existing setbacks, permeability and floor area. MR. TRAVER-Okay. Thank you. Hi. MR. LAPPER-Thank you, everyone. For the record, Jon Lapper. Jeff built the house in ’96. He should have realized that to replace the shed he needed approval. I’m sure you can see that the house and the site are beautifully maintained . He needs a place for his kayaks and his lawn maintenance equipment, and that’s what this is. It’s closer to the property line than it should be, but it’s a very good, very nicely done in a dark green color. It makes it blend in. If he were to move it so that it was in a conforming location, it would block the only access to get folks down to the lake because it would be in the middle of that slope. So that’s just a practical issue. I hope you don’t see this as a big deal. MR. TRAVER-Okay. So we’re discussing the variance which is setbacks, permeability and floor area ratio. Questions, comments from members of the Board? MR. HUNSINGER-I just don’t ever recall talking about permeability and floor area ratios with respect to the shed. MR. TRAVER-Yes, is that a pre-existing, the floor area? MR. HUNSINGER-Is it because of the size of the shed? MRS. MOORE-Right. So when the house was originally built, I put a note in there trying to catch everyone’s eye is that the basement, because it was unfinished, wasn’t accounted for the floor area at that time, and so when we look at today’s regulations, it’s accounted for. MR. LAPPER-So the Code changed. MR. HUNSINGER-The Code changed. Yes, I didn’t catch that, Laura. I guess it didn’t sink in that that’s why we were looking at floor area. MRS. MOORE-I’m trying. MR. TRAVER-Other questions, comments? You indicated that it’s not practical to get any more setback with that shed because of the nature of the layout? MR. LAPPER-Yes. MR. TRAVER-All right. We have a referral. I’m not hearing any additional questions or comments. We have a draft resolution. RESOLUTION RE: ZBA RECOMMENDATION: RE: AV # 39-2020 JEFFREY GODNICK The applicant requests to maintain a 188 sq. ft., 10 ft. high shed to replace a shed that has been removed. The existing home is 4,259 sq. ft. (footprint) with a site floor area of 5,962 sq. ft. Pursuant to Chapter 179- 6-065 of the Zoning Ordinance, new floor area in a CEA and hard-surfacing within 50 ft. of the shoreline shall be subject to Planning Board review and approval. Variance: Relief is sought for setbacks, permeability 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. 39-2020 JEFFREY GODNICK. 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. 15 (Queensbury Planning Board 10/20/2020) th Motion seconded by Brad Magowan. Duly adopted this 20 day of October 2020 by the following vote: AYES: Mr. Deeb, Mr. Hunsinger, Mr. Magowan, Mr. Shafer, Mr. Valentine, Ms. White, Mr. Traver NOES: NONE MR. TRAVER-You’re off to the ZBA. MR. LAPPER-Thanks, everybody. MR. TRAVER-Thanks, Jon. Next we move to the next area of our agenda which is New Business, and the first item is a Sketch Plan JP Gross Properties, LLC., Sketch Plan 13-2020. NEW BUSINESS: SUBDIVISION SKETCH PLAN 13-2020 SEQR TYPE: TYPE I – COORDINATED W/TOWN BOARD. JP GROSS PROPERTIES, LLC. AGENT(S): OWEN SPEULSTRA, EDP. OWNER(S): SAME AS APPLICANT. ZONING: MDR/LC-10A/RR-5A. LOCATION: 748 LUZERNE ROAD. APPLICANT PROPOSES A SIX LOT RESIDENTIAL PROJECT. THE PROJECT IS DESCRIBED WITH FOUR LOTS TO HAVE ACCESS TO LUZERNE ROAD. LOT 1 WILL BE ACCESSED FROM TWIN MOUNTAIN DRIVE AND IS A CORNER LOT. LOT 6 WILL HAVE ACCESS FROM TUTHILL ROAD AND IS LOCATED IN THREE ZONES – RR-5A, LC-10A AND MDR – WITH THE PROPOSED HOME IN THE RR-5A ZONE AREA. LOTS 1-5 ARE TO BE 2.0 ACRES OR LARGER AND LOT 6 IS TO BE 37.42 ACRES AND INCLUDES LAND AREA FROM ACROSS LUZERNE ROAD. PURSUANT TO CHAPTER 183 OF THE ZONING ORDINANCE, SUBDIVISION OF LAND SHALL BE SUBJECT TO PLANNING BOARD REVIEW AND APPROVAL. CROSS REFERENCE: SUB 3-2015, SUB (S) 7-2019, SUB (S) 2-2020, SUB (P) 8-2020 (WITHDRAWN). WARREN CO. REFERRAL: N/A. LOT SIZE: 50.52 ACRES. TAX MAP NO. 307.-1-22. SECTION: CHAPTER 183. OWEN SPEULSTRA, REPRESENTING APPLICANT, PRESENT MR. TRAVER-Laura? MRS. MOORE-This applicant proposes a six lot residential project. The project is described with four lots to have access to Luzerne Road. Lot 1 will be accessed from Twin Mountain Drive and is a corner lot. Lot 6 will have access from Tuthill Road and is located in three zones. Lots 1 through 5 are to be two acres or larger and Lot 6 is to be 37.42 acres and includes land area from across Luzerne Road. MR. TRAVER-Okay. Thank you. Good evening. MR. SPEULSTRA-Good evening. I’m Owen Speulstra with Environmental Design Partnership. If you recall we were in last year, the fall of 2019, with a Sketch Plan for a 12 lot conservation subdivision the same property with a small road that came in where the smaller lots are, the low end of the property. Going through the process it was determined that there were variances that would be required to allow those 12 lots. So it wasn’t feasible economically anymore to build a road for only 10 lots that would be allowed. So we’re here before you with a, and we went back, we’re here before you with a six lot conventional single family subdivision. As Laura read, four of the lots will access Luzerne Road with a common driveway. There will only be two driveways, two common driveways accessing Luzerne Road. Lot One will access Twin Mountain Drive and Lot Six, the large estate lot, will access Tuthill Road. The lower four lots will be, Lots One through Four will be on Town water and Lot Five and Six will be on wells because it’s too high to get pressure from the water tower. So we’re here to talk about this, and I’m here to answer any questions you might have. MR. TRAVER-Okay. So I’ll open it up for discussion on the Sketch Plan for members of the Board. MR. MAGOWAN-So you’re saying water doesn’t roll uphill? MR. SPEULSTRA-No. MR. TRAVER-Not so far anyway. MR. SHAFER-Have they don’t any exploration about wastewater systems on the site? MR. SPEULSTRA-Yes, we have. We, I think it was January 2020 we did some test holes there with, the Department of Health was on site, too, and very sandy soil, very good for septic systems. We don’t see an issue with that. 16 (Queensbury Planning Board 10/20/2020) MR. SHAFER-Okay. th MR. MAGOWAN-You really did work on this, because it was September 25, the old plan there. MR. TRAVER-Yes, it’s quite a change. MR. MAGOWAN-You used some lead pencil on this puppy. MR. SHAFER-Are any of the driveways above 10% grade? That long one for example? MR. SPEULSTRA-I don’t, the only one that might get close to 10% would be the one on the large lot, but there’s more room in there. The lower lots, if you look, the driveways are kind of going more or less parallel with the lots. It’ll be fairly flat. MR. MAGOWAN-You say the upper one is going to. MR. SPEULSTRA-Yes, I mean that’s the steeper lot. MR. MAGOWAN-I believe, Chris, didn’t we talk about walking trails in that? MR. HUNSINGER-Well, yes, that was when we were talking about some common space or public space. He’s not talking about that now. MRS. MOORE-Owen, can you just touch base about your discussion with the Water Department, and how that is going to be handled? MR. SPEULSTRA-Yes. So we’ve talked to the Water Department about these lots are not, the four lots that are going to be served by water are not currently in the Queensbury Consolidated Water District. So they’re working on extending that district. I’ve submitted a draft, a map plan and report, to Chris Harington, and they’ve reviewed them and there’s some minor changes, but they’ve pretty well done that line. So the four lots will be served within the new Queensbury, for the extension of the water main, along with, they had us do a lot across the street that was not on the water main. They just extended us over. So we’re getting that, doing that all in the same process. So I expect that to be on the Town Board agenda fairly soon. MR. TRAVER-Okay. MR. HUNSINGER-So the two driveways that front Luzerne Road, how far apart are they? MR. SPEULSTRA-Let me just open up the scale of the map here. They’re at least 200 feet apart. They are 300 feet apart. MR. MAGOWAN-So it’s kind of like, they’re going to be like a shared wide driveway coming off. MR. SPEULSTRA-Yes. Definitely one entrance point onto Luzerne Road. MR. MAGOWAN-Now what happens if one of the neighbors doesn’t want to carry the snow to the other side and they pile it right on the line? MR. SPEULSTRA-I have a shared driveway and so far that hasn’t happened. MR. MAGOWAN-I think that’s a very unique idea to knock down the entrances onto the road. I like that idea a lot. I’m just amazed, I mean I looked at this earlier, but I found this other paperwork and I said geez I still have this other Sketch Plan. It’s just amazing to look and see, and it kind of goes with what’s across the street. MR. SPEULSTRA-It’s very fitting to the area. MR. MAGOWAN-And this western lot up on the hill, that’s just all out there by itself, almost 37 and a half acres at the top of the mountain. It’s kind of like your own little top of the mountain there. MR. VALENTINE-I think the first time through didn’t we look at that, and that area there was not developable anyhow? So that one lot stays there. MR. TRAVER-Yes, all those slopes in there. MR. MAGOWAN-Yes, that part, but there was Lot 11 up there, and that driveway came right in off of Tuthill. I mean that’s quite a steep windy road there. 17 (Queensbury Planning Board 10/20/2020) MR. SPEULSTRA-Getting up Luzerne? Yes. MR. VALENTINE-Is there a requirement for driveway turnarounds with driveways over a certain amount of length? MRS. MOORE-I can look at that. The requirement was for shared driveways or a variance for Luzerne Road, so that’s why the shared driveway is shown, but because it’s Sketch Plan we will look at that to make sure. I know there are items related to length of driveway. So I’ll have to look at that. MR. VALENTINE-I’m just used to dealing with, again, outside of here, in Saratoga County, is if you’ve got something over 500 feet you’ve got to have a turnaround. You’ve got to have room for emergency vehicles, stuff like that. MR. SPEULSTRA-I think if you look I addressed that on the longest driveway. MR. HUNSINGER-Yes, it looks like you have a little pull over. MR. SPEULSTRA-Lot Two, right in that area, the Town Code requires that pull off. Widening to 20 feet, I believe, or 50 feet, is the requirement. MR. VALENTINE-Do they have a weight capacity? I don’t know. I’m just used to the others. MR. MAGOWAN-Well I believe with that driveway you need a sign, texting just ahead, text area just ahead. MR. HUNSINGER-It’s a good question, you know. Can the driveway accommodate a dire truck? MR. VALENTINE-That’s the main thing. If a fire truck’s got to get up there and turnaround somewhere, and will it take the weight of that truck, you know the soils or whatever. MR. TRAVER-Do you have any questions for us? MR. SPEULSTRA-No. I’m hearing some positive feedback so I think we’re on the right track. I was wondering if anybody really has an issue with this. If there’s no real issues with this I’ll move forward. MR. TRAVER-Does anybody else have any additional feedback for the applicant? All right. MR. HUNSINGER-Keep the shared driveways. MR. VALENTINE-We’ve dealt with shared driveways before, too, when we’ve had recommendations. They’ve actually come up with a study in municipalities within Saratoga County where shared driveways were utilized and you get them in areas particularly where you have stretches between, you don’t want to get that many consecutive curb cuts, but they enter into agreements that are filed with their deeds, and you said about snow, that’s part of it, and also repairs, and again, I’m not looking to say you’ve got to have them do that now. That’s not what I’m saying, but that is something that could come about at some point. Might as well look at it. MR. TRAVER-Yes, that’s interesting. All right. Good luck. MR. SPEULSTRA-Thank you. MR. TRAVER-Next on our agenda, also under New Business, we have Michael and Mary Jane Bernholz, Site Plan 43-2020. SITE PLAN NO. 43-2020 SEQR TYPE: TYPE II. MICHAEL & MARY JANE BERNHOLZ. AGENT(S): HUTCHINS ENGINEERING. OWNER(S): SAME AS APPLICANTS. ZONING: WR. LOCATION: ASSEMBLY POINT ROAD (ACROSS FROM #47). APPLICANT PROPOSES CONSTRUCTION OF A SINGLE FAMILY HOME WITH A GARAGE OF 30 FT. X 36 FT., AND A SECOND FLOOR ALSO 30 FT. X 36 FT. FOR TWO BEDROOMS – HOME NOTED AS A CARRIAGE HOUSE. PROPOSED FOOTPRINT OF 1080 SQ. FT., NEW FLOOR AREA 2,160 SQ. FT. PROJECT INCLUDES RE-GRADING THE PARCEL AND INSTALLATION OF A WELL AND SEPTIC. PURSUANT TO CHAPTER 179-6-065 OF THE ZONING ORDINANCE, NEW FLOOR AREA IN A CEA, SHALL BE SUBJECT TO PLANNING BOARD REVIEW AND APPROVAL. CROSS REFERENCE: N/A. WARREN CO. REFERRAL: OCTOBER 2020. SITE INFORMATION: LGPC, APA, CEA. LOT SIZE: .30 ACRE. TAX MAP NO. 239.12-2-94.2. SECTION: 179-6-065. TOM HUTCHINS, REPRESENTING APPLICANT, PRESENT; MIKE BERNHOLZ, PRESENT 18 (Queensbury Planning Board 10/20/2020) MR. TRAVER-Laura? MRS. MOORE-This applicant proposes to construct a single family home with a garage of 30 by 36 and the second floor also is 30 by 36. The second floor will have two bedrooms and the home is noted as a carriage house. The requirement for site plan is for new floor area in a CEA. MR. TRAVER-Okay. Thank you. Good evening. MR. HUTCHINS-Good evening. Tom Hutchins, Hutchins Engineering. I’m here with owner/applicant Michael Bernholz and the Bernholz own a parcel on the non-lake side of Assembly Point Road which they also own residence diagonal across Assembly Point Road, and this is to serve as a guest house essentially, and also a place for storage, a garage. We believe it’s laid out in a compliant manner. There is a telephone service that crosses this parcel that a pole is being re-located by the utility at the owner’s request, and they’ve been in there doing some work to do that. Presently there’s a new pole there. You see where the new pole line’s going to go. Otherwise, we’ve laid out, again, it’s 30 by 36 two story structure we believe is compliant, setbacks, FAR, permeability. We’ve got a new enhanced wastewater treatment system and stormwater controls per 147 has been to your engineer and we do have a rather compact comment letter that we can certainly address, and none of those items on there concern me, and with that I think I’d turn it over to the Board, unless, Mike, you want to add anything? MR. TRAVER-Could you talk about the lighting? MR. HUTCHINS-Lighting. I don’t know that we’ve planned on lighting, but we’d be good with residential shielded downcast exterior lighting. MR. TRAVER-So any lighting would be compliant? MR. HUTCHINS-Yes. MR. TRAVER-There’s mention about evergreen plantings. Is there any other plantings planned for the site? MR. HUTCHINS-We’ve shown the number of evergreen trees on the perimeter. We haven’t detailed a landscaping plan at this point. We certainly can beef that up a little if you think it would be helpful. The site is pretty much clear, pretty much clear now. So, yes, that could be improved with additional landscaping. MR. TRAVER-Okay. Questions, comments from members of the Board? MR. HUNSINGER-Well your plan does say, Tom, that you’d have a minimum of 10 evergreen trees five to six feet high. Do you have additional, some additional plantings in mind? MR. HUTCHINS-I’m sorry? MR. HUNSINGER-Did you have additional plantings in mind? MR. BERNHOLZ-I did plan on screening the whole entire roadway along the front of the property for more privacy and for the property and to reduce the road noise coming onto the property. So I plan on putting a split rail fence up. I plan on putting evergreens spaced along the front of the property, more to enhance my pleasure of the property and also people driving by for a more scenic view. MS. WHITE-These are the 10 that are included. MR. BERNHOLZ-I plan on doing a lot more than 10. MS. WHITE-Okay. MRS. MOORE-And just for the record, your name again. MR. BERNHOLZ-My name is Michael Bernholz, B-e-r-n-h-o-l-z. MR. TRAVER-Thank you. Any other questions from members of the Board? All right. We have a draft resolution I think. MR. HUNSINGER-Public hearing? MR. TRAVER-I’m sorry. Yes, we do have a public hearing on this application, and thank you for that reminder, and I will also remind the public that may be viewing our meeting this evening on the Town 19 (Queensbury Planning Board 10/20/2020) website that they may call 518-761-8225 if they wish to comment by phone. Is there anyone in the audience that wanted to address the Board? Yes, sir. PUBLIC HEARING OPENED PATRICK JOYNT MR. JOYNT-Hi, my name is Patrick Joynt and my wife and I own the property directly across from this property on the lakeside of Assembly Point Road, and I haven’t been through this process so I came to see how this works, and I just did have a couple of questions. I’m not sure this is necessarily the right forum, but if you’ll indulge me. MR. TRAVER-That’s what the public hearing is for. MR. JOYNT- So I guess my one concern that I do have is just what kind of re-grading, if any, will be done on the lot just to make sure that there’s no water runoff coming in my direction. MR. TRAVER-Okay. Stormwater management is required and it has to be retained on site. MR. JOYNT-So there shouldn’t be any issue. MR. TRAVER-That’s correct. MR. JOYNT-I do appreciate that. And then the only real other question I had is with what is now just empty lands if it has any impact on limiting what I do, in terms of where I might do a septic system or have a well or anything like that. How could I find out about that? MR. TRAVER-Well there are requirements with regard to placement of a well and a septic. There’s minimum distances required, and approval from the Health Department for a septic system, but we can ask the engineer to explain that as well. MR. JOYNT-Okay. So the engineer would be able to let me know if this would or wouldn’t limit my use of something on my property? MR. DEEB-Well if you’re going to do something on your property, you have setbacks that you have to meet, but it has nothing to do with this building. MR. JOYNT-I understand. Yes, I guess I’d just look at the septic field, and I don’t know what the locations are. I’m right on the other side of the road. If I have a septic field that’s out close to the road also, is there some limitation. MR. VALENTINE-Yes, well to septic would be the separation distance. MR. TRAVER-Not for you. You have an existing system. MR. JOYNT-I do, but if we did something. MR. TRAVER-Well we can ask for further explanation. MR. JOYNT-All right. I think those were my questions, and I appreciate your time. MR. TRAVER-Thank you. Is there anyone else in the audience that wanted to address the Planning Board on this application? Yes, sir. CHRIS NAVITSKY MR. NAVITSKY-Good evening. Chris Navitsky, Lake George Waterkeeper. We know it’s a small lot, a lot going on, grading. There’s some limited depth to groundwater. I don’t know whether there’s anything that could be done to improve the separation from the septic system to the stormwater which is right by there. There’s actually a retaining wall right next to the septic system. Regarding the re-vegetation, I appreciate that question. We just wondered if there could be, you know, diversity of trees provided instead of just all evergreens through that area. It’s a natural diversified forest. Maybe it could be half deciduous and half evergreen. That’s all. Thank you. MR. TRAVER-Okay. Thank you. Is there anybody else in the audience who wanted to address the Planning Board on this application? We haven’t gotten any phone calls thus far. Are there any written comments, Laura? MRS. MOORE-There’s no written comments. 20 (Queensbury Planning Board 10/20/2020) MR. TRAVER-Okay. We’ll go ahead and close the public hearing then. PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED MR. TRAVER-And ask the applicant to return. So there was a question regarding the well separation from the property across the street. MR. HUTCHINS-Yes, and we all know the magic 100 feet between the well and an absorption field. In our case our well will be to the rear of the property. MR. TRAVER-So well in excess of the minimum setback. MR. HUTCHINS-Which would not impact any wastewater systems certainly on the other side of the road. Our septic system is shown closer to the right of way. We’re 20 feet off the right of way line with the edge of our septic system and the 50 foot wide right of way. So that 70 feet there would be an area, 30 feet technically from the adjoining property that would not be a good location for a water supply well, but generally on that side particularly, that shoreline, people have septic systems out towards the road. MR. TRAVER-Right. MR. HUTCHINS-And that’s the way it should be I presume. I presume that’s the way it is. MR. TRAVER-Okay, and then there was comment also, again, about the vegetation, and the question came up about considering a mix of deciduous trees, for example. MR. HUTCHINS-I think you’d be okay with that. Right? MR. BERNHOLZ-What I do is going to look beautiful. MR. TRAVER-Well, I think the question wasn’t so much about the visual impact as it was about the biodiversity. MR. BERNHOLZ-That’s what I’m talking about. MR. TRAVER-Okay. MR. HUTCHINS-We can work in some deciduous, yes. MR. TRAVER-Okay. Thank you. MR. DEEB-A number of deciduous? We should probably put a number in. MR. HUTCHINS-We can work in six to eight deciduous as well. MR. HUNSINGER-One of the comments is that there’s a high water table. I did note on the one test pit that you hit water at 34 inches. MR. HUTCHINS-Yes. There’s relatively shallow water table. The wastewater system is elevated. As Chris mentioned there’s a buildup, a boulder wall built around that. The wastewater system is elevated as you see. You see a lot of places now as you drive down that road, and the stormwater controls are just slightly elevated above existing grade and we’re maintaining our separation to that groundwater table, but, yes, it’s, there’s groundwater there. Yes, but we believe we’ve designed in a compliant manner, considering that. We were very aware of that. MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. MR. TRAVER-Other questions, comments? I think we have a draft resolution. MRS. MOORE-Before you begin your resolution, just to clarify that you have 10 evergreen that are proposed per the plan, and then you’re adding potentially eight deciduous trees. Are you adding additional evergreens as well? MR. HUTCHINS-We’re going to landscape the roadside heavily. MRS. MOORE-So what I want to be able to say is here’s the minimum. What you do above and beyond that is fantastic, but I want to get in the resolution something that says here’s the minimum that we’re asking for. 21 (Queensbury Planning Board 10/20/2020) MR. HUTCHINS-Okay. Let’s go with the six to eight deciduous . We’ll go with eight deciduous, in addition to the ten evergreen. MR. TRAVER-All right. Do we have a draft resolution ready? MR. DEEB-Yes, we do. RESOLUTION APPROVING SP # 43-2020 MICHAEL & MARY BERNHOLZ The applicant has submitted an application to the Planning Board: Applicant proposes construction of a single family home with a garage of 30 ft. x 36 ft., and a second floor also 30 ft. x 36 ft. for two bedrooms – home noted as a carriage house. Proposed footprint of 1080 sq. ft., new floor area 2,160 sq. ft. Project includes re-grading the parcel and installation of a well and septic. Pursuant to Chapter 179-6-065 of the Zoning Ordinance, new floor area in a CEA shall be subject to Planning Board review and approval. Pursuant to relevant sections of the Town of Queensbury Zoning Code-Chapter 179-9-080, the Planning Board has determined that this proposal satisfies the requirements as stated in the Zoning Code; As required by General Municipal Law Section 239-m the site plan application was referred to the Warren County Planning Department for its recommendation; The Planning Board opened a public hearing on the Site plan application on 10/20/2020 and continued the public hearing to 10/20/2020, 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 10/20/2020; 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 43-2020 MICHAEL & MARY JANE BERNHOLZ;, Introduced by David Deeb who moved for its adoption. According to the draft resolution prepared by Staff with the following: 1) Waivers requested granted; g. site lighting, h. signage, 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. Applicant is 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; 22 (Queensbury Planning Board 10/20/2020) 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) Condition with planting an additional 8 deciduous trees in addition to the 10 proposed evergreen trees. th Motion seconded by Mike Valentine. Duly adopted this 20 day of October 2020 by the following vote: MRS. MOORE-I was just going to suggest that you confirm that the applicant agreed to eight deciduous trees. MR. DEEB-Well, I didn’t hear that, but I’ll put it in there. I thought it was six to eight. MR. VALENTINE-There was a six to eight, but then he recognized that Laura would not really go for six to eight. MR. DEEB-All right. Amended resolution, L, additional plantings of eight deciduous trees to be added. AYES: Mr. Deeb, Mr. Hunsinger, Mr. Magowan, Mr. Shafer, Mr. Valentine, Ms. White, Mr. Traver NOES: NONE MR. TRAVER-Your all set. MR. HUTCHINS-Thank you. MR. TRAVER-Next on our agenda we have Foothills Builders, Site Plan 45-2020. Laura? SITE PLAN NO. 45-2020 SEQR TYPE: TYPE II. FOOTHILLS BUILDERS. AGENT(S): HUTCHINS ENGINEERING. OWNER(S): SAME AS APPLICANTS. ZONING: MDR. LOCATION: 71 ROUND POND ROAD. APPLICANT PROPOSES TO CONSTRUCT A 2,019 (FOOTPRINT) HOME INCLUDING A BASEMENT AND ATTACHED GARAGE. APPLICANT HAD STARTED LOT CLEARING AS LOT WAS PREVIOUSLY APPROVED IN A 1993 SUBDIVISION. PURSUANT TO CHAPTER 179-6-060 OF THE ZONING ORDINANCE CONSTRUCTION WITHIN 50 FT. OF 15% SLOPES SHALL BE SUBJECT TO PLANNING BOARD REVIEW AND APPROVAL. CROSS REFERENCE: SUBDIVISION 1993. WARREN CO. REFERRAL: OCTOBER 2020. LOT SIZE: .77 ACRE. TAX MAP NO. 296.5-1-8. SECTION: 179- 6-060. TOM CENTER, REPRESENTING APPLICANT, PRESENT MR. TRAVER-Laura? MRS. MOORE-This applicant proposes to construct a new home of 2,019 is the footprint. This includes a basement and attached garage. The applicant did start clearing the lot and it was previously approved in a 1993 subdivision, and if you were to drive by there you’d see the adjacent lot to this also has a new home under construction. So this is finishing, I believe that’s correct, this is finishing this subdivision. MR. CENTER-No, there’s one more lot. MRS. MOORE-All right. So subdivision of 1993. So this is almost the last lot. MR. TRAVER-Almost. Okay. Good evening. MR. CENTER-Good evening. Tom Center with Hutchins Engineering. As Laura said, this is a previously reviewed and approved by the Town of Queensbury Planning Board in 1993 subdivision. Also reviewed and approved by DOH, Town Highway in 1994. We’ve located the house in approximately the same location as the original subdivision, recognizing that these slopes, the 15% slopes, came after the fact with this lot. So we tried to manage having a small backyard and not going into that back hill too much on this lot. The other lot next to it, Lot Two, actually if you look at the approval, the house is not within 15% slopes. We provided stormwater management for this. The roof is going to be piped and guttered to infiltration trenches and the driveway from lawn area will be graded to shed towards a shallow grass swale from the lawn. Small septic system. It’s a three bedroom house. We stepped down the garage so that we don’t have a huge rise going from the road to the garage. We’ve also provided a turnaround so that you’re not backing out onto Round Pond Road. You can back in and pull out, recognizing that Round Pond Road is a heavily trafficked road. MR. HUNSINGER-Just in the summer. 23 (Queensbury Planning Board 10/20/2020) MR. CENTER-Primarily in the summer, yes. So we did accommodate for that. We’ve provided some details, an elevation plan which Craig had asked for, just so you get a picture of how much we’re cutting into hat slope in the back. The retaining wall is about five and a half foot high. We’re buying the ready rock products which are basically Jersey barriers with a fancy boulder face on them, stackable to the back. We’ve already been in discussions with Duke. They have an engineer to provide to answer the Town Engineer’s questions regarding the retaining wall. I said designed by others. That’s their bailiwick to show that it meets all the criteria for that. The folks down in Duke, which is a local company, are very confident that they can accommodate the Town Engineer. It’s not a huge wall. It’s not a huge height wall, but we acknowledge his question. We wanted to make sure we had approval before we went to the expense of getting that designed. Everything else is pretty straightforward in the plan, and I’ll open it up for questions. MR. VALENTINE-But what Jamie had said before, this is really, this is the last lot., as you head to Route 9. MR. CENTER-It is the last lot on Round Pond Road. There is one more lot that I’m working on right now that’s off Highpointe Drive that has a shared driveway that goes up to kind of the terrace of the subdivision, but that’s off Highpointe. It was approved with shared driveway. That has 15% slopes on it. We just got it surveyed . We got a new survey of that parcel because I wasn’t sure, you know, could we do something without getting into the 15% slopes. I wasn’t comfortable with it. So we had the topography done of that lot, and we’re right now in the process of locating the house on that last parcel. So that will close out the subdivision. MR. MAGOWAN-You are? MR. CENTER-We’re working on it. MR. MAGOWAN-You’re going to have another couple of cars in the neighborhood? MR. CENTER-Maybe. MR. MAGOWAN-That’s my neck of the woods, but I know there is one up in there. MR. CENTER-There is one. It’s not bad. I want to work with them to locate the house right so it fits with the existing driveway in that location and that house and kind of work around the slopes that are there, but there is a fairly level spot. It’s not going to require, it requires a small retaining wall, a little bit of grading on the slope, but we’re not building it down the slope. We’re not cutting into the slope, but we’re going to keep it closer to that property line. There’s a little bit of work we have to do. MR. MAGOWAN-Well when you cleared those two lots there, I was like, wow, that number, the first lot there, I thought it would be half house, half bomb shelter. You could put it right in there, it would be beautiful, but you can see the small house right next door, really it’s fitting in nice, and like I said, some people don’t want big yards, and it really is kind of peaceful. I’m happy to hear the turnaround, because coming out onto Highpointe, especially coming off of Birdsall, that is, I mean you’ve got one bed and then another bed and you go like this and you go like this and then you look back, you think you’re safe and you come back. Do you know what I’m saying? MR. CENTER-Then you’ve got to watch the bikes coming around. MR. MAGOWAN-You’re right, you do, you have to watch them all, but I really, I think it’s going to work out nice. Now is next door also having that little access to the back? MR. CENTER-I think, we talked about it. We didn’t have to go through site plan or anything. That was just a septic system design, but I did mention it to them. MR. MAGOWAN-It can just be a busy road, and I’ll tell you right now, when that college is on, bingo. I mean like I said I just know that road because I’m pulling out on it every day. MR. CENTER-I did ask them to consider that. MR. VALENTINE-Tom, you had mentioned when you were talking about the roof gutters and the tying in and stuff, and I just, maybe you can help me out with this. I’m reading Sean Doty’s letter. Let me read it and see what he’s saying, because I got caught up and I didn’t catch it. It was his sixth point in the letter. It says, “Based on the Front Elevation plan it is difficult to discern how the entire roof gutter system, including the garage roof drains to the infiltrators.” Just that sentence, I don’t know what he’s saying. MR. CENTER-I do know what he’s saying. I thought I made it clear in there that we were going to take the roof gutters down into a pipe system and take that pipe system to the infiltration trench. So normally when you’re trying to move stormwater around these small lots and these houses we’ve done it around the 24 (Queensbury Planning Board 10/20/2020) lake, we basically just run a perimeter pipe. So we take that gutter, we’ll come to a downspout and then come across the front of the house, tie it into the other corner and pipe it into that infiltration trench. So when I split the house up I’m trying to move water around and get it there. I don’t like doing that but it does work. I’ve got some questions for him, engineering wise, on some of the things with what we’re actually trying to use. Like we talked to last time, we’re trying to use the Stormwater Design manual for these small lots that it’s really not meant for. We’re working out some engineering. MR. VALENTINE-And an earlier question he says, “Chazen does not take exception to performing soil testing during the time of construction.” MR. CENTER-Right, and what he’s saying there is with every single stormwater infiltration device I have to perform an infiltration test and a test pit. I go out and design subdivisions and do three or four test pits down where the road’s going to be, where a few septic systems are going to be, and get a feel for the road. I also look at the soils maps to see consistency and where things change. We’re splitting hairs on some of these things. These are questions I have for Staff also that we’re both trying to work out, but if we have to do something when there’s construction we go out, we look at the soil, inspect it, make sure we have, I mean I did a deep hole because I was looking for both, the septic system and for the foundation to make sure we didn’t have an issue, because I know as you did over on the other side of that road, you’ve got some wet areas over there. So I wanted to make sure I didn’t have a problem with the foundations in the basements. So I’m pretty confident we’ve got deep well drained soils. For anybody that lives on there, I did a house for Mr. Leuci on the other side with steep well drained sands. Very good for stormwater management. I’m not concerned at all with the ground water issue for the percolation.. I’ve actually only used 30 inches per hours, which works out to like an eight to ten minute perc rate, and I think we’ve got one that perked. So I’ve overdesigned the infiltration capacity of these things. So I tend to err on the side of caution. MR. VALENTINE-And you don’t have any problem on these foundations, with the soils for the foundation? MR. CENTER-For the retaining wall? MR. VALENTINE-Yes. MR. CENTER-No. If you go just down the road, there’s at least a 25, 30 foot high retaining wall at the Great Escape that’s protecting a switch gear that’s been there for years. We’ve talking about a five and a half foot high retaining wall that’s made of blocks that are bigger than that, that are larger Jersey barriers, and I’ll let the retaining wall guys, engineers, provide that. MR. MAGOWAN-Or you can just go to Home Depot that’s on the other side there and look at that big wall. MR. CENTER-Yes, there’s walls all over the Town. We chose a block that’s actually bigger than normal. You could have used the smaller blocks, stackable. That’s a lot of man hours. These are a little bit more expensive, you’ve got to get a little bit bigger equipment, but you’re putting it up in a day, and it’s an expense. The Leuci’s are trying to close out the subdivision, and they’ve got an interested buyer for this house who understands everything that’s going on in there that doesn’t mind a small house with a small backyard. MR. TRAVER-There’s a comment also in the Staff Notes about the clearing limits. Can you add to the plans? MR. CENTER-The clearing limit is on there. MR. TRAVER-Really? MR. CENTER-Limited disturbance.. MR. HUNSINGER-Yes, it’s marked. MR. CENTER-I have it called out, limits of disturbance and clearing, and that would be that line going across. MR. TRAVER-All right. That’s my mistake. We do have a public hearing on this application as well. I want to let folks know that are watching this on the YouTube channel that if they wish to comment by phone they may call 518-761-8225. Since we have no audience at this point, we don’t need to worry about that. Are there any written comments, Laura? PUBLIC HEARING OPENED 25 (Queensbury Planning Board 10/20/2020) MRS. MOORE-There is one written comment. It’s addressed To Whom It May Concern. “Our names are Charles and Lisa Kane, the owners for the residence, located at 68 Round Pond Road, Queensbury, New York. Our property is directly across from the above property put on your agenda to be heard before the planning board on Tuesday, October 20, 2020. That property is 7 1 Round Pond Road , Queensbury, New York . This is to express our concerns, and is in reference to the letter for which we received dated, October 8, 2020. This letter was informing us that the property located at 71 Round Pond Road, Queensbury, New York would be coming before the planning board of review to be determined if the applicant who is proposing to construct a 2,019 (footprint) home including a basement and attached garage. It has been acknowledged pursuant to Chapter 179-6-060 of the Zoning Ordinance construction within 50 ft. of 15% slopes shall be subject to Planning Board review and approval. By writing this letter, I would appreciate if the planning board would take into consideration our concerns. They are as follows: • this newly proposed home would be directly located across from our home, giving no privacy to our dwelling. • this home would be able to see directly into our home, day and night. • Lights would be peering into our windows • More noise and traffic • this house would be set close to the road • dangerous for children who may reside within this dwelling, as it would be located close to a busy roadway. • We are also concerned by the high sloping area that they are proposing to build this oversized dwelling upon; because of clearing of the sloping land it is possible that land erosion could occur, causing flooding; which in turn could run across the roadway onto our property causing damage to our land and dwelling as well. • We believe this building lot, is too confined to construct such a large home of 2,019 square foot, with an attached garage, putting our community as risk for the safety of all its residence and traffic users. We greatly appreciate the board taking into consideration our thoughts and concerns, and we look forward to hearing what will be decided as the outcome. Thank you.” MR. TRAVER-Thank you, Laura. So let’s see, most of the issues I think have been addressed. Can you comment on lighting? Is there going to be anything other than residential, typical? MR. CENTER-Nothing other than residential lighting that’s required per the Building Code, on the outside of the garage. MR. TRAVER-Okay. Thank you. Other questions, comments from members of the Board? I guess we have a draft resolution. MRS. MOORE-You need to close your public hearing. MR. TRAVER-Yes, thank you. We did not receive any phone calls. So we will close the public hearing. PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED MR. TRAVER-And consider a draft resolution. RESOLUTION APPROVING SP # 45-2020 FOOTHILLS BUILDERS The applicant has submitted an application to the Planning Board: Applicant proposes to construct a 2,019 (footprint) home including a basement and attached garage. Applicant had started lot clearing as lot was previously approved in a 1993 subdivision. Pursuant to Chapter 179-6-060 of the Zoning Ordinance construction within 50 ft. of 15% slopes 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 10/20/2020 and continued the public hearing to 10/20/2020, 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 10/20/2020; 26 (Queensbury Planning Board 10/20/2020) 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 45-2020 FOOTHILLS BUILDERS;, Introduced by David Deeb who moved for its adoption. According to the draft resolution prepared by Staff with the following: 1) Waivers requested granted; g. site lighting, h. signage, l. landscaping, n traffic, o. commercial alterations/ construction details, q. soil logs, r. construction/demolition disposal s. snow removal The approval is valid for one (1) year from the date of approval. Applicant is 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. 2) Adherence to the items outlined in the follow-up letter sent with this resolution. a) The limits of clearing will constitute a no-cut buffer zone, orange construction fencing shall be installed around these areas and field verified by Community Development staff; b) If applicable, the Sanitary Sewer connection plan must be submitted to the Wastewater c) If curb cuts are being added or changed a driveway permit is required. A building permit will not be issued until the approved driveway permit has been provided to the Planning Office; d) If application was referred to engineering then Engineering sign-off required prior to signature of Zoning Administrator of the approved plans; e) Final approved plans should have dimensions and setbacks noted on the site plan/survey, floor plans and elevation for the existing rooms and proposed rooms in the building and site improvements;- f) If required, the applicant must submit a copy of the following to the Town: a. The project NOI (Notice of Intent) for coverage under the current "NYSDEC SPDES General Permit from Construction Activity" prior to the start of any site work. b. The project NOT (Notice of Termination) upon completion of the project; c. The applicant must maintain on their project site, for review by staff: i. The approved final plans that have been stamped by the Town Zoning Administrator. These plans must include the project SWPPP (Storm Water Pollution Prevention Plan) when such a plan was prepared and approved; ii. The project NOI and proof of coverage under the current NYSDEC SPDES General Permit, or an individual SPDES permit issued for the project if required. g) Final approved plans, in compliance with the Site Plan, must be submitted to the Community Development Department before any further review by the Zoning Administrator or Building and Codes personnel; h) The applicant must meet with Staff after approval and prior to issuance of Building Permit and/or the beginning of any site work; i) Subsequent issuance of further permits, including building permits is dependent on compliance with this and all other conditions of this resolution; j) As-built plans to certify that the site plan is developed according to the approved plans to be provided prior to issuance of the certificate of occupancy. k) This resolution is to be placed in its entirety on the final plans th Motion seconded by Jamie White. Duly adopted this 20 day of October 2020 by the following vote: AYES: Mr. Deeb, Mr. Hunsinger, Mr. Magowan, Mr. Shafer, Mr. Valentine, Ms. White, Mr. Traver NOES: NONE MR. TRAVER-You’re all set. MR. CENTER-Thank you. MR. TRAVER-Is there any other business before the Board tonight? If not, we’ll entertain a motion to adjourn. MR. MAGOWAN-So moved. MOTION TO ADJOURN THE QUEENSBURY PLANNING BOARD MEETING OF OCTOBER 20, 2020, Introduced by Brad Magowan who moved for its adoption, seconded by Jamie White: th Duly adopted this 20 day of October, 2020, by the following vote: AYES: Mr. Deeb, Ms. White, Mr. Shafer, Mr. Hunsinger, Mr. Magowan, Mr. Valentine, Mr. Traver NOES: NONE 27 (Queensbury Planning Board 10/20/2020) MR. TRAVER-We stand adjourned. Thank you, everybody. Thank you, Karen. Thank you, Laura. On motion meeting was adjourned. RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED, Stephen Traver, Chairman 28