Loading...
01-26-2021 (Queensbury Planning Board 01/26/2021) QUEENSBURY PLANNING BOARD MEETING SECOND REGULAR MEETING JANUARY 26, 2021 INDEX Site Plan No. 53-2019 APEX Capital, LLC 1. Tax Map No. 307.-1-29, 315.5-1-3.2, 315.5-1-2 Site Plan No. 57-2020 Rockhurst, LLC 3. Tax Map No. 239.12-2-35.2 Subdivision No. 16-2020 Harrisena Church 4. PRELIMINARY STAGE Tax Map No. 266.3-1-59 Site Plan No. 2-2021 James & Kim Ogden 7. Tax Map No. 289.18-1-13 & 289.18-1-15 Site Plan No. 5-2021 David White Trust 12. Tax Map No. 239.15-1-4 Site Plan No. 6-2021 Jason Walker 15. Tax Map No. 315.10-1-52 Site Plan No. 3-2021 Jeffrey Campbell 19. Tax Map No. 227.6-1-7 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 01/26/2021) QUEENSBURY PLANNING BOARD MEETING SECOND REGULAR MEETING JANUARY 26, 2021 7:00 P.M. MEMBERS PRESENT STEPHEN TRAVER, CHAIRMAN CHRIS HUNSINGER, VICE CHAIRMAN DAVID DEEB, SECRETARY JAMIE WHITE BRAD MAGOWAN JOHN SHAFER MICHAEL DIXON, ALTERNATE MEMBERS ABSENT MICHAEL VALENTINE ZONING ADMINISTRATOR-CRAIG BROWN LAND USE PLANNER-LAURA MOORE STENOGRAPHER-MARIA GAGLIARDI MR. TRAVER-All right. Good evening, everyone. Welcome to the Town of Queensbury Planning Board th meeting for Tuesday, January 26, 2021. This is our second meeting for January, second meeting for the th year. This is our 17 meeting during the COVID Pandemic and our second meeting under the virtual setting. Just a quick reminder before we get into our regular agenda that next month at our first meeting, th which is February 16, we do have a Soil and Water Conservation District training which is going to start at 6:30. So if you can participate in that, we’d appreciate that. MRS. MOORE-I’m sorry to interrupt. We’re going to start that at six because it was brought to my attention that that timeframe was short. MR. TRAVER-Okay. All right. So we’ll update that so it’ll be starting at six o’clock instead of six thirty, and I understand, Laura, you’re going to share the link with the public for that if they want to participate in that as well? MRS. MOORE-Yes. MR. TRAVER-All right. Okay. We don’t have any other administrative items this evening So we’ll move right into our regular agenda. The first section of that agenda is tabled items, and we have two items, actually our first two items on tonight’s agenda, which are going to be tabled. The first is APEX Capital, LLC, Site Plan 53-2019. TABLED ITEMS: SITE PLAN NO. 53-2019 SEQR TYPE: TYPE I – NEGATIVE DECLARATION 12/22/2020. APEX CAPITAL, LLC. AGENT(S): STUDIO A LANDSCAPE ARCH. DPC. OWNER(S): SAME AS APPLICANT. ZONING: RC/MDR. LOCATION: 59 WEST MT. ROAD (MAIN); 47 & 53 WEST MT. RD. (PARKING). (SEQR) APPLICANT PROPOSES EXPANSION OF THE WEST MOUNTAIN SKI AREA PARKING LOT, CONSTRUCTION OF A ZIP LINE ATTRACTION, APPROVAL OF AN EXISTING MOUNTAIN BIKING VENUE AND OTHER ASSOCIATED PROJECTS. PROJECT ALSO INCLUDES A TOWN BOARD REFERRAL FOR A PETITION FOR ZONE CHANGE PARCELS 315.5-1-3.2 AND 315.5-1-2 FROM MODERATE DENSITY TO RECREATION COMMERCIAL. THE PARCELS ARE TO BE USED FOR OVERFLOW PARKING. PURSUANT TO CHAPTER 179-15-040 TOWN BOARD MAY REFER PROPOSED AMENDMENTS TO THE PLANNING BOARD FOR RECOMMENDATION, AND PURSUANT TO CHAPTER 179- 3-040 OF THE ZONING ORDINANCE, EXPANSION OF A RECREATION CENTER SHALL BE SUBJECT TO PLANNING BOARD REVIEW AND APPROVAL. CROSS REFERENCE: AV 92- 2002 CREATE 2 NONCONFORMING LOTS, SP 22-2008 ADDITIONS & DECK, SP 34-2011 ALPINE SLIDE & ZIP FLYER, SP 61-2011 SHED ADDITION; SP 60-2018; PZ 584-2019 RE-ZONING. WARREN CO. REFERRAL: SEPTEMBER 2019. LOT SIZE: 382.34. TAX MAP NO. 307.-1-29, 315.5-1-3.2 315.5-1-2. SECTION: 179-3-040. MR. TRAVER-Laura? 2 (Queensbury Planning Board 01/26/2021) MRS. MOORE-They need to be tabled to the first meeting in February because we need to complete the re-zoning request with the Town Board. I understand it’s been scheduled. So they’ll be on time to go through Site Plan at our first February meeting. MR. TRAVER-Okay. MR. BROWN-Will there be any discussion on this? I’m just curious if there’s somebody waiting to get in and speak. I want to make sure I let them in. MR. TRAVER-Well I was going to stay, we can go ahead and open the public hearing and keep it open through the tabling. MRS. MOORE-That’s fine. MR. TRAVER-And this does have a public hearing this evening. So this is a Type I under SEQR. We did nd a Negative Dec on December 22, but we’ll open it up for public hearing and just ask if there’s anyone that wanted to address the Planning Board on the APEX Capital application this evening? PUBLIC HEARING OPENED MR. BROWN-Or if there’s any applicant, agents here that want to speak, just put your hand up and I’ll get you right into the meeting. MR. TRAVER-Are there any written comments, Laura? MRS. MOORE-Not at this time. I read them at the next, the meeting in February. There are some, but I think some of them have been shared with us previously, since 2019. MR. TRAVER-Right. Issues with the parking lot and so on, lighting, yes, okay. MR. BROWN-So Mike O’Connor has asked to join. MR. TRAVER-Okay. Good evening, Michael. MR. BROWN-Mike, you’re on mute. MR. TRAVER-Still muted. Michael O’Connor, did you want to address the Planning Board tonight on this APEX Capital application? MR. O'CONNOR-No, I have Ogden and White on tonight, I thought. We got the Area Variances last week. MR. TRAVER-Yes. Those are forthcoming. MR. BROWN-I brought you in. I thought I saw your hand up. So I’ll send you back out until those come up/ MR. O'CONNOR-All right. The building is locked. MR. BROWN-The Town Hall building is locked? MR. O'CONNOR-Yes, you can’t get in the door over by the Senior Citizens. MR. BROWN-Yes, that’s right. We’re doing these meetings virtual like last week. MR. O'CONNOR-Okay. So I’ll just stay in my car then. Okay. MR. TRAVER-All right. We’ll bring you in as soon as we get to those applications. It shouldn’t be too long. MR. O'CONNOR-All right. Thank you. MR. TRAVER-Okay. We’ll be with you shortly. Thank you, Craig. We’ll go ahead and we will leave the public hearing open on that, and we do have a draft resolution to table APEX Capital. David? RESOLUTION TABLING SP # 53-2019 APEX CAPITAL, LLC Applicant proposes expansion of the West Mountain Ski Area parking lot, construction of a zip line attraction, approval of an existing mountain biking venue and other associated projects. Project also 3 (Queensbury Planning Board 01/26/2021) includes a Town Board referral for a Petition for Zone Change parcels 315.5-1-3.2 and 315.5-1-2 from Moderate Density to Recreation Commercial. The parcels are to be used for overflow parking. Pursuant to Chapter 179-15-040 Town Board may refer proposed amendments to the Planning Board for recommendation, and Pursuant to Chapter 179-3-040 of the Zoning Ordinance, expansion of a recreation center shall be subject to Planning Board review and approval. MOTION TO TABLE SITE PLAN 53-2019 APEX CAPITAL, LLC. Introduced by David Deeb who moved for its adoption, seconded by Brad Magowan. Tabled until the February 23, 2021 Planning Board meeting. th Duly adopted this 26 day of January 2021 by the following vote: MR. TRAVER-Is there any discussion on the motion? th MRS. MOORE-You might want to table that going to the 16, the first meeting, but that’s, I mean, you’ve already made the motion. MR. DEEB-We can amend it if you want. Is that a better meeting to go to ? rd MRS. MOORE-No, it just ensures that, if you would keep it on the 23 it ensures it can get through the Town Board if it’s tabled at one of their meetings. rd MR. DEEB-So we’ll leave it the 23, then. MRS. MOORE-Yes. MR. DEEB-Okay. rd MR. TRAVER-So it’s being tabled to the 23. Okay. AYES: Mr. Deeb, Ms. White, Mr. Shafer, Mr. Hunsinger, Mr. Magowan, Mr. Dixon, Mr. Traver NOES: NONE ABSENT: Mr. Valentine MR. TRAVER-Next also under Tabled Items we have Rockhurst, LLC, Site Plan 57-2020, and understand that this is also to be tabled and this also does have a public hearing this evening. SITE PLAN NO. 57-2020 SEQR TYPE: TYPE II. ROCKHURST, LLC. AGENT(S): ENVIRONMENTAL DESIGN PARTNERS. ZONING: WR. LOCATION: ASSEMBLY POINT ROAD. APPLICANT PROPOSES TO DEMOLISH EXISTING BUILDINGS TO CONSTRUCT A NEW SINGLE FAMILY HOME WITH 2,400 SQ. FT. FOOTPRINT AND 4,300 SQ. FT. FLOOR AREA WITH EXTERIOR PATIO AREAS. PROJECT INCLUDES SITE WORK, FILL AND GRADING, STORMWATER MANAGEMENT, SHORELINE LANDSCAPING, NEW SEPTIC, AND WATER SUPPLY FROM LAKE GEORGE. PURSUANT TO CHAPTER 179-6-065 & 179-6- 050 OF THE ZONING ORDINANCE, CONSTRUCTION IN A CEA AND HARD SURFACING WITHIN 50 FT. OF SHORE SHALL BE SUBJECT TO PLANNING BOARD REVIEW AND APPROVAL. VARIANCE: RELIEF IS SOUGHT FOR SETBACKS AND HEIGHT. CROSS REFERENCE: AV 22-2020, AV 8-1993, SUB 5-1993, SP 81-2011; AV 49-2020. WARREN CO. REFERRAL: DECEMBER 2020. SITE INFORMATION: APA, CEA, LGPC. LOT SIZE: 1.0 ACRE. TAX MAP NO. 239.12-2-35. SECTION: 179-6-065, 179-6-050. MR. TRAVER-Laura? MRS. MOORE-This is to be tabled to the second meeting in March pending review by the ZBA and their decision. rd MR. TRAVER-Okay. That would be March 23by my calendar, David. MR. DEEB-Yes. MR. TRAVER-So we’ll go ahead, is there any applicant representative here that wanted to address the Board? MR. BROWN-I’m not seeing any hands in the lobby. 4 (Queensbury Planning Board 01/26/2021) MR. TRAVER-Okay. Well let’s go ahead and open the public hearing then and offer the opportunity for anyone that wanted to comment on this application to the Planning Board this evening. PUBLIC HEARING OPENED MR. BROWN-Still no hands yet. rd MR. TRAVER-Okay. Well we will keep the public hearing open. We are tabling this to March 23. So there will be obviously an opportunity to comment on this application also in March. . So, Laura, did you have any written comments on this application tonight or are those going to wait until we hear it in March? MRS. MOORE-I would prefer they wait until we hear it in March in case there’s any additional things that need to be identified. MR. TRAVER-Right. All right. Fine. So then we’re leaving the public hearing open, and, David, you can rd go ahead and do a draft resolution for tabling Rockhurst, LLC to March 23. RESOLUTION TABLING SP # 57-2020 ROCKHURST, LLC The applicant has submitted an application to the Planning Board: Applicant proposes to demolish existing buildings to construct a new single family home with 2,400 sq. ft. footprint and 4,300 sq. ft. floor area with exterior patio areas. Project includes site work, fill and grading, stormwater management, shoreline landscaping, new septic and water supply from Lake George. Pursuant to Chapter 179-6-065 & 179-6-050 of the Zoning Ordinance, construction in a CEA and hard surfacing within 50 ft. of shore shall be subject to Planning Board review and approval. Project has been tabled by the Zoning Board at their 1/20/21 meeting. MOTION TO TABLE SITE PLAN 57-2020 ROCKHURST, LLC. Introduced by David Deeb who moved for its adoption, seconded by Michael Dixon; Tabled until the March 23, 2021 Planning Board meeting with information due by February 16, 2021. th Duly adopted this 26 day of January 2021 by the following vote: AYES: Ms. White, Mr. Shafer, Mr. Hunsinger, Mr. Magowan, Mr. Dixon, Mr. Deeb, Mr. Traver NOES: NONE ABSENT: Mr. Valentine MR. TRAVER-All right. Thank you. The next item also under Tabled Items is Harrisena Church, Subdivision Preliminary Stage 16-2020. SUBDIVISION PRELIMINARY STAGE 16-2020 SEQR TYPE: UNLISTED. HARRISENA CHURCH. AGENT(S): VAN DUSEN & STEVES. OWNER(S): SAME AS APPLICANT. ZONING: MDR. LOCATION: 1616 RIDGE ROAD. APPLICANT PROPOSES A THREE LOT SUBDIVISION OF 3.8 ACRE PARCEL. LOT 1 TO BE 1.3 ACRE TO MAINTAIN AN EXISTING HOME 1,580 SQ. FT. WITH DECKS (FOOTPRINT). LOT 2 TO BE 1.3 ACRES AND LOT 3 TO BE 1.2 ACRES FOR NEW HOMES AND ASSOCIATED SITE WORK. PURSUANT TO CHAPTER 183 OF THE ZONING ORDINANCE, , SUBDIVISION OF LAND SHALL BE SUBJECT TO PLANNING BOARD REVIEW AND APPROVAL. VARIANCE: RELIEF IS SOUGHT FOR LOT SIZE. CROSS REFERENCE: AV 37-2003 LOT LINE ADJ., AV 45-2020. WARREN CO. REFERRAL: N/A. SITE INFORMATION: APA, LGPC. LOT SIZE: 3.8 ACRES. TAX MAP NO. 266.3-1-59. SECTION: CHAPTER 183. MATTHEW WEBSTER, REPRESENTING APPLICANT, PRESENT MR. TRAVER-Laura? MRS. MOORE-So Matt Webster is here. I identified that they did receive their variances to create three lots in total. Lot One is 1.3. Lot Two is 1.3 and then Lot Three is 1.2. They’re creating two new lots for housing developments, for houses, rather, and I did identify that they had requested a waiver from stormwater, grading and erosion control, test pits and utility plan, and I suggested to the Board that you may consider tabling them, but I would prefer that you would hear some of the items that the applicant would like to share with you in regards to stormwater for the site. MR. TRAVER-Okay. Thank you. Is someone here representing Harrisena Church to discuss this with us? 5 (Queensbury Planning Board 01/26/2021) MR. WEBSTER-Yes. My name’s Matthew Webster with VanDusen & Steves Land Surveyors. MR. TRAVER-Good evening and welcome. MR. WEBSTER-Thank you. I’m here to discuss the stormwater as Laura mentioned. So we understand we did ask for the waiver from having to do the stormwater management plan as of course we’re just creating the lots. We’re not necessarily trying to build on them at this time, but I’ve also spoken with our clients and another avenue that we would like to pursue, if the Board would be amenable, would be an approval conditional upon stormwater plans for the site plan when our client, or when eventually someone does go to build on these lots. Given that, you know, we could do a generic plan, but of course a plan tailored to a home that someone would actually like to build on this lot would be the most effective. So I just wanted to come and discuss that tonight. MR. TRAVER-Okay. Well that’s a bit unusual. How do Board members feel about that? MR. MAGOWAN-Mr. Chairman? MR. TRAVER-Yes. MR. MAGOWAN-Brad Magowan. All we’re doing is putting lines up in a subdivision. Right? MR. TRAVER-Right. MR. MAGOWAN-So what’s changing enough where we need a stormwater? Like I said, my opinion we’re putting the cart in front of the horse. I mean I understand that we have to do this and this is one of the parts of the application, but really all we’re doing is putting lines down. Nothing is changing on the land, and then once we have an application that comes in, once we see how it’s going to fall and how it’s going to go, then can we do a stormwater and maybe include the other lot at the same time? I’m just asking. MR. TRAVER-Yes, no, I understand your point of view. My experience has been that the stormwater review is typically part of making these buildable lots, and, you know, part of our practice in the background. Laura, do you want to comment further? MRS. MOORE-So we typically require a stormwater management plan for subdivisions. In the sense that this is located in the APA. There is going to be disturbance. They show nothing at the moment. They’re showing a cleared area to place the house and the septic system. Typically you’d see some sort of information on the plot plan that shows, you know, that they are addressing some basic stormwater needs on the site ,and at the moment, looking at your plot plan of that all you’re seeing is a bunch of cleared areas. Some of the areas aren’t cleared, but you’re not seeing any information about how that site’s going to be laid out. MR. TRAVER-We also have to bear in mind that although this is a basic three lot subdivision if we develop a practice where we look at subdivisions without stormwater management, we could end up with a much more complicated subdivision potentially down the road that would likely make the same request, and it seems as though we have to be careful in considering, not to say that we perhaps couldn’t do it, but I think that we need to be wary of changing our practice if we’re not prepared to change that practice universally. MR. MAGOWAN-Mr. Chairman, I agree after hearing Laura. I mean usually what they’ll say is I see the site plans come in for change and they’ll have, you know, a potential area where they could put a house and where they want to do a septic. I mean I agree we follow the same practice. I was just thinking, but it’s not really putting the cart too far in front of the horse. So, you know, if this is the normal practice, I think they should move forward with some form of stormwater. So I’m back on board. MR. TRAVER-Okay. All right. Well I’d like to poll the other Board members as well. Do people feel that we should ask them to complete the preliminary stormwater at this stage, as we typically do, or somehow have a subdivision without a stormwater plan approved, potentially approved? MRS. MOORE-If I could interject before you do that. You do know that right now they’re at Preliminary Stage. They have yet to submit for Final Stage. So you have a little bit of time for them to get prepared to submit that information about stormwater. MR. TRAVER-For Final Stage. MRS. MOORE-For Preliminary, if you’d like to table this as part of Preliminary, and they could also apply for Final as long as everything was compliant in reference to stormwater. MR. HUNSINGER-Yes, that makes a lot of sense, Laura. I like that idea. 6 (Queensbury Planning Board 01/26/2021) MR. TRAVER-Yes. MR. SHAFER-I have a question. I don’t understand how they could do a stormwater not knowing where the driveway is going to be and whether it’s going to be impervious or not, not knowing how big the house is going to be and therefore where the runoff will go, not knowing where the septic and the wastewater system is going to go. It seems to me stormwater on a bare lot is kind of useless. MRS. MOORE-So in some cases where this has occurred, we have required applicants to include a condition on their map that indicates that site plan review is required for each lot prior to development. So it’s sort of serving a two-fold purpose that you can get general information about the areas in site plan. You could request it be part of a future site plan application, and that’s one way to look at it. Another way is seeing the entire site further developed along where you are seeing stormwater. Last month you saw the Ball application where you’re looking at future site development that does have information on the stormwater. You’ve seen both different scenarios. MR. SHAFER-Will we see the site plan for each individual house? MRS. MOORE-If you require that as part of the condition. MR. SHAFER-That would make a lot more sense to me. MR. WEBSTER-If I may, our request would be that the subdivision could potentially be approved conditional upon site plans for each individual lot in the future before those lots can be built upon. So that we aren’t necessarily spending the time and cost to develop a generic stormwater plan that could change entirely based on the size or as mentioned before the location of the driveway or any of those factors. MR. BROWN-If I could just throw something gin, just to be on the cautious side. To condition the subdivision on future approval by the Board, you’ve just got to be careful there that you don’t create a little worm hole to go down that if they don’t get sit plan approval does that now mean the subdivision isn’t approved? And to answer Brad’s question from earlier, ideally you have a landscaping plan, a lighting plan, a stormwater plan, a tree cutting plan. All those plans help you evaluate what the impacts of this subdivision are going to be before you create the lots, rather than try and find the problems after the lots have been created. So that’s why we ask for all that information up front to understand the development and evaluate the impacts before it’s approved. MR. SHAFER-But, Craig, we just approved a subdivision out on, was it West Mountain Road, last week and there were no house locations or septic locations or landscaping plans or anything in that respect. We just approved the lines. MR. BROWN-That’s because you guys gave them waivers from all those requirements. MR. TRAVER-So how do Board members feel? I feel that we should maintain our practice and ask them to give us the information that has been our practice in the past and move forward. They’re going to need to provide that information in any case. MR. DEEB-Craig, could we get a clarification as to John’s question? Why is last week’s different than this week’s? MR. BROWN-I think he clarification is if the applicant requests waivers from those submittal requirements and those waivers are granted, they don’t have to submit that information in order for you to make a determination. I think that’s what happened. Waivers were granted. MR. SHAFER-Does that mean that each lot will have to come back for site plan approval? MR. BROWN-Not unless it was made a condition of that approval if we’re talking about the other subdivision. MRS. MOORE-I’m not quite certain which application because we had, I think the only subdivision off of Luzerne Road was the subdivision that’s still coming back to you for review. I’m not quite certain what application you’re describing. MR. BROWN-Yes, if that was the Gross subdivision, all you guys did was do a Negative Dec on the SEQR. It still has to come back for subdivision review. MR. HUNSINGER-And we have a Stormwater Pollution Prevention Plan for that project. MR. TRAVER-Right. MR. DEEB-All right. So now I see. 7 (Queensbury Planning Board 01/26/2021) MR. TRAVER-So what I would like to suggest is that we do ask for the stormate4r information on this application, we table it to give them an opportunity to provide that, and we can do Preliminary and Final later. MR. SHAFER-Does that mean, Steve, they will have to submit the house location and the driveway location and the septic location all as part of the stormwater plan? MR. TRAVER-They have submitted proposed locations for those already. It just means that they need to do the stormwater,, as we require of subdivisions. So is there any further discussion? MR. DEEB-Do you have a meeting date in mind, to table it to? th MR. TRAVER-Let’s see, probably, what do you think, Laura, March? They’re going to need until the 16 th of February to submit. We could do a March 16. MRS. MOORE-So you could table them. You’re correct that they would have to submit information by ththrd February 16 to be on the March meeting and we could do either the 16 or the 23. rd MR. TRAVER-We know we have Rockhurst that’s coming up. We just tabled that to the 23. I know the agenda’s very Preliminary probably at this stage, Laura, so you don’t have any preference? MRS. MOORE-No, I do not. th MR. TRAVER-Okay. Why don’t we table them to March 16. That puts them at the first meeting. They should be able to provide that information fairly quickly, and that’ll get them back on track. MR. WEBSTER-All right. Thank you. MR. TRAVER-So, David, do you have a draft tabling resolution? MR. DEEB-I’ve got it. I’m all set. MR. TRAVER-Okay. RESOLUTION TABLING PRELIMINARY STAGE SUB # 16-2020 HARRISENA CHURCH A subdivision application has been made to the Queensbury Planning Board for the following: Applicant proposes a three lot subdivision of 3.8 acre parcel. Lot 1 to be 1.3 acre to maintain an existing home 1,580 sq. ft. with decks (footprint); Lot 2 to be 1.3 acres and Lot 3 to be 1.2 acres for new homes and associated site work. Pursuant to Chapter 183 of the Zoning Ordinance, subdivision of land shall be subject to Planning Board review and approval. MOTION TO TABLE SUBDIVISION PRELIMINARY STAGE 16-2020 HARRISENA CHURCH, Introduced by David Deeb who moved for its adoption, th Tabled to the March 16, 2021 Town of Queensbury Planning Board meeting with submissions due by th February 16. th Motion seconded by Brad Magowan. Duly adopted this 26 day of January, 2021, by the following vote: AYES: Mr. Shafer, Mr. Hunsinger, Mr. Magowan, Mr. Dixon, Mr. Deeb, Ms. White, Mr. Traver NOES: NONE ABSENT: Mr. Valentine MR. TRAVER-All right. Thank you. The next section of our agenda is Old Business, and the first item is James and Kim Ogden, Site Plan 2-2021. OLD BUSINESS: SITE PLAN NO. 2-2021 SEQR TYPE: TYPE II. JAMES & KIM OGDEN. AGENT(S): ETHAN HALL. OWNER(S): SAME AS APPLICANTS. ZONING: WR. LOCATION: 17 FITZGERALD ROAD APPLICANT PROPOSES TO MERGE TWO PARCELS TO CONSTRUCT A TWO STORY ADDITION TO THE EXISTING HOME TO INCLUDE A GARAGE THEN ALSO CONSTRUCT A POLE BARN TO BE 1,500 SQ. FT., TWO STORIES. THE EXISTING FLOOR AREA IS 2,626 SQ. FT. AND PROPOSED IS 5,770 SQ. FT. THE EXISTING HOME IS 1,286 SQ. FT. FOOTPRINT WITH DECK AREA OF 336 SQ. FT. PURSUANT TO CHAPTER 179-5-020 & 179-13-010 OF THE ZONING 8 (Queensbury Planning Board 01/26/2021) ORDINANCE, EXPANSION OF A NONCONFORMING STRUCTURE SHALL BE SUBJECT TO PLANNING BOARD REVIEW AND APPROVAL. CROSS REFERENCE: AV 28-1995, AV 33-1995, 95407-4260 SF HOME, 2002-463 DOCK REPLACEMENT, AV 2-2021 WARREN CO. REFERRAL: N/A. SITE INFORMATION: CEA, GLEN LAKE. LOT SIZE: .71 ACRE. TAX MAP NO. 289.18- 1-13 & 289.18-1-15. SECTION: 179-5-020, 179-13-010 MICHAEL O’CONNOR & ETHAN HALL, REPRESENTING APPLICANTS, PRESENT MR. TRAVER-Laura? MRS. MOORE-This application before this Board when they did the Planning Board recommendation has changed. They have removed the pole barn and I identified that also in updated Staff Notes and so now they’re only proposing the two story addition to the existing home. They were granted their side setback relief and they needed no other relief. MR. TRAVER-Right. All right. Thank you. And I think Mr. O’Connor was here to represent that application. Michael, are you back on line? MR. HALL-Mr. Traver, I’m here as well, Ethan Hall. MR. TRAVER-Okay. Good evening. MR. HALL-Good evening. MR. TRAVER-All right. So you removed the pole barn from the proposal. You got your setback relief from the ZBA. Are there any other changes to your plan? MR. HALL-No, sir. We’ve left everything else the way it was proposed, just pulled the pole barn out of the project and everything else is set as it’s shown. MR. TRAVER-Gotcha. Okay. Questions, comments from members of the Board? MR. SHAFER-The Chazen comments were pretty substantial. Have they all been addressed, Ethan? MR. HALL-Yes. So I looked at those. Most of them deal with stormwater management for the pole barn and the way we calculated stormwater management, which I’ll take care of. The rest of the items were pretty standard notes that come from them and won’t be any problem for us to take care of those. MR. SHAFER-The discussion about distance to adjacent wells, is that all okay? MR. HALL-Yes. As far as stormwater from the adjacent wells? That one dealt mostly with the pole barn because where the pole barn was is directly adjacent to one of the neighbors’ wells and to the Ogdens’ well. MR. SHAFER-Okay. MR. HALL-And as far as the stormwater to the sewage disposal bed, there’s one little piece by the corner of the garage that we’re going to have to modify. Everything else meets the requirements for the 25 foot setbacks. So we’re all set there, and this lot is purely gravel. It’s very, very well drained. So we’re not going to have any issue with stormwater getting down in the ground. I mean we can’t keep water in the ground to grow grass on. MR. SHAFER-And, Laura, the Harrisena plan is still up. Can that be taken down? MRS. MOORE-Yes, I’m trying. Our internet became very slow over here. MR. SHAFER-Okay. Sorry. MRS. MOORE-That’s all right. MR. DIXON-Mr. Chairman, I’ve got a question. So with the plans, as far as shoreline buffer, unless I’m missing something, I’m not really seeing any detail on the shoreline buffer. MR. O'CONNOR-It has some shrubbery on it. There’s been no tree removal. There’s no site disturbance near the lake. It’s a pretty stabilized site. MR. HALL-I did provide some pictures. There were some pictures and a narrative provided. MR. DIXON-Okay. I’m seeing the, looking from the lake up towards the dwelling, and the best I can make out, this time of year is when I was looking at Google maps. It didn’t look like there was too much 9 (Queensbury Planning Board 01/26/2021) near the shore. The reason I ask is we ran into another case, an applicant, it was over on Lake George, and another construction was on the lakeside, but we were looking for improvements on the shoreline buffering. MR. O'CONNOR-The construction here is on the narrower lot. It’s not on the pie-shaped lot, and it’s probably this existing house and it’s just a little bit of fill in’s on the existing house with the garage in the back of the house. It’s probably, one inch equals 20 feet. It’s probably 80 feet back from the lake any construction that’s going to take place. MR. HALL-And the lot width is 50 feet. MR. MAGOWAN-But this is usually the time that we have to do a little shoreline improvements. I mean I know it’s sloping grass all the way down to the lake. MR. O'CONNOR-It’s pretty level, actually, Brad. MR. HALL-Yes. From the front of the house to the lake is actually relatively level, Brad, and it is all grass for that 50 feet coming down to the lake. I’m just looking at Google Earth right now trying to get a feel for how many trees there are. I know there are at least three large trees along the front of the buffer now. MR. MAGOWAN-All I’m see, it’s kind of hard in the winter, but I’m actually looking at the pictures. It does look pretty flat, but it is a slope down, isn’t it? MR. HALL-Very, very gentle, from the front of the house to the water. So there are, there’s a big grouping of trees right next to the dock. There’s probably, I’m looking at Google Maps, Google Earth. There’s about four large trees between them and the pie shaped piece to the south, and then there is the retaining wall/sea wall that runs along the front of the property and then there are three planter beds that are relatively small planter beds, but there are trees and shrubs in them. MR. TRAVER-Laura’s put up a photograph for us. That’s very helpful, Laura. Thank you. MR. HALL-Yes, there you go. MR. MAGOWAN-That looks much different than what skating down today looking, and it is a well- established lot. MR. HALL-Absolutely, and it’s relatively flat from the walk out part of the basement down to the seawall. So there are some plantings along the edge of both sides and then there’s some individual shrubs that are kind of along the front of the building there, or along the front of the seawall. MR. TRAVER-I mean there’s no buffer there at all, however, down to the seawall. So it does look as though there should be some vegetation planted behind the seawall across the front there. MR. HALL-Yes, we can put some low plantings, shrubs across the front of the seawall. We can put some stuff in there to kind of visually buffer that space. MR. TRAVER-Okay, and based on the review of the site, it calls for four trees three inches in diameter and there are three there now. MR. HALL-I would think there’s at least that many in that clump right by the dock. From looking at Google Earth I can count four that are fairly large. MR. TRAVER-Okay. We’d be concerned about the area immediately behind the wall. The regulations do call for a 35 foot wide buffer zone. Did you want to propose some buffer plantings for that area? MR. HALL-Was that to me, Stephen? MR. TRAVER-Yes. MR. HALL-Yes, we can propose to put some landscape shrubbery in there along the edge of it. There’s plenty of green area there’s plenty green area there that we can utilize to put a couple of planting areas there for sure. MR. TRAVER-Okay. So we need to be specific for the resolution. So let me see. It looks as though. MRS. MOORE-The Code has some shoreline plantings that they can select from. So I would say Code compliant shoreline plantings. You can indicate either a width or a specific area maybe. MR. TRAVER-Okay. 10 (Queensbury Planning Board 01/26/2021) MRS. MOORE-Maybe Ethan can take a look and see. MR. HALL-Yes. I can propose some kind of a landscaping plan for that front space. MRS. MOORE-It won’t necessarily go across the entire shoreline, okay. MR. HALL-No, I’ll put together a couple of planting areas. We can put some plantings around the bases of the trees and some stuff along the front there. MR. O'CONNOR-Isn’t there a certain percentage that’s exempt so that they can have access to the boathouse and access to the water. It doesn’t have to be across the entire front. MR. HALL-No. MR. DEEB-Steve, you suggested a 35 foot wide buffer zone. MR. TRAVER-Right. MR. DEEB-So what’s the width of it? MR. HUNSINGER-It’s 20 feet for Glen Lake. MRS. MOORE-It’s 20 feet for Glen Lake. MR. HALL-It’s 20 feet for Glen Lake and we only have a 50 foot wide lot. MR. DEEB-So if I put 20 feet, Ethan, would that be okay, in the resolution? MR. HALL-Yes, I can find an area to put 20 feet. MR. BROWN-Twenty feet depth. MR. O'CONNOR-With a permitted access way. MR. BROWN-Yes, up to 30% of the shoreline width you can have for access to the dock or beach, but the planting isn’t exempt from that area, but you can space it out. MR. O'CONNOR-I thought you could have a clear path of no planting. MRS. MOORE-Just trees are exempt from that. Shrubs and plantings are not. MR. BROWN-Yes, that exemption is to allow you to remove trees, to grade access, but as far as the buffer creation, I think Laura’s correct. The only exemption from planting is the large trees. The small trees and the ground cover are still required. MR. O'CONNOR-Ethan will submit a planting plan to Laura for approval. MR. HALL-Yes. I’ll put together a landscape plan for that. MR. TRAVER-Okay. So Board members otherwise comfortable moving forward if we condition this upon the submission of a shoreline buffer? Do we want him to come back and have us look at that planting plan? MR. DEEB-I think we can put a condition that it be Code compliant. MR. TRAVER-How do other Board members feel? MR. SHAFER-I’m okay with a condition. MS. WHITE-That’s fine. MR. TRAVER-All right. Is there anything else before we move forward, or are we mainly just concerned with the buffer? MR. HUNSINGER-I mean personally I thought this was a pretty good project. We’re improving the permeability. They’re putting in a new septic and they’re putting in new stormwater controls, and they’ve offered up the shoreline plantings. 11 (Queensbury Planning Board 01/26/2021) MR. TRAVER-Right, and they’re not putting in the pole barn. MR. HUNSINGER-Taking the pole barn out was huge. MR. TRAVER-Yes. Very good. MR. O'CONNOR-I don’t know what he’s going to do with his toys, though. Craig says we can have two sheds up to 500 square feet. So he’ll probably figure out how he can do that. The problem with that is the sheds aren’t counted as sheds if there’s a door in excess of six feet, but I think he’s talking about jet skis, lawn equipment. He’ll have to do something for his pontoon boat but I think he puts that up on a plank. MR. TRAVER-All right. MS. GAGLIARDI-Excuse me, Mr. Chairman, did you open the public hearing? MR. TRAVER-You know what, you’re right. I did not. All right. So we do have a public hearing on this application. Is there anyone that anted to address the Board on this application, Site Plan 2-2021? PUBLIC HEARING OPENED MR. BROWN-I don’t see any hands up yet. MR. TRAVER-Okay. Laura, are there any written comments? MR. HALL-I believe there were a couple at the Zoning Board, Laura, but they were mostly dealing with the pole barn. MRS. MOORE-There’s none in the file. MR. TRAVER-Okay, and no one with their hand up, Craig? MR. BROWN-That is correct. MR. TRAVER-Okay. All right. Then we’ll go ahead and close the public hearing. PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED MR. TRAVER-And, David, you can proceed with that motion. RESOLUTION APPROVING SP # 2-2021 JAY & KIM OGDEN The applicant has submitted an application to the Planning Board for Site Plan approval pursuant to Article 9 of the Town zoning Ordinance for: Applicant proposes to merge two parcels to construct a two story addition to the existing home. The existing home is 1,286 sq. ft. footprint with deck area of 336 sq. ft. The existing floor area is 2,626 sq. ft. and proposed is 4,270 sq. ft. Pursuant to Chapter 179-5-020 & 179- 13-010 of the Zoning Ordinance, expansion of a nonconforming structure shall be subject to Planning Board review and approval. Pursuant to relevant sections of the Town of Queensbury Zoning Code-Chapter 179-9-080, the Planning Board has determined that this proposal satisfies the requirements as stated in the Zoning Code; As required by General Municipal Law Section 239-m the site plan application was referred to the Warren County Planning Department for its recommendation; The Planning Board made a recommendation to the Zoning Board of Appeals on 01/19/2021; the ZBA approved the variance requests on 01/20/2021; The Planning Board opened a public hearing on the Site plan application on 01/26/2021 and continued the public hearing to 01/26/2021, 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 01/26/2021; 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 2-2021 JAMES & KIM OGDEN; Introduced by David Deeb who moved for its adoption; 12 (Queensbury Planning Board 01/26/2021) Per the draft provided by staff conditioned upon the following conditions: 1) Waivers request granted: h. signage, k. topography, n traffic, o. commercial alterations/ construction details, 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) If application was referred to engineering, then engineering sign-off required prior to signature of Zoning Administrator of the approved plans; b) Final approved plans should have dimensions and setbacks noted on the site plan/survey, floor plans and elevation for the existing rooms and proposed rooms in the building and site improvements, c) Final approved plans, in compliance with the Site Plan, must be submitted to the Community Development Department before any further review by the Zoning Administrator or Building and Codes personnel; d) The applicant must meet with Staff after approval and prior to issuance of Building Permit and/or the beginning of any site work; e) Subsequent issuance of further permits, including building permits is dependent on compliance with this and all other conditions of this resolution; f) As-built plans to certify that the site plan is developed according to the approved plans to be provided prior to issuance of the certificate of occupancy; g) Resolution to be placed on final plans in its entirety and legible. h) A 20 foot wide shoreline buffer planting to be Code compliant. i) A landscaping plan submitted to the Town Planning Office for review. th Motion seconded by Brad Magowan. Duly adopted this 26 day of January 2021 by the following vote: MR. TRAVER-And also don’t we want a landscaping plan submitted to the Town Planning office for review? Or was that in there and I missed it. MR. DEEB-No, I didn’t say that, but I thought that was part of it. He’s got to submit it. Do you want me to put that in there, Laura? MRS. MOORE-So you included that as part of the final plan submission. MR. DEEB-Yes, I included it as another condition. MRS. MOORE-Yes. MR. TRAVER-All right. So you got it covered. That’s good. Thank you, David. AYES: Mr. Hunsinger, Mr. Magowan, Mr. Dixon, Mr. Deeb, Ms. White, Mr. Shafer, Mr. Traver NOES: NONE ABSENT: Mr. Valentine MR. O'CONNOR-’Thank you very much. MR. HALL-Thank you very much. MR. TRAVER-Okay. MR. MAGOWAN-Thank you, Ethan. MR. TRAVER-So the next item on our agenda, also under Old Business, is the David White Trust, Site Plan 5-2021. SITE PLAN NO. 5-2021 SEQR TYPE: TYPE II DAVID WHITE TRUST. AGENT(S): MICHAEL O’CONNOR, JOHN MASON, HUTCHINS ENG.. OWNER(S): SAME AS APPLICANT. ZONING: WR. LOCATION: 5 WILD TURKEY LANE (OFF 9L). APPLICANT PROPOSES A 471 SQ. FT. ADDITION TO AN EXISTING HOME ON THE UPPER LEVEL OF THE HOME. THE EXISTING HOME IS 1,575 SQ. FT. FOOTPRINT WITH 431 SQ. FT. DECK. THE EXISTING FLOOR AREA IS 4,198 SQ. FT. PURSUANT TO CHAPTER 179-3-040, 179-6-065 & 179-13-010 OF THE ZONING ORDINANCE, NEW FLOOR AREA IN A CEA AND EXPANSION OF A NON-CONFORMING STRUCTURE IN A CEA SHALL BE SUBJECT TO PLANNING BOARD REVIEW AND APPROVAL. CROSS REFERENCE: SP 10-2002 BOATHOUSE, SP 1-1992 DECK, AV 37-2002 DOCK, AV 6-1998 13 (Queensbury Planning Board 01/26/2021) RES. ADD., AV 1-2021. WARREN CO. REFERRAL: JANUARY 2021. SITE INFORMATION: LGPC, CEA, APA, SLOPES. LOT SIZE: .83 ACRE. TAX MAP NO. 239.15-1-4. SECTION: 179-3- 040, 179-6-065, 179-13-010. MICHAEL O’CONNOR & TOM HUTCHINS, REPRESENTING APPLICANT, PRESENT MR. TRAVER-Laura? MRS. MOORE-This application received a variance for the height of the addition and the setback from the shoreline, 35.5 feet where 75 feet is required and again it’s a residential addition on the upper level of the home. The applicant did supply some photos today in reference to the shoreline buffering that you had some questions on, and that photo is up now. MR. TRAVER-Okay. Great. Thank you, Laura. Let’s see. I think, Mr. O’Connor, you’re here also on this application. Correct? MR. O'CONNOR-Yes, Stephen. Basically the variances were area variances for setbacks for the addition, none of which came closer to whatever was the required side line and lake than what was already in existence with the prior existing house. It’s just fill-ins to the existing house, but they built a bedroom and a bathroom on the second level or third level of the house. That’s why we went through the additions. If you look at the picture that’s on the screen right now you will see that Mrs. White has extensive plantings between the front of the house and the lake. In fact she told me that there isn’t six square inches of ground that doesn’t have something planted with a deep root system. MR. TRAVER-Okay. Yes, we can see that clearly in the photo. That’s very nice, and so you received your variance. We looked at this obviously we made the recommendation to the ZBA. Questions, comments from members of the Board? MR. MAGOWAN-Mr. Chairman. Brad Magowan. We talked about before the variance you were going to look into the A/C unit that looks like it’s going to be up on the roof where the addition’s going to go. It’s a pretty good size. Do you have a place? MR. O'CONNOR-Is Tom still on this call? MR. HUTCHINS-That’s going away. MR. O'CONNOR-Either a flat roof or inside. Right, that air conditioning unit? MR. HUTCHINS-That’s going to be converted to inside equipment. MR. TRAVER-That’s going away. MR. HUTCHINS-That’s going away. MR. O'CONNOR-It’ll be part of the structure inside. MR. TRAVER-Right. I thought it was a hot tub when I saw the photograph. MR. MAGOWAN-It’s a huge handler. What do you mean it’s going inside? You still have to have an exterior. MR. O'CONNOR-A small compressor. Tom, you answer that. You’re the engineer. MR. HUTCHINS-There will be a more conventional residential condensing unit, but the air handling portion will be interior. MR. MAGOWAN-All right. Thank you. MR. TRAVER-We do have a public hearing on this application. Is there anyone that wanted to comment to the Planning Board on Site Plan 5-2021 for the David White Trust? And Laura I’ll also ask if there are written comments? PUBLIC HEARING OPENED MRS. MOORE-There is a written comment. This was addressed to the Zoning Board, but the applicant wished to have this read at the Planning Board. MR. TRAVER-Okay. 14 (Queensbury Planning Board 01/26/2021) MRS. MOORE-“As a forty-five year friend and neighbor to the Walker family, (3 West Mtn. Rd., Queensbury, NY 12804) I can say with confidence that they are good and honest people. In reference to the pole barn building permit, and zoning variance requested by Jason Walker, to be built along our adjoining property line, Jason Walker and I have discussed at length the positioning, size, and look of the building he is proposing. I fully understand the variance he is requesting, to have his building set 1.7.25 ft. off our shared property line, versus the standard 25 ft. I am writing today to assure you that I have NO concerns or reservations about this proposal. I feel that the 17.25 ft. variance still leaves plenty of room for snow removal, vehicle maneuvering, and respect of our shared line. Sincerely, Frederick S. Joslyn” MS. WHITE-Laura, isn’t that the next project? MR. TRAVER-Yes, that’s for Walker. MS. WHITE-We’re still on White. MRS. MOORE-I’m sorry. There are no written comments. I apologize. MR. TRAVER-That’s all right. MR. BROWN-So just a reminder if there’s anybody here to speak in the lobby, just raise your hand and I’ll get you into the meeting, but I don’t see any hands at this point. MR. TRAVER-Thank you, Craig. All right. Then we’ll go ahead and close the public hearing. PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED MR. TRAVER-People feel comfortable moving forward on this? It’s fairly straightforward. They did get their variance. MR. SHAFER-Yes. MR. HUNSINGER-Yes. MS. WHITE-Yes. MR. TRAVER-Okay. David, we have a draft resolution, right? MR. DEEB-Yes, we do. RESOLUTION APPROVING SP # 5-2021 DAVID WHITE TRUST The applicant has submitted an application to the Planning Board for Site Plan approval pursuant to Article 9 of the Town zoning Ordinance for: Applicant proposes a 471 sq. ft. addition to an existing home on the upper level of the home. The existing home is 1,575 sq. ft. footprint with 431 sq. ft. deck. The existing floor area is 4,198 sq. ft. and proposed is 4,669 sq. ft. Pursuant to Chapter179-3-040, 179-6-065 & 179-13- 010 of the Zoning Ordinance, new floor area in a CEA and expansion of a non-conforming structure 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 made a recommendation to the Zoning Board of Appeals on 01/19/2021; the ZBA approved the variance requests on 01/20/2021; The Planning Board opened a public hearing on the Site plan application on 01/26/2021 and continued the public hearing to 01/26/2021, 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 01/26/2021; 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 5-2021 DAVID WHITE TRUST; Introduced by David Deeb who moved for its adoption; 15 (Queensbury Planning Board 01/26/2021) Per the draft provided by staff conditioned upon the following conditions: 1) Waivers request granted: g. site lighting, h. signage, j. stormwater, k. topography, , n traffic, o. commercial alterations/ construction details, , q. soil logs, r. construction/demolition disposal s. snow removal. 2) 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) If application was referred to engineering, then engineering sign-off required prior to signature of Zoning Administrator of the approved plans; b) Final approved plans should have dimensions and setbacks noted on the site plan/survey, floor plans and elevation for the existing rooms and proposed rooms in the building and site improvements, c) Final approved plans, in compliance with the Site Plan, must be submitted to the Community Development Department before any further review by the Zoning Administrator or Building and Codes personnel; d) The applicant must meet with Staff after approval and prior to issuance of Building Permit and/or the beginning of any site work; e) Subsequent issuance of further permits, including building permits is dependent on compliance with this and all other conditions of this resolution; f) As-built plans to certify that the site plan is developed according to the approved plans to be provided prior to issuance of the certificate of occupancy; g) Resolution to be placed on final plans in its entirety and legible. th Motion seconded by John Shafer. Duly adopted this 26 day of January 2021 by the following vote: AYES: Mr. Magowan, Mr. Dixon, Mr. Deeb, Ms. White, Mr. Shafer, Mr. Hunsinger, Mr. Traver NOES: NONE ABSENT: Mr. Valentine MR. TRAVER-All right. You’re all set, Michael. MR. O'CONNOR-Thank you very much. Have a good evening, folks. MR. TRAVER-The next item on our agenda, also under Old Business, is Jason Walker, Site Plan 6-2021. SITE PLAN 6-2021 SEQR TYPE: TYPE II. JASON WALKER. OWNER(S): SAME AS APPLICANT. ZONING: MDR. LOCATION: 3 WEST MOUNTAIN ROAD. APPLICANT PROPOSES TO CONSTRUCT A 40 FT. X 80 FT. (3,200 SQ. FT.) ENCLOSED POLE BARN TO STORE FARM EQUIPMENT, MATERIALS, ETC. THE SITE HAS AN EXISTING RESIDENCE OF 1,128 SQ. FT., BARN/GREENHOUSE OF 3,648 SQ. FT. AND GREEN HOUSE OF 3,768 SQ. FT. THERE ARE NO CHANGES TO THE EXISTING STRUCTURES ON SITE. PURSUANT TO CHAPTER 179-3-040 OF THE ZONING ORDINANCE, PRODUCE STAND GREATER THAN 100 SQUARE FEET SHALL BE SUBJECT TO PLANNING BOARD REVIEW AND APPROVAL. CROSS REFERENCE: AV 3-2021. WARREN CO. REFERRAL: JANUARY 2021. LOT SIZE: 3 ACRES. TAX MAP NO. 315.10-1-52. SECTION: 179-3-040. JASON WALKER, PRESENT MR. TRAVER-Laura? MRS. MOORE-This applicant received a variance for setback at the Zoning Board of Appeals and again it was for construction of a 3,200 square foot enclosed pole barn to store farm equipment. MR. TRAVER-Okay, and we did hear public comment from a neighbor that they were in support of the application. Questions, comments from members of the Planning Board? It’s fairly straightforward. MR. SHAFER-He explained last time why he wanted it where it is. MR. TRAVER-Right. There was discussion about the way the door was facing, but he offered an explanation for that. MR. DIXON-Did you open the public hearing? MR. TRAVER-Yes, we do have a public hearing on this application. Is there anyone that wanted to comment to the Planning Board? 16 (Queensbury Planning Board 01/26/2021) PUBLIC HEARING OPENED MR. BROWN-I don’t see any hands in the lobby. I do see Mr. Walker here, just so you know. Jason, you’re on mute in case you want to speak . MR. TRAVER-Jason, did you have anything you wished to offer? We discussed this with you previously and you did receive your variance from the ZBA for the setback, but if you have anything more to offer to the Planning Board, you’re welcome to do it now. MR. WALKER-Can you hear me, guys? MR. TRAVER-Yes. MR. WALKER-The only thing that might not be kosher with you guys is the doors. I am going to switch the doors to the north side. I’m going to take the door out on the west side. I’m not going to have one there. I’m going to put it on the north side, and then I’ll have, possibly a door on the east side, but that’s it. MR. TRAVER-Okay. MR. WALKER-The doors were at the end of the building which would be east and west. MR. TRAVER-Right. MR. WALKER-I would like to have one on the east, and then possibly one or two on the north to come in. MR. TRAVER-One or two. Okay. MR. WALKER-I mean if I say two, I’m good , and if I say one and if I chose to do two, I would rather go for the two, just because it’s 80 feet long. I think two would work out best for me to get in there. MR. TRAVER-Okay. Well we were mainly concerned with the location. It is a change to your site plan. I don’t know, Laura, do you have any comment on what Mr. Walker is suggesting? MRS. MOORE-On the final plans when they’re submitted those doors need to be located in the location where he’s, he’s discussed that tonight if the Board’s in agreement with those locations. MR. TRAVER-Right. Okay. I mean I guess I don’t really have a problem. His wanting two doors on the long side is certainly logical for easier access. I’ll put it out there to members of the Board. Does anyone have a problem with his changing the door locations? MR. MAGOWAN-I don’t. MS. WHITE-No. MR. SHAFER-In fact I thought the explanation for the location of the pole barn was he wanted to get equipment, he wanted to make the turn of equipment coming in from the north, on the north side. MR. WALKER-That would two doors on the north side. MR. SHAFER-Correct. MR. TRAVER-He’s still proposing that. He’s just talking about adding a door on the east side. MR. SHAFER-I thought he said one or two on the north side as well. MR. WALKER-North side. That is correct. That’s the long side. MR. TRAVER-Which is where he told us he wanted access. MR. SHAFER-So what is the change? MR. WALKER-I think that you guys thought that there was one on the west and the east. I don’t want the one on the west because there’s no reason for it. MR. HUNSINGER-Yes, the elevation shows one on the west and one on the east. MR. WALKER-Correct. 17 (Queensbury Planning Board 01/26/2021) MR. HUNSINGER-But two on the north, those face the interior of the site, so I certainly don’t have a problem with that. MR. WALKER-No, I just want to be up front and I’m probably going to go to two, if I can. MR. DEEB-I know this is redundant, but you had no doors on the south side. MR. WALKER-The south side is my neighbor’s property and I don’t want any doors over there. MR. DEEB-Then why did you not want to go within the setbacks? MR. WALKER-Because I want to go in from the north side so I can swing and go into the barn, into the pole barn. MR. DEEB-I guess I’m just confused here from the south and north. MR. WALKER-The north is the other barn. The south is the property line by William Jocelyn. MR. SHAFER-And here’s a north arrow on the plan, David. MR. WALKER-Yes, up on the top left. MR. DEEB-The south side is where the variance was. MR. WALKER-Yes. I do not want a door over there. MR. TRAVER-It’s next to the property line. MR. DEEB-So what’s the reason you wanted the variance again? MR. TRAVER-Because he’s placing the building, the building is proposed to be within the setback for the neighbor to the south. MR. WALKER-There you go. One, two, and then maybe one in the east. That’s the west. Not that one. There you go. MRS. MOORE-So are those the garage like doors or is one a man door? MR. WALKER-They’re garage doors. So I can pull the tractors in and out. I think that would be good. MR. MAGOWAN-Yes, it makes total sense there. You’re going to be in between the existing greenhouse and to the north corner of the proposed and then one on the face. I see what you’re talking the radius to pull in. I mean the north side you’re going to be probably to the back a little because you’re going to have one right up there on the east side. So , yes, I don’t have a problem with that. It makes sense to me. MR. WALKER-Yes, sir. MR. DIXON-Mr. Chairman, was there any lighting associated with this? I don’t recall from last week’s discussion if there was any new lighting on the exterior? MR. WALKER-No lighting on the exterior. There are windows as described. Maybe a little less windows on the north side because the garage door is there. MR. DIXON-All right. Thank you. MR. TRAVER-So, Laura you would ask that he place the door placement on the final plans? MRS. MOORE-Correct. MR. TRAVER-Yes, okay. So we’ll add that, David. Does anyone have any other concerns? We still have public comment, other than the one positive letter that was read in to the record from the neighbor to the south. Is there anyone else that wanted to address the Planning Board on this application? All right then we’ll go ahead and close the public hearing. PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED MR. TRAVER-And I think we’re ready. This is Type II under SEQR. So we’ll go ahead and entertain a motion, David. 18 (Queensbury Planning Board 01/26/2021) RESOLUTION APPROVING SP # 6-2021 JASON WALKER The applicant has submitted an application to the Planning Board for Site Plan approval pursuant to Article 9 of the Town zoning Ordinance for: Applicant proposes to construct a 40 ft. x 80 ft. (3,200 sq. ft.) enclosed pole barn to store farm equipment, materials, etc. The site has an existing residence of 1,128 sq. ft., barn/greenhouse of 3,648 sq. ft., and greenhouse of 3,768 sq. ft. There are no changes to the existing structures on site. Pursuant to Chapter 179-3-040 of the Zoning Ordinance, produce stand greater than 100 sq. ft. shall be subject to Planning Board review and approval. Pursuant to relevant sections of the Town of Queensbury Zoning Code-Chapter 179-9-080, the Planning Board has determined that this proposal satisfies the requirements as stated in the Zoning Code; As required by General Municipal Law Section 239-m the site plan application was referred to the Warren County Planning Department for its recommendation; The Planning Board made a recommendation to the Zoning Board of Appeals on 01/19/2021; the ZBA approved the variance requests on 01/20/2021; The Planning Board opened a public hearing on the Site plan application on 01/26/2021 and continued the public hearing to 01/26/2021, 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 01/26/2021; The Planning Board determines that the application complies with the review considerations and standards set forth in Article 9 of the Zoning Ordinance for Site Plan approval, MOTION TO APPROVE SITE PLAN 6-2021 JASON WALKER; Introduced by David Deeb who moved for its adoption; Per the draft provided by staff conditioned upon the following conditions: 1) Waivers request granted: g. site lighting, h. signage, k. topography, l. landscaping, n traffic, o. commercial alterations/ construction details, p floor plans, q. soil logs, r. construction/demolition disposal s. snow removal 2) The approval is valid for one (1) year from the date of approval. 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) If application was referred to engineering, then engineering sign-off required prior to signature of Zoning Administrator of the approved plans; b) Final approved plans should have dimensions and setbacks noted on the site plan/survey, floor plans and elevation for the existing rooms and proposed rooms in the building and site improvements, c) Final approved plans, in compliance with the Site Plan, must be submitted to the Community Development Department before any further review by the Zoning Administrator or Building and Codes personnel; d) The applicant must meet with Staff after approval and prior to issuance of Building Permit and/or the beginning of any site work; e) Subsequent issuance of further permits, including building permits is dependent on compliance with this and all other conditions of this resolution; f) As-built plans to certify that the site plan is developed according to the approved plans to be provided prior to issuance of the certificate of occupancy; g) Resolution to be placed on final plans in its entirety and legible. h) Door openings location to be shown on the final submitted site plan. th Motion seconded by Brad Magowan. Duly adopted this 26 day of January 2021 by the following vote: AYES: Mr. Dixon, Mr. Deeb, Ms. White, Mr. Shafer, Mr. Hunsinger, Mr. Magowan, Mr. Traver NOES: NONE ABSENT: Mr. Valentine MR. TRAVER-All right, Mr. Walker. You’re all set. MR. WALKER-Thank you, Board. 19 (Queensbury Planning Board 01/26/2021) MR. TRAVER-The next section of our agenda is New Business, and under New Business we have an application, Jeffrey Campbell, Site Plan 3-2021. NEW BUSINESS: SITE PLAN NO. 3-2021 SEQR TYPE: TYPE II. JEFFREY CAMPBELL. AGENT(S): HUTCHINS ENGINEERING. OWNER(S): SAME AS APPLICANT. ZONING: WR. LOCATION: 16 MAYFLOWER LANE. APPLICANT PROPOSES TO RENOVATE A PORTION OF AN EXISTING HOME WITH AN ENCLOSED PATIO ADDITION. THE PLANS INDICATE THERE IS 142 SQ. FT. OF EXISTING PATIO PART OF THE RENOVATION AND 176 SQ. FT. OF PATIO ADDITION – 320 SQ. FT. TOTAL. THE EXISTING HOME IS 1,367 SQ. FT. FOOTPRINT WITH A 204 SQ. FT. DECK AREA. THE NEW FOOTPRINT WOULD BE 1,367 SQ. FT. WITH 515 SQ. FT. DECK AREAS. THE EXISTING FLOOR AREA IS 2,500 SQ. FT. AND NEW FLOOR AREA WOULD BE 2,820 SQ. FT. PURSUANT TO CHAPTER 179-6-065 & 179-4-080 OF THE ZONING ORDINANCE, NEW FLOOR AREA IN A CEA SHALL BE SUBJECT TO PLANNING BOARD REVIEW AND APPROVAL. CROSS REFERENCE: SEP 0276-2020 SEPTIC. WARREN CO. REFERRAL: JANUARY 2021. SITE INFORMATION: LGPC, CEA, APA, SLOPES. LOT SIZE: .57 ACRES. TAX MAP NO. 227.6- 1-7. SECTION: 179-6-065, 179-4-080. TOM HUTCHINS, REPRESENTING APPLICANT, PRESENT; JEFFREY CAMPBELL, PRESENT MR. TRAVER-Laura? MRS. MOORE-This applicant proposes to renovate a portion of the existing home with an enclosed patio addition. The total square footage ends up being 320 square feet, and I’ve identified that this information was on the plan and I identified the shoreline buffer information for your review, and that’s all I have. MR. TRAVER-Okay. Thank you. Who’s representing the applicant? MRS. MOORE-Tom Hutchins is. MR. TRAVER-Okay. Tom, are you here? And is Mr. Campbell here? MR. CAMPBELL-Yes, I am. MR. HUTCHINS-I believe Jeff’s on, yes. MR. TRAVER-Okay. Do you want to tell us about your project? MR. HUTCHINS-Good evening, again, Board. Tom Hutchins and Jeff Campbell the owner is also on. They propose to construct a 320 square foot porch addition in an area where there’s 130 square foot of decking presently. It’ll be removed So it’ll be a net increase of 190 square feet of impervious. The house is 120 feet away from the lake, and there was a new septic system installed this summer. The Campbells are relatively new owners of this property and they are making some improvements and it’s coming along very nicely. It’s this little screen room will help them out a lot with enjoying their property. Everything is compatible. We’re not asking for any variances. FAR is 11%, where 22% is allowable. So this lot certainly isn’t over done and with that I guess I’d turn it over to the Board for comments and, Jeff, if you want to add anything, feel free. MR. CAMPBELL-Sure. Thanks, Tom. Yes, we are relatively new and absolutely enjoying the property obviously. This is a very small addition. I think Tom’s got the total. You can see on the plan there’s a dotted line. That’s existing screened in porch . So we’re just looking to bump it out about 10 feet of new construction. Then we were going to just pour a new stamped patio over the existing. So, yes, I think, Tom, your plan shows it very well. MR. TRAVER-Yes. Okay. Questions, comments from members of the Board? MR. SHAFER-Question. Tom, is this a covered patio or just an open? MR. HUTCHINS-No, it’s screened in. MR. TRAVER-It’s almost like a sun room. MR. HUTCHINS-Yes, I termed it a screened porch. MR. SHAFER-The drawing says patio. That’s why I asked. All right. Thanks. MR. HUTCHINS-Yes, it’s roofed and screened in. There’s a little rendering of it right there. 20 (Queensbury Planning Board 01/26/2021) MR. SHAFER-Okay. MR. TRAVER-How is the buffering on the shoreline with this project? MR. HUTCHINS-There’s probably 90 feet of relatively level area starting from the house heading to the lake, and then probably 30, 40 feet of significant slope, probably a 30, 40% slope. It’s entirely vegetated. It’s woody, brushy vegetation but the slope is extremely stable and there is a large group of large trees to the south end, and the slope is all smaller wooded vegetation but it’s stable and it does its job as a buffer. MR. TRAVER-Okay. Thank you. We do have a public hearing on this application. Are there folks that would like to address the Planning Board on this application? PUBLIC HEARING OPENED MR. BROWN- I don’t see any hands up at this point. MR. TRAVER-Okay. Thank you, Craig. Are there any written comments, Laura? MRS. MOORE-There are no written comments. MR. TRAVER-Okay. Do members of the Board have any questions for the applicant or the engineer? Okay. All right. We’ll go ahead and close the public hearing then. PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED MR. TRAVER-And, David, I guess we’re ready for a motion. RESOLUTION APPROVING SP # 3-2021 JEFFREY CAMPBELL The applicant has submitted an application to the Planning Board for Site Plan approval pursuant to Article 9 of the Town zoning Ordinance for: Applicant proposes to renovate a portion of an existing home with an enclosed patio addition. The plans indicate there is 142 sq. ft. of existing patio part of the renovation and 176 sq. ft. of patio addition – 320 sq. ft. total. The existing home is 1,367 sq. ft. footprint with 204 sq. ft. deck area. The new footprint would be 1,367 sq. ft. with 515 sq. ft. deck areas. The existing floor area is 2,500 sq. ft. and new floor area would be 2,820 sq. ft. Pursuant to Chapter 179-6-065 & 179-4- 080 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 01/26/2021 and continued the public hearing to 01/26/2021, 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 01/26/2021; 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 3-2021 JEFFREY CAMPBELL; Introduced by David Deeb who moved for its adoption; Per the draft provided by staff conditioned upon the following conditions: 1) Waivers request granted: g. site lighting, h. signage, 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) If application was referred to engineering, then engineering sign-off required prior to signature of Zoning Administrator of the approved plans; b) Final approved plans should have dimensions and setbacks noted on the site plan/survey, floor plans and elevation for the existing rooms and proposed rooms in the building and site improvements, 21 (Queensbury Planning Board 01/26/2021) c) Final approved plans, in compliance with the Site Plan, must be submitted to the Community Development Department before any further review by the Zoning Administrator or Building and Codes personnel; d) The applicant must meet with Staff after approval and prior to issuance of Building Permit and/or the beginning of any site work; e) Subsequent issuance of further permits, including building permits is dependent on compliance with this and all other conditions of this resolution; f) As-built plans to certify that the site plan is developed according to the approved plans to be provided prior to issuance of the certificate of occupancy; g) Resolution to be placed on final plans in its entirety and legible. th Motion seconded by Michael Dixon. Duly adopted this 26 day of January 2021 by the following vote: AYES: Mr. Hunsinger, Mr. Magowan, Mr. Dixon, Mr. Deeb, Ms. White, Mr. Shafer, Mr. Traver NOES: NONE ABSENT: Mr. Valentine MR. TRAVER-All right, you are all set. Thank you very much. MR. HUTCHINS-Thank you, Board. MR. TRAVER-That concludes our agenda tonight. Is there any other business before the Board? MRS. MOORE-I’m going to ask, Mr. Chairman, if you could make a resolution to start, that meeting for th the first February meeting, which would be the 16, that you’re going to start that early, so at least it’s a matter of record. MR. TRAVER-Understood. Okay. th RESOLUTION TO START THE FEB. 16, 2021 PLANNING BOARD MEETING AT 6 P.M. TH MOTION TO BEGIN THE FEBRUARY 16, 2021 MEETING OF THE TOWN OF QUEENSBURY PLANNING BOARD AT 6 P.M. INSTEAD OF 7 P.M. TO ALLOW TIME FOR THE (WARREN COUNTY) SOIL & WATER TRAINING ON STORMWATER, Introduced by Stephen Traver who moved for its adoption, seconded by Brad Magowan: th Duly adopted this 26 day of January, 2021, by the following vote: MR. SHAFER-And that will be virtual? MRS. MOORE-Correct. MS. WHITE-I’d just ask that any possibility of reminders a couple of days ahead of time would be greatly appreciated. MRS. MOORE-Absolutely. MS. WHITE-Thank you. MR. HUNSINGER-So just a point of clarification, then. If we’re voting to start the meeting at six o’clock, if we finish the workshop before 7 p.m., does that mean we can start our regular agenda? I assume that’s why we’re doing this, right? MRS. MOORE-I would prefer that you start your regular meeting at seven.. I’m assuming that you’ll have enough, I know Jim will have enough information to share with you to last until seven if we end up doing that. MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. MR. TRAVER-We also have, are there public notices going out, Laura, that say seven that we would need to adhere to? MRS. MOORE-So that your regularly scheduled meeting would start at seven but the training session starts at six. AYES: Mr. Magowan, Mr. Dixon, Mr. Deeb, Ms. White, Mr. Shafer, Mr. Hunsinger, Mr. Traver 22 (Queensbury Planning Board 01/26/2021) NOES: NONE ABSENT: Mr. Valentine MR. TRAVER-All right. Thank you, everyone. So we can entertain a motion to adjourn. MOTION TO ADJOURN THE QUEENSBURY PLANNING BOARD MEETING OF JANUARY 26, 2021, Introduced by Chris Hunsinger who moved for its adoption, seconded by David Deeb: th Duly adopted this 26 day of January, 2021, by the following vote: AYES: Mr. Deeb, Ms. White, Mr. Shafer, Mr. Hunsinger, Mr. Magowan, Mr. Dixon, Mr. Traver NOES: NONE ABSENT: Mr. Valentine MR. TRAVER-We stand adjourned. Thank you, everyone. On motion meeting was adjourned RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED, Stephen Traver, Chairman 23