Loading...
02-16-2021 (Queensbury Planning Board 02/16/2021) QUEENSBURY PLANNING BOARD MEETING FIRST REGULAR MEETING FEBRUARY 16, 2021 INDEX Site Plan No. 42-2020 Bill Pogonowski 1. Tax Map No. 239.8-1-8 & 239.8-1-60 Site Plan No. 58-2020 Bonnie Rosenberg 4. Tax Map No. 239.7-1-15 Site Plan No. 10-2021 Michael Loughrey 11. ZBA RECOMMENDATION Tax Map No. 239.16-1-7 Site Plan No. 8-2021 Meghan & Daniel Frazier 13. MODIFICATION Tax Map No. 227.17-1-11 ZBA RECOMMENDATION Site Plan No. 9-2021 Trevor Flynn 15. ZBA RECOMMENDATION Tax Map No. 239.18-1-48 Subdivision No. 1-2021 Jennifer Ball 19. PRELIMINARY STAGE Tax Map No. 266.1-1-9.1 & 266.1-1-8 Subdivision No. 2-2021 FINAL STAGE ZBA RECOMMENDATION Site Plan No. 7-2021 ADK Developers and Builders 21. ZBA RECOMMENDATION Tax Map No. 227.17-1-52 Discussion Item 1-2021 Chris Racicot 25. Tax Map No. 309.10-1-60 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 02/16/2021) QUEENSBURY PLANNING BOARD MEETING FIRST REGULAR MEETING FEBRUARY 16, 2021 7:00 P.M. MEMBERS PRESENT STEPHEN TRAVER, CHAIRMAN CHRIS HUNSINGER, VICE CHAIRMAN DAVID DEEB, SECRETARY JOHN SHAFER BRAD MAGOWAN JAMIE WHITE MICHAEL VALENTINE ALTERNATE MEMBERS PRESENT MICHAEL DIXON ZONING ADMINISTRATOR-CRAIG BROWN LAND USE PLANNER-LAURA MOORE STENOGRAPHER-MARIA GAGLIARDI MR. TRAVER-Welcome to the Town of Queensbury Planning Board meeting via Zoom, Tuesday, February 16, 2021. This is our first meeting for the month of February, our third meeting for 2021 and th believe it or not it’s our 18 meeting during the COVID Pandemic and our third meeting done virtually via Zoom. I’d like to extend our thanks to the Soil and Water Conservation District for the presentation by Jim Lieberum about the stormwater practices as part of our annual training. Very good information and we’ll be following up with him. The one administrative item we have this evening is approval of minutes thnd for December, and that would be for December 15 and December 22. I believe you have a draft resolution for that, David. MR. DEEB-Yes, well I made one up. APPROVAL OF MINUTES December 15, 2020 December 22, 2020 MOTION TO APPROVE THE QUEENSBURY PLANNING BOARD MEETING MINUTES OF THnd DECEMBER 15 & DECEMBER 22, 2020, Introduced by David Deeb who moved for its adoption, seconded by Brad Magowan: th Duly adopted this 16 day of February, 2021, by the following vote: AYES: Mr. Deeb, Ms. White, Mr. Shafer, Mr. Hunsinger, Mr. Magowan, Mr. Valentine, Mr. Traver NOES: NONE MR. TRAVER-All right. Now we can move into our regular agenda. The first section of that agenda is Tabled Items, and the first item is Bill Pogonowski, Site Plan 42-2020. TABLED ITEMS: 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. REVISED: APPLICANT PROPOSES CONSTRUCTION OF A 627 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 18’ 10 ¾” 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. 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. 2 (Queensbury Planning Board 02/16/2021) ETHAN HALL, REPRESENTING APPLICANT, PRESENT MR. TRAVER-Laura? MRS. MOORE-This application was for the garage, and previously it was at 23 plus feet in height, and it has been reduced to 18 feet and 10 and three-quarters, and the Zoning Board approved this at their meeting on January 20, 2021. MR. TRAVER-Okay. Thank you. Ethan, good evening. MR. HALL-How are you? MR. TRAVER-Very good, thanks. Welcome back. If you could update us on this project. MR. HALL-Sure. So we obtained the zoning variance from the Zoning Board in the January meeting and we reduced the overall height by reducing the roof pitch. We did take into account, I think it was Brad who made the comment about dropping the door down a little bit so that we could get the door in. That allowed us to kind of drop the roof down a little bit further so we were able to get down. We got it down as far as we could get it and still maintain some usable storage space in the attic but we’re down to 18.10 inches. We received the zoning variance and now we’re just back for final Site Plan approval. MR. TRAVER-Very good. Thank you. Questions, comments from members of the Board? MR. MAGOWAN-Ethan, I just want to thank you for going that extra step to lower it down, and it makes a difference. It looks so much better, and you really can’t even tell. MR. HALL-At the end of the day he’s still going to have storage space up there which is really all he was looking for and he’s resigned himself to the fact that this is what he’s going to have. MR. TRAVER-We do have a public hearing on this application for this evening. Is there anyone in the waiting room that would like to address the Planning Board on this revised application? PUBLIC HEARING OPENED MR. BROWN-I do not see any hands up. MR. TRAVER-Craig, you’re here. Good. Thank you. Okay, are there any written comments, Laura? MRS. MOORE-For this one, no, there are not. MR. TRAVER-Okay. All right. Well we can go ahead and close the public hearing, then. PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED MR. TRAVER-This is a SEQR Type II. So there’s no review under SEQR required. Are there any further questions from members of the Board? MRS. MOORE-So I just had a question about electricity and water supply. MR. HALL-There will be electricity There will not be a water supply but there will be electricity. They have overhead door openers and lights. The only lights that we’re going to have will be at the exterior doors, They’ll be a downcast fixture and they’ll be mounted. They’re just carriage style lights that will be mounted to the layout, by the overhead doors and one by the back door. MRS. MOORE-Okay. MR. TRAVER-There was also mention about the eaves trenches. MR. HALL-Yes, those are shown on the Site Plan. They’re shown on both sides of the eaves. The detail is on the drawing and those are shown on both sides of the garage. MR. TRAVER-Right. Okay. All right. Well if there are no further questions, we’ll entertain a motion. RESOLUTION APPROVING SP # 42-2020 BILL POGONOWSKI The applicant has submitted an application to the Planning Board: 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 18’ 10 ¾” in height. Project includes 3 (Queensbury Planning Board 02/16/2021) 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. 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 10/20/2020; the ZBA approved the variance requests on 01/20/2021; The Planning Board opened a public hearing on the Site plan application on 10/27/2020 and continued the public hearing to 02/16/2021, 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 02/16/2021; 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 42-2020 BILL POGONOWSKI, 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, j. stormwater, k. topography, l. landscaping, n traffic, o. commercial alterations/ construction details, p floor plans, q. soil logs, r. construction/demolition disposal s. snow removal. 2) The approval is valid for one (1) year from the date of approval. 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; 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) Parcels 239.8-1-7 and 239.8-1-60 to be combined prior to issuance of building permit. th Motion seconded by Brad Magowan. Duly adopted this 16 day of February 2021 by the following vote: AYES: Ms. White, Mr. Shafer, Mr. Hunsinger, Mr. Magowan, Mr. Valentine, Mr. Deeb, Mr. Traver 4 (Queensbury Planning Board 02/16/2021) NOES: NONE MR. TRAVER-All right. MR. HALL-Thank you very much. MR. MAGOWAN-Thank you, Ethan. MR. TRAVER-The next item on our agenda under Tabled Items is Bonnie Rosenberg, Site Plan 58-2020. SITE PLAN NO. 58-2020 SEQR TYPE: TYPE II. BONNIE ROSENBERG. AGENT(S): DENNIS MAC ELROY. OWNER(S): SAME AS APPLICANT. ZONING: WR. LOCATION: 73 KNOX ROAD. APPLICANT PROPOSES TO CONSTRUCT TWO RESIDENTIAL ADDITIONS. NORTHSIDE ADDITION OF 64 SQ. FT. IS ON UPPER LEVEL. SOUTHSIDE ADDITION IS TWO STORY, 370 SQ. FT. FOOTPRINT WITH 740 SQ. FT. FLOOR AREA. PROJECT INCLUDES NEW WASTEWATER, STORMWATER MANAGEMENT AND REDUCTION OF DECKS AND FLOOR AREA. THE SITE HAS ONE MAIN HOUSE AND TWO COTTAGES – 1,855 SQ. FT. FOOTPRINT. NO CHANGES TO EXISTING COTTAGES ON SITE. 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. CROSS REFERENCE: AV 48-2020. WARREN CO. REFERRAL: DECEMBER 2020. SITE INFORMATION: APA, CEA, LGPC. LOT SIZE: .48 ACRE. TAX MAP NO. 239.7-1-15. SECTION: 179-3-040, 179-6-065. DENNIS MAC ELROY, REPRESENTING APPLICANT, PRESENT MR. TRAVER-Laura? MRS. MOORE-This application was tabled so the applicant could provide some additional information in reference to the stormwater management as well as updating the landscape plan for shoreline buffering which they had done in December but we’re including in this packet. So it was all one submission. So in reference to the updated grading, that information was also sent to the Town Engineer and the only comment from the Town Engineer at this point is in reference to incorrect spot grade in one of the shoreline dimensions. MR. TRAVER-Okay. Very good, and is Mr. MacElroy here this evening? MR. MAC ELROY-Yes Can you hear me okay? MR. TRAVER-Yes. MS. WHITE-Can I just state that we’re getting an awful lot of feedback. So that might be part of the problem. If you’re not speaking if you could mute I think it might help with that for members. MS. GAGLIARDI-I’m hearing a little bit of feedback. MR. VALENTINE-That’s true. Somebody’s either operating a copy machine or moving papers all over and stuff. MR. TRAVER-All right. So, Dennis, tell us about the update on your project. MR. MAC ELROY-Yes. Thank you. Well for the record I’m Dennis MacElroy with Environmental Design here representing Bonnie and Stuart Rosenberg for this property at 73 Knox Road. We were at the December meeting and were tabled. There was interest by the Board of getting some further information about permeability issues and stormwater. We have updated the plan. While our original plan was compliant with the requirements for stormwater, we have added in fact some additional stormwater management devices to the plan which will assist in that effort and we have reduced the permeability by a couple of different techniques, and again this is in response to concerns we heard from the Board. So the owner is glad to provide this information and try to indicate on the plans that some of these improvements that I think were always intended, not absolutely required by regulation would be shown. So first of all the paved areas that will be transitioned to permeable block pavers is an area about 1160 square feet in front of the house entry area. You can see it’s a hatched block area. So that will provide stormwater management by having the stone reservoir below the permeable pavers. The runoff in that area will infiltrate through the seams in the blocks to that reservoir below. Up along the road, Knox Road, you see another hatched area open cell paver. That’s just a different style of paver but it’s a concrete paver that’s open to the, it allows that infiltration again. Sometimes you can use that grass paver, but we’re not suggesting that in this location. That would just be filled with stone. So that it would again allow that infiltration in that area down through into the reservoir below. So that does two things. It reduces permeability and it provides stormwater management in that area. There’s a location of existing asphalt 5 (Queensbury Planning Board 02/16/2021) on the northerly side of the property that currently is asphalt. We would eliminate that, transition that into a grass vegetated area. You see it’s called out in a driveway reduction asphalt pavement replaced with grass vegetation. That’s another 378 square feet of area, and then there’s a very slight area on the corner of the absorption field that is transitioning out of a paved area. So by those techniques, we’re eliminating over 1,000 feet. Actually I re-calculated just a few minutes ago. It looks like it’s actually more than 1,000 square feet of impervious area. So I tried to address those concerns about permeability and in fact now I you don’t count that slight area of Knox Road that is technically on the property, the permeability is at 65%. So we’ve made, I think, a good reduction in that impermeable areas on the property. Additional stormwater besides those reservoirs for permeable block pavers we’ve provided a couple of strip drains that would capture runoff and flow to a drywell. We’ve got a catch basin down at the area where we’re eliminating some asphalt. Flow from the driveway would go to that location into a catch basin. The catch basin has a sump structure. So it would capture sediments and what not in that area in the catch basin and then the runoff would continue on to a drywell which is over in the grass area. Another strip drain on the other driveway to the south. The driveway that would capture a certain amount that’s in a steep slope area and heavy rains would not collect certainly all the runoff but it would be something that would capture into that strip drain and flow into the drywell. So those are a number of different items that we turned out attention to to show on the plans so that the Board had a hopefully a better level of comfort for the improvements to this site. The other issue that we didn’t talk about too much at the other meeting is the shoreline buffer. We could supplement it in that area. I have a real question about what is, what constitutes an existing shoreline buffer. I think that there’s some language issues or definition issues with the way the Ordinance is written, but now we’re faced with trying to apply that regulation and so we’ve buffered, it’s provided some additional buffering on that side that really doesn’t have as much natural shoreline trees, and shrubs and what not which we’ve shown on Sheet Seven which was provided to you. There’s some photos of that area and then we’re providing some new plantings on the, which is the area that’s up gradient of the beach area. So hopefully that will address the shoreline buffering. I think that there’s some question about how this Board has either understood or applied the regulations that come about as of June of 2019. I went through the meeting minutes of all the meetings since the beginning of 2020 on these projects that have shoreline areas and there seems to be a certain amount of confusion or uncertainty about how you come to the numbers that are addressed in your Ordinance. So we’ve applied some additional plantings in an effort to try to address that standard. MR. TRAVER-Okay. Thank you for that. Anything else? MR. MAC ELROY-I think that that addresses the issues that were brought up by the Board previously. I’ll reiterate and Laura can acknowledge this, too, that I’ve had further discussions with Dave Hatin about the wastewater system and he’s fine with what’s been proposed. MR. TRAVER-Okay. Questions, comments from members of the Board? MR. MAGOWAN-Dennis, the only question I had is I appreciate all the work you did on the permeable pavers and the open cell pavers. My only concern is up there on Knox Road there, I know it’s not a heavily salted, or sanded, but the traffic over the years with plowing is the snow going to sit on those? MR. MAC ELROY-Is the snow going to sit on those pavers out by the road? MR. MAGOWAN-Yes. MR. MAC ELROY-To an extent. It’s an area of the road that the Town plows. MR. MAGOWAN-I guess my question is over years is that little fine sand is going to sit in those c racks and it’s just going to clog it. You’re not going to get the permeability out of it. It’s kind of like the Beach Road, you know, they have to go there and vacuum that road. So I mean I wouldn’t mind but it’s like right on the road and I’m sure the snowbanks are there and as you know when the snow melts every year that’s all the sand that’s acquired there, and it’s not always what we put down on the road as the Town. It’s just what the cars put on the road as they travel, too. MR. MAC ELROY-Yes, I’m not sure if it’s on installation guidelines. I think we’ve got some maintenance notes about what we recommend to the owner as far as handle maintenance or periodic maintenance of those, whether it’s permeable lot pavers or the open cell pavers. Homeowners aren’t necessarily going to have a vac truck like the Village has. MR. MAGOWAN-No, but a Billy Goat works great. MR. MAC ELROY-But just a regular leaf blower is what I’ve always. MR. MAGOWAN-That blows it, Dennis, I mean the only reason I know is I’ve gone up there with a Billy Goat and, you know, you put it right down there and it’s amazing. I mean even just on my driveway and I‘ll go out on the road, before the Town gets there and I’ll suck up the sand, but, I mean, it really needs to be a vacuum and not a blower because a blower is just going to push the material and not actually suck out 6 (Queensbury Planning Board 02/16/2021) the crevices and the little pockets we need, but I’m not questioning it. I was just wondering if there was a maintenance program on that. MR. MAC ELROY-Well, again, we provide that recommended maintenance in our notes to that, but it’s a residential project. So it’s the homeowner’s requirement and obligation to maintain anything on this property. MR. MAGOWAN-So, I mean, if you just left it grass, what was wrong with that? MR. MAC ELROY-It’s not sustainable. I mean you could try certainly but I don’t think that grass is going to stay in those open cells. It’s not going to grow. It’s not going to thrive necessarily. MR. MAGOWAN-I mean you can try. That’s the only question I have. I mean that would be up to the rest of the Board, but I just wanted to raise the question. Thanks, Dennis. MR. MAC ELROY-Okay. MR. TRAVER-Any other questions from members of the Board before we go to the public hearing portion? MR. VALENTINE-If you don’t mind, I’d like to jump in. I didn’t understand Dennis’ narrative on the shoreline buffering, and I don’t, Laura, if you could speak to that because I’m looking on the plan versus the notes that are on here. On the sheet it says that there should 70 shrubs and there are 7 on the plan. It says there are to be five large trees, and I think there are two on the plan, and then you calculated for 140 that are labeled perennials along there. On the plans there were 42. MRS. MOORE-So I can jump in here. So again that’s not a requirement in our Code. That’s pretty much a discussion between the Board and the applicant. Those are guidance. MR. VALENTINE-Thank you. MR. VALENTINE-All right. So, Dennis, that’s what you were alluding to, then, is the fact that? MR. MAC ELROY-I think that, you know, between the language that is in that Ordinance, and I’m not sure exactly who wrote it or where it comes from, but it comes through the Town Board and becomes part of your Ordinance. I’m not sure what input the Planning Board had on that, but now you’re left to apply it, to see that applicants are addressing that to some extent. Personally I think that the numbers are a little bit out of whack in terms of this is 100 feet of frontage. So this is the perfect example, easy math example with 100 feet of frontage, 35 feet of depth. That’s 3500 square feet. So Laura did the math from the Staff Notes and it shows that for every 700 square feet there should be a tree. So that would require five trees. Well, there’s existing trees along the shoreline and we’ve shown two additional ones, but there would certainly by numbers be adequate numbers of large trees. Then it says shrubs. Shrubs are identified as large shrubs in the list, but yet the language in the Ordinance talks about seven 24 inch shrubs, and I know earlier through my review of the meeting minutes back in July there was an application that I think people were thinking that it said seven inch to twenty-four inch shrubs. No, it says seven 24 inch shrubs for every 350 square feet. So there’s 3,500 square feet in the buffer areas, so that’s 10 times, so 7 times 10 is 70 shrubs. Seventy shrubs would be required by the mathematics of that Ordinance, and then herbaceous plantings. It’s 14 herbaceous plants for every 350 square feet. So again that’s 10 times 14. That’s 140 herbaceous plantings would be required in that area, and I know from having reviewed all those different meeting minutes and the plans associated with it, there hasn’t been a project yet that you’ve applied that that’s resulted in that number of plantings. So I think, as Laura says, maybe it’s guidance, it’s something that that’s what could be, but that’s not what’s been proposed or done in any of the projects that I went back and looked back at in the meeting minutes. MR. VALENTINE-I appreciate your comment and explanation. I don’t have the background on how this was originated, but I started looking at, even on the notes on this one I was looking, does that say seven to twenty-four? So I had the same problem with reading that just in the notes, but then if you go along, so, Dennis, you’re saying obviously you’re not meeting those as strict numbers on there, but your plan is saying that you have enough natural existing trees an you’re sort of complimenting that. Is that what you’re saying? MR. MAC ELROY-We’re supplementing the planting by showing some additional shoreline buffering in the area that probably is the most susceptible which is that north side of the property. You’ll note that there’s a curbing or retaining wall on the uphill side of the house which basically captures the runoff from that area, but over on the northerly side of the property there I s an area by grading and just by the way the paving is that could run down that way, and we also want to be able to maintain for the owner some level of access to the shoreline area. It’s not unusual that docks get damaged and need repair. So you want to be able to have access by at least some small vehicle to be able to bring materials or supplies down to that side of the property. So that’s why in that area we’ve provided some means of access down through that grassed, that re-claimed grass area down around the, above the, or to the side of the septic tank and pump 7 (Queensbury Planning Board 02/16/2021) tank to be able to still access down along the shoreline. It doesn’t preclude you from doing additional plantings. We’ve provided some supplemental plantings and shrubs and herbaceous plantings in that area, but we also have a certain amount of existing plantings. I think that one of the plans has some existing photos that shows some level of vegetation along there. One of the other issues I have about the language of the Ordinance it says, Section B it says where no shoreline buffer exists. Well what does that mean? Is it there’s no vegetation at all, or, you know, I can understand, the Ordinance is well intended. I think that there’s some inconsistencies in the way it’s written, and therefore difficult for your Board to fully apply. So we’re trying to show some initial plantings and hopefully this is adequate for protection of the shoreline, protection of the lake and in keeping with what the owner would like to see in that area. MR. VALENTINE-Mr. Chairman, is this something that’s known as guidelines? I mean there’s room to play with each individual site that comes along? MR. TRAVER-Yes, basically. Yes. MR. VALENTINE-All right, and I don’t have any problems. Dennis, I’m not looking to put you on the defensive. I’m looking for clarification. I appreciate that. Chris, go ahead before we run out of time. MR. HUNSINGER-I just wanted to add, I appreciate all those comments, Dennis, and I think your depiction of the Code is pretty much the same understanding that I have. If you had a blank slate and nothing was there, that’s what would be required, but, you know, we’re not going to make you go into, say, that Photo Number 1 and there’s a lot of little plants in there. You’re probably going to hit the 140, you’re probably going to hit it right in that one little area if you counted them all. We’re not going to sit here and make you count them all. I think what you’ve proposed is really good, and what we’ve done as a Board is we kind of looked at the site overall and said well there’s a couple of spots here where you need to supplement what you have and that’s what you’ve done. In my mind I think this is really one of the better applications of the Code and my understanding of the Code that we’ve seen and I totally agree with you. Five trees, well you have more than five trees, but when we talked about it in our meeting, you know, most of them are in that northern corner. So we said well yes you have enough trees, but you need to add a couple of more to spread them out, but I totally agree with you, and just to answer Mike’s question, and, you know, Laura reminds us almost every time it is up to the Board to interpret that and to make a determination when is enough enough. I’d probably be the first to admit we’ve let some people skate away a little too lenient, but I think what you’re presenting right here in my mind is about as best practice as we’ve seen in the last several months. So I really commend what you’ve put together and I appreciate your thoughts as you’ve expressed them. I think it’s a good discussion to have. MR. MAC ELROY-Thank you. MR. TRAVER-Thanks, Chris. I would add, too, because of the Zoom meeting and the way we’ve come up with management of it, we also have Craig Brown with us this evening who’s been participating obviously in this shoreline buffering process from conception right up until all of its practice. Craig, I don’t know if you have any comment on the discussion of the somewhat subjective nature of interpreting of it site by site. MR. BROWN-I can offer a little bit without getting too far off track. I know you’ve got a lot of business to do here, but having been and sat on the committee that ended up offering these revisions to the Town Board which were ultimately accepted by the Town Board, I can tell you that the list of items in Paragraph B(3) is a much reduced set of criteria than what some of the people on that committee wanted to have. It does seem like it’s a very robust amount of planting, and it is, and there’s a lot of language in there that says shall which does make it a requirement in my mind. At the same time this paragraph is within the Site Plan Review, under the review of the Planning Board during Site Plan Review, which gives the Planning Board, as Chris was saying, gives the Planning Board that latitude to say, hey this is, this meets the intent of the buffering. How do you know if the language in the Code is too much versus what the applicants propose? There’s lots of ways to do that. Maybe you have them show you a 100% compliant plan versus their plan and you decide if what they’re offering is sufficient, or you just go with the plan that they submit based on your field inspections and photos and you knowledge of buffering from the shoreline. So in short the language in the Code is on purpose, resulting in what some would argue a very dense planting, but it’s, to answer Dennis’ question earlier, what does if no buffer exists mean, that’s for those properties that have grass to the shoreline and there are some of those properties out there. So that’s the intent there is to create something. Grass doesn’t count as a buffer. MR. TRAVER-Thank you, Craig. Are there any other members of the Board that wanted to comment at this point before we go to public hearing? MR. MAGOWAN-I just wanted to say I agree with what Chris and Dennis said. That was nicely put, a nice softness in your speech and really some great understanding. So thank you. STUART ROSENBERG 8 (Queensbury Planning Board 02/16/2021) MR. ROSENBERG-Can I just say a word? I’m Stuart Rosenberg, one of the owners of the property. MR. TRAVER-If you don’t mind, sir, I’d like to open the public hearing first and then you may do that. MR. ROSENBERG-Okay. MR. TRAVER-So if there are no other questions at this point from members of the Board, let’s go ahead and open the public hearing, and, Mr. Rosenberg, I think you were the first one to put up your hand. MR. ROSENBERG-Mr. Chairman, members of the Planning Board, my name is Stuart Rosenberg. My wife Bonnie and I own the property on 73 Knox Road . At the last Planning Board there was concern raised over stormwater drainage, shoreline designated buffer and permeability, and I indicated at that meeting that my wife and I were open to addressing these issues and with the professional assistance of Dennis we’ve made a good faith effort in order to make significant changes in our site design as evidenced by the drawings. Just on a personal note you have to know that through the years that we’ve owned the property I do walk the walk. I planted over 14 trees on our property since we’ve owned it, two apple trees, two mulberry trees, one Japanese Maple, one chestnut tree, four lilac trees, three evergreen trees and one gingko tree. So I’m very much open to vegetative buffers, planting trees. I have an herb garden that even Chris Navitsky would be jealous of. So just a short introduction to myself and my wife Bonnie that we’re very sincere and we hope that you’re satisfied with the changes and grant us approval so that we can proceed with our project and thank you very much for your time. Thank you. MR. TRAVER-Thank you, sir. MR. BROWN-Mr. Chairman, I just spoke with Mr. MacElroy. He lost his connection. He’s on his way to try and get connected back in. MR. TRAVER-Okay. Do we have, other than Mr. and Mrs. Rosenberg, do we have members of the public that want to comment to the Planning Board on this application? MR. BROWN-I don’t see any hands. MR. TRAVER-Okay. MRS. MOORE-I do have a public comment from the Lake George Waterkeeper. Do you want me to read that in? MR. TRAVER-Yes, please. MRS. MOORE-Okay. “The above referenced application was personally reviewed in my capacity as a licensed professional engineer and the Lake George Waterkeeper. The Waterkeeper would like to commend the applicant for the additional stormwater management controls that have been implemented, some of which reflect discussions held with the applicant. It is our recommendation that all redevelopment projects should require predevelopment conditions be an undisturbed site for stormwater management design for the long-term protection to the resources of the Town, community, and the water quality of Lake George. The current impervious coverage is 42%, well above Town Code and standards to protect impairment to water quality, according to studies by the Center for Watershed Protection. Although not required, it would have been beneficial to have determined the volume and percentage of runoff being treated and thus reduced. The Lake George Waterkeeper requests the Planning Board apply the Town's regulations , specifically Chapters 147 and Shoreline Buffers, during your deliberations regarding the above referenced Site Plan Review application. The applicant should be required to install additional shoreline buffer planting to meet the intent of the Town Code. The benefits of the existing mature plantings are recognized as well as the proposed landscape plan. It appears the plan falls short of the Town Code requirement and additional planting should be required, especially on the southern portion of the shoreline, to meet the intent of the Town Code to protect water quality. It is recommended to incorporate the shoreline buffer planting into the shallow depressions to improve stormwater management and treatment. This would increase the volume for runoff storage, improve treatment and provide water for plantings. It is not clear why the existing catch basin in the yard will be replaced. This should be removed and encourage surface flow to increase infiltration. During a site visit with the applicant, it was recommended to install a rain garden, possibly tiered, at the base of the driveway where a catch basin is proposed. There is concern of bypass flow at the catch basin and a rain garden would be more effective at capture and treatment. On the details, we recommend an access for the drywells for cleaning and a note requiring de-compaction of the permeable block paver areas, which are existing impervious areas that have been compacted for years. The Planning Board should require a review of the proposed onsite wastewater treatment system for compliance with §136-10 with regards to beds systems on slopes and raised systems. It is the recommendation of the Waterkeeper that the Queensbury Planning Board approve the plan with additional shoreline plantings to meet the intent of the Code, further recommended improvements to the stormwater management system and approval of the proposed onsite wastewater treatment system. The 9 (Queensbury Planning Board 02/16/2021) Lake George Waterkeeper looks forward to working with the Town of Queensbury Planning Board to defend the natural resources of Lake George and its watershed . Thank you for your consideration.” MR. TRAVER-Thank you, Laura. And there are no other written comments, correct, Laura? MRS. MOORE-Correct. MR. TRAVER-All right. Well we’ll go ahead and close the public hearing, then, on this application. PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED MR. TRAVER-Is Mr. MacElroy back with us? MR. BROWN-Momentarily. MR. TRAVER-Momentarily. All right. So then we’ll go back to the Board for the moment and ask are there any further comments? You’ve heard the public comment from the Waterkeeper. There were some technical issues regarding the basin, but also there was quite a lot of mention of the buffering. So I guess I would ask the Board, with the amendments made in the revised plan, do Board members feel comfortable with the updated shoreline buffering? Or do we feel that additional buffering is needed or appropriate? MR. MAGOWAN-I’m happy with the upgrade. MR. SHAFER-As am I, Mr. Chairman. MR. DEEB-I tend to agree with Chris. I think the intent is there. MR. VALENTINE-I’d also agree. MS. WHITE-I agree as well. MR. TRAVER-Okay. All right. Thank you, everybody. Well we’ll give Mr. MacElroy another moment or so to reconnect. MR. MAC ELROY-I think I’m back. MR. TRAVER-Okay. MR. MAC ELROY-I don’t see myself but. MR. TRAVER-Okay. Did you have an opportunity to hear the public comment, mainly the letter from the Lake George Waterkeeper? MR. MAC ELROY-Laura sent me that letter very late in the day. So I have seen it, yes. MR. TRAVER-Okay. Well perhaps, before you joined us, you should be aware that following that comment I did do an informal polling of the Board and the Board members at large feel that the additional supplemental buffering you’ve offered with this revised plan is sufficient. MR. MAC ELROY-Good. MR. TRAVER-Do you have any comment with regards to the comments in the letter from the Waterkeeper about the raingardens and the retention basins and so on? MR. MAC ELROY-Sure. I know that I’ve talked with the owner further about, one of the comments was about the catch basin and drywell that’s on the corner of the driveway as you first come down from the northern edge, and the Rosenbergs don’t have any problem with changing that. At one point I had it as a raingarden down in that area. I think the reason, just to explain a little bit, tat’s runoff off of the paved area, an asphalt surface primarily, and it will have some sands and what not on it at times, and the catch basin provides a, from an engineering standpoint, I think a better device in which to capture those sediments in the sump of the basin, catch basin before allowing the runoff, the liquid portion, to flow out to the drywell. If there is a raingarden there that water just flows into with those sediments, they will tend to be filtered or captured by the planting mix and what not. So I think that that’s a little negative in terms of the direct discharge to a raingarden, but maybe, I don’t think elevation wise it works so well to still have the catch basin and then pipe it to the raingarden, but if that works out, you know, we’re glad to show that. So there was some engineering basis for why I chose the catch basin drywell as opposed to the raingarden, but the owner is happy with either and probably likes the idea of the raingarden because it can be more aesthetic. S 10 (Queensbury Planning Board 02/16/2021) MR. TRAVER-Okay. Well, if either will work from the engineering standpoint, my feeling is, and I’ll ask obviously the other members of the Board, but my feeling is we should leave it up to you and the owner on the final design, with that detail, and just make sure that it’s included on the final plan that gets presented to Laura’s office. How do other Board members feel about that issue? MS. WHITE-I think that sounds great. MR. VALENTINE-I think that will work between the applicant/owner and their consultant. That should be the answer we go with. MR. TRAVER-All right. So I don’t believe that even requires a condition on the resolution since it’s to their discretion and it’s part of the minutes of the discussion. Does anyone have any additional questions or comments for the applicants or their representative before we consider a resolution? Okay. I’m not hearing any. David, how are we doing? Do we have a draft resolution? MR. DEEB-Yes. RESOLUTION APPROVING SP # 58-2020 BONNIE ROSENBERG The applicant has submitted an application to the Planning Board: Applicant proposes to construct two residential additions. Northside addition of 64 sq. ft. is on upper level. Southside addition is two story, 370 sq. ft. footprint with 740 sq. ft. floor area. Project includes new wastewater, stormwater management and reduction of decks and floor area. The site has one main house and two cottages – 1,855 sq. ft. footprint. 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. 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 12/15/2020; the ZBA approved the variance requests on 12/16/2020; The Planning Board opened a public hearing on the Site plan application on 12/22/2020 and continued the public hearing to 02/16/2021, 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 02/16/2021; 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 58-2020 BONNIE ROSENBERG; Introduced by David Deeb who moved for its adoption. According to the draft resolution prepared by Staff with the following: 1) Waivers requested granted; h. signage, 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) 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. 11 (Queensbury Planning Board 02/16/2021) 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 Michael Valentine. Duly adopted this 16 day of February 2021 by the following vote: AYES: Mr. Shafer, Mr. Hunsinger, Mr. Magowan, Mr. Valentine, Mr. Deeb, Ms. White, Mr. Traver NOES: NONE MR. TRAVER-All right. You’re all set with that application. Thank you very much, and we appreciate the amendments you made to your Site Plan. I think it’s a worthwhile effort and thank you again. MR. MAC ELROY-Thank you very much. MR. TRAVER-Next we move to our next section of our agenda which is Planning Board Recommendations, and this is recommendations to the ZBA. The first item on that list is Michael Loughrey, Site Plan 10-2021. PLANNING BOARD RECOMMENDATIONS TO THE ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS SITE PLAN NO. 10-2021 SEQR TYPE: TYPE II. MICHAEL LOUGHREY. AGENT(S): CULLEN FULLER. OWNER(S): SAME AS APPLICANT. ZONING: WR. LOCATION: 11 SIGN POST ROAD. APPLICANT PROPOSES 169 SQ. FT. OF NEW LIVING SPACE ON UPPER LEVEL OF EXISTING HOME. THE EXISTING HOME IS 706 SQ. FT. WITH 81 SQ. FT. DECK/PORCH AREA (FOOTPRINT) WITH A FLOOR AREA OF 1,372 SQ. FT. AND PROPOSED 1,541 SQ. FT. FLOOR AREA. PURSUANT TO CHAPTER 179-3-040, 179-13-010 & 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 SETBACK AND EXPANSION OF A NON-CONFORMING STRUCTURE. PLANNING BOARD SHALL PROVIDE A RECOMMENDATION TO THE ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS. CROSS REFERENCE 2010-226 DOCK, 2010-512 DOCK, SEP- 0778-2020, AV 9-2021. WARREN CO. REFERRAL: FEBRUARY 2021. SITE INFORMATION: APA, LGPC, CEA. LOT SIZE: .85 ACRE. TAX MAP NO. 239.16-1-7. SECTION: 179-3-040, 179- 13-010, 179-6-065. CULLEN FULLER, REPRESENTING APPLICANT, PRESENT MR. TRAVER-Laura? MRS. MOORE-This applicant proposes 169 square feet of new living space on the upper floor of the existing home. The existing home is 706 square feet with an 81 square foot deck/porch area. The floor area is 1,372 square feet and the proposed is 1,541 square feet. So this application is for a setback issue. The proposed is 18 feet 7 inches from the north property line where a 20 foot setback is required, and I had tried to reach out, Cullen was the representative for this project, and it’s unclear if he’s on the line. MR. BROWN-I’m not seeing him. I can bring in Ethan and maybe he can give us an update. MR. TRAVER-Yes, that would be good, Craig. Thank you. MR. BROWN-Well it’s not Ethan. MR. FULLER-All right. I’m here now. I’m sorry about that. 12 (Queensbury Planning Board 02/16/2021) MRS. MOORE-Okay. Thank you. MR. TRAVER-Good evening. So if you’d state your name for the record and tell us about your project. MR. FULLER-Hi, my name is Cullen Fuller. I’m representing the Loughrey residence, 11 Sign Post Road. Basically what we’re proposing is a fairly small addition to the back side of the residence on the second floor. We’re basically building atop of exactly what is now the kitchen area for a den type study area. The upstairs is very unusable for the most part as it is right now. We just want to generate a little bit more open space since the current pitch of the roof really is limiting. We’re overhanging I believe two feet off the back. So the actual structure isn’t competing any more than it already is, other than the fact that we are adding a little overhang. That overhang sits above an actual retaining wall. So anything that’s coming off of this roof as far as stormwater, anything of that nature, is actually being tiered down an amount before it even comes close to the lake, but like Laura said it’s 169 square feet, I believe, addition on the backside of the residence. MR. TRAVER-Okay. Is this going to be a bedroom area? MR. FULLER-It doesn’t have a closet. So technically, I believe what they’re going to utilize it as is a den/study area. They already have currently one bedroom. If you look at that, where the actual sliding door is, that is supposedly a bedroom there but it really doesn’t function much as a bedroom. The headroom is nothing more than about seven feet on the inside and it slopes down considerably pretty quickly. There is a little bit of a nook but that’s pretty much just for framing purposes in order to make the framing work for the existing building, but they are using it as a den/study. I can’t say that it wouldn’t necessarily be, it looks like a duck, quacks like a duck, I mean, it’s hard for me to say that it is not a bedroom area, but we’re not adding bedroom space to the actual structure. It is going to maintain the two bedroom structure that it is currently right now. MR. TRAVER-Okay, but theoretically this could be a third bedroom, right? Even though it might not be ideal. MR. FULLER-They’re considering that sitting area that I have located there as a bedroom. It’s not really a bedroom. I’m not really sure why they called it a bedroom initially, but they don’t have any intention of adding any bedroom space. They don’t have any utilization for it as of right now or in the future. MR. TRAVER-All right. What’s the capacity of the septic? MR. FULLER-We actually were granted a variance on the septic prior to this meeting. I believe it’s, yes, January we got a septic response and. MR. TRAVER-I’m just wondering what the bedroom capacity of it is. MR. FULLER-We had to get a variance for the septic and they granted it to us. MR. SHAFER-What does that mean? What was the variance for? MR. FULLER-Currently the actual septic is a holding tank. It’s 1,000 gallons. We were required to have 3,000, but since the occupation isn’t being changed in any manner, they allowed that septic to be allowed. MR. TRAVER-Well that was one of the concerns I had regarding adding a space, but tonight we’re here to discuss the variance, really. That’s more of a Site Plan issue I think. I’ll open it up for other members of the Board if you’d like to question or comment. MR. MAGOWAN-Is that a holding tank you said, 1,000 gallon holding tank? MR. FULLER-It is a 1,000 gallon holding tank. Yes. MR. MAGOWAN-That’s it. MR. FULLER-Yes. MR. MAGOWAN-It has to be pumped after every 1,000 gallons? MR. FULLER-It does. Currently they use it very seldom. I think it gets pumped at the end of the year. It may get pumped once during the year, but I don’t even imagine that. We are adding the high water alarm system. There is no washing machine. There’s no dishwasher. So we’re going to have the shut offs and everything installed if they’re not already previously installed as of right now. MR. MAGOWAN-I mean if it’s 1,000 gallon holding tank and it has to be pumped, I’m not too worried about a third bedroom. That’s not much, you know, and they only have it pumped out that much. 13 (Queensbury Planning Board 02/16/2021) MR. FULLER-And IBS comes down and pumps them out and I have quite a bit of paperwork from them. They said they use it very seldom, and the fact that the actual residence, the landscaping of it is kind of difficult. MR. TRAVER-Well I guess my point again would be that by making this improvement to the facility, isn’t that likely to be used even more? MR. FULLER-To be honest with you, I don’t see it happening. It’s not going to be used more, the residence. I believe they are currently the second owner of this property and they use it very sparsely, and now in the future I can’t say the manner it’s going to be used then, but it’s not winterized. It’s not used any more than several times a year. Judging by when I met with, you know, I had the opportunity to speak with Michael and he’s just basically looking to maintain the integrity of the structure, because it is an actual existing camp. Again the whole history of it which is kind of unique, I believe it was built by a shop teacher from Glens Falls and he does enjoy the fact that it isn’t winterized and it is an existing camp and he’s going to maintain that existing camp. MR. TRAVER-Okay. Well, since his is a recommendation to the ZBA, there is no public hearing at this stage. We are here to review the relief that is sought which is for the setback. Any questions or concerns? Does anyone have any concerns we want to mention to the ZBA as we forward this? I’m not hearing any. So I guess we have a draft resolution, David. RESOLUTION RE: ZBA RECOMMENDATION RE: AV # 9-2021 MICHAEL LOUGHREY The applicant has submitted an application for the following: Applicant proposes 169 sq. ft. of new living space on upper level of existing home. The existing home is 706 sq. ft. with 81 sq. ft. deck/porch area (footprint) with a floor area of 1,372 sq. ft. and proposed 1,541 sq. ft. floor area. Pursuant to Chapter 179-3- 040, 179-13-010 & 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 and expansion of a non-conforming structure. 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. 9-2021 MICHAEL LOUGHREY. Introduced by David Deeb who moved for 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 16 day of February 2021 by the following vote: AYES: Mr. Hunsinger, Mr. Magowan, Mr. Valentine, Mr. Deeb, Ms. White, Mr. Shafer, Mr. Traver NOES: NONE MR. TRAVER-All right. You’re off to the ZBA. MR. FULLER-Thank you very much. MR. TRAVER-The next item on the agenda, also a referral to the ZBA, is Meghan & Daniel Frazier, Site Plan Modification 8-2021. SITE PLAN MODIFICATION 8-2021 SEQR TYPE: TYPE II. MEGHAN & DANIEL FRAZIER. AGENT(S): HUTCHINS ENG., MR. FULLER- O’CONNOR, WINTERGREEN LANDSCAPE. OWNER(S): SAME AS APPLICANT. ZONING: WR. LOCATION: 12 SHORE ACRES ROAD. APPLICANT PROPOSES A MODIFICATION TO AN APPROVED PLAN TO NOT INSTALL A PROPOSED WATER FEATURE OF 3,230 SQ. FT. AND INSTEAD INSTALL A POOL AND PATIO AREA OF 1,405 SQ. FT. THERE ARE NO CHANGES TO THE HOUSE AND GARAGE (4,915 SQ. FT.), PORTE-COCHERE (360 SQ. FT.), BUNKHOUSE (500 FT.), PATIO, SPORT COURT AND OTHER ASSOCIATED SITEWORK (8,860 SQ. FT.). PURSUANT TO CHAPTER 179-9-120 OF THE ZONING ORDINANCE, MODIFICATIONS TO AN APPROVE SITE PLAN SHALL BE 14 (Queensbury Planning Board 02/16/2021) SUBJECT TO PLANNING BOARD REVIEW AND APPROVAL. VARIANCE: RELIEF IS SOUGHT FOR POOL LOCATION. PLANNING BOARD SHALL PROVIDE A RECOMMENDATION TO THE ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS. CROSS REFERENCE: SP 81-2019, AV 60-2019, AV 6-2021. WARREN CO. PLANNING: FEBRUARY 2021. SITE INFORMATION: APA, LGPC, CEA. LOT SIZE: TAX MAP NO. 227.17-1-11. SECTION: 179-9-120. LUCAS DOBIE, REPRESENTING APPLICANTS, PRESENT MR. TRAVER-Laura? MRS. MOORE-The applicant proposes to place a pool in what is considered the front yard , which is between the shoreline and the house that’s under construction at the moment. So it’s identified as a variance because the pool is in the front yard and the only place we allow pools is to the rear and to the side. MR. TRAVER-Okay. So is there, who’s here representing? MRS. MOORE-I believe Lucas is here. MR. TRAVER-Okay. MR. BROWN-I put Tom Hutchins in. MRS. MOORE-I think it’s Lucas. MR. BROWN-I don’t see Lucas on the waiting list here. MRS. MOORE-He’s raised his hand. MR. BROWN-He moved himself to the top. MR. TRAVER-He’s using Tom’s device. That’s probably why. TOM HUTCHINS MR. HUTCHINS-This is Tom. I’m just observing. Craig brought me in to the meeting, but this is Lucas’ job and he’s going to represent it and Mike O’Connor is going to be here as well. MR. TRAVER-Okay. Very good. Thank you. Lucas, are you with us? MR. DOBIE-I am. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. This is my first meeting on Zoom with you folks. Just for the record Lucas Dobie with Hutchins Engineering, the project engineer. With us also on the Zoom meeting is Meghan & Dan Frazier and Justin Winters, the landscape architect. We received project approval, the original project, last February, fortunately before everything shut down. We began construction and were able to get out of the ground June I believe after the shutdown, and the project’s going along really well with the bunkhouse is all weather tight. It’s being finished out and the main house is being framed. It’s coming along really nicely. The long and short of it, why we’re back tonight for the Site Plan Modification is once we started shaping the site and seeing how the lakeside grade cut down really nicely for the walkout basement, the applicants kind of had a breakthrough moment and thought, wow, it would be really nice to have a pool at our walkout patio and put a lot of thought into it. We decided on an Infinity Edge pool which is that disappearing edge if you will. As you look out toward the lake, the water level is even with the top of the trough they call it which is on the lakeside. It’s allowed to spill over into a reservoir and then it’s pumped back up into the pool. It’s really a beautiful feature. We really believe it will enhance the property and you may recall the original project had an extensive water feature just north of the bunkhouse, a creek and a spa, etc. They decided to eliminate that from the project in lieu of the pool. They propose a permeable patio around the pool, a nice stone reservoir and in getting rid of the creek we were able to re-shape the lakeside grading, make it more subtle, actually increase the size of the stormwater management on that lakeside as well, and on the roadside there’s no changes from the original proposal and similarly the north and the south sides, no changes. So the only change was the pool and the patio and the re-shaped grading on the lakeside, and again, Mr. Winters, our landscape architect, fully updated the landscaping plan with the buffer plantings as approved last February. So with that I’d be happy to entertain any questions the Board has in making the recommendation to the Zoning Board. Thank you very much. MR. TRAVER-So the reason for the variance is because the pool basically is not considered allowable in this particular location because it’s near the front. Correct? MR. FULLER-Right. The Code reads that a pool shall be located in the rear of the house, the rear yard. So by the nature of any lakefront parcel there’s not a rear yard. There’s a shoreline and then a front on your 15 (Queensbury Planning Board 02/16/2021) road. So any swimming pool, regardless of the size on this parcel would need a variance, is my understanding. MR. TRAVER-Okay. Thank you. Questions, comments from members of the Board? MR. SHAFER-Is it is in the Code somewhere that defines what is a front yard and what is rear yard on a Waterfront property? MRS. MOORE-Yes. MR. BROWN-Yes, both the yards are considered front yards. MR. SHAFER-Both are considered front. All right. MR. TRAVER-So there’d be no location for a pool, in this case, without a variance. MR. FULLER-Correct. MR. MAGOWAN-Well, Mr. Chairman, that’s what I wanted to bring up. Really what is considered the front yard and the backyard, and I think we’ve only had one other pool that wanted to be put in the front yard because you really couldn’t put it in the backyard. So they went for a variance and they got it, and I can understand that, but here usually the front yard is considered the road, you know. So I don’t have a problem for seeing this pool in the front yard. Actually you’re not even going to see it because it is, they’re just a beautiful pool, around, the water just landscapes over it. It’s flush with the pavement. It’s really amazing, but I don’t have a problem with it. My question was what do you consider the front yard, and that was answered. They’re both considered front yards. So I guess we do have to go for a variance. MR. TRAVER-Right. Anyone else want to comment? Any concerns regarding a referral to the ZBA on this modification? Okay. Well, David, we have a draft motion. Correct? MR. DEEB-Yes, we do. RESOLUTION RE: ZBA RECOMMENDATION RE: AV # 6-2021 MEGHAN & DANIEL FRAZIER The applicant has submitted an application for the following: Applicant proposes a modification to an approved plan to not install a proposed water feature of 3,230 sq. ft. and instead to install a pool and patio area of 1,405 sq. ft. There are no changes to the house and garage (4,915 sq. ft.), porte-cochere (360 sq. ft.), bunkhouse (500 sq. ft.), patio, sport court and other associated sitework (8,860 sq. ft.). Pursuant to Chapter 179- 9-120 of the Zoning Ordinance, modifications to an approved site plan shall be subject to Planning Board review and approval. Variance: Relief is sought for pool location. 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. 6-2021 MEGHAN & DANIEL FRAZIER. Introduced by David Deeb who moved for its adoption, and a) The Planning Board, based on a limited review, has not identified any significant adverse impacts that cannot be mitigated with current project proposal. th Motion seconded by John Shafer. Duly adopted this 16 day of February 2021 by the following vote: AYES: Mr. Valentine, Mr. Deeb, Ms. White, Mr. Shafer, Mr. Hunsinger, Mr. Magowan, Mr. Traver NOES: NONE MR. TRAVER-All right. You’re off to the ZBA. The next item on our agenda is also under Recommendations or referrals to the ZBA. Trevor Flynn, Site Plan 9-2021. SITE PLAN NO. 9-2021 SEQR TYPE: TYPE II. TREVOR FLYNN. AGENT(S): BRANDON FERGUSON, EDP; JON LAPPER. OWNER(S): DANIEL GRASMEDER. ZONING: WR. LOCATION: 3222 RT. 9L. APPLICANT PROPOSES A SINGLE STORY 884 SQ. FT. LIVING 16 (Queensbury Planning Board 02/16/2021) ROOM/KITCHEN ADDITION TO BE ON THE WEST SIDE OF THE EXISTING HOME, A 436 SQ. FT. SINGLE STORY BREEZEWAY/MUDROOM ADDITION TO THE SOUTH SIDE OF THE HOME CONNECTING THE EXISTING 1,315 SQ. FT. GARAGE TO THE MAIN HOME. THE PROJECT INCLUDES INTERIOR ALTERATIONS ON THE SECOND FLOOR FOR THE MASTER BEDROOM THEN ALTERATIONS TO THE THIRD FLOOR TO INCLUDE A 48 SQ. FT. STUDY NOOK AND A NEW ROOF OVER THE EXISTING BATHROOM AREA. THE PROJECT ALSO INCLUDES CONSTRUCTION OF A DETACHED GARAGE WITH THE UPPER LEVEL OF 1,344 SQ. FT. AND THE LOWER LEVEL OF 786 SQ. FT. EXISTING BUILDING FOOTPRINTS: 2, 172 SQ. FT. HOUSE AND 1,315 SQ. FT. DETACHED GARAGE. NEW FLOOR AREA TO BE 6,582 SQ. FT. PURSUANT TO CHAPTER 179-3-040, 179-13-010 AND 179-6-060 OF THE ZONING ORDINANCE, NEW FLOOR REA IN A CEA, NEW BUILDING WITHIN 50 FT. OF 15% SLOPES AND EXPANSION OF A NON-CONFORMING STRUCTURE AND MAJOR STORMWATER SHALL BE SUBJECT TO PLANNING BOARD REVIEW AND APPROVAL. VARIANCE: RELIEF IS SOUGHT FOR SHORELINE SETBACK OF MAIN HOME, HEIGHT OF THE ALTERATION S TO T HE MAIN HOME AND TO THE NEW SECOND GARAGE, NUMBER OF GARAGES, SIZE OF GARAGE, AND NUMBER OF STALLS FOR A GARAGE. PLANNING BOARD SHALL PROVIDE A RECOMMENDATION TO THE ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS. CROSS REFERENCE: AV 43-2002, AV 27-2002, AV 76-2002, ALL RE: GARAGE/GUEST COTTAGE; AV 8-2021. WARREN CO. REFERRAL: FEBRUARY 2021. SITE INFORMATION: APA, LGPC, CEA. LOT SIZE: 3.27 ACRES. TAX MAP NO. 239.18-1-48. SECTION: 179-3-040, 179-13-010, 179-6- 060, CHAPTER 147. JON LAPPER, REPRESENTING APPLICANT, PRESENT; TREVOR FLYNN, PRESENT MR. TRAVER-Laura? MRS. MOORE-There’s quite a few items going on with the project. So I’ll read through the description. Applicant proposes a single story 884 square foot living room/kitchen area, a 436 square foot single story breezeway/mudroom area next to the garage. Part of the second floor master bedroom operation is an interior alteration and the third floor includes a 48 square foot study nook which is part of a new roof over the existing bathroom area as well. And then the final project on this site would be a detached garage with an upper level of 1,344 square feet and a low level of 786 square feet, and in reference to the variances being requested, there’s a setback to the single story addition, where a 75 foot setback is required. The two roof dormers on the third floor cause the height to be 33 feet 6 inches where 28 feet is the max. The new detached garage would be a 26 feet 3 inches where a maximum for a garage as an accessory structure is 16 feet, and relief is also requested to have more than one garage and for a garage to have more than three bays. MR. TRAVER-Okay. Thank you. MR. SHAFER-Mr. Chairman, this is John Shafer. I will recuse myself from this application. MR. TRAVER-Very well. MRS. MOORE-Steve, before you continue, is Mike going to sit in for John? MR. TRAVER-Is he here? I don’t see him on my screen. MR. DIXON-I’m here, Steve. MR. TRAVER-Michael, would you sit for this application in place of John? MR. DIXON-Absolutely. MR. TRAVER-Thank you very much, sir. MR. FLYNN-Laura, this is Trevor Flynn. Am I able to share my screen? MRS. MOORE-Let me see. I think Craig has to give you that permission, but do you want me to go through the slides for you? MR. LAPPER-Not yet, Laura. Let’s go through some explanation first. MRS. MOORE-Okay. Sounds good. MR. LAPPER-This is Jon Lapper, everyone. Good evening. Although the agenda says Trevor Flynn as the applicant, it’s Cathy and Dan Grasmeder, the owners of the property. Trevor is the architect from Balzar & Tuck in Saratoga and Brandon Ferguson is the project engineer from Environmental Design. So to begin 17 (Queensbury Planning Board 02/16/2021) with, just to put this in perspective, although there are a number of variances that we’re requesting, they’re all tweaks to a classic home that is a nice larger camp, but the attempt here is the goal is to make this into a year round home, but just to make a number of minor improvements that are very important but still don’t make this into a grand home, other than restoring the classic architecture which has changed over the years with some additions that shouldn’t have happened, but the goal here is to really restore the architecture. This was designed in the 20’s, built in the 30’s. Balzar & Tuck did a program to look at all the alternatives to get the applicants a better more functional house, adding a mudroom, a living room, dormers on top as Laura mentioned which don’t go higher than the roofline, just to make it more functional, and I think that you’ll see after we discuss it that we’re a 3.35 acres site, which is very large obviously for the lake. You can do a much more grand home on this site, and that’s not what’s being proposed. It’s just these tweaks that I mentioned to the main house and then to add the garage building which is for a classic car collection, but again, the permeability is something like 85% here. Very much less than what this site could accommodate, and we’re adding increased buffering, an improved stormwater system, which Brandon will go through, and all and all just really fixing this up. It’s an important building from the lake, and it’s going to look better when this is done. So with that I’ll hand it over next to Trevor to go through the architectural changes. MR. TRAVER-Okay. Thank you, Jon. MR. FLYNN-I don’t know if I’m able to share my screen or not. I’ll flip through, I swear I won’t bore you through all 33 pages. MR. TRAVER-Well, we’re here tonight to discuss the variance, not for Site Plan. So I think our main interest is going to be in the variances, and my interest was piqued by the height variance that you’re seeking for both the home and the garage. So if you could start by maybe addressing those, that would be important. MR. BROWN-So, Laura, if you stop your share, all panelists should be able to share, but not two at a time. MRS. MOORE-Okay. I stopped. So I’ll see if Trevor can jump in. There we go. That’s perfect. MR. FLYNN-Great. Well thank you, Jon, and thank you, Board. As he mentioned, you’ll see on the Site Plan the existing house is gray and as you mentioned the first couple of height variances, I’ll jump right into that are these two dormers and then also the garage itself. After careful study of the plans and the overall floor plan, we were holding back the setback line in the kitchen, living, eating, but as we made our way to the third floor, the intent was to keep this an existing three bedroom home, and then we wanted to re-work the second floor. So in an effort to do that and create the master bedroom and master bath and keep on existing bedroom, this other room was always a laundry room without a closet in it. So the next space for the third bedroom would be the bunkroom on the third floor, and in an effort to meet Code and light and vent standards, the thought was adding a dormer where you will see with the tan walls and the setting. On the opposite side, the secondary dormer is above the bath. So the dormer towards the lake was added in an effort to add light and vent and the dormer over this bath is really re-worked because there were some existing weathering conditions, you know, snow and ice buildup. As viewed from the lake, this is the dormer added to that bunkroom above and both dormers are still within and under the existing ridge line. This is the other dormer as seen from the drive above that bathroom. So we haven’t really raised this height, but we are altering it so therefore triggering the height variance for the dormer, just by altering that structure. These are the proposed heights, and anything in this light tan color is existing. The darker red color is the dormer addition towards the lake, and the re-configuration, re-build of that structure above that bathroom as well on the third floor. If there’s any questions at the house, and then I can move to the garage as well. MR. TRAVER-Okay. Questions, comments from members of the Board thus far? I’m not seeing any, so I guess you can proceed to the garage discussion. MR. FLYNN-As for the garage, the main intent when we were hired by the Grasmeder’s, was the storing and restoring of classical cars, and having multiple storage bays to do this. So the lower level consists of just storing of cars and general storage, and the upper level is really the workshop and then two bays for car lifts. There was extensive study on how to fit the amount of cars on site. Both actually have the option to have car lifts and store multiple cars. We looked at, you know, what does a four bay garage look like on the site with also the workshop area, and as we were studying it we were very cognizant of views from the road, and wanting to minimize the overall max and scale of the garage on the site and any possible view shed concerns. We do want to note that from the lake the garage is not visible, and then also from the drive, as you can see from these two photos, is a very densely vegetated woods and hard to see even down the driveway. So as we started to study the overall height, and looking into car lifts, as Dan Grasmeder is aging, you know, it’s getting harder and harder for him to lay down under cars. So he wanted to look at car lifts to raise the cars and to work on the cars, and with that there are minimum requirements for the lift. Typically there’s a 12 to 14 foot lift requirement on the interior of the space and t hen giving the extra clearances around the car, it starts to bump it up to 18, 20 feet at certain peaks, depending on the make and the model. So in an effort to, one, give Dan the space for him to properly work on cars, and make it more 18 (Queensbury Planning Board 02/16/2021) easier for him, and then also minimize the impact on the site, we started looking at a bank barn, and as you can see the idea is to really mold that to this site, and you have two entrances, an entrance down below to the two bays for the storage and entrance to the upper portion and workshop, and as indicated on this red line, this is the grade, you know, brought up that 16 feet. So we are 21 feet, the upper portion of the site, and then where we took it a mean average of the two, we’re at the 26 feet three inches to the highest point, but again that roofline was studied and pushed back to minimize the overall height and variance requested. MR. TRAVER-Okay. Thank you. Questions, comments from members of the Board? MR. DEEB-Yes. How many lifts is he going to put in that garage? MR. FLYNN-So as of right now, the first two lifts that are going currently are up on the second floor. So there’ll be two. There is a possibility for lifts on the lower level, but I believe he’s deferring that at this time. MR. LAPPER-Most importantly, to emphasize what Trevor said, this building isn’t visible from the lake or from the road or from the neighbor. MR. TRAVER-Right. MR. FLYNN-We always like to plan for the future, and as people choose their retirement homes to best design around that. MR. DEEB-I guess if we get back to the lifts, if you put the lifts in the bottom in, the bottom garage doors in the bank, instead of the top, would you still need that height? MR. FLYNN-Yes, because the lifts at the bottom would not be adequate enough to walk under. There’s still not enough, with the structure of the floor, to support any of the workshop above. You can add a smaller lift, but not the lift you can work under. MR. LAPPER-Just for storage. MR. FLYNN-Just for storage. MR. TRAVER-All right. MR. DEEB-Okay. MR. MAGOWAN-I’m just a little confused here. Are the lifts used for storage or to work under? MR. FLYNN-The ones on the second floor are used to work under. If there are any that go in on the lower level, that would, if it could happen in the future it would be great, but the ones on the lower level would just be for storage for additional parts, motor parts sliding underneath the cars themselves. MR. MAGOWAN-So my question would be, could you lower that whole building by not having any lifts downstairs? MR. FLYNN-We would still run into garage door issues because we are maxed out at that height from top of slab to the underside of the fore structure above and to still get the adequate clearances. MR. MAGOWAN-So you’re not really going to be able to put a storage in there anyway unless you plan on putting a little Fiat there, convertible with no windshield, you know, or a Shelby with no windshield or a roll bar to get that one up and another one to drive underneath it. I mean, you know, what’s your ceiling height down below? MR. FLYNN-I believe it’s 9 foot 6 right now. MR. MAGOWAN-I mean I don’t really have a problem with it because it is well hidden and, you know, it’s kind of a, it’s a unique situation because he is, he’s putting it in the back. So, I mean, overall it’s actually quite a nice settled garage, so when you look at the high means is where you’re looking for it. At the lower part you’re cutting it in. So to me I just like that, when you go back to that pitch. I mean you’ve got that really cut in. So what’s really the height from the upper one, you know, to the bottom one? But I understand the Codes, but I personally think some great thinking went into that to utilize a garage like that, and get a workshop. So I want to say that’s very interesting and kudos for the effort. So I like it, and I think it fits in nice with the property. MR. LAPPER-Thanks, Brad. 19 (Queensbury Planning Board 02/16/2021) MR. TRAVER-Any other questions, comments for the applicant? This is a referral specifically to the ZBA for the variances. Does anyone have any concerns that they want to communicate through the referral form to the ZBA? All right. Then I believe we have a draft resolution, David. RESOLUTION RE: ZBA RECOMMENDATION RE: AV # 8-2021 TREVOR FLYNN The applicant has submitted an application for the following: Applicant proposes a single story 884 sq. ft. living room/kitchen addition to be on the west side of the existing home, a 436 sq. ft. single story breezeway/mudroom addition to the south side of the home connecting the existing 1,315 sq. ft. garage to the main home. The project includes interior alterations on the second floor for the master bedroom then alterations to the third floor to includes a 48 sq. ft. study nook and a new roof over the existing bathroom area. The project also includes construction of a detached garage with the upper level of 1,344 sq. ft. and the lower level of 786 sq. ft. Existing building footprints: 2,172 sq. ft. house and 1,315 sq. ft. detached garage. New floor area to be 6,582 sq. ft. Pursuant to Chapter 179-3-040, 179-13-010 and 179-6-060 of the Zoning Ordinance, new floor area in a CEA, new building within 50 ft. of 15% slopes and expansion of a non- conforming structure and major stormwater shall be subject to Planning Board review and approval. Variance: Relief is sought for shoreline setback of main home, height of the alterations to the main home and to the new second garage, number of garages, size of garage, and number of stalls for a garage. 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. 8-2021 TREVOR FLYNN (DANIEL GRASMEDER). Introduced by David Deeb who moved for its adoption, and a) The Planning Board, based on a limited review, has not identified any significant adverse impacts that cannot be mitigated with current project proposal. th Motion seconded by Brad Magowan. Duly adopted this 16 day of February 2021 by the following vote: AYES: Mr. Magowan, Mr. Valentine, Mr. Deeb, Ms. White, Mr. Dixon, Mr. Hunsinger, Mr. Traver NOES: NONE ABSENT: Mr. Shafer MR. TRAVER-All right. You’re off to the ZBA. MR. LAPPER-Thanks, everyone. MR. FLYNN-Thank you. MR. TRAVER-The next item on our agenda is also a referral to the ZBA. It is Jennifer Ball, Subdivision Preliminary Stage 1-2021 and Subdivision Final Stage 2-2021. SUBDIVISION PRELIMINARY STAGE 1-2021 SUBDIVISION FINAL STAGE 2-2021 SEQR TYPE: UNLISTED. JENNIFER BALL. AGENT(S): HUTCHINS ENGINEERING. OWNER(S): PAMELA HARRIS. ZONING: RR-3A. LOCATION: PICKLE HILL ROAD. APPLICANT PROPOSES A TWO LOT SUBDIVISION AND A BOUNDARY LINE ADJUSTMENT. PARCEL 266.2-2-9.1 IS 16 ACRES – LOT 1 TO BE 12 ACRES AND LOT 2 TO BE 3 ACRES. BOUNDARY LINE ADJUSTMENT WITH PARCEL 266.1-1-8 AND THAT IS 0.64 ACRE AND ADD 1.00 ACRE FOR TOTAL OF 1.64 ACRES. LOT 1 HAS AN EXISTING GARAGE OF 2,400 SQ. FT. ON SITE THAT IS TO REMAIN AND TO BE EXPANDED WITH 1680 SQ. FT. ROOF SECTIONS, TOTAL TO BE 4,080 SQ. FT. ALSO A NEW SINGLE FAMILY HOME IS TO BE CONSTRUCTED ON LOT 1. LOT 2 IS TO ALSO BE DEVELOPED WITH A SINGLE FAMILY HOME. PURSUANT TO CHAPTERS 183, 147, 179-3- 040, 179-5-020 OF THE ZONING ORDINANCE, SUBDIVISION OF LAND, MAJOR STORMWATER AND NEW CONSTRUCTION SHALL BE SUBJECT TO PLANNING BOARD REVIEW. VARIANCE: RELIEF IS SOUGHT FOR MORE THAN ONE GARAGE, SETBACKS AND OVERSIZED GARAGE. PLANNING BOARD SHALL PROVIDE A RECOMMENDATION TO THE ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS. CROSS REFERENCE: (PARCEL 1.8) – AV 61-1990, NOA 2- 2013, SUB (S) 17-2020, AV 11-2021. WARREN CO. REFERRAL: N/A. SITE INFORMATION: 20 (Queensbury Planning Board 02/16/2021) APA, LGPC. LOT SIZE: 16 ACRES. TAX MAP NO. 266.1-1-9.1, 266.1-1-8. SECTION: CHAPTERS 183, 147, 179-3-040, 179-5-020. LUCAS DOBIE, REPRESENTING APPLICANT, PRESENT MR. TRAVER-Laura? MRS. MOORE-This applicant proposes a two lot subdivision and she received Sketch Plan back in December. So the applicant explained at that time that they were going to come back with a two lot subdivision and they were doing work on the garage closest to the road, explaining that it was two car canopies being added and relief would be requested from a few items such as having two garages and having one garage in excess of 2,200 square feet, setback relief from the west side and setback relief from the front. MR. TRAVER-Okay. Thank you. Let’s see, this is Hutchins again. Is someone here representing the applicant? MR. DOBIE-Yes, thank you, Mr. Chairman. Again, for the record, Lucas Dobie with Hutchins Engineering, on behalf of my client Jen Ball, Dan Davies is also on the Zoom meeting with us if you have any questions for them that I’m unable to answer. Again, we were here in December for Sketch Plan of this project, which is the lands that my client is under contract to buy from Pam Harris, 18 acres to the west that contains the existing truck garage that was Keith Harris’ old shop and lay down yard, storage area, that sort of deal. Could I request, Laura, could you go to Sheet S-3, the next sheet down. It would be helpful to us. Perfect. This is that two lot subdivision project which is a compliant subdivision. No variances with respect to the subdivision itself. Variance requests are to renovate the existing garage, to remove that commercial use and it’s a pretty unsightly area to the site right now with a couple of storage trailers there. All that will be gone and our applicants propose to renovate that 40 by 60 garage for their personal storage, not any kind of commercial use, and while we’re at it would like to add 14 foot shed roofs off of each side, the east and the west side, to effort outdoor storage for trailers, RV trailers, that sort of thing, to keep under cover. Much of the gravel lay down yard will be removed and reclaimed as vegetative areas, stormwater management, etc. So on Lot One we actually have an overall impervious reduction, even with the construction of the new home to the north, overall there will be a net increase in green space on the lot because there’s so much gravel there now and also as part of the subdivision project, I think it’s important just re-mentioning that they propose a one acre boundary line adjustment with the westerly neighbor, Mr. Hutchinson, which will give them a lot more backyard space and it will re-situate their well will be on their lot, because right now it’s on the Harris lot just slightly. So it’s going to take care of that issue. Again, we’re very happy with the project to re-develop that neighborhood if you will to get rid of the commercial use, clean it up, new siding, new roof, some stonework, nice carriage style garage doors on the front of it, and our variance requests are to renovate that structure and to maintain it as a second garage and we exceed our allowable 2200 square feet in garage space. It’s an existing previous commercial use. I guess it’s still a commercial use. That goes away. So we feel like we have a nice standing to undertake the project and do a nice project here. Also with the shed roof additions, we counted that towards the garage area just to be conservative. It’s outdoor covered space, but just so there’s no surprises we counted that towards the overall garage space on the lot, and then with those roof additions we’re slightly more non- conforming with respect to the westerly setback and the front setback. So it goes from like 40 feet on the front to 39 feet at one of the additions. So it’s a very minor request there we believe, and I’m very comfortable with the project and the neighborhood scheme of things. It’s going to really spruce up that area, and we did an overall comprehensive Stormwater Pollution Prevention Plan for all of her lands. It was all in one shot to bring it into total conformance with DEC requirements and Town requirements for projects in the Lake George drainage basin. With that I’d be happy to entertain any questions the best I can, and we’d look for a recommendation to the Zoning Board. Thank you very much for your time. MR. TRAVER-Thank you. So the one significant setback is for the old commercial garage because that’s 39 feet back where a 100 foot is required as I can see it. Correct? MR. DOBIE-That’s correct, Mr. Chairman. It’s 40 feet as it sits today, and then just because of the angle, the building not being parallel to the road, it would go to 39 feet on that front. MR. TRAVER-So it’s really sort of a pre-existing, non-conforming structure. MR. DOBIE-That’s correct. Absolutely. MR. TRAVER-Questions, comments from members of the Board? MR. SHAFER-Lucas, John Shafer. I noticed that in the septic design you used 20 to 30 minutes per inch. I didn’t see any perc test data on the plans, or did I miss it or did you just use that from previous practice? MR. DOBIE-I did do a perc test on, I had my client’s other subdivision project, the two lots. That includes her house. I did two perc tests out in the field in the heavier soils where we had that 20 to 30 minute 21 (Queensbury Planning Board 02/16/2021) range, and we also did the house, the greenhouse to the north. It’s one property north. We did that a year or two ago, the same soils. So we’re very comfortable with that design and it’s a raised system to keep it in sand fill out of that heavy soil. MR. SHAFER-Okay. Second question has to do with the two driveways accessing Pickle Hill Road. For that lot, did you consider a single driveway that would access both the garage and the house in the back? MR. DOBIE-We did discuss that option, Mr. Shafer. Right now that’s a pretty wide curb cut in front of the truck garage, you know, to narrow that up, and the curb cut to the east is existing as well, which that affords the best sight distance, that one on the east. We would like to keep the one in front of the truck garage, their rehabilitated garage, to allow them to. if you have an RV or something in there, to pull straight out. It’s not going to happen all the time, but the main entrance to the new home in the back will be that easterly drive. MR. SHAFER-That’s an existing access point? MR. DOBIE-That it is, yes. I normally wouldn’t put it that close to a property line, but that gravel is there today. Yes, sir. MR. SHAFER-All right. Thanks. MR. DOBIE-You’re welcome. MR. TRAVER-Other questions, comments, concerns we want to share with the ZBA? Okay. I’m not hearing any. David, we have a draft resolution. RESOLUTION RE: ZBA RECOMMENDATION RE: AV # 11-2021 JENNIFER BALL The applicant has submitted an application for the following: Applicant proposes a two lot subdivision and a boundary line adjustment. Parcel 266.1-1-9.1 is 16 acres – Lot 1 to be 12 acres and Lot 2 to be 3 acres. Boundary line adjustment with parcel 266.1-1-8 that is 0.64 acre and add 1.00 acre for total of 1.64 acres. Lot 1 has an existing garage of 2,400 sq. ft. on site that is to remain and to be expanded with 1680 sq. ft. roof sections, total to be 4,080 sq. ft. Also a new single family home is to be constructed on Lot 1. Lot 2 is to also be developed with a single family home. Pursuant to Chapters 183, 147, 179-3-040 & 179-5-020 of the Zoning Ordinance, subdivision of land, major stormwater and new construction shall be subject to Planning Board review. Variance: Relief is sought for more than one garage, setbacks and oversized garage. 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. 11-2021 JENNIFER BALL (PAMELA HARRIS). Introduced by David Deeb who moved for 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 16day of February 2021 by the following vote: AYES: Mr. Hunsinger, Mr. Magowan, Mr. Valentine, Mr. Deeb, Ms. White, Mr. Shafer, Mr. Traver NOES: NONE MR. TRAVER-All right. You’re off to the ZBA. The next item on our agenda is Adirondack Developers and Builders, Site Plan 7-2021. This is also a recommendation to the ZBA. SITE PLAN NO. 7-2021 SEQR TYPE: TYPE II. ADK DEVELOPERS AND BUILDERS. AGENT(S): DEVIN DICKINSON. OWNER(S): SAME AS APPLICANT. ZONING: WR. LOCATION: 123 SEELYE ROAD. APPLICANT PROPOSES TO REMOVE A 4,709 SQ. FT. PORTION OF THE EXISTING GARAGE TO CONSTRUCT A NEW HOME OF 2,440 SQ. FT. WITH 514 SQ. FT. PORCH/DECK AREA FOOTPRINT WITH A FLOOR AREA OF 5,108 SQ. FT. HOME INCLUDING AN ATTACHED GARAGE AND TO MAINTAIN A 720 SQ. FT. DETACHED GARAGE. SITE WORK IS PROPOSED FOR MUCH OF THE SITE TO INCLUDE DRIVEWAY AREA, SEPTIC 22 (Queensbury Planning Board 02/16/2021) SYSTEM, NEW HOME WITH A DECK AND SITE PLANTINGS AND SHORELINE PLANTINGS. PURSUANT TO CHAPTER 179-3-040 & 179-5-020 OF THE ZONING ORDINANCE, NEW FLOOR AREA IN A CEA SHALL BE SUBJECT TO PLANNING BOARD REVIEW AND APPROVAL. VARIANCE: RELIEF IS SOUGHT FR SETBACKS AND SECOND GARAGE. PLANNING BOARD SHALL PROVIDE A RECOMMENDATION TO THE ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS. CROSS ND REFERENCE: AV 25-1991 ADDITION; AV 17-1996, SP 3-1993, SP 10-1996 ALL RE: 2 STORY; AV 5-2021. SITE INFORMATION: APA, LGPC, CEA. LOT SIZE: .59 ACRE. TAX MAP NO. 227.17- 1-52. SECTION: 179-3-040, 179-5-020. DEVIN DICKINSON, REPRESENTING APPLICANT, PRESENT MR. TRAVER-Laura? MRS. MOORE-This application is to remove an existing dwelling and construct a new dwelling. The new home is going to be 2,440 square foot with a 514 square foot deck/porch area. The new floor area is 5,108. There’s a proposed attached garage and the proposal is to maintain the existing garage on site for 720 square feet. Relief sought is for setbacks of the dwelling, new dwelling and the second garage to maintain it. MR. TRAVER-Okay. Thank you. Let’s see, is Mr. Dickinson here? MR. DICKINSON-Yes. Can you hear me? MR. SHAFER-Yes. MR. DICKINSON-Okay. Great. So for the record my name is Devin Dickinson from Dickinson Associates. So as Laura said this parcel is located on Seelye Road and it does have an existing single family home. There are currently two garages on the site plus a shed and quite a bit of pavement. So we are proposing to remove the existing home, one of the garages and the shed. We’re also proposing to remove quite a bit of the pavement. We’re looking to build a new home with an attached garage and we’d like to maintain the already existing detached garage that’s closest to the road. In this proposal we are adding updated stormwater controls, new septic system. We are reducing the overall impervious area. We are adhering to the required buffer zone by the lake. In this plan we are asking for two variances. So the current home is approximately seven and a half feet from the southerly property line. We are proposing a 13.8 foot setback with the new home. We will meet all the other setbacks. Part of this proposal, too, I should mention, the current home is about 43 feet from the shoreline. Our new home’s going to be about 89 at its closest point to the porch or deck I should say. So one of the variances we’re requesting is we want a little relief on that 20 foot setback on that southerly property line. The other variance that we’re looking for is to maintain the detached garage that’s there. Other than that, we meet all of the site plan and Town regulations. So if you have any questions. MR. TRAVER-Okay. Thank you. Questions, comments from members of the Board? MR. MAGOWAN-Well the question we always have is two garages in Queensbury. MR. DICKINSON-Well, I think, you know, part of the allure was to keep it because it’s there. I think hat, you know, being a homeowner myself, you can never have too much storage space. I think if the garage wasn’t there, maybe we wouldn’t be as inclined to keep it, but I think it’s kind of a gold mine in a sense. It gives the owner the ability to store, you know, PWC’s or a boat or something like that in the winter, maybe store a car up here in the summer, that type of thing. Without, you know, inhibiting your use of the two car garage that’s attached to the home because that’s really the garage they would park in more often. So I think it’s a huge opportunity to add quite a bit of storage , you know, to properties that generally don’t have a lot of storage. The other thing, too, with the garage I should mention, I don’t know if anybody’s gotten the chance to do a site visit yet, but this garage is actually kind of sunken down into the property a little bit. It has a retaining wall behind it. It’s only about 13 feet tall I think at the peak. So it’s pretty, you know, inconspicuous from the road I believe, and again it’s not something we’re going to add as an eyesore to the neighbors. MR. VALENTINE-Brad, I just want to throw out a comment. Of all the different applications we’ve had tonight this is the first one that came up, your comment on applications with two garages. We didn’t balk at any of the other ones at all. Just a comment. MR. MAGOWAN-The other one, and I see that, and I see your point, what you’re saying there, and really this one does fit in there, and it is pre-existing. So, I mean I’m not saying I had a problem with it. I just thought I’d bring it up, but I actually, Devin, I have to say, I like what you did in pulling the house back and creating, you know, a nice buffer up front. You really did a nice job on this. I’ll have to tell your father that, you know, keep you around a little longer. 23 (Queensbury Planning Board 02/16/2021) MR. DICKINSON-Well, thank you. I appreciate that. Other questions, comments from members of the Board? Were there any concerns? MS. WHITE-Mr. Traver, as you’ve stated in the past, you know, I do have some concerns. This is a much smaller lot than the previous one that had a second garage, and we’ve talked about setting a precedent. Do we really want to set, you know, the idea that people can have two garages in the Town of Queensbury? Just a concern. MR. TRAVER-Understood. I would respond I guess in two ways for that. We can’t officially, we can’t technically set a precedent because we’re not an adjudicative body. We can set a practice, however, and some could argue that we’ve done that to some degree. The other mitigating factor I think, as Devin has pointed out to us already is the fact that this is a pre-existing second garage and I think that our approach might be quite different if they came in with a plan on this size lot in this configuration asking to add a second garage. MS. WHITE-True, but we’ve also stated that this is an opportunity to come into compliance or more into compliance because of, you know, the changes. So I’m not so sure this isn’t an opportunity to say, okay, you’re building the new garage and it’s time to come more into compliance is all. MR. TRAVER-Well, you are absolutely correct. It is an opportunity to come into compliance. The application from the applicant is not to do that, to take advantage of the pre-existing, non-conforming garage, but we can certainly communicate that at least one member of the Board, perhaps more, have concerns about the presence of a second garage when we make our referral to the ZBA. It really is a variance issue. Does anyone else have similar concern? MR. VALENTINE-In my mind this is a case of, and I think Jamie’s bringing it up, is where we have had the others tonight, I think it is the conditions under which that application is brought, Site Plan and how it works and stuff like that. It’s out there, but I think if, you know, I don’t have Jamie’s concern, but her concern, it has merit based on other ones we’ve looked at. MR. TRAVER-Yes, it’s certainly a valid concern, no doubt about it. MR. SHAFER-I think the other difference here is isn’t this with removal of one garage and a shed? There are already two garages on the property. MR. VALENTINE-Yes, there were to start with. MR. SHAFER-One of the existing garages and a shed will be removed. MR. DEEB-And also, to solve this problem, they’re going to tear down this existing garage and don’t build the new garage to the house. It’s a pretty big load there, and this garage is already there, and I agree with Stephen that if the applicant came in and said I want to build another garage on this property I think I would have a problem with that, but this one’s already there. MR. TRAVER-Okay. MR. DICKINSON-If I can just jump in. I think it’s worth noting, too, that, you know, we really made an effort to reduce the overall impact of the new development. We have reduced the impervious area. So even though we’ve maintained this existing garage we’ve removed a lot of pavement, moved other structures. We’re actually reducing the pervious area. So, you know, I, personally, designing it would have felt a lot different as well, you know, if maybe we weren’t reducing the impervious area or maybe adding it as a new garage. MR. TRAVER-Understood. Okay. Anyone else want to comment before we consider a motion? MR. HUNSINGER-I had a comment, Steve, the application itself, the first page, the general information, most of that wasn’t filled out. I guess I’d like to see that information included on the final application before we approve it. MR. VALENTINE-You mean with the applicant’s name and phone number and all that? MR. HUNSINGER-Yes. MR. VALENTINE-Yes, I know, I understand. It’s a blank page altogether. MR. HUNSINGER-I don’t have a problem with the variance requests, though. MR. TRAVER-Okay. 24 (Queensbury Planning Board 02/16/2021) MR. MAGOWAN-I just had a quick question with the pump line for the septic going underneath the driveway. Really not for weight, but I was more worried about the deep freezing. Usually the frost goes deeper underneath exposed and freeze and re-freeze. You’re all right with that, Devin? MR. DICKINSON-Yes, so that system is designed so that line will back drain in its entirety. MR. MAGOWAN-Okay. MR. DICKINSON-So part of that dosing calculation is the volume in the line as well as volume of the bed itself and the line would back drain into the tank. So that line should never have any effluent in it unless it’s pumping. MR. MAGOWAN-All right. Thank you. MR. DICKINSON-You’re welcome. MR. TRAVER-So, David, I do think it would be appropriate in this case to just mention in our referral to the ZBA that we did have at least one Board member that reflected some concern about the second garage and this being an opportunity to come into compliance. MR. DEEB-Well, I’m not sure I agree with that, about adding that as a condition. MR. TRAVER-It wouldn’t be a condition. We’re just communicating our concerns to the ZBA for them to consider the variance, and that’s one of them, and I think it is appropriate to, we’re not communicating concern as a Board, but I do think it would be appropriate to just mention that there was at least one Board member that felt that two garages were not appropriate. MR. DEEB-My battery is running low. I’ve got to get my charger and put it in. So let me just read this quick and then I’ll go do that. RESOLUTION RE: ZBA RECOMMENDATION RE: AV # 5-2021 ADK DEVELOPERS & BUILDERS The applicant has submitted an application for the following: Applicant proposes to remove a 4,709 sq. ft. home and a 258 sq. ft. portion of the existing garage to construct a new home of 2,440 sq. ft. with 514 sq. ft. porch/deck area footprint with a floor area of 5,108 sq. ft. home including an attached garage and to maintain a 720 sq. ft. detached garage. Site work is proposed for much of the site to include driveway area, septic system, new home with a deck and site plantings and shoreline plantings. Pursuant to Chapter 179- 3-040 & 179-5-020 of the Zoning Ordinance, new floor area in a CEA shall be subject to Planning Board review and approval. Variance: Relief is sought for setbacks and second garage. 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. 5-2021 ADK DEVELOPERS & BUILDERS. Introduced by David Deeb who moved for its adoption, and b) The Planning Board, based on a limited review, has identified the following areas of concern: 1) One Board member has concerns about two garages on the property. th Motion seconded by Brad Magowan. Duly adopted this 16 day of February 2021 by the following vote: AYES: Mr. Valentine, Mr. Deeb, Ms. White, Mr. Shafer, Mr. Hunsinger, Mr. Magowan, Mr. Traver NOES: NONE MR. TRAVER-You’re off to the ZBA. MR. DICKINSON-Thanks, guys. Have a good night. 25 (Queensbury Planning Board 02/16/2021) MR. TRAVER-Thank you. The next item on our agenda is a Discussion Item.. So we’re now leaving the section of the agenda that deals with referrals to the ZBA, at least for tonight, and we have a discussion item from Chris Racicot, Discussion Item 1-2021. DISCUSSION ITEM: DISCUSSION ITEM 1-2021 SEQR TYPE: UNLISTED. CHRIS RACICOT. AGENT(S): EDP. OWNER(S): SAME AS APPLICANT. ZONING: MS. LOCATION: 20 NEWCOMB STREET. APPLICANT PROPOSES CONSTRUCTION OF A TWO STORY, 10,650 SQ. FT. 14 UNIT TOWNHOUSE BUILDING. THE SITE INCLUDES A 25 FOOT ACCESS RIGHT OF WAY THROUGH THE PARCEL TO ANOTHER SEPARATE PARCEL AT THE REAR OF THE PROPERTY. THE EXISTING PROPERTY IS PARTIALLY DEVELOPED AND INCLUDES A WOOD FRAME HOUSE AND SEVERAL PAVED AND GRAVEL SURFACE DRIVEWAYS AND PARKING AREAS. THE CURRENT HOUSE IS TO REMAIN. THE SITE HAS 185 SQ. FT. OF ROAD FRONTAGE AND INCLUDES THREE EXISTING DRIVEWAY CURB CUTS, THE CENTER OF THE THREE TO BE REMOVED. TOWNHOUSE UNITS ARE TO INCLUDE A SMALL REAR PATIO, ONE INTERIOR GARAGE AND ONE EXTERIOR PARKING SPACE. PURSUANT TO CHAPTER 179-9-040 OF THE ZONING ORDINANCE, DISCUSSION WITH THE PLANNING BOARD MAY BE REQUESTED BY THE APPLICANT. CROSS REFERENCE: SP 45-2008, NOA 6- 2005, 2009-039 COMM. ALT., 2005-494 PARTIAL DEMO GARAGE. WARREN CO. REFERRAL: N/A. SITE INFORMATION: MAIN STREET ZONING. LOT SIZE: 1.04 ACRES. TAX MAP NO. 309.10-1-60. SECTION: 179-9-040. GAVIN VUILLAUME, REPRESENTING APPLICANT, PRESENT; CHRIS RACICOT, PRESENT MR. TRAVER-Laura? MRS. MOORE-This application proposes the construction of a two story 10,650 square feet, 14 unit townhouse building. The site includes a 25 foot access right of way through the parcel to another separate parcel at the rear of the property. The existing property is partially developed and includes a wood frame house and several paved and gravel surface driveway areas . The current house is to remain. The site has 185 feet of road frontage an includes three existing driveway curb cuts, the center of the three to be removed. The townhouses units are to include rear patio, one interior garage and one exterior parking space, and I included some specific references for design as well as items in the Main Street section of our Zoning Code, and I also included information from the Fire Marshal as well as the Building and Codes comments. MR. TRAVER-Okay. Thank you, Laura. Mr. Racicot. So tell us about your project. MR. RACICOT-I also, I just wanted to say something. I believe Gavin should maybe also be in the chat, but I was just going to tell you a little bit about me first and a little bit about the project. I don’t know if my camera is on there or not. MR. TRAVER-It is not. We can hear you but there’s no video. MR. RACICOT-Well, I’ll just read it, then. So I just wanted to say a few things about our proposed project and a little bit about myself. I’m a 2011 Queensbury graduate. I’ve been in the construction field for over a decade. Within that decade I have purchased and re-habilitated over 20 homes in our local community. My goal with this proposed project is to provide affordable housing in our Queensbury school district where I myself have plenty of my own roots in the Town of Queensbury. This proposed project will provide housing for 14 families and at the same time give the area a much needed traditional appeal. With that I would like to turn it over to Gavin to give you some more information. MR. VUILLAUME-Great. Thank you very much, Chris. Okay. Good evening, everyone. Gavin Vuillaume with Environmental Design Partnership. MR. TRAVER-Good evening. MR. VUILLAUME-And again we’re just here for concept. So this is our only drawing that we’ve submitted at this time. Unfortunately we don’t have any building renderings yet for the proposed townhouse structure, but certainly with our more formal site plan submission we will be submitting architectural renderings, but starting with this concept, the existing site is located at 20 Newcomb Street. The property is about 250 to 300 feet, just to the north of Main Street. To the south of the property is mostly commercial property. To the west is a residential home with an easement and access rights through our property to the adjoining residence. To the north is also a residential property, and as you go up Newcomb Street to the north and to the east there are some residential homes there. So we’re kind of in that transitional zone between the residential and commercial uses along Main Street. Being within the Main Street zoning criteria, obviously we have certain setbacks that we will meet, certain green space 26 (Queensbury Planning Board 02/16/2021) requirements. The sewer and water is easily accessible to this site. There’s an existing water line on the eastern side of Newcomb Street, and there’s an existing sewer main, yes there you go, there’s a good shot of it. Thank you, Laura. Just to the, right along Main Street on the northern edge of the road there is sewer line. So we will be extending a sewer line about 350 feet along Newcomb Street to gain sewer access for this project. Getting to the aerial, you can see that the property currently does have an existing structure. It’s a one and a half story wood frame home that is proposed to remain as part of this project. All of the construction and new development would occur on the vacant portion of this site that you can see is the larger rectangle shown in blue there. Okay. So I guess you can go back to the site plan, Laura. So you can see the proposal is to construct the two story townhouse building, essentially pretty much to the center of the site. We kind of chose it this way mainly because the access needs to be provided to the adjoining landowner to the west. So the adjoining landowner will still have his access rights across our new driveway for the project, and we will also be able to access the garages for each individual townhome from that same driveway. The other benefit of keeping the house where we have it or the townhome building where we have it is it also provides a little bit more I guess privacy for the small patios. You can see each individual unit would have a small little patio and a landscaped area to the rear of the units. We did receive some comments that Laura had mentioned as far as requirements for setbacks and Main Street criteria. A lot of them have to do with the building, but we also received some comments back from the fire department and you can see we have anticipated some of their comments showing a turnaround at the end of the roadway. Right now it’s about, I want to say 250 feet from Newcomb Street to the back of our property and certainly we need some type of turnaround, not only for fire trucks, but also for servicing UPS trucks and deliveries, things like that. So we will be providing a hammerhead or “T” turnaround at the end of the project, both for emergency services and for any type of service vehicles. Stormwater management would be managed on site. You can see we’ve outlined a couple of different areas. We may need to, depending on how the soils turn out and the perc rates, we may need to do a little bit of stormwater management over on the, I guess we’ll call it the existing residential wood frame house parcel, but other than that, there are no real changes to that parcel. That would be continued as a rental house. I think that’s pretty much all we have for thus evening. Again, this is just a quick concept. Things are subject to change as always, and we’d just look for some input from the Board. MR. TRAVER-Thank you, Gavin. I appreciate that, and, Chris. I can I guess start by saying my first reaction, when I saw this discussion item, is is there a market for more of this type of housing? It seems like there’s been an awful lot of development in the Town of apartments and various types of housing. Have you done any kind of marketing analysis? MR. RACICOT-Currently it seems like things have been going pretty quick rental wise. I have a couple in Glens Falls at Exit 18, that side of. Obviously there’s quite a bit more on the other side of Town, but Exit 18 is not as many, I guess you could say. So kind of the property came about, and this is what I thought that could be done with it and kind of what I’ve been looking for with the Board. MR. TRAVER-Okay. Thank you. Just curious. Questions, comments from members of the Board? MR. VALENTINE-To go to your point, Steve, about that how many parking spaces are required versus what you have on here, Gavin? Because I couldn’t read the note. MR. VUILLAUME-So essentially each individual unit would have a garage space, an interior garage, and then they would have also an exterior parking area. So you’d have two parking areas. MR. VALENTINE-So your parking’s underneath the porch. MR. VUILLAUME-Yes, on the first floor would be a garage. MR. VALENTINE-Okay. And, Gavin, what is on the north side of this property? I couldn’t tell quickly when you had the tax maps up. MR. VUILLAUME-Laura, do you want to put that back up for a second? Right now there’s an existing residence to the north. Really that’s about it. MR. VALENTINE-Okay, and hen across the street on the east side is also a residential lot? MR. VUILLAUME-Yes, there’s several homes across the street, you know smaller homes, and then there’s really that, that one parcel really takes up, that one house takes up two fairly large parcels to the north. MR. VALENTINE-Okay, and any consideration, as long as the applicant who you’re working with here mentioned about remodeling and stuff, the single family home that comes with this, I know it says rental unit, my first thing I looked at was why can’t we change that to a residential driveway, as long as you’re in a residential area, and then just make that look like, it looks like, I don’t know if that’s asphalt or gravel in the front. 27 (Queensbury Planning Board 02/16/2021) MR. VUILLAUME-Yes, you’re right. There’s a lot of crushed stone in the front there that’s probably not necessary. So we can definitely clean that up for sure. MR. VALENTINE-And again that’s something that will come up in site plan. I’m just looking at it and it caught my attention right away looking at it. I said, it’s out of character for residential lots in that area. MR. VUILLAUME-Yes, Chris, do you have any intentions of doing anything with the house itself? MR. RACICOT-Well, you know, seeing how Main Street was like a commercial/, you know, going into the residential area, but this was on the Main Street zoning. So either I could rent it as a, see the problem is when you go a certain amount of feet, which I believe once we get to that house, we are in that footage away from where you can actually have a rental on the first floor. So I can either rent it as an apartment/(voice faded out), or I could do a commercial aspect to it. MR. VUILLAUME-Like a small little office building or something. MR. RACICOT-A little office, a little hair styling place or whatever, because it is pretty close to that commercial area. MR. VUILLAUME-Yes, so I guess to answer your question, Michael, I guess we’ll have to kind of look at the marketing portion of this project and see exactly what the best use would be for the house. MR. VALENTINE-I was thinking the same thing. I would depend upon how the property was used, as far as any change to the driveway. MR. MAGOWAN-Well this property was, wasn’t this property Brian Granger’s? It was a car repossession company. That was fenced in area where the cars were going and that was his little office there. MR. RACICOT-Correct. MR. MAGOWAN-All right. Yes. Sorry I shouldn’t say that. I kind of knew it, but no, thank you. It’s sure interesting, and like I said, 14 units, can you do it in those numbers and make it feasible? What are you looking for rent? MR. RACICOT-About $1300. MS. WHITE-What’s the square footage of each of the townhouses? MR. VALENTINE-It’s got to be under 1,000. MR. RACICOT-Yes, because they’re about 19 by 40 I believe. MR. VUILLAUME-Yes, I think they’re around 1,000 square feet roughly, depending on what you have on that second story. MR. HUNSINGER-So are you looking for general impressions? My first thought when I saw a 14 unit townhouse near Main Street was what a great idea. We’ve been working with this Main Street plan for it seems like forever. It’s never really taken off like we all hoped and I think one of the ways to do that is to bring more people there. So I’d want to see some pedestrian access maybe. I know Newcomb Street’s really narrow, but just give that some thought, and, you know, you’re only a block away from the new Subway and then over on Pine Street there’s the other townhouse development that we approved a few years ago. So I think maybe this will be a step to create some critical mass so that the pedestrian Main Street that we envisioned all this time maybe can begin to take off a little. MR. VALENTINE-Chris, is Newcomb the corner, is that where the Church is on the corner that did the roof off the back that didn’t have approval? MR. HUNSINGER-Yes. MR. VUILLAUME-I’m not sure about that, but know that you’re going to know the Dollar General that they just put up a few years ago. That is the big building and then this property would butt right up to the back of that. Yes, there is a church right to the right of Newcomb. MR. HUNSINGER-That would be the church, Mike, yes. MR. VALENTINE-That’s what I was wondering, because just as you mentioned, it is a narrow road. There are no sidewalks. It’s along the edge of the road there. 28 (Queensbury Planning Board 02/16/2021) MR. HUNSINGER-And you’re right near the Northway Diner. I mean, you know, you’re starting to create some things that you can walk to. MR. TRAVER-Do you have any questions for us? MR. VUILLAUME-I guess I’m all set. Chris, do you have any questions? MR. RACICOT-I think at this time that was pretty much it. I just wanted to get the general idea what you guys would think of a project like this, in this location. We did, I believe, Gavin, we were in the, so far we’re in the green space, we had to add quite a bit of green space for what the Code is over there. MR. VUILLAUME-No, I think we’re in pretty good shape with all the Code requirements. MR. RACICOT-So I think other than that I guess we’ll see you at the next meeting I hope. MR. HUNSINGER-I think a lot is going to depend on your design, too. I think you need to do a nice design for this to fit well. MR. RACICOT-Yes, the building design is going to be critical, yes. MR. HUNSINGER-Yes, I think it’s going to be absolutely critical. MR. MAGOWAN-Looking at the lines, but I’m looking at the driveway to the north. It kind of looks like that’s a shared driveway for the neighbors in the back and to the side. Do you see it up there on the north side where the blue line goes? I mean they’ll have to move their driveway over because you’re looking to put a little green space and it looks like some more trees down there. Is that going to be an issue? MR. VUILLAUME-I don’t think so. No, they may just have to kick their driveway over a little bit. That’s all. I’m not sure if it’s clear that they have rights to go on to our property for access. We’ll have to look into that a little bit. MR. MAGOWAN-Yes, I just happened to catch it at the overview there. MR. VUILLAUME-I did also and I did bring that up with Chris. So obviously we’re just getting started here. We’ll have to look at the survey, look at the deed and see if the neighbors to the north actually have access rights. If they do, then we may have to do something a little different. MR. MAGOWAN-And the only reason I’m saying this is I just happened to be watching a series, the McCoy’s and the Hatfield’s and I just don’t want a feud over there on Newcomb Street. MR. VUILLAUME-No, we don’t want that either. MR. RACICOT-Well, as of right now in the deed the only thing we have is for the property in the west. It says nothing of the property in the north. MR. MAGOWAN-All right. MS. WHITE-I see you have an emergency turnaround. Just because of what I do. Would that be large enough for a bus to turn around, school bus? MR. VUILLAUME-Well, if a fire truck can do it, it’ll be tight for a large bus, yes, I would think so. MS. WHITE-I was just thinking that, because if there’s any special needs kids in there, then the bus is going to go in. MR. VUILLAUME-Right. Obviously one of the smaller buses would fit. We’re going to probably increase it a little bit. Right now I think that’s still a little small . So we’re going to try to make that a little larger for that turnaround anyway. MS. WHITE-All right. Just throwing it out there. MR. VUILLAUME-Yes, that’s a good catch. MR. TRAVER-Any other comments? MR. MAGOWAN-It would probably be your dumpster area back there in that back corner, too, right? MR. VUILLAUME-Garbage pickup. Yes. 29 (Queensbury Planning Board 02/16/2021) MR. MAGOWAN-Yes, but, no, I mean it’s looking nice. It’s really changed the neighborhood over there and like I said, I kind of like the idea because you still have the option for that front house there to keep I commercial, like a hair salon or something.. So that would be great. So good for you and kudos. MR. DEEB-I have to agree with Chris. I think that’s needed over there, with the dynamic of the neighborhood, to come up to the idea of the Main Street plan. I think it’s worthwhile pursuing. MR. TRAVER-I was just going to ask if you had anything you wanted to say, David, since you were on recharge there for a little bit. All right. Anything else for the discussion item from members of the Board that want to contribute a comment at this stage? If not, then we’ll say thank you, gentlemen and we’ll see you as your project moves further along. MR. VUILLAUME-Okay. Thank you very much. MR. RACICOT-Thank you for your time. MR. TRAVER-So that concludes our regular agenda for this evening. I want to say a special thanks again to Craig for helping us with the public comment. It wasn’t nearly as complicated as it was the last time, but it is a job nevertheless and of course Maria and Laura and if there’s nothing else before the Board this evening, we’ll entertain a motion to adjourn. MOTION TO ADJOURN THE QUEENSBURY PLANNING BOARD MEETING OF FEBRUARY 16, 2021, Introduced by Chris Hunsinger who moved for its adoption, seconded by John Shafer: th Duly adopted this 16 day of February, 2021, by the following vote: AYES: Mr. Deeb, Ms. White, Mr. Shafer, Mr. Hunsinger, Mr. Magowan, Mr. Valentine, Mr. Traver NOES: NONE MR. TRAVER-We stand adjourned. Thanks, everybody. We’ll see you next week. On motion meeting was adjourned. RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED, Stephen Traver, Chairman 30