Loading...
03-23-2021 (Queensbury Planning Board 03/23/2021) QUEENSBURY PLANNING BOARD MEETING SECOND REGULAR MEETING MARCH 23, 2021 INDEX Site Plan No. 19-2021 Adirondack Trust 1. ZBA RECOMMENDATION Tax Map No. 309.10-1-47 Site Plan No. 57-2020 Rockhurst, LLC 4. Tax Map No. 239.12-2-35.2 Site Plan No. 56-2020 Joseph Leuci 17. Tax Map No. 290.-1-48 Site Plan No. 48-2020 Mark Prendeville 20. ZBA RECOMMENDATION Tax Map No. 289.13-1-58 Site Plan No. 15-2021 Paul Derby 22. ZBA RECOMMENDATION Tax Map No. 289.17-1-22 Site Plan No. 13-2021 Robert McCormick 26. Tax Map No. 239.18-1-45 Site Plan No. 11-2021 Stephen Haraden 27. Tax Map No. 226.12-1-74 Site Plan No. 12-2021 Steve & Cathie Schonwetter 31. Tax Map No. 227-17-1-42 Site Plan No. 14-2021 Charles Carder/Caren Tucker 36. Tax Map No. 289.14-1-24 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 03/23/2021) QUEENSBURY PLANNING BOARD MEETING SECOND REGULAR MEETING MARCH 23, 2021 7:00 P.M. MEMBERS PRESENT STEPHEN TRAVER, CHAIRMAN CHRIS HUNSINGER, VICE CHAIRMAN DAVID DEEB, SECRETARY JAMIE WHITE MICHAEL VALENTINE JOHN SHAFER BRAD MAGOWAN MICHAEL DIXON, ALTERNATE (Filled in for Jamie White mid-meeting) LAND USE PLANNER-LAURA MOORE STENOGRAPHER-MARIA GAGLIARDI MR. TRAVER-All right. So, welcome to the Town of Queensbury Planning Board meeting for Tuesday, rd March 23, 2021. This is our second meeting for March, our sixth meeting under the virtual COVID st routine, our 21 meeting under the general COVID protocols, and our sixth meeting for 2021 thus far. As we’ve done in the past under this protocol, there is an opportunity for, when we have public hearings, and there are several that do have public hearings this evening, there is an opportunity for you to indicate to the Town Staff that is monitoring what’s called the waiting room for this meeting if you wish to make public comment when that public comment opportunity is announced. Use the raise your hand option in the Zoom and you will have an opportunity to participate. All right. So I also want to thank the Board members and Staff for participating in that review of whether we were comfortable in returning to the April in person meetings. So I appreciate your quick response. A quick reminder that there is a third th meeting this month which is going to be this Thursday the 25, also at 7:00 p.m. MR. DEEB-Can I ask Laura about the Staff Notes for that meeting? MR. TRAVER-Yes. th MRS. MOORE-For the 25? So they will be e-mailed to you. If you do need to pick them up, just let me know ahead of time because I won’t have them done until Thursday morning after the ZBA meeting. MR. DEEB-Are you going to e-mail them tomorrow? MRS. MOORE-Not tomorrow. I have to wait until the ZBA meeting is complete Wednesday night. MR. DEEB-So Thursday we’ll get them. MRS. MOORE-Yes. MR. TRAVER-All right. We’ll move into our agenda. As mentioned we’re having a slight adjustment to our agenda in that we are going to hear first an application from Adirondack Trust for a variance and a referral to the ZBA. This is Site Plan 19-2021. PLANNING BOARD RECOMMENDATIONS TO THE ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS SITE PLAN NO. 19-2021 SEQR TYPE: TYPE II. ADIRONDACK TRUST. AGENT(S): JON LAPPER, ESQ. OWNER(S): SAME AS APPLICANT. ZONING: MS. LOCATION 79 MAIN STREET. APPLICANT PROPOSES TO INSTALL A 45 SQ. FT. FREE STANDING MONUMENT SIGN FOR THE ADIRONDACK TRUST BANK CURRENTLY UNDER CONSTRUCTION. PURSUANT TO CHAPTER 140-7 OF THE ZONING ORDINANCE, NEW SIGNS IN THE MAIN STREET ZONING DISTRICT SHALL BE SUBJECT TO PLANNING BOARD REVIEW AND APPROVAL. VARIANCE: RELIEF IS SOUGHT FOR SETBACKS. PLANNING BOARD SHALL PROVIDE A RECOMMENDATION TO THE ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS. CROSS REFERENCE: SP PZ 73-2016, SP 26-2019, SV 2-2021. WARREN CO. REFERRAL: MARCH 2021. SITE INFORMATION: MAIN STREET ZONING. LOT SIZE: .88 ACRE. TAX MAP NO. 309.10- 1-47. SECTION: 140-7. JON LAPPER, REPRESENTING APPLICANT, PRESENT MR. TRAVER-Laura? 2 (Queensbury Planning Board 03/23/2021) MRS. MOORE-This application is for the construction of a freestanding monument sign, 45 square feet, and this application is in front of this Board for the variance at this time, a referral, because it does not meet the setbacks from the front property lines where it’s proposed at 0.62 feet and 15 feet is required. MR. TRAVER-Thank you, Laura. Good evening, Jon. MR. LAPPER-Good evening. Steve, first I want to thank you for putting me on first. I think this will be very quick. I’ve got three applications in Bolton, which is not Queensbury’s fault, but I really appreciate it. I expect to be back for the Schonwetter and Haraden applications later on this evening in Queensbury, but I’ve got to jump on Zoom to Bolton. So this application is very simple. The Board approved this project about a year and a half ago, Adirondack Trust, and construction was delayed because of COVID. It’s a very attractive building in a corridor that is intended to be upgraded coming from the Northway into Glens Falls. It’s mostly complete now and it was always the intention to have a monument sign at the corner, but there’s kind of an anomaly in the Queensbury Code on Main Street. In the Sign Code all monument signs are supposed to be 15 feet back from the property line, but Main Street is designed under sort of a new organism, design ethic, and the buildings have to be closer to the road. So the setback, front setback of the building is measured from the center line of the road and it’s actually closer to the property line than the 15 feet that the sign would be required. So you can’t have that, and then it comes down to, is this the right place to locate it, and I think it is because there’s a very short front yard, but this is a very attractive sign with stone support underneath, just the Adirondack Trust logo, not too big, smaller than what could be allowed there, and I think it’s just going to enhance the building, but it’s important, especially with the drive thru, that people that are coming from the Northway are able to see that sign That’s really it. I hope the Board will support it. MR. TRAVER-Understood. Well I must say when I first saw this it was the largest variance request I think I’ve ever seen. I mean it’s less than a foot, but your point is well taken, Jon. I don’t have a problem with it, but I’ll open it up to members of the Board if they have any questions for you on this variance for the setback. MR. LAPPER-Thank you. MR. HUNSINGER-I just had a quick question. The only concern I had with the sign is whether or not it would block any visibility from somebody coming down Pine Street and turning left. MR. VALENTINE-I had the same thing, Chris, coming out of the other driveway and taking a right hand turn, would it block visibility. MR. LAPPER-So my answer is that there’s still a sidewalk there. So there is room, when you pull up, to see around it. MR. VALENTINE-I’m looking to Jon on Pine Street, I think this will go to Chris’s question, if you pull up, you can’t pull too far out into that, with that sidewalk there, your curb line’s right there. I drove by, looked at it tonight, we’ve looked at it before, and I’m just thinking about a car coming out of Pine and making a left turn. You can’t pull too far out in the intersection to get away from that in front of the sign. MR. LAPPER-I think that’s a valid question, but I’m looking at the survey map and I think that there’s plenty of room between the line of the street and the sign, because, again, although it’s right next to the property line, there’s still land, the Town has a pretty big easement there. There’s a utility easement. So the actual property line is not the street line. MR. VALENTINE-Wasn’t the intent for the monument sign on the adjacent building to be a monument sign for all retail or all business uses in there? MR. LAPPER-They’re subdivided. It’s not a plaza situation. MR. VALENTINE-I understand that, but there’s plenty of room on that sign. Is that monument sign only to be for the Subway shop and anything else there? MR. LAPPER-Yes. Because that’s the neighbor’s sign. What’s important here is that, if you’re coming in, coming from the Northway, you won’t see the front façade sign. So this is what you’ll see if you’re heading east into Glens Falls. So I think it’s an important sign. MR. MAGOWAN-So it’s that across the street from the Hess? Isn’t there a light there? MR. VALENTINE-Yes. MR. SHAFER-Jon, could the sign, based on this conversation, not be moved back a foot or two? It looks like a foot would make a huge difference. 3 (Queensbury Planning Board 03/23/2021) MR. LAPPER-I’ll ask. I think the issue there is there were also utility lines. Dean, are you on? DEAN KOLLIGIAN MR. KOLLIGIAN-Yes, I’m on. So, I heard your question, sir. Yes, it is across the street from the old Hess station. MR. MAGOWAN-Yes, Speedway, and there is a light there. MR. KOLLIGIAN-And there is a traffic light there. Correct. MR. MAGOWAN-All right. So my comment is, it’s not like they’re going to be pushing. You’ve got to wait for that light anyway, and knowing the corner and seeing that building, that sign, and you do have the walkways. It is tucked back. I mean, you know, for a visual, I don’t see it to be a problem. MR. TRAVER-Yes, if you look at S-1, which I think is what Laura has up on her screen now, it is back a bit from the road, but the bottom line is, in the sense of our referral to the ZBA, does anyone have a specific comment that they want to pass along to the ZBA regarding this variance? MR. DEEB-The sign’s not lighted, right? It’s not a lighted sign, is it? MR. VALENTINE-That’s a good question to Dean because I don’t know if that was in the material that we had. MR. DEEB-It wasn’t, but I was just curious. MR. VALENTINE-Is there internal lighting? MR. KOLLIGIAN-Well, it’s my understanding that that’s not allowed in that zone, Mr. Valentine. If it were, I would certainly be here ready to pass out some candy, snacks or whatever to allow you to agree to do that. A few years ago we went through a very substantial re-brand of our business and we created this uniform monument sign that we utilize in every one of our facilities with the exception of our headquarter building down in Saratoga, but in all other satellite locations we utilize this monument design, and in all other municipalities we do have internally illuminated punch through lettering which is very soft. It looks beautiful, but we also understand that in the Town of Queensbury and this area that’s not allowed. So we would be doing some very, very soft exterior illumination on this. MR. LAPPER-I also want to point out, blowing up the survey, it’s 4.6 feet from the curb. So there’s really pretty good area to look around the sign. The sign’s really tucked in very close to the building, but you’ve got the sidewalk and a pretty big curb at the corner, a handicap curb. MR. TRAVER-Does anyone have any other concerns regarding the variance request? All right, I guess we’re ready for a recommendation then, David. RECOMMENDATION RE: ZBA RECOMMENDATION RE: SV # 2-2021 ADIRONDACK TRUST CO. The applicant has submitted an application for the following: Applicant proposes to install a 45 sq. ft. free standing monument sign for the Adirondack Trust bank currently under construction. Pursuant to Chapter 140-7 of the Zoning Ordinance, new signs in the Main Street zoning district shall be subject to Planning Board review and approval. Variance: Relief is sought for setbacks. Planning Board shall provide a recommendation to the Zoning Board of Appeals. The Town of Queensbury Zoning Ordinance, per Section 179-9-070 J 2 b. requires the Planning Board to provide a written recommendation to the Zoning Board of Appeals for projects that require both Zoning Board of Appeals & Planning Board approval; The Planning Board has briefly reviewed and discussed this application, the relief request in the variance application as well as the potential impacts of this project on the neighborhood and surrounding community, and found that: MOTION TO MAKE A RECOMMENDATION ON BEHALF OF THE PLANNING BOARD TO THE ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS FOR SIGN VARIANCE NO. 2-2021 ADIRONDACK TRUST. 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. 4 (Queensbury Planning Board 03/23/2021) rd Motion seconded by Brad Magowan. Duly adopted this 23 day of March 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. You’re off to the ZBA. MR. LAPPER-Thanks, everybody. MR. TRAVER-So next we return to our regular official agenda. The first section of that agenda is tabled items. The first item is Rockhurst, LLC, Site Plan 57-2020. TABLED ITEMS: SITE PLAN NO. 57-2020 SEQR TYPE: TYPE II. ROCKHURST, LLC. AGENT(S): ENVIRONMENTAL DESIGN PARTNERS. OWNER(S): SAME AS APPLICANT. ZONING: WR. LOCATION: ASSEMBLY POINT ROAD. REVISED: APPLICANT PROPOSES TO DEMOLISH EXISTING BUILDINGS TO CONSTRUCT A NEW SINGLE FAMILY HOME WITH 2,400 SQ. FT. FOOTPRINT AND 3,822 SQ. FT. FLOOR AREA WITH 340 SQ. FT. PATIO. PROJECT INCLUDES SITE WORK, FILL AND GRADING, STORMWATER MANAGEMENT, SHORELINE LANDSCAPING, NEW SEPTIC, AND WATER SUPPLY FROM LAKE GEORGE. PURSUANT TO CHAPTER 179-6-065 & 179-6-050 OF THE ZONING ORDINANCE, CONSTRUCTION IN A CEA AND HARD SURFACING WITHIN 50 FT. OF SHORE SHALL BE SUBJECT TO PLANNING BOARD REVIEW AND APPROVAL. CROSS REFERENCE: AV 22-2020, AV 8-1993, SUB 5- 1993, SP 81-2011; AV 49-2020. WARREN CO. REFERRAL: DECEMBER 2020. SITE INFORMATION: APA, CEA, LGPC. LOT SIZE: 1.0 ACRE. TAX MAP NO. 239.12-2-35.2. SECTION: 179-6-065, 179-6-050. GAVIN VUILLAUME, REPRESENTING APPLICANT, PRESENT MR. TRAVER-Laura? MRS. MOORE-So this application was in front of the ZBA last week and they had granted the variance relief and that was a setback variance relief, and the applicant had brought the height down to 28 feet. The Zoning Board did grant the variance. However they did note with a condition that the driveways be combined because there was an additional variance that this Board wasn’t part of in reference to allowing access from what we call the main residence lot to Assembly Point. So in this case the Zoning Board said they would grant the setback relief with the condition that the driveways be combined, and that’s what you’re seeing in front of you. I explained in Staff Notes that the applicant do their best to get this information to you. I did e-mail that earlier today, or support staff did. MR. TRAVER-Okay. Thank you, Laura. Environmental Design, are you here? MR. VUILLAUME-Yes, I am. Gavin Vuillaume with Environmental Design. MR. TRAVER-Good evening. Welcome. Tell us about the status of your application. MR. VUILLAUME-Okay. Great. Again, it’s Gavin Vuillaume with Environmental Design. I’m here with Chris and Phyllis Abele who should be on the Zoom call as well. I think Laura did a good job of explaining the history of the project. We did present it back in December. The applicant along with our office has spent numerous hours refining the site plan in order to meet several other requirements, not only from the Zoning Board of Appeals but also from an extensive review with Chazen Engineers for the stormwater management on the site. We’ve also received many numerous comments from neighbors and the Waterkeeper for Lake George. So we’ve been dealing with a lot of those questions. I believe we’re at a point now though, however, where we are at the final stage of the site layout, and I’ll just quickly, again, update the Board with some of the changes that we’ve made and some of the improvements that have occurred through all those meetings. So with the site plan as currently shown, you can see highlighted in the light brown color is the proposed house. That house has had several different shapes over the last few months. We’ve reduced the size of the building both in square footage and in height, as Laura has mentioned. So we’re currently at 28 feet and the total square footage is now at 3,822 square feet, and it’s approximately 500 square feet less than what was originally approved, or not approved, originally proposed. Those changes were made in effort obviously to reduce the height of the structure and have it fit as best we can within those current setbacks, and again just a quick reminder to all the Board members, that this particular site location does meet the current regulations for setbacks both in permeability, front yard, side yard, rear yard and shoreline setback. The current shoreline setback is 50 feet, and we are 5 (Queensbury Planning Board 03/23/2021) adhering to that. The reason for our variance was that the project was subdivided back in 1993 and the regulations back then were 75 feet. So that was the real main reason for the variances, but it does meet all the current setbacks. We meet all the criteria as far as stormwater management, the septic design. Again, working through the site plan, you can see that we’ve made some modifications to the driveways that the Zoning Board was concerned with. If you remember the original plan we had, just the long linear road that was just to the south of the building, leading out towards the main residence, and then we had another small curved driveway out towards Assembly Point Road. So there was essentially two curb cuts. We’ve eliminated that second curb cut, as recommended by the Zoning Board. That also provided for us a means of simplifying the stormwater management design, and I’ll just quickly show you a quick couple of things on that. Just to the east of the building where the driveway turnaround is, you can see where it says the word cottage lot. That is our main stormwater management facility. It’s a very shallow stormwater basin with a grass swale that leads to it. A majority of the stormwater that comes off the building and the driveway would be directed towards that feature. The stormwater towards the front of the property, which has now been modified and reduced as far as its impervious area, now is being treated with permeable pavers, similar to the design that we’re proposing on the proposed patio out front, and this will take all the stormwater from the sidewalks and just the small portion of the roof. Another concern of both the neighbors and the Waterkeeper was the stormwater that’s actually coming from the properties to the south onto our property. As you remember from previous discussions, we’re in a very shallow groundwater situation The site’s fairly low. We’re bringing in fill in order to improve the stormwater drainage and we had originally some longer culverts that were directing stormwater from the lands to the south through the driveway area of the proposed site plan. Those culverts have been reduced. Originally they were probably close to 80 or 90 feet long. Now you can see that they’re probably 25 feet long. So we’ve reduced those culverts. We have a more natural concentration of stormwater that can recharge within the ground through a very long linear grass swale in between Assembly Point and the building and that will take care of not only whatever comes off of our property, but also help to manage any stormwater that comes off of other properties that are currently discharging onto our site. So we’ve made some substantial changes to stormwater. The septic design. Just real quick, in conclusion you can see the septic system is currently being proposed over on a portion of the main residence lot. As part of this project we would be doing a lot line adjustment in order to meet the current setback to side yard and rear yards for the septic field. The field itself would be an enhanced treatment system. It meets all the setbacks. You can see there’s some dimensions to the neighbor’s well. Dimensions to the lake were 100 feet from everything and we’re very confident that that septic system location will work a lot better than the older ones previously used for the two existing cottages, which I forgot to mention obviously are being removed. The next thing would be, Laura, could you go to the planting plan. It should be the next sheet maybe. Okay. So again we really haven’t talked much to the Zoning Board about the planting plan but again we are aware of the fact that there’s certain requirements for shoreline protection and plantings along the shoreline. There’s several charts and calculations that are required to have enough screening along the shore. We meet all those requirements as best we can. Again, it is somewhat of a confusing requirement for a lot of the applicants to adhere to, but I think we did a great job here with preserving a lot of the vegetation, not only along the shoreline but also along the perimeter of the property where we do have improvements such as our driveway and the building and patio out front. You can see the very large extent of landscape plantings and if you have any questions on those, the types of plants and things, obviously I can answer that, but you can see by the number of plants that are being proposed it’s quite extensive. We feel that this is going to add more to the attractiveness of the site itself. I guess so that concludes the site plan part of it. Laura, if you have a quick copy of the building, I might just quickly want to show the Board the two renderings that were prepared by the architect. We just recently, again, last minute submitted those. MR. TRAVER-While she’s doing that, can you talk to us about lighting? MR. VUILLAUME-Yes. So, again, with the residential nature of the project, yes, there are the elevations, there is not going to be any exterior light poles or anything of that nature, just small lights that you would typically see at doorway entrances around the building. So here are the elevations that the architects proposed. So I think these are very similar to the original ones. The one on top is the view of the new cottage lot building from the lake. Originally we had a screened porch where the chimney is and that’s been reduced. The center of the building is the main gathering space within the building for the family room, and the second elevation towards the bottom is the view that you would see from the road. The two smaller windows to the right on the right hand side of the building is where we originally had the garage. Naturally when we combined the driveways we had to flip flop the garage doors in order to have the driveway access the, I guess it would be the long linear driveway out towards the main residence lot. So that elevation shows the, yes, there’s the plan view. You can see we flip flopped that garage. Originally it was on the right side of the structure. Now it’s on the left side. So that was really the only change. You can see the interior layout. We feel the home fits within the character of the neighborhood and we’re excited to hopefully get started on it soon. MR. TRAVER-All right. Thank you. Questions, comments from other members of the Planning Board? MR. SHAFER-Gavin, I didn’t see any perc test data on the plans. Did I miss them? 6 (Queensbury Planning Board 03/23/2021) MR. VUILLAUME-We did some very early preliminary soil testing in the vicinity of the new cottage, and it’s there where we obviously discovered that there is high groundwater in the area. We did do perc tests over in the area where the septic systems are. There you go. Go back to the site plan. Okay. Maybe, there should be a grading and drainage plan that might show where the test pits were, but anyway, see where the septic field is is where we did the septic system testing. We will be doing, that was one of the last comments with Chazen. We’ve addressed all their comments. I guess we’re really down to two very minor comments that they had asked for. One was winter infiltration for the storm basin, which we’ve added, and the second was really to update the soil testing. We’ve been unfortunately going through this approval process in the middle of winter. So we really didn’t have a good opportunity to get out there, but as soon, probably, you know, before the next meeting, if we need another meeting, we certainly would have tests by then, or perhaps we could just condition it on the tests confirming the assumptions we’ve made with the stormwater design. MR. SHAFER-Second quick question, and that is the driveway. Did you say the gray on this plan will all be permeable pavers? MR. VUILLAUME-So there’s two color grays. You can see the darker color gray in the area of the building. Those would all be permeable pavers, and then the lighter gray is the long linear driveway that goes out to the main lot. That would be just gravel. MR. SHAFER-Okay. MR. VUILLAUME-There you go. You can kind of blow it up and see where the, those are all the pavers. It’s going to look really nice. MR. VALENTINE-Gavin, I have one question for you on this. When you were talking in the beginning you referenced properties to the south abutting this and that you were picking up water draining off of those lots. Are any of those lots new construction that there shouldn’t be anything coming off? MR. VUILLAUME-No, those are existing homes. The water has always kind of collected along Assembly Point Road at this kind of corner. So I’m sure they’ve changed over the years, but nothing recent that I’m aware of. MR. VALENTINE-Okay. Thank you. MR. TRAVER-We do have a public hearing on this application. Laura, do you now if there’s anyone that wanted to comment to the Planning Board on this application? PUBLIC HEARING OPENED MRS. MOORE-I’m going to start with Amanda Kukle. MR. TRAVER-Okay. Good evening, Amanda. Can you hear us? AMANDA KUKLE MS. KUKLE-There we go. MRS. MOORE-Just to confirm. I know you wrote a letter. So are you going to go over that letter? MS. KUKLE-I was going to hit the highlights so that you didn’t have to read the entirety into the record. MR. TRAVER-We do have a copy of the letter for the record, though, right? MRS. MOORE-Yes, we do. MR. TRAVER-Okay. I’m sorry. Good evening, Amanda. Go ahead. MS. KUKLE-Good evening. My name is Amanda Kukle. I’m an attorney with Caffry & Flower and I’m representing John and Honey-Jo Kelly who are property owners on Assembly Point. First and foremost their goal is that this be tabled tonight so that there is an opportunity for the public and for Chazen to review the new changes to the proposal. The project has been changed since the variance was granted by the ZBA last week, and we’ve just begun to review these documents. As was pointed out, there are still a couple of matters that were brought up by Chazen that haven’t been resolved yet and we’re curious to see what if any comments Chazen has on the revised stormwater plan. We also would like to request that the matter be tabled until the boundary line adjustment is completed. If the boundary line adjustment isn’t done exactly as proposed then the totals for the entire parcel could be wrong, and that would impact 7 (Queensbury Planning Board 03/23/2021) the calculation and the floor area ratio, and skipping the step now could result in the need for an after the fact variance down the line or result in the same land being counted towards both the cottage lot and the main lot when that comes before this Board and the ZBA. You don’t want to have to re-visit those items, and we’d also like to bring up something that was raised before. We’d like to see this tabled until the proposed plan for the main lot is incorporated into the site plan review, and these two projects are reviewed as one under the State Environmental Quality Review Act. The proposed development of these lots are intertwined with the shared driveway, the needed boundary line adjustment and it’s likely that soon plans for the main lot are going to be before your Board and the ZBA. We believe that this project is being segmented, and if this project was not segmented, then SEQR review would be required and I believe that it should be tabled until that time. However, in the final point, before this project can be approved by the Planning Board, the Planning Board must determine that it complies with the Town Code and is consistent with the Comprehensive Plan. Under the Code that this means that the Planning Board has determined that it adequately prevents pollution of surface water, ground water, erosion, excessive runoff, and that it would not have undue adverse impacts on the aesthetic an ecological resources. Similarly the Comprehensive Plan has the goal of protecting water quality and reducing shoreline clutter. We believe that increasing the setback of the building from the lake would alleviate these concerns. This would increase the buffer between the impermeable surface and the lake, maximize valuable shoreline habitat and reduce visual impacts from the lake. Last week the ZBA did authorize that the house can be as close as 50 feet from the lake, but it didn’t mandate that it must be only 50 feet from the lake. The Planning Board has the authority to require adjusting the location of the house to minimize these negative impacts and bring the project into compliance with the Town Code and we believe that the Planning Board should do so. However the primary goal of my client is that the application be tabled to allow for a closer review of the new proposal so that the final project is most appropriate for the site and perhaps might even alleviate some of the concerns expressed tonight, but we believe that it should be tabled. MR. TRAVER-Okay. Thank you, Amanda. MRS. MOORE-So next I have Bob Carbognin. BOB CARBOGNIN MR. CARBOGNIN-I’m going to be reading this into the record on behalf of Lorraine Ruffing who cannot be present for the Zoom meeting tonight, and she writes “I raise the following questions: 1. What is justification of reviewing a development of two houses and two septic systems as if they are not interdependent? 2. Will the first house still place part of its septic system on the second lot? 3. How effective will the Puraflo septic system be in a wetland area with a high water table (see pictures)? 4. Has the stormwater management plan been improved? How effective will a grass swale be compared to the Town's new buffering requirements? Will it compensate for the number of trees that have already been removed. Will more trees be removed during this development? First, I would like to repeat what has been said and written by more than 15 citizens at the Nov. 16, 2020 Town Board meeting. The development of the 2 lots owned by Rockhurst LLC should be considered as a whole. Evidence of this is given in part by a request that lot 35.1 be allowed to use the driveway of lot 35.2-the lot under current development. It is obvious given the sale price of this area, that this area will have not one, but two new houses, and not one septic system but two new septic systems. The current owner has even said that the first house will pay for the second. It appears that the first house will place its septic system in part on the adjoining lot to meet Town Code on the setback from the Lake. Applying for variances one by one is very bad piecemeal planning which does not show the entirety of the impacts of this development on adjacent properties or the Lake. Rockhurst LLC should come back with the entire plan for the 2.14 acre area so that there can be a comprehensive planning review as recommended by the Lake George Waterkeeper. Second, according to the Town's own environmental map and Warren County GIS, part of the property and most of the area adjacent is a wetland. Furthermore it is a critical environmental area . The property is surrounded by water on all sides (see photos) including by drainage ditches which fill with ground water on the south side, west side and north side of the property and 272 feet of shoreline. I could not see that these flowing ditches were included in the site plan maps. Improper redevelopment of this area could cause flooding to adjacent properties and increased outflows to Canal Bay. Again in its site plan Rockhurst LLC asserts that surface waters will not degrade streams, in this case the Lake itself, or adjacent properties. However, the groundwater level is very high (again see attached photos from 18 January 2021). The wastewater effluent from the two absorptive fields for the 2 proposed septic systems could possibly leach into the flowing ditches and into Canal Bay, the site of the first reported hazardous algal bloom on Lake George. Outflows to Canal Bay provided the nutrients which fed the harmful algal bloom which was present from 7-15 November 2020.Two of your criteria are that this redevelopment will not have undue adverse impact upon the neighborhood or the environment. The HABs which originated in Canal Bay completely surrounded Assembly Point threatening our drinking water. I can attest to that fact since I kayaked the entire distance on Nov. 9. Therefore, development in a wetland adjacent to this shallow, still bay has environmental and health implications for all of Assembly Point as well as to adjacent properties such as the Hogans, Chrys and Crews. This wetland begins at Brayton Lane and continues north. As Ms. Florence Connor's letter states, there is an existing underground conduit pipe to drain this adjacent wetland which empties into the ditch south of 10 Polk Rd. As stated on Nov. 16, 2020 the test pits to determine seasonal high ground 8 (Queensbury Planning Board 03/23/2021) water were performed in October during the driest time of this year. The pictures from Jan.18, 2021 tell a different story. In Mr. Hogan's letter he confirms the existence of the wetlands with year round flows and the impact previous development on Mr. Chrys' land had on his property. Mr. Hogan asks that this wetland area be incorporated into the storm water management plan. Not being a hydrologist I could not understand how the present storm water plan will remediate the high water table and the severe rain events we have been experiencing. The inclusion of a grass swale certainly will not do it. Again one of your requirements is that storm water will not increase flows or degrade adjacent properties. Therefore, I request that this site plan and storm water management plan be tabled until they are accurate and substantially improved. Given the high water table, it is probably best to use holding tanks instead of the Puraflo septic system which will collect the effluent and distribute it to adjacent absorption fields situated in a wetland. Third, Rockhurst LLC has proceeded to develop this property without a site plan. During the fall, work was undertaken on a road, drainage and the extensive removal of over 16 trees, some of which were within 35 ft. from the lake. The fact that so many mature trees have been removed has decreased the absorptive capacity of this area and increased groundwater flow. In its site plan Rockhurst LLC asserts that there will be maximum retention of vegetation. Clearly, this has not happened. This is a case of unapproved development and should carry a penalty.” Thank you. Respectfully, Lorraine Ruffing, a resident of Assembly Point. MR. TRAVER-Okay. Thank you. Next I have Lorraine Carbognin. MR. SHAFER-Mr. Chairman, would you remind speakers that there’s a three minute limit on public hearing comments. MR. TRAVER-I’m going to grant some leeway because the points being made are relevant, but I appreciate your concern, and if it gets too late here, people start repeating themselves, I’ll certainly admonish people. MR. SHAFER-Thank you. MR. TRAVER-All right. So next we have, is it Lorraine? MRS. MOORE-Yes. LORRAINE CARBOGNIN MR. CARBOGNIN-Hi, okay. Thank you. I am a resident of Assembly Point Road and I have attended several of these meetings previously. I still have some concerns. My first point was to question about the soil testing. I did read the note from Mr. Doty of Chazen and also hear the representative of Environmental Design that the soil testing will be performed as soon as the weather permits. So thank you for that explanation. A Park official who visited this property in 2001 stated that there were no wetlands at this site. Do we actually accept findings from a 20 year old report? Is it not conceivable that runoff and water accumulation patterns have changed from two decades of development? In the statement an aerial view showed no wetlands. However, from the ground level they are clearly visible. We know many streams in the Adirondack Park are not officially recognized but clearly they exist and on this site they feed directly into the lake at close proximity. MR. TRAVER-Lorraine, we’ve had a good deal of comment regarding wetlands and stormwater. So we don’t need to take more comment on that this evening. Could you conclude the rest of your remarks, please. MR. CARBOGNIN-The proposed stormwater management system that consists of one grass swale has a capacity of 929 cubic feet. It is stated in the documentation that it is sized for attenuation and infiltration of a 10 year storm runoff volume and that overflow from that swale will be directed to Lake George to follow pre-development site conditions. The Queensbury Town Code mandates that the volume of runoff must be maintained after development, but any stormwater management that currently exists barely can keep this property above water. So allowing pre-development conditions to set any type of standard makes no sense. Table 8 which was submitted by Environmental Design in their stormwater management narrative shows only that the post development runoff volume is somewhat better. What about all the excess water that is being allowed to flow into the lake? Multiple requests by multiple residents have been made to consider development of this site in its entirety. We’re only looking at the cabin lot now, but we should look at the future development of the adjoining lot as well. As previously mentioned, variance upon variance creates a precarious situation for a critical environmental area. The applicant purchased a site that is a critical environmental area and wants to develop the first site now with a 3800 square foot residence. Decisions on a shared driveway point to a second large home on the main lot. By dividing this project into two with development of the cabin lot disturbing less than one acre, the applicant avoided requirement for a New York State DEC SPDES permit which otherwise would have been required. We request can the Board proactively request a site plan for this entire parcel before granting approval. MR. TRAVER-Thank you, Lorraine. We’ve already taken comment regarding the segmentation issue. 9 (Queensbury Planning Board 03/23/2021) MRS. CARBOGNIN-I just wanted to complete my statement. MR. TRAVER-Okay. If you could avoid repeating information that’s already been provided to the Board, we would appreciate that, in fairness to other speakers. MRS. CARBOGNIN-I will try that. However, I do feel that by hearing from multiple residents with similar concerns you can hear the emphasis and what we feel we need to stress as very important to all of us. I just want to make a personal statement that we residents are all here attending this meeting for one reason only, for our lake water. Our discussion includes no personality and no motives other than concern for our lake water. We feel threatened by this development which comes at a time when we feel we must do all we possibly can to protect the water that we and our families drink. Thank you. MR. TRAVER-Thank you. MR. DEEB-Stephen, I think I agree with John. You might have to put a time limit on this if we have a lot of speakers. MR. TRAVER-I’m going to, before we hear the next speaker, Laura, can the people that are waiting to speak, if there are remaining public speakers, can they hear what we’re saying? MRS. MOORE-They can, yes. MR. TRAVER-All right. I just want to admonish those members of the public that are planning on making public comment this evening, we have received a great deal of information regarding stormwater, a potential segmentation issue, questions about the engineering review of stormwater and so on. We’re going to need to limit public comment to, please do not repeat the same information that we’ve already heard. We will be addressing those issues once we come out of public hearing, but I’m going to ask, without putting a limit at this stage, but I am going to ask public speakers to avoid repeating the same information that we have received. All right. Thank you. Laura, who’s next? MRS. MOORE-Okay. So I don’t see any other hands raised. I do have a letter from the Waterkeeper. MR. TRAVER-Okay. MRS. MOORE-So I don’t see any other hands raised. So I’m going to read the Waterkeeper’s letter. I’m going to paraphrase, only because we’ve already gone through this information. MR. TRAVER-The Waterkeeper, this is Mr. Navitsky, correct? MRS. MOORE-Correct. MR. TRAVER-Okay. Thank you. MRS. MOORE-So he wasn’t able to attend tonight’s meeting, and so he asked me to read this into the record. “The Waterkeeper has general comments for the Planning Board to consider to be incorporated to reduce water quality impacts as the site plans are being modified and become available for public comment.” He did identify the issue with the wetland, again, in his comments, and a note in his letter says that “the applicant should limit the enclosure of the stream to encourage interaction with the soils and vegetation for treatment. The installation of 3-4 feet of fill will alter surface runoff and direct unmanaged runoff towards the lake. The placement of fill will interrupt the existing overland flow in the area that does provide treatment and would direct more flow through the existing stream that is proposed to be piped. This property development should be evaluated to produce the most natural condition possible to maximize flow time as well as soil and vegetative interaction.” Next note is “The applicant should modify the proposed patio located within the shoreline setback that will result in unmanaged runoff towards Lake George.” And that’s the end of his statement. MR. TRAVER-Okay. Thank you, Laura, and I think I saw another person that indicated their hand was raised that they wished to make public comment. Are you seeing that? MRS. MOORE-So I have, I see Carol Collins has her hand raised. MR. TRAVER-So just let her in, if you could. MRS. MOORE-Yes, no problem. CAROL COLLINS 10 (Queensbury Planning Board 03/23/2021) DR. COLLINS-Hi, Steve, this is Carol Collins, and Board. I’m going to just re-adjust my statement. The other comments were amazing. I’m going to just concentrate for a minute on the patio and pervious pavers. I think we all really need to concentrate on the fact that pervious pavers are not a solution like you can just use them willy-nilly. They’re a partial solution to impervious pavement. So the very fact that they want to put more pavement out in front of the lake in that patio it’s just absurd to me as a scientist because it’s not going to solve anything. It shouldn’t be there in the first place. Please start to understand that pervious pavement is good, only because it’s better than impervious pavement. It’s not a godsend. It needs to be maintained. It crushes the soil. It is not a good thing. It’s only a solution to a bad thing. I also want to mention that this area has such a high water table. There is no beta zone. There’s no beta zone where you’re going to be trapping the phosphorus that we need to trap for nutrient removal before we get to the lake, and then to add a ETU which has a reduced amount of soil absorption area by 30%, 30% less phosphorus removal, it’s absurd in a critical environmental area. Again, I know this has to be tabled because there was so much information that was presented tonight, but there’s some concepts here that seem to be proliferating as we re-develop Lake George and the Queensbury waterfront and the more impervious area that we’re putting down really jeopardizes what we have. We know the lake is in decline and we’re not reducing anything. All we’re doing is adding more to it. Please remember that stormwater runoff controls do not reduce, I mean do not eliminate. All they do is reduce what would be a higher amount, but they really generate more than what would have been. So please think of these points. I know you all do a great job and thank you for my two minutes. MR. TRAVER-Well, thank you, Carol. DR. COLLINS-Okay. Nice to see you, Steve. MR. TRAVER-Okay, and, Laura, are there written comments beyond those of the Waterkeeper? MRS. MOORE-There are not, and I just will point out Amanda Kukle addressed the one from Caffry & Flower comment and then it sounds like Bob Carbognin read the one from Lorraine Ruffing. So in previous meetings we have read through a whole series of those comments. So right now I have Mr. Abele who would like to speak, but I would like to make sure that there’s nobody in the audience, any of the attendees that wish to speak. I don’t see any. I don’t see any raised hands. I don’t see any chats. So, Steve, that’s up to you. Do you want to have the applicant address some of those comments or do you want to have Chris speak, Mr. Abele who’s the applicant? MR. TRAVER-Is he requesting to make public comment? MRS. MOORE-No, he’s the applicant himself. So I think with Gavin and he I think they’re trying to probably respond to some of those. MR. TRAVER-Yes, we will provide him an opportunity to do that, but not at this point. I’d like to hear next, I think, from Gavin. So if there’s no other public comment, we’ll go ahead and close the public hearing at this point. PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED MR. TRAVER-And I’ll ask Gavin if first, before Chris, if you have an opportunity to respond. There were questions about segmentation, questions about whether Chazen had reviewed the updated plans. Obviously questions about the septic and so on, the wetlands, which we are aware of, but if you would like to initially respond to that. MR. VUILLAUME-Okay. Great. I’ll just quickly, again, I think in my presentation I gave a fairly extensive explanation of the stormwater design principles that we’ve incorporated within this project, but as some of the questions are coming on over the use of permeable pavers, just a quick FYI on those. They’re not just the pavers themselves. It’s really more the design underneath the pavers that makes them considered as being a very favorable means of managing stormwater. So the pavers obviously the way they’re designed, they allow water to infiltrate to the ground, but it’s the reservoir underneath, and there’s a very large reservoir of crushed stone and also pea gravel and different types of subbase material that helps to infiltrate the stormwater from the surface into the ground. So we are storing more stormwater on this site than what was originally being taken care of certainly by a very large amount, and then again we are creating a stormwater basin and grass swale area, and two grass swale areas along with another infiltration area that is also going to handle stormwater, not only during the summer months, but also during the winter. The plans have been reviewed by Chazen. We’ve addressed all their comments. They had three very minor comments, and we’ve addressed both of those. The only one left, I believe, is just to confirm the soils with soil testing and that will be occurring within probably the next couple of weeks. So that takes care of, I think, the stormwater for now. I hope the Town is relying on the efforts of the reviewing engineer who seemed satisfied with the design, and certainly if Chazen comes back and wants to make some other minor modifications we’d be more than happy to do that, but I believe at this point they are satisfied with the plans. There are no wetlands on the property. We kind of discussed that several times, both with this 11 (Queensbury Planning Board 03/23/2021) Board and also with the Zoning Board. So I’m not sure where a lot of people are under the assumptions that there are regulated wetlands in the vicinity of the project. There are not, and as far as the septic design, again, the septic design is done as per New York State Health Department and meets all the setbacks . The enhanced treatment system is one that has been commonly used throughout Lake George. The Town’s very familiar with it and we don’t see that that would have any kind of negative impact to the lake or to the surrounding neighbors. So this is my quick assessment of some of the comments that we’ve received. I know Chris is anxious to address some of the other concerns that some of the Board members may have with the project. So let’s give Chris a quick chance to talk about some of his responses to the questions by the neighbors. MR. TRAVER-We will do that, but before that I would like to ask you a question. You mentioned that you don’t object to Chazen having additional questions or comments? MR. VUILLAUME-No. MR. TRAVER-All right. Thank you. Before we go to Chris, I guess I’ll open it up to the Board. Do you have any questions for Gavin based on public comment before we discuss it? MR. DEEB-Well, Gavin, I was wondering. They mentioned segmentation. I think we should address that, and also. MR. TRAVER-We will be discussing that. MR. DEEB-All right. Permeable pavers. I understand what you’re saying about the subsurface of permeable pavers. However, I’ve talked to several engineers, and a lot of them feel that permeable pavers aren’t as good as they’re supposed to be. Because they do get dirt in them. They have to be maintained, and I’m wondering if the applicant would be willing, and they have to be maintained quite thoroughly. They have to be cleaned, cleaned out so that the water can penetrate into that subsurface. I don’t know what you’re feelings are on that, but these are the feelings that I have. MR. VUILLAUME-Certainly we can put specific notations on the plans and make sure that the applicant takes care of the lake, and again I know Chris is anxious to talk about his feelings with the lake. His family’s going to live on this lake. They’re going to use the lake. They’re going to swim along the shoreline and they want to do everything that’s best for the lake as well as some of the concerned neighbors. We’ve also proposed in previous versions of this plan gravel diaphragms along the edges of the pavement. That’s another added again safety measure, if that’s something else that Chazen feels would be helpful to work along with the permeable pavers. That’s another green infrastructure design that we’ve incorporated on other projects. So we can certainly add those back in We thought that the pavers would take care of more of the drainage, but again, gravel diaphragms along the edges that infiltrate the drainage as it leaves the surface is another technique that we would add back into the plans. MR. DEEB-Could you talk about segmentation? MR. VUILLAUME-Segmentation, again, I’ll leave that up to the Town. We have been very forthcoming with the design of the main lot. Some of the first sketches that we had proposed to the Town showed where the house would be located, how the driveway would be accessed. We’ve spent a lot of time working with the neighbors along Holly Lane in order to make sure that we could gain access from Assembly Point and not affect the people on Holly Lane. So it’s not as if we’ve been working with blinders on as far as the development of that parcel. We’ve been very forthcoming with what to expect with the design of that. At the current time the applicant has no plans in front of the Town, but in the future we will be more than happy to address any concerns you have with that particular lot, and again, we have provided some plans to the Town to see what that would look like. MR. DEEB-Thank you. MR. TRAVER-Anyone else have questions? MR. HUNSINGER-Yes, Steve, one of the questions I had is since you changed the curb cut and the driveway orientation, I realize you reduced the size of the house from the original proposal that we looked at previous, but I just wonder how thoroughly you looked at changing the site plan a little more dramatically, or maybe even a little bit more subtly, just one thought. Pivot the house a little bit sort of clockwise so that that corner that’s closest to the lake gets a little further away from the lake, those kinds of discussions. Since you had to re-design the driveway plan, it seems like that would have been the time to take a harder look at the actual location of the house on the lot. MR. VUILLAUME-Yes, we did spend a lot of time with the architect on the actual location and we did shift the building a little bit. We didn’t just reduce the size of it. We did have to shift the structure a little bit further more towards Assembly Point, which, again, is not a lot, but it did bring the building a 12 (Queensbury Planning Board 03/23/2021) little further away from the lake. The problem that we’re having is that now that the driveway is located on the eastern portion of the property, or eastern portion of the house, we need enough maneuverability to have a car be able to turn and get into that driveway. So we really can’t back it anymore into that corner. I mean we can see already that you’ve got a driveway, a small little drop off driveway, for anybody that wants to enter the front of the house, and then we have to provide access to the main residential lot and be able to make a car turn into the back of that driveway. So there’s a lot of things going on there and we’re really just getting pushed into a very tight corner in that section of the property and I’m a little reluctant to push it back any further. MR. VALENTINE-Gavin, if you don’t mind, I have a question for you. MR. VUILLAUME-Sure. MR. VALENTINE-It’s a basic one but I’m not sure I’m reading this right. Usually with lot line adjustments there’s two things that are sort of standards that have to be met, no creation of a substandard lot and no c creation of a new lot, but it appears that two lots are being created out of this which would make it a subdivision rather than a lot line adjustment. MR. VUILLAUME-No, we’ve already gone over some of this with Craig Brown, with the Town. The key thing to keep in mind with the lot line adjustment is that both the parcels that are being taken or given away need to be exactly the same square footage and that’s the case with this. They’re both listed at 1600 square feet, and so it’s a very simple lot line adjustment where you’re taking 1600 feet from one lot and giving it to the other. The heavy lines that you’re seeing are the existing line and the proposed line. The existing lines are obviously, we could lighten those just so you could see them. The one goes through the septic area and the other one goes out to an iron pipe near the shoreline. Those are the existing lot line. MR. VALENTINE-All right. Thank you. MR. TRAVER-Any other questions for Gavin before we continue? MRS. MOORE-Gavin, I have Dennis in here, and I apologize, I’ve asked him if he’s speaking with you as an agent or not. So I don’t know if you want to have that conversation with Dennis, but if Brad wants to speak, has a question, go ahead. MR. MAGOWAN-All right, thank you. So, Gavin, what you’re saying is around the septic I can see you’re bringing the lot around and then back to the iron pipe. So you’re basically going around the septic and then that little “Y” pie on the north side is the 1600 square feet that you’re adding back on to the other lot Is that what you’re saying? MR. VUILLAUME-That’s correct. MR. MAGOWAN-Okay. Thank you. MR. TRAVER-All right, and we have, Chris, I apologize, I don’t see your last name, but you wanted to make public comment as well. If you could do so. Gavin already explained your fondness for the lake and your intent to do your best to maintain it, but if you want to speak to address any of the public comments specifically, go ahead and do that. CHRIS ABELE MR. ABELE-I first want to thank the Board for your effort in hearing my application, and I want to also thank Gavin for a great job he did tonight on my behalf. I guess I’d like to start with that this has been a long and convoluted process, and when we first started this we tried to comply with every rule and regulation that the Town of Queensbury has, to the point where sometimes the complexity, I didn’t even understand, but in my opinion, the main issue here is the concerns from an environmental viewpoint for the lake, and, you know, everybody that spoke tonight, as well as me, I think we have a common goal, and that is to maintain the pristine beauty and clarity and cleanliness of Lake George, and as I said to the Zoning Board, my roots go back into the lake back in the 60’s when my parents used to take me to Hearthstone. So this piece of land that we’re talking about, I intend it to be a family compound, and what I do want to address some real specific comments that the public made tonight that were erroneous, but th before I do that, I want to just have the Board aware of when I purchased this property it was October 5, 2020. Within about a two week period I dismantled three non-conforming, outdated, terrible septic systems. So the day I took possession there was a net benefit to the lake, and my new septics are going to be state-of-the-art, as Gavin said. We’re not asking for any variance. We’re going to be 100 foot from the lake, and I want to address the one septic system that I dismantled was for the big lot. When I found the leach field, which nobody knew where it was, it was literally cinder block with stone and railroad ties on it, and that was 30 foot from the lake. I guess respectfully one of my questions to the people that seem to be against me is where were you then? Did you ever consider the pollution that was going on before I took 13 (Queensbury Planning Board 03/23/2021) possession? And I want to say to the Board, not only did I reach out to the environment community, I reached out to Lisa Adamson and I wanted her to talk to Carol Collins, but they never did talk to me. I invited Chris Navitsky to the site, and I also talked to Randy from the Fund and Walt Lender on the phone. So I’ve made an outreach to the environmental community because I truly am an environmentalist, and this project is going to be a net gain, not only for me and my family, but for the Lake George community. In addition, and I think Mike on the Board referenced, there’s fair amount of water that comes upstream that goes through my property. That is no fault of mine, but my project is going to give at least some stormwater treatment to the water that’s not even on my property. So there’s a net/net gain, and I have one specific response to the attorney who said she needs more time or table it and all that. Since we got approved from the Zoning Board, every change we made was a net gain environmentally for the site, to include one driveway, which was a condition, and where the secondary driveway was going to go, there’s no longer any construction in that area. So that’s a net gain. I have a couple of more specific comments relative to somebody said I illegally cut trees. I had Bruce from the Town on my property two to three times. I had it professionally staked out. Behind the 35 foot line that’s mandated by the Town, never did we go close to that line. That’s erroneous, and the other fellow said that there was some illegal work done on the site. I would ask him to go to the Town Highway Department and see the legal permit that I got for the culvert that was totally blocked. So I want to conclude. I don’t want to waste any more of your time. This is a dream of mine. It’s for my family. I swim in the lake. My grandkids someday hopefully if I have them, will swim as well, and I would humbly ask that people respect my love for the lake as well, and I thank you very much. MR. TRAVER-Thank you, sir. All right. So having discussion with Staff and the Board, there are a couple of issues that I think we need to review. This particular application and site, under SEQR, are considered SEQR Type II, but there was a potential issue of segmentation brought up and I’m wondering, I don’t remember discussing a situation where there was a concern about segmentation when we were dealing with a Type II action, but I’m wondering, Laura, do you have any feedback or comment on that? MRS. MOORE-I do. So this is, again, we’re talking about a single family home on this individual lot. So it is considered a Type II. This is no different than looking at other applications where there’s similar property owners up on the lake. This happens to be an approved subdivision you’d be evaluating. So you’d be evaluating each lot on its own. So this is not, it’s a Type II action. MR. TRAVER-Right. So segmentation does not apply then. MRS. MOORE-Correct. MR. TRAVER-Okay. MR. SHAFER-Laura, do the lots have their own individual tax map parcel number? MRS. MOORE-They do. MR. SHAFER-Okay. th MR. TRAVER-The other question I have is, I see that we have engineering comments I think from the 17, and I believe that’s prior to the adjustments that were made as a result of the conversation with the ZBA. Is that correct, Laura? MRS. MOORE-That’s correct. So Gavin and I had shared an email today, and as part of the project review, we request two copies of that information be provided to us so that we can send that back to engineering, and that’s no different than any other application you’ve seen. It is up to this Board if they feel it should be tabled to resolve engineering comments. We have seen that in the past. Again, as Gavin pointed out, there’s a few items, and then this new item simply would be the adjustment of this driveway. Whether that is an issue to Chazen or not, I don’t know, in reference to stormwater. MR. TRAVER-Yes, well it does alter the driveway and therefore I think potentially runoff. I’m not with Chazen, obviously, so I wouldn’t be able to make a determination of that, but I do think that’s something we should consider. How do other Board members feel about Chazen looking at the revised design following the ZBA? MR. VALENTINE-I really don’t see that that change, any change in the driveway is really looking at change in the stormwater management, and I think that the applicant and his engineer have made a case for that here. Rather than put it off, timing wise, again. This still can be looked at after the fact as far as the engineering MR. TRAVER-I agree, but the stormwater management that has been reviewed by Chazen is not for this current design, right? 14 (Queensbury Planning Board 03/23/2021) MR. SHAFER-Mr. Chairman, many times in the past when I’ve raised a question about a Chazen comment, it’s always responded by saying that they have to agree with the Town Engineer anyway and so that’s a matter of a condition of approval. MR. VALENTINE-Yes, that’s my thought. MR. TRAVER-Yes, well I guess the difference is being a critical environmental area and if, upon review, there are changes that need to be made to be in compliance, might we want to consider that now rather than down the road? I guess that’s the only reason that I’m thinking about that. MR. VALENTINE-I agree with John as to how that’s been taken care of in the past. MR. DEEB-And they have to get engineering signoff to get the project finalized, and that would be considered with this new driveway. MR. SHAFER-Yes, and if there’s a substantive issue, they can come back to the Board. MR. TRAVER-Right. MR. VALENTINE-The other thing I’ve got to say is I think it’s funny. Gavin admitted before, said something about that stormwater coming across this site generated from other sites. MR. TRAVER-Right. MR. VALENTINE-That’s a critical review thing we don’t allow, and he just said it offhandedly, and it just caught me and I’m sitting there saying okay, why is the last piece of property before the lake responsible for other people’s stormwater runoff? MR. TRAVER-Unfortunately that’s an issue that we’ve run into before where properties have to deal with external sources of stormwater. I mean some areas of the Town it’s really quite a severe problem, but this, of course, is worse, because again, it’s ultimately going into the lake. So I’m not hearing, thus far, from members of the Board that feel that Chazen needs to take a second look at these plan. Is that correct? I just want get a poll of the Board, you know, does anyone feel that this should be under further review? MR. MAGOWAN-Mr. Chairman, the only concern I have, and I know this property, and that’s kind of like one of the low points of Assembly Point Road, and I know that the other part, you know, the upper lands of the southern neighbors, you know, does flow down, and I really appreciate Mr. Abele and Gavin going through and making these changes. I find that quite admirable, and I really appreciate what you did, all of you, to make this. My only concern are those test pits, and really the test pits around your septic and that. I’m not as concerned with the septic as the, I just thought it was high water over there. I know it’s the lowest point of Assembly Point Road of coming down and then it swoops back up and goes along the shore, but I feel comfortable with Chazen and know the property. To be honest with you I actually stayed at one of those cabins many years ago with a friend that came into Town before Mr. Abele, and it is a beautiful piece. I wasn’t stepping in puddles, but I know it is quite low to the lake right there, but I feel pretty comfortable whatever the Board wants to do, but the test pits I think are important to show some results for at least the engineer. There could be a possibility that would change things there. I know, Gavin, did you get any test pits in alone, at all? MR. VUILLAUME-Yes. Originally when Chris first was looking at the parcel, Dennis MacElroy from our office was out there and they did some preliminary testing, and again, they found the soils fairly consistent throughout the site. Certainly there’s high groundwater. We’re taking into consideration high groundwater here as part of our design. MR. MAGOWAN-And I have a lot of respect for your company and Dennis is a good man and he’s always got the heart of the lake in his presentations. So I feel comfortable with whatever the Board wants to move on, but I feel that Chazen can answer what they need to do, and I feel that, one of the other questions I’d have, too, is, Chris, you say you worked on the three septics. Did you take out the septics from the cottages? MR. ABELE-So I can answer that, but before, I want to just say, with the test pits, I actually was on the machine digging them for Dennis MacElroy, and I want to say we did seven test pits, and every test pit, with the exception of one, had a very good perc to it, and I’m assuming that Dennis, you know, his documentation, will prove that. So in terms of the septic systems, so all three, as I said, were dismantled two weeks after I took possession of the property, and I pumped them all out and everything. So I applied for a demolition permit from the Town for the cottage lot today, and as part of my demolition permit, the two septic tanks for the cottages, each cottage has one, will be ripped out and dismantled, and one other thing, you know, we’re talking, these septic tanks are in the ground now, and if you stayed at the cabin, they’re obviously below the grass line. So you can imagine they’re in the water table and they were existing 15 (Queensbury Planning Board 03/23/2021) and the one thing with my plan, people talk about bringing in fill, well we’re separating from the groundwater which gives more percability and permeability for stormwater coming through. It has some width to drain it, and not to beat a dead horse, but the situation I was dealt, with the water coming from the south, and I know I said this before, but it does bear repeating. There’s no treatment now. My project will give treatment, and I truly mean this. It’s a net benefit to the lake that we all love. So enough said with that, but any other questions I’d be happy to answer. MR. TRAVER-Okay. Thank you. MR. MAGOWAN-I’m good. Thank you very much. MR. ABELE-You’re welcome. MR. TRAVER-Gavin, you mentioned possibly adding some stormwater features, the gravel diaphragms or something before? MR. VUILLAUME-Yes, again, that would be just another treatment that we’ve used in the past, and if needed that gives us another means of stormwater management. Right now the design currently does not need it. However, I’ll talk to Chazen. If they think it’s something that could be more helpful as a backup, certainly we could add those as part of the final design. MR. TRAVER-Yes. MR. ABELE-Happy to do it, Gavin. Happy to do it. MR. DEEB-I would like to see that as part of the conditions, that the gravel diaphragms are on the edges. MR. ABELE-Not a problem. MR. DEEB-Any extra protection you can get. MR. VUILLAUME-Sure, we’d be more than happy to put those back on. We had them on our original design. We can put them back on. MR. ABELE-Not a problem. MR. TRAVER-Okay. Thank you. That was my question. Okay. All right. How do members feel? What else do we have regarding this project? Everybody ready to move forward on this application? Okay. All right, then, David, I guess we’re ready to hear that motion. RESOLUTION APPROVING SP # 57-2020 ROCKHURST, LLC The applicant has submitted an application to the Planning Board: Revised: Applicant proposes to demolish existing buildings to construct a new single family home with 2,300 sq. ft. footprint and 3,822 sq. ft. floor area with 340 sq. ft. patio. Project includes site work, fill and grading, stormwater management, shoreline landscaping, new septic and water supply from Lake George. Pursuant to Chapter 179-6-065 & 179-6-050 of the Zoning Ordinance, construction in a CEA and hard surfacing within 50 ft. of shore shall be subject to Planning Board review and approval. 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 12/17/2020 and continued the public hearing to 03/23/2021, 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 03/23/2021; 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, 16 (Queensbury Planning Board 03/23/2021) MOTION TO APPROVE SITE PLAN 57-2020 ROCKHURST, LLC; Introduced by David Deeb who moved for its adoption. According to the draft resolution prepared by Staff with the following: 1) Waivers requested granted; g. site lighting, h. signage, n traffic, o. commercial alterations/ construction details, 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) The driveways are to be combined. m) The perc tests are to be completed and be compliant. n) Gravel diaphragms are to be placed on the edges of the permeable pavers. rd Motion seconded by Brad Magowan. Duly adopted this 23 day of March 2021 by the following vote: MR. DEEB-Laura, I meant to ask you, this is an old resolution. On the new resolution, is the driveway merger on that? MRS. MOORE-No, it is not. If you wish to place that on this. MR. DEEB-Yes. AYES: Ms. White, Mr. Shafer, Mr. Hunsinger, Mr. Magowan, Mr. Valentine, Mr. Deeb, Mr. Traver NOES: NONE MR. TRAVER-All right, gentlemen, you’re all set. MR. VUILLAUME-Great. Thank you very much. MR. ABELE-Thank you very much. I appreciate it. Thank you. MR. TRAVER-The next item on our agenda, also under Tabled Items, is Joseph Leuci, Site Plan 56-2020. 17 (Queensbury Planning Board 03/23/2021) SITE PLAN NO. 56-2020 SEQR TYPE: TYPE II. JOSEPH LEUCI. AGENT(S): MATTHEW HUNTINGTON. OWNER(S): SAME AS APPLICANT. ZONING: MDR. LOCATION: 277 CHESTNUT RIDGE ROAD. APPLICANT PROPOSES CONSTRUCTION OF A SINGLE FAMILY HOME. THE HOME IS 2,796 SQ. FT. FOOTPRINT FIRST FLOOR, 1,700 SQ. FT. FLOOR AREA. SECOND FLOOR IS 1,580 SQ. FT. FLOOR AREA. FOUNDATION/BASEMENT PLAN INCLUDES BOTH UNFINISHED AND FINISHED BASEMENT AREAS, 1,700 SQ. FT. FLOOR AREA. PROJECT WILL INCLUDE NEW ON-SITE SEPTIC AND WELL. PROJECT ALSO INCLUDES A SECOND GARAGE 780 SQ. FT. WITH TWO BAYS AND STORAGE ABOVE. PURSUANT TO CHAPTER 179-6-060 & 179-5-020 OF THE ZONING ORDINANCE, CONSTRUCTION WITHIN 50 FT. OF 15% SLOPES SHALL BE SUBJECT TO PLANNING BOARD REVIEW AND APPROVAL. CROSS REFERENCE: AV 60-2017, AV 15-2021. WARREN CO. REFERRAL: DECEMBER 2020/MARCH 2021. LOT SIZE: 34.20 ACRES. TAX MAP NO. 290.-1-48. SECTION: 179-6-060, 179-5-020. MATT HUNTINGTON, REPRESENTING APPLICANT, PRESENT MR. TRAVER-Laura? MRS. MOORE-And just to let you know, Jamie has got to step out due to an issue, and Mike Dixon is going to step in, just so you’re aware of that. MR. TRAVER-Yes, thank you. Thank you, Michael. MRS. MOORE-So I have Joe Leuci’s project is in reference to construction of a single family home as well as a second garage, and the second garage was reviewed by the Zoning Board the other evening and was granted to have a second garage with this property. So I think I have Matt on, and I’ll just draw this picture in. Hold on. Matt, you can start if you want to. MR. HUNTINGTON-Good evening, Board, Matt Huntington with Studio A on behalf of Joe Leuci. We presented this project last Tuesday, prior to the Zoning Board. The Planning Board was able to give a recommendation to the ZBA and we received the variance for the garage. Really since then there’s been no real updates to it. We did receive some comments from Chazen which were really only related to the fact that currently the majority of the site where the proposed development is right now has been void of topsoil and has very minimal vegetation on it. So as part of the proposed development some lawn areas are going to be established and a considerable three to four inches of topsoil will be placed on the site, which will improve some of our stormwater characteristics. We have responded to Chazen since then and unless I need to fill anybody in more on this since last week, I’ll kind of leave it at this, unless you have any questions. MR. TRAVER-Were there any issues that Chazen has that you are concerned with being able to comply with? MR. HUNTINGTON-No, as I stated, we’ve responded to their comments already and they were very, very minimal. This is a pretty minimal site disturbance. We’re not really in a critical environmental area. The reason for site plan review is just because the house is within 50 feet of 15% site slope, but that 15% percent slopes has a five, six hundred foot buffer before it gets down to Halfway Creek, which will remain undisturbed. So it’s a really, you know, it’s minimal development. It’s a minimal stormwater project in the first place. If it wasn’t for the 15% site slope we wouldn’t be under engineering review, but we’ve gone above and beyond I think. We’ve created a detention basin and that swale to address some of the runoff from the new garage and house, and as I stated earlier we’re going to improve some of the ground coverage as part of this project, and those were, the ground cover issue was really the stemming force behind any of the comments related to Chazen. They just didn’t understand how the site conditions improved from the pre-development which we explained just as I have. Existing conditions there’s really no topsoil on the site as of now. I mean we’re going to topsoil and seed it as part of the development. MR. TRAVER-And I recall we had quite a bit of discussion regarding the variance for the second garage with the need for storage of equipment and the size of the lot and so on. So anything else? And there are no changes as a result of your variance review, correct, for this project? MR. HUNTINGTON-Correct. MR. TRAVER-All right. Well I’ll open it up to members of the Board for questions and comments of the applicant. MR. MAGOWAN-Matthew, where’d you come up with Halfway Creek? MR. HUNTINGTON-Or Brook. 18 (Queensbury Planning Board 03/23/2021) MR. MAGOWAN-When they re-did Ridge Road, and for some reason the sign was made up for a long time ago map where it was Halfway Creek and when the sign came up it really raised some red flags around the area, the brook. So they finally got all the correct paperwork and it’s been delineated back to Halfway Brook. Just for a little lesson. MR. HUNTINGTON-I think I’ve fallen victim to the historic sign. MR. TRAVER-Any questions or comments? MR. DIXON-Mr. Chairman, I’ll just comment what we said last week. The size and scope of this project, compared to the lot, is very nice, including the second garage. It’s not overwhelming. I just wanted to make those comments. MR. TRAVER-Yes, yes. Thank you, Michael. MR. DEEB-Matt, I wanted to ask you. You’ve got three to four inches of topsoil being placed on the site and seeded. What was the other thing you said before that about, some other thing? MR. HUNTINGTON-Yes, you’ll kind of see towards the bottom of the page along the driveway extension we’ve included a grass swale that takes the majority of the proposed residents’ roof runoff and that grass swale outlets to a small detention basin that’s directly to the left of the proposed garage. So that’s going to store and attenuate any minimal runoff for the 25 year storm event that’s coming off of the proposed driveway extension and new residence. MR. DEEB-Well that’s already on site you said. MR. HUNTINGTON-Yes. MR. DEEB-Okay. MR. HUNTINGTON-No, I was reiterating from last week. MR. DEEB-Okay. Thank you. MR. TRAVER-We do have a public hearing on this application. Is there anyone in the waiting room, Laura, that wanted to comment to the Board tonight? PUBLIC HEARING OPENED MRS. MOORE-I don’t see anybody with their hands raised and again if those wishing to speak on this particular project, if they could use the function in Zoom to raise your hand, I can capture that and move you in to speak. I do not have any written comment, and there are no hands raised at this point. MR. TRAVER-All right. Thank you, Laura. Are there any other questions or comments from members of the Board? Okay. Still no hands, Laura? MRS. MOORE-I still have no hands. Correct. MR. TRAVER-Okay. We’ll close the public hearing, then. PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED MR. TRAVER-If there’s nothing further, we’re ready for a motion I guess, David. RESOLUTION APPROVING SP # 56-2020 JOSEPH LEUCI The applicant has submitted an application to the Planning Board: Applicant proposes construction of a single family home. The home is 2,796 sq. ft. footprint first floor, 1,700 sq. ft. floor area. Second floor is 1,580 sq. ft. floor area. Foundation/basement plan includes both unfinished and finished basement areas, 1,700 sq. ft. floor area. Project will include new on-site septic and well. Project also includes a second garage 780 sq. ft. with two bays and storage above. Pursuant to Chapter 179-6-060 & 179-5-020 of the Zoning Ordinance, construction within 50 ft. of 15% slopes shall be subject to Planning Board review and approval. Pursuant to relevant sections of the Town of Queensbury Zoning Code-Chapter 179-9-080, the Planning Board has determined that this proposal satisfies the requirements as stated in the Zoning Code; 19 (Queensbury Planning Board 03/23/2021) As required by General Municipal Law Section 239-m the site plan application was referred to the Warren County Planning Department for its recommendation; The Planning Board opened a public hearing on the Site plan application on 12/22/2020 and continued the public hearing to 03/23/2021, 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 03/23/2021; 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 56-2020 JOSEPH LEUCI; Introduced by David Deeb who moved for its adoption. According to the draft resolution prepared by Staff with the following: 1) Waivers requested granted; site lighting, h. signage, l. landscaping, 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. 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) Three to four inches of topsoil to be placed on the area of disturbance on the site and seeded. rd Motion seconded by Brad Magowan. Duly adopted this 23 day of March 2021 by the following vote: MR. DEEB-L. Three to four inches of topsoil to be placed on the site and seeded. MR. HUNTINGTON-If I could just interject quickly on the three to four inches of topsoil. If you could limit that to just the disturbance area. MR. DEEB-I didn’t mean it that way. MR. HUNTINGTON-Okay. I just wanted to clarify. MR. DEEB-Three to four inches of topsoil to be placed on the area of disturbance on the site and seeded. 20 (Queensbury Planning Board 03/23/2021) AYES: Mr. Shafer, Mr. Hunsinger, Mr. Magowan, Mr. Valentine, Mr. Deeb, Mr. Dixon, Mr. Traver NOES: NONE ABSENT: Ms. White MR. TRAVER-All right, you’re all set. MR. HUNTINGTON-Thank you, Board. SITE PLAN NO. 48-2020 SEQR TYPE: TYPE II. MARK PRENDEVILLE. AGENT(S): HUTCHINS ENGINEERING. OWNER(S): SAME AS APPLICANT. ZONING: WR. LOCATION: 102 ASH DRIVE. REVISED: APPLICANT PROPOSES A TWO STORY ADDITION WITH A BASEMENT TO AN EXISTING HOME WITH ASSOCIATED SITE WORK. THE EXISTING HOME IS 778 SQ. FT. FOOTPRINT WITH A FLOOR AREA OF 1,964 SQ. FT. THE FLOOR AREA OF THE NEW ADDITION IS 3,844 SQ. FT. WITH A 1,518 SQ. FT. FOOTPRINT. TOTAL NEW FLOOR AREA 5,808 SQ. FT. PURSUANT TO CHAPTER 179-3-040 & 179-6-065, 179-13-010, & 179-4-010 OF THE ZONING ORDINANCE, NEW FLOOR AREA AND PREVIOUS SHORELINE VEGETATION REMOVAL IN A CEA SHALL BE SUBJECT TO PLANNING BOARD REVIEW AND APPROVAL. VARIANCE: RELIEF IS SOUGHT FOR SETBACKS, HEIGHT AND GREATER THAN 1/3 EXPANSION. PLANNING BOARD SHALL PROVIDE A RECOMMENDATION TO THE ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS. CROSS REFERENCE: 88723- 1824 SHED, 90279-8236 DOCK, AV 17-2021. WARREN CO. REFERRAL: N/A. SITE INFORMATION: GLEN LAKE CEA. LOT SIZE: .62 ACRE. TAX MAP NO. 289.13-1-58. SECTION: 179-3-040, 179-6-065 179-13-010, & 179-4-010. TOM HUTCHINS, REPRESENTING APPLICANT, PRESENT MRS. MOORE-This project includes a two story addition with a basement to an existing home with associated site work. At the January meeting it was identified that additional relief is being requested. rd This relief is sought for greater than 1/3 expansion to the home, and so we are now back before this Board for a recommendation to the Zoning Board of Appeals. MR. TRAVER-Thank you, Laura. Good evening. MR. HUTCHINS-Good evening, Board. I’m Tom Hutchins, here on behalf of Mark and Julie Prendeville, and they’re also on with us, and as Laura said we were here January. You may recall quite a bit of discussion about basically two items. One, and this item came up at the meeting, was necessity for what the Prendevilles propose to do is a little bit of a unique situation. It creates a necessity for an additional variance that was not part of the original application, and there’s a portion within the Code that says when a seasonal residence is modified to become a year round residence there was a square footage limit of one- third of the floor area. What the Prendevilles are trying to accomplish here is to maintain a unique very old structure, however to have a portion of the structure be suitable for use in the winter. So in lieu of tearing down a unique building, they propose to make an addition that would be completely winterized and the existing structure would remain seasonal only, and again that section of the Code didn’t get included in the initial variance review. We did receive necessary variances that were applied for back in October with regard to a building setback and a building height. So we’re back here tonight to ask for a rd recommendation to the Zoning Board to discuss the 1/3 expansion variance. However, I want to touch on another issue that was discussed at great length at the January meeting and it had to do with boundary surveys and rights of way on this particular property. What we have done in the interim is we had a new property line survey done. We retained an abstracter to do a complete abstract of title. We’ve had a title attorney work with the abstracter and work with the surveyor and they’ve produced a new certified th stamped, dated, last dated February 15, 2021, and new survey, taking into account the abstract and indicating all the right of ways that impact this property, and there are no rights of ways found from the property to the north across the Prendeville’s property. It was a big part of the discussion. There are utility rights of way which are shown, and any of the rights of way shown do not impact the layout of the project. So hopefully that’ll put that issue to rest, but that’s not really why we’re here tonight. We’re here to request your support for this additional variance that will allow them to maintain the character of this structure and still be able to get their proposed improvements. So with that I’d turn it over to the Board for questions, unless Mark and Julie want to add anything. MR. TRAVER-Okay. Thank you, Tom. So the original part, the part of the structure that’s going to remain, I’m not sure if it’s going to actually remain totally original, right? There’s going to be some renovation and repair work done. MR. HUTCHINS-Yes, that’s correct. There will be some renovation and repair, but the original structure will remain. 21 (Queensbury Planning Board 03/23/2021) MR. TRAVER-Yes, and in addition to remaining as originally designed, it’s also going to remain seasonal and not be a year round, in other words it’s not going to be insulated and all the rest of that. Right? MR. HUTCHINS-Correct. MR. TRAVER-Okay. So, in the context of an expansion greater than one-third, since the original structure is remaining as originally designed, aside from structural maintenance and various other things, it’s really an addition. I guess I’m not making myself clear. It doesn’t matter anyway. So, all right, I’ll open it up to members of the Board for questions and comments. MR. HUTCHINS-No, I understand where you’re going. You could make a point that it’s not a conversion, it’s an addition. MR. TRAVER-Yes, I guess that’s kind of what I was getting at, but it really doesn’t matter I guess in terms of the Code. So, all right, so questions, comments from members of the Board on this, the variance that we’re considering tonight for an expansion greater than one-third of the original structure? MR. DEEB-I just wondered, Tom, it’s a pretty big expansion. Is there any way that it could be cut down at all, or is it your design calls for that and it has to be what it is? MR. HUTCHINS-Well to get what they want, what they’re trying to accomplish, that’s really what they’d like to do. Now they’re in compliance with permeability and FAR and all the density related provisions of the Code. It’s kind of the unique character of the lot that’s narrow in the middle which is unusual, narrow in the middle and wider on the outside, that lead to the variance that they did request. MR. TRAVER-And I would say as well that if they were to make the entire structure a year round home, they might be able to reduce the size of the new structure because they’d have a larger usable area by making the original structure year round, but I think that puts a limit on the minimum size for the year round part of the structure, right? They’ve got to have an area where they can live as, you know, that’s capable of housing them year round. It has to be a certain minimum size. I get your point, David, in terms of the variance. MR. DEEB-I understand. MR. SHAFER-Tom, why would the existing residence not be winterized? That sounds like a ploy to get by the Code or something. MR. HUTCHINS-No, I don’t think that’s the case at all. MR. SHAFER-But why would you not? Everybody wants to winterize their cottages. Why would they not winterize the front? JULIE PRENDEVILLE MRS. PRENDEVILLE-Hello, Tom. MR. HUTCHINS-Yes, we can hear you, Julie. MRS. PRENDEVILLE-Okay. I’m just wondering if I can explain. This is Julie Prendeville, Mark’s wife, and I just wanted to express that because of the age of the structure, it’s cost prohibitive for us to renovate that to make it winterized. It’s just cost prohibitive. So rather than tear it down, for us to have an addition on the back which is a small living accommodation, and then the thing that makes it large is there’s a two car garage and so that adds a lot of square footage, and then there’s some storage space above the living space, and that’s not winterized or anything, but it still, I guess, counts as square footage, but it’s just cost prohibitive to renovate the old structure because of the age. MR. SHAFER-All right. Thank you. MR. DEEB-That makes sense. MR. HUTCHINS-If you look at it, a large portion of the addition is the garage, and it’s not unreasonable to want a two car garage for your house. MR. TRAVER-And, Mr. Magowan, you had something you wanted to say? MR. MAGOWAN-It really is, I’ve driven back there and looked at it a few times and I’m happy to see that they came back here. It’s really a unique situation. It really is a beautifully old home, and if you ever have 22 (Queensbury Planning Board 03/23/2021) a chance to go out there, I live right around the corner and I’m out on boats every now and then. It sits up there really beautiful and with that wraparound porch, and I can see the uniqueness of wanting to stay there and it is modern. So I kind of admire what they’re trying to do, to keep the aesthetics where they can still have the seasonal part up front, but able to winterize it at the same place in the back and I find that a quite admirable, rather than tearing it all down and building a brand new structure that would never bring the beauty that this has and the woodwork and the special Cornish work on it and everything else. So I’m just happy to see them back and moving forward. So I don’t have a problem. Thank you. MR. TRAVER-Okay. So again, this is a referral to the ZBA on the one-third expansion. Does anyone have any issues with that variance request that we want to communicate to the ZBA or are we ready for a motion? MR. DEEB-Ready. MR. TRAVER-Okay. I’m not hearing anything, David. RESOLUTION RE: ZBA RECOMMENDATION RE: AV # 17-2021 MARK PRENDEVILLE The applicant has submitted an application for the following: Revised: Applicant proposes a two story addition with a basement to an existing home with associated site work. The existing home is 778 sq. ft. footprint with a floor area of 1,964 sq. ft. The floor area of the new addition is 3,844 sq. ft. with a 1,518 sq. ft. footprint, total new floor area 5,808 sq. ft. Pursuant to Chapter 179-3-040, 179-6-065, 179-13-010 & 179- 4-010 of the Zoning Ordinance, new floor area and previous shoreline vegetation removal in a CEA shall be subject to Planning Board review and approval. Variance: Relief is sought for greater than 1/3 expansion. 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. 17-2021 MARK PRENDEVILLE. 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. rd Motion seconded by Brad Magowan. Duly adopted this 23 day of March 2021 by the following vote: AYES: Mr. Hunsinger, Mr. Magowan, Mr. Valentine, Mr. Deeb, Mr. Dixon, Mr. Shafer, Mr. Traver NOES: NONE ABSENT: Ms. White MR. TRAVER-All right. You’re off to the ZBA, Tom. MR. HUTCHINS-Thank you, Board. MRS. PRENDEVILLE-Thank you very much. MR. TRAVER-So, Laura, it looks next we have the Derby application also for recommendation. Let me know when you’re ready. PLANNING BOARD RECOMMENDATIONS TO THE ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS: SITE PLAN NO. 15-2021 SEQR TYPE: TYPE II. PAUL DERBY. AGENT(S): CLARK WILKINSON, EDP. OWNER(S): SAME AS APPLICANT. ZONING: WR. LOCATION: 31 CANTERBURY DR. APPLICANT PROPOSES A 639 SQ. FT. UPPER LEVEL ADDITION TO AN EXISTING SINGLE STORY HOME WITH A 2,044.5 SQ. FOOTPRINT AND NEW FLOOR AREA OF 2683.9 SQ. FT. THE PROJECT ALSO INCLUDES THE REMOVAL OF CONCRETE TO BE REPLACED WITH PERMEABLE PAVERS. PURSUANT TO CHAPTER 179-3-040, 179-6-065, 179- 13-010 & CHAPTER 91 OF THE ZONING ORDINANCE, NEW FLOOR AREA IN A CEA, EXPANSION OF A NON-CONFORMING STRUCTURE IN A CEA, HARD SURFACING WITHIN 23 (Queensbury Planning Board 03/23/2021) 50 FT. OF SHORELINE AND SEPTIC SYSTEM IN A FLOOD PLAIN SHALL BE SUBJECT TO PLANNING BOARD REVIEW AND APPROVAL. VARIANCE: RELIEF IS SOUGHT FOR EXPANSION OF A NON-CONFORMING STRUCTURE, SETBACKS, FLOOR AREA AND PERMEABILITY. PLANNING BOARD SHALL PROVIDE A RECOMMENDATION TO THE ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS. CROSS REFERENCE: 764-2019 SEPTIC ALTS., AV 18-2021. WARREN COUNTY REFERRAL: MARCH 2021. SITE INFORMATION: GLEN LAKE CEA. LOT SIZE: .21 ACRE. TAX MAP NO. 289.17-1-22. SECTION: 179-3-040, 179-6-065, 179-13-010, CHAPTER 91. CLARK WILKINSON, REPRESENTING APPLICANT, PRESENT; PAUL DERBY, PRESENT MRS. MOORE-So this project is for a 639 square foot upper level addition to an existing single story home, with a new floor area that is proposed as 2,683.9 square feet, and in reference to the relief being sought, it’s for expansion of a non-conforming structure, setbacks, floor area and permeability, and if you do have additional questions in reference to the other items in the Staff Notes, you can let me know and I will let both Clark and Paul discussion the project in reference to the variances being requested. MR. TRAVER-Okay. Thank you. Do we have someone here to discuss this application with the Board? MRS. MOORE-Clark? MR. WILKINSON-Good evening, Board. My name is Clark Wilkinson with the Environmental Design Partnership, representing Paul Derby the owner of this project. With us also tonight is Mr. Eric Murdock from On Site Engineering who did the septic design for this project as well. I wanted to give the Board a brief background of this whole property and the project. The project is a pre-existing, non-conforming lot. This house was built in approximately 1965 and since then has never been updated. As such the usability of the existing two bedrooms is limited to some extent and the garage that’s on it also has a flat roof which we’re proposing to put the addition over that flat roof garage to make it more a peaked roof to improve the usability of the floor area and to keep the number of bedrooms the same, add a little bit larger bathroom, a laundry room and a small office. Everything has been looked at in this structure by the architect and the structural designer and has gone through their scrutiny and has been designed in the way that it was presented and I wanted to also talk briefly about the entire parcel itself. This project, if we did nothing today, would need five existing variances just to exist as it is today. Of these variances, one is the lot size. The second is setbacks. It currently does not meet the waterfront setback and we’re not proposing to change that at all. It’s going to remain as it is. The frontage setback from Canterbury Drive on the front side of this lot is currently 23 feet and we’re going to keep that 23 feet as well. The side setback to the south is 11 feet currently and we’re also keeping that existing as well. So that does not change and the height is not a variance, but I just wanted to mention that the height currently is around 16 to 17 feet and we would be below the 20 foot max. I believe the height we’re calling out on the plans, the architectural plans, says 24 or 25 feet. I can’t remember exactly what that is. It’s in that range. The house footprint exists as around 2,045 square feet, and is currently over the floor area ratio by about half a percent or a tenth of a percent, in that range. So that would also need an existing variance, and that is the only variance that we’re increasing. Also currently the pervious area on site is only 48.9% , and again, that would need an existing variance to exist as it is today and we’re proposing to increase the amount of permeability so that the actual, there would be an actual reduction in that variance as well. So the proposed project is to build the second story over the garage, and to improve the usability of the structure and to update it to current standards. The proposed setbacks, again the setback from the lake would remain the same, as it is today. The side setback to the south would remain the same as it is today. The front setback would also remain the same as it is today. The increase in floor area ratio is the only one that we’re asking to increase and the permeability we’re actually increasing the permeability and decreasing the impermeability. I also want to point out that this lot is proposing a Clarus type septic system that was designed by Mr. Murdock. This type of system not only has initial treatment but it also has secondary treatment, and I believe, and he’ll speak to this as well, I believe it’s even treated prior to discharge into the groundwater. It is located in an area that has been determined that is below flood elevation, and at this point in time I will turn it over to Mr. Derby and Mr. Murdock to speak to those two items on the septic and let them speak and then I’ll summarize from there. MR. TRAVER-Okay. Thank you. MRS. MOORE-So Eric or Paul, do you want to unmute yourself. There’s Paul and there’s Eric. Okay. MR. DERBY-Okay. Before Eric talks about the septic, I just want to give an overview. I’m trying to accomplish two things here, and one is to improve this dwelling, which is old, ’65, very small bedrooms. So I want to do that, but more so I’m trying to improve the ecological footprint of the property and doing that by getting rid of all of, if you’ve been over there it’s just concrete all around it. I want to remove all of that, put in permeable pavers, putting in a high tech septic system and also the stormwater system and also there will be a landscaping plan to go with this. 24 (Queensbury Planning Board 03/23/2021) MR. TRAVER-Okay. MR. MAGOWAN-Paul, is this a house you’re flipping? MR. DERBY-No, Brad. We did move from another house on the lake that we lived in for 26 years, and my wife and I Lorraine plan on being here until we can no longer be anywhere. So this is our home. MR. MAGOWAN-I didn’t know you moved. This is great. When I first saw this, I first read the letter there from Dave Hatin on the septic, that Paul Derby, what is he doing, but, you know, I have to say, Paul, out of all the years I’ve known, well I’ve known Lorraine since high school, you guys have been good stewards of Glen Lake for as long as I can remember, especially being on the board, and really you’re taking something non-conforming and you’re really trying to do the best you can, and that septic, enhanced system is really the top of the line of what you’re trying to do. So I have to say kudos really to the both of you, and I have to say that when I first saw it I was like, wow, but, you know, I’m all for it. I think it will be a great improvement. Thank you. MR. DERBY-Thank you, Brad. I appreciate that, and buying this house we knew that it would be a difficult place, but we wanted to improve it, and that’s been my history. I’ve done much to try to improve Glen Lake. MR. MAGOWAN-That you have. MR. TRAVER-All right. So one of the primary issues that we have before us this evening is the issue of the septic being within the floodplain. MRS. MOORE-Actually I’m going to interrupt you. So that’s not part of, so you’re giving a recommendation to the Zoning Board of Appeals in reference to the setbacks. That septic variance itself, and this is where it comes into one of those things where we don’t usually see this. It will actually be in front of the Planning Board. If you read the section of Code specific to 91, this variance comes to the Planning Board, and tonight, again, it’s simply your recommendation to the Zoning Board in reference to the setbacks and the floor area. So it is a bit confusing. MR. TRAVER-Yes. So we don’t need to worry about the septic issue. We’ll deal with that later. MR. DERBY-Mr. Traver, I think my engineer is on, Eric Murdock, who made the system, and I don’t know if he can just give a brief statement about the Clarus system and then we can do the variance part on Thursday, but he is here tonight. MR. TRAVER-Okay. Well thank you for that. As I understand from Laura’s assistance, to clarify what we’re addressing tonight is really for the expansion of the non-conforming structure, the setbacks, the floor area ratio and permeability and not the septic system. MRS. MOORE-Right, but I mean if you just want to hear an overview of it. I’d hate to see Mr. Murdock not be able to be able to give that simple overview to this Board. ERIC MURDOCK MR. MURDOCK-I’d be happy to, and as you properly described, this is a very good system. It involves two tanks. All of the household waste goes through the Clarus fusion, which is a fairly small fiberglass tank that has four different compartments and the water flows through that tank by gravity, and through aerobic and anaerobic digestion. The water coming out the effluent end is very much pre-treated. It’s had a 98 or 99% removal of the typical wastewater constituents. That water goes through an ultraviolet light which provides disinfection, and then we’re using timed equalized dosing to pump that pre-treated and disinfected effluent to a bottomless sand filter where it further goes through more filtering before entering the ground. The real question about this flood elevation is, you know, we wouldn’t typically ever want to put a septic system in a flood elevation, but I think the very nature of Glen Lake and how the water elevation is controlled, we’re never going to see this flood elevation, and in the unfortunate event that we did see the flood elevation, all of the contents of these tanks would be held in that tank. There would never be backflow of water, you know, unsanitary, untreated waste back into the house or, you know, to the atmosphere into the environment. It could not happen. It would be contained in the tank. So I feel the issue of the flood it’s not specifically relevant to using this type of a system. MR. TRAVER-Okay. Thank you. MR. DIXON-Mr. Chairman, for the variance sought tonight, I don’t see much of an issue. It’s definitely non-conforming but as they come back to us later on, I think we’re going to have to have deeper discussions as far as how you intend to keep some of the runoff away from the lake a little bit more, as well as that, it’s a private road there. So you really don’t have many opportunities to work with. 25 (Queensbury Planning Board 03/23/2021) MR. TRAVER-Right. Yes, they are providing some buffering and some landscaping, but you’re right, when we get to site plan those are the issues that we will be able to discuss. In the meantime I’m wondering just generally if Board members have any issues with the variances for the pre-existing, non-conforming structure? This is what our primary issue is before us this evening. MR. DEEB-It only increases one variance. MR. HUNSINGER-Right. MR. DEEB-Everything else is staying the same. MR. HUNSINGER-Yes. MR. VALENTINE-Or decrease. MR. DEEB-Or decrease. MR. TRAVER-Okay. MR. HUNSINGER-Yes, I agree. MR. TRAVER-Okay. All right. Well in that case, I guess, David, on those issues we can move a resolution tonight. RESOLUTION RE: ZBA RECOMMENDATION RE: AV # 18-2021 PAUL DERBY The applicant has submitted an application for the following: Applicant proposes a 639 sq. ft. upper level addition to an existing single story home with a 2,044.5 sq. ft. footprint and new floor area of 2683.9 sq. ft. The project also includes the removal of concrete to be replaced with permeable pavers. Pursuant to Chapter 179-3-040, 179-6-065, 179-13-010 & Chapter 91 of the Zoning Ordinance, new floor area in a CEA, expansion of a non-conforming structure in a CEA, hard surfacing within 50 ft. of shoreline and septic system in a flood plain shall be subject to Planning Board review and approval. Variance: Relief is sought for expansion of a non-conforming structure, setbacks and floor area. Planning Board shall provide a recommendation to the Zoning Board of Appeals. The Town of Queensbury Zoning Ordinance, per Section 179-9-070 J 2 b. requires the Planning Board to provide a written recommendation to the Zoning Board of Appeals for projects that require both Zoning Board of Appeals & Planning Board approval; The Planning Board has briefly reviewed and discussed this application, the relief request in the variance application as well as the potential impacts of this project on the neighborhood and surrounding community, and found that: MOTION TO MAKE A RECOMMENDATION ON BEHALF OF THE PLANNING BOARD TO THE ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS FOR AREA VARIANCE NO. 18-2021 PAUL DERBY. 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. rd Motion seconded by Michael Valentine. Duly adopted this 23 day of March 2021 by the following vote: AYES: Mr. Magowan, Mr. Valentine, Mr. Deeb, Mr. Dixon, Mr. Shafer, Mr. Hunsinger, Mr. Traver NOES: NONE ABSENT: Ms. White MR. TRAVER-You’re off to the ZBA. MR. DEEB-Good luck. MR. WILKINSON-Thank you, Board, I appreciate your time. MR. TRAVER-The next two items on our agenda, Adirondack Trust, which was under our Planning Board recommendation, as you recall we dealt with that at the opening of the meeting. The next section of our 26 (Queensbury Planning Board 03/23/2021) agenda is Old Business and the first item is the McCormick application that we discussed at length last week and in fact has been tabled. OLD BUSINESS: SITE PLAN NO. 13-2021 SEQR TYPE: TYPE II. ROBERT MC CORMICK. AGENT(S): JOSEPH J. BIANCHINE, ABD ENGINEERS. OWNER(S): SAME AS APPLICANT. ZONING: WR. LOCATION: 18 DARK BAY LANE. APPLICANT PROPOSES A 110 SQ. FT. PORCH ADDITION AND A 116 SQ. FT. PORCH ADDITION TO THE MAIN HOME. THE MAIN HOME IS 3,287 SQ. FT. WITH 535 SQ. FT. DECK-PORCH AREA. EXISTING FLOOR AREA IS 4,446 SQ. FT. WITH NEW FLOOR AREA 8,285 SQ. FT. THE PROJECT INCLUDES A 500 SQ. FT. CARPORT ADDITION TO THE EXISTING 524 SQ. FT. GARAGE AND CONSTRUCTION OF A 3,113 SQ. FT. 8-CAR GARAGE. SITE WORK INCLUDES A NEW SEPTIC SYSTEM AND A WELL. PURSUANT TO CHAPTER 179-3-040, 179-6-065, 179-5-020 & 179-13-010 OF THE ZONING ORDINANCE, NEW FLOOR AREA IN A CEA, EXPANSION OF A NON-CONFORMING STRUCTURE AND PROJECT WORK WITHIN 50 FT. OF 15% SLOPES SHALL BE SUBJECT TO PLANNING BOARD REVIEW AND APPROVAL. CROSS REFERENCE: SP 59-88, SP 15-91, 2000- 485 RES. ALT., AV 14-2021. WARREN CO. REFERRAL: MARCH 2021. SITE INFORMATION: APA, LGPC, CEA. LOT SIZE: 4.69 ACRES. TAX MAP NO. 239.18-1-45. SECTION: 179-3-040, 179-6-065, 179-065, 179-5-020, 179-13-010. MR. TRAVER-Laura, do you want to brief us on that tabling? MRS. MOORE-So the Zoning Board tabled this application to their first meeting in April which would be st April 21. They had some concerns about the size of the garage and the number of bays. The applicant did reduce that prior to the meeting. They reduced it to 1,195 square feet and four bays. The Zoning Board understood that and still tabled this application for additional information in regards to the size of the structure and they had some questions about the access point in reference to the driveways, one for the home and one for the garage itself. So the applicant is going back to the drawing board with some things and the way I worked it is that we could potentially put them on in April. So again the Zoning Board stth tabled them to the 21 and I’m asking the Planning Board to table it to April 27 at the Planning Board level. MR. TRAVER-Okay. I think we have a draft resolution for that. MRS. MOORE-And before you make your motion, Mr. Chairman, you’ll need to open the public hearing on this. I apologize for not mentioning that sooner. MR. TRAVER-Okay. All right. It’s interesting, even though we don’t know what the revised plan will be. I guess it doesn’t matter. All right. We’ll go ahead and open the public hearing on this application. th We will leave it open and it will be open when we re-hear the application potentially on April 27, 2021. PUBLIC HEARING OPENED th MRS. MOORE-I can add that they were given a deadline of submission by March 24, which is tomorrow for that revised information. MR. DEEB-That wasn’t on the resolution. MRS. MOORE-I apologize it wasn’t, but just so you know they were given a timeframe for submission. MR. TRAVER-All right. RESOLUTION TABLING SP # 13-2021 ROBERT MC CORMICK The applicant has submitted an application to the Planning Board for Site Plan approval pursuant to Article 9 of the Town zoning Ordinance for: Applicant proposes a 110 sq. ft. porch addition and a 116 sq. ft. porch addition to the main home. The main home is 3,287 sq. ft. with 535 sq. ft. deck-porch area. Existing floor area is 4,446 sq. ft. with new floor area 8,285 sq. ft. The project includes a 500 sq. ft. carport addition to the existing 524 sq. ft. garage and construction of a 3,113 sq. ft. 8-car garage. Site work includes a new septic system and a well. Pursuant to Chapter 179-3-040, 179-6-065, 179-5-020 & 179-13-010 of the Zoning Ordinance, new floor area in a CEA, expansion of a non-conforming structure and project work within 50 ft. of 15% slopes shall be subject to Planning Board review and approval. MOTION TO TABLE SITE PLAN 13-2021 ROBERT MCCORMICK. Introduced by David Deeb who moved for its adoption, seconded by Chris Hunsinger. th Tabled until the April 27, 2021 Planning Board meeting with submissions due by March 24, 2021. 27 (Queensbury Planning Board 03/23/2021) rd Duly adopted this 23 day of March 2021 by the following vote: AYES: Mr. Magowan, Mr. Valentine, Mr. Deeb, Mr. Dixon, Mr. Shafer, Mr. Hunsinger, Mr. Traver NOES: NONE ABSENT: Ms. White MR. TRAVER-All right. Thank you, and then next also under Old Business we have Stephen Haraden, Site Plan 11-2021. SITE PLAN NO. 11-2021 SEQR TYPE: TYPE II. STEPHEN HARADEN. AGENT(S): DEAN HOWLAND, JR., JON LAPPER. OWNER(S): SAME AS APPLICANT. ZONING: WR. LOCATION: 334 CLEVERDALE ROAD. APPLICANT PROPOSES TO REMOVE AN EXISTING HOME AND ASSOCIATED BUILDINGS TO CONSTRUCT A NEW THREE BEDROOM HOME WITH A 1,830 SQ. FT. FOOTPRINT WITH 222 SQ. FT. OF PORCHES AND DECKS. THE FLOOR AREA IS TO BE 4,312 SQ. FT. THE PROJECT INCLUDES SITE WORK FOR GRADING, INSTALLATION OF PERMEABLE PAVERS, WORK ALONG THE SHORELINE WITH PLANTINGS AND PATHWAY. PURSUANT TO CHAPTER 179-6-065, 179-3-040, & 179-6-050 OF THE ZONING ORDINANCE, NEW FLOOR AREA IN A CEA AND HARD SURFACING WITHIN 50 FT. OF SHORELINE SHALL BE SUBJECT TO PLANNING BOARD REVIEW AND APPROVAL. CROSS REFERENCE: AV 13-2021. WARREN CO. REFERRAL: MARCH 2021. SITE INFORMATION: APA, LGPC, CEA. LOT SIZE: .36 ACRE. TAX MAP NO. 226.12-1-74. SECTION: 179-6-065, 179-3-040, 179-6-050. DEAN HOWLAND, REPRESENTING APPLICANT, PRESENT MR. TRAVER-Laura, when you’re ready. MRS. MOORE-Okay. So this application was in front of the Zoning Board of Appeals in reference to the th setbacks and floor area and those were granted last week, March 17. Again this was a project, a teardown, re-build in reference to constructing a new three-bedroom home with a footprint of 1,830 square feet and 222 square feet of porches and decks. The floor area is about 4,312 square feet and this project has hard surfacing within 50 feet of the shoreline and then the new floor area in a CEA. That’s why it’s in front of the Board. MR. TRAVER-Okay. Thank you. MRS. MOORE-I have Dean. Dean, when you unmute, can you just let me know if there’s someone else that needs to be on this call. MR. HOWLAND-I believe Jon Lapper was coming here, too. MRS. MOORE-I don’t see Jon back. MR. HOWLAND-He’s busy up at Bolton Landing. I can answer most of the questions. MRS. MOORE-Okay. I do have Devin. Do you want Devin to also be on the call? MR. HOWLAND-Sure. MRS. MOORE-Okay. MR. TRAVER-So I guess my first question is, we spoke about the variances last time. You went before the ZBA and your variances were approved. My first question is were there any changes to your project before or after your discussion with the ZBA? MR. HOWLAND-No. MR. TRAVER-Okay. I guess I’ll open it up for questions, comments from members of the Board. We did look at this, obviously, before. We do have a public hearing on this application. Laura, I don’t know if you have any folks that are waiting to comment. MRS. MOORE-I don’t see anybody raising their hand. MR. TRAVER-Okay. I’ll make it formal and open a public hearing on this application. 28 (Queensbury Planning Board 03/23/2021) PUBLIC HEARING OPENED MRS. MOORE-So I’m going to read this one first. This one is addressed to the Planning and Zoning Boards. “We live at 336 Cleverdale Road, property adjacent to Stephen Haraden. We have no objection to replacing his old house with a new residence as proposed which includes trees planted as per our agreement with Mr. Haraden and indicated on the project plan. Karen Azer Helene Horn” And then I have this one addressed to Mr. Traver. This is from the Lake George Waterkeeper. “The above referenced site plan review application was personally reviewed in my capacity as a licensed professional engineer and the Lake George Waterkeeper. The Waterkeeper recognizes mitigation measures on this project, including constructing the house with a compliant setback, shoreline buffering and the installation of a new onsite wastewater treatment system. For a project located within the Critical Environmental Area along Lake George, the Waterkeeper recommends installing stormwater management to the greatest extent practical to treat all runoff. The applicant’s agent stated at the Zoning Board of Appeals meeting that all roof runoff would be guttered to a store reservoir that would surround the foundation. However, plans indicate foundation drains are to be installed that would discharge the “infiltrated” runoff. The applicant should indicate this on the plans and clarify how the foundation drain will be prevented from discharging infiltrated stormwater. Additionally, it appears the applicant is proposing the removal of trees along the northern property line. The applicant should clarify the trees to remain on the plans and the Planning Board should consider replacement of any trees removed.” MR. TRAVER-Okay. Thank you. Anything else? MRS. MOORE-No. MR. TRAVER-Okay. Then we’ll go ahead and close the public hearing. PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED MR. TRAVER-And I guess back to Mr. Howland. Do you have any response on the concern about the stormwater around the foundation and trees that were removed? MR. HOWLAND-Well let’s do the trees that were removed. I went there and I saw that the owner did remove the trees, but when I called him he said they’re replacing all new trees on both property lines. Because if you ever saw the old ones, I don’t know if you ever saw them. They were arborvitae most of them. The bottom six or eight feet was gone. They’re old and planted too close together. So he’s got somebody coming in to plant there, and he’s going to move, there’s a hedgerow along the road which you can see in the site plan that Laura just brought up, and he’s going to, right now the outside of that park is an area that a lot of people just park on his property. So he’s going to move the trees a little closer to the road, but he’s already hired a landscaper to start as soon as they can to re-plant everything along the property lines. He wants to get that done right away. The second thing about, over the years when we built a house that’s on the lake we excavate the foundation an extra foot and we put in a foot of crushed stone to start. On top of that we put our footings. We pour the footings, and then we fill in between the footings with crushed stone to where we’re going to pour our slab. That’s where our walls are going. On the outside we have a perimeter drain which, again, is below the top of the footing, quite obviously, and then we backfill around the house about three to four feet with Number Two crushed stone all around, and in some cases, depending on where we’re at, we will run a perforated pipe let’s say on the back of the garage and as we come around the sides, they’re going to pipe it into the area that’s underneath the screened porch and the deck. So you have an area that’s 12 feet deep, 40 feet plus long, and about 6 feet of crushed stone. That’s going to take all the roof water, and then at the bottom of the walls for that area you do put in holes to let the water out, and the perimeter drain will run to the retention pond up by the lake that’s noted on the survey print that this is the existing lot, and with that much storage water just doesn’t run out. It’s all controlled around the house and underneath that, and we just keep on using it. MR. TRAVER-And if any stormwater were to exit the crushed stone around the foundation, it would go into a? MR. HOWLAND-Yes, you can see the retention pond down by the water. That’s the last line of defense, but we’ve never gotten water there. MR. TRAVER-Okay. Questions, comments from members of the Board? MR. MAGOWAN-Yes, Mr. Chairman. Dean you mentioned that last week, and I have to say that really is an awesome way of doing it. After you explained it and re-explained it tonight, it just makes so much sense, just wrapping it around and this way you’re utilizing underneath your porch as a retention area and keeping it far enough away from the lake. I’m glad that design worked for you and you keep using it. Maybe you ought to patent it. MR. HOWLAND-Well my son can. He’s still doing it. 29 (Queensbury Planning Board 03/23/2021) MR. HUNSINGER-One of the comments I had made last week was on your site plan, in the box where it says Town Code you show five large trees, but you only show four on the site. I just wanted to make sure we clarified that. MR. HOWLAND-Can you say that again, Chris? I’m sorry. MR. HUNSINGER-Yes. So there’s two references, yes, right there where Laura’s got the cursor. It says large trees equal five, and then over to the left you show four. MR. HOWLAND-Okay. I’m thinking those were the, I’d have to ask Devin that. I’m not sure where those are. MR. HUNSINGER-I was going to say, I wonder if maybe one is existing because it does say 14 inch hickory existing, and then four red maple proposed. MR. VALENTINE-It does show the four trees on that plan. MR. HUNSINGER-Yes, but it doesn’t show the fifth. MR. VALENTINE-Right. MR. HOWLAND-I’m not sure. I didn’t look on the property. MR. HUNSINGER-I don’t think it’s a big deal. You just need to show where the hickory tree is, I guess. MR. TRAVER-Yes, if you can clarify that on the final plans. MR. HOWLAND-Will do. MR. TRAVER-Okay. MR. TRAVER-Anything else? Let’s see, we did the public hearing. MRS. MOORE-I apologize. Was the public hearing closed? MS. GAGLIARDI-Yes, it was. MR. TRAVER-I will say it’s now closed. All right, then, David, do you have a motion for us? MR. DEEB-Yes. You’re going to replace trees on the property lines? MR. HOWLAND-Yes. Again, I called him, texted him yesterday, Monday. I said that they were gone, and he said that he’s hired somebody to come in and plant new trees that can be in shaded areas quite obviously on the south side. MR. DEEB-Yes, but we need to put that on the resolution, but we should get a number of trees to be planted. MR. HOWLAND-I’m going to have to call the owner because I did not, I didn’t know he even took anything down. MR. HUNSINGER-Can we say as shown on the plan because it does show. MR. HOWLAND-The trees and shrubs he’s going to do down in front, but if you do a new arborvitae, you plant them about five feet apart. So there’s going to be a lot of trees there. I tried to note on this one, those are the ones that you can see on the north side. On the south side they were part on the other owner and part on his, and that’s, I believe the gentleman that said that he and Steve Haraden had an agreement that he would replace all the trees and shrubbery. We planted the wrong type of trees because the sun never hit them and we just, they grew up to be sticks basically. So he spent, I believe he’s got those coming in, but I can get that, we can certainly get that plan to you on what he’s proposing. MR. DEEB-That doesn’t solve my problem now. I really think we should probably put a number on here. MR. SHAFER-The plan shows 15. MR. DEEB-These are different ones, if I’m not mistaken. These are ones that were removed. 30 (Queensbury Planning Board 03/23/2021) MR. HOWLAND-Those were ones that were removed, correct. MR. DEEB-And you’re showing them on the site plan now? MRS. MOORE-So these ones have all been removed, is what my understanding is. MR. HOWLAND-Correct. On the neighbor’s property that Steve’s replacing. That would be at least 30 trees. MRS. MOORE-So I would say no less than, if you’re saying there’s 30 trees on that, on his property. MR. HOWLAND-No, 15 and 15. MRS. MOORE-Yes, so I would say no less than 15 on that northern border. MR. TRAVER-Okay. MRS. MOORE-And then in reference to the southern border, that was an agreement between those two parties, and I agree they should be placed on the plan, but I’m okay with the fact that it’s an agreement between those two parties, but that agreement should be noted on the plan in reference to the trees, a numerical value on that southern border. I don’t think you need to physically put a number in there, but you can note that there’s an agreement with a planting plan. MR. TRAVER-So agreement with neighbor, details to be included on the plan? MRS. MOORE-Yes. MR. TRAVER-Okay. MR. HOWLAND=I’ll contact the owner and find out if he’s, or the number he’s using and him get the trees and what they are, too. I know he’s doing shrubbery down front on either side in the stormwater area, but, again, I wasn’t privy to it and didn’t know anything was coming down, but we’ll give Steve a call and find out who he’s using and get you a landscape plan for the boundary lines. MR. TRAVER-Okay. Thank you. How are we doing, David? MR. DEEB-Okay. I think it’ll work. MR. TRAVER-Okay. Let’s give it a try. MR. VALENTINE-Can I throw one more thing in there, to throw a wrinkle at you? Going back to Chris with your question, we brought this up at the last meeting, there was a difference between five and four, and we had that, but I’m looking on the note that I had before here. There’s also a note that says proposed shrubs, 10, and it only shows 7 on the plan. MR. HOWLAND-Why don’t we get the landscape plan and everything for the stormwater plans. That won’t take us long to get and we can submit that right away. MR. DEEB-I don’t know if we can complete this, then, the way it is. MR. TRAVER-We could table the application. Can we fit them in in April, Laura, if they get this to you right away? That way we’ll have everything done correctly. How do Board members feel? MRS. MOORE-You actually have a meeting on Thursday. Do you want, is that soon enough? Because you’re on Tuesday. You could take another look at this on Thursday. Table them until Thursday with that updated information being submitted tomorrow. MR. TRAVER-Yes, Mr. Howland, could you get that updated information to Laura by tomorrow? MR. HOWLAND-We’ll call the owner he is using, and if we can’t get his landscaper, we’ll get Gould’s Landscaping to make one up for him. MR. TRAVER-Well that will make our finished product a little cleaner, if they have exactly as they intend th it to be. So why don’t we, if the Board is okay with this, why don’t we table it until the 25, and address the landscaping then. Everything else is approved. So it shouldn’t take long. MR. HOWLAND-On Thursday I can’t be here, but I can maybe. 31 (Queensbury Planning Board 03/23/2021) MR. VALENTINE-We’ll take care of it. MR. HOWLAND-I’ll just have my son come out or Jon come out. So I just can’t be here. We have prior commitments. MR. TRAVER-All right. So is the Board all right with that? MR. MAGOWAN-I’m okay with it. MR. HUNSINGER-It makes sense. MR. DEEB-I’d feel more comfortable that way. MR. TRAVER-All right, David, then we just have a tabling motion for now I guess. MR. DEEB-Okay. RESOLUTION TABLING SP # 11-2021 STEPHEN HARADEN The applicant has submitted an application to the Planning Board for Site Plan approval pursuant to Article 9 of the Town zoning Ordinance for: Applicant proposes to remove an existing home and associated buildings to construct a new three bedroom home with a 1,830 sq. ft. footprint with 222 sq. ft. of porches and decks. The floor area is to be 4,312 sq. ft. The project includes site work for grading, installation of permeable pavers, work along the shoreline with plantings and pathway. Pursuant to Chapter 179-6-065,179-3-040 & 179-6-050 of the Zoning Ordinance, new floor area in a CEA and hard surfacing within 50 ft. of shoreline shall be subject to Planning Board review and approval. MOTION TO TABLE SITE PLAN NO. 11-2021 STEPHEN HARADEN, Introduced by David Deeb who moved for its adoption, th Tabled to the April 25, 2021 Planning Board meeting with completed site plan to be submitted by March th 24, 2021. rd Motion seconded by Michael Valentine. Duly adopted this 23 day of March, 2021, by the following vote: AYES: Mr. Valentine, Mr. Deeb, Mr. Dixon, Mr. Shafer, Mr. Hunsinger, Mr. Magowan, Mr. Traver NOES: NONE ABSENT: Ms. White MR. TRAVER-All right. Then we’ll look at it again Thursday night for the. MR. DEEB-It should be okay. We’ve just got to get everything in. MR. SHAFER-Yes, the trees. MR. DEEB-Yes, trees and shrubs. MR. SHAFER-Trees and shrubs. MR. TRAVER-Are we all set, Mr. Howland? MR. HOWLAND-Yes, not a problem. MR. TRAVER-All right. Thank you, and the next item on our agenda is Steve and Cathie Schonwetter. This is Site Plan 12-2021. SITE PLAN NO. 12-2021 SEQR TYPE: TYPE II. STEVE & CATHIE SCHONWETTER. AGENT(S): DEAN HOWLAND, JR., JON LAPPER. OWNER(S): SAME AS APPLICANTS. ZONING: WR. LOCATION: 17 HOLIDAY POINT ROAD. APPLICANT PROPOSES ALTERATIONS TO SITE AND AN EXISTING HOME – FOOTPRINT 2,953 SQ. FT., FLOOR AREA 3,233 SQ. FT. WITH PROPOSED FLOOR AREA OF 3,505 SQ. FT.. THE PROJECT IS REMOVAL OF A PORTION OF CURRENT HOME – 336 SQ. FT. – TO CONSTRUCT A TWO CAR GARAGE WITH A CRAFT ROOM/BEDROOM ABOVE, 329 SQ. FT. FOOTPRINT. INTERIOR WORK IS REDUCING BEDROOMS FROM SIX TO FOUR. EXTERIOR WORK INCLUDES NEW ROOF, STONE VENEER TO BE ALTERED AND FRONT ENTRY TO BE RELOCATED. SITE WORK INCLUDES SHED REMOVAL, REPLACEMENT OF DECK, PERMEABLE PAVERS, SHORELINE PLANTING 32 (Queensbury Planning Board 03/23/2021) AND REPAIRS TO SEAWALL. PURSUANT TO CHAPTER 179-3-040, 179-6-050 & 179-13-010 OF THE ZONING ORDINANCE, NEW FLOOR AREA IN A CEA, HARD SURFACING WITHIN 50 FT. OF SHORELINE AND EXPANSION OF A NON-CONFORMING STRUCTURE SHALL BE SUBJECT TO PLANNING BOARD REVIEW AND APPROVAL. CROSS REFERENCE: SP 58-99 ADDITION, SEP 88-2019, 2001-692 DOCK, AV 33-2004 ADDITION, NOA 2-2004, AV 12-2021. SITE INFORMATION: APA, LGPC, CEA. LOT SIZE: .33 ACRE. TAX MAP NO. 227.17-1-42. SECTION: 179-3-040, 179-6-050, 179-13-010. DEAN HOWLAND, REPRESENTING APPLICANTS, PRESENT MRS. MOORE-Okay. So this application is alterations to the site as well as the existing home. The project includes an addition to the front area of the house with a garage and an addition over the top of that garage for a craft room/bedroom, and the application was in front of the Zoning Board of Appeals and that was in reference to setbacks as well from front property line, shoreline and then in reference to the deck proximity and proposed floor area also was part of the Zoning Board variance and that was granted. Just to let you know that it was granted. MR. TRAVER-Okay, and I know that we had some discussion about the photographs of the seawall and we did receive those in the meantime. Mr. Howland, you’re representing them as well. Okay. MR. HOWLAND-I am. Yes. MR. TRAVER-Were there any changes to your proposal as a result of your discussion with the ZBA? MR. HOWLAND-No. MR. TRAVER-Okay. All right. Questions, comments from members of the Board? MR. HOWLAND-Excuse me. There’s one thing. We mentioned, underneath the deck we had talked about putting two feet of Number Two stone underneath it and running a pipe parallel, when Laura brings up the map, the long axis, underneath the deck, and running the roof gutters off, there’s two roof planes, one on the master and one on, anyways, you can see where the deck is there on the right hand side, and just to pick up roof water there underneath the deck. It’s just dirt at the moment, and it will stop any dirt from moving, and again the old gutter on the corner, they ran the gutter out over the water and dumped it in the water, but we wouldn’t do that. MR. TRAVER-Good. Okay. Are there questions, comments from members of the Board? MR. VALENTINE-No. MR. SHAFER-None here. MR. TRAVER-The only open question was some discussion about the seawall and that appears to be clarified with some photographs. I was concerned about the deck, but they got the variance for that. MR. DEEB-Laura, this resolution includes the site plan update to reflect the deck for permeability? MRS. MOORE-Yes, it does. MR. DEEB-So I don’t need to add that as a condition. MRS. MOORE-No, you do not. MR. DEEB-Okay. MRS. MOORE-No. Thank you. MR. TRAVER-We do have a public hearing on this application as well. Laura, is there anyone that you can see that wants to talk to the Board about this? PUBLIC HEARING OPENED MRS. MOORE-So there’s a few attendees still left. If those in that attendees list wish to talk about this particular project or have comment, they can use the function in Zoom to raise your hand, and if not, I will continue with the public comment that I have. So I’m going to start with, this is addressed to Mr. Traver. It’s from the Lake George Waterkeeper. “The above referenced site plan application was personally reviewed in my capacity as a licensed professional engineer and the Lake George Waterkeeper. The Waterkeeper recognizes the proposed mitigation measures on this constrained site, including the 33 (Queensbury Planning Board 03/23/2021) replacement of asphalt pavement with permeable paver blocks, substantial plantings and rain gardens. However, the permeable paver blocks are considered 50% impervious and are proposed to be located within 8 feet of the shoreline to accommodate a circular driveway. It is our recommendation to reconfigure the driveway to eliminate the circular driveway in close proximity to the shoreline, replace with more plantings to increase permeability and install another rain garden, which will create a more compliant and effective shoreline buffer.” And then this is addressed to me. “I would like to take this opportunity to provide a letter of support for the Schonwetter proposed alterations and associated zoning variances that are up for public hearing later today and at future Planning Department meetings. I have reviewed the documents and feel that the project will benefit the Lake and the community as well as enhance property values in the Town of Queensbury. The Schonwetters have taken the opportunity to discuss the project with their neighbors and we look forward to a speedy construction period. Thank you and should you have any further questions regarding our support for this project please don’t hesitate to contact me. Sincerely, Gerard Bielak 99 Seelye Rd.” MR. TRAVER-Okay. Are you showing any hands raised? MRS. MOORE-Again, I don’t see any hands raised, and I don’t see anybody in the chat room. I have one more public comment. This is addressed to both the Zoning Board and the Planning Board. “We write today to express our enthusiastic support of Steve & Cathie Schonwetter’s project at 17 Holiday Pt. Rd., Queensbury (Tax Map No. 227.17-1-42). The improvements they have already made in the past several months (with the proper permits in hand) to the property they purchased in September 2020, have already enhanced the neighborhood, both with respect to water quality and aesthetics. More specifically, their significant upgrades to the septic system (replacing an outdated system with a state-of-the-art oversized system) and the sea wall (which was crumbling into the lake and no longer an effective erosion control), ensure the quality of the lake in Warner Bay and Katskill Bay will be elevated because of their careful and thoughtful pre-planning to maintain and preserve Lake George’s precious ecosystem. Additionally, they are reducing the impact of the property on the neighborhood and the Lake by reducing the number of bedrooms from six to four. Their request for an additional approx.. 300 sq. ft. will provide a better living situation for them with a 2-car attached garage and a craft room/bedroom space above. Moreover, their design plans for the exterior of the home will greatly enhance the beauty of the property with a new roof, natural stone veneer, deck replacement, new permeable pavers and extensive landscaping to limit erosion, as well as upgraded doors and windows, to create better energy efficiency. (The original owners had lived there for 50 years and had made only modest improvements over the years.) By every measure, this renovation project stands as a significant improvement to the Seelye Road neighborhood and we enthusiastically encourage both the Zoning Board and Planning Board to approve their thoughtful renovation plans at your scheduled meetings on March 17, 2021 and March 23, 2021, respectively. Sincerely, Jim and Beth White 104 Seelye Road (Residence) 97 Seelye Road (Dock) Queensbury” That’s all I have. MR. TRAVER-All right. Then we’ll go ahead and close the public hearing. PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED MR. TRAVER-And I will ask members of the Board if they have any further questions or comments? MR. DIXON-I was just going to comment on the Waterkeeper’s comment regarding the circular drive there. Is it possible that that could be changed more towards a flag type to pull it back from the lake? I think that was a good observation on his part. MR. TRAVER-Yes, I think we brought that up the first time we looked at it. MR. HOWLAND-Laura, could you bring up the landscape plan, the next one in the file. MR. HUNSINGER-Yes, I was going to comment on that as well. The landscape plan, it looks like the circular driveway is further away from the lake. MR. HOWLAND-Okay. He was doing it before the surveyor did it. So the only reason I’m bringing this up, I don’t know if that radius is smaller, but you can see where the property line is that comes across to the center line of the space that’s inside the circular drive, and you see a little turnaround that comes up by the shed. The existing one on their existing house, that probably goes another 12 feet towards the lake straight out, and then there’s a jog that comes off that one and if you go to the left side of the existing house, there’s just pavers and there’s a two car parking area in that area, and what we were trying to do was eliminate that parking area, the parking area that’s in the front of that, in the front of the house, which are just regular pavers, and they want to change everything. On the circular driveway I’m just showing you that you can see all the plants that are in the center there. When you build a circular driveway on the radius you pitch it to the inside so that you don’t drive off of it in the wintertime or something, and so any water that doesn’t go in between the pavers is going to go into that center area with plants and existing trees, and the only reason they put the, Laura, can you go back up to Devin’s plan number two of the 34 (Queensbury Planning Board 03/23/2021) proposed there. You can see on the existing one on the left hand side, the driveway, you see the driveway goes within three feet of the property line there. The owners wanted to bring the driveway in to go to Number Two. You can see how they curved it over, and there’s a retention pond there, which has never been there before, and then there’s all shrubberies going in with the landscape plan along that whole left side of this new proposed driveway and the permeable pavers really don’t have anything to do with the stormwater management that was required for the addition part, but it was just something they felt would be good to do and it would take the water away from going into the lake. Right now most of the water, if it comes down the driveway, most of it goes to the left. It enters the lake right where the two pieces of property meet, and that’s a sandy beach. It’s all natural sand in there. So we’re proposing to, as you go by the house with the stormwater pond there, you pitch that part of the driveway to the new retention pond, but as you get to the circular driveway you’ve got to sort of pitch it to go into the center of the circle, and we were just trying to come up with some way, the best way not to put any water in the lake really is what we were trying to do, and from the circle so the owners can come in, drive around to the right, come around and then back up into their parking. As was said, somebody mentioned to me, it may have been on the Zoning Board, it’s a tough turnaround. MR. DIXON-Are you using the circle as a catch basin, then? MR. HOWLAND-Inside we’ll use that as a catch basin with all the shrubs and the existing trees that are there. There’s one large tree, I’m not sure what it is. MR. DIXON-I always think in terms of our winters here, and I imagine they’re not going to shovel it by hand. So where does all the snow go? MR. HOWLAND-It’s a unique situation. Both these houses were my parents’ houses. So I know back when they, you look at The Sagamore up the lake about a few miles. If you don’t plow it, you have to snow blow it anyway, especially pavers you want to snow blow, and that way if you, well they’re going to blow it to the right now rather than left because if you go to the left, the wind comes up and puts it right back on the driveway, and then when you get down to about where the circle is when the wind starts blowing, it just removes the snow, the heavy snow, but with circle it blows to the outside. So it’s just the uniqueness of the piece of property. MR. DIXON-Okay, and to my earlier comment from the Waterkeeper, I agree with the other Board member’s comment that the circular drive does not look like it’s eight feet to the lake. It does look like it’s much farther away. MR. HOWLAND-That’s on the landscape plan, but the way Devin has it, you want to make the radius, I’m not sure what he has the radius there, I don’t see it, but it scales at eight feet on Dickinson’s plan. We’ll try to make it as far as we can on both sides. We’re trying to take it away from the other side, from the north side of the water. I mean you’ve got lake on both sides there. MR. DIXON-The property definitely has limitations. Okay. I’m content. MR. TRAVER-All right. Anything else? MR. DEEB-Yes, I just want to reiterate. I know permeable pavers are good, but they are high, high maintenance, and I know I mentioned before about keeping them in working condition, and that’s a pretty big area of permeable pavement. Is that something you’ll be able to do? MR. HOWLAND-We’ve done a ton of these around the lake and all these people have, they don’t do the maintenance. They’ve got landscapers and they’re going to cut the grass and they’re going to blow it. They’ll never put sand on these in the wintertime. You can’t do that, and you don’t want to put salt on them. You’re going to keep them clean with a leaf blower. That’s what you use. MR. DEEB-Well, they do get clogged easily. MR. HOWLAND-Well, I just haven’t, again, in the past we’ve maintained pretty much every customer I’ve had since the 70’s, permeable pavers, they all seem to work fine. You do have to maintain them. You’ve got to clean them. MR. DEEB-Okay. It’s just a pet peeve of mine I guess. MR. HOWLAND-Yes, well you know these people they don’t like to see the pavers dirty. MR. DEEB-Yes, that’s true. I didn’t think of it that way. MR. TRAVER-All right. Anything else? David, we’re ready for that motion. 35 (Queensbury Planning Board 03/23/2021) RESOLUTION APPROVING SP # 12-2021 STEVE & CATHIE SCHONWETTER The applicant has submitted an application to the Planning Board: Applicant proposes alterations to site and an existing home – footprint 2,953 sq. ft., floor area 3,233 sq. ft. with proposed floor area of 3,505 sq. ft. The project is removal of a portion of current home – 336 sq. ft. – to construct a two car garage with a craft room/bedroom above, 329 sq. ft. footprint. Interior work is reducing bedrooms from six to four. Exterior work includes new roof, stone veneer to be altered and front entry to be relocated. Site work includes shed removal, replacement of deck, permeable pavers, shoreline planting and repairs to seawall. Pursuant to Chapter 179-3-040, 179-6-050 & 179-13-010 of the Zoning Ordinance, new floor area in a CEA, hard surfacing within 50 ft. of shoreline and expansion of a non-conforming structure shall be subject to Planning Board review and approval. Pursuant to relevant sections of the Town of Queensbury Zoning Code-Chapter 179-9-080, the Planning Board has determined that this proposal satisfies the requirements as stated in the Zoning Code; As required by General Municipal Law Section 239-m the site plan application was referred to the Warren County Planning Department for its recommendation; The Planning Board made a recommendation to the Zoning Board of Appeals on 03/16/2021; the ZBA approved the variance requests on 03/17/2021; The Planning Board opened a public hearing on the Site plan application on 03/23/2021 and continued the public hearing to 03/23/2021, 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 03/23/2021; 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 12-2021 STEVE & CATHIE SCHONWETTER. Introduced by David Deeb who moved for its adoption. According to the draft resolution prepared by Staff with the following: 1) Waivers requested granted; g. site lighting, h. signage, n traffic, o. commercial alterations/ construction details, q. soil logs, r. construction/demolition disposal s. snow removal. 2) The approval is valid for one (1) year from the date of approval. Applicant is responsible for requesting an extension of approval before the one (1) year time frame has expired if you have not yet applied for a building permit or commenced significant site work. 3) Adherence to the items outlined in the follow-up letter sent with this resolution. a) The limits of clearing will constitute a no-cut buffer zone, orange construction fencing shall be installed around these areas and field verified by Community Development staff; b) If applicable, the Sanitary Sewer connection plan must be submitted to the Wastewater Department for its review, approval, permitting and inspection; c) If curb cuts are being added or changed a driveway permit is required. A building permit will not be issued until the approved driveway permit has been provided to the Planning Office; d) If application was referred to engineering then Engineering sign-off required prior to signature of Zoning Administrator of the approved plans; e) Final approved plans should have dimensions and setbacks noted on the site plan/survey, floor plans and elevation for the existing rooms and proposed rooms in the building and site improvements;- f) If required, the applicant must submit a copy of the following to the Town: a. The project NOI (Notice of Intent) for coverage under the current "NYSDEC SPDES General Permit from Construction Activity" prior to the start of any site work. b. The project NOT (Notice of Termination) upon completion of the project; c. The applicant must maintain on their project site, for review by staff: i. The approved final plans that have been stamped by the Town Zoning Administrator. These plans must include the project SWPPP (Storm Water Pollution Prevention Plan) when such a plan was prepared and approved; ii. The project NOI and proof of coverage under the current NYSDEC SPDES General Permit, or an individual SPDES permit issued for the project if required. g) Final approved plans, in compliance with the Site Plan, must be submitted to the Community Development Department before any further review by the Zoning Administrator or Building and Codes personnel; h) The applicant must meet with Staff after approval and prior to issuance of Building Permit and/or the beginning of any site work; 36 (Queensbury Planning Board 03/23/2021) 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. rd Motion seconded by John Shafer. Duly adopted this 23day of March 2021 by the following vote: AYES: Mr. Deeb, Mr. Dixon, Mr. Shafer, Mr. Hunsinger, Mr. Magowan, Mr. Valentine NOES: Mr. Traver ABSENT: Ms. White MR. TRAVER-All right. You’re all set, Mr. Howland. MR. HOWLAND-Thank you very much. MR. TRAVER-The next item on our agenda is Charles Carder/Caren Tucker, Site Plan 14-2021. SITE PLAN NO. 14-2021 SEQR TYPE: TYPE II. CHARLES CARDER/CAREN TUCKER. AGENT(S): ETHAN HALL. OWNER(S): CHARLES CARDER. ZONING: WR. LOCATION: 93 FITZGERALD ROAD. APPLICANT PROPOSES A RESIDENTIAL ADDITION OF 765 SQ. FT. OF FLOOR AREA RENOVATION OF THE SECOND FLOOR CONVERTING ATTIC SPACE TO LIVING SPACE AND A COVERED PORCH. PROJECT INCLUDES 142 SQ. FT. FOOTPRINT ADDITION TO THE HOUSE FOOTPRINT FOR A COVERED ENTRY AND MUDROOM. THE EXISTING HOME FOOTPRINT IS 1,138 SQ. FT. WITH A 712 SQ. FT. DECK. THE EXISTING FLOOR AREA IS 2,088 SQ. FT. AND PROPOSED FLOOR AREA IS 2,853 SQ. FT. THE PROJECT WORK INCLUDES INSTALLATION OF A NEW SEPTIC SYSTEM. PURSUANT TO CHAPTER 179-3-040, 179-6-050 & 179-13-010 OF THE ZONING ORDINANCE, NEW FLOOR AREA IN A CEA, EXPANSION OF A NON-CONFORMING STRUCTURE AND HARD SURFACING WITHIN 50 FT. OF SHORELINE SHALL BE SUBJECT TO PLANNING BOARD REVIEW AND APPROVAL. CROSS REFERENCE: AV 38-2000, SP 32-2000 SUNDECK OVER DOCK, AV 35-1996 SHED, AV 16-2021. WARREN CO. REFERRAL: N/A. SITE INFORMATION: GLEN LAKE CEA. LOT SIZE: .28 ACRE. TAX MAP NO. 289.14-1-24. SECTION: 179-3-040, 179-6-065, 179-13-010, 179-6-050. ETHAN HALL, REPRESENTING APPLICANTS, PRESENT MR. TRAVER-Laura, when you’re ready. MRS. MOORE-This application was before the Zoning Board of Appeals in reference to the setbacks, and in reference height and for area. Those things were granted by the Zoning Board of Appeals, and again, the application for a residential addition of 765 square feet. This is raising the existing attic area roof to create this livable space. The project includes a 142 square foot addition which is a covered entry mudroom and it also includes a covered porch addition towards the shoreline. MR. TRAVER-Okay. Thank you. Mr. Hall, are you here? MR. HALL-Yes, I am. Good evening. MR. TRAVER-So we looked at this in terms of the variances. You went to the ZBA. Were there any changes as a result of your review at the ZBA? MR. HALL-No, sir. No. They looked at it. They felt that the changes we were making were warranted. The biggest thing, the addition of the mudroom and the entryway is really to get the entry to the building off of that kind of shared access drive that it is Fitzgerald Road when it gets down to this end of the, it’s actually a private drive down through there, similar to Canterbury Way on that end of the lake, and right now they kind of exit out through the kitchen and right out to the street and they would prefer to get out around the corner. So that’s really what’s going on with that, and then the covered porch area which also adds to our floor area ratio was simply, that’s a new roof over the existing deck. So that’s kind of the update there. There’s not a significant change in the building footprint overall, and the variances that we received were for height, that’s the existing height. We’re not going higher than what the existing building is, and we did, we went to the Town Board first before we even came for your referral, and got a septic variance for the new on-site waste treatment system and the sand filter bed. MR. TRAVER-Okay. Good. Thank you. Questions, comments from members of the Board? 37 (Queensbury Planning Board 03/23/2021) MR. SHAFER-Pretty straightforward. MR. TRAVER-We have a public hearing on this application which we will go ahead and open, and I’ll ask Laura to help us out again with that. Do you see folks that want to comment? PUBLIC HEARING OPENED MRS. MOORE-There looks like there’s one person who has her hand raised. Elizabeth Little has some questions about this project, and I apologize, I cannot access the Laser Fiche which is what I’m trying to draw the plans from. So I’m trying to do this in a background. Let me get Elizabeth Little on so she can ask her questions. So I’m going to promote her to panelist and I will try to get this worked out. Elizabeth if you want to unmute you can speak. ELIZABETH LITTLE HOGAN MRS. LITTLE-HOGAN-Hello. It’s Elizabeth Little-Hogan. So my husband and I, we live, well we’re still in Lake George I see. So our camp is a little farther down the way, and I just had a few questions I wanted to ask. I tried to look at the plans and I was confused about the septic and how, first of all maybe, I wish we were looking at it, but. MRS. MOORE-I’m getting there hopefully. MRS. LITTLE-HOGAN-Is it true, when I was looking at it it looked like the septic is going to be across the private road from the camp. Is that accurate? MR. HALL-Yes. MR. TRAVER-If you could address your questions to us, and then when you’re done with your comment we will give Mr. Hall a chance to respond. MRS. LITTLE-HOGAN-Okay. So my concern is the septic is across the private road and up this, there’s this embankment, and our property is higher. There’s an, it’s an esker that’s right behind where this camp is, and I’m happy that these people are making an addition. I think it’s a good change for their door and I’m not opposed to anything they’re trying to do. I just want to make sure that our property we own that’s just beyond their property does not fall into the road and, you know, we lose it. The neighbors to our just farther down, Ashworth, when they did their septic, the whole hill caved in is what they told us just this past weekend, and you can see when you drive there, you can see how the whole, you know, a lot went down, and he said they had to take out loads and loads of gravel because it’s all, it’s an esker. So it’s not like it’s soil that’ll stay there. So that was one concern. The other concern was just how it was all going to work, because it is a shared road, you know, and it’s about yeah wide. It’s not very big, construction vehicles and that sort, like are we going to be able to use the camp this summer? We’re at the dead end, and my husband’s always on call. So I have a concern how it’s going to work. MR. TRAVER-Okay, any construction traffic. MRS. LITTLE-HOGAN-Yes, but my biggest concern is our property going to fall down into the road. The lateral support issue is a concern for me, and I couldn’t decipher it from the plans. MR. TRAVER-Yes, we’ll discuss that. Anything else? MRS. LITTLE-HOGAN-No. MR. TRAVER-Okay. Thank you very much. Let’s see, and are there any other attendees that want to speak, Laura? MRS. MOORE-I don’t see anybody else. I only see one other person, and they have not raised their hand. MR. TRAVER-Okay. Do we have any written comments? MRS. MOORE-I do not have any written comments. MR. TRAVER-Okay. Well we’ll go ahead and close the public hearing. PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED MR. TRAVER-And, Ethan, can you address Elizabeth’s questions? 38 (Queensbury Planning Board 03/23/2021) MR. HALL-Sure. Yes. Absolutely. So we know that that bank, that retaining wall that runs right along Fitzgerald Road right now is a stone retaining wall. We’ve been over there with the septic company, with IBS and their concrete contractor. The intent is we’re going to build a new concrete wall where the lower portion is. We’re going to build that high enough that they can backfill and build the bottomless sand filter, then they’re going to build another wall above that which will hold back, right now there’s three stone retaining walls as you go up that, and Liz is correct, they do, the stones, the Carders spent a good deal of the summer putting stones back into those walls to keep them from falling down, and the concrete guy that we’ve talked to said that he’s going to build the first wall right along the road and then build the upper wall beyond that and we can get all the bottom sand filter in there. He says he can do that without having the bank fall in. So we know that was a concern, and honestly the Carders are probably not going to do this work until the fall, after the summer season anyway. They just talked about it being easier for them to enjoy the camp for the summer. After Labor Day then they would start doing the work. obviously it’s a right of way and they can’t put any restrictions on the people that are beyond there. So they have to leave the place open. So they know that. MR. TRAVER-So construction vehicle traffic will take place at the end of the typical summer season is what you’re saying. MR. HALL-That’s the intent, yes. MR. TRAVER-Thank you. Any other questions or comments from members of the Board? MR. DIXON-With the right of way the way it is right now, if the resident at the end of the street has construction, they’re going to be going right over the top of their septic line. MR. HALL-Yes, it’s meant to be buried under the road, and it’ll be put inside a sleeve so that when it goes across any traffic that goes over it won’t damage the pump line. MR. DIXON-And I don’t think I heard you comment on exactly how long will that road be down if you put that line through there? That was a concern. MR. HALL-A day tops. MR. DIXON-For a whole day the resident at the end of the street won’t be able to access their home? MR. HALL-No. We would intend to do it where we would leave a drive aisle through there the entire time. I mean they can’t shut the road down. It’s an access right of way for firefighting purposes and everything else. They couldn’t shut it down completely. So they would do it, you know, they would do part of the road, get the thing underneath, and then the other half of the road. It’s about a 21 foot wide right of way. So they can leave 10 feet at a time. MR. TRAVER-Anything else? All right. Let’s see. We closed the public hearing. I think we’re ready, David. RESOLUTION APPROVING SP # 14-2021 CHARLES CARDER/CAREN TUCKER The applicant has submitted an application to the Planning Board for Site Plan approval pursuant to Article 9 of the Town zoning Ordinance for: Applicant proposes a residential addition of 765 sq. ft. of floor area renovation of the second floor converting attic space to living space and a covered porch. Project includes 142 sq. ft. footprint addition to the house footprint for a covered entry and mudroom. The existing home footprint is 1,138 sq. ft. with a 712 sq. ft. deck. The existing floor area is 2,088 sq. ft. and proposed floor area is 2,853 sq. ft. The project work includes installation of a new septic system. Pursuant to Chapter 179-3-040, 179-6-065, 179-6-050 & 179-13-010 of the Zoning Ordinance, new floor area in a CEA, expansion of a non-conforming structure and hard surfacing within 50 ft. of shoreline shall be subject to Planning Board review and approval. Pursuant to relevant sections of the Town of Queensbury Zoning Code-Chapter 179-9-080, the Planning Board has determined that this proposal satisfies the requirements as stated in the Zoning Code; As required by General Municipal Law Section 239-m the site plan application was referred to the Warren County Planning Department for its recommendation; The Planning Board made a recommendation to the Zoning Board of Appeals on 03/16/2021; the ZBA approved the variance requests on 03/17/2021; The Planning Board opened a public hearing on the Site plan application on 03/23/2021and continued the public hearing to 03/23/2021, when it was closed, 39 (Queensbury Planning Board 03/23/2021) 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 03/23/2021; 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 14-2021 CHARLES CARDER/CAREN TUCKER. Introduced by David Deeb who moved for its adoption; Per the draft provided by staff conditioned upon the following conditions: 1) Waivers request granted: g. site lighting, h. signage, n traffic, o. commercial alterations/ construction details, q. soil logs, r. construction/demolition disposal s. snow removal 2) The approval is valid for one (1) year from the date of approval. Applicant is responsible for requesting an extension of approval before the one (1) year time frame has expired if you have not yet applied for a building permit or commenced significant site work. 3) Adherence to the items outlined in the follow-up letter sent with this resolution. a) If application was referred to engineering, then engineering sign-off required prior to signature of Zoning Administrator of the approved plans; b) Final approved plans should have dimensions and setbacks noted on the site plan/survey, floor plans and elevation for the existing rooms and proposed rooms in the building and site improvements, c) Final approved plans, in compliance with the Site Plan, must be submitted to the Community Development Department before any further review by the Zoning Administrator or Building and Codes personnel; d) The applicant must meet with Staff after approval and prior to issuance of Building Permit and/or the beginning of any site work; e) Subsequent issuance of further permits, including building permits is dependent on compliance with this and all other conditions of this resolution; f) As-built plans to certify that the site plan is developed according to the approved plans to be provided prior to issuance of the certificate of occupancy; g) Resolution to be placed on final plans in its entirety and legible. rd Motion seconded by Brad Magowan. Duly adopted this 23 day of March 2021 by the following vote: MR. TRAVER-Is there any discussion on the motion? MRS. MOORE-I know it’s not necessarily the appropriate time, but I am going to speak up, just so that Elizabeth Little-Hogan, she just raised her hand and asked to ask another question, and I don’t think it’s relevant but I don’t mind identifying it here. So she’s asked if Ethan can talk to the cement contractor and talked to the neighbor who had problems with the hill falling in before he starts his work, and I guess that does make sense. MR. HALL-Sure. Absolutely. MRS. MOORE-All right. Thank you for sharing that, Laura. AYES: Mr. Shafer, Mr. Hunsinger, Mr. Magowan, Mr. Valentine, Mr. Deeb, Mr. Traver NOES: Mr. Dixon ABSENT: Ms. White MR. TRAVER-All right. I guess you’re all set, Ethan. MR. HALL-Perfect. Thank you very much. I appreciate your time this evening. MR. DEEB-Good luck, Ethan. MR. HALL-Great. Thanks. MR. TRAVER-So, ladies and gentlemen, we are two-thirds of our way through the month of March which is not bad, and we do have another meeting Thursday night. So don’t forget about that. Is there anything remaining before the Board this evening? MRS. MOORE-I do not have anything. MR. TRAVER-Then I’ll ask for a motion to adjourn. 40 (Queensbury Planning Board 03/23/2021) MOTION TO ADJOURN THE QUEENSBURY PLANNING BOARD MEETING OF MARCH 23, 2021, Introduced by Chris Hunsinger who moved for its adoption, seconded by David Deeb: rd Duly adopted this 23 day of March, 2021, by the following vote: AYES: Mr. Deeb, Mr. Dixon, Mr. Shafer, Mr. Hunsinger, Mr. Magowan, Mr. Valentine, Mr. Traver NOES: NONE ABSENT: Ms. White On motion meeting was adjourned. RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED, Stephen Traver, Chairman 41