Loading...
05-18-2021 (Queensbury Planning Board 05/18/2021) QUEENSBURY PLANNING BOARD MEETING FIRST REGULAR MEETING MAY 18, 2021 INDEX Site Plan No. 8-2020 Thomas Heinzelman 1. ONE YR. EXT. REQUEST Tax Map No. 289.7-1-19 Site Plan No. 79-2019 Don Bernard 2. FWW 8-2019 Tax Map No. 239.8-1-15 ONE YR. EXT. REQUEST Site Plan No. 34-2021 Laphatt Holdings 3. SEEK LEAD AGENCY Tax Map No. 301.8-1-30.3 Subdivision No. 5-2021 Native Development Assoc., LLC 4. PRELIMINARY STAGE Tax Map No. 308.20-1-9.2 Subdivision No. 6-2021 FINAL STAGE Site Plan Modification 27-2021 Dark Bay Properties, LLC 15. Tax Map No. 239.18-1-27.1 & 239.18-1-27.2 Site Plan No. 28-2021 Stephen A. Burnett, Trustee 21. ZBA RECOMMENDATION Tax Map No. 239.18-1-12 Site Plan No. 30-2021 John Graziano 24. ZBA RECOMMENDATION Tax Map No. 226.19-2-1 Site Plan No. 33-2021 333 Cleverdale, LLC/San Souci 26. ZBA RECOMMENDATION Tax Map No. 226.12-1-43 & 226.12-1-44 Site Plan No. 32-2021 Town Fair Tire 29. ZBA RECOMMENDATION Tax Map No. 296.17-1-34 Site Plan No. 35-2021 Chris Racicot 31. SEEK LEAD AGENCY Tax Map No. 309.10-1-60 & 309.10-1-63 Discussion Item 3-2021 CVE North America, Inc. 32. Tax Map No. 303.11-1-4.1 & 303.15-1-25.2 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 05/18/2021) QUEENSBURY PLANNING BOARD MEETING FIRST REGULAR MEETING MAY 18, 2021 7:00 P.M. MEMBERS PRESENT STEPHEN TRAVER, CHAIRMAN CHRIS HUNSINGER, VICE CHAIRMAN DAVID DEEB, SECRETARY JAMIE WHITE JOHN SHAFER MICHAEL DIXON, ALTERNATE MEMBERS ABSENT BRAD MAGOWAN MICHAEL VALENTINE LAND USE PLANNER-LAURA MOORE STENOGRAPHER-MARIA GAGLIARDI MR. TRAVER-Welcome, ladies and gentlemen, to the Town of Queensbury Planning Board meeting for ththth Tuesday, May 18, 2021. This is our first meeting for May, our 10 meeting thus far in 2021 and our 25 meeting under our Pandemic guidelines. If you have a tablet or other electronic device, cell phone, if you would please turn it off or turn the ringer off we would appreciate that so it won’t interrupt our proceedings. Take note, if you would, of the red emergency exit lights. In the event of an emergency, that is the way out. Those of you who are planning on using the podium to speak to the Board this evening, you’ll note that there are some sanitary wipes in the podium. When you’re through speaking if you would wipe off the microphone for the next speaker, please, and the other thing, it’s noted that we have, the seating capacity is full or at capacity in with us this evening, and I don’t believe that there is actually, as it stands now, room for all of the applicants to appear in the room. So if you’re here to really just listen to the proceedings, maybe you’d be willing to step out in the next room so that any applicants that wish to actually sit in the room can do so. Let’s see. We have a few administrative items this evening. The first thrdth is approval of minutes from March 16, March 23, and March 25 of 2021. And I believe we have a resolution to that effect. APPROVAL OF MINUTES March 16, 2021 March 23, 2021 March 25, 2021 MOTION TO APPROVE THE QUEENSBURY PLANNING BOARD MEETING MINUTES OF THRDTH MARCH 16, 2021, MARCH 23, 2021 & MARCH 25, 2021, Introduced by David Deeb who moved for its adoption, seconded by John Shafer: th Duly adopted this 18 day of May, 2021, by the following vote: AYES: Mr. Deeb, Ms. White, Mr. Shafer, Mr. Hunsinger, Mr. Dixon, Mr. Traver NOES: NONE ABSENT: Mr. Magowan, Mr. Valentine MR. TRAVER-All right. Thank you, and then we also have a couple of requests for extensions. The first being Site Plan 8-2020 for Thomas Heinzelman, and he’s requesting a one year extension. ADMINISTRATIVE ITEMS SITE PLAN 8-2020 THOMAS HEINZELMAN REQUESTING ONE YEAR EXTENSION. MR. TRAVER-Laura? MR. DEEB-:Laura just stepped out. 2 (Queensbury Planning Board 05/18/2021) MR. TRAVER-Okay. I’m sorry, I didn’t see that. So just by way of background, we approved this first th item back, it appears May 27 of 2020, and the information doesn’t specifically, okay, they’/re not terribly specific. They just say that there are several reasons the project has not yet begun, and they are requesting a one year extension prior to their one year approval expiring. Does anyone have any concerns or issues with granting their first and hopefully they’re last one year extension. MR. DEEB-Only that building materials are going to sky rocket. MR. TRAVER-Okay. I believe we have a draft resolution. MR. DEEB-Yes, we do. RESOLUTION GRANTING A ONE YEAR EXTENSION SP # 8-2020 THOMAS HEINZELMAN 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 740 sq. ft. home and 715 sq. ft. porches for construction of a new home - 1,510 sq. ft. footprint and 2,604 sq. ft. floor area. Site work includes grading, new well and new septic (septic on adjoining property). Project proposes additional shoreline planting area. Pursuant to Chapter 179-3-040 of the Zoning Ordinance, construction in a CEA shall be subject to Planning Board review and approval. Applicant requests a one year extension. The Planning Board approved a one year extension to May 27, 2022. MOTION TO APPROVE A ONE YEAR EXTENSION FOR SITE PLAN 8-2020 THOMAS HEINZELMAN. Introduced by David Deeb who moved for its adoption, seconded by John Shafer: th Duly adopted this 18 day of May 2021, by the following vote: AYES: Ms. White, Mr. Shafer, Mr. Hunsinger, Mr. Dixon, Mr. Deeb, Mr. Traver NOES: NONE ABSENT: Mr. Magowan, Mr. Valentine MR. TRAVER-Next we have, also under Administrative Items, Site Plan 79-2019, Freshwater Wetlands Permit 8-2019 for Don Bernard, also requesting a one year extension. SITE PLAN 79-2019 & FRESHWATER WETLANDS PERMIT 8-2019 DON BERNARD REQUESTING ONE YEAR EXTENSION MR. TRAVER-Laura, do you have any detail on that? MRS. MOORE-Mr. Bernard was able to demo the house but he has not been able to start construction. He thought it would be best to request the extension and he’s asked for a one year extension. MR. TRAVER-Okay. Thank you. All right. So the area has been cleared but the construction of the house has not yet begun and they would like to also receive a one year extension. Does anyone have any issues with that? I believe we have a draft resolution to that effect. RESOLUTION GRANTING A ONE YEAR EXTENSION SP # 79-2019 FWW 8-2019 BERNARD 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 tear down an existing home to construct a new single family home of (revised) 730 sq. ft. (footprint) with 2,643 sq. ft. of floor area. Site work includes stormwater management, plantings, site grading, new septic, new well and removal of some sheds. The site will retain an existing garage of 418 sq. ft. and a portion of Brayton Road is located on a portion of the property. Pursuant to Chapter 179-6-065 of the Zoning Ordinance, new floor area in a CEA shall be subject to Planning Board review and approval. Applicant requests a one year extension. The Planning Board approved a one year extension to June 23, 2022. MOTION TO APPROVE A ONE YEAR EXTENSION FOR SITE PLAN 79-2019 & FRESHWATER WETLANDS PERMIT 8-2019 DON BERNARD. Introduced by David Deeb who moved for its adoption, seconded by Chris Hunsinger: th Duly adopted this 18 day of May 2021 by the following vote: AYES: Mr. Shafer, Mr. Hunsinger, Mr. Dixon, Mr. Deeb, Ms. White, Mr. Traver 3 (Queensbury Planning Board 05/18/2021) NOES: NONE ABSENT: Mr. Magowan, Mr. Valentine MR. TRAVER-All right. So next we move to our regular agenda. The first item is Laphatt Holdings, Site Plan 34-2021. This is going to be, the Planning Board this evening our action will be to request Lead Agency Status. SITE PLAN NO. 34-2021 SEQR TYPE: UNLISTED. LAPHATT HOLDINGS. AGENT(S): TOM CENTER. OWNER(S): SAME AS APPLICANT. ZONING: NR. LOCATION: MANOR DRIVE. SEQR: PLANNING BOARD SEEKS LEAD AGENCY STATUS WITH COORDINATED REVIEW. APPLICANT PROPOSES TO CONSTRUCT TWO FOUR-UNIT BUILDINGS. EACH BUILDING IS TO BE 3,200 SQ. FT. WITH EACH UNIT TO HAVE A GARAGE, TWO BEDROOMS AND A DRIVEWAY ONTO MANOR DRIVE. THE SITE IS TO HAVE TWO ON-SITE SEPTIC SYSTEMS AND EACH BUILDING IS TO BE CONNECTED TO WATER. PURSUANT TO CHAPTER 179-3- 040 OF THE ZONING ORDINANCE, CONSTRUCTION OF NEW MULTI-FAMILY BUILDINGS IN THE NR ZONE SHALL BE SUBJECT TO PLANNING BOARD REVIEW AND APPROVAL. VARIANCE: RELIEF IS SOUGHT FOR DENSITY. CROSS REFERENCE: AV 33-2021. WARREN CO. REFERRAL: N/A. LOT SIZE: .87 ACRE. TAX MAP NO. 301.8-1-30.3. SECTION: 179-3- 040. MR. TRAVER-Laura? MRS. MOORE-This applicant proposes to construct two four-unit buildings each of 3,200 square feet with each unit to have a garage, two bedrooms and a driveway onto Manor Drive. This project comes before this Board for a Lead Agency request. This project is also the subject of variances from the Zoning Board of Appeals and therefore it’s under coordinated environmental review. So at this point you would request Lead Agency status and the project would potentially come back the first meeting in June. MR. TRAVER-Okay. Thank you. So the first action is, as stated, to request Lead Agency Status for coordinated review, and there’s a 30 day process for that to take place and then we’ll be presumably reviewing this application in June, next month. We may start SEQR review next month and referral to the Zoning Board next month. Any discussion on that process, questions? MR. SHAFER-Mr. Chairman, I have a question about, Laura used the term coordinated environmental review. MR. TRAVER-Yes. MR. SHAFER-I’m not clear what our, as a Planning Board body, role would be in that coordinated review. MRS. MOORE-So I can explain that. So coordinated review is , this project triggers an environmental review because it’s greater than 4,000 square feet. So those forms that you typically see at the end of packets, environmental forms, it would be a Short Environmental form. Those are the items that you’re going to go through and determine if those are significant impacts or not significant impacts. What you usually see the environmental review for is subdivisions, versus a standard project. You typically don’t have a project that’s greater than 4,000 square feet. You typically have projects that are re-using existing buildings, small additions, but this is one we have, we obviously don’t get it a lot. So at the moment we’re in a coordinated review so that you take Lead Agency review. This is a step in the process and then the Zoning Board would grant Lead Agency Status to you. The Planning Board would then conduct SEQR at their next meeting and then explain to the Zoning Board what their decision was. Typically you would grant a Neg Dec which is the determination of non-significance could be the outcome of this and then you would , then the Zoning Board could act on their variance request and then the application would come back to this Planning Board for Site Plan Review. MR. SHAFER-So we don’t need to do any separate environmental studies? It’s simply reviewing the data as provided by the applicant? MRS. MOORE-Yes. MR. SHAFER-Okay. Thank you. MR. TRAVER-Any other questions on the process? Okay. I believe we have a draft resolution making the request. RESOLUTION REQUESTING LEAD AGENCY STATUS SP # 34-2021 LAPHATT HOLDINGS 4 (Queensbury Planning Board 05/18/2021) WHEREAS, the applicant proposes: Applicant proposes to construct two four-unit buildings. Each building is to be 3,200 sq. ft. with each unit to have a garage, two bedrooms and a driveway onto Manor Drive. The site is to have two on-site septic systems and each building is to be connected to water. Pursuant to Chapter 179-3-040 of the Zoning Ordinance, construction of new multi-family buildings in the NR zone shall be subject to Planning Board review and approval. Variance: Relief is sought for density. WHEREAS, the Planning Board of the Town of Queensbury has determined to begin an environmental review process under the State Environmental Quality Review Act (SEQRA). WHEREAS, the Planning Board of the Town of Queensbury has identified the project to be an Unlisted action for purposes of SEQR review pursuant to 6 NYCRR 617. WHEREAS, the Planning Board is the agency most directly responsible for approving the action because of its responsibility for approving the land uses for the property. NOW, THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED, the Planning Board of the Town of Queensbury hereby indicates its desire to be lead agency for SEQRA review of this action and authorizes and directs the Zoning Administrator to notify any other potentially involved agencies of such intent. MOTION TO SEEK LEAD AGENCY STATUS IN CONNECTION WITH SITE PLAN 34-2021 LAPHATT HOLDINGS. Introduced by David Deeb who moved for its adoption, seconded by Chris Hunsinger: As per the draft resolution prepared by staff. th Duly adopted this 18 day of May 2021 by the following vote: AYES: Mr. Hunsinger, Mr. Dixon, Mr. Deeb, Ms. White, Mr. Shafer, Mr. Traver NOES: NONE ABSENT: Mr. Magowan, Mr. Valentine MR. TRAVER-All right. Thank you. Now we move into the more regular part of our agenda, and I wanted to note for those that are observing this proceeding on the Town YouTube channel, there are a few applications that are subject to public hearing and individuals can either be present or there is a telephone available that you can call in to make public comment at that point in the agenda and we will be announcing the public hearing for those projects for which it is applicable and you should make note in advance of this phone number. That number is 518-761-8225. That is the number that you would want to call, and I will repeat at the time that the public hearings are open. With that, we’ll go to Tabled Items. The first item is Native Development Assoc., LLC, Subdivision Preliminary Stage 5-2021 and Final Stage 6- 2021. TABLED ITEMS: SUBDIVISION NO. 5-2021 PRELIMINARY STAGE SUBDIVISION NO. 6-2021 FINAL STAGE SEQR TYPE: UNLISTED. NATIVE DEVELOPMENT ASSOC., LLC. AGENT(S): ABD ENGINEERS, LLP. OWNER(S): SAME AS APPLICANT. ZONING: CLI. LOCATION: 24 NATIVE DRIVE. APPLICANT PROPOSES FIVE LOT SUBDIVISION WITH ROAD CONSTRUCTION FROM THE EXISTING NATIVE ROAD FROM CAREY ROAD. LOT 1 – 11.15 ACRES, LOT 2 – 1.86 ACRES. LOT 3 – 8.14 ACRES, LOT 4 – 7.14 ACRES, AND LOT 5 – 3.77 ACRES. A ROAD OF 1.04 ACRES WITH A CUL-DE-SAC TO CONNECT THE EXISTING NATIVE DRIVE ROAD IS PROPOSED. THE PLANS INCLUDE CONCEPTUAL BUILDING AND LOT DESIGN FOR EACH PARCEL. PROJECT INCLUDES STORMWATER MANAGEMENT, GRADING AND EROSION CONTROL. SITE PLAN REVIEW WILL BE REQUIRED FOR EACH PARCEL FOR FUTURE DEVELOPMENT. THE EXISTING 117,000 SQ. FT. BUILDING ON LOT 1 IS TO REMAIN. PURSUANT TO CHAPTER 183 OF THE ZONING ORDINANCE, SUBDIVISION OF LAND SHALL BE SUBJECT TO PLANNING BOARD REVIEW AND APPROVAL. CROSS REFERENCE: SP 69- 2017, SP 14-2019, SUB (P) 5-2020 & (F) 6-2020 (EXPIRED). WARREN CO. REFERRAL: N/A. LOT SIZE: 33.37 ACRES. TAX MAP NO. 308.20-1-9.2. SECTION: CHAPTER 183. JON LAPPER, LUIGI PALLESCHI, & TIM BARBER, REPRESENTING APPLICANT, PRESENT MR. TRAVER-Laura? MRS. MOORE-So this is a project that’s been before the Board. The applicant proposes a five lot and I won’t go through and identify each lot, but there are five lots. One of those lots contains the existing building and the project includes stormwater management, grading and erosion control, and then under 5 (Queensbury Planning Board 05/18/2021) my Staff Notes, the applicant has been referred to Chazen Engineering for their proposal. The information th came back on May 14. I did provide the Board this afternoon with an e-mail copy of the response letter. This information includes, you know, they responded to stormwater, clearing the entire site and the need for additional stormwater analysis. They have addressed those items but it has not been seen by Chazen at this time. MR. DEEB-I’m sorry, Laura, I didn’t hear the last part. MRS. MOORE-So in reference to what was addressed today, so today I sent to the Board. MR. DEEB-I got that part. MRS. MOORE-Okay. So then the applicant addressed some of the items that were in question, unaccounted stormwater, clearing the entire site, the need for additional stormwater analysis, a retaining wall and needs to review prior to construction and other technical comments. The applicant has provided responses to those, but Chazen has not had a chance to review that information. I just wanted to note that in reference to the clearing that the applicant is proposing clearing, but the stumps will remain. MR. DEEB-Okay. Thank you. MR. TRAVER-The stumps will be removed as the sites are developed. Right? MR. LAPPER-That’s right. MR. TRAVER-Okay. Thank you, Laura. Good evening. MR. LAPPER-Good evening, everyone. For the record, Jon Lapper. Tim Barber, the applicant, is here as well as Luigi Palleschi the project engineer. So we were here at the beginning of COVID last year on this project, five lots, what used to be the big Native Textiles building at the back of Carey Industrial Park. You granted us conditional approval but partly because of COVID and dealing with the agencies and plans have changed in dealing with the Chazen comments that Craig thought it was best to just re-submit. Under COVID one of the executive orders is that the six months could be extended, but the lots have changed enough that Craig thought it was best that we come back and that’s what we did. We were on the agenda for last month, but at that point we had a very long Chazen letter and now we have a very short Chazen letter that was what Laura was referring to. One of the issues that Chazen raised was that they interpreted that everything was going to be cleared for the 30 acres, a massive stormwater project, but it’s really just about going in and leaving the stumps, as the Chairman said and not creating a stormwater issue until you need to do it on a lot by lot basis, which would be subject to Site Plan Review. We’re just here for subdivision so that Tim can start leasing the sites and doing construction, but the big building, Native building which sat vacant for years, is now fully leased, and in this economy warehouse space is valuable and it’s near the Northway. So when you approved it last time, we’re a lot farther along because we have the response letter today which was just pretty simple stuff. So with that longwinded explanation I’ll ask Luigi to just go through it and show you what’s changed. MR. PALLESCHI-Good evening. Luigi Palleschi with ABD Engineers. To back up, the comment letter that we received for the last meeting that we were up to 30 comments or so. A lot of those comments in fact with what we received lately there’s 14 comments. A lot of those comments actually refer back to a lot by lot basis. Early on when we presented this project of five lots and our conceptual building layout for each lot, we had agreed that we would come back for further detailed review for each of those lots. Okay. So what you have before you today is the five lot subdivision and the intent is to clear all of the five lots but leave the stumps as Jon Lapper had mentioned, on the other lots we’d leave the stumps , but the only stumps that need to be removed is the roadway, the stormwater areas. So when I took the 14 comments that Chazen recently provided to us and we responded to, we went through and addressed all of the technical comments. We haven’t gone through and detailed them exactly every lot by lot, but for instance when they made comment about you’re clear cutting the whole site, we’ve added additional notes to the site plans to ensure the contractor that all we’re looking to do for this right now is to clear the road, get it built for Town standards so that we can market the five lots and as soon as a tenant is available then we will come back in for a lot by lot basis and take one lot at a time and come for a detailed site plan review. So all of the stormwater measures have been addressed. If you read the comment letter from Chazen, they have referred to a dam design. I actually reached out to New York State DEC and I spoke with the gentleman there that’s in charge of the dam safety division and I shared the latest plans with him and he’s acceptable to our design. So we feel that at this point we actually have a better plan that what was previously approved, and we have additional notes on the plans to date that will ensure the contractor will do his job as he constructs this project. We’re certainly looking forward to bringing the next lot in for you for detailed review of that lot, but this is really important to get started on the roadway and build it per Town standards. So I’d be happy to go through the 14 comments if you’d like, but I think really the two major concerns from my understanding was, you know, understanding the clear cutting, you know, what I said here is understandable now and the other thing is whether or not we had enough volume, or confirming the volume in the stormwater basin which we have done also. All the other stuff, again, they’ve 6 (Queensbury Planning Board 05/18/2021) referred to detailed design for the retaining wall which those retaining walls are proposed on the individual lots. Everybody will get a second look at those details when we get to that point, because what we show conceptually goes to the common stormwater practice. However, when, you know, say we develop Lot Three, the footprint of that building may change a little bit. The parking size may change a little bit. So that’s where we really get into the nitty gritty details of site plan for that particular lot. So I hope that helps you better understand the intent and how we’d like to move forward and again if there’s any questions regarding the plans to date, we’d be happy to answer them. MR. TRAVER-Before we get to questions, let me also remind the public that we do have a public hearing on this application this evening which we will now open, and I will remind folks that may be calling in that the phone number is 518-761-8225. PUBLIC HEARING OPENED MR. TRAVER-And my first question is I know that occasionally with large numbers of engineering comments we sometimes will table applications and one of the conditions is that those engineering issues get resolved prior to re-hearing the application. Is that true in this case? MR. PALLESCHI-So I mean we can go through them, you know, like the first one, they scaled on our drawing the width of our infiltration trench. MR. TRAVER-Sir, that’s a yes or no question. MR. PALLESCHI-I’m sorry. Ask it again so that I understand you. MR. TRAVER-Actually maybe I should ask Laura. Laura, do you recall when we tabled this if one of the conditions was that the engineering comments were to be resolved prior to re-hearing? MRS. MOORE-I don’t believe it was. I’ve given them guidance that there were numerous comments that they should address, and the applicant attempted to do that. MR. TRAVER-Right. MRS. MOORE-We just don’t have the response on this latest set of comments. MR. TRAVER-Right, right. Understood. MRS. MOORE-So typically the Board has tabled that, but that is, again, at your discretion. MR. TRAVER-Right. Okay. MR. DEEB-How many comments have been resolved? MR. TRAVER-Well, technically none yet, because they’ve responded to a number but we haven’t, Chazen hasn’t responded to their response. MR. DEEB-At all, to any of them? MR. PALLESCHI-Well, we. MRS. MOORE-So they did respond to the set of comments that were submitted as part of this review for tonight’s meeting. However when today had occurred, or yesterday, today Luigi responded to those comments from Chazen. Chazen has not seen those. thth MR. PALLESCHI-Yes. So we received comments on the 13 or 14, last week, Thursday or Friday, and we worked over the weekend and provided the responses just so we had something for this meeting so that we hoped this Board felt comfortable with our responses to the latest comments. We weren’t going to wait another weeks to respond to the comments because we would like to move this forward so we wanted to address the comments as quickly as possible, but we’ve reached out to DEC and all he is making reference to is just verify the stormwater volume. So it’s as simple as that. We have the calculations that we provided to them. DEC has already looked at it, but I think it’s just Chazen doing what they do and just kind of reiterating so that there’s a real communication back and forth. It’s not that we’re lacking anything. It’s just more of a clarification, and I understand when you look at the number of comments sometimes, you know, four pages can look like a lot but if you go through them, a lot of them are just minor technical items. MR. TRAVER-And this application is subject to environmental review as well, which makes the absence of engineering clarification potentially a bit of a stumbling block for us, but we’ll see. 7 (Queensbury Planning Board 05/18/2021) MR. DEEB-Still, clarification. You’ve responded to Chazen. Chazen has not responded back to you. MR. PALLESCHI-Right, because we just provided the latest. MR. DEEB-I understand that, but we don’t know what their answers are. MR. TRAVER-That’s right, and not all of the comments have been responded to, either. MR. PALLESCHI-Well prior to this meeting we received comments and there were 30 some odd comments. We’ve addressed those comments and we were supposed to appear before this Board last month but because Chazen didn’t get a chance to review the 30 some odd responses, I think it was the best decision to table it. Then we received these just last Thursday or Friday and they were a lot simpler than the 30 comments and we quickly addressed those here tonight. That’s why they haven’t had a chance to look at this. MR. TRAVER-Right. MR. DEEB-Okay. You responded back and you’re waiting to hear from them and of course your comment about engineering signoff has always been true, ever since we’ve been doing this. MR. TRAVER-Right. MR. PALLESCHI-I mean the last time this Board granted approval we had 30 some odd comments. Now we’re down to minimum. MR. TRAVER-Okay. Questions, comments from members of the Board? MR. SHAFER-Just to clarify, you are not going to clear cut all 30 acres? MR. PALLESCHI-We will but them but we will leave the stumps on the individual lots and only remove the stumps within the cul de sac area and the stormwater area. MR. TRAVER-What is the point of cutting all the trees and leaving the stumps? MR. PALLESCHI- Because when we get the logger in there, if you get them in there once, there’s some trees in there that need to come out, so if you had the logger in there you want to get them in there now rather than mobilize them more than once. MR. SHAFER-But if you have to come back on a site by site basis, why not clear cut as you come back with a site plan? MR. PALLESCHI-For a site this size it’s always good to get a shovel ready look. So if you cut the trees, you get a prospective tenant that comes in there, they can see the lay of the land when the trees are down. So it does help with marketability, but we understand the stormwater side of it, the erosion and control side. If we leave the stumps then it doesn’t affect us, the SWPPP, the stormwater management, because the stumps are to remain. They’re not actually disturbing the soil. MR. SHAFER-So the stormwater for each site will be correlated with the timing of removing the stumps and doing the grading. MR. PALLESCHI-Yes, and if you look at the design, the stormwater is in the center of the site where everything is draining to that center, and it’s actually designed for all the impervious rooftop. If you cut the trees, that stormwater basin is certainly large enough for the grass area, the stumps that would drain to that stormwater area when we build it, and then, you know, obviously when we develop or detail the lot by lot then, you know, that stormwater basin’s already sized. MR. TRAVER-However, that’s one of the issues that, the engineering signoff still remains outstanding, correct, the stormwater issue? MR. PALLESCHI-I don’t think so. MR. TRAVER-I mean I understand your response to their concern is we’ll cut everything down except the stump, but the stump will still be there. MR. PALLESCHI-Right. MR. TRAVER-But we don’t know whether Chazen is going to consider that an acceptable solution to the stormwater issue. Correct? 8 (Queensbury Planning Board 05/18/2021) MR. PALLESCHI-Correct, but, you know, the definition of soil disturbance is if you leave the stump it’s not considered disturbance, and again, we have a SWPPP in place. We understand the, you know, can’t disturb, soil disturbed more than five acres at one time. That’s all implemented in the SWPPP. Chazen has reviewed the SWPPP and they had comments on the stormwater component of it, but not the SWPPP document that we’ve provided. We’re still waiting. Actually the last time we provided that document and we didn’t make any changes to the SWPPP because it talks about all the erosion and sediment control. The only thing we did change to benefit their comment was on Sheet Three or Four of our Site Plan we’ve added additional notes that they recommended. So if we added those notes that they recommended then I really don’t see an issue with that. It’s not like if they say add this note, I added that note. I didn’t change it. I didn’t change it. I didn’t question it like I’m not going to add the note. I added the note. So I’m presuming unless they come up with additional comments, which has happened, but to date we believe we’ve addressed every comment. MR. TRAVER-Okay. MR. DIXON-Mr. Chairman, I have a question. So if we go back to the original plan, we’re talking about still essentially I looked at it as clear cutting but in the original planning proposal, was it to remove trees lot by lot as it was being developed? MR. PALLESCHI-No. On the original plan we had proposed what the tree line, the proposed tree line would look like, and it would be up to the property line. MR. DIXON-My only concern that I have, and again I apologize, I don’t recall the original. I remember the plan, I just don’t recall all the fine details, but I do recall that we’ve got a neighborhood in the northeast corridor there. So now all the trees are coming down and this land remains idle for two years, three years. Is your intent to, I don’t recall if you were planting a tree line or just repurposing the trees that were there. MR. PALLESCHI-So we had proposed a stockade fence in that back corner for the buffer. That is what we had discussed at the last meeting, and it’s still the same in this plan. MR. DIXON-And would you put that in prior to the buildings, then? MR. PALLESCHI-We certainly can, yes. If you want to make that a condition, that fence can go in. So if the trees come down, the fence can immediately go up along the neighbors. MR. DIXON-And on the plan the stockade fence only shows that it’s going down to, about halfway down to the lands of Christine and Loretta Davis, and I’m not sure what the rest of the Board’s thought is on this, but it looks like it should certainly come down much farther, and again, I’m just wrestling in my mind, just the neighbors. You’ve got some very good neighbors there looking out over a wasteland for several, hopefully just several months. MR. PALLESCHI-So we have it proposed up to the property line of Kenneth Hostetler and the church. MR. DIXON-Okay. Thank you. MR. PALLESCHI-And then same thing going along the northern property line. We have it going pretty much up to the ravine, but these are all commercial over on this side. MR. DIXON-You’ve got the advantage. You’ve got the big copy. MR. PALLESCHI-Yes, and if it’s something that we just need to identify start of fence, end of fence, that’s very simple to do on the site plan, so, again, the communication is relayed on construction, and we can put that on the final. I’ll make sure that it states where to start and end six foot stockade fence. MR. DEEB-You’ve got six or eight foot. You have six on there. MR. PALLESCHI-Six foot. We have six foot high stockade fence. MR. DEEB-A lot of people are comfortable with eight. MR. PALLESCHI-Eight. So there is a section in that corner where we’re proposing a retaining wall, and this would sit up on that retaining wall. So it would appear, and that would be. MR. DEEB-That’s fine. MR. PALLESCHI-Yes. It’s not the entire length, but there is a good section of retaining wall in that corner where the fence would be on top of. MR. DEEB-And how long is the fence going to be? What’s the length of the fence? Do you know? 9 (Queensbury Planning Board 05/18/2021) MR. PALLESCHI-If I just scale it here, I’d say around seven, eight hundred feet. You have the stockade fence. Right? MR. DEEB-Yes. MR. PALLESCHI-Yes. MR. DEEB-Thank you. MR. TRAVER-Are there any written comments from the public, Laura? MRS. MOORE-No. MR. TRAVER-Okay. Thank you. Is there anyone in the audience with us tonight that wanted to make a public comment on this application? I’m not seeing any. So we’ll go ahead and close the public hearing. PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED MR. TRAVER- We next have to consider the State Environmental Quality Review Act. There is a SEQR resolution that has to be processed by this Board. How do members feel? We know that there are outstanding engineering comments. MS. WHITE-I don’t feel comfortable going forward. MR. TRAVER-Yes, the absence of the resolution of the stormwater is potentially concerning. How do Board members feel? MR. DEEB-They have to have engineering signoff. That’s necessary. So if it’s not done and engineering doesn’t signoff, they’re going to have to come back. So we’ve had that forever. MR. TRAVER-I understand what you’re saying, but that’s a separate process from this Board giving an environmental review, and that’s based on the knowledge that we currently have. So if we say there’s no environmental impact and potentially there’s an engineering issue that eventually changes the project or something, I’m not sure where that leaves us. MR. HUNSINGER-Looking at the most recent letter from Chazen, I don’t see anything in there that causes me trouble. A lot of this is, I don’t want to reiterate the applicant’s comment, but a lot of this is clarification. One of the runoff concerns was the hydrocad model has a basal surface area of 38,845 feet. However our calculations show approximately 1,500 square feet less. I don’t see that as being a significant adjustment either way. MR. TRAVER-Right, yes, and often as we know there’s often technical issues like that with comments. MR. HUNSINGER-I mean it’s three percent. So I don’t see that as being significant, versus five percent. MR. DEEB-Laura, if we go ahead with the SEQR and the engineering comments trigger something else, would we have to do a new SEQR after that? MRS. MOORE-You’d have to re-visit SEQR. MR. DEEB-We’d have to re-visit. So we could still do it, but if we have to re-visit it, we can still re-visit it. MR. TRAVER-Yes. MR. SHAFER-Mr. Chairman, I still have a concern about clear cutting all 30 acres. Is the purpose of clear cutting 30, well let me ask you a question., How long, under the best of circumstances, would it take to fill up the entire parcel with five buildings? MR. TRAVER-I bet they wish they knew the answer to that. MR. SHAFER-Well, it has an impact, it seems to me, on the issue of clear cutting. If you clear cut the entire parcel for the purposes of having a better or a simpler or a less costly stormwater report because you can take advantage of the stumps, compare that to five separate stormwater reports, one now for the overall, and then maybe four others as each building is done, the stormwater situation will change as each building and site is developed. So I still have heartburn about clearing the entire parcel. 10 (Queensbury Planning Board 05/18/2021) MR. PALLESCHI-Yes, my stormwater design is designed for worst case scenario. Taking that impervious that you see on my plan, which is conceptual, and it may be aggressive, but I’m designing it for that impervious. So I’m holding the whole 100 year, per DEC stormwater regulations, and, you know, every time you do a concept sketch, yes, it will change because you’ll have exactly building footprints, door locations. So that impervious, in my opinion, may go down a little bit, you know, on one lot versus another. So stormwater is designed for it I guess. MR. SHAFER-You have to meet the stormwater requirements whether you do it for the entire 30 acres at one time, or if you do it as each building is erected. There are certain requirements in stormwater that you have to meet. MR. TRAVER-Well actually each lot as it’s developed is going to be reviewed in any case. MR. SHAFER-Is what? MR. TRAVER-Each lot as it is sold and developed is subject to additional review anyway. MR. SHAFER-I understand, but the way they’re proposing to clear cut all 30 acres, the other four building sites could sit there for X period of time and we don’t know that. MR. TRAVER-Right. MR. SHAFER-With nothing but stumps. MR. TRAVER-Correct, but if they can argue that the engineering can support stormwater to do that, in an environmentally safe way, then they have a signoff from the engineer. MR. SHAFER-I’m sure they can make it work from a stormwater standpoint by clear cutting all 30 acres and they’ve shown they can do that. The question is is that the right approach we think for this particular parcel to be developed? MR. BARBER-Can I speak on that? MR. TRAVER-Yes, please do. State your name for the record if you would. MR. BARBER-Tim Barber from Native Development. This is an industrial piece of property. It’s not a residential piece of property. In order to market this property to the major players that we’re entertaining, they need to see it. They don’t want to just see the forest. They need to see the property. They need to walk it. They need to conceptually go over the whole thing. It’s not a Town park. It’s going to be cleared. We have all the engineering that supports it, and it’s a very important part of the marketing aspect of it to have our clients come out there and see it, not see a forest. MR. SHAFER-So you think a developer who wants to buy one of these parcels is going to think it looks better with a bunch of stumps than with the trees still there? MR. BARBER-You’re not going to see the stumps. They’/re going to be cut at grade level. It’s going to look like it’s cleared. It’s not going to be a disaster. It’s going to be a manicured site with the absence of trees. The stumps are going to be cut at ground level, as with all the shrubs and brush, and on this, if it makes you feel better, we could leave a 30 foot buffer at this time around the property line, which we can address as each parcel is developed, but it’s important to us to be able to show the entire property. Right now you go back there and there’s a forest. It’s very hard to show. MR. SHAFER-And a 30 foot buffer would leave enough of each of the other four lots open so that a developer could see it well enough to decide? MR. BARBER-Correct. MR. SHAFER-I think that’s a terrific idea, Mr. Chairman. MR. TRAVER-Yes, that’s a good suggestion. Yes. MR. BARBER-It would give us just the opportunity to, when we bring these people in, to look at the whole thing. MR. SHAFER-But the 30 foot buffer solves the issue of 30 acres of stumps. That’s a good idea. MR. BARBER-And I understand what you’re saying but I think once you see it, you’re not going to see erratic stumps up and down. It’s going to move or less look like a field. It’s going to be manicured. 11 (Queensbury Planning Board 05/18/2021) MR. TRAVER-Okay. MR. DEEB-Tim, I agree. I have to agree with you. It’s an industrial lot. It’s not, like you said a park, and people are going to expect that. So it’s out of view because it’s in the back, and it’s going to be cut eventually, and I’m optimistic. I think you’re going to be leasing those lots hopefully fairly quickly. MR. BARBER-I think they’re going to go fairly quick. MR. DEEB-So I don’t have a problem. I like the 30 foot buffer. MR. TRAVER-Yes. MR. DEEB-I do like that a lot and that’s a good suggestion, and that really calms me down. MR. HUNSINGER-Yes, thank you. MR. BARBER-Any other questions of me? MR. TRAVER-Any other questions specifically regarding environmental impacts? Okay. Thank you. All right. Well I guess our next action then is to consider SEQR. We talked about stormwater. The applicant has offered the 30 foot buffer. It was pointed out that if there are continuing, ongoing engineering issues that may impact, that may have environmental impacts, we may need to re-visit SEQR, but I think at this stage and with the further information offered by the applicant I’m comfortable moving forward with the environmental review, as long as it’s subject to review later if there are issues that are unresolved. So I think we have a draft resolution to that effect. RESOLUTION GRANTING A NEGATIVE SEQR DEC. SUB # 5-2021 PRELIM. STG. NATIVE The applicant proposes a five lot subdivision with road construction from the existing Native Road from Carey Road. Lot 1 – 11.15 acres, Lot 2 – 1.86 acres, Lot 3 – 8.41 acres, Lot 4 – 7.14 acres, Lot 5 – 3.77 acres. A road of 1.04 acres with a cul-de-sac to connect to the existing Native Drive road is proposed. The plans include conceptual building and lot design for each parcel. Project includes stormwater management, grading and erosion control. Site Plan review will be required for each parcel for future development. The existing 117,000 sq. ft. building on Lot 1 is to remain. Pursuant to Chapter 183 of the Zoning Ordinance, subdivision of land shall be subject to Planning Board review and approval. The Planning Board has determined that the proposed project and Planning Board action is subject to review under the State Environmental Quality Review Act; The proposed action considered by this Board is Unlisted in the Department of Environmental Conservation Regulations implementing the State Environmental Quality Review Act and the regulations of the Town of Queensbury; No Federal or other agencies are involved; Part 1 of the Long EAF has been completed by the applicant; Upon review of the information recorded on this EAF, it is the conclusion of the Town of Queensbury Planning Board as lead agency that this project will result in no significant adverse impacts on the environment, and, therefore, an environmental impact statement need not be prepared. Accordingly, this negative declaration is issued. MOTION TO GRANT A NEGATIVE DECLARATION FOR SUBDIVISION PRELIMINARY STAGE 5-2021 NATIVE DEVELOPMENT ASSOC., LLC. Introduced by David Deeb who moved for its adoption. As per the resolution prepared by staff. 1. Part II of the Long EAF has been reviewed and completed by the Planning Board. 2. Part III of the Long EAF is not necessary because the Planning Board did not identify potentially moderate to large impacts. th Motion seconded by Chris Hunsinger. Duly adopted this 18 day of May 2021 by the following vote: AYES: Mr. Dixon, Mr. Deeb, Ms. White, Mr. Shafer, Mr. Hunsinger, Mr. Traver NOES: NONE ABSENT: Mr. Magowan, Mr. Valentine 12 (Queensbury Planning Board 05/18/2021) MR. TRAVER-All right. So next we move on to Preliminary Stage Subdivision 5-2021, and I believe we have a resolution to that effect. RESOLUTION APPROVING SUB PRELIMINARY STAGE # 5-2021 NATIVE DEVELOPMENT A subdivision application has been made to the Queensbury Planning Board for the following: Applicant proposes five lot subdivision with road construction from the existing Native Road from Carey Road. Lot 1 – 11.15 acres, Lot 2 – 1.86 acres, Lot 3 – 8.41 acres, Lot 4 – 7.14 acres, Lot 5 – 3.77 acres. A road of 1.04 acres with a cul-de-sac to connect to the existing Native Drive road is proposed. The plans include conceptual building and lot design for each parcel. Project includes stormwater management, grading and erosion control. Site Plan review will be required for each parcel for future development. The existing 117,000 sq. ft. building on Lot 1 is to remain. Pursuant to Chapter 183 of the Zoning Ordinance, subdivision of land shall be subject to Planning Board review and approval. Pursuant to relevant sections of the Town of Queensbury Zoning Code-Chapter A-183, the Planning Board has determined that this proposal satisfies the requirements as stated in the Zoning Code; The requirements of the State Environmental Quality Review Act have been considered and the Planning Board has adopted a SEQRA Negative Declaration A public hearing was scheduled and held on 04/27/2021 & 5/18/2021; This application is supported with all documentation, public comment, and application material in the file of record; MOTION TO APPROVE SUBDIVISION PRELIMINARY STAGE 5-2021 NATIVE DEVELOPMENT ASSOC., LLC. Introduced by David Deeb who moved for its adoption. th Motion seconded by Michael Dixon. Duly adopted this 18day of May 2021 by the following vote: AYES: Mr. Deeb, Ms. White, Mr. Shafer, Mr. Hunsinger, Mr. Dixon, Mr. Traver NOES: NONE ABSENT: Mr. Magowan, Mr. Valentine MR. TRAVER-All right. Thank you, and next we move to the Final Stage where we have our conditions, and I know you’ve been working on a resolution. RESOLUTION APPROVING FINAL STAGE SUB # 6-2021 NATIVE DEVELOPMENT ASSOC. LLC A subdivision application has been made to the Queensbury Planning Board for the following: Applicant proposes five lot subdivision with road construction from the existing Native Road from Carey Road. Lot 1 – 11.15 acres, Lot 2 – 1.86 acres, Lot 3 – 8.41 acres, Lot 4 – 7.14 acres, Lot 5 – 3.77 acres. A road of 1.04 acres with a cul-de-sac to connect to the existing Native Drive road is proposed. The plans include conceptual building and lot design for each parcel. Project includes stormwater management, grading and erosion control. Site Plan review will be required for each parcel for future development. The existing 117,000 sq. ft. building on Lot 1 is to remain. Pursuant to Chapter 183 of the Zoning Ordinance, subdivision of land shall be subject to Planning Board review and approval. Pursuant to relevant sections of the Town of Queensbury Zoning Code-Chapter A-183, the Planning Board has determined that this proposal satisfies the requirements as stated in the Zoning Code; This application is supported with all documentation, public comment, and application material in the file of record; MOTION TO APPROVE SUBDIVISION FINAL STAGE 6-2021 NATIVE DEVELOPMENT ASSOC., LLC. Introduced by David Deeb who moved for its adoption. 1. The requirements of the State Environmental Quality Review Act have been considered and the Planning Board has adopted a SEQRA Negative Declaration; and if the application is a modification, the requirements of the State Environmental Quality Review Act have been considered, and the proposed modification\[s\] do not result in any new or significantly different environmental impacts, and, therefore, no further SEQRA review is necessary; 2. Waiver requests granted: sketch plan stage 3. Subdivision Plat to be filed consistent with Section 183-17 Submission and review procedures. 13 (Queensbury Planning Board 05/18/2021) 4. 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. 5. 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 6. Engineering sign-off required prior to signature of Planning Board Chairman. 7. If applicable, the Sanitary Sewer connection plan must be submitted to the Wastewater Department for its review, approval, permitting and inspection; 8. If curb cuts/road dedication are being proposed, added or changed Town Highway coordination and sign off are required. 9. 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 or for coverage under an individual SPDES prior to the start of any site work. b) The project NOT (Notice of Termination) upon completion of the project; and 10. The applicant must maintain on their project site, for review by staff: a) The approved final 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; and b) The project NOI and proof of coverage under the current NYSDEC SPDES General Permit, or an individual SPDES permit issued for the project. 11. Final approved plans, in compliance with the Subdivision, must be submitted to the Community Development Department before any further review by the Zoning Administrator or Building and Codes personnel. 12. The applicant must meet with Staff after approval and prior to issuance of Building Permit and/or the beginning of any site work. 13. Subsequent issuance of further permits, including building permits is dependent on compliance with this and all other conditions of this resolution; 14. As-built plans to certify that the subdivision is developed according to the approved plans to be provided prior to issuance of the certificate of occupancy; 15. Site plan review for each lot development and modifications to existing building or site. 16. A six foot (tall) 800 foot (long) stockade fence to be put up when the lots are developed (along property line adjacent to residential use –west property line). 17. A 30 foot tree buffer to remain on the north, west, and south side of the 33 acre lots (buffer to be revisited for each lot during site plan review). th Motion seconded by Chris Hunsinger. Duly adopted this 18 day of May 2021 by the following vote: MR. DEEB-And 16., a six foot stockade fence of 800 feet to be put up when trees are cleared, and 17., a 30 foot tree buffer to remain on each of the lots. MR. TRAVER-Until they’re developed. Right? MR. DEEB-Yes. Okay. Until development. MR. DIXON-Mr. Secretary, did we want to do anything as far as that stockade, the beginning point and the end point? MR. DEEB-I don’t know. MR. PALLESCHI-We’ll certainly add that to the plan. Just to clarify when to install the stockade fence, would that be after like the 30 foot comes in now? Because now we have a 30 foot buffer, and I think it would be difficult to put the fence in through trees. MR. DEEB-Yes, okay. Let me re-phrase that, a six foot stockade fence of 800 feet to be put up when the trees are cleared. 14 (Queensbury Planning Board 05/18/2021) MR. HUNSINGER-You can just say when the lot’s developed. MR. DEEB-Okay. When the lots are developed. MR. TRAVER-All right. So we have an amended motion. Do we have a second? MR. HUNSINGER-I’ll second. MR. TRAVER-Any further discussion? MRS. MOORE-In reference to the 30 foot buffer, are you talking the perimeter of the main lot or each lot? He has five lots proposed. Are you talking 30 feet at the corner of each lot or at the perimeter of the entire 30 acres? MR. DEEB-I was under the impression it was each lot? MR. PALLESCHI-The perimeter of the 30 acres. MR. DEEB-All right. MR. TRAVER-Yes, that’s what I was assuming. MR. DEEB-Okay. Let me amend this. MR. PALLESCHI-I’m just stating this, even though the residential is only in that northwest corner. I thought that was the most, but you’d like to do it around the whole thing. MR. DEEB-Yes. Okay. A 30 foot tree buffer to remain on the perimeter of the 33 acres. MR. DIXON-Can I say one more thing, just to, I think the easternmost part that’s facing really all the commercial property would not need a buffer there. If we’re just talking buffer, I would just say the north, west and south, instead of the whole perimeter. I don’t know what your thoughts are on that. That way anybody driving in for a commercial property, they will see the entire lay of the land as they’re driving in there. I just want to be reasonable. MR. HUNSINGER-I think that’s acceptable. MR. DEEB-I’m okay with that. I think Tim would be okay with that. MR. TRAVER-So it’s three of the four sides. MR. DEEB-Yes. MR. BARBER-If I could clarify. It would be the north side, the west side and the south side. We’re not touching the east side. MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. MR. DEEB-Is that okay? MR. TRAVER-Yes. MS. GAGLIARDI-Could you possibly just reach through the motion again, just so that I know. MR. DEEB-Yes. Let me go through it again. I’ll do the whole thing. MRS. MOORE-I’d just like you to identify that I understand that you’re asking for that stockade fence when that particular lot of trees is cleared. When that particular lot does come in, that waiver request comes back to this Board about the buffer requirement so that will be re-visited. So I would encourage you to identify that in some way. Because otherwise you’re granting that six foot stockade fence. Site Plan Review may have additional requirements for the lots that are facing the residential area. If you don’t wish to do that, that’s fine. MR. TRAVER-So you’re suggesting that we set that aside for now and deal with that as they come in? MR. HUNSINGER-Well that’s what we did anyway. They’re not going to put it up until that lot gets developed. 15 (Queensbury Planning Board 05/18/2021) MRS. MOORE-Right. I mean I’d hate to have you lose it from the resolution. MR. DEEB-So you want to delete it from the resolution? MRS. MOORE-No, leave it in. MR. DEEB-Okay. MR. HUNSINGER-I just think that’s a good point, though, that Laura makes. MR. DEEB-Yes, it is. MR. TRAVER-Yes. We’ll re-visit that as they come in. MR. DEEB-We still would re-visit it. MR. TRAVER-Yes, and they won’t be doing it anyway I’m sure until after they have site plan. MR. DEEB-And it can be modified, right, Laura? MRS. MOORE-Yes. MR. DEEB-Okay. MR. TRAVER-But, yes, good point. AYES: Mr. Deeb, Ms. White, Mr. Shafer, Mr. Hunsinger, Mr. Dixon, Mr. Traver NOES: NONE ABSENT: Mr. Magowan, Mr. Valentine MR. TRAVER-You are all set. MR. BARBER-Thank you. MR. DEEB-Good luck. I hope you fill up quick. MR. BARBER-I hope so. MR. TRAVER-All right. Next under Tabled Items we have Dark Bay Properties, LLC, Site Plan Modification 27-2021. SITE PLAN MODIFICATION 27-2021 SEQR TYPE: TYPE II. DARK BAY PROPERTIES, LLC. AGENT(S); HUTCHINS ENGINEERING. OWNER(S): SAME AS APPLICANT. ZONING: WR. LOCATION: 3300 STATE RT. 9L. APPLICANT PROPOSES INSTALLATION OF 790 SQ. FT. DRIVEWAY SPUR FROM THE EXISTING DRIVEWAY AREA OF 3,770 SQ. FT. TO ALLOW FOR SMALL EQUIPMENT STORAGE FOR PROPERTY MAINTENANCE. THE PROJECT ALSO INCLUDES INSTALLATION OF RETRACTABLE ALUMINUM STAIRS ON AN EXISTING PIER FOR THE NORTHEAST SWIMMING COVE AREA. THE EXISTING BUILDINGS ON THE SITE ARE TO REMAIN. PURSUANT TO CHAPTER 179-9-120 OF THE ZONING ORDINANCE, MODIFICATIONS TO AN APPROVED SITE PLAN AND HARD SURFACING WITHIN 50 FEET OF SHORE SHALL BE SUBJECT TO PLANNING BOARD REVIEW AND APPROVAL. CROSS REFERENCE: SP 4-2008, SP 33-2017, AV 31-2017, NO 1-2018. WARREN CO. REFERRAL: APRIL 2021. SITE INFORMATION: LGPC, APA, CEA. LOT SIZE: 1.81 ACRES. TAX MAP NO. 239.18- 1-27.1. SECTION: 179-9-120. GREG TERESI, REPRESENTING APPLICANT, PRESENT MRS. MOORE-So I’ll start off. This application was tabled at the previous month’s meeting because it was recognized that there’s two lots involved and I noted that as part of this application that because of its location for zoning and planning purposes it’s viewed as one lot, but there are two lots as part of this project. One portion of the lot is to build a 790 square foot paved area, and then the other part of the lot is to improve a swimming area with a picnic area and aluminum stairs to the shoreline. MR. TRAVER-Okay. Thank you, Laura. Good evening. MR. TERESI-Good evening. Greg Teresi. I’m a member of Dark Bay Properties and a resident for the last six years of the principle site. The larger of the two lots which is the SBL number is 27.1. The reason that 16 (Queensbury Planning Board 05/18/2021) I filed this application on behalf of the company is the wooded lot, which is part 27.1 and the entire portion of 27.2 is it’s, in my opinion, been neglected over the years. There are two large debris piles that were just left there by the previous owner probably when they first went to put in the driveway about 10 years ago and probably when they did some landscaping work in between the two principle structures. I want to be able to access the property with a small tractor, a skid steer, to be able to remove those large debris piles. There’s also a tremendous amount of blow down. Anybody that drove by the property would have seen a large white pine, probably this big around, that cuts through the middle of the property running to the east. I’d like to be able to get that out of there, try to promote some new growth, some new trees to continue the privacy between my property and the neighbor to the east, Chris Freihofer. The other reason that I wanted to access that land is there’s an old stone house that was there. Chris Freihofer thinks that it was an ice house at one point. When it deteriorated and fell down there was all kinds of concrete and tanks and stuff that really probably shouldn’t be there. My wife and I just had our first son about eight months ago and have visions of him someday, although not too soon, playing in those woods and taking advantage of nature, and there’s concerns between my wife and I as to some of these tanks and getting into trouble playing around them. The second part of the application is there’s, as indicated on the map, on 27.2 there’s an existing set of stairs that have been there for probably, if I have to guess maybe 50 plus years. Over the years the stairs have deteriorated to the point where they’re really not usable. There’s a nice sandy beach area on that portion of our bay that, again, with the mindset of trying to raise our son and teach him how to swim and things like that, we’d like to be able to access that or have him be able to access that under our supervision. So we’d like to bring those stairs back in to some usable form, and then the third component is just above those stairs the terrain isn’t the best. Over the years part of the reason that the stairs have deteriorated is that the erosion on the embankment is probably maybe a 15 foot embankment has created for, in my estimation, an unstable and unsafe area. So I would like to take some of the existing stone that’s on the property. Some of the native stone built up kind of a little bit of a two foot wall at its highest and we’re trying to level that off so that when you’re accessing the stairs you’re not going down into a deep ravine so that it’s safe to access those stairs. And the other part of the plan is to , although not before the Board, but just in the spirit of full disclosure, is just to remove a lot of the dead trees that are lying dead and try to clean it up a little bit, promote some new growth, some new vegetation. I’m actively pursuing a forester to come in and give me some advice and guidance on how to properly manage the woods and sort of add something to the lake. Any questions? MR. TRAVER-Before we get to questions, I want to advise the public that we will be holding a public hearing on this application. In fact we’ll open it right now. If you wish to address this application with the Planning Board and make public comment by phone, the phone number to call is 518-761-8225. With that we’ll ask for questions, comments from members of the Board. PUBLIC HEARING OPENED MR. SHAFER-There was a note on the plan by the steps which says to be permitted by the Lake George Park Commission. Could you update us on where that stands? MR. TERESI-Sure. I did reach out to Joe Thouin with the Lake George Park Commission and advised him of my desire to put a set of aluminum retractable stairs in there, and Mr. Thouin has indicated that because it’s not a permanent structure in the lake and it can be removed, that it would not need Park Commission approval. MR. TRAVER-Anything else? We do have a public hearing on this application as I mentioned. Is there anyone in the audience that wanted to address the Planning Board on this application? Yes, ma’am. Good evening. AMANDA KUKLE MS. KUKLE-Good evening. My name is Amanda Kukle. I’m an attorney with Caffry & Flower. We are representing the neighbor, Charles Freihofer. We are not opposing the proposed physical changes to the land. However, before this application can be approved the applicant must do two things. Both are related to the 2020 judgment from the Supreme Court which confirmed this Board’s decision that these two tax parcels that comprise the project site were merged into a single lot and that the smaller lot is not a buildable lot as previously mentioned. So to that end there’s two things that we would like to see done before this gets approved. First, the site plan should be revised to show that the two tax map parcels are a single lot for zoning purposes. In an earlier letter it was pointed out that the site plan did reflect the properties were still owned by different parties. They’re now owned by the same party, but it does not show that the lots are merged. So to fix this for example the plan should not be showing two separate side yard setbacks for the two tax map lot numbers like it does on this plan. It should just be around the perimeter. These internal lines were added to the revised site plan so we’re not on the original and so they should be removed because as it stands looking at this, this is misleading as to what you can do on the lots. Second the applicant must combine the two tax map lots by recording a merger deed that combines the properties. A deed has been recorded that conveyed the smaller parcel to Dark Bay so that the parcels do share ownership again, but that deed did not include merger language so that the property record just reflects that there’s a single owner with two neighboring lots, not that it’s a single lot for zoning purposes. Now 17 (Queensbury Planning Board 05/18/2021) the reason that this is important is that until there is a deed showing that these have been merged the property record reflects this error and that false idea would then be reinforced by a site plan on record showing the side yard setbacks as though they were not a single lot. So this has happened before and the client does not want this to happen again and have to re-litigate this settled matter. So the lack of a merger deed and a revised site plan leave the door open for a mess down the line with potential future owners. Now the court upheld the Board’s decision that the parcels were merged, but that decision didn’t necessarily provide a step by step process for how to implement its holding, like even conveying the property back into a single ownership, but that is obviously something that is necessary to implement the holding. Likewise a merger deed is necessary to implement that holding that upheld this Board’s decision. So our argument is let’s do this right and avoid a headache in the future and we’re requesting that you not approve the site plan until the site plan application reflects that it’s a single lot for zoning purposes and that a merger deed has been filed. We don’t want an error staying on the property. MR. TRAVER-So in short your representation to us is that the plan before us is inaccurate in that it shows two lots when in reality there is only one? MS. KUKLE-Correct, and to avoid future issues down the line with another owner coming in and trying to build on that smaller lot again you should take care of this now and avoid a mess in the future. MR. TRAVER-Anything else? MS. KUKLE-No, those are our sole two issues. MR. TRAVER-Okay. Thank you. MS. KUKLE-Thank you. MR. TRAVER-So, Laura, there is evidently, I’m not sure what your records show, what Town records show, if it’s, in fact, recorded that this lot’s status has changed from two to one? Apparently this has been adjudicated? MRS. MOORE-So my understanding of my discussion with Craig, and I believe the same will come from the applicant, is that for the purposes of Planning and Zoning, it’s treated as one lot. It’s not required for the applicant to merger them to be recorded as one lot. MR. TRAVER-So you’re saying that it’s okay for the applicant to represent it as two lots when that’s not accurate? MRS. MOORE-It’s not being represented as two lots. There are two lots, however, for the purposes of Planning and Zoning, it’s treated as one lot. So in reference to, so the whole lot is 1.8 acres, and maybe it’s more of a legalese item, but my understanding is the applicant doesn’t need to merge them to say that there’s one whole parcel. MR. TRAVER-So the position is that it is two lots and not as public comment represented that in fact it is not two lots, it is one lot? MR. TERESI-I think the distinguishing factor, and just in the spirit of full disclosure, I’m one of the attorneys that litigated this in court. So I’m well versed in what Mr. Caffry’s office is presenting. What the court had indicated is that for zoning purposes the two lots are to be treated as one. I still have two separate SBL’s. I still have two separate lot descriptions for the two lots, and I still get taxed on two separate lots. The court decision didn’t say these lots need to be merged, a corrective deed needs to be filed. What the court indicated was hat I’m not able to build on the smaller lot, the 27.2. When Mr. Caffry, when I was on the agenda a month ago, had initially said well you’re showing these all as one lot. That’s not correct. They’re in two separate names. At the time it was still, the smaller lot was still in my partner’s name, personally, and the larger lot was in the name of the LLC. So what I did was I went and I had my partner sign a deed to deed the property over to the LLC. So now both lots are in the name of the LLC. The Town Code has a provision that if you have two lots that are owned and are adjacent in a Critical Environmental Area, that they’re treated as one. So if somebody was to come before you, similar to this, and was to have two lots that are owned in the same name, they would have to represent to the Board, to the Planning Board or to the Zoning Board, these for zoning purposes are treated as one lot, and the map isn’t intended to deceive. I certainly could amend the map if that’s a condition that the Board wants to reflect that it’s one lot. I thought I was advancing Mr. Caffry’s position by showing that it technically is two SBL’s, two section, block and lots, two lots that have two separate descriptions, but again the position from the Town, and I would agree with that position and it supports the decision that came out of Judge Auffredou and the Supreme Court is that these two lots for zoning purposes are treated as one. MR. TRAVER-Okay. So it sounds as though the issue that this Board is not concerned with tonight is a civil matter and for Planning and Zoning purposes what we have before us can be fully considered by this Board regardless of those civil matters that may be pending. 18 (Queensbury Planning Board 05/18/2021) MR. DEEB-They would have to be settled afterwards, after the decision of this Board. MR. TRAVER-Yes, it doesn’t impact on this site plan. MR. DEEB-Right. MR. TERESI-Correct. MR. TRAVER-Okay. Thank you. Questions, comments from members of the Board? MR. HUNSINGER-Well, I think that the logical question is to ask him if he has any opposition to merging the two lots. MR. DEEB-He said he would. MR. TRAVER-Well what does that have to do with this application? MR. TERESI-I don’t have any opposition to the site map being shown as one whole. What I’m not fan of doing is having to go back and file new deeds after I’ve jumped through all kinds of hoops on Mr. Caffry’s part just to try to make him happy which I was told by the Town I didn’t have to do, but, you know, the two deeds don’t have to read as one is merged to the other. The decision from the court doesn’t indicate that, but for the Town zoning purposes, separate and apart from what the SBL’s are and the legal descriptions of the lots, the Town Code indicates that they’re to be treated as one for zoning purposes. So if it’s the preference of the Board that these lots for zoning purposes are shown as one for clarification. MR. TRAVER-Well that’s not typically how we see property. I mean if they’re two lots with one owner they’re shown as two lots with one owner. MRS. MOORE-However, this is where this comes in, if it was challenged, and therefore when the evaluation of this property came before Judge Auffredou, it was determined that it be treated as one lot and that’s how it’s been read according to the Town. It’s not something that we have seen before. This is the first time we’re seeing this after that decision. MR. TRAVER-Right. MR. DEEB-Greg, I thought I heard you, maybe I heard you wrong. I thought you said you’d amend the deed to show one lot. MR. TERESI-No, I don’t mind amending the map itself, for the purposes of Planning Board review, but to me the decision from the court want these two lots need to be merged. That’s not what the decision says. What the decision says is that these two lots are to be treated as one for zoning purposes such that a house could not be built on that smaller lot. MR. DEEB-And you’re opposed to merging the two lots into one. MR. TERESI-I don’t think that that’s relevant for what’s. MR. TRAVER-They’re not merged now as we sit here. MR. DEEB-Right, and it’s not relevant to us. I understand that. MR. TRAVER-Right, if we change the map to make it appear that it’s one lot when it’s really two, then we’re not going to accurately be seeing what is represented. I mean we haven’t done that with other applications. MR. DEEB-So it’s not necessary for him to even do that, even though he suggested he would. So it sounds to me that once this is acted upon that whatever happens between you and the other, and the neighbor, the law firm, is something you have to settle on your own. We can’t get into the middle of it. MR. SHAFER-The same person owns both lots. He can do anything he wants with it. MR. DEEB-I understand that, but I guess what she was saying if he sells one lot. MR. SHAFER-What is the issue here? MR. TERESI-Yes. I mean for lack of a better word, , to me it’s extreme paranoia that if I sell one lot and without the other lot and that new buyer comes in and tries to do something on the smaller lot, but that’s not what’s before you today. 19 (Queensbury Planning Board 05/18/2021) MR. DEEB-I understand that. MR. TERESI-Technically what I could have done is file two separate applications for each lot. That way one lot wouldn’t have anything to do with the other lot because the two site plans, one is entirely on its own site for the stairs and the wood chip area, little picnic area as I call it, and the other part of the application is relative to the driveway which is again on its own separate lot entirely. MR. DEEB-Speaking of the woodchip, I did have a question before all this started. That woodchip area is near the fence. You’re putting this near the fence? MR. TERESI-Yes, sir. MR. DEEB-And what are you going to use that for again? MR. TERESI-A little picnic area, just at the top of the stairs. MR. DEEB-So you can be down by the lake. MR. TERESI-Correct, yes. So if the boy wanders down there swimming, mama bear’s got a chair that’s overlooking. MR. DEEB-Okay. Are there any written comments, Laura? MRS. MOORE-There are written comments. This one is from the Lake George Waterkeeper. It’s dated th May 17. “The above referenced Site Plan Modification application was personally reviewed in my capacity as a licensed professional engineer and the Lake George Waterkeeper. The Waterkeeper appreciates the applicant's amendment to the application to satisfy conditions of prior approval (Site Plan Review 4/22/08) by planting trees on the fill slope. The Waterkeeper questions the necessity and purpose of the proposed project, especially installing 8 feet of fill on steep slopes within the Critical Environmental Area surrounding Lake George and whether the intent for the project could be facilitated by using the existing driveway. The Lake George Waterkeeper requests the Planning Board apply the Town's regulations, specifically §179-6, during your deliberations regarding the above referenced Site Plan Modification application.” MR. TRAVER-Okay. Thank you, Laura, and you have reviewed that, correct, as part of the application process? MRS. MOORE-Right. So just a note, Amanda read this into the record, but there is a letter submitted by Caffry & Flower. MS. KUKLE-I have a few points I’d like to clarify if I could very briefly. MR. TRAVER-Yes, we’ll allow it. Go ahead. I would also add that we have had some discussion about the civil matter that you brought to our attention this evening, and it is our position that that does not have an impact on what we have before us this evening. So you need not go through that again. MS. KUKLE-Yes. Okay. Well first to the status of the civil matter. It’s not ongoing. A judgment was th issued and has been filed, not appealed, and a copy of that decision was attached to the April 20 letter that was submitted, and to quote from Page Seven, the court finds that the ZBA’s decision that the project lot and Dark Bay lot merged and that the project lot, is not a legal buildable lot, and that was a reasonable interpretation. So to the extent that you are limiting it just for zoning purposes , that’s not necessarily this decision. Those are just the two points, the decision as to the merger of these two lots that have been merged since 1973 according to the courts and that litigation is submitted.. MR. TRAVER-Okay. Thank you. With that we’ll close the public hearing. PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED MR. TRAVER-This is a Type II under SEQR. Did you finish reading public comment, Laura, or are there additional? MRS. MOORE-I did. There is no more public comment. MR. TRAVER-Okay. Does the Board have any other questions for the applicant? MR. DIXON-I do have one, just for clarification. So just for my understanding, the driveway, we’ve got it in our notes that there’s going to be 790 square feet of new asphalt put down. Where is that on the plans? Because I see the gravel access drive. 20 (Queensbury Planning Board 05/18/2021) MR. TERESI-Correct. That is the proposal is the gravel. Again, I call it an auxiliary driveway so that I can get the equipment down in there and get tree stumps and old remnants of the trees and the tanks out of there. It’s not going to be an asphalt driveway. The application was for a crushed stone driveway. MR. DIXON-All right. Thank you. MR. TRAVER-Any other questions, comments? Okay. I guess we are ready for a resolution, then, on this application. RESOLUTION TO APPROVE SP MOD # 27-2021 DARK BAY PROPERTIES, LLC The applicant has submitted an application to the Planning Board: Applicant proposes installation of 790 sq. ft. driveway spur from the existing driveway area of 3,770 sq. ft. to allow for small equipment storage for property maintenance. The project also includes the installation of retractable aluminum stairs on an existing pier for the northeast swimming cove area. The existing buildings on the site are to remain. The project includes work on two separate parcels – driveway 27.1 –swimming area 27.2. Pursuant to Chapter 179-9-120 of the Zoning Ordinance, modifications to an approved site plan 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 opened a public hearing on the Site plan application on 04/20/2021 and continued the public hearing to 05/18/2021, 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 05/18/2021; 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 MODIFICATION 27-2021 DARK BAY PROPERTIES, 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/denied; g. site lighting, h. signage, k. topography, l. landscaping, n traffic, o. commercial alterations/ construction details, p floor plans, q. soil logs, r. construction/demolition disposal s. snow removal. The waivers requested are reasonable as these items are typically associated with commercial projects. The applicant has provided stormwater details for the new driveway area. 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; 21 (Queensbury Planning Board 05/18/2021) ii. The project NOI and proof of coverage under the current NYSDEC SPDES General Permit, or an individual SPDES permit issued for the project if required. g) Final approved plans, in compliance with the Site Plan, must be submitted to the Community Development Department before any further review by the Zoning Administrator or Building and Codes personnel; h) The applicant must meet with Staff after approval and prior to issuance of Building Permit and/or the beginning of any site work; i) Subsequent issuance of further permits, including building permits is dependent on compliance with this and all other conditions of this resolution; j) As-built plans to certify that the site plan is developed according to the approved plans to be provided prior to issuance of the certificate of occupancy. k) This resolution is to be placed in its entirety on the final plans th Motion seconded by John Shafer. Duly adopted this 18 day of May 2021 by the following vote: MR. HUNSINGER-So I just want to re-visit the legal question again. If we have it, well it is reflected in the record in the minutes, but if there should be any reference in the motion. I guess I’m just having a difficult time reconciling knowing that there is an action that may or may not have been taken. MR. DEEB-We’re not to consider it as part of zoning and planning and I think the matter’s been settled legally. It’s been done. MR. TRAVER-We’ve been instructed that for planning and zoning purposes we consider it one lot. It’s a moot issue, but it’s good to clarify. MR. HUNSINGER-Yes, I mean it wouldn’t change the site plan at all. MR. DEEB-No. MR. HUNSINGER-And I certainly don’t have any issues with the site plan. just that issue. MR. TRAVER-And there is information now in the record regarding the existence of this civil issue. AYES: Ms. White, Mr. Shafer, Mr. Hunsinger, Mr. Dixon, Mr. Deeb, Mr. Traver NOES: NONE ABSENT: Mr. Magowan, Mr. Valentine MR. TRAVER-You’re all set. The next section of our agenda is Planning Board recommendations. The first item is Stephen A. Burnett, Trustee, Site Plan 28-2021, and this is also under Unapproved Development. PLANNING BOARD RECOMMENDATION UNAPPROVED DEVELOPMENT: SITE PLAN NO. 28-2021 SEQR TYPE: TYPE II. STEPHEN A. BURNETT, TRUSTEE. AGENT(S): HUTCHINS ENGINEERING – TOM HUTCHINS. OWNER(S): THE BURNETT FAMILY TRUST. ZONING: WR. LOCATION: 11 ANDREW DRIVE. APPLICANT PROPOSES TO COMPLETE WORK ON AN EXISTING 1.5 STORY CABIN. THE EXISTING CABIN FOOTPRINT IS 1,365 SQ. FT. AND PROPOSED IS 1,312 SQ. FT.; THE CABIN FLOOR AREA IS TO BE 1,793 SQ. FT. THE SITE HAS AN EXISTING HOUSE ON THE PROPERTY WITH A FOOTPRINT OF 1,496 SQ. FT.; TOTAL SITE FLOOR AREA IS 4,641 SQ. FT. AND PROPOSED IS 4,985 SQ. FT. THE APPLICANT HAD STARTED WORK IN 2019 AND WAS ISSUED A TOP WORK ORDER. A PORTION OF THE EXISTING HOME WAS DAMAGED BY A TREE AND IS NOW BEING RECONSTRUCTED; THE EXISTING DECK HAS BEEN REMOVED AND A NEW SMALLER DECK IS TO BE CONSTRUCTED. THE INTERIOR MAIN FLOOR AND BASEMENT AREA ARE TO BE RENOVATED; THIS INCLUDES THE FOUNDATION AND WALL SUPPORTS. EXTERIOR IMPROVEMENTS INCLUDE A NEW ENTRY ROOF FEATURE, DOORS, AND SLIDER DOORS ON LOWER LEVEL. PURSUANT TO CHAPTER 179-6-065 & 179-13-010 OF THE ZONING ORDINANCE, NEW FLOOR AREA IN A CEA AND EXPANSION OF A NON- CONFORMING STRUCTURE SHALL BE SUBJECT TO PLANNING BOARD REVIEW AND APPROVAL. VARIANCE: RELIEF IS SOUGHT FOR SETBACKS. PLANNING BOARD SHALL PROVIDE A RECOMMENDATION TO THE ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS. CROSS REFERENCE: SUB 14-2015, SUB 8-2015, AV 51-2015, PZ 21-2015, 2004-677 DOCKS, AV 27-2021. WARREN CO REFERRAL: MAY 2021. SITE INFORMATION: LGPC, APA, CEA. LOT SIZE: 1.28 ACRES. TAX MAP NO. 239.18-1-12. SECTION: 179-6-065, 179-13-010. TOM HUTCHINS, REPRESENTING APPLICANT, PRESENT 22 (Queensbury Planning Board 05/18/2021) MR. TRAVER-:Laura? MRS. MOORE-So this application is to complete work on an existing one and a half story cabin. The footprint is 1,365 square feet and the proposed is 1,312 square feet and the floor area is 1,793 square feet. There is an existing house on the site. This project has been under a Stop Work Order and the applicant is proposing to complete this project . The house was damaged by I believe a falling tree and the applicant started work. In addition to the work on that side of the cabin, there was work started in the interior and there’s still work to be completed on it. The basement area is now considered to be new floor area as part of this project. The variance being requested is for this north side where 22.8 feet is proposed and 25 feet is required. MR. TRAVER-Thank you, Laura. And I’ll just note for the public that there is no public hearing on this application this evening because they are not here for site plan review. They’re here for a recommendation to the Zoning Board of Appeals on the variance. Good evening. MR. HUTCHINS-Good evening. My name’s Tom Hutchins, Hutchins Engineering, here on behalf of the Burnett Family Trust and its principle trustee now of Stephen Burnett, and this property, as it existed, goes back in the family to he said before the 1920’s. It’s had some generational hand downs. They’re both very old structures and in the early 2000’s, there were two brothers, Stephen and his brother who kind of each had the domain of one house and one brother used one house and the other brother used the other house and at that point in 2015 they actually applied for a subdivision and there were variances involved . They wanted to split them, separate the properties. One brother wanted to do something different with it and one didn’t. That variance was denied to allow subdivision of the property so the two families could have their own piece. So to make a long story short, Stephen Burnett ended up acquiring the other brother’s share of the property. So he and the Burnett Family Trust are now the owners of the entire property which contains two residences. The cabin that the other brother’s domain was in rough shape when he acquired it. Subsequently there was some more damage. A tree landed on it and they did initiate some repairs at that point to try to dry it up and clean it up. MR. TRAVER-Yes, it sounds like more than repairs. MR. HUTCHINS-The work snowballed, no doubt, and this was over a considerable period of time. So where we are now is they’re under Stop Work for any building work so that we can get resolved with Planning and Zoning as well as Codes. The building plans have been updated and they’re ready for review. They are proposing to re-build on the footprint as it has historically existed with the exception that actually a deck will be made a little bit smaller. What Laura mentioned with floor area, there’s a basement, a partial basement, underneath that sits on, it’s on a fair slope. There’s a partial basement underneath and a full main floor. So we’re proposing to renovate, re-construct a portion of it that was badly damaged on the identical footprint it’s historically had. In order to do that the northerly setback is 22.8 feet where 25 is now required. MR. TRAVER-And because you’re on the same footprint that setback remains the same as it was before the damage occurred. Correct? MR. HUTCHINS-That setback remains the same. MR. TRAVER-Okay. MR. HUTCHINS-So we’re modifying a non-conforming structure technically. So Mr. Burnett, I talked to him again today and he just wants to clean this up and move on and try to make this a functional building. So with that I guess I’d listen to any comments and hopefully we can get a favorable recommendation to the Zoning Board. MR. TRAVER-Okay. Thank you. So, again, for the Board as noted the variance is for 22.8 feet where 25 feet is required. With that we’ll open it up to questions, comments from members of the Board. MR. SHAFER-That’s the only variance? MR. TRAVER-That’s it. Yes, and they’re not increasing it. They’re not decreasing it, but they’re using the same footprint. So it would remain the same if it was approved. MR. DEEB-Tom, when you started working that was because there was a tree that had fallen on it and it had to be done I would assume. MR. HUTCHINS-Yes, the building needed work. It needed work and subsequently there was additional damage when a tree fell on it. I don’t know the extent of it. This has been going on for years. MR. DEEB-You don’t know if it started before the tree fell or after the tree fell? 23 (Queensbury Planning Board 05/18/2021) MR. HUTCHINS-The work? To be perfectly honest, I don’t know. It’s been going on for several years and I’ve been involved for a few months. MR. DEEB-Okay. MR. HUNSINGER-I remember the subdivision because I remember the story. They were brothers. MR. TRAVER-Yes, that wasn’t that long ago. MR. HUNSINGER-Yes. No, it was a while ago. MR. DEEB-Yes, I remember that. MR. DIXON-But these two properties, are they sharing one septic system? I see the one for? MR. HUTCHINS-No, there’s another existing septic system serving the other house that they full intend to upgrade, but he’s just trying to take things one step at a time. MR. TRAVER-That’s not part of this application. MR. HUTCHINS-Right. There will be a new septic system serving the cabin that is this application. MR. DIXON-Okay. MR. TRAVER-Any concerns on maintaining the existing setback? All right. Does anyone have any concerns that they want to reflect in a referral to the ZBA regarding the variance? Well I guess we’re ready to hear that motion then. RESOLUTION RE: ZBA RECOMMENDATION RE: AV # 27-2021 STEPHEN A. BURNETT, TRUSTEE The applicant has submitted an application for the following: Applicant proposes to complete work on an existing 1.5 story cabin. The existing cabin footprint is 1,365 sq. ft. and proposed is 1,312 sq. ft.; the cabin floor area is to be 1,793 sq. ft. The site has an existing house on the property with a footprint of 1,496 sq. ft.; total site floor area is 4,641 sq. ft. and proposed is 4,985 sq. ft. The applicant had started work in 2019 and was issued a stop work order. A portion of the existing home was damaged by a tree and is now being reconstructed; the existing deck has been removed and a new smaller deck is to be constructed. The interior main floor and basement area are to be renovated; this includes the foundation and wall supports. Exterior improvements include a new entry roof feature, doors and slider doors on lower level. Pursuant to Chapter 179-6-065 & 179-13-010 of the Zoning Ordinance new floor area in a CEA and expansion of a non-conforming structure shall be subject to Planning Board review and approval. Variance: Relief is sough for setbacks. Planning Board shall provide a recommendation to the Zoning Board of Appeals. The Town of Queensbury Zoning Ordinance, per Section 179-9-070 J 2 b. requires the Planning Board to provide a written recommendation to the Zoning Board of Appeals for projects that require both Zoning Board of Appeals & Planning Board approval; The Planning Board has briefly reviewed and discussed this application, the relief request in the variance application as well as the potential impacts of this project on the neighborhood and surrounding community, and found that: MOTION TO MAKE A RECOMMENDATION ON BEHALF OF THE PLANNING BOARD TO THE ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS FOR AREA VARIANCE NO. 27-2021 STEPHEN A. BURNETT, TRUSTEE. Introduced by David Deeb who moved for its adoption, and a) The Planning Board, based on a limited review, has not identified any significant adverse impacts that cannot be mitigated with current project proposal. th Motion seconded by John Shafer. Duly adopted this 18 day of May 2021 by the following vote: AYES: Mr. Hunsinger, Mr. Dixon, Mr. Shafer, Ms. White, Mr. Deeb, Mr. Traver NOES: NONE ABSENT: Mr. Magowan, Mr. Valentine MR. TRAVER-You’re off to the ZBA. Next on our agenda also under Planning Board recommendations to the Zoning Board of Appeals, is John Graziano, Site Plan 30-2021. 24 (Queensbury Planning Board 05/18/2021) PLANNING BOARD RECOMMENDATIONS TO THE ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS: SITE PLAN NO. 30-2021 SEQR TYPE: TYPE II. JOHN GRAZIANO. AGENT(S): NICHOLAS ZEGLEN, EDP. OWNER(S): SAME AS APPLICANT. ZONING: WR. LOCATION: 195 ASSEMBLY POINT ROAD. APPLICANT PROPOSES RESIDENTIAL ADDITIONS TO AN EXISTING HOME OF 1,900 SQ. FT. FOOTPRINT/3,137 SQ. FT. FLOOR AREA. THERE IS TO BE A TWO STORY ADDITION OF 886 SQ. FT. FOOTPRINT, A SINGLE STORY OF 124 SQ. FT. FOOTPRINT MASTER BATHROOM ADDITION, AND A 344 +/- SQ. FT. ROOF AREA OVER THE EXISTING FRONT PORCH. THE NEW FLOOR AREA IS TO BE 4,699 SQ. FT. PURSUANT TO CHAPTER 179-3-040, 179-13-010, 179-6-065 & 179-5-020 OF THE ZONING ORDINANCE, EXPANSION OF A NON-CONFORMING STRUCTURE IN A CEA AND NEW FLOOR AREA IN A CEA SHALL BE SUBJECT TO PLANNING BOARD REVIEW AND APPROVAL. VARIANCE: RELIEF IS SOUGHT FOR SETBACKS, FLOOR AREA AND SHED LOCATION. PLANNING BOARD SHALL PROVIDE A RECOMMENDATION TO THE ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS. CROSS REFERENCE: 2011-003 DOCK, SEP-80-2-2021, AV 31-2021. WARREN CO. REFERRAL: MAY 2021. SITE INFORMATION: LGPC, APA, CEA. LOT SIZE: .48 ACRE. TAX MAP NO. 226.19-2-1. SECTION: 179-3-040, 179-13-010, 179-6-065, 179-5-020. CLARK WILKINSON, REPRESENTING APPLICANT, PRESENT MR. TRAVER-Laura? MRS. MOORE-This applicant proposes residential additions to an existing home of 1,900 square feet and a floor area of 3,137 square feet. There is to be a two story addition of 886 square feet, a single story of 124 square feet and the existing porch would be covered at 344 square feet. The variance being sought is for setbacks. MR. TRAVER-Okay. Thank you. Good evening. MR. WILKINSON-Good evening. My name is Clark Wilkinson with the Environmental Design Partnership representing this project for John Graziano. We’re here tonight to get a recommendation for the ZBA. As Laura indicated, the lot is 22,835 square feet. There is a two story addition proposed at the rear of the house towards the road. This is one of those weird lots on Assembly Point where Assembly Point Road is actually in between the house and the lake. This project is, again, a two story addition, two bay garage on the bottom with living space above. The other proposal is for the deck to be a covered deck increased to match some of the architecture, and that’s where we’re getting into the variance request. The existing deck exists at 6.7 feet from the property line to the north, and with the proposed addition to that covered deck we’re changing that down to five feet from that line. The project also includes elimination of a large amount of impervious area. We’re proposing to bring the impervious area down approximately one percent. So we’re increasing the green space on this property, and also the project includes a new Clarus type septic system. Again the Board is familiar with those. We’ve presented them from our office a number of times. They’re very top of the line septic systems that we feel is going to work best in this case. This project meets all setbacks from the lake and all other setbacks to the property except for that north side that’s going from 6.7 to 5 feet. We also note that there was a letter, I don’t know if it was submitted to Laura or not, but it was a letter from an adjoining owner to the north in favor of the project. We wanted to make sure that if she didn’t have it that we put it into the record. So with that I’ll turn it over to the Board for questions. MR. TRAVER-Okay. Thank you, and again I’ll remind the public that this is a recommendation to the ZBA. Therefore there will be no public hearing this evening. Once they’re through the ZBA they will be back for Site Plan Review and at that time there will be public comment. I’ll open it up for questions and comments from the Board regarding the variance for setbacks, floor area, and shed location. MR. WILKINSON-Floor area is not required. MR. TRAVER-Unless my notes are wrong. MR. DEEB-I don’t believe that’s part of this one. MR. WILKINSON-We have a total of 4700 and we’re allowed 4,000. MS. WHITE-The Staff Notes do state floor area. Setbacks, floor area and shed location. MR. TRAVER-Yes. I guess that’s a typo. MS. WHITE-I guess I’ll ask the question of Laura, too. It’s not a huge difference, but in one reference we have .48 acres and then there’s .52 acres. Why do we have two here? 25 (Queensbury Planning Board 05/18/2021) MR. TRAVER-Well the agenda, in addition to the setback variance, the agenda talks about floor area ratio and shed location. MRS. MOORE-Okay. So the shed location has been resolved. MR. WILKINSON-That’s right. I forgot to mention that. MRS. MOORE-And then. MR. WILKINSON-Floor area ratio, we’re below. MRS. MOORE-You’re below. So there’s not a floor area issue at this time. MR. TRAVER-Okay. MR. WILKINSON-So it’s just that setback issue. MR. TRAVER-Just the setback. MR. WILKINSON-To get into a little more discussion about the shed. The shed we show proposed behind the driveway there, between the driveway and the septic, that currently exists close to the south property and it exceeds 120 square feet. So it was built without a permit, so we’re picking it up and moving it to make sure it meets all setbacks. MR. TRAVER-Understood. Okay. All right. So the only thing left that we have is the variance and the increase in the variance from 6.5 to 5 feet in the setback. Right> MR. WILKINSON-Correct. MR. TRAVER-Okay. All right. Questions, comments from the Board on that variance request? MR. HUNSINGER-I don’t have an issue with the variance, but one of the questions that I have with all of the, really most of the properties along that road, the way the water sheds down off the, you know, down the hill across the road into the lake and you know you’re bringing in the pervious pavers to help with that, but I just wonder, you know, with the driveway and the front lawn, if there’s other things that you could do. MR. WILKINSON-We included that in a set of drawings that we showed pictures along that frontage, and the property currently meets the requirements of the waterfront buffer with all the current plantings that are there. MR. HUNSINGER-Right. MR. TRAVER-Other questions, concerns regarding the variance? MR. DEEB-Not the variance, but there is a note from Staff about reminding the applicant for Thursday that all fixtures, light fixtures have to be Code compliant. MS. WHITE-Laura, I was just curious why the Staff Notes say .52 acre parcel and on the agenda it’s a .48 acre. I know it’s not a lot, but I was just curious. MRS. MOORE-So what’s going on is one’s referring to a survey and one is looking at the GIS acreage. So because the road is down in there the GIS acreage actually doesn’t account for the roadway. MS. WHITE-Okay. Thank you. I just wanted to understand. MR. TRAVER-Interesting. All right. Does anybody have any concerns that we want to communicate to the ZBA in our referral? I’m not hearing any, but I just thought I’d ask to be sure. Hearing none, I guess we’re ready for that motion. RESOLUTION RE: ZBA RECOMMENDATION RE: AV # 31-2021 JOHN GRAZIANO The applicant has submitted an application for the following: Applicant proposes residential additions to an existing home of 1,900 sq. ft. footprint/3,137 sq. ft. floor area. There is to be a two story addition of 886 sq. ft. footprint, a single story of 124 sq. ft. footprint master bathroom addition, and a 344 +/- sq. ft. roof area over the existing front porch. The new floor area is to be 4,699 sq. ft. Pursuant to Chapter 179-3-040, 179-13-010, 179-6-065 & 179-5-020 of the Zoning Ordinance, expansion of a non-conforming structure in a CEA and new floor area in a CEA shall be subject to Planning Board review and approval. Variance: Relief 26 (Queensbury Planning Board 05/18/2021) is sought for setbacks, floor area and shed location. Planning Board shall provide a recommendation to the Zoning Board of Appeals. The Town of Queensbury Zoning Ordinance, per Section 179-9-070 J 2 b. requires the Planning Board to provide a written recommendation to the Zoning Board of Appeals for projects that require both Zoning Board of Appeals & Planning Board approval; The Planning Board has briefly reviewed and discussed this application, the relief request in the variance application as well as the potential impacts of this project on the neighborhood and surrounding community, and found that: MOTION TO MAKE A RECOMMENDATION ON BEHALF OF THE PLANNING BOARD TO THE ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS FOR AREA VARIANCE NO. 31-2021 JOHN GRAZIANO. Introduced by David Deeb who moved for its adoption, and a) The Planning Board, based on a limited review, has not identified any significant adverse impacts that cannot be mitigated with current project proposal. th Motion seconded by John Shafer. Duly adopted this 18day of May 2021 by the following vote: AYES: Mr. Dixon, Mr. Deeb, Ms. White, Mr. Shafer, Mr. Hunsinger, Mr. Traver NOES: NONE ABSENT: Mr. Magowan, Mr. Valentine MR. TRAVER-You’re off to the ZBA. MR. WILKINSON-Thank you for your time. MR. TRAVER-Next also under Planning Board Recommendations, San Souci, Site Plan 33-2021 and Special Use Permit 2-2021. SITE PLAN NO. 33-2021 SPECIAL USE PERMIT 2-2021 SEQR TYPE: TYPE II. 333 CLEVERDALE, LLC/SAN SOUCI AGENT(S): HUTCHINS ENGINEERING – TOM CENTER. OWNER(S): SAME AS APPLICANT. ZONING: WR. LOCATION: 333 CLEVERDALE ROAD & 337 CLEVERDALE ROAD. APPLICANT REQUESTS APPROVAL OF OUTDOOR SEATING AREA TO INCLUDE EXISTING FOUR 6 PERSON PICNIC TABLES AND ONE TABLE FOR 4 PERSONS ON THE RESTAURANT PARCEL AND THE FIVE TOP TABLES FOR 4 PERSONS EACH ON THE ADJOINING PARCEL. PURSUANT TO CHAPTER 179-3-040 & 179-4-090 OF THE ZONING ORDINANCE, FOOD SERVICE IN A WR ZONE SHALL BE SUBJECT TO PLANNING BOARD REVIEW AND APPROVAL. VARIANCE: RELIEF IS SOUGHT FOR PERMEABILITY AND PARKING. PLANNING BOARD SHALL PROVIDE A RECOMMENDATION TO THE ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS. CROSS REFERENCE: SUP 45- 2009, SUP 9-2012, AV 28-2012, AV 28-2021, AV 32-2021. WARREN CO. REFERRAL: MAY 2021. SITE INFORMATION: LGPC, APA, CEA. LOT SIZE: .27 ACRE & .15 ACRE. TAX MAP NO. 226.12-1-43, 226.12-1-44. SECTION: 179-3-040, 179-4-090. JON LAPPER & TOM CENTER, REPRESENTING APPLICANT, PRESENT MR. TRAVER-Laura? MRS. MOORE-This applicant requests approval for parcel 333 and 337. One is the restaurant building and the other is the residential property. They’re requesting outdoor seating area be included on both parcels and variances are needed for the residential parcel. There’s an existing what appears to be garage which is pretty much used as a storage shed, it just has a six foot width door which is triggering it to be a garage. The issue is there was a deck expansion at some point. I’ve identified those reliefs for storage items. In addition to floor area on the residential lot, setbacks and parking and the variance for the restaurant parcel. MR. TRAVER-Thank you. Good evening. MR. LAPPER-Good evening everyone. For the record, Jon Lapper with Tom Center from Hutchins Engineering. So this is kind of a big story. MR. DEEB-Complicated. MR. LAPPER-More than usual. The Sans has been there since 1913 as I understand it, and it functions in the southern basin of the lake as a social gathering place, not everyone on the same night, because it’s not 27 (Queensbury Planning Board 05/18/2021) that big, but everyone on Cleverdale, Assembly Point, Pilot Knob and going down Dark Bay to the Village, it’s always operated that way. It’s been owned by a number of people over a number of years for a significant number of years. Then somebody else would be sort of brave enough to take it over and maybe lose money or just make a little bit just because it just sort of works with everybody. So Larry Clute was the prior owner and I guess what Laura’s referring to is a deck or shed or garage was moved there for storage. It was before the current applicants owned it. So about three years ago, 2018, about six families got together and said Larry’s sort of getting tired of owning it at this point and we want to make sure it stays as the same use and gets approved, and so they all pooled their resources. They bought the restaurant and also the A Frame which is the 333 and 337 building next door. I know you’re all familiar with where it is, but this is on the inside between Mason Road and Cleverdale Road. So it’s not anything on the lake. It doesn’t affect the lake and as part of the improvements that Larry did when he owned it, it now has holding tanks. I’m not sure that Laura said that in reference to septics. It has holding tanks. So it’s not any issue in terms of effect on the lake of that. The way it functions, and it’s all like white haired guys like me. It’s not a loud place. It’s not a bunch of kids. It’s all my friends that bought it, but the way it functions is that people pull up and park, double park because there’s very limited parking, and they’ll say, you know, there’s a white Toyota that has to be moved. It just kind of works, and a lot of people walk there. People drive, too, but a lot of people walk there from Cleverdale, and it’s always worked that way. The applicants bought it before COVID, cleaned up the inside re-painted it, carpeted it. It looks a lot sharper than it did. So during COVID, like everywhere else, they were allowed to have outdoor seating and still do, and this application is essentially to make the outdoor seating permanent because it works really well on the lot. Not only is it between the roads and not near the lake, in terms of the neighbors there’s parking on both sides of Mason Road, on the top of Cleverdale Road and on the bottom, and the seating area is in between the parking. So it’s important for owners to have the outdoor seating because it’s just a nice thing to have and we think that going forward even after everybody’s hopefully vaccinated they’re still going to be more comfortable being outdoors. So the kitchen is limited. It’s not going to dramatically increase in terms of capacity. It’s still going to take a while to get your burger, but it’s just to have a nicer area outside. So that’s the story. I know that there were dozens of letters from people that may not have come to you for this, but they’ll come to you after the Zoning Board. Because at the Zoning Board, and a lot of people weighed in and said this is important to us. So with that I’ll let Tom come up and just talk about the specifics of the permeability and the parking numbers. MR. TRAVER-Okay. Thank you. While he’s doing that, I’ll also advise the public that this also being a referral to the ZBA does not have a public hearing this evening. So just note that if you would. Good evening. MR. CENTER-Good evening. Tom Center with Hutchins Engineering. As Jon said, the tavern parcel is probably the easiest parcel. The only variance we’re looking for there is for the parking for less than the required number of spaces, and that would explain how they manage the parking for that parcel. However there’s no hard surface. There’s no new work proposed at all with this project. This is to use the existing surfaces on both lots. So there’s nothing hat this owner has done to change those things. The patio was existing when he bought it. It actually dates back, I believe, to 2008, 2012 if you look at the GIS. As far as the tavern parcel, we looked at the holding tank capacity. They used water saving fixtures. They don’t use a lot of water. For a restaurant you’d think there’d be a ton, but there’s actually capacity, there’s more than enough capacity for the existing seating, plus the new seating to manage what they’re looking to do here with the factor of safety built in also. So they have done a great job of water saving. That was one of the things we did focus on is the holding tank capacity. As far as the residential parcel, the variances that are there regarding permeability which includes the patio that was built that kind of borders both of the residential and the tavern parcel where the seating is to occur and the driveway, the hard surface for the garage also factors into the permeability. The deck has to be treated as a front setback because you have part of the deck that would be a 30 foot setback for the Cleverdale Road side and then the other side is the rear setback. So there’s two setback variances for the deck and there’s also two setback from the side, two sides, the side and the front for the garage, and the last variance really is just the five acres for the Special Use Permit that we have for the San Souci lot. So it’s pretty straightforward. Again, there is no new hard surface proposed. They want to use the existing areas that are there for the outdoor seating. MR. TRAVER-Okay. Thank you. Questions, comments from members of the Board. MR. DEEB-Just a comment. The San Souci is kind of an iconic institution on Cleverdale, like you said, 1913. I remember when I was a kid I used to go there, and it’s been interesting, I’ve been on the Board now, 10, 12 years. How many times have we seen them come up here and it’s like they, I mean the size of the property limits everything that you can do and yet it has such allure in the area that we have to look at it somewhat through jaded eyes some times. So it’s interesting. I just wanted to say how many times it’s come up and how many owners it’s had over so many years, but it is an institution, an iconic institution on Cleverdale so I guess we give it consideration every time it comes up. That’s all I’ve got to say. MR. TRAVER-Any other questions, comments leading to a referral to the ZBA on these variances. MR. SHAFER-Tom, I notice one of the tables is right at the bottom of the entrance steps. I assume that can be moved? 28 (Queensbury Planning Board 05/18/2021) MR. CENTER-Yes. MR. SHAFER-See it right at the bottom of the steps? MR. CENTER-Yes. MR. DEEB-The other thing I wanted to say it’s amazing how the residents all self-police themselves when it comes to parking. So even though there are parking regulations it seems that you have solved a lot of that with the people coming up, supposedly. MR. TRAVER-Yes, they just manage it as best they can. MR. DEEB-Yes. MR. HUNSINGER-I mean the concern that I have, I mean I’m all in favor of temporary approvals during COVID. I don’t think we do enough to help our hospitality industry get through the impacts of COVID. So I can’t say enough how much I would support that. The question, though, is by adding tables aren’t you going to make the parking situation worse? Once we get into, well starting tomorrow. MR. CENTER-Well this is a unique situation for them because it’s a neighborhood place where they have a lot of foot traffic to that, to the Cleverdale. It’s not something where, I live down in Glens Falls I’m going to drive all the way out to Cleverdale to go out to eat there. It’s more of a neighborhood, you think of it more as a neighborhood place that they have there and the system that they have there of pulling cars forward, you can’t claim it, from an engineer’s standpoint, from a design standpoint you can’t claim it as parking, but they do double park. They do all kinds of things that you wouldn’t normally see that works for the San Souci that has worked since it’s been there. So I guess that’s, the parking situation, if somebody sees that there’s no parking, they go somewhere else. There’s no other place. MR. TRAVER-And there’s no changes proposed to the ability to serve additional? MR. CENTER-No, no. There’s no additional capacity with the kitchen. There’s none of that. That’s all done. That capacity isn’t increasing. I think it became a factor talking with a few of the owners and talking with Jon is that during COVID they had the opportunity to put the tables out there. It had a huge effect that people really liked it. The owners thought, let’s get permission to use this area. It was already on another parcel. They own both parcels together and that certainly could be conditioned that they have to continue to own both parcels and to have it on there. It just became accepted. I don’t believe there were any complaints that were issued to the Town during this time. It’s been a year now. It’s gone through a whole season. So I guess from their point of view it’s like, hey, let’s get permission to do this for a time, and do it reasonably. I think what they’re looking at it as what works for them and what was out there and to be reasonable about what they’re asking for, in the space that they already have at least when they purchased it. MR. DEEB-Tom, one of the things, the site plan lighting for the site hasn’t been provided. We may request clarification on outdoor lighting. MR. CENTER-As a matter of fact when we talked to one of the owners yesterday one of the neighbor’s complaints was about one of the spotlights which they actually did change the direction of the spotlight, but certainly we can put a condition on there to do downcast lighting. That’s not an issue. MR. DEEB-Lighting should be compliant. MR. HUNSINGER-Yes, we often skip over lighting and you said, well it’s going to be residential lighting, but I can tell you there’s a house not too far from here, I run real early in the morning and they have two spotlights. They’re on a corner lot and they just blind you. I mean if you’re driving your car or you’re walking down the street you’re completely blinded. They’re residential spotlights. MR. CENTER-Certainly that one in particular we can change to a downcast light. MR. DEEB-Well, I think all the lighting should be Code compliant. MR. HUNSINGER-That’s a site plan item. MR. DEEB-I understand. I wanted to mention it now. MR. DIXON-=Are you proposing any changes to the hours of operation? MR. CENTER-No, they’ll be the same. 29 (Queensbury Planning Board 05/18/2021) MR. DEEB-So the tables have been tested already. MR. CENTER-The picnic tables and the patio tables have been tested. MR. DEEB-And you didn’t see a dramatic change in parking. MR. TRAVER-Anything that we want to include in our referral to the ZBA? I’m not hearing anything, but I wanted to ask. All right. I guess we’re ready for that referral motion. RESOLUTION RE: ZBA RECOMMENDATION RE: AV # 28-2021 CLEVERDALE, LLC/SAN SOUCI The applicant has submitted an application for the following: Applicant requests approval of outdoor seating area to include existing four 6 person picnic tables and one table for 4 persons on the restaurant parcel and the five top tables for 4 persons each on the adjoining parcel. Pursuant to Chapter 179-3-040 & 179-4-090 of the Zoning Ordinance, food service in a WR zone shall be subject to Planning Board review and approval. Variance: Relief requested is sought for floor area, density, permeability and parking. 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. 28-2021 333 CLEVERDALE, LLC / SAN SOUCI. Introduced by David Deeb who moved for its adoption, and a) The Planning Board, based on a limited review, has not identified any significant adverse impacts that cannot be mitigated with current project proposal. th Motion seconded by Chris Hunsinger. Duly adopted this 18 day of May 2021 by the following vote: AYES: Mr. Dixon, Mr. Hunsinger, Mr. Shafer, Ms. White, Mr. Deeb, Mr. Traver NOES: NONE ABSENT: Mr. Magowan, Mr. Valentine MR. TRAVER-You’re off to the ZBA. The next item on our agenda, also under referral to the Zoning Board of Appeals, is Town Fair Tire, Site Plan 32-2021. SITE PLAN NO. 32-2021 SEQR TYPE: TYPE II. TOWN FAIR TIRE. OWNER(S): OMALL FAMILY LTD. PARTNERSHIP. ZONING: CI. LOCATION: 863 STATE ROUTE 9. APPLICANT PROPOSES TO REMOVE AN EXISTING 2,740 SQ. FT. BUILDING TO CONSTRUCT A NEW 7,269 SQ. FT. TIRE SALES AND SERVICE FACILITY. THE PROJECT INCLUDES NEW PARKING AREA, STORMWATER MANAGEMENT, LIGHTING AND LANDSCAPING. PURSUANT TO CHAPTER 170-3-040 OF THE ZONING ORDINANCE, NEW COMMERCIAL USE AND BUILDING IN THE CI ZONE SHALL BE SUBJECT TO PLANNING BOARD REVIEW AND APPROVAL. VARIANCE: RELIEF IS SOUGHT FOR BUILDING SETBACKS. PLANNING BOARD SHALL PROVIDE A RECOMMENDATION TO THE ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS. CROSS REFERENCE: AV 21-1999, AV 16-1996, SP 20-1999, SP 39-2019, AV 30-2021. SITE INFORMATION: TRAVEL CORRIDOR. LOT SIZE: 1.24 ACRES. TAX MAP NO. 296.17-1-34. SECTION: 179-3-040. JON LAPPER, REPRESENTING APPLICANT, PRESENT MR. TRAVER-Laura? MRS. MOORE-In reference to the project, they’re proposing to remove a 2,740 square foot building and construct a new 7,269 square foot building for operation of tire sales and service facility. Relief is sought for setbacks. I do note that, under discussion, a discussion on buffer landscaping, location of bays, retaining wall information and service bay signage and lighting, and I had a discussion with Jon so he understands some of those other items that may be coming up. MR. TRAVER-Okay. Thank you. Good evening. 30 (Queensbury Planning Board 05/18/2021) MR. LAPPER-Good evening. I was expecting Rob and John from Town Fair, but the only variance is the front setback to the road and it’s going to be moving closer, one foot closer from where the Pizza Hut is now and it’s probably better for the neighbor, the residential neighbors in the back, if the building is closer to the road, closer to Route 9. This is a very unique business in terms of other tire centers. It’s fancy wheels and tires and the front is a showroom. You can pick what you want and there’s six bays just for tires. They don’t do oil changes. They don’t do any of that. They just do tires and wheels and alignments. So the front is a retail store and in the back there are six bays that face the back and we’re asking about that because they’re facing the residential, but it’s all air conditioned and the doors come down. They never leave the doors open. It’s very professionally done. The other thing that happened here is the existing owner, when they bought Pizza Hut last year, they took down a bunch of pine trees, the big dangerous pine trees that could fall because they’re so heavy, and Craig called and said they weren’t supposed to. That’s a buffer area. So in the contract it says the buyer’s going to remedy that with a proposed fence and a whole lot of plantings and we’ll be back to talk to you about that after the Zoning Board. The only thing for the Zoning Board is just the front setback because it’s again closer to the road about a foot closer than Pizza Hut is. It would probably be better to have it closer to the road. MR. TRAVER-Well it certainly will be nice to see a new use for that property. So, okay, so we’re looking at the variance that’s a one foot additional. Was there a, well I guess the Pizza Hut was there for so long there probably never was an original variance for that setback. MR. LAPPER-Probably not, yes. MR. TRAVER-Okay. All right. Questions, comments from members of the Board? MR. DIXON-I don’t think they’re asking for much on the setback. It’s variance related only. I have no issue. MR. TRAVER-Okay. MR. DIXON-I will make a comment, totally unrelated to the variance. I did go to Rhode Island over the weekend and I made it a point to stop by the Town Fair Tire just to see what it looked like. MR. LAPPER-Was it nice, neat and clean? MR. DIXON-It was, very attractive building. MR. TRAVER-That’s good. MR. DIXON-I didn’t go there just for that. MR. DEEB-So I assume the noise level won’t be that great if the doors are down all the time, air conditioning. MR. LAPPER-The doors will always be closed. That can be conditioned, but that’s just what happens. MR. TRAVER-Any concerns? Anything that we want to express to the ZBA? I guess we’re ready for a referral, then. RESOLUTION RE: ZBA RECOMMENDATION RE: AV # 30-2021 TOWN FAIR TIRE The applicant has submitted an application for the following: Applicant proposes to remove an existing 2,740 sq. ft. building to construct a new 7,269 sq. ft. tire sales and service facility. The project includes new parking area, stormwater management, lighting and landscaping. Pursuant to Chapter 179-3-040 of the Zoning Ordinance, new commercial use and building in the CI zone shall be subject to Planning Board review and approval. Variance: Relief is sought for building setbacks. Planning Board shall provide a recommendation to the Zoning Board of Appeals. The Town of Queensbury Zoning Ordinance, per Section 179-9-070 J 2 b. requires the Planning Board to provide a written recommendation to the Zoning Board of Appeals for projects that require both Zoning Board of Appeals & Planning Board approval; The Planning Board has briefly reviewed and discussed this application, the relief request in the variance application as well as the potential impacts of this project on the neighborhood and surrounding community, and found that: MOTION TO MAKE A RECOMMENDATION ON BEHALF OF THE PLANNING BOARD TO THE ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS FOR AREA VARIANCE NO. 30-2021 TOWN FAIR TIRE. Introduced by David Deeb who moved for its adoption, and 31 (Queensbury Planning Board 05/18/2021) a) The Planning Board, based on a limited review, has not identified any significant adverse impacts that cannot be mitigated with current project proposal. th Motion seconded by John Shafer. Duly adopted this 18 day of May 2021 by the following vote: AYES: Mr. Shafer, Mr. Hunsinger, Mr. Dixon, Mr. Deeb, Ms. White, Mr. Traver NOES: NONE ABSENT: Mr. Magowan, Mr. Valentine MR. TRAVER-You’re off to the ZBA. MR. LAPPER-Thank you, everybody. See you Thursday. MR. TRAVER-Okay. Next we move into New Business, and the first item is Chris Racicot, Site Plan 35- 2021. NEW BUSINESS: SITE PLAN NO. 35-2021 SEQR TYPE: UNLISTED. CHRIS RACICOT. AGENT(S): NICHOLAS ZEGLEN, EDP. OWNER(S): ALDRICH, LLC. ZONING: MS. LOCATION: 20 & 18 ½ NEWCOMB STREET. APPLICANT PROPOSES CONSTRUCTION OF A 14 UNIT TWO STORY TOWNHOUSE BUILDING OF 12,740 SQ. FT. FOOTPRINT, 23,400 SQ. FT. FLOOR AREA. EACH UNIT WILL HAVE A GARAGE AND A PATIO AREA. PURSUANT TO CHAPTER 179-3-040, 179- 5-090, 179-5-100, 179-7-070 & 179-8-050 OF THE ZONING ORDINANCE NEW RESIDENTIAL BUILDING OF 14 UNITS SHALL BE SUBJECT TO PLANNING BOARD AND OTHER DEPARTMENT REVIEWS. CROSS REFERENCE: SP 45-2008, 2009-039 COMM. ALT. SP 35- 2009, 94663-4008 RES. ADDITION, 2005-494 PARTIAL GARAGE DEMO, DISC 1-2021. WARREN CO. REFERRAL: MAY 2021. SITE INFORMATION: MAIN STREET ZONING. LOT SIZE: 1.04 ACRES, .43 ACRES. TAX MAP NO. 309.10-1-60, 309.10-1-63. SECTION: 179-3-040, 179-5-090, 179-5-100, 179-7-070, 179-8-050. MICHAEL O’CONNOR, REPRESENTING APPLICANT, PRESENT MR. TRAVER-This is another application for which there will be coordinated review and I want to note for the public’s information, there is a public hearing scheduled for this evening and we will open the public hearing but the Planning Board, the only action we’re going to be taking this evening is to request Lead Agency status. We will not be reviewing the project until it returns to us, we believe in June, next month. So just to make a note of that for the public hearing, and good evening. PUBLIC HEARING OPENED MR. O'CONNOR-Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Michael O’Connor with the firm of Little & O’Connor representing the applicant. The applicant is proposing construction of a 14 unit , two story townhouse building of 12,740 square feet. The footprint would be 23,400 floor area. Each unit will have its own garage and patio area and if you’ve been up to the site and seen what is proposed here it’s a great improvement to what used to be an auto repossession yard. To put this together, apparently at one time Craig had a question about access to the building. That’s going to go the length of the property into the property, and we worked out an exchange of easements between the owner of the main site and the owner of the property behind where they have given each other easements so that they can have a hammerhead turnaround to allow vehicles to, emergency vehicles, fire trucks, to go down the driveway and then back in to the other person’s property to go back out. So I think we’ve solved that problem. We have talked to the Town about an out of district sewer agreement and we are working on that. The two owners of the various parcels are cooperating even on that. And the project would certainly be an improvement to that neighborhood. I went up tonight and tried to talk to the one other person that’s affected, Rita Hayes, but she was not home. We really don’t affect anybody significantly. If you have questions, we’ll try to answer them. Clark is here. He’s the engineer for the project. MR. TRAVER-Okay. Well this evening our action is really only to initiate the Lead Agency status application and then the clock is ticking and we’ll be looking at it formally next month. Is that not correct, Laura? MRS. MOORE-That’s correct. You don’t have to wait the 30 days if all parties consent, and so my hope is that the Town Board does and DEC is also a party to this. So my hope is that this can be completed within 30 days so that we can get it back in in June. 32 (Queensbury Planning Board 05/18/2021) MR. TRAVER-So we’ll see it next month. MR. O'CONNOR-Thank you very much. MR. TRAVER-And I believe we have a resolution to that effect. MR. DEEB-Mike, when you come back, I just wanted to let you know, before we do this, on the SEQR resolution Question Number 20, you might want to check that. You answered yes and you didn’t give any explanation. MR. O'CONNOR-What’s the question number? MR. DEEB-Twenty. Just go over that, okay. MR. O'CONNOR-Okay. I think we also have to come back for another submittal to Chazen. MR. DEEB-Yes. They had 15 of them, but I wanted to remind you of that now so when you come back it will be done. MR. O'CONNOR-Yes, thank you for your comment. MR. DEEB-All right. The applicant has submitted an application to the Planning Board: SEQR: Planning Board seeks Lead Agency status with coordinated review. Applicant proposes construction of a 14 unit two story townhouse building of 12,740 sq. ft. footprint, 23,400 sq. ft. floor area. Each unit will have a garage and a patio area. Pursuant to Chapter179-3-040, 179-5-090, 179-5-100, 179-7-070 & 179-8-050 of the Zoning Ordinance new residential building of 14 units shall be subject to Planning Board and other department reviews. WHEREAS, the Planning Board of the Town of Queensbury has determined to begin an environmental review process under the State Environmental Quality Review Act (SEQRA). WHEREAS, the Planning Board of the Town of Queensbury has identified the project to be an Unlisted action for purposes of SEQR review pursuant to 6 NYCRR 617. WHEREAS, the Planning Board is the agency most directly responsible for approving the action because of its responsibility for approving the land uses for the property. NOW, THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED, the Planning Board of the Town of Queensbury hereby indicates its desire to be lead agency for SEQRA review of this action and authorizes and directs the Zoning Administrator to notify any other potentially involved agencies of such intent. MOTION TO SEEK LEAD AGENCY STATUS IN CONNECTION WITH SITE PLAN 35-2021 CHRIS RACICOT. Introduced by David Deeb who moved for its adoption, seconded by Chris Hunsinger: As per the draft resolution prepared by staff. th Duly adopted this 18 day of May 2021 by the following vote: AYES: Mr. Shafer, Mr. Hunsinger, Mr. Dixon, Mr. Deeb, Ms. White, Mr. Traver NOES: NONE ABSENT: Mr. Magowan, Mr. Valentine MR. TRAVER-All right, and then the last item on our agenda is under a Discussion Item. So again there is no public hearing on this. We’re looking at CVE North American, Inc. Discussion Item 3-2021. DISCUSSION ITEM: DISCUSSION ITEM 3-2021 SEQR TYPE: UNLISTED. CVE NORTH AMERICA, INC. OWNER(S): FOREST ENTERPRISES MANAGEMENT. ZONING: CLI, CI. LOCATION: QUEENSBURY AVENUE/QUAKER RIDGE BLVD. APPLICANT PROPOSES A SOLAR FARM ON SITE 303.11-1-4.1, WITH ACCESS BY RIGHT OF WAY THROUGH PARCEL 303.15-1-25.2. PURSUANT TO CHAPTER 179-5-140 OF THE ZONING ORDINANCE, SOLAR FARMS SHALL BE SUBJECT TO PLANNING BOARD REVIEW AND APPROVAL. PROJECT IS BEFORE THE BOARD FOR A SKETCH PLAN DISCUSSION. CROSS REFERENCE: N/A. WARREN CO. REFERRAL: N/A. LOT SIZE: 80 ACRES/6.39 ACRES. TAX MAP NO. 303.11-1-4.1, 303.15-1-25.2. SECTION: 179-5-140, 179-9-040. 33 (Queensbury Planning Board 05/18/2021) CARSON WEINAND , REPRESENTING APPLICANT, PRESENT MR. TRAVER-Laura? MRS. MOORE-The applicant proposes a 7.megawatt dc community solar farm on an 80 acre parcel. The project has several components. At this time parcel 305.15- 1-25.2 is zoned commercial intensive and a solar farm is not a listed use as of yet, and in reference to parcel 4.1 wetlands were found. The materials were submitted to you. So the project may be subject to additional wetlands. Other things that come up, as I’ve noted in the Staff Notes, this is the first the first project we have under our new guidance where Solar Farms are subject to site plan and special use permit. MR. TRAVER-Okay. Thank you, Laura. Good evening. MR. WEINAND-Does anybody not have a copy of our project description or the site plan? All right. I’m Carson Weinand with CVE. Thanks for having us. Nice to meet you. I drove up from New York City earlier today. That’s my team. Actually champion with Nixon Peabody, their counsel, Lou with Techtonic, our Civil Engineer and then a gentleman who’s internal CVE. MR. TRAVER-Just note that we are still operating under COVID guidelines. So if you could wear your mask, please. MR. WEINAND-Okay. Sure. MR. TRAVER-Thank you. MR. WEINAND-So, yes, we just wanted to take this opportunity to have a sketch meeting with the Board, introduce the project to you. It’s a seven megawatt dc five megawatt ac community solar farm. We executed site control with Richard Laasko with Forest Enterprises, you know, mid last year, end of last year and we’ve been designing the plans and working out all the kinks to get here up until this point. Access will be off of Quaker Ridge Road. The main parcel is situated right behind the Walmart. That parcel is zoned commercial light industrial and the active parcel also owned by Richard Laasko of Forest Enterprises is zoned commercial intensive. So we’ll be seeking a re-zoning for that parcel. A little bit about CVE. I skipped over that, but just a little context. We’re about a 25 person community solar developer based out of New York City. We’re part of a larger company called CVE Group. There’s 200 employees worldwide. We have over 440 megawatts worldwide, and we have about 50 megawatts in permitting right now in Upstate New York. So we have projects in all communities, solar projects of similar size in Queensbury, in Manlius, in Wheatfield, in Cortland down in Westchester and another project in the Town of Brunswick. Community solar means the local residents can subscribe and participate in the project. We’re able to deliver monthly savings of 10% to their utility bills. Anybody with a credit score of 650 or higher can participate and we’ll target residents closest to the site first. So residents in the Town of Queensbury will get access to the credits first and from there we’ll move further out. The project is currently designed with a grass access road that maybe if you have questions about that Lou can talk further about that in more detail, and all of our projects, part of our green initiative at CVE is that we have pollinator friendly vegetation underneath the panels. So a bed of grasses and flowers, and then we also make a donation to a local environmental agency or group or project, one dollar per panel. So there’s probably about 12, 13,000 panels here. So we’ll make a donation locally of about $12 to $13,000, and I think that’s the gist, that’s an overview. I’ll stop there and see if you have any questions. We’ve got, we submitted an interconnection application with National Grid and we got positive results back a couple of months ago. So interconnection is not an issue. We’re actually crossing through a National Grid right of way. Behind that Walmart there’s a big high transmission line and we’re actually connecting underground. There’s another set of power lines underground that is a voltage that works for our system. So we’re planning to connect there. Substation is maybe a half a mile east of the property. So it’s a really good site for interconnection, and it’s definitely out of view, out of sight. It’ll be out of sight and out of mind. I drove to the site this afternoon to get a look at it and it’s hidden behind the brush behind the Walmart pretty well. MR. DEEB-I think the site is a good spot for it. I like that. MR. HUNSINGER-How close is it to the Cedar Swamp? MR. WEINAND-To the what? I’m sorry. MR. HUNSINGER-To The Great Cedar Swamp. MR. WEINAND-I’m not sure. Is that maybe northwest of the property? Because I know there’s some wetlands. It gets pretty damp on the northwestern edge. I know it’s just south of that County airport. MR. HUNSINGER-Yes. 34 (Queensbury Planning Board 05/18/2021) MR. WEINAND-And we’re getting, performing as we speak a glare study to help provide some documentation, some context around that. MR. TRAVER-Yes, that north/south runway is the one that’s primarily used. So that’s going to be a potential problem for pilots coming in. MR. WEINAND-Sure. Yes. We’re performing a glare study. We’re also getting structure height confirmation from the FAA which I know doesn’t deal with glare, but they give it non-interference declaration. MR. TRAVER-Well there’s a height limitation in any case. MR. WEINAND-Right. MR. TRAVER-Have you made a point of studying the new part of 179 in our Code? MR. WEINAND-No. MR. TRAVER-Okay. You might want to familiarize yourself with that obviously. That has a number of issues in there that will be part of any approval obviously. MR. HUNSINGER-It can’t be more than 12 feet high. MR. WEINAND-Okay. That shouldn’t be a problem. We’ll be about eight and a half to nine feet high. MR. DEEB-I think the Code was just written. MR. TRAVER-I think the height is not to exceed 12 feet. MR. DEEB-One of the questions I have is, your pilot program, I see Queensbury did not want to partake in that, Queensbury School District. Any comments on that? I’d like to know Queensbury’s reasoning also. Obviously more money. MR. WEINAND-The State provides a tracker of who’s opted in and opted out of Real Property Tax Law 487 and the School District has opted out here. I think we tried to have conversations with the School District to get them back in, if that’s an option, to get their take on that. If not, we’d approach the IDA< the Warren County IDA. MR. DEEB-Well they just had a school board election today. So they may get some new blood on there. Who knows. MR. WEINAND-Yes, well I think there’s also State level change to the property tax methodology for renewable energy projects. That was passed in the most recent budget. So I think even without relief from a pilot, a direct pilot, or a pilot with the IDA, the property tax unit that assessed with the local assessor, the rates that will have to be enforced, the methodology to assess the project is much more fair and reasonable. They made that change this year. So not a project killer. MR. TRAVER-Do you have a hopeful timeline for this project at this stage for when it might be completed? MR. WEINAND-Yes. So we’re planning to appear, make an official site plan application, by the end of the month and appear back before the Board in the middle of July, and then just work through the process from there. So hopefully maybe receive the permits, depending on how it all goes, maybe the end of the year into early next year and then move towards construction. MR. DEEB-Do you have any idea how long construction will take? MR. WEINAND=About three to four months. There’s going to be a little bit of grading that needs to be done. There are some slopes on site but we’re working around that. MR. TRAVER-You would do all 12,000 panels at the same time? MR. WEINAND-Yes, and they’ll be tracker panels is what we’ve designed. So they’re oriented north/south. They face east in the morning and west, they’ll follow the sun, west in the afternoon. MR. DEEB-Interesting. MR. WEINAND-There are some wetlands on site. We’ve mapped that. We’re avoiding all wetlands. We’re adhering to all wetland buffers. We’ve performed a metes and bounds survey, a topographic survey. We’ve done a lot of work on the site and we’re getting all the materials ready for an official submission. 35 (Queensbury Planning Board 05/18/2021) MR. TRAVER-We probably will be interested in potential endangered species and also the, what is it, SHPO, the archeological. MR. WEINAND-Right. That’s in the works, too. MR. TRAVER-Okay. Just thought I’d mention it, and by all means, you want to be, make yourself very familiar with the new, relatively new Code that was passed in the Town for these arrays. There are some provisions in there that we will be especially concerned with. I know one of the things that I’ve been concerned with because of the nature of these panels is the cleaning up of the site as they age out. So that’s something that you’ll need to have detailed plans and I know some communities even have escrow accounts to help pay for that in the event that the owner/business fails or something like that. So I know I’m getting way ahead of the game but I just thought I’d mention some of these things. MR. WEINAND-Yes. I think what you’re referring to sounds like a decommissioning plan. MR. TRAVER-Yes. MR. WEINAND-We can draft that and submit it with the Town, record it with the Town. MR. DEEB-You have those with your other sites. Right? MR. WEINAND-Yes. MR. TRAVER-Do you have any questions for us? MR. WEINAND-Yes. One thing that came up in some comments leading up to this meeting was you mentioned a Building and Codes comments were a graveled access road around the perimeter of the project. Are there any requirements there maybe for fire access? MRS. MOORE-I can address that. So I talked with the Building and Codes Department. Obviously when a project comes in information is shared amongst the different Departments and so the Director, Dave Hatin, explained to me that it would need the gravel access. You mentioned possibly a green entryway. I don’t know whether that’s, it’s something to communicate with Building an Codes, the Department head, whether that’s a Tuff stone product that is being able to be driven upon, or a grass strip, but my guess is that you’re going to have to come to an agreement about how access around the facility will be completed so that there is access for emergency. MR. WEINAND-Okay. Understood. Yes. The current layout here has a 15 foot buffer between the panels and the fencing, around the limits of disturbance. So we can increase that to 20 or 25 if needed and design some sort of road, whatever their specifications are. Is that in the Code or that’s just coming from? MRS. MOORE-It possibly is in the Code. I just know it came from the Building and Codes Director. MR. WEINAND-Okay. ASHLEY CHAMPION MS. CHAMPION-Yes. I don’t see it in the solar code. So it sounds like. MRS. MOORE-Not necessarily the solar code, but Building and Codes. MS. CHAMPION-Right. And so it sounds like the Code officer may be amendable to discussions on our proposal so long as it’s all Code compliant. MRS. MOORE-Right. MS. CHAMPION-Okay. MRS. MOORE-So Building and Codes which is separate from Planning and Zoning. MS. CHAMPION-Sure, but just briefly so you understand what we mean when we say grass. LOU GRECO MR. GRECO-So the idea is because the soil types, hydraulically, or hydrologically, are conducive to keeping the site as green as possible. MR. TRAVER-If you could state your name for the record, too, please. 36 (Queensbury Planning Board 05/18/2021) MR. GRECO-Sure. Lou Greco, Techtonic Engineering. So the idea is to have a grass surface but gravel supported underneath access road that would be able to maintain the weight of a fire apparatus. So if we could eliminate doing gravel around the perimeter and if it’s not necessarily a fire apparatus but something more like a pickup truck, an ATV, something like that, we could reduce the structural ability but keep it grass surface so that the hydrology on the site, you wouldn’t require stormwater basins and just basically have runoff. Today we have the same kind of runoff patterns after construction. MR. TRAVER-Okay. MR. GRECO-The main access where the fire apparatus would be actually driving on would still have, would be able to bear the full weight of an apparatus. MRS. MOORE-I’ll just identify that gravel surface, and this is where additional discussion with Planning Staff would come into play, is the gravel surface is considered hard surfacing in our Code. It’s not necessarily considered permeable. MR. GRECO-Right. MRS. MOORE-It’s just further discussion with me and other Staff. MR. GRECO-Right. So that’s why we would want it to be a grass surface and it would be gravel underneath, for the structural integrity, but it would be grass surface so that it is permeable. MRS. MOORE-So I guess that’s for further discussion. It’s just depending on what that detail looks like. MR. WEINAND-Absolutely. Okay. We can provide that. MR. TRAVER-Do any members of the Board have any additional questions for the applicant? MR. DIXON-I have a question, just out of curiosity. So in the Northeast with our winters, how do you keep the snow away from these and I think at some point you’d probably have to pile it up. So you’d have to demonstrate some sort of storage area for the snow for removal. MR. WEINAND-Yes. We leave the snow on the panels, but we try to plow the access road. So that’s a question for the operations team, but we’re not removing the snow from the panels during the winter. MR. TRAVER-All right. Thanks very much. MR. WEINAND-Thank you. MR. DEEB-Thank you. Good luck. MR. TRAVER-So that concludes our agenda for this evening. A reminder that we will be returning the day after tomorrow for our second meeting of the month, and we received what Staff Notes were available for the Thursday night meeting tonight, and if there’s nothing else, we’ll entertain a motion to adjourn. MR. HUNSINGER-So moved. MOTION TO ADJOURN THE QUEENSBURY PLANNING BOARD MEETING OF MAY 18, 2021, Introduced by Chris Hunsinger who moved for its adoption, seconded by David Deeb: th Duly adopted this 18 day of May, 2021, by the following vote: AYES: Mr. Deeb, Ms. White, Mr. Shafer, Mr. Hunsinger, Mr. Dixon, Mr. Traver NOES: NONE ABSENT: Mr. Magowan, Mr. Valentine MR. TRAVER-We stand adjourned, ladies and gentlemen. Thank you very much. See you day after tomorrow. On motion meeting was adjourned. RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED, Stephen Traver, Chairman 37