Loading...
06-15-2021 (Queensbury Planning Board 06/15/2021) QUEENSBURY PLANNING BOARD MEETING FIRST REGULAR MEETING JUNE 15, 2021 INDEX Site Plan No. 35-2021 Chris Racicot 1. Tax Map No. 309.10-1-60, 309-10-1-63 Site Plan No. 34-2021 Laphatt Holdings 6. Tax Map No. 301.8-1-30.3 Site Plan No. 38-2021 David Liebetreu 10. ZBA RECOMMENDATION Tax Map No. 289.14-1-4 Site Plan Mod. 36-2021 Tracey Holdings, LLC 14. Tax Map No. 308.16-1-82.1, 308.16-1-82.2 Site Plan Mod. 37-2021 BBL Carlton, LLC 19. Tax Map No. 309.10-1-82.1 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 06/15/2021) QUEENSBURY PLANNING BOARD MEETING FIRST REGULAR MEETING JUNE 15, 2021 7:00 P.M. MEMBERS PRESENT STEPHEN TRAVER, CHAIRMAN CHRIS HUNSINGER. VICE CHAIRMAN DAVID DEEB, SECRETARY JOHN SHAFER BRAD MAGOWAN JAMIE WHITE MICHAEL VALENTINE LAND USE PLANNER-LAURA MOORE STENOGRAPHER-MARIA GAGLIARDI MR. TRAVER-Good evening, ladies and gentleman. Welcome to the Town of Queensbury Planning Board thth meeting for Tuesday, June 15, 2021. This is our first meeting for the month of June and our 12 meeting thus far this year. We have the first item, before we go to our regular agenda, is approval of minutes for thth the April 20 and April 27 Planning Board meeting. So I believe we have a draft resolution for that. APPROVAL OF MINUTES th April 20, 2021 th April 27, 2021 MOTION TO APPROVE THE QUEENSBURY PLANNING BOARD MEETING MINUTES OF THTH APRIL 20, 2021 & APRIL 27, 2021, Introduced by David Deeb who moved for its adoption, seconded by John Shafer: th Duly adopted this 15 day of June, 2021, by the following vote: AYES: Mr. Deeb, Ms. White, Mr. Shafer, Mr. Hunsinger, Mr. Magowan, Mr. Valentine, Mr. Traver NOES: NONE MR. TRAVER-Thank you, and before we go to our regular agenda, just a couple of administrative announcements. One is if you have an electronic device, a cell phone or other device, if you would either turn it off or turn the ringer off, we’d appreciate that so it doesn’t interrupt our proceedings. You’ll notice there are some red exit signs. In the event of an emergency, that is the way out. We do have a public hearing for some of our items this evening, although we’ve returned to regular order for our meetings after the COVID release of the COVID guidelines. So we won’t need to use the phone or the video this evening. So with that we’ll go to our regular agenda. We have an Administrative Item, Chris Racicot. I apologize if I pronounced that incorrectly, Site Plan 35-2021. ADMINISTRATIVE ITEM: SITE PLAN NO. 35-2021 SEQR TYPE: UNLISTED. CHRIS RACICOT. AGENT(S): NICHOLAS ZEGLEN, EDP. OWNER(S): ALDRICH, LLC. & ROBERT GROVER ZONING: MS. LOCATION: 20 & 18 ½ NEWCOMB STREET. SEQRA: PLANNING BOARD ACCEPTS LEAD AGENCY STATUS, CAN PROCEED WITH SEQRA 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 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. CLARK WILKINSON, REPRESENTING APPLICANT, PRESENT; CHRIS RACICOT, PRESENT MR. TRAVER-Laura? 2 (Queensbury Planning Board 06/15/2021) MRS. MOORE-This is a project to construct a 14 unit, two story townhouse building. The footprint is 12,740 square feet, floor area of 23,400 square feet. Each unit should have its own garage and patio area. In reference to what’s occurring this evening, the project is subject to a SEQR coordinated review with the Town Board. The Planning Board will accept Lead Agency and can start the SEQR process. If you decide on the SEQR process you can also forward your decision to the Town Board based on the SEQR process. MR. TRAVER-Okay. Thank you. So our first order of business this evening is to Acknowledge that the Planning Board has Lead Agency status with regard to this application and we can proceed to do that I believe and we have a draft resolution, unless anyone has any questions or concerns about the acceptance of Lead Agency. Okay. We’ll hear that motion. RESOLUTION TO ACCEPT LEAD AGENCY STATUS RE: SP # 35-2021 CHRIS RACICOT WHEREAS, the 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, in connection with the project, the Town of Queensbury Planning Board, by resolution, previously authorized the Community Development Office to notify other involved agencies of the desire of the Town Board to conduct a coordinated SEQR review; WHEREAS, the Zoning Administrator has advised that other involved agencies have been notified and have consented to the Town of Queensbury Planning Board being lead agency; NOW, THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED: MOTION TO ACKNOWLEDGE 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 15 day of June 2021 by the following vote: AYES: Ms. White, Mr. Shafer, Mr. Hunsinger, Mr. Magowan, Mr. Valentine, Mr. Deeb, Mr. Traver NOES: NONE MRS. MOORE-Before you proceed, I do have information that the applicant dropped off the other day, some new materials that they have updated and I brought them to the meeting if you wish to look at them. MR. TRAVER-Okay. I think we’ll accept them and I know we’re going to be having a discussion because our next proposed action would be under the SEQRA. We have a SEQRA resolution to consider. So we can certainly accept that documentation. I don’t know that the Board will want to review it at the meeting tonight, but at least we will have it. Is there someone, okay. Good evening. MR. WILKINSON-For the record my name’s Clark Wilkinson with Environmental Design Partnership. Next to me is Chris Racicot, the applicant for the project. We can go into some of the description of the project if you’d like to discuss it. One of the things that is currently outstanding is the securing of that easement to the rear, and until that’s secure we would request that there’s no SEQRA done because it may change the project and we wouldn’t want to have to do that again. That is our request. MR. TRAVER-In addition to that there’s some engineering comments that we’ve been waiting for that we haven’t been able to review which I think many of the Board members, if not all, will feel goes directly to SEQRA. So that’s fine. MR. WILKINSON-And we’ve responded to the first round of Chazen comments. MR. TRAVER-Okay. The other question I would have, and you’re certainly welcome to present to us this evening, but the other question I have is did you see the comments from Warren County Planning Board? MR. WILKINSON-I did not. MR. TRAVER-Okay. You might want to take a look at those. They have some, just some recommendations based on their review. Do you have those comments? 3 (Queensbury Planning Board 06/15/2021) MR. WILKINSON-I do not have them with me, but I’m sure I can get them. MR. TRAVER-Okay. You should have received them. Laura will provide you with a copy of them this evening, but basically they have informal Staff comments that I will read to you and for the record. The comments are, “The floor plan and overall length of the building appears inconsistent with other residential structures in the adjoining neighborhood. Discuss with the applicant reducing the number of units or creating (2) buildings. Question the snow removal plan and the impact on the residents of the remediated hazardous waste site in proximity to the proposed town house project. Given the number of projected tenants to be on the site, use of the exterior space for passive recreation and limited play area should be given consideration. Does the development of this project address the housing needs identified in the Town’s Housing Needs Report.” So those are just some comments to share with you from the Planning Board. You now have those comments. So something else for you to take a look at, and we did receive some updated information from you this evening that the Board will be reviewing subsequently and if you wanted to give us some more information this evening. MR. WILKINSON-Sure. I’ll re-introduce you to the project. I think this project came before you as a concept a while ago, but since then we’ve gone through some minor changes and adjustments to the site. This project is at 20 Newcomb Street. It’s a 1.04 acre site. It exists as an old, if I’m not mistaken it was an old auto. MR. RACICOT-It was a tow yard. MR. WILKINSON-A tow yard. That’s where they stored towed vehicles. It’s zoned MS which is the Main Street zone. We are proposing 14 units of townhouses in a single building. That’s shown on the drawing up there and they all have garages. The footprint is 23,400 square feet of footprint and I believe the units are two and/or three bedrooms. It might be a mixture of them. It might be all twos. The stormwater management is on-site stormwater management with a long grassed swale behind the building with plantings behind that to give some privacy from the rear yards of the lots that face Main Street and those computations and designs have been submitted to Chazen, the first round of comments answered, and we’re waiting for the second round of comments. The utilities are proposed to be all public. There’s water that exists in Newcomb Street. It’s on the opposite side. So we’d have to carry it across to enlarge this line, and we are proposing a sewer extension from Main Street sewer off Newcomb Street to our site and into the site that will serve us and anyone along the way that wants to join on. We will be doing a sewer district extension. I’ve been in contact with Chris from, Chris Harrington as far as the process because I know right now the Town is in the middle of consolidating all of their sewer districts and he won’t allow us to do a sewer district extension until that’s filed. So he accepted that we could be an outside user until that point but currently we’re looking at, based on the timeline for approvals, we’re looking at probably early spring before we start anyway. So we’ll get the process going for the district extension before we actually start construction. The design for the sewer has been submitted to DEC for review of the actual main and the potential of that main. We’re awaiting comments from them. I know up in Region 5 that they’re shorthanded. A lot of people have left and have not been replaced. So we don’t know how long it’s going to take but we’ll try to push them a little bit if we can. Currently there’s an easement proposed on the adjoining site right there that will allow us to do a fire truck turnaround and in exchange we’re also providing the access easement for this back lot that’s a landlocked lot and it is currently accessed along that, around that same location that we’re proposing. We are in negotiation with the adjoining owner and if that negotiation fails we have an alternate, which is why I said the plan would change. We have an alternate plan that would bring the fire lane in and turn this way and split this building in two as suggested by the County Planning anyway, and we would end up losing two units. The existing house right here is going to be remaining and I’m assuming you’ll upgrade it and it’ll be used as a rental property, unless we don’t get that easement, and then if we split this building we will probably end up putting two units over here in the future. That’s our plan now, but it’s not proposed as part of this plan until we know. With that I’d turn it over to the Board for questions, comments, discussion. MR. TRAVER-Sure. Okay. Questions, comments from members of the Board? MR. SHAFER-Did I hear you say something about two buildings and responding to the County comment? MR. WILKINSON-If this easement, we fail to negotiate that easement with the adjoining owner, the alternate would be to split the building in two and bring a fire lane between the building so that we can have access for fire trucks. MR. SHAFER-So if those negotiations aren’t successful, it will continue to be a single building? MR. WILKINSON-If they are successful, that’s our current proposal to be a single building. MR. SHAFER-Do you have colored renderings of the building? 4 (Queensbury Planning Board 06/15/2021) MR. WILKINSON-We do, and we can, when we come in for full site plan, but I mean tonight we were basically here to try to have the Board accept the Lead Agency and keep that process going. MR. SHAFER-I understand. My only comment is it doesn’t look very Adirondacky, the building, either colors or architectural renderings. MR. WILKINSON-We’ll work on that rendering to submit for the next meeting. MR. SHAFER-Okay. MR. SHAFER-It’s a pretty ugly building to be honest with you. MR. DEEB-I do like the idea of the two buildings. I think it fits in with the properties next to it and around it because it looks like a motel now and I think the two buildings, splitting t up would make it look much more endeared to the property around it. I think you might want to give consideration to that, and that would solve your problem with the turnaround also. Either way you would have that. MR. VALENTINE-Laura, there’s no Special Use Permit required with this application? MRS. MOORE-No, because it’s far enough away from Main Street that it doesn’t trigger a Special Use Permit. MR. VALENTINE-That would help out. MR. HUNSINGER-John asked you questions about the building design. What you might want to do is look at the Comprehensive Land Use Plan, because it talked about concepts for Main Street. MR. WILKINSON-We did read through that and passed on some information to the applicant to try to incorporate those into our design. MR. HUNSINGER-Good. Okay. MR. WILKINSON-We appreciate that. MR. TRAVER-Just one other suggestion that I would offer. As you, again to move toward a more final plan for what you think you’re going to do and you work with the Town Engineer, you might want to try, before you return, you might want to try to have any engineering concerns with your final proposal resolved. That would help, in the long run, probably speed the process up. MR. WILKINSON-We’re trying to accomplish that. That’s why we submitted, I think we submitted to rdthrd Chazen on June 3 or 4 . Was it Monday? My transmittal in my file that they sent this on June 3. MRS. MOORE-This recent one. MR. WILKINSON-That was Monday that they went to Chazen? MRS. MOORE-It just came in to our office. MR. WILKINSON-We submitted, I submitted something previous to that. MR. TRAVER-And the other thing to bear in mind in regard to engineering is if your plan changes, for example if you go to a two building layout. MR. WILKINSON-We’ll reduce the impervious probably. So it won’t really effect stormwater. MR. TRAVER-Well it’s going to change the way you manage stormwater and things of that nature. So you might want to try to resolve that before you even get a final signoff. MR. WILKINSON-We expected it to be resolved by now, but it’s not. You know how things go when you’re negotiating easements or sales. MR. TRAVER-Understood. So to members of the Board, it looks like we’ll be moving to a tabling on this. Does anyone have anything else they want to ask of the applicant at this stage or comments that they would like to make? MRS. MOORE-I would ask the applicant, what is your timeframe? Do you expect to be back in front of the Board in July? MR. TRAVER-We like to table to a specific date if we can. 5 (Queensbury Planning Board 06/15/2021) th MR. WILKINSON-If we were going to come back in July, the 15 is today. MRS. MOORE-That’s correct. So that’s why I wanted to see what your timeframe was. So currently you have plans that are being turned over to Chazen for review. MR. WILKINSON-Correct. MRS. MOORE-And that would fall into a July schedule. MR. WILKINSON-Correct. MRS. MOORE-If you wish to continue. I mean to go through that process, and then you potentially could be tabled to the first meeting in July and get your responses. MR. TRAVER-Do you have any timeline on an easement? MR. RACICOT-I think we pretty much have it dialed in. Just got to check the easement. MRS. MOORE-If it does not proceed further, then you end up tabling it in July until August. So you have an opportunity, based on what came in today, that we could potentially see it again in July. MR. WILKINSON-Why don’t we take that because I think that we could always table in the future if that easement were to fall through. MR. TRAVER-And, Laura, you’re suggesting the first meeting in July? MRS. MOORE-The first meeting in July because we have this packet that’s already submitted, and at the moment there’s no changes. If that changes along the way then we’ll move to discuss that. thth MR. TRAVER-Okay. That would be July 20 . So that would be a July 20 Planning Board meeting and that would be for SEQRA review if we’re ready for that. MR. DEEB-That’s a tight schedule, but at least you have the spot. MR. TRAVER-This was scheduled for public hearing this evening, Laura. Should we, we should open the public hearing and advise anyone that is here to comment on this application that we’re likely to see some updated engineering and possibly some project changes. So what we’ll do is we’ll open the public hearing and we will keep it open, so that when this project returns to us in July and we have a bit more information from the applicant there’ll be an opportunity to take public comment at that time. PUBLIC HEARING OPENED MR. TRAVER-Anything else? MRS. MOORE-I can let you know that there was one individual that wrote a letter that was not in favor of the project. Just to make sure you’re aware that there is a public comment letter. MR. TRAVER-Okay. MR. VALENTINE-Clark, would you mind just repeating, the use for the smaller portion of that, it doesn’t have this larger building on it, you had said that if you lose two units from that that the intent would be to gain them back there? MR. WILKINSON-Yes. MR. VALENTINE-Okay. MR. RACICOT-Not currently, but maybe down the road. MR. DEEB-Well, if you lose two units, are you going to include it in an modification to the Site Plan? MR. VALENTINE-That’s my thing. MR. DEEB-Not for this Site Plan, perhaps, but down the road. MR. WILKINSON-No, again, it’s up to the applicant, but my suggestion is to not include it if you’re not planning on doing it right away. 6 (Queensbury Planning Board 06/15/2021) MR. DEEB-Right. Depending on what happens here. MR. WILKINSON-Right, exactly. MR. TRAVER-Anything else before we entertain a tabling motion? Okay. RESOLUTION TABLING SP # 35-2021 CHRIS RACICOT The applicant has submitted an application to the Planning Board: 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. MOTION TO TABLE SITE PLAN NO. 35-2021 CHRIS RACICOT, Introduced by David Deeb who moved for its adoption, seconded by Brad Magowan: th Tabled to the July 20, 2021 Planning Board meeting. th Duly adopted this 15 day of June, 2021, by the following vote: AYES: Mr. Shafer, Mr. Hunsinger, Mr. Magowan, Mr. Valentine, Mr. Deeb, Ms. White, Mr. Traver NOES: NONE MR. TRAVER-See you next month. MR. WILKINSON-Thank you. MR. RACICOT-Thank you for your time. MR. DEEB-Okay. Good luck. MR. TRAVER-Next we move to the next section of our agenda which is Planning Board recommendations to the Zoning Board of Appeals. The first application under that is Laphatt Holdings, Site Plan 34-2021. PLANNING BOARD RECOMMENDATION TO THE ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS 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 ACCEPTS LEAD AGENCY STATUS, CAN PROCEED WITH SEQRA 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. PLANNING BOARD MAY CONDUCT SEQRA AND MAY MAKE RECOMMENDATION TO THE ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS. 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. JON LAPPER & MATT STEVES, REPRESENTING APPLICANT, PRESENT MR. TRAVER-Laura? MRS. MOORE-This application proposes to construct two four-unit buildings. Each building is to be 3,200 square feet with each unit to have a garage and two bedrooms and a driveway onto Manor Drive. The project will have on-site septic systems and each building will be connected to municipal water. In reference to SEQRA, the Board can accept Lead Agency status and can start the SEQRA review process and may be able to provide a recommendation to the ZBA. MR. TRAVER-Okay. Thank you. MR. LAPPER-Good evening. For the record, Jon Lapper and Matt Steves. So what we’re here to discuss tonight, this is the last parcel, obviously, on Manor Drive, which was developed under the prior zoning, and even though we’re asking for what seems like a big density variance to do two four-plexes, it is totally in keeping with Manor Drive and all the other four-plexes on the block. In fact it’s 16 four-plexes, 3 7 (Queensbury Planning Board 06/15/2021) commercial buildings, and Stewarts. So it wouldn’t be appropriate to build a single family building, especially on Farr Drive, which has some traffic from the subdivision behind. It’s essentially the same as what’s there, except that what Matt’s designed has garages in it. So the prior units, just older design, have big eight bay garages so they used a lot more of the land. They were a lot less green. Here the garages are incorporated in the building. So it’s probably 40% more green than the neighboring lots. In terms of SEQRA, we did get a letter from Chazen that hasn’t been responded to, but this is all sand. So there’s no issue here with him. Chazen asked for soil tests but they understand that it’s all sand. So I think that you could comfortably do SEQRA tonight, but if you feel that you want to wait, that’s okay and we’ll go to the Zoning Board a month later, but there’s not a lot of magic to this in stormwater because of the soil. So with that Matt can answer any technical questions, but we’re seeking a recommendation because it’s compatible with the neighborhood. MR. TRAVER-Sure. Well our first order of business I believe is to acknowledge the Lead Agency status that we requested. So why don’t we move on that before we go further. RESOLUTION ACCEPTING LEAD AGENCY STATUS RE: SP # 34-2021 LAPHATT HOLDINGS WHEREAS, the 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. Planning Board may conduct SEQRA and may make recommendation to the Zoning Board of Appeals. 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, in connection with the project, the Town of Queensbury Planning Board, by resolution, previously authorized the Community Development Office to notify other involved agencies of the desire of the Town Board to conduct a coordinated SEQR review; WHEREAS, the Zoning Administrator has advised that other involved agencies have been notified and have consented to the Town of Queensbury Planning Board being lead agency; NOW, THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED: MOTION TO ACKNOWLEDGE LEAD AGENCY STATUS IN CONNECTION WITH SITE PLAN 34-2021 & AREA VARIANCE 33-2021 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 15 day of June 2021 by the following vote: AYES: Mr. Hunsinger, Mr. Magowan, Mr. Valentine, Mr. Deeb, Ms. White, Mr. Shafer, Mr. Traver NOES: NONE MR. TRAVER-Okay. So then our next order of business is under SEQRA. We do have a SEQRA resolution. We need to decide if we want to proceed with SEQRA with the information that we have in front of us. We do have a response from Chazen with some remaining questions and the discussion should be by the Board whether or not the missing information is a problem for conducting a SEQRA review this evening. How do people feel about that? MR. DEEB-I understand that it’s sandy soil, but I’m a little uncomfortable, until we get it in writing from Chazen, I don’t think we should put the cart before the horse just to be safe. MR. TRAVER-That is our normal practice. MR. DEEB-And you seem to be comfortable with it. MR. LAPPER-We spoke with Laura today and thought we’d come and present it and see what you thought. It’s pretty simple, but we’re fine to delay. MR. STEVES-Matt Steves. I did talk to the engineers today and they said it’s not a problem coming to the consensus that they can get the signoff between Tom Center and Chazen and it is pretty much straightforward boilerplate what they need, and there’s nothing scathing here and we’ve read through, I met with Tom Center for about a half hour today on the phone because he’s at the firehouse, and everything is doable. He has no problems he can do that and I have no problems either as the surveyor. The only 8 (Queensbury Planning Board 06/15/2021) question I have on that, and maybe Jon can probably answer it for me or the Board can. If we do not proceed to SEQRA tonight can the Zoning Board still? No? That’s what I thought. I just wanted to make sure. But if you had any particular questions on the site itself, I can answer them, but real brief. This was a 1967 subdivision by Henry Slate, Evergreen Estates Phase II. At the very beginning of this, when it was done in the 60’s, the three four-plexes that are on the extreme east of the school property on the north side of Manor Drive were in existence and that’s what Henry Slate was doing with all this property is he was continuing his four-plexes, and then this is Lot 11 and 12 and his actual daughter, his daughter Virginia, inherited the property from Henry and then Virginia passed away and it went into an estate and we acquired it from Virginia Slate’s estate. It is in one tax parcel now, and we have no problem, we want to leave it as one tax parcel, but it was Lot 11 and 12 of the original subdivision and like Jon has stated, in looking at the aerial, and Laura has it up, the eight unit garages in the back was a great idea at the time and it gave you a place to store a car. For aesthetics and for green space it might just be better suited in a townhouse style, front load design and park the car, walk right into your unit from the garage and then save that, put the septics in there and on the site plan you see these big gray boxes. It’s going to be all lawn, and then there’s about a 20 foot strip of trees that will remain on Farr Lane toward the west end so that we don’t interfere with clearing out Farr Lane at all, and we think it fits in there very nicely and we just like the style and if anybody knows the Oaks, that’s what it’s going to be, kind of the offset rooflines in the front. We have some renderings in there. We figured like brown and greens, stuff like that. You were mentioning like Adirondack type things. MR. LAPPER-So they’ll be nicer than the units that were built years ago. MR. STEVES-Correct. MR. TRAVER-I have seen the garage that you’re talking about, Jon. It looks almost like an industrial. So, yes, that would be a big improvement. Do you have any idea on the timeline of when you might resolve any potential issues with Chazen? MR. STEVES-We would have anything done, I would imagine, by this time next week if not a little sooner. Everything I think is submitted now. If you tell me when you want us to come back, I will prepare for that. MRS. MOORE-If we can get engineering response soon, then I can see this going into July. MR. TRAVER-Maybe the second meeting, or is there elbow room on the first meeting? The first. Right th because then the ZBA. So again that would be the 20. MR. DEEB-Well on the Staff comments we’ve got the lamp detail will need to confirm it’s Code compliant. That was on here. This is stuff you can take care of before you come back, and there are to be porch lights at each porch of the buildings as well as porch lights for each terrace, 8 wall lights will also need to be confirmed to be Code compliant, and also the applicant should clarify that it should be noted if there is a sign, and if there is it should be Code compliant. MR. LAPPER-No sign. MR. DEEB-No sign. So that takes care of that. I don’t know where we come in on this one, but I was looking at it. The Board may have discussion about the floor plan as there is no bathroom or bedroom on the first floor. MR. STEVES-The plan we submitted was what we had from the Oaks I believe, but we’re having that all re-drafted. It’s the same building, but it now has a bathroom. MR. LAPPER-So that was a valid comment. MR. TRAVER-That’s all under Site Plan anyway. MR. DEEB-But is that Code? MRS. MOORE-I don’t know if that’s necessarily Code. The Planning Board is welcome to ask because you don’t have floor plans. MR. DEEB-I understand, but I don’t know whether that would be under our purview. I’ve seen some of Schermerhorn’s apartments that have no bathrooms on the first floor. MR. TRAVER-That would come into play when we get to Site Plan. MR. DEEB-Okay. That’s it. 9 (Queensbury Planning Board 06/15/2021) MRS. MOORE-So can I ask, if we gave you a deadline for engineering information by next Monday, would that work? MR. STEVES-This coming Monday? Yes.. MR. SHAFER-I have a couple of questions. MR. TRAVER-Sure. Go ahead. MR. SHAFER-You had mentioned, Jon, that the septic design was based on the general availability and understanding of sand in the area. I see that one to five minutes per inch was used. MR. LAPPER-That was stormwater I was referring to, that stormwater will be able to be infiltrated on site because of the sand. MR. SHAFER-Well, okay, then the question is, for the septic design, the parameter of one to five minutes per inch was used. The basis for that? MR. STEVES-We have done perc tests in the area when we did the Indian Ridge subdivision. We have done two or three site plans on Manor Drive. Across the street we worked on the World Class Kids, We worked on the building that Whittemore, Dowen ran. So it’s from evidence of previous test pits done in the area and it’s very consistent all the way through that area. MR. SHAFER-That’s fine. I just wanted to clarify the record that it wasn’t based on a perc test on this site, but in the general area. MR. STEVES-Correct. MR. SHAFER-Okay. MR. STEVES-And we will be performing a test pit and a perc test on this. MR. SHAFER-Okay. The second question is are there any, to your knowledge, are there any Health Department requirements relative to four leach fields in proximity to each other? I notice the two in the middle are only 40 feet apart. MR. STEVES-No, there’s not. MR. SHAFER-There are none? MR. STEVES-It’s completely compliant with all the Department of Health standards for on-site septic systems for this type of thing. MR. SHAFER-Okay. That’s fine. MR. TRAVER-Okay. Anything else before we consider a tabling motion? All right, and I think we’re th looking at, if Laura is happy, we’re looking at a July 20 date. RESOLUTION TABLING SP # 34-2021 LAPHATT HOLDINGS The applicant has submitted an application to the Planning Board: 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. MOTION TO TABLE SITE PLAN NO. 34-2021 LAPHATT HOLDINGS, Introduced by David Deeb who moved for its adoption, seconded by Jamie White: th Tabled to the July 20, 2021 Town of Queensbury Planning Board meeting. th Duly adopted this 15 day of June, 2021, by the following vote: AYES: Mr. Magowan, Mr. Valentine, Mr. Deeb, Ms. White, Mr. Shafer, Mr. Hunsinger, Mr. Traver NOES: NONE MR. TRAVER-We’ll see you next month. 10 (Queensbury Planning Board 06/15/2021) MR. DEEB-See you soon. MR. LAPPER-Thank you. MR. TRAVER-The next application before us is also under Planning Board Recommendation to the ZBA and this is also Unapproved Development. This is David Liebetreu, Site Plan 38-2021. SITE PLAN NO. 38-2021 SEQR TYPE: TYPE II. DAVID LIEBETREU AGENT(S) CLARK WILKINSON, EDP. OWNER(S): KATHERINE M. LIEBETREU LIVING TRUST. ZONING: WR. LOCATION: 57 FITZGERALD DRIVE. APPLICANT PROPOSES TO INSTALL NEW SHORELINE PLANTING PLAN, CREATE A DESIGNATED LAWN AREA AT THE SHORELINE, INSTALL A STORMWATER MANAGEMENT AREA FOR THE EXISTING DRIVEWAY, REPLACE BRICK PATIO AREA WITH PERMEABLE PATIO AREAS, INCREASE PERMEABLE PATIO AREAS AT THE SHORELINE, CREATE A NEW HOT TUB AREA AND INSTALL SLAB STEPS. THE CABANA IS PRE-EXISTING AND NEEDS REVIEW FOR LOCATION. PURSUANT TO CHAPTER 179-3-040, 179-4-010, 179-6-050, 179-6-060 & 179-8-040 OF THE ZONING ORDINANCE, WATERFRONT AREA WORK, HARD SURFACING, FILLING, SLOPES/CUT ACTIVITIES AND SHORELINE BUFFERS SHALL BE SUBJECT TO PLANNING BOARD REVIEW AND APPROVAL. VARIANCE: RELIEF IS SOUGHT FOR SETBACKS AND PERMEABILITY. PLANNING BOARD SHALL PROVIDE A RECOMMENDATION TO THE ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS. CROSS REFERENCE: AV 38-1995, PC 91-2017, ALT./ADDITION, AV 37-2021. WARREN CO. REFERRAL: N/A. SITE INFORMATION: GLEN LAKE CEA. LOT SIZE: .74 ACRE (PER SURVEY). LOCATION: 57 FITZGERALD DRIVE. SECTION: 179-3-040, 179-4-010, 179-6-050, 179-6-060, 179-8-040. JON LAPPER & GEFF REDICK, REPRESENTING APPLICANT, PRESENT MR. TRAVER-Laura? MRS. MOORE-This applicant proposes to install new shoreline planting plan, create a designated lawn area at the shoreline, install a stormwater management area for the existing driveway, replace brick patio area with permeable patio areas, increase permeable patio areas at the shoreline, create a new hot tub area and install slab steps. The cabana is pre-existing and needs review for location. I do have a note in here somewhere that the existing home was constructed in 1995 and at some point between then and now there was a 168 square foot cabana constructed and was constructed after that time but was not part of that review. And it has to be at least recognized and reviewed at the Board level for recommendation. MR. TRAVER-Sure. All right. Thank you. So changes to the shoreline and a pre-existing nonconforming cabana. Do you know when that was installed, when that was built? MR. LAPPER-I’ll get started. For the record, Jon Lapper with Geff Redick and the Liebetreus are here also to answer any questions. So the original house, as Laura had in the Staff Notes, was built in about ’95 and the applicants purchased the property in 2016. There was a subsequent owner in between them and the original purchaser. The cabana looks exactly like the house probably built not for the CO in ’95 but maybe in ’96. We’re just guessing. So when they came in, the engineers and landscape architects to meet with Laura to talk about what was essentially permeable pavers, a stormwater plan, putting a barbecue area near the cabana and just the architectural items which aren’t before you, upgrading the windows and just basically spending some money to improve the property nicely, from what they purchased, Laura determined, unfortunately, that there was never an approval for the cabana. So this is on unapproved but has nothing to do with the applicants and when you buy a house and there’s a matching cabana by the lake and that’s part of why you bought it, you don’t usually think to say should I ask if there was a CO for that, although in hindsight that would have been nice to know, but subsequently they came in in 2017 to make some changes that weren’t as fancy as these but just some more basic changes and we did that before the Planning Board and the Zoning Board. It never came up at that point. So it was a big shock this spring, since they’d already been before the Town four years ago, that that cabana was never approved, and obviously a big disappointment for them that now we have to ask for permission for something that they had no idea wasn’t permitted, but here we are. Certainly it’s not the case that the applicants did anything wrong here. So that’s kind of the most interesting part of this. The rest of it are a whole bunch of nice upgrades. In fact, making the site less impermeable than what’s there now, but it’s that cabana. In terms of the variance to keep it where it is in between the neighbor to the south and the cabana it’s heavily wooded, even though it’s very close to the lake. So there’s no impact on anybody there to just leave it. And if it had to be moved 50 feet back that would be a mess. You don’t want a cabana 50 feet from the lake, but also just in terms of soil disturbance and messing with that whole area it would not be good for the lake or for anybody else. So there’s really no benefit to it. It’s certainly important for the applicants to have the right to keep it there. MR. DEEB-Shows you how good Laura is. She catches all that stuff. 11 (Queensbury Planning Board 06/15/2021) MR. LAPPER-She went and looked to make sure that there was nothing in the records. Somebody had asked for it. Unfortunately there wasn’t, and that’s why we’re here on that. MR. DEEB-We can resolve it. Just tear it down. MR. TRAVER-Questions, comments from members of the Board? And again, this is not for Site Plan. This is for the variance for setbacks, referral to the ZBA. MR. MAGOWAN-For the cabana? MR. TRAVER-Yes, for the cabana. MR. MAGOWAN-So we’re not here for all the beautiful stuff that they’re doing to the property? MR. TRAVER-Well that’s their Site Plan, but they’re not here for Site Plan. They’re here for the variance. MR. LAPPER-It’s okay if you want to mention that, Brad. MR. DEEB-We can look at that if you want. It’s not a big deal. MR. TRAVER-Sure. MR. MAGOWAN-Well, you know, after all the years, you know, we come across a lot of different stuff, but this is a good one. MR. LAPPER-I haven’t seen one of these either. MR. MAGOWAN-It’s not their fault. I don’t have a problem with it. It’s a beautiful piece of property that’s been there for a long time. I thank Laura for exposing this all, but what do you do? MS. WHITE-Laura, do we have any photographs of this that you could put up? I don’t see any in the packet. Or I didn’t before. MR. REDICK-So if I might add, my name’s Geff from Redbud Development. I was involved with the design for a lot of the site work. As we started to understand part of the goal is actually improving the plantings because there’s virtually none there now. There’s just almost all exposed soil because things just haven’t been maintained over the years and part of the goal for the owner is to bring things back up to speed again. As we were designing the site and working with EDP, we introduced stormwater management into the design so that flat level lawn space that’s shown on the landscape plan has a stormwater infrastructure built underneath it. With the cabana we’re proposing to add gutters to the cabana itself to re-capture that and put that into the system. So we’re going to extra efforts to make sure that, yes, we understand that the structure is non-compliant, but bringing it up to speed, so to speak, to make it even more compliant and more beneficial for the lake. MS. WHITE-Thank you, Laura. MR. VALENTINE-Is the house occupied now? MR. LAPPER-Yes. MR. VALENTINE-Okay. I was wondering because the way you said it it sounded like it had been left in sort of disarray or not been kept up. MR. LAPPER-No, it’s just that’s how they found it and now they’re in a position where they can make these improvements to landscape the lot. MR. TRAVER-Other questions, comments? Concerns for the referral that we want to mention to the ZBA as they consider the variance for setbacks? Does anyone have any concerns? MR. SHAFER-More like a question, Mr. Chairman. Is this the first time the Board has been faced with unapproved development by a party that owned the property three times back? MR. TRAVER-Not at all. Unfortunately no, no. It has happened before. MR. VALENTINE-We’ve had the same thing, John, when you’ve been on the Board. There’ve been other ones here. MR. SHAFER-Can we penalize an existing owner for something somebody didn’t do 20 years ago? 12 (Queensbury Planning Board 06/15/2021) MR. HUNSINGER-Well we could. MR. DEEB-We have that discretion. MR. TRAVER-Yes, it’s a little, I guess I mean obviously to some degree it’s subjective. I mean that’s one of the reasons that there is a Planning Board, and there have been, I don’t recall, and I wouldn’t mention anyway, specific cases, but I know that there have been some cases where there has been significant environmental impacts because of unapproved development that we have attempted to remedy in one fashion or another or we’ve compelled the applicant to remedy. MR. SHAFER-Even though the existing owner was not liable for those problems? MR. TRAVER-Yes. MR. HUNSINGER-Buyer beware. MR. LAPPER-That’s really why we’re coming in with this stormwater plan that deals with the stormwater at the lake and infiltrates it because it was built without that. So we know it’s there. We’re going to make it better. MR. DEEB-And you’re improving the cabana with the gutters. So you’re making the whole situation better. MR. LAPPER-Exactly. MR. DEEB-Plain and simple. MR. HUNSINGER-And from an environmental standpoint, I don’t see the cabana as being any different than a boathouse. If you think about a boathouse it’s actually on the lake. Here you can capture the stormwater and direct it away from the lake. MR. TRAVER-And just to add a comment, John, to your original question, you know, I mean we have to bear in mind that this is generally this area of Lake George and Glen Lake area has been developed since World War II and there are a lot of pre-existing camps and various things. I mean if you want to talk about non-compliant things, consider some of the septic systems that are out there made out of 50 gallon drums and so on. So it’s not a new issue. It’s just part of the underlying effort to try and improve the environmental impacts of some of these, particularly from the shoreline, but it is somewhat subjective in terms of how we handle them. MR. SHAFER-I guess the question was whether or not there’s any precedent form earlier situations that are comparable that we could use as a value. MR. TRAVER-Well technically we’re not an adjudicative body. So we can’t technically set a legal precedent although we can set a practice, and there have been cases where there has been pre-existing, non-conforming structures that we have allowed to continue to exist. I guess that’s a pretty general statement, but that’s how I would summarize it. Anyone have anything else they want to add? MR. VALENTINE-No, I think if you look at it, and this is not inferred in a bad way, what Brad was saying was almost, okay, are we going to do a slap the wrist type thing. I mean I don’t think anybody here is looking to go to a public caning or anything. MR. TRAVER-I hope not. MR. VALENTINE-This is not Thailand or some place, but I think we have gone through a number of times with different things since this unapproved development, since we’ve been looking at that, where, and, Jon, you’ve represented a number of those, and there’s no connection in that either. It’s just an observation. The thing is if you don’t identify that or if you just let it lay dormant, I mean if Laura catches something and somebody says can’t you just let that slide or something, you know, what do you let slide the next time or what don’t you present to the Board. That starts to garner a reputation for what kind of projects are reviewed, how they’re reviewed and what the reputation of the Board itself is. MR. LAPPER-That’s why we’re here. MR. DEEB-And we’re rectifying it the proper way the way it should be and it has to be taken care of. MR. MAGOWAN-Well that’s the whole thing. You really can’t punish here because it’s not really the new owner’s fault, but what they have done and what they plan on doing to this property is, that to me is really appreciated. Thank you. 13 (Queensbury Planning Board 06/15/2021) MS. WHITE-I guess what has been presented to us in the past is would we approve this if it was requested now. So if there was not a structure now. MR. TRAVER-For the cabana you mean? MS. WHITE-Yes. Hasn’t that been expressed that way, you know, if that was requested to build this currently, would we approve it? MR. TRAVER-Well, I mean obviously that’s a hypothetical and we’d need to see the application in context, but likely not, I suspect. MR. MAGOWAN-Well this is ’95 you said? MR. LAPPER-Yes. MR. MAGOWAN-So ’96, ’97, you know, we might have been more lenient back then. MR. LAPPER-Chris’ point about the boathouse is valid, too. MR. MAGOWAN-Yes. MR. HUNSINGER-Right. It’s really not that much different than a boathouse. MR. TRAVER-Anything else before we move to a motion for the referral? Okay. I believe we have a draft motion. RESOLUTION RE: ZBA RECOMMENDATION RE: AV # 37-2021 DAVID LIEBETREU The applicant has submitted an application for the following: Applicant proposes to install new shoreline planting plan, create a designated lawn area at the shoreline, install a stormwater management area for the existing driveway, replace brick patio area with permeable patio areas, increase permeable patio areas at the shoreline, create a new hot tub area and install slab steps. The cabana is pre-existing and needs review for location. Pursuant to Chapter 179-3-040, 179-4-010, 179-6-050, 179-6-060 & 179-8-040 of the Zoning Ordinance, waterfront area work, hard surfacing, filling, slopes/cut activities and shoreline buffers shall be subject to Planning Board review and approval. Variance: Relief is sought for setbacks and permeability. 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. 38-2021 DAVID LIEBETREU. Introduced by David Deeb who moved for its adoption, and a) The Planning Board, based on a limited review, has not identified any significant adverse impacts that cannot be mitigated with current project proposal. th Motion seconded by Brad Magowan. Duly adopted this 15 day of June 2021 by the following vote: AYES: Mr. Valentine, Mr. Deeb, Ms. White, Mr. Shafer, Mr. Hunsinger, Mr. Magowan, Mr. Traver NOES: NONE MR. TRAVER-All right. You’re off to the ZBA. MR. LAPPER-Thanks, everybody. MR. VALENTINE-Good luck. MR. TRAVER-All right. So next we move to the other section of our agenda which is under New Business. The first item under New Business is Tracey Holdings, LLC. This is a Site Plan Modification 36-2021. NEW BUSINESS: 14 (Queensbury Planning Board 06/15/2021) SITE PLAN MODIFICATION 36-2021 SEQR TYPE TYPE II TRACEY HOLDINGS, LLC AGENT(S): PETER BLASIOLI. OWNER(S): GERALD W. TRACEY. ZONING: CLI. LOCATION: 280 CORINTH ROAD. APPLICANT PROPOSES MODIFICATION TO SITE PLAN 59-2018 TO REPLACE THE EXISTING GRAVEL AREA OF 15,725 +/- SQ. FT. WITH SHOULDER STONE AND ITEM # 4. THIS WOULD ALLOW FOR AN AREA TO DISPLAY EQUIPMENT AND TRUCKS FOR RENTAL. THE EXISTING BUILDING AND OUT BUILDING ARE TO REMAIN – TOTAL BUILDINGS ON SITE 22,700 SQ. FT. PURSUANT TO CHAPTER 179-3-040 & 179-9-120 OF THE ZONING ORDINANCE, MODIFICATIONS TO AN APPROVED SITE PLAN SHALL BE SUBJECT TO PLANNING BOARD REVIEW AND APPROVAL. CROSS REFERENCE: SP 59-2018, AV 32-2004, SP 10-1994, SP 11-1989. WARREN CO. REFERRAL: JUNE 2021. LOT SIZE: 3.93 ACRES & 2.96 ACRES. TAX MAP NO. 308.16-1-82.1, 308.16-1-82.2. SECTION: 179-3-040, 179-9- 120. AMY REYNOLDS, REPRESENTING APPLICANT, PRESENT MR. TRAVER-Laura? MRS. MOORE- So this is a modification for Site Plan 59-2018 to replace the gravel area of 15,725 square feet. It happened in 2018. It just never came to be. So the applicant is back before the Board for pretty much the same application. This area is going to be converted to replace some gravel area with a better gravel situation as well as displaying vehicles that they rent. So in my Staff Notes I request that you discuss number of vehicles that are displayed. MR. TRAVER-Sure. Okay. Thank you. Good evening. MRS. REYNOLDS-Good evening. MR. TRAVER-I’m sorry, if you could just state your name for the record. MRS. REYNOLDS-My name is Amy Reynolds. We are looking to add to our existing lot that we put our trucks and trailers and equipment that’s for sale. We originally came to you guys in 2018, asked if we could blacktop it. You approved it and then we were talking to the owner and I said it’s kind of silly to blacktop it because we have equipment that goes on the blacktop that will ruin it and he agreed. So we never did anything. It’s just been sitting there. So that’s why I’m here. MR. MAGOWAN-We didn’t bring that up at the meeting, why you want to park that heavy equipment on blacktop? MRS. REYNOLDS-I think we did, and I said is it possible for me to do stone and you said no, you have to do a new application. So we didn’t do anything. MR. MAGOWAN-I know. We can be tough. I’m sorry for that. It would have been a slight modification. MR. DEEB-You have to have a new site plan. MRS. REYNOLDS-We just didn’t want to get in trouble by adding the blue stone. MR. TRAVER-That would be unapproved development. MRS. REYNOLDS-You’re absolutely correct. We got in trouble before. So I don’t want to get in trouble. MR. TRAVER-So what’s there now is crushed stone, and what you want to do is add a, and I’m not an engineer, but it sounds like what you want to do is improve the quantity and the quality of the crushed stone so that it can handle the heavier vehicles without degrading. MRS. REYNOLDS-To an extent. What’s there is just old and it looks horrible and I just, I like things pretty, and we’re having lots of weeds and all just grossness coming up out of the ground, and I just don’t think it’s pretty and I called my boss and he agreed. MR. TRAVER-Okay. MR. DEEB-We were talking about the number of items on display. How many do you have on display, how many trucks? MRS. REYNOLDS-Currently? I have two tractor trailers and one excavator and three trailers. MR. DEEB-And are you planning on adding more? 15 (Queensbury Planning Board 06/15/2021) MRS. REYNOLDS-We are. MR. DEEB-Do you know how many more? MRS. REYNOLDS-It’s just really, really behind. Western Star is really slow at making the trucks right now. Normally we have two or three brand new tractor trailers for sale, tractor trailers or dump trucks, a couple of trailers, a couple of pieces of equipment. We don’t have huge amounts at the Queensbury store. Normally it’s at our Syracuse location and they just bring them up to us and we sell them. MR. DEEB-So you don’t anticipate putting a lot more vehicles? MRS. REYNOLDS-No, no, no. MR. DEEB-Okay. MR. TRAVER-No, I think what we were looking for with that is what you envision potentially the maximum vehicles would be. MRS. REYNOLDS-Vehicles meaning drivable or just anything? MR. TRAVER-On display. MRS. REYNOLDS-On display. Probably less than 10. MR. TRAVER-Okay. Thank you. MR. MAGOWAN-Pretty much what you’ve been doing for years. MRS. REYNOLDS-Yes. MR. MAGOWAN-I mean it’s been out there a coon’s age and who owned it before you guys? MRS. REYNOLDS-There were two other companies. So it was New York Truck before us and then Logger’s Equipment. MR. MAGOWAN-Right. I remember Logger’s. And I’m reading this and I’m like it doesn’t seem they should be in here for something like that, but I understand. Years of plowing, sand, snow the weeds. You’re going to put down a fabric to make sure those weeds don’t come up through it in the spring or are you going to dig it out? MRS. REYNOLDS-We would like to make it all just really nice and try to improve. We have the new x- ray place across the street along with Hudson Headwaters and it’s just pretty, and then there’s a, it’s just, when you drive by it’s just not pretty. I don’t know if Logger’s really cared if it was pretty. MR. HUNSINGER-And here I was thinking it looked a lot better than it used to. I thought it looked pretty good. MRS. REYNOLDS-We’re trying. I’m trying. I really am. I do have another question, though. So you sent out a letter to our neighbors saying that we were looking to do this. My neighbor to the right of me, he has, so he came to us asking if we, while we were doing this, if we would want to cut down their trees in between our location and his. Now I know you love green space in Queensbury. They’re pine trees and they have a lot of pine pitch. We have a lot of pine needles, and so when it gets on the trucks, when it gets on our vehicles, it’s kind of difficult. He hates them. We hate them. I didn’t know if there was a way we could help them, add trees or bushes. MR. TRAVER-Well the good news is we could consider it. The bad news is that it’s kind of like Deja vou. Remember when you did the paving and then you decided to change your mind. MRS. REYNOLDS-And then I come back. MR. TRAVER-Well, your cutting down all of the trees is not part of the application that we have before us. MRS. REYNOLDS-Right. MR. TRAVER-And you’re right, we generally like green space I guess. So I don’t know. MR. MAGOWAN-How many trees are you talking, just for instance? 16 (Queensbury Planning Board 06/15/2021) MRS. MOORE-So it’s on the west side of the property. So it would be, if I’m correct. MR. MAGOWAN-You just want to do it up along the property edge, so it’s the branches that hang over. MRS. REYNOLDS-Yes. In the pictures you can see the trees. MR. TRAVER-So, Laura, what about the buffer? MRS. REYNOLDS-Actually, it’s not that one. It’s up front. MRS. MOORE-It’s just the guy up here? MRS. REYNOLDS-No, up one. MRS. MOORE-This guy? MRS. REYNOLDS-Yes. MRS. MOORE-All right. MR. MAGOWAN-And the neighbor asked to take them down? MRS. REYNOLDS-Yes, he asked if we wanted to take them down, and I said, well, I don’t know, and he was like, yes, I’d be totally for that. He’s usually here, but I don’t see him. MR. HUNSINGER-Are they on your property or on his property? MRS. REYNOLDS=That I don’t know. MR. DEEB-Before you take them down you might want to check. I wouldn’t be doing that. MR. TRAVER-Yes, especially you might want to check with your insurance underwriters as well before you mess with that. MR. DEEB-I mean you could come back with a very brief site plan that we can look at. MRS. REYNOLDS-Okay. MR. MAGOWAN-Well, will she have to come back for cutting down a couple of trees on her property or if the neighbor wants them down? MRS. MOORE-Yes. MR. TRAVER-The answer to that is yes. MR. MAGOWAN-Because of the buffer zone? MRS. MOORE-Because of the buffer between commercial and residential. MR. TRAVER-Yes. AUDIENCE MEMBER-He’s been trying to sell the house, too. Aren’t they? He’s talked about it. MRS. REYNOLDS-Yes. AUDIENCE MEMBER-They’re planning on moving to Florida and they asked us if we wanted to buy it just last week. MR. TRAVER-If they’re moving to Florida, what do they care if the trees are there or not? MR. VALENTINE-And it’ll make his house look better if these guys do it for him. MR. TRAVER-Yes. I mean why don’t we talk about what we have before us tonight instead of what we might have down the road. It’s perfectly fine to have this kind of discussion. That’s fine. It’s just it is a procedure, and there is a, as Laura pointed out, there is a buffering requirement between commercial and residential, and we also don’t know who owns the trees. So I think we should probably let that one go. If you want to do some background work and have a conversation with Laura later on, we can probably expedite something if you wanted to do that, but for now let’s take a look at what we’ve got instead of what we might have. All right. So this is SEQR Type II. There is a public hearing on this application. 17 (Queensbury Planning Board 06/15/2021) Is there anyone in the audience that wanted to address the Planning Board? I’m not seeing anyone. So we’ll open the public hearing. PUBLIC HEARING OPENED MR. TRAVER-And we’ll close the public hearing, or I should ask, do we have? MRS. MOORE-No written comments. MR. TRAVER-No written comments? Thank you. PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED MR. TRAVER-Is there any further discussion or questions for the applicant? MRS. MOORE-I’m just going to bring up one. Part of the project previously and would need to be part of this project is that the lots be combined. MRS. REYNOLDS-Yes, that is another thing that we have to do . MR. TRAVER-Okay. So maybe we can make that a condition. MRS. MOORE-Yes. MR. SHAFER-Was that a condition before? MRS. MOORE-Yes, it was. MR. DEEB-Laura, is it included in the resolution? MRS. MOORE-I don’t think I added it. MR. TRAVER-No, because that a discussion item. In the notes it’s up to us to discuss it. MR. DEEB-So which lots? MRS. MOORE-Lots be combined. MR. DEEB-Two lots. MR. TRAVER-Just the lots owned to be combined into one. MR. VALENTINE-So you’re looking at one deed, then, under one map. MRS. MOORE-One tax map number. Right now there’s two tax map numbers. They are to be combined into one tax map number. Does the Board want to limit the number of display vehicles? She says no more than 10. Do you want to limit it to 10? MR. TRAVER-Yes, she said probably less than 10. So do we want, how do Board members feel? Do we want to limit the number of display vehicles to 10 or less? MRS. REYNOLDS-Maximum 12. I don’t think I can fit very many out there really. MR. DEEB-So why don’t we put it at 12. MR. HUNSINGER-Yes. MR. TRAVER-Maximum of 12. MR. MAGOWAN-In all the years I don’t ever remember ever seeing anything overloaded there. I mean like you said it usually comes in and it’s already sold and it’s gone. MRS. REYNOLDS-Yes. MR. MAGOWAN-Those loggers are waiting for that. That equipment comes in and they’re waiting. MRS. REYNOLDS-It’s very quick, yes. 18 (Queensbury Planning Board 06/15/2021) MR. TRAVER-Anything else before we consider a resolution? All right. I guess we’re ready to hear that motion. MR. DEEB-I just wanted to comment on the landscaping before I got into this. I’m sorry. There’s no extra landscaping that you’re going to do to the property. Correct? MR. TRAVER-It’s going to be improved because they’re freshening the stone. MR. MAGOWAN-The stone. MR. DEEB-Yes, I was talking about flowers, plantings. MRS. REYNOLDS-I don’t think they care about flowers. MR. DEEB-Okay. I just thought I’d ask. MRS. REYNOLDS-Do you want flowers? MR. DEEB-No. RESOLUTION APPROVING SP MOD # 36-2021 TRACEY HOLDINGS, LLC The applicant has submitted an application to the Planning Board: Applicant proposes modification to Site Plan 59-2018 to replace the existing gravel area of 15,725 +/- sq. ft. with shoulder stone and item #4. This would allow for an area to display equipment and trucks for rental. The existing building and out building are to remain – total buildings on site 22,700 sq. ft. Pursuant to Chapter 179-3-040 & 179-9-120 of the Zoning Ordinance, modifications to an approved site plan 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 06/15/2021 and continued the public hearing to 06/15/2021, 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 06/21/2021; 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 36-2021 TRACEY HOLDINGS, LLC. Introduced by David Deeb who moved for its adoption; Per the draft provided by staff conditioned upon the following conditions: 1) Waivers request granted: g. site lighting, h. signage, j. stormwater, k. topography, , 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 this is a project specific for a display are and there are no other changes to the site. 2) The approval is valid for one (1) year from the date of approval. Applicant is responsible for requesting an extension of approval before the one (1) year time frame has expired if you have not yet applied for a building permit or commenced significant site work. 3) Adherence to the items outlined in the follow-up letter sent with this resolution. a) If application was referred to engineering, then engineering sign-off required prior to signature of Zoning Administrator of the approved plans; b) Final approved plans should have dimensions and setbacks noted on the site plan/survey, floor plans and elevation for the existing rooms and proposed rooms in the building and site improvements, c) Final approved plans, in compliance with the Site Plan, must be submitted to the Community Development Department before any further review by the Zoning Administrator or Building and Codes personnel; d) The applicant must meet with Staff after approval and prior to issuance of Building Permit and/or the beginning of any site work; e) Subsequent issuance of further permits, including building permits is dependent on compliance with this and all other conditions of this resolution; 19 (Queensbury Planning Board 06/15/2021) f) As-built plans to certify that the site plan is developed according to the approved plans to be provided prior to issuance of the certificate of occupancy; g) Resolution to be placed on final plans in its entirety and legible. h) The current lots are to be combined into one lot. i) The number of display vehicles to be limited to 12. th Motion seconded by Chris Hunsinger. Duly adopted this 15 day of June 2021 by the following vote: AYES: Mr. Deeb, Ms. White, Mr. Shafer, Mr. Hunsinger, Mr. Magowan, Mr. Valentine, Mr. Traver NOES: NONE MR. TRAVER-You’re all set. MRS. REYNOLDS-Thank you. MR. TRAVER-Next under New Business on our agenda we have BBL Carlton, LLC. Site Plan Modification 37-2021. SITE PLAN MODIFICATION 37-2021 SEQR TYPE: BBL CARLTON, LLC. AGENT(S): JAKE WILLIAMS. OWNER(S): BBL TRIBUNE, LLC. ZONING: MS. LOCATION: 40 MEDIA DRIVE. APPLICANT PROPOSES TO MODIFY AN APPROVED SITE PLAN FROM A ONE TENANT BUILDING TO A MULTI-TENANT BUILDING FOR UP TO FOUR TENANTS. CURRENT TENANT, NIELSEN (30,400 +/- SQ. FT.), IS TO REMAIN ON THE FIRST FLOOR, A SECOND TENANT, GLENS FALLS NATIONAL BANK (10,000 +/- SQ. FT.) IS TO BE LOCATED ON THE SECOND FLOOR AND ALSO ON THE SECOND FLOOR IS PROPOSED TWO FUTURE TENANT SPACES (2,000 +/- SQ. FT. AND 16,900 +/- SQ. FT.) PURSUANT TO CHAPTER 179-3- 040 & 179-9-120 OF THE ZONING ORDINANCE, MODIFICATIONS TO AN APPROVED SITE PLAN AND REUSE OF AN EXISTING BUILDING SHALL BE SUBJECT TO SITE PLAN REVIEW AND APPROVAL. CROSS REFERENCE: SP 18-2007. WARREN CO. REFERRAL: JUNE 2021. LOT SIZE: 7.34 ACRES. TAX MAP NO. 309.10-1-82.1. SECTION: 179-3-040, 179-9-120. JON LAPPER, REPRESENTING APPLICANT, PRESENT MR. TRAVER-Laura? MRS. MOORE-This is a modification of an approved Site Plan of 2007 when there was a building constructed. In addition there was an Area Variance that was granted at that time when we were doing more cars than were allowed, a parking variance. In this case the current tenant is Nielsen, I believe, and it’s at 30,400 square feet. They’re to remain on the first floor. The second tenant on the second floor is rented out to three tenant spaces, one that they know of right now is Glens Falls National. It’s 10,000 square feet, broken up into other sections or tenant spaces, two tenants one at 2,000 square feet and one at 16,900 square feet. MR. TRAVER-Okay. Thank you. Good evening. MR. LAPPER-Good evening. I’m Jon Lapper with Jaime Marshlo from BBL. So I promise this is the simplest one of the evening. No changes whatsoever. This was built at the time when people rented offices. So we had to ask for extra parking, as Laura said. Nothing is changing on the site plan. The interior changes are just upstairs to accommodate an additional, Glens Falls National for the time being is a temporary tenants, and future tenants, but it doesn’t, and this makes it so you can have a separate tenant upstairs. Access, nothing on the site that needs to be changed. It’s a really nice building, nicely landscaped. MS. WHITE-Those Nielsen employees are enjoying working from home. MR. TRAVER-Yes, so this is entirely internal on the site. MR. LAPPER-Bu tit still triggered site plan review. MR. MAGOWAN-Would this be considered a change of use? MRS. MOORE-It was approved as one tenant. MR. MAGOWAN-Right. MRS. MOORE-So to add additional tenants. MR. MAGOWAN-So are they going to have to come back for review every time they get a new tenant? 20 (Queensbury Planning Board 06/15/2021) MRS. MOORE-No. MR. MAGOWAN-All right. MS. WHITE-Is Glens Falls National leaving somewhere else? MR. LAPPER-They’re renovating their Downtown, their Glen Street building . So they needed somewhere to go and this was available. So they lucked out. MR. DEEB-Did they find structural damage in that building? Is that why they’re moving out? MR. LAPPER-What I read is they just want to upgrade it. Just modernize it. MR. MAGOWAN-It’s like a two year project I think. MR. TRAVER-Yes. MR. MAGOWAN-It’s a pretty big project. It’s an old building. MR. TRAVER-Well we do have a public hearing on this application. Since you’re the only one remaining in the audience, did you have any questions or comments for the Planning Board regarding this? Okay. Well we’ll open. PUBLIC HEARING OPENED MR. TRAVER-And then close the public hearing. Laura, are there any written comments? MRS. MOORE-There are no written comments. PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED MR. TRAVER-All right. So we have the public hearing opened and closed. Is there any other discussion, questions for the applicant? So this is Type II so there’s no SEQR. So if there’s nothing further, I guess we’re ready for that resolution. RESOLUTION APPROVING SP MOD # 37-2021 BBL CARLTON, LLC The applicant has submitted an application to the Planning Board: Applicant proposes to modify an approved site plan from a one tenant building to a multi-tenant building for up to four tenants. Current tenant, Nielsen (30,400 +/- sq. ft.), is to remain on the first floor, a second tenant, Glens Falls National (10,000 +/- sq. ft.) is to be located on the second floor and also on the second floor is proposed two future tenant spaces (2,000 +/- sq. ft. and 16,900 +/- sq. ft.). Pursuant to Chapter 179-3-040 & 179-9-120 of the Zoning Ordinance, modifications to an approved site plan and reuse of an existing building 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 06/15/2021 and continued the public hearing to 06/15/2021 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 06/15/2021; 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 37-2021 BBL CARLTON, LLC. Introduced by David Deeb who moved for its adoption; Per the draft provided by staff conditioned upon the following conditions: 1) Waivers request granted: g. site lighting, h. signage, j. stormwater, k. topography, l. landscaping, n traffic, o. commercial alterations/ construction details, p floor plans, q. soil logs, r. construction/demolition disposal s. snow removal. The waivers requested are reasonable to request a waiver as these items as the specific project work is for the interior of the building 21 (Queensbury Planning Board 06/15/2021) 2) The approval is valid for one (1) year from the date of approval. Applicant is responsible for requesting an extension of approval before the one (1) year time frame has expired if you have not yet applied for a building permit or commenced significant site work. 3) Adherence to the items outlined in the follow-up letter sent with this resolution. a) If application was referred to engineering, then engineering sign-off required prior to signature of Zoning Administrator of the approved plans; b) Final approved plans should have dimensions and setbacks noted on the site plan/survey, floor plans and elevation for the existing rooms and proposed rooms in the building and site improvements, c) Final approved plans, in compliance with the Site Plan, must be submitted to the Community Development Department before any further review by the Zoning Administrator or Building and Codes personnel; d) The applicant must meet with Staff after approval and prior to issuance of Building Permit and/or the beginning of any site work; e) Subsequent issuance of further permits, including building permits is dependent on compliance with this and all other conditions of this resolution; f) As-built plans to certify that the site plan is developed according to the approved plans to be provided prior to issuance of the certificate of occupancy; g) Resolution to be placed on final plans in its entirety and legible. th Motion seconded by Chris Hunsinger. Duly adopted this 15 day of June 2021 by the following vote: AYES: Ms. White, Mr. Shafer, Mr. Hunsinger, Mr. Magowan, Mr. Valentine, Mr. Deeb, Mr. Traver NOES: NONE MR. TRAVER-You’re all set. MR. LAPPER-Thanks, everybody. MR. TRAVER-Is there any other business before the Board this evening? All right. We’ll entertain a motion to adjourn. MR. HUNSINGER-So moved. MR. TRAVER-Do we have a second? MR. DEEB-Second. MOTION TO ADJOURN THE QUEENSBURY PLANNING BOARD MEETING OF JUNE 15, 2021, Introduced by Chris Hunsinger who moved for its adoption, seconded by David Deeb: th Duly adopted this 15 day of June, 2021, by the following vote: AYES: Mr. Deeb, Ms. White, Mr. Shafer, Mr. Hunsinger, Mr. Valentine, Mr. Magowan, Mr. Traver NOES: NONE MR. TRAVER-We stand adjourned. On motion meeting was adjourned. RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED, Stephen Traver, Chairman 22