Loading...
08-17-2021 (Queensbury Planning Board 08/17/2021) QUEENSBURY PLANNING BOARD MEETING FIRST REGULAR MEETING AUGUST 17, 2021 INDEX Site Plan No. 16-2019 Alex & Michelle Wilcox 1. REQUEST FOR EXTENSION Tax Map No. 278.20-1-3 Site Plan No. 35-2021 Chris Racicot 3. SEQR Tax Map No. 309.10-1-60 TOWN BOARD RECOMMENDATION Site Plan No. 43-2021 Foothills Builders 7. Tax Map No. 289.7-2-2 Site Plan No. 49-2021 Lester H. Chase III 9. ZBA RECOMMENDATION Tax Map No. 239.19-1-17 Site Plan Mod. No. 45-2021 Stewart’s Shops Corporation 11. ZBA RECOMMENDATION Tax Map No. 303.19-1-61 Site Plan No. 48-2021 Dark Bay Lane, LLC 13. ZBA RECOMMENDATION Tax Map No. 239.18-1-37 Site Plan No. 53-2021 Michael & Alice Crotty 20. ZBA RECOMMENDATION Tax Map No. 289.18-1-17 Site Plan Mod No. 50-2021 Foothills Builders 22. Tax Map No. 296.5-1-16 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 08/17/2021) QUEENSBURY PLANNING BOARD MEETING FIRST REGULAR MEETING AUGUST 17, 2021 7:00 P.M. MEMBERS PRESENT STEPHEN TRAVER, CHAIRMAN CHRIS HUNSINGER, VICE CHAIRMAN DAVID DEEB, SECRETARY JOHN SHAFER BRAD MAGOWAN STEVEN JACKOSKI, ALTERNATE MEMBERS ABSENT MICHAEL VALENTINE JAMIE WHITE LAND USE PLANNER-LAURA MOORE STENOGRAPHER-MARIA GAGLIARDI MR. TRAVER-Good evening, ladies and gentlemen. Welcome to the Town of Queensbury Planning thth Board meeting for August 17, 2021. This is our first meeting for August. Our 16 meeting thus far this year. If you have a cell phone or other electronic device, if you would either turn the ringer off or turn the device itself off we would appreciate it so it does not interrupt our proceedings. Please make note of the illuminated exit signs. In the event of an emergency, that is the way out. Just a couple of brief announcements. One is we’re going to get a presentation that’s really for the Board from Stored Tech regarding additional security protocol which is commonly known as two factor authentication, but you’re welcome to participate in that and hear that presentation as well. It’s something that everybody should be aware of and be using themselves. Also it should be noted that tonight we have some absenteeism. So we do not have a full Board present and if there are applicants that would prefer to request a tabling rather than be heard with less than a full Board, they have an opportunity to do that, just to request that. With that, we will begin with a couple of administrative items. The first is the approval of minutes from June thnd 15 and June 22, 2021. APPROVAL OF MINUTES June 15, 2021 June 22, 2021 MOTION TO APPROVE THE QUEENSBURY PLANNING BOARD MEETING MINUTES OF JUNE thND 15 AND JUNE 22, 2021, Introduced by Brad Magowan who moved for its adoption, seconded by John Shafer: th Duly adopted this 17 day of August, 2021, by the following vote: AYES: Mr. Deeb, Mr. Jackoski, Mr. Shafer, Mr. Hunsinger, Mr. Magowan, Mr. Traver NOES: NONE ABSTAINED: Mr. Valentine, Ms. White MR. TRAVER-We have one other administrative item which is Site Plan 16-2019 for Wilcox. ADMINISTRATIVE ITEM: SITE PLAN 16-2019 WILCOX – REQUEST FOR ADDITIONAL ONE YEAR EXTENSION. MR. TRAVER-There’s a request for an additional one year extension. And I believe the information reports that this is a combination of COVID and the budgetary impacts of the cost of material. Laura, did you have anything you wanted to add to that? MRS. MOORE-You have it correct. 2 (Queensbury Planning Board 08/17/2021) MR. TRAVER-I have it correct. All right. Does anyone have any concerns or issues with granting that one year extension? All right, and I believe we have a draft resolution to that effect. RESOLUTION GRANTING A ONE YEAR EXTENSION SP 16-2019 ALEX & MICHELLE WILCOX The applicant has submitted an application to the Planning Board for Site Plan approval pursuant to Article 9 of the Town zoning Ordinance for: (Revised) Applicant proposes construction of a 2,616 sq. ft. single family home with 477 sq. ft. of porches and associated site work. The house to be constructed is located within 50 ft. of 15% slopes. The site includes grading, lot clearing for house, septic and well. Pursuant to Chapter 179-6-060 of the Zoning Ordinance, construction occurring within 50 ft. of 15% slopes shall be subject to Planning Board review and approval. The Planning Board approved Site Plan 16-2019 on August 20, 2019. Project received a one year extension to August 2021 on July 21, 2020. Applicant requests an additional one year extension to August 2022. MOTION TO APPROVE A ONE YEAR EXTENSION FOR SITE PLAN 16-2019 ALEX & MICHELLE WILCOX. Introduced by David Deeb who moved for its adoption, seconded by Brad Magowan. th Duly adopted this 17 day of August 2021 by the following vote: AYES: Mr. Jackoski, Mr. Shafer, Mr. Hunsinger, Mr. Magowan, Mr. Deeb, Mr. Traver NOES: NONE ABSENT: Mr. Valentine, Ms. White MR. TRAVER-All right, and as I reported earlier, before we get to our regular agenda we will turn the presentation over to Stored Tech to talk about two factor authentication. Good evening. KEVIN MALINOSKI MR. MALINOSKI-Good evening. Thank you for having me. I appreciate the time allotted here. I just wanted to briefly go over some changes that are being made to the e-mail environment for the Town of Queensbury. We are currently in the middle of a project that we refer to as MFA implementation, also as you indicated two factor authentication. Right now as you all know you have passwords that get you into your e-mail and as part of the Cyber insurance policy we have to ensure that all of the accounts at the Town of Queensbury that are accessed externally have multi-factor authentication, the words two factor are used interchangeably. Most people are familiar with this, but if you’re not we just wanted to briefly go over at high level and give you this documentation. Starting tomorrow at 8 a.m. we’re going to enable for the members that are here tonight, we’re staging this out across the next two weeks so it’s not everyone at once, but we’re going to enable MFA codes to be sent to your cell phones via text is the default way. If that doesn’t work for you, you’ll have an option to choose a phone call that it would dictate the code over the phone to you. You’ll be asked for this code on any device that you check e-mail on. It’ll ask for your password and then it will say we have now sent a code to your phone. And this is a really, just a one-time process that you’re going to have to go through on your devices. The only time that you should notice another code getting sent to your phone or requesting it is if you were to turn off the phone for 30 days. We have what’s called a 30 day grace period. So if a device goes off line, doesn’t talk to the internet for more than 30 days it wants to make sure that it’s still you in ownership of that device, you didn’t hand it off to somebody and credentials are safe so that’s just kind of like a failsafe mechanism that’s implemented. And again you should really only be asked once for this code on your devices and we’ll be turning it on for everyone here starting tomorrow at 8 a.m. If you have any issues, this is part of a project that we’re doing with the Town of Queensbury. So we have 24/7 support, whatever time works for you. If you’re having issues you can call in to our service line. Between 8 and 5 is our day to day operations at Stored Tech where all of our engineers are in the office. However, we have after hour support which is part of the project. There’s no need to worry about additional charges or anything because after hours your request basically gets triaged through an on call system we have that will then alert our on call team. Myself, as your technical account manager, and the project manager identified at the top of this, we have notifications for any on call calls. So I’ll be checking my phone to make sure, you know, if we see anything come up we’ll have the right engineer on there. This is just to secure things, and they should be pretty simple and straightforward. I’m sure you’re familiar with it if you do any on line banking, any sort of secure transactions on line, most systems have really started to push this and implement it., And really that’s just a high level overview. I wanted to go it briefly. I know you have a very busy agenda for tonight, but we’ve pre-populated all of your phone numbers in the system. So there’s no enrollment process that you should have to go through. Your mobile phone number already knows it. So if you’re not getting a text, it’s possible it may have been entered wrong. Just give us a call and we’ll correct that, but that’s really it. I wanted to keep it short and brief here. If there’s any questions I can take them. 3 (Queensbury Planning Board 08/17/2021) MR. TRAVER-One question I have is would the process start 8 a.m. tomorrow, the first time I access my e-mail I’ll get a pop-up or something saying? MR. MALINOSKI-Yes, so we’ll turn the policy on tomorrow at 8 a.m. There can be up to a 24 hour time of where the server is chugging through the process and implementing it fully. So I would fully expect some time tomorrow to be prompted for it. We’ve already been deploying it to some other departments of the Town. It’s been fairly immediate on their devices, but if you don’t get anything and you can check e- mail and things are working, don’t worry too much, it’s coming. So just be prepared. MR. TRAVER-And that process basically would be once for each device, if we have more than one device that we use to access our e-mail. Correct? MR. MALINOSKI-Correct. MR. TRAVER-And then if we do that and we do not turn any devices off for more than 30 days, how often will it ask again? Annually? MR. MALINOSKI-It actually sort of does a handshake with the server and validates your device. So as long as it doesn’t go off line, then it won’t have a problem checking in. Now if you’re traveling and you have a personal device and you may be outside of the U.S., some things may become a little more strict and you may be prompted for a code or there may not be access. Again, in that situation if you need access we can always provide access, but we’re trying to be restrictive, more cyber security methods. In this day and age it’s better to be more restrictive than less and try to prepare for the worst. MR. TRAVER-Absolutely. Questions from other members of the Board on the process? Okay. If not, ask Kevin said, there are the phone numbers and hopefully all will go well. I’m sure it will. Thank you, very much. MR. MALINOSKI-Thank you for your time. MS. GAGLIARDI-Can I just get your full name for the record? MR. MALINOSKI-Yes. Kevin Malinoski. MS. GAGLIARDI-Thank you. MR. TRAVER-All right. Moving on to our regular agenda this evening, the first section of that agenda is tabled items. The first is Chris Racicot, Site Plan 35-2021. TABLED 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 NEWCOMB STREET. SEQRA: PLANNING BOARD MAY PROCEED WITH SEQRA REVIEW. APPLICANT PROPOSES CONSTRUCTION OF 14 UNITS CONSISTING OF THREE BUILDINGS WHERE TWO BUILDINGS WILL HAVE SIX UNITS AND ONE BUILDING WILL HAVE TWO UNITS. THE BUILDINGS ARE TO BE TWO STORY WITH GARAGE AND EXTERIOR PATIOS. PROJECT INCLUDES SEWER CONNECTION AGREEMENT AND CONSTRUCTION. PROJECT SITE WORK INCLUDES LIGHTING, LANDSCAPING AND STORMWATER CONTROLS. PURSUANT TO CHAPTER 179-3-040, 179-5-090, 179-5-100, 179-7-070, & 179-8-050 OF THE ZONING ORDINANCE NEW COMMERCIAL CONSTRUCTION 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. SECTION: 179-3-040, 179-5-090, 179-5-100, 179-7-070, 179-8-050. BRANDON FERGUSON, REPRESENTING APPLICANT, PRESENT; CHRIS RACICOT, PRESENT MRS. MOORE-At the previous meetings there were discussions about what type of buildings that we’ll be presented with, and the project has changed. So it’s still 14 units. However it will consist of three buildings where two buildings will have six units and one building will have two units. The application involves lighting, landscaping and stormwater controls and information had been referred to the Town Engineer and I believe that the applicant is able to respond to that information. MR. TRAVER-Okay. Thank you. Good evening. Welcome back. MR. FERGUSON-Good evening. Brandon Ferguson with Environmental Design. The applicant, Chris Racicot. So as you know you saw all this in June and there was one 14 unit building that stretched across 4 (Queensbury Planning Board 08/17/2021) the property. So we did make some modifications to that plan. It is now two, six unit buildings, and then another two unit building. So these are the six unit buildings. The two unit building will be directly off of Newcomb Street with access for the six unit buildings where the access was before and then the turnaround for emergency vehicles would be between the two buildings. We feel it just kind of spreads out the site a little more, gets rid of that kind of big wall of one long building. Do you want to go to the, so the construction this would actually be done in two phases. Phase One would be the two, six unit buildings and the stormwater associated with that, and then during Phase One the existing home located where the two unit building is would remain and then Phase Two would be the removal of that existing home. Removal of this home and then installation of that two unit building. So we kind of did a supplemental stormwater design for when the, during Phase One to keep that existing home and then it would get modified again once they remove it. The other site improvements, I can go over utilities first. So utilities, we’re going to have, water will be served off of Newcomb Street. There’s a water main there. We’ll tap into that with water services for each building. Sewer would run up from Main Street, would come up Newcomb Street and tie in to serve these buildings. That’s the process we’re going through with the Town Board right now in order to go through that. Stormwater management, infiltration, great soils there. We’re working with Chazen and we just got a comment letter from them which we turned around and responded to late last week. I think there were only a few remaining comments. So we’re pretty close to that. As far as the rest of the site planting plan. So what we are proposing for plantings is along Newcomb Street we’re proposing some larger trees. We have red maples in there as well as some shrubs to kind of filter the views of the building from the Newcomb Street side. On the southern side of the property, we are proposing, these are actually red buds and some medium sized trees, some viburnums and then there’s actually some blue spruce, evergreens and some in the corners as well. So it’s a combination of shrubs and trees to create kind of a buffer to those properties itself, and then on the northern side we’re proposing some larger trees, some red maples as well as some medium trees like red buds to kind of create a buffer on that side while also allowing for some snow storage. I guess the only thing left on the site would be signage. We are proposing a small sign up here in front. It would be zoning compliant that would be, it would be constructed of wood. It wouldn’t be illuminated. It would just have lighting, like landscaping lighting pointing up high, so it wouldn’t be backlit. MR. TRAVER-You want the lighting pointed down MR. FERGUSON-Sorry, down on it. Yes. To illuminate it. So that’s the plan for the signage for the project site which would go near the entry. As far as site lighting goes, it would be all, there wouldn’t be any pole lights. We’re proposing just like on the buildings. So they’d be within the entryways of the building when you’re first walking in. If you want to go to the elevation views. So there’d be lights above the entry doors which will actually be covered in that area, and then on the rear of the building there’d be lights along the patio doors that would have a shield on top of them that would kind of light up that back entry into the building, but it would all be residential style lighting. Overall I think the plan tonight is to get through SEQR with you guys. We know we have some work to do with the Town Board for the sewer, but we’d like to get this project going. So I’ll turn it back to you guys if you have any questions or comments. MR. TRAVER-Okay, and clarification, Laura. Our goal for this evening is to conduct the review under SEQR and provide recommendation to the Town Board. Correct? MRS. MOORE-Correct. MR. TRAVER-Questions, comments from members of the Board regarding SEQR? MR. SHAFER-Question. The phases is new. Are we doing Phase One and Phase Two or just Phase One? MRS. MOORE-As part of SEQR you’d be allowing both. If you want to do details in Site Plan Review which comes next, you can get into the details of timing, which I think you’ll address. I’m sure you will. MR. TRAVER-For the environmental review we want to do the whole concept project and not segment it into multiple parts. MR. SHAFER-Another question. The existing conditions showed access to the house in back. I didn’t see that on the site plan. MR. FERGUSON-Yes. Access to the house in back will be maintained. There’s a 25 foot right of way along that northern boundary. So they would come in along that driveway. You see this dotted line right here. It’s dense all the way through. That is access. That’s a 25 foot right of way from the house. They would have access. MR. SHAFER-I see. Okay. You showed a different way than the existing. 5 (Queensbury Planning Board 08/17/2021) MR. TRAVER-There’s also a staff note that you have identified this or described it as a townhouse project, although it’s actually a multi-family building, just in terms of how it fits under the different types of development. MR. FERGUSON-Yes, and they’re a townhouse style unit. I guess that’s probably why we call them townhouses. They’re individual units but they are for rent. So they would be. MR. MAGOWAN-I would like to say for Chris, I know the engineering probably increased a little bit more than you thought but I really have to say I like the idea of getting rid of that house and making that a two unit the way you split it up. It really just changed the total look of the whole project and I just want to thank you for really putting your thoughts in here. I know the property well. I knew the previous owner that had it. So it’s going to be a big improvement over there, but what you did by splitting that, making it two and then getting rid of the house, putting the two units over there to make the project worthwhile, I appreciate it. MR. RACICOT-Thank you so much, and that’s another reason we wanted to move it to six is Warren County said why is it so big, and so at least to take the monstrosity out of it and dress it up a little bit, separate it and then, you know, maybe in the next two years we’re thinking of taking down the building, but we’ll at least get through the first part and see how we do and then hopefully get rid of that thing, because I mean it’s not a bad building, but it’s also, there’s give and take on it. MR. MAGOWAN-Yes, it’s so cut up. I mean, I remember the old office walking in there and behind the counter and, you know. MR. RACICOT-It’s a weird design, absolutely. MR. MAGOWAN-But, no, it really, overall it just really just softened the who project, and I think it will blend in nice. So I just wanted to compliment you and going to the extra expense of re-designing the whole thing. MR. SHAFER-And I made a comment about the architecture. This is a vast improvement, the look, than the original plan that you guys submitted. MR. RACICOT-We went a little more modern, kind of sort of. Because I looked at some of your renderings you guys had for that corridor on Main Street. So you guys have got, it feels more industrial wise. You had a lot of buildings with longer windows and what not like that. So I kind of took it out of I guess not so Adirondack and more industrial wise. MR. SHAFER-It looks nicer. MR. RACICOT-Well thank you. MR. TRAVER-So environmental concerns. The applicant did submit a Short Form for SEQR review. Does anyone have any concerns regarding, under SEQR that we need to be concerned about with this project? Okay. Well, I think we have, are there any other questions for the applicant before we proceed to? I think we actually have a public hearing still open. Do we not, Laura? MRS. MOORE-Correct. MR. TRAVER-So we should take public comment this evening. Is there anyone that wanted to address the Planning Board on this application this evening? Are there any written comments? PUBLIC HEARING OPEN th MRS. MOORE-So this was read back on May 18 of 2021. So I’m not going to read it again, but it was from Jolene Godfrey Lawson who lives on that street, and she had expressed concerns about beautification of Main Street and things that are going on, and she was concerned that it would create a bit of a traffic problem in that area, and I don’t know if she’s here tonight, but I just wanted to make sure the Board recalled her comments at that time. MR. TRAVER-Yes, thank you. And of course the project has changed since then somewhat as well. Okay. Well in this case, Laura, they’re coming back, presumably, for Site Plan. So we should leave the public hearing open. Correct? MRS. MOORE-You can leave the public hearing open. MR. TRAVER-Yes. Okay. All right. So we’ll leave the public hearing open and continue to take comment on that project. Anything else from members of the Board before we entertain a motion? All right. We have a SEQR resolution. 6 (Queensbury Planning Board 08/17/2021) RESOLUTION GRANTING A NEGATIVE SEQR DEC. SP # 35-2021 CHRIS RACICOT The applicant proposes construction of construction of 14 units consisting of three buildings where two buildings will have six units and one building will have two units. The buildings are to be two-story with garage and exterior patios. Project includes sewer connection agreement and construction. Project site work includes lighting, landscaping and stormwater controls. Pursuant to Chapter179-3-040, 179-5-090, 179-5-100, 179-7-070 & 179-8-050 of the Zoning Ordinance new commercial construction shall be subject to Planning Board and other department reviews. 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; Agencies of Queensbury Town Board and New York State Department of Environmental Conservation deferred Lead Agency Status to the Queensbury Planning Board; Part 1 of the Short 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 SITE PLAN 35-2021 CHRIS RACICOT. Introduced by David Deeb who moved for its adoption. As per the resolution prepared by staff. 1. Part II of the Short EAF has been reviewed and completed by the Planning Board. 2. Part III of the Short EAF is not necessary because the Planning Board did not identify potentially moderate to large impacts. th Motion seconded by Brad Magowan. Duly adopted this 17 day of August 2021 by the following vote: AYES: Mr. Shafer, Mr. Hunsinger, Mr. Magowan, Mr. Deeb, Mr. Jackoski, Mr. Traver NOES: NONE ABSENT: Mr. Valentine, Ms. White MR. TRAVER-And then next we consider a recommendation to the Town Board as favorable. Does anyone have any discussions or questions regarding that resolution? Okay, and we have the draft resolution provided for that as well. RESOLUTION RE: TOWN BOARD RESOLUTION RE: SP # 35-2021 CHRIS RACICOT The applicant has submitted an application to the Planning Board: Applicant proposes construction of 14 units consisting of three buildings where two buildings will have six units and one building will have two units. The buildings are to be two-story with garage and exterior patios. Project includes sewer connection agreement and construction. Project site work includes lighting, landscaping and stormwater controls. Pursuant to Chapter179-3-040, 179-5-090, 179-5-100, 179-7-070 & 179-8-050 of the Zoning Ordinance new commercial construction shall be subject to Planning Board and other department reviews. Whereas, an application & sewer agreement has been made to the Town of Queensbury Town Board. The Town Board referred this application to the Planning Board for an advisory recommendation pursuant to Section 179-15-020; Whereas, the Planning Board will review the applicant’s site plan pursuant to the requirements of Section 179-9-020; Whereas, the State Environmental Quality Review Act has been completed by the Queensbury Planning Board and has issued a negative declaration; Now, therefore, be it resolved, that we find the following: 7 (Queensbury Planning Board 08/17/2021) MOTION FOR RECOMMENDATION TO THE TOWN BOARD AS FAVORABLE FOR SITE PLAN & ASSOCIATED WORK i.e. SEWER AGREEMENT REVIEW FOR SITE PLAN 35-2021 CHRIS RACICOT. Introduced by David Deeb who moved for its adoption, and th Motion seconded by Brad Magowan. Duly adopted this 17 day of August 2021 by the following vote: AYES: Mr. Hunsinger, Mr. Magowan, Mr. Deeb, Mr. Jackoski, Mr. Shafer, Mr. Traver NOES: NONE ABSENT: Mr. Valentine, Ms. White MR. TRAVER-All right. You’re all set for tonight. MR. RACICOT-Thank you very much. MR. TRAVER-Next on our agenda we move to the category of Old Business. And the first item is Foothills Builders, Site Plan 43-2021. OLD BUSINESS: SITE PLAN NO. 43-2021 SEQR TYPE: TYPE II. FOOTHILLS BUILDERS. AGENT(S): MATTHEW HUNTINGTON, STUDIO A. OWNER(S): L.P. DAIGLE. ZONING: RR-3A. LOCATION: 11 MOON HILL PLACE. APPLICANT PROPOSES DEMOLITION OF AN EXISTING 1,045 SQ. FT. FOOTPRINT HOME TO CONSTRUCT A 2,319 SQ. FT. FOOTPRINT HOME. THE PROJECT INCLUDES DISTURBANCES OF ABOUT 19,786 SQ. FT. FOR SITE WORK. THE PROJECT INCLUDES INSTALLATION OF A NEW ON-SITE SEPTIC SYSTEM AND WELL. PURSUANT TO CHAPTER 179-3-040 & 179-6-060 OF THE ZONING ORDINANCE, CONSTRUCTION WITHIN 50 FT. OF 15% SLOPES SHALL BE SUBJECT TO PLANNING BOARD REVIEW AND APPROVAL. CROSS REFERENCE: 2012-311 ALT. DUE TO FIRE, AV 45-2021. WARREN CO. REFERRAL: JULY 2021. SITE INFORMATION: STEEP SLOPES. LOT SIZE: .96 ACRE. TAX MAP NO. 289.7-2-2. SECTION: 179-3-040, 179-6-060. QUINN ROESCH, REPRESENTING APPLICANT, PRESENT MR. TRAVER-Laura? MRS. MOORE-This application was for the demolition of the existing 1,045 square foot footprint. I think there’s still some standing foundation. That’s going to be removed to construct a 2,319 square foot footprint home. Disturbance includes 19,786 square feet. The project’s in front of the Planning Board th because it’s within 50 feet of 15% slopes. The variance was granted from the Zoning Board on July 28, 2021, and this just got moved into an August agenda due to the number of applications. MR. TRAVER-Okay. Thank you. Welcome back. MS. ROESCH-Good evening. I’m Quinn Roesch with Studio A, representing Foothills Builders. So like Laura said we were at the ZBA to request the approval of front, side and rear yard setbacks. Those were approved because it’s a non-conforming lot. So we are here tonight to request the approval to encroach on a 50 foot setback from 15% slopes for the construction of this proposed development. This development includes a residence and driveway that will be constructed in relatively the general area of the existing driveway and residence. The existing residence is just the foundation. It burned down. We don’t know when, and that’s going to be removed for the new residence. Within it’s footprint we’re going to put an infiltration basin to manage all the stormwater and water generated from the new impervious surfaces. Right now there’s no stormwater on the property and the only other new addition to the property is a conventional piped septic system and well near the road. MR. TRAVER-Okay, and as a result of your conversation with the ZBA, were there any changes in your plans as we discussed before? MS. ROESCH-No. MR. TRAVER-Okay. Thank you. Questions, comments from members of the Board? MR. MAGOWAN-No, she did such a good job last time here. 8 (Queensbury Planning Board 08/17/2021) MR. TRAVER-All right. We do have a public hearing on this application as well. Is there anyone in the audience that wanted to comment on this application to the Planning Board? Seeing none, are there any written comments, Laura? PUBLIC HEARING OPENED MRS. MOORE-There are no written comments. MR. TRAVER-Okay. Then we will close the public hearing. PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED MR. TRAVER-Any further questions from members of the Board for the applicant before we move to resolution? All right. RESOLUTION APPROVING SP # 43-2021 FOOTHILLS BUILDERS The applicant has submitted an application to the Planning Board: Applicant proposes demolition of an existing 1,045 sq. ft. footprint home to construct a 2,319 sq. ft. footprint home. The project includes disturbances of about 19,786 sq. ft. for site work. The project includes installation of a new on-site septic system and well. Pursuant to Chapter 179-3-040 & 179-6-060 of the Zoning Ordinance, construction within 50 ft. of 15% slopes shall be subject to Planning Board review and approval. Pursuant to relevant sections of the Town of Queensbury Zoning Code-Chapter 179-9-080, the Planning Board has determined that this proposal satisfies the requirements as stated in the Zoning Code; As required by General Municipal Law Section 239-m the site plan application was referred to the Warren County Planning Department for its recommendation; The Planning Board made a recommendation to the Zoning Board of Appeals on 07/27/2021; the ZBA approved the variance requests on 07/28/2021; The Planning Board opened a public hearing on the Site plan application on 08/17/2021and continued the public hearing to 08/17/2021, 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 08/17/2021; 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 43-2021 FOOTHILLS BUILDERS; Introduced by David Deeb who moved for its adoption; Per the draft provided by staff conditioned upon the following conditions: 1) Waivers request granted: g. site lighting, h. signage, k. topography, l. landscaping, n traffic, o. commercial alterations/ construction details, p floor plans, q. soil logs, r. construction/demolition disposal s. snow removal. The waivers requested are consider reasonable to request a waiver as these items are typically associated with commercial projects. The applicant has provided information on j. stormwater 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; 9 (Queensbury Planning Board 08/17/2021) g) Resolution to be placed on final plans in its entirety and legible. th Motion seconded by Chris Hunsinger. Duly adopted this 17day of August 2021 by the following vote: AYES: Mr. Magowan, Mr. Hunsinger, Mr. Jackoski, Mr. Shafer, Mr. Deeb, Mr. Traver NOES: NONE ABSENT: Mr. Valentine, Ms. White MR. TRAVER-You’re all set. MS. ROESCH-Thank you very much. MR. TRAVER-The next section of our agenda is under Planning Board recommendations to the ZBA, and the first item is Lester Chase, Site Plan 49-2021. PLANNING BOARD RECOMMENDATIONS TO THE ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS: SITE PLAN NO. 49-2021 SEQR TYPE: TYPE II. LESTER H. CHASE III. AGENT(S): MATTHEW F. FULLER, ESQ. OWNER(S): SAME AS APPLICANT. ZONING: RR-5A. LOCATION: 3219 STATE ROUTE 9L. APPLICANT PROPOSES TO CONSTRUCT A 1,650 SQ. FT. DETACHED GARAGE AS A REPLACEMENT GARAGE OF 1,596 SQ. FT. THE SITE HAS AN EXISTING 1,582 SQ. FT. (FOOTPRINT) HOME, AND 378 SQ. FT. SHED AND BOTH ARE TO REMAIN. PURSUANT TO CHAPTER 179-3-040 & 179-6-060 OF THE ZONING ORDINANCE, NEW CONSTRUCTION WITHIN 50 FT. OF 15% SLOPES SHALL BE SUBJECT TO PLANNING BOARD REVIEW AND APPROVAL. VARIANCE: RELIEF IS SOUGHT FOR SETBACKS, SIZE AND NUMBER OF GARAGES. PLANNING BOARD SHALL PROVIDE A RECOMMENDATION TO THE ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS. CROSS REFERENCE: PZ 130-2016 ADD., BOTH 384-2015, AV 54-2021. WARREN CO. REFERRAL: AUGUST 2021. SITE INFORMATION: APA, LGPC. LOT SIZE: 2.0 ACRES. TAX MAP NO. 239.19-1-17. SECTION: 179-3-040, 179-6-060 MATT FULLER, REPRESENTING APPLICANT, PRESENT; LONNIE CHASE, PRESENT MR. TRAVER-Laura? MRS. MOORE-The applicant proposes to construct a 1,650 square foot attached garage as a replacement garage of a 1,596 square foot garage. The site has an existing 1,582 square foot footprint of the home, 378 square foot shed and both are to remain. The variance relief is sought for setbacks, size and number of garages. So it’s in reference to those variances that I just listed. MR. TRAVER-Okay. Thank you. Good evening. MR. FULLER-Good evening. For the record Matt Fuller with Meyer, Fuller and Stockwell in Lake George. I’m here with Lonnie Chase. Laura summarized it. The property is off Route 9. It’s a 2.8 acre parcel. I don’t know if anybody got out there to see, do a site visit. The existing garage is beyond its useful life. I’m trusting nobody walked into it, but as Laura said, it does exceed the number of allowed garages. It’s a pre-existing, non-conforming use. What we’re looking to do is square it off. There is also an outhouse out there that’s going to come down as part of this, but the plan is to square off the garage and replace it to something that is useful for the property. The adjoining property, if you got to see the plans, it is about 14.2 feet off the one property line, 83.4 feet to the property line to the kind of southeast. The property on the 14.2 foot side is owned by Talia’s mother. So the family literally owns the property next door. We did provide elevations to show you what the garage is proposed to look like. We do have site plan, too, because it’s within 50 feet of 15% slopes. That’s just kind of a rock outcropping right next to the garage. Some trench drainage. Obviously there’s nothing there now, but with the bedrock and the soil we do have near it we are able to achieve some stormwater maintenance that is not there now. Again, if you got to see it out there, the paved driveway is to kind of the north and west, southwest of the garage and a stone driveway beyond it and there is a sizeable waterbody that’s there from the stream that comes off the mountain that ultimately ends up in the lake. So it’s its own kind of pre-treatment kind of a dam in it that catches runoff right there. So with that we’ll turn it over to questions and comments and see what we can answer. MR. TRAVER-Okay. Thank you. Questions, comments from the Board regarding the variances? MR. HUNSINGER-So it’s not a question on the variance per se, but how far is the corner of the new garage from the water? MR. FULLER-From that waterbody? 10 (Queensbury Planning Board 08/17/2021) MR. HUNSINGER-Yes. You don’t need to get a variance for that, do you? MR. FULLER-No, it didn’t trigger, when we had the review for it, Laura, on that. It’s right here. MRS. MOORE-No. So it has to be further, the building itself is further than 75 foot setback I believe, and then I’d have to look at the distance for within 100 feet of the wetland area of the shoreline. MR. FULLER-I didn’t bring a scale with me. I’d say we’re, just giving the rough scale on this, we’re there if not pretty darn close. MR. DEEB-Pretty darn close? That’s a technical term? MR. FULLER-I tried to scale it off, I just have my pen here. MR. DEEB-While we’re doing that. What building’s falling down? MR. FULLER-So if you got to pull in the driveway. There’s a small garage that was there previously. It’s behind that. Now if you go off the, travel from the paved driveway to the stone behind it, it’s sitting, you can barely see it. MR. DEEB-You’re going to tear that down. MR. CHASE-We’re just replacing in generally the same footprint as the garage. MR. DEEB-And the one that is a shed that’s considered a garage. That’s staying. You have one other garage that’s staying? MR. FULLER-Underneath the house. MR. DEEB-So technically you’re going to have one extra garage, not two. MR. FULLER-Right. Yes. The interpretation was the other one could be considered a garage. MR. CHASE-There’s an overhead door on the shed. MR. HUNSINGER-I was going to say, if you have an overhead door, it’s considered a garage. MR. CHASE-Right. Otherwise it would be considered a shed. MR. HUNSINGER-That was my only question. MRS. MOORE-So the building itself is further than, well, I’m going to say it’s close. It’s at 70 feet. So that may be something that we need to take another look at. MR. SHAFER-Will there be utilities in the garage? MR. CHASE-Right now there’s electricity in the garage. So we would possibly look to maintain that. MR. FULLER-There’s interior lighting. MR. SHAFER-But no water. The drawing shows an existing leach field. MR. CHASE-Yes, for the house. MR. SHAFER-All the way back there for the house? MR. CHASE-Yes. The only place on the whole site that had any soil. MR. FULLER-We want to follow up, obviously, with Laura, the setback from the waterway. MR. SHAFER-The driveway is a shared driveway? MR. FULLER-Correct. MR. SHAFER-Your deed says you can use it for 350 feet back from 9L. Is that enough to get to the garage? MR. CHASE-Yes. That covers the distance to the garage. We have a right of way over the neighboring property. 11 (Queensbury Planning Board 08/17/2021) MR. SHAFER-Okay. MR. MAGOWAN-Shared to lands formerly of the Mareks to get back there? MR. CHASE-No, Diane Matthews. MR. MAGOWAN-She’s further down. MR. CHASE-She’s between me and Marek. MR. MAGOWAN-Okay. MR. CHASE-So there’s access to out back. There’s a 150 foot road between myself and Marek. MRS. MOORE-I don’t know where this line came from that they have drawn, but the wetland shows it’s over 100 feet. So I think that’s probably where we took it from. MR. HUNSINGER-That’s how it caught my attention, Laura, was using the Town’s interactive mapper and I saw the water showing up. MR. FULLER-Yes, when we were looking at it in March or April, I told them that. MR. TRAVER-All right. Are there any concerns that we want to share with the ZBA regarding the variances? If not, we can entertain that resolution for referral. RESOLUTION RE: ZBA RECOMMENDATION RE: AV # 54-2021 LESTER H . CHASE III The applicant has submitted an application for the following: Applicant proposes to construct a 1,650 sq. ft. detached garage as a replacement garage of 1,596 sq. ft. The site has an existing 1,582 sq. ft. (footprint) home, and 378 sq. ft. shed and both are to remain. Pursuant to Chapter 179-3-040 & 179-6-060 of the Zoning Ordinance, new construction within 50 ft. of 15% slopes shall be subject to Planning Board review and approval. Variance: Relief is sought for setbacks, size and number of garages. 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. 54-2021 LESTER H. CHASE III. 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 17 day of August 2021 by the following vote: AYES: Mr. Magowan, Mr. Deeb, Mr. Jackoski, Mr. Shafer, Mr. Hunsinger, Mr. Traver NOES: NONE ABSENT: Mr. Valentine, Ms. White MR. TRAVER-You’re off to the ZBA. MR. FULLER-Thank you. MR. CHASE-Thank you. MR. TRAVER-Next under Planning Board recommendations we have Stewart’s Shops Site Plan Modification 45-2021. SITE PLAN MODIFICATION 45-2021 SEQR TYPE: TYPE II. STEWART’S SHOPS CORPORATION. OWNER(S): SAME AS APPLICANT. ZONING: CI. LOCATION: 777 12 (Queensbury Planning Board 08/17/2021) QUAKER ROAD. APPLICANT PROPOSES A 744 SQ. FT. ADDITION TO AN EXISTING 2,954 SQ. FT. BUILDING AND A 100 SQ. FT. NEW ROOF OVERHANG, BOTH ON THE WEST SIDE OF THE BUILDING. ALSO INCLUDED IS RE-PAINTING OF THE FAÇADE AND ADDITION OF STONE VENEER ON THREE SIDES OF THE BUILDING. PURSUANT TO CHAPTER 179-9-120 OF THE ZONING ORDINANCE, MODIFICATIONS TO AN APPROVED SITE PLAN SHALL BE SUBJECT TO PLANNING BOARD REVIEW AND APPROVAL. VARIANCE: RELIEF IS SOUGHT FOR SETBACKS. PLANNING BOARD SHALL PROVIDE A RECOMMENDATION TO THE ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS. CROSS REFERENCE: AV 5-1989, SP 20-1989, SP 59-2004, SP 8- 2007, SP 60-2010, SEP 789-2016, AV 50-2021. WARREN CO. REFERRAL: AUGUST 2021. SITE INFORMATION: TRAVEL CORRIDOR. LOT SIZE: 1.513 ACRES. TAX MAP NO. 303.19-1-61. SECTION: 179-9-120. CHRIS POTTER, REPRESENTING APPLICANT, PRESENT MR. TRAVER-Laura? MRS. MOORE-This applicant proposes a 744 square foot addition to an existing 2,954 square foot building and a 100 square foot new roof overhang, both on the west side of the building. It also includes re-painting the façade and addition of stone veneer on three sides of the building. Relief is sought for setbacks for the proposed addition and the new roof overhang. MR. TRAVER-Okay. Thank you. Good evening. MR. POTTER-Good evening. Chris Potter from Stewart’s. As Laura mentioned we’re looking to do an addition off the rear of the building, 12 foot by 62 feet, practically the whole length of that rear of the building. That’s where our delivery area is currently and where it would remain. It would allow us to expand and remodel the interior of the store. We could expand our cooler inside as well as our walk-in freezer which we’ll need for our increased food to go business that we’re looking to add in here and the overhang for our equipment. MR. TRAVER-Okay. It seems like a fairly straightforward project. So our consideration is for the relief sought for the setbacks. Any questions, comments from members of the Board on the setback variance caused by this potential move? MR. DEEB-The rear of the building is 22 feet, and Laura suggested that you might look into possibly a one way arrangement for traffic behind there so there wouldn’t be any problems. MR. POTTER-Yes, that’s something that we could probably entertain. Obviously it makes it tight two way. MR. DEEB-You want to make sure, you don’t want any problems. MR. POTTER-Correct. MR. DEEB-And that’s something you could consider. MR. POTTER-Absolutely. MR. MAGOWAN-I’m always amazed with Stewart’s. You guys are always changing the, you know, with the times and how you’ve grown, but really what amazes me a lot of times is that you build a building and keep the business going and then shut the other building down, and then the next thing you drive by and it’s like wholly mackerel. You guys really do an awesome job. I know that’s a very busy corner. You have a little competition over there with the Hess and all I think it was a good move, and so many people say go to Stewart’s, they’re the best. So you’re pushing the limits but you’re also keeping up with the times. So I think a one way, not that I’ve ever really seen anybody drive around the building on that side, but I think it’s a good move for you guys. MR. TRAVER-Okay. Any concerns with the requested variance and making a referral to the ZBA for this? All right. I’m not hearing any. I guess we can entertain that motion as well. RESOLUTION RE: ZBA RECOMMENDATION RE: AV # 50-2021 STEWART’S SHOPS The applicant has submitted an application for the following: Applicant proposes a 744 sq. ft. addition to an existing 2,954 sq. ft. building and a 100 sq. ft. new roof overhang, both on the west side of the building. Also included is repainting of the façade and addition of stone veneer on three sides of the building. Pursuant to Chapter 179-9-120 of the Zoning Ordinance, modifications to an approved site plan shall be subject to Planning Board review and approval. Variance: Relief is sought for setbacks. Planning Board shall provide a recommendation to the Zoning Board of Appeals. 13 (Queensbury Planning Board 08/17/2021) 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.50-2021 STEWART’S SHOPS CORPORATION. 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 17day of August 2021 by the following vote: AYES: Mr. Deeb, Mr. Jackoski, Mr. Shafer, Mr. Hunsinger, Mr. Magowan, Mr. Traver NOES: NONE ABSENT: Mr. Valentine, Ms. White MR. TRAVER-You’re off to the ZBA. The next item on our agenda, also under Planning Board recommendations, is Dark Bay Lane, LLC, Site Plan 48-2021. SITE PLAN NO. 48-2021 SEQR TYPE: TYPE II. DARK BAY LANE, LLC. AGENT(S): BRANDON FERGUSON, EDP OWNER(S): SAME AS APPLICANT. ZONING: WR. LOCATION: 40 DARK BAY LANE. APPLICANT PROPOSES SEVERAL RENOVATIONS TO AN EXISTING HOME AND CONSTRUCTION OF ATTACHED GARAGE. EXISTING HOME IS 2,067 SQ. FT. FOOTPRINT INCLUDING A DECK. TH4E NEW FOOTPRINT IS TO BE 2,658 SQ. FT. WHICH 653 SQ. FT. IS THE NEW GARAGE FOOTPRINT. EXISTING FLOOR AREA IS 2,650 SQ. FT. AND NEW FLOOR AREA IS 4,378 SQ. FT. THE PROJECT INCLUDES REPLACEMENT OF EXISTING HARD SURFACE FOR A TOTAL OF 4,842 SQ. FT. THE PROJECT INCLUDES SCREEN PORCH, NEW DECK AREA, REVISED ROOF AREA, NEW UPPER LEVEL, PLACEMENT OF ROCK RETAINING WALLS, A NEW WELL AND NEW SEPTIC SYSTEM. PURSUANT TO CHAPTER 179-3-040, 179-4-010, 179-6-050, 179-6-065 OF THE ZONING ORDINANCE, HARD SURFACING WITHIN 50 FT. OF SHORELINE AND NEW FLOOR AREA IN A CEA SHALL BE SUBJECT TO PLANNING BOARD REVIEW AND APPROVAL. VARIANCE: RELIEF IS SOUGHT FOR NEW CONSTRUCTION IN A CEA, SETBACKS, FLOOR AREA, HEIGHT, RAIN GARDENS WITHIN 100 FT. OF SHORELINE AND EXPANSION OF A NON-CONFORMING STRUCTURE., PLANNING BOARD SHALL PROVIDE A RECOMMENDATION TO THE ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS. CROSS REFERENCE: AV 56-2021. WARREN CO. REFERRAL: AUGUST 2021. LOT SIZE: .43 ACRE. TAX MAP NO. 239.18-1-37. SECTION: 179-3-040, 179-4-010, 179-5-050, 179-6- 065. BRANDON FERGUSON & TREVOR FLYNN< REPRESENTING APPLICANT, PRESENT MR. TRAVER-Laura? MRS. MOORE-So this project involves several renovations to an existing home and construction of an attached garage. The existing home has a 2,067 square foot footprint including the deck. The new footprint is to be 2,,658 square feet and 653 square feet is the new garage footprint. Existing floor area is 2,650 square feet and the new floor area is 4,378 square feet. The project includes replacement of existing hard surfacing for a total of 4,842 square feet. The project includes alterations to the screened porch, the new deck area, revised roof area, new upper level, placement of rock retaining walls, a new well and a new septic system. The project’s in front of the Board for the variance relief which is for new construction in a CEA, setbacks, floor area, height, rain gardens within 100 feet of shoreline, which we usually don’t see but that’s our Code, and expansion of a non-conforming structure. MR. TRAVER-All right. Thank you. Good evening. MR. FERGUSON-Good evening. Brandon Ferguson from Environmental Design here with Trevor Flynn from Balzar & Tuck. The applicant is also here tonight. As Laura has stated, the existing parcel is a .44 acre parcel located off of Dark Bay Lane. It does have, this is the existing conditions plan right here. The existing house is located down closer to the waterfront, a little over 22 feet away from the shoreline as it exists now. Pretty much the entire footprint of the building falls within that shoreline setback. It’s 75 14 (Queensbury Planning Board 08/17/2021) feet in this area of Town. There are some other site constraints. Kind of highlighted in red right here, this is an access to the neighboring parcel to the north. It’s an extension of Dark Bay Lane. And then there’s also a driveway here that accesses the neighbor’s property to the west. This area over here is kind of a parking area for this residence and then their driveway comes down close to the house. In this area here is some exposed bedrock. Their existing septic system is actually in this area here and we are proposing a new septic system that we did get a Board of Health variance for. That septic system would be an Elgin system with a Clarus unit and that would go in this area as well. So we are seeking five variances. The first one being expansion of a nonconforming structure. Also for the setbacks. So on the side yard setback on the north property line we are holding that existing setback at 19.4 feet, but because that screened in porch is getting re-done it’s new construction. So it’s not getting any closer to that setback, but we are going to need to get a variance. To the southern property line we’re actually getting a little bit further away with the new construction. There’s going to be a second story portion of the house that’ll go up. So that’ll be 16 and a half feet away from that property line while the existing is 16.1 and the reason that’s reducing is because this deck along the front is going to be re-configured and pulled back. So that deck is actually the closest point right now. We’re actually improving that setback slightly. The shoreline setback we’re also improving slightly due to modifications to the deck. We’re at 21 foot 8 now and we are proposing 22, we’re at 21.9 now and we’re looked at 22.8. So it is a slight, almost a foot back further than where it is now. You see the red line, dashed line in here is the existing structure. You can see how that will fit. It goes jutting out a little further in this area.. That’s actually, so the setback is improving slightly. The majority of the construction of the house is going to take place within the existing footprint. So this right here, they’re re-modeling the first floor. They’re adding a second floor and then the proposed garage would take place off the, I guess, front of the property away from the lake. So that proposed garage would be a two car garage. It would extend out away from the lake and then the existing driveway would come down. There’d be some permeable pavers in this area. Then you’ll pull into that two car garage. Some other site improvements we’re making is, as I think was mentioned earlier, a new septic system. We are actually reducing the permeable area on site by a little bit with the use of permeable pavers as well as cutting out some of the existing driveway and areas that’s not even. So we’re re-configuring this parking up here slightly and making permeable pavers. As you come down to the site, turn around, there will be permeable paves and then the area in front of the garage, that will be permeable pavers as well. And there’s a slight patio on this side that can be permeable pavers. So overall we end up with a slight reduction in permeable area on site. So just quickly, just touching quickly on other things on the site. We are proposing stormwater, grass depressions, a rain garden on the lakeside to take some of the roof area off of the house. There is an existing buffer along the lake now that we are maintaining on both the north and south ends. We would offer we plan on maintaining that, and then we’re adding this rain garden which will have some plantings in here. So we’ll not only have stormwater but we’ll have some plantings as well.. And then the last variance we’re going for is FAR, which I can let Trevor take over. MR. FLYNN-So from an architectural standpoint, the Chases purchased this camp years ago and they’re trying to make this their new residence. So we were hired to add the garage addition and add to the house as well to make it more livable first floor space and second floor and lower level. The existing footprint has a living, dining, small kitchen, and then three bedrooms. So the plan was to renovate this space for a larger kitchen, walk in connector off the garage, a front entry, mud room. You can see that in future slides. We did want to note, when we were looking at the building, within the existing setbacks, per the APA we limited our expansion, under 250 square feet in this area. So we are adding on to the rear of the structure away from the lake in compliance with the APA, and then landing the rest of the garage within the 75 foot setback which you see here, and as Brandon mentioned, this is the 50 foot setback which is more typical on this side of the lake, but this is that one rural area where there’s a 75 foot setback for the Town of Queensbury. So the first floor we plan on renovating the existing living room, dining room, and as Brandon mentioned, really just re-building the screened porch in place, raising the roof on it and from a standpoint, the exterior, the first floors we’re not moving or re-locating any of the exterior walls. It’s just all interior renovations. This point on is the addition of the entry and the garage and the mud room entry. So we’re really making it more livable first floor. And then also renovations to the deck. So we’re removing a portion of the deck that extends down to the south, southwest, reducing our overall setback required in that area, and then re-configured the front deck. So these two views I think relate to FAR. This is the existing basement as shown. You will see a dashed line and a hatched indicated in this area within the mechanical. Some of the storage areas. The whole house sits on ledge rock. So the ledge actually climbs into the basement. These areas that we indicated are less than five feet in height and I think there are even call shifts on that side. The ledge actually ends up all the way to these walls as they follow it. So that reduces our habitable space and that doesn’t count toward FAR, but we wanted to point that out. The only other changes to the lower level is a re-configuration to the stair and the two bedrooms are just being renovated. The second floor we really worked to study the overall building envelope and you’ll see this on the next slide, but working within the 28 foot height restriction we wanted to study the overall volume and then work to place the master bedroom suite up on that second floor and the two bedrooms over the garage addition. All these other small areas are all attic space and also do not count towards FAR. So the next diagram is helpful. If you look at the top right of the page, you can see the existing roof line and existing deck areas that are being removed and then we’re adding the main roof across the entire structure and then also slipping in these small dormers to have that extra space on the second floor. So everything on the second floor is within that roof envelope and this is a great diagram that just depicts. We studied it by picking up the topography 28 feet and trying to find and shape the volumes within it. This is the 15 (Queensbury Planning Board 08/17/2021) existing outline of the proposed dashed in. And then just the elevations, really looking to bring this back to an Adirondack style camp. As we add some more veneer, natural materials, the earth tone pallets to try to keep it subtle. The last image. Just to understand the site constraints and what we’ve dealt with from a site perspective. Even if we were to pull the house further away from the lake, we were dealing with a steep driveway to enter down into the garage, and also restrictions on the existing septic field and septic tanks areas, and you’ll see this ledge in this area is also depicted in this two pictures. This is a good graphic to understand how we really tried to compress and squeeze the house in on the site. That’s it. MR. TRAVER-Could you talk about the shoreline buffering again? I know you mentioned it briefly. MR. FERGUSON-So I mean the plan is to maintain the shoreline buffer they have there now. So they have, if you were standing on the dock looking back at the shore, there’s trees that come in on the right hand side. This is all wooded right here. These are larger trees, and then down here it comes in a little bit, too. So we’re going to maintain that, and then the other plan was to add a rain garden in here on the side which would add some small plantings, shrubs in there, and then also act as a little bit of stormwater for what’s coming off the roof in that direction. MR. TRAVER-Okay. Thank you. Questions, comments from members of the Board? MR. SHAFER-On the variance for the FAR, you are over by 148 square feet. Did you look at what would have to be done in order to bring it into within Code for FAR? MR. FLYNN-Yes. Again, I think we were pretty fair on what we were accounting for in the basement, you know, within that five square feet. We really looked at reducing those upper roof areas, but as you even start to pull those walls in that they also were over five feet and in talking to Craig Brown they still counted towards FAR. So it was really a balance and a study of how to get those roofs to work, get the proper head clearances within the stairs, but it’s the second floor that starts to add to that overall FAR and if it was interior space or not, when it’s an attic and it’s over five square feet that’s what triggers the over that. MR. SHAFER-It just seems a shame for 148 square feet to have to have a variance. MR. FLYNN-Understood, but I think since it’s a smaller lot in this area here, with .44 acres and the typical lot size. MR. FERGUSON-I mean it is a small lot with a number of site constraints on it. We did a great job of trying to get them a nice place here to be able to update the home, to be able to get what they want out of it and at the same time being as close to that as we possibly could. Balzar and Tuck worked pretty hard to bring that down from where it started. It was .26 originally and they tried to cut back and really bring that back down. We were trying to get it under, but in order to get all the space to work in that house. It’s just slightly over. MR. HUNSINGER-Did you ever stop and think maybe it’s too big for the site? MR. FERGUSON-The house? MR. HUNSINGER-I mean five variance requests. I mean I know some of them are just because it’s an existing non-conforming use. MR. FERGUSON-I think that, I mean a lot of that has to having the setback issues. I think we’re actually improving two of those. The one other variance is just an existing non-conforming structure. So I think when you look at the setbacks we’re holding or improving all of them. It’s not like we’re encroaching further on the lake or further on the property lines and that FAR wound up at .75, which we’re really, if you look at it percentage wise it’s like a three and a half percent variance. It was a very minor variance we were looking for. So I don’t think, you know, I think looking at a lot of the houses along the lake, is this big compared to them? No. I think this is a reasonably sized modest home. It is a small lot with a lot of constraints. MR. HUNSINGER-Well it’s not the size of the house. It’s the size of the lot. MR. FERGUSON-Yes, the size of the lot, the site restriction. With the setbacks anything you do on there, with the house, to remodel or expand would require those variances. Just because they’re already non- conforming. We would be improving those setbacks. MR. HUNSINGER-So one of the other images you provide which I thought was kind of dramatic is the perspective view from the lake and you see three stories of the house, and I’m really surprised that you were able to keep it within the height variance requirements by building it up the hill. I don’t know if others had the same concern, but I mean it’s a pretty dramatic change from what’s’ there existing. 16 (Queensbury Planning Board 08/17/2021) MR. FERGUSON-I think overall roof wise we’re only raising the roof seven feet. I was just studying that envelope to keep it within the 28 feet. We were very strict on that. We wanted to shape it, you know there’s some nice spaces on the interior, living and dining room. So to give that a nice vaulted space that faces the lake I think was one of the main requirements of the owner. MR. TRAVER-Other questions, comments on the variances? MR. MAGOWAN-So basically you’re talking, my calculations, like 1728 square foot addition. MR. FERGUSON-The total addition to the house? MR. MAGOWAN-Right. You’ve got 2650 and you’re going to 4378. MR. FERGUSON-That includes the garage as well. Yes. MR. MAGOWAN-Yes, but it’s still square footage. Can we go back to the picture, Laura, looking at the lake. I mean you’re talking under a half an acre. I mean you did an awesome job blending it in, you know, working it back up into the landscape, but it just, I mean seven feet on that roof. It’s not much if you’re just standing there, seven feet, but, you know, when you’re going. There’s nothing you can do down in the basement? MR. FERGUSON-Again it’s all ledge rock. So the entire first floor lower level foundation is all intact. MR. MAGOWAN-Yes, I looked at the existing in the basement. MR. FERGUSON-We’re really just re-locating the stairs. MR. MAGOWAN-I mean in the basement you have two bedrooms and a bath, laundry room, mechanical storage, outside storage, and then, you know, laundry, and a recreation area in the center. MR. FLYNN-What’s tough is even this bathroom, this floor is built up. This floor is all built up off of the floor. There’s a step there, and all of this is ledge. It starts from about two feet or less from the bottom of the floor joists to the top of the ledge and then it slopes down and that’s bedrock to that five foot mark. And then it continues and finally meets probably the top of the slab at these wall areas. So from a usability standpoint of being able to use that space or find room for the other bedrooms, we certainly looked at it any way we could, but we just couldn’t find any more space in that basement. MR. SHAFER-But that’s a design issue. The fact of the matter is you’re going from 2600 square feet to 4400 square feet, on a very small lot and therefore you need a FAR variance. I just don’t understand why house this big can’t be built 148 square feet smaller. I mean it’s a shame that there’s bedrock and some of the basement can’t be used, but that’s part of the site. I agree with Chris. Four or five variances is asking a lot. I mean the Town has Codes for a reason. MR. FERGUSON-Yes. You know, like I said before, the five variances are pre-existing conditions that any modification would require that variance. And we’re improving those conditions. I think other site conditions we’re improving are permeability on the site. We’re improving stormwater where there is none now. So these are all improvements as well to this project. MR. MAGOWAN-And that’s admirable. I see where you’re coming from, but it’s only .44, not even a half an acre. And it’s all rock ledge. Where you have soil, you know, it just, the effort is great. My main concern is you’re taking a huge house footprint. So how many bedrooms are we up to now? MR. FERGUSON-There’s proposed to be four bedrooms. Existing was five. And I think, again, even if we didn’t have the third floor, or that upper level, we’d still be going for four variances, just even if you were to renovate the interior of the space. MR. TRAVER-As a pre-existing, nonconforming. MR. DEEB-Yes, and you’re improving some of the variances, the setbacks, and we have to go for those anyway because it’s a nonconforming lot. MR. FERGUSON-Yes. If we were doing any modification to the house, we’d be doing. Four of those variances for almost anything we did., MR. DEEB-Yes. So the only one would be the FAR you wouldn’t probably have to. MR. FERGUSON-And with the, you know, the lot configuration, the house configuration, just the driveway. If the garage and the configuration was angled just to add a little space in there to be able to pull in and out of the garage, to line it up a little bit. 17 (Queensbury Planning Board 08/17/2021) MR. FLYNN-So there are probably inefficiencies in that angle that we tried to look at too and work with EDP, but from a grading standpoint you can’t lower the slab anymore. It would be too steep of a garage, and we can’t raise it or we’d be over the existing finished floor. So it’s kind of a compromise as you count those differences in height within that angle as they split apart. MR. MAGOWAN-And I always get concerned when I see, you have a bedroom on one side, and across on the other side it’s pretty much the same size room and an exercise with a closet. Okay. So you might as well just call it another bedroom. So I want to make sure that, you know, you say you’re going to put an exercise room. That’s fine for these people. The next people might, you know, so is the septic adequate for that? So we’re talking 200 square feet. How can we reduce that area around and get rid of the exercise room? MR. FERGUSON-Regardless if it’s an exercise room, it’s still FAR. So just getting the one bedroom in there under the roof volume creates a volume that extends the whole length of the garage. So it’s just the way the Code reads. Anything over five feet in height is counted as FAR. MR. MAGOWAN-So say you bump out the exercise room. Can you grab some other space? MR. SHAFER-How big is the garage right now? I can’t read the numbers. MRS. MOORE-There is no existing garage. Is that what you’re asking? There is no existing. MR. SHAFER-How big is the proposed garage as part of the overall square footage? MR. FERGUSON-Just the garage addition, or the garage space? MR. MAGOWAN-Well it’s 24 by 24 pretty much, 24 and a half. Well if each room is 12 and a half by 12, 11. So 13. MR. FERGUSON-It’s 23 feet 5 by 26 feet. And the reason it’s deeper than 24 is typical to have a garage, but again that was in an effort to pull the garage forward and have the roof together and have a sense of entry and an entry porch. MR. MAGOWAN-I’m not busting your chops. You really did, there’s some great thinking in this. MR. FERGUSON-We were a lot higher, as Trevor mentioned, and we’ve kept pulling and bringing it down. Our main goal was not to come in for the FAR variance and it’s still here, but we wouldn’t come to you guys if we thought we didn’t put forth our best foot forward and effort towards that and I think we’re asking for three and a half percent. We’re at .2275 for FAR on a small lot where it’s typically two acres. MR. TRAVER-So other questions, concerns regarding variances? We talked about FAR. That seemed to be the main one, I guess. We have some pre-existing, non-conforming variances that are therefore required. There is a new septic. How do folks feel about the referral to the ZBA? MR. SHAFER-Can we express concern about the FAR? MR. TRAVER-We can. That’s what we’re here for tonight. So one concern is there’s at least one and a half or two Board members that are concerned about the FAR. Anything else that you want to specifically mention? MR. DEEB-I mean the other ones, they improved a couple of them. MR. TRAVER-Right. MR. HUNSINGER-Yes. MR. TRAVER-That’s why I’m asking the question. MR. DEEB-I really don’t have a problem with the FAR variance. To tell you the truth. MR. HUNSINGER-Well it’s mostly because of that one perspective that they provided. MR. TRAVER-From the lake. MR. HUNSINGER-Yes. Because the house is up on a hill, then you’re adding to the roof line. The way the front of it comes out. I mean I understand it doesn’t need a height variance, but when you look at it it looks pretty dramatic. 18 (Queensbury Planning Board 08/17/2021) MR. TRAVER-Yes, because of the rock. MR. FERGUSON-I think if we photo-shopped the house into the real image, like what you’re seeing here in this image. MR. HUNSINGER-Right. It looks a little different. MR. FERGUSON-I mean that shows it kind of like bare shoreline, too, which it’s not. MR. HUNSINGER-Right. MR. FERGUSON-As you can see here there’s some larger trees in that shoreline buffer on both sides. MR. MAGOWAN-Can you blow that up, Laura, by any chance? MR. TRAVER-Brad, your concern also is FAR, as far as the referral? MR. MAGOWAN-My whole concern is just it’s nothing but a slope all the way down to the house, and it just keeps going all the way down to the lake, and now you’re going to, you’re maxing out what little soil is left there, you know, putting the addition on, you know, for any absorption, not that, you know, it goes down the rock ledge and it just runs underneath. I applaud everything they’ve tried to do to keep it underneath. I just have a concern on it. MR. TRAVER-On the FAR? MR. MAGOWAN-Yes. MR. TRAVER-Okay. All right. I think if we mention that two of the members present have a concern about the FAR variance that should be sufficient, unless anyone has anything else they wanted to add. MR. MAGOWAN-Now why do I look at that and it doesn’t look bad, but then. MR. TRAVER-Well you’re not looking at it from the lake. MR. HUNSINGER-You’re standing on the top. MR. FERGUSON-You’re 10 feet off the water, too. MR. MAGOWAN-Thanks. MR. DEEB-I wish you could superimpose that on the other one and see what it looks like. MR. HUNSINGER-Yes. MR. DEEB-I wish there was a way you could do that. MR. FERGUSON-I think you just gave me homework. MR. DEEB-I mean it might not be as imposing as it looks if you superimpose it. MR. JACKOSKI-I think the real issue is not rendering, the left side of the home seems to stick way out in the air. You have to remember there are so many trees that are also 80 feet above that property. It’s going to be sitting in the ridgeline if you want to call it. I don’t think it’s as horrendous from the lake as you might think. I’ve granted a lot over the variances over the years on that sloping roof, that attic space with that dormer. Okay, we can make them shrink that up, reduce the footprint, but they’re still going to, you’re still going to see that side. We can make them bring that basement wall in three feet the whole length of the building, get rid of that 148 plus square feet. It’s still going to look the exact same. MR. TRAVER-Yes. MR. SHAFER-Or make the garage smaller. MR. JACKOSKI-But then it’s not functional for the homeowner. MR. DEEB-For the garage, you’re 26 feet instead of 24. MR. FLYNN-Yes, because it’s a narrower garage as well. It’s only 23 feet wide. So it is narrow to get in and out, and then you’re coming down into that garage, and to have a little area, and just the roofline. 19 (Queensbury Planning Board 08/17/2021) MR. FERGUSON-It’s really the roofline so they didn’t have any standing ice issues. To pull that front of the garage out so we could get the front entry in. MR. DEEB-So a lot of it is because of architectural needs, design needs. MR. FERGUSON-And the site. It was a combination of understanding grading heights needed, where that slab needs to be, the garage. We’re trying to meet the meet the existing finished floor of that house coming down with that garage, making the garage elevation work with the finished floor. There’s a certain elevation required. MR. MAGOWAN-Who’s going to maintain all the permeable pavers? MR. TRAVER-That’s site plan, too. MR. MAGOWAN-Because, you know, these permeable pavers are great at the beginning, you know, but eventually all that fine silt and all and over the years of pounding they do, you know. MR. DEEB-It takes maintenance to keep them. MR. TRAVER-All right. Well are we ready to make that referral, then, to the ZBA? MR. HUNSINGER-I just wanted to comment. From where I come from I think, you know, there’s a reason why variances shouldn’t be easy to get. So I appreciate when we ask the hard questions to get reasonable answers. That’s the whole point of the exercise is to make sure you did your due diligence to consider the factors. MR. MAGOWAN-Which I really feel you did. MR. FERGUSON-Yes, honestly it was a tough one. MR. TRAVER-All right. Well we have a draft resolution. RESOLUTION RE: ZBA RECOMMENDATION RE: AV # 56-2021 DARK BAY LANE, LLC The applicant has submitted an application for the following: Applicant proposes several renovation to an existing home and construction of attached garage. Existing home is 2,067 sq. ft. footprint including a deck. The new footprint is to be 2,658 sq. ft. which 653 sq. ft. is the new garage footprint. Existing floor area is 2,650 sq. ft. and new floor area is 4,378 sq. ft. The project includes replacement of existing hard surfacing for a total of 4,842 sq. ft. The project includes screen porch, new deck area, revised roof area, new upper level, placement of rock retaining walls, a new well and a new septic system. Pursuant to Chapter 179-3-040, 179-4-010, 179-6-050 & 179-6-065 of the Zoning Ordinance hard surfacing within 50 ft. of shoreline and new floor area in a CEA shall be subject to Planning Board review and approval. Variance: Relief is sought for new construction in a CEA, setbacks, floor area, rain gardens within 100 ft. of shoreline and expansion of a non-conforming structure. Planning Boards 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. 56-2021 DARK BAY LANE, LLC. Introduced by David Deeb who moved for its adoption, and b) The Planning Board, based on a limited review, has identified the following areas of concern: 1) The FAR variance from three members of the Board. th Motion seconded by John Shafer. Duly adopted this 17 day of August 2021 by the following vote: AYES: Mr. Shafer, Mr. Hunsinger, Mr. Magowan, Mr. Deeb, Mr. Jackoski, Mr. Traver NOES: NONE ABSENT: Mr. Valentine, Ms. White 20 (Queensbury Planning Board 08/17/2021) MR. TRAVER-You’re off to the ZBA. MR. FLYNN-Thank you. MR. FERGUSON-Thank you. MR. TRAVER-The next item under Planning Board recommendations is Michael & Alice Crotty, Site Plan 53-2021. SITE PLAN NO. 53-2021 SEQR TYPE: TYPE II. MICHAEL & ALICE CROTTY. AGENT(S): ETHAN HALL. OWNER(S): SAME AS APPLICANTS. ZONING: WR. LOCATION: 19 FITZGERALD ROAD. APPLICANT PROPOSES TO DEMOLISH A 576 SQ. FT. ATTACHED GARAGE TO CONSTRUCT A TWO STORY ADDITION WITH A THREE CAR, 928 SQ. FT. GARAGE AND BEDROOMS/STORAGE ABOVE. THE ADDITION INCLUDES COVERED WALKWAYS AND BREEZEWAY AREA. THE MAIN HOME IS ALSO TO BE ALTERED WITH A MASTER BEDROOM ADDITION, INTERIOR AND EXTERIOR ALTERATIONS FOR THE MAIN FLOOR AND BASEMENT AREAS. THE EXISTING FLOOR AREA IS 3,405 SQ. FT. AND PROPOSED IS 5,302 SQ. FT. PURSUANT TO CHAPTER 179-3-040, 179-5-020 & 179-6-065 OF THE ZONING ORDINANCE, NEW FLOOR AREA IN A CEA AND EXPANSION OF A NON- CONFORMING STRUCTURE IN A CEA SHALL BE SUBJECT TO PLANNING BOARD REVIEW AND APPROVAL. VARIANCE: RELIEF IS SOUGHT FOR SHORELINE SETBACKS. PLANNING BOARD SHALL PROVIDE A RECOMMENDATION TO THE ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS. CROSS REFERENCE: AV 91-1990, SP 10-1991 ADDITION, AV 60-2021. WARREN CO. REFERRAL: N/A. SITE INFORMATION: GLEN LAKE. LOT SIZE: .79 ACRE. TAX MAP NO. 289.18-1-17. SECTION: 179-3-040, 179-5-020, 179-6-065. ETHAN HALL, REPRESENTING APPLICANTS, PRESENT MR. TRAVER-Laura? MRS. MOORE-The applicant proposes to demolish an existing 576 square foot attached garage to construct a two story addition with a three car 928 square foot with bedrooms or storage above. The addition includes covered walkways and breezeway area. The main home is also to be altered with a master bedroom addition, a closet area, interior and exterior alteration for the main floor and basement area. The existing floor area is 3,405 square feet and the proposed is 5,302 and the relief that is being requested here is for shoreline setbacks. MR. TRAVER-Okay. Thank you. Good evening. MR. HALL-Good evening. For your records, Ethan Hall with Rucinski Hall Architecture. With me tonight is Mike Crotty, the owner of the property. The variance being sought for this is the extension of the front of the house. There’s an existing concrete patio that’s down on the main floor and we’re looking for a deck above that on the main portion of the house that would go to the north property. It’s right in line with the front of the house. The front of the house is 22 feet from the lake. We want to expand beyond that with that little piece. What it does is connects the front part of the house with the deck that’s on the front part, and really it’s the only way out of the front of the house. Everything else goes out the back of the house. In order to get to the lake you have to go out the back of the house, around and come back down. This is really kind of a connector that closes that together, and then the garage addition, the garage that’s there is two car and it’s 90 degrees from the property, and Mike now is moving from a larger home up on Ridge and they need some garage space. We’re taking that garage and we’re going to turn it so that it faces the driveway if you’re coming in and creates more of an entryway. Right now the entryway to the house is kind of tucked around behind the garage so it’s kind of hard to tell where you get into the house. So this would kind of open up those different things. MR. TRAVER-Okay. Thank you. Questions, comments from members of the Board? Again, as a reminder, the variance is for the lake setback. MR. MAGOWAN-Ethan, what’s the acreage of this property? MR. HALL-.79 MR. MAGOWAN-.79. It’s kind of long. MR. HALL-Long and narrow. It’s one of those Fitzgerald Road lots that kind of long and narrow and goes from the lake all the way back to Fitzgerald Road. MR. MAGOWAN-So you’ve got a few additions on there. Really the main square footage is just the garage. Correct? 21 (Queensbury Planning Board 08/17/2021) MR. HALL-Correct. MR. DEEB-The shoreline now is 22.1. MR. HALL-Right. And that’s going to stay. That’s exactly what we’re asking for, again, expansion of a pre-existing, nonconforming, and we are, the addition is going over an existing hard surface. MR. TRAVER-So any questions, concerns for our referral to the ZBA? MR. MAGOWAN-So what is the setback on the relief that you’re looking for up front? MR. HALL-The existing is 22 foot 1 inch, and that’s exactly what we’re staying with is 22 foot 1 inch, but because it’s expansion of a non-conforming, because we’re adding the deck. MR. TRAVER-It’s a pre-existing, non-conforming. MR. DEEB-You’re not changing anything. MR. HALL-No. MR. MAGOWAN-So you’re not changing anything. MR. HALL-We’re not getting any closer than what the existing is, and it’s just the deck that requires the Area Variance. Everything else, we’re under the FAR. We’re under the permeability. We’ve maintained all of those. MR. TRAVER-All of which are good things. MR. HUNSINGER-I was going to say, that helps. MR. TRAVER-All right. Well we have a draft referral motion. MR. HUNSINGER-Just before we leave that, though, I just want to talk about shoreline plantings. MR. HALL-Yes, there are some existing trees along the shoreline, and I know those pictures that I gave you were from January because that was the only way I could get out on the lake and take pictures from the lake, but it is very well planted. If you look at the, the plantings run all the way around the stone walls on both sides, and then there are some large trees that are along the shoreline now and we’re going to add some additional plantings along the front of the house. MR. HUNSINGER-Staff Notes said that you were going to offer some daylilies and hostas, but we can talk about it. MR. HALL-When we come back for Site Plan. Sure. MR. HUNSINGER-Yes. And I’ll make sure to go out there and take a look. MR. HALL-Yes, take a look at all the plantings that are out there. We’ll be maintaining what’s there, tiered gardens that kind of go down to the shoreline, and it’s from the house out it’s dead flat. MR. MAGOWAN-It is dead flat. MR. HALL-It’s dead flat from the house to the lake and the sea wall is well maintained. So it’s not like it’s, some of the ones that are out there have deteriorating sea walls. This is one of those that’s maintained. MR. TRAVER-All right. Well I guess we’re ready for that referral motion, then, and I’m not hearing any concerns. RESOLUTION RE: ZBA RECOMMENDATION RE: AV # 60-2021 MICHAEL & ALICE CROTTY The applicant has submitted an application for the following: Applicant proposes to demolish a 576 sq. ft. attached garage to construct a two story addition with a three car, 928 sq. ft. garage and bedrooms/storage above. The addition includes covered walkways and breezeway area. The main home is also to be altered with a master bedroom addition, interior and exterior alterations for the main floor and basement areas. The existing floor area is 3,405 sq. ft. and proposed is 5,302 sq. ft. Pursuant to Chapter 179-3-040, 179-5- 020 & 179-6-065 of the Zoning Ordinance, new floor area in a CEA and expansion of a non-conforming structure in a CEA shall be subject to Planning Board review and approval. Variance: Relief is sought for shoreline setbacks. Planning Board shall provide a recommendation to the Zoning Board of Appeals. 22 (Queensbury Planning Board 08/17/2021) 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. 60-2021 MICHAEL & ALICE CROTTY. 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 17 day of August 2021 by the following vote: AYES: Mr. Magowan, Mr. Deeb, Mr. Jackoski, Mr. Shafer, Mr. Hunsinger, Mr. Traver NOES: NONE ABSENT: Mr. Valentine, Ms. White MR. HALL-Thank you very much. MR. TRAVER-The next section of our agenda is under New Business, and the first application we have is for Foothills Builders Modification 50-2021. NEW BUSINESS: SITE PLAN MODIFICATION 50-2021 SEQR TYPE: TYPE II. FOOTHILLS BUILDERS. AGENT(S): HUTCHINS ENGINEERING. OWNER(S): TERRE MAJESTIC HOLDINGS. ZONING: MDR. LOCATION: LOT 9 ROUND POND SUBDIVISION. APPLICANT PROPOSES A MODIFICATION OF AN APPROVED PLAN TO CONSTRUCT A NEW HOME OF 2,122 SQ. FT. FOOTPRINT, 200 SQ. FT. DECK/PORCH, 2,050 SQ. FT. OF HARD SURFACING, INSTALLATION OF A SEPTIC SYSTEM AND WELL ALONG WITH ASSOCIATED SITE WORK FOR GRADING AND STORMWATER. PURSUANT TO CHAPTER 179-6-060 & 179-9-120 OF THE ZONING ORDINANCE, CONSTRUCTION WITHIN 50 FT. OF 15% SLOPES AND MODIFICATION OF AN APPROVED SITE PLAN SP 55-2020) SHALL BE SUBJECT TO PLANNING BOARD REVIEW AND APPROVAL. CROSS REFERENCE: SUB 4-1993, SP 55-2020. WARREN CO. REFERRAL: AUGUST 2021. LOT SIZE: 1.3 ACRES. TAX MAP NO. 296.5-1-16. SECTION: 179-6-060, 179-9- 120. TOM CENTER & MATT FULLER, REPRESENTING APPLICANT, PRESENT’ MR. TRAVER-Laura? MRS. MOORE-The applicant proposes a modification of an approved plan to construct a new home of 2,122 square feet footprint with a 200 square foot deck or porch, 2050 square feet of hard surfacing, installation of a septic system and well along with associated site work for grading and stormwater. Site Plan review for a project within 50 feet of 15% slopes, and I identified the previous project that indicated it was sort of like a one, 2 story. In this instance his project includes three levels which includes a basement area and a main floor and then the second floor. MR. TRAVER-Okay. Thank you. Good evening. MR. CENTER-Good evening. Tom Center with Hutchins Engineering. As Laura said this project is a modification to change the house from a one story to a two story. The one story did have a walkout basement. So we’d have the same walkout basement with the two story house. The owners or the builders, the folks who want to purchase and build on the lot, have changed. That’s why this has changed. It’s not the same as we brought before. The people that were proposing the first house found a different a lot. We kept the driveway the same. The area of disturbance only changed a little bit more in the northeast corner where we had to flip the location of the septic system and the stormwater for the house. The waterline still comes up from the same location. We didn’t change anything else other than the stormwater calculations and the footprint of the house. 23 (Queensbury Planning Board 08/17/2021) MR. TRAVER-Okay. Thanks. Questions, comments from members of the Board? So basically you just sat another floor on top of what was already there. MR. CENTER-Right. The footprint changed a little bit. It became a little bit longer, a little bit narrower. The footprint became a little bit longer. I don’t know the exact distance between this one and the other one. MR. SHAFER-It’s a little bigger? MR. CENTER-It’s a little bit longer. This one’s a little bit bigger, yes. I believe the last one was a four bedroom. This is a three bedroom. MR. MAGOWAN-Mr. Chairman, I meant to say this at the beginning and I’ll say it now. I said it last application. I happen to live in this neighborhood. I’m down off of Highpointe. This is up the road and up over the hill up on top. So I just wanted to go on the record that I do live in the neighborhood, but I don’t feel that this would have any effect on my opinion or what we’re doing. It’s the last lot in that neighborhood. MR. TRAVER-Yes. Well thank you for that disclosure. I agree. I don’t think that creates a conflict of interest in itself. MR. MAGOWAN-All right. Thank you. Questions, comments from members of the Board? MR. MAGOWAN-I guess the only question I would have, I happen to know that property. The septic going over towards Birdsall, it’s a big slope down. Would that be a closed capped end pipe there, in case, you know, so you don’t’ have a blowout where it’s? MR. CENTER-These are going to be stepped as they go down the slope and we’re closer to the top, closer to Birdsall. MR. MAGOWAN-And then I know it also slopes severely down to Lot 8. MR. CENTER-We’ll have silt fence down there and provisions for mulch, topsoiled and seeded or the straw. We discussed it with the owner of Lot 8 during construction, to make sure that we protect that slope. Plus there’s a buffer between the two, between those areas as you can see. The only break through we’re doing is for the waterline, and that’s more off to the corner. MR. MAGOWAN-So you’ll bring it up off of Birdsall? MR. CENTER-Yes. That’s the best way to do that. We have an easement. We’re trying to do the best to do limited disturbance as possible, and it’s not noted the location of the waterline is there. It’s just easier to come up across the road from Birdsall. MR. TRAVER-All right. Anything else? All right. It’s fairly straightforward. MRS. MOORE-You have a public hearing. MR. TRAVER-Thank you. Yes. We do have a public hearing on this application. Is there anyone in the audience who wanted to address us? Yes, sir. PUBLIC HEARING OPENED RUSSELL THOMAS MR. THOMAS-My name is Russell Thomas. I brought this up before but I wasn’t prepared. We have, the driveway that they’re using is mine. There’s two deeds on that property. The driveway is on the original deed, the right of way. Where the driveway is now is not on the right of way at all. I have a letter. I have copies of the deeds, okay. I have a letter that we’ve contacted their attorney to show what we have. I have copies if you’d like to read through it. MR. TRAVER-That’s not necessary. No. That’s a civil matter. We will ask about that, but go ahead. MR. THOMAS-But they, legally from my lawyer who wasn’t able to be here tonight because he’s away, th and we just found out about this last week. They were contacted back on March 19 with a letter on the description of the right of way which is not on the driveway at all where they’re speaking. If you go on the driveway, if you go on the right of way, that’s where the septic system was. I purchased the driveway because when my house was built in 1998, ’99, Terre Majestic, who owns it, they laid out the driveway wrong. Okay. 24 (Queensbury Planning Board 08/17/2021) MR. TRAVER-For your house. MR. THOMAS-For my house. MR. TRAVER-Okay. MR. THOMAS-So I had to purchase another parcel of property in ’06 to take care of my driveway. In that time, the right of way was not in to that deed, which I have copies of. Okay. MR. TRAVER-So you’re saying that their proposed driveway is not located in a location it can be placed there without some additional right of way of some type? MR. THOMAS-That is correct. MR. TRAVER-Okay. MR. THOMAS-They have no, and it’s highlighted in the letter from my attorney, there’s 217 feet from the bottom of the hill, from Highpointe up, 217 feet from there up that is not covered by the right of way. MR. TRAVER-Okay. Well just to make you aware, we cannot adjudicate a property line dispute. Obviously they cannot build where they are not legally entitled to, okay, but that’s not something that we can pass judgment on. We’re not attorneys. We cannot. MR. THOMAS-I’m not saying that. MR. TRAVER-But we thank you for presenting that information and we’ll certainly follow up on it. Is there anything else? MR. THOMAS-No, but I’d like to know how they’re going to get up to there. MR. TRAVER-Well that’s not a discussion for this Board. That’s for the applicant to figure out. MR. THOMAS-Then they don’t have a right of way. MR. TRAVER-Nothing else? MR. THOMAS-No. MR. TRAVER-Thank you. Is there anyone else that wanted to address the Planning Board on this application? Are there any written comments, Laura? MRS. MOORE-There are no written comments. MR. TRAVER-Okay. Would you like to return? MR. SHAFER-Didn’t we discuss this before? MR. HUNSINGER-I was going to say, I remember when this issue came up before. MR. TRAVER-Yes, I thought I did but I wasn’t sure. So you heard the public comment. There’s concern about the proposed driveway not being in a right of way or some such thing, which is obviously beyond the purview of this Board, but it’s obviously on the other hand your obligation to submit a plan that can be obviously legally constructed. MR. FULLER-Correct. For the record Matt Fuller from Meyer, Fuller and Stockwell. My partner, Jeff Meyer, handles most of the matters for Foothills. He’s covering actually another meeting for me tonight in Stoney Creek. I think, Mr. Chairman, you hit on that. I’ve reviewed the titles. I’ve reviewed the deeds. Obviously there’s a history between the neighbor and Foothills and Terre Majestic. MR. TRAVER-It’s not the first time that this has happened. MR. FULLER-Right. Exactly. We are very confident, based on the title, that there is a right of way there, and if a dispute breaks out that an additional improvement to the driveway needs to be made, my client will have to make that improvement. Now I’m not going to give the neighbor any legal advice obviously, but it would strike me that having two driveways, from the neighbor’s standpoint, is not preferable to what’s there. So it strikes me that some accommodation between the two can be arrived at, but worst case scenario, we’ll have to put another driveway in, if that’s what we have to do. 25 (Queensbury Planning Board 08/17/2021) MR. TRAVER-So it’s your representation to us this evening that your plan can be done as described and as proposed, and that there may be some dispute that may come at some point but you will address that when it happens. MR. FULLER-Yes. For the record, based on the title and the deeds, yes, there is right of way to that parcel, that my client proposes to build on. Whether or not that requires an improvement of a driveway next to this one is the subject of the debate. That would be the subject of the debate. If we have to put in another driveway to access that, or part of a driveway, then that’s what we have to do. MR. TRAVER-Right. MR. FULLER-Again, I think to pick that battle doesn’t make a lot of sense, to have another driveway located there. If we have to, then that access will be installed. MR. TRAVER-Right. Okay. Question for Staff. Laura, would you suggest that we put some kind of condition in there? To me it seems self-evident that they have to come up with a solution. MRS. MOORE-They wouldn’t be able to build. So if there’s something that is between the two neighbors that has to be resolved prior, they wouldn’t even, I don’t believe they would attempt to get their building permit either. They wouldn’t move forward on something like that. MR. TRAVER-So it’s basically in their hands. MRS. MOORE-It’s between neighbors. Yes. MR. TRAVER-Okay. Thank you. Any questions from members of the Board? All right. Are we ready to proceed? MS. GAGLIARDI-You need to close the public hearing. MR. TRAVER-I’m sorry. I thought I did. I will close the public hearing. I’m sorry. I didn’t ask Laura if there were any written comments? MRS. MOORE-There were no public comments. MR. TRAVER-Okay. All right. Then we’ll go ahead and close the public hearing. PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED MR. TRAVER-And I believe we have a draft. MR. DEEB-Yes, and just so we have an understanding, if something is to be pursued between the two parties, it has to be done out there, initiated by either one of the parties. Okay. So we’re going to proceed as we normally do, but the ball’s going to be back in your court after that. Is that understood? MR. THOMAS-No, I actually don’t understand. MR. TRAVER-Well we also closed the public hearing. MR. DEEB-Okay. All right. RESOLUTION APPROVING SP MOD # 50-2021 FOOTHILLS BUILDERS The applicant has submitted an application to the Planning Board: Applicant proposes a modification of an approved plan to construct a new home of 2,122 sq. ft. footprint, 200 sq. ft. deck/porch, 2,050 sq. ft. of hard surfacing, installation of a septic system and well along with associated site work for grading and stormwater. Pursuant to Chapter 179-6-060 & 179-9-120 of the Zoning Ordinance, construction within 50 ft. of 15% slopes and modification of an approved site plan (SP 55-2020) 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 08/17/2021 and continued the public hearing to 08/17/2021, when it was closed, 26 (Queensbury Planning Board 08/17/2021) The Planning Board has reviewed the application materials submitted by the applicant and all comments made at the public hearing and submitted in writing through and including 08/17/2021; 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 50-2021 FOOTHILLS BUILDERS; Introduced by David Deeb who moved for its adoption; Per the draft provided by staff conditioned upon the following conditions: 1) Waivers request granted: h. signage, l. landscaping, n traffic, o. commercial alterations/ construction details, q. soil logs, r. construction/demolition disposal s. snow removal. reasonable to request a waiver as these items are typically associated with commercial projects. The waivers requested are consider reasonable to request a waiver as these items are typically associated with commercial projects. The applicant has provided the following items: j. stormwater, k. topography, l. landscaping p floor plans, q. soil logs. 2) The approval is valid for one (1) year from the date of approval. Applicant is responsible for requesting an extension of approval before the one (1) year time frame has expired if you have not yet applied for a building permit or commenced significant site work. 3) Adherence to the items outlined in the follow-up letter sent with this resolution. a) If application was referred to engineering, then engineering sign-off required prior to signature of Zoning Administrator of the approved plans; b) Final approved plans should have dimensions and setbacks noted on the site plan/survey, floor plans and elevation for the existing rooms and proposed rooms in the building and site improvements, c) Final approved plans, in compliance with the Site Plan, must be submitted to the Community Development Department before any further review by the Zoning Administrator or Building and Codes personnel; d) The applicant must meet with Staff after approval and prior to issuance of Building Permit and/or the beginning of any site work; e) Subsequent issuance of further permits, including building permits is dependent on compliance with this and all other conditions of this resolution; f) As-built plans to certify that the site plan is developed according to the approved plans to be provided prior to issuance of the certificate of occupancy; g) Resolution to be placed on final plans in its entirety and legible. th Motion seconded by John Shafer. Duly adopted this 17 day of August 2021 by the following vote: AYES: Mr. Magowan, Mr. Deeb, Mr. Jackoski, Mr. Shafer, Mr. Hunsinger, Mr. Traver NOES: NONE ABSENT: Mr. Valentine, Ms. White MR. TRAVER-You’re all set. That concludes the regular agenda this evening. Is there any other business before the Board? Hearing none, 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 AUGUST 17, 2021, Introduced by Chris Hunsinger who moved for its adoption, seconded by David Deeb: th Duly adopted this 17 day of August, 2021, by the following vote: AYES: Mr. Deeb, Mr. Jackoski, Mr. Shafer, Mr. Hunsinger, Mr. Magowan, Mr. Traver NOES: NONE ABSENT: Mr. Valentine, Ms. White MR. TRAVER-We stand adjourned everybody. Thank you. We’ll see you next week. On motion meeting was adjourned. RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED, Stephen Traver, Chairman 27