Loading...
10-26-2021 (Queensbury Planning Board 10/26/2021) QUEENSBURY PLANNING BOARD MEETING SECOND REGULAR MEETING TH OCTOBER 26, 2021 INDEX Site Plan No. PZ 230-2016 Legacy Land Holdings 1. REQUEST FOR EXTENSION Tax Map No. 296.11-1-48, 49, 54, 55, 60 Site Plan No. 48-2021 Dark Bay Lane, LLC 3. Tax Map No. 239.18-1-37 Site Plan No. 61-2021 Michael & Susan Kajdasz 9. Tax Map No. 227.17-1-49 Subdivision No. 9-2021 Streck’s Inc. 13. PRELIMINARY STAGE Tax Map No. 253.3-1-32.1 Subdivision No. 10-2021 FINAL STAGE Site Plan No. 60-2021 JP Gross Properties, LLC 17. Tax Map No. 309.17-1-16 Site Plan No. 63-2021 JP Gross Properties, LLC 21. Tax Map No. 309.11-2-17 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 10/26/2021) QUEENSBURY PLANNING BOARD MEETING SECOND REGULAR MEETING OCTOBER 26, 2021 7:00 P.M. MEMBERS PRESENT STEPHEN TRAVER, CHAIRMAN CHRIS HUNSINGER, VICE CHAIRMAN DAVID DEEB, SECRETARY JOHN SHAFER MICHAEL VALENTINE JAMIE WHITE BRAD MAGOWAN LAND USE PLANNER-LAURA MOORE STENOGRAPHER-MARIA GAGLIARDI th MR. TRAVER-Welcome to the Town of Queensbury Planning Board meeting for Tuesday, October 26, st 2021. This is our second meeting for the month of October and our 21 meeting thus far for 2021. Please make note of the illuminated red exit signs. In the event of an emergency, those are the emergency exits. If you have a cellphone or other electronic device, if you would either turn it off or turn the ringer off so it does not interrupt our proceedings, we would appreciate that. And we have a number of items that have public hearings this evening, and those will be opened at the appropriate time. We have one administrative item to begin our evening tonight and that is Site Plan PZ 230-2016 for Legacy Land Holdings, request for an additional fifth extension. ADMINISTRATIVE ITEMS: SITE PLAN PZ 230-2016 LEGACY LAND HOLDINGS REQUEST FOR EXTENSION. MR. TRAVER-Laura? MRS. MOORE-So he’s requesting another year extension. You granted a one year extension last year, and we had discussed in a discussion meeting in regards to re-arrangement of that site. So he’s in the process of negotiating with some folks about that area, and so he’s just asking for a little bit more time to do that. So if you grant him a year or six months, that’s up to you. MR. TRAVER-Okay. Well is there anyone here representing them? MRS. MOORE-No. He’s not going to be able to attend tonight. MR. TRAVER-He’s not going to be able to attend. All right. Well, I think members of the Board recall last year, and this was originally approved in 2016 and last year we had quite a discussion about giving them yet another extension. We didn’t deny it, but there was certainly not unanimous support for granting another extension. So I guess I will just, even in the absence of a representative, just open it up for members of the Board to comment on this request for another extension now since 2016. MS. WHITE-Well, I’ll just say that it was I probably that started it and I have the same concerns. Things change. We should say no. MR. TRAVER-Yes. I mean last year it seemed somewhat similar. I mean Laura is saying that they’re talking about doing some rearrangements, but as I recall their principle argument for the extension last year was the issue that they raise again in their letter that you see in our materials where they talk about the relaxation of the residential setback. That was a discussion that we had with them last time, and I’m not aware, Laura, are you aware of any significant progress on the issue of the residential setback? MRS. MOORE-No. I know it’s still in discussion. MR. TRAVER-Yes, and I know it was a year ago when they asked us for. MRS. MOORE-Probably not a year ago, but I know that I think just after we did the discussion about the extension the applicant was in to this Board and showing you different building arrangements. Do you recall that? Because it wasn’t at the same time. So they had shown you how a residential development would be using a sort of like a C Shape building or an L-Shape building, you know, the easier building to them to build would be the L Shaped and it was sort of more creative to have the C Shape. MR. TRAVER-That was after we granted them an extension. 2 (Queensbury Planning Board 10/26/2021) MRS. MOORE-Yes. MR. TRAVER-But obviously before the extension was up. MR. MAGOWAN-Yes, that was for a 72 unit. MRS. MOORE-Correct. MR. TRAVER-All right. Well, I mean, just poll the Board. MR. DEEB-Let me say this, Steve. Again, we’re dealing with extenuating circumstances over the last two or three years, and I think we have to be somewhat lenient here because it’s been tough times. Supplies are limited, costs have gone up, and, you know, I don’t think we should put somebody under the gun, even if we gave them another extension, or even a half a year extension. MR. TRAVER-Well, again, I understand your point, and that was exactly the same discussion that we had, as I recall, a year ago. MR. DEEB-We did, but things haven’t changed. MR. TRAVER-Right, and I guess for me that’s an issue that things haven’t changed. Because one of the reasons they suggested that we grant them the extension was that things would change, and that justified, to some degree, the extension that they were confident that they would make some progress and I’m not aware of any progress. MR. VALENTINE-What if tonight before us JJ was here again, the restaurant. We had him before us with a residential property next to the restaurant. That same thing. He had been in I don’t know how many times, time after time after time, before I was here, MR. MAGOWAN-Sweet Basils? MR. VALENTINE-Yes., and I’m just thinking the same, that argument then, the discussion then, centered around the same thing. You talk about, let’s say supplies, materials, whatever, but you can still do plan design in that time period. You can still progress something. You can still talk to, you know, you’ve got to go to the Town Board level and see what has to be changed. I mean there’s a lot of stuff that can go on prior to construction. MR. TRAVER-Yes, and I’m not saying that the comments and the report that they put in their letter asking to get another extension, I understand. I understand the difficulties that they’re reporting that they’re having and I appreciate that, but, you know, it’s almost becoming our project by going on and paying attention to what progress they’re making and I wonder, too, are we setting a practice, that, you know, we keep granting these extensions. Why are we going to deny somebody else that wants a six year extension? Is that fair? And I don’t know the answer to that. MRS. MOORE-It’s on a case by case basis. I mean I understand what you’re saying about setting a precedent or setting an example of. MR. TRAVER-A practice. MRS. MOORE-A practice. You’re looking at something as a unique case each time. So I get the comment about setting a practice, but again, you as a whole Board, individually, either in an opinion or consensus. MR. TRAVER-Well, and you certainly have a valid point which we’ve also made when other applicants have brought up prior practice in the past, that each application is different, but nevertheless, it is something that is used when somebody wants an extension and they say well, look, you gave this guy extension after extension after extension from 2016 into the next decade. MR. MAGOWAN-There have been unique circumstances on this. This particular property has had unique circumstances. It started off many years ago with being able to build right up on the road, and then it changed to 300 foot. Then it went to 600 feet and now there’s talk of bringing it back closer, you know, so you can change a lot. Added on top of that, it is a professional lot which is, you know, right now professional offices aren’t going anywhere. They’re not moving. Right now the economic changes are coming to our area, and due to the uniqueness of this subdivision and the mixed use, this puts it in a class of its own, and anybody would have to stack up to all the things that they went through and all the movements and setbacks and possibly moving it forward and I don’t really, this doesn’t hurt us by giving it another year extension. I mean this is a big piece of property. MR. TRAVER-So you’re in favor of giving them an extension. Would you consider giving them a six month extension? 3 (Queensbury Planning Board 10/26/2021) MR. MAGOWAN-No, a year. Six months flies by so fast. MR. TRAVER-Apparently a year flies by pretty fast, too, even five or six years. MR. DEEB-All right. Well let me say this. I’m going to repeat myself. I said it the last time he was here. Valente has had a tough time in this Town. I mean he was tortured. When the Town Board changed the zoning, I remember, again, I told you this, he looked right at the Town Board and said you took my retirement away, and no matter what you say, if we deny this tonight, I think we’re doing a disservice and we’re going to look badly. MR. TRAVER-So you’re in favor of an extension? MR. DEEB-Yes. MR. SHAFER-I’m okay with the extension also. MR. TRAVER-Chris, how do you feel? MR. HUNSINGER-Yes, I’m okay with it. MR. TRAVER-Well then I guess it’s not that big of a deal. It sounds like the majority of the Board. MR. VALENTINE-I would have gone with a six month, just to see where it’s going. If somebody’s basing this on market conditions, six months will be eighteen months since the last time he was here. MR. DEEB-Yes, but things aren’t going to change in six months. That’s been proven. MR. MAGOWAN-It’s been under discussion almost a year with the Town Board to change the zone. So six months I don’t think is fair. MR. TRAVER-All right. Well we have a draft resolution. Go ahead, if you would, and make that resolution and we’ll see how it goes. RESOLUTION GRANTING A ONE YEAR EXTENSION FOR SP PZ 230-2016 LEGACY LAND The applicant has submitted an application to the Planning Board for: Applicant proposes a partial 3 story, 27 unit senior housing facility with associated site work for parking, stormwater control and landscaping. Project involves lot line adjustments for lots 1, 2, 3, 7, 8, 9, 13 & 14. A portion of the existing pathway is to be increased in width and to be paved within 50 ft. of the stream for emergency access. Pursuant to Chapter 179-3-040 and 179-6-050 of the Zoning Ordinance, senior housing, multi-family housing and fill or hard surfacing within 50 ft. of a stream shall be subject to Planning Board review and approval. Project includes subdivision modification for lot line adjustments for current site plan and SP 4-2011. The Planning Board approved this application on November 15, 2016. A one year extension was granted on October 17, 2017. Additional one year extensions were granted on October 16, 2018, September 24, 2019, and October 27, 2020. An additional one year extension is requested by the applicant. MOTION TO APPROVE A ONE YEAR EXTENSION FOR SITE PLAN PZ 230-2016 LEGACY LAND HOLDINGS. Introduced by David Deeb who moved for its adoption, th Motion seconded by Brad Magowan. Duly adopted this 26 day of October 2021 by the following vote: AYES: Mr. Deeb, Mr. Shafer, Mr. Hunsinger, Mr. Magowan NOES: Ms. White, Mr. Valentine, Mr. Traver MR. TRAVER-So, three to four, it passes, right? MRS. MOORE-Yes. MR. TRAVER-All right. Thank you very much for the discussion. Now we move to our regular agenda and the first section is Tabled Items, and on that under Tabled Items we have Dark Bay Lane, LLC, Site Plan 48-2021. TABLED ITEM: 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 4 (Queensbury Planning Board 10/26/2021) DARK BAY LANE. PROJECT DESCRIPTION REVISED: APPLICANT PROPOSES SEVERAL RENOVATIONS 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 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 A NEW SEPTIC SYSTEM. REVISION INCLUDES 2 NEW SHORELINE BUFFER PLANTED AREAS, STONE TRENCH ADDITION TO PERMEABLE PAVERS, AND DRY WELL NEAR THE GARAGE. 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. CROSS REFERENCE: AV 56-2021. WARREN CO. REFERRAL: AUGUST 2021. SITE INFORMATION: CEA, APA, LGPC LOT SIZE: .43 ACRE. TAX MAP NO. 239.18-1-37. SECTION: 179-3-040, 179- 4-010, 179-6-050, 179-6-065. CHRIS KEIL & TREVOR FLYNN, REPRESENTING APPLICANT, PRESENT MR. TRAVER-Laura? MRS. MOORE-The applicant proposes several renovations to an existing home and construction of an attached garage. The existing home is 2,067 square feet footprint including the deck. The new footprint would be 2,658 square feet, of which 653 square feet is the new garage footprint. The existing floor area is 2,650 and the new floor area is 4,378. The applicant has provided additional information in regards to stormwater management on the site and stormwater improvements. These include permeable pavers, raingardens, and altering the driveway to manage stormwater, and they were granted their variance last week. MR. TRAVER-Okay. So we first saw this in August. It went to the ZBA and got their variance request. Good evening. Welcome back. MR. KEIL-Chris Keil with EDP. MR. FLYNN-Trevor Flynn with Balzar & Tuck. MR. KEIL-As you all know the location of the project, a private road, north of Ridge. So the existing is a smaller site with some steep slopes. I mean one of the challenges here that you can see pointed out is that a lot of the impervious surface on site is actually from the neighboring driveways that have access to the site. So that’s something that definitely harms the overall picture when you look at things like impervious. You see it’s a pre-existing, nonconforming and it’s a shoreline 75 foot overlay. So the entirety of the house is within that zone. So currently there’s nothing for stormwater. It just drains off the slope down towards the lake. The little revision cloud there shows where the existing septic system is, which doesn’t meet any of the current Town rules and regulations in relation to proximity to the well, proximity to the neighboring well. That sort of thing. The applicant is proposing to put in a new enhanced treatment system which will be a huge improvement. So kind of looking at some of those things we’ve done to try to address the permeability and impervious cover. The overall driving surface within the parcel has been reduced. There’s a slight net increase in impervious because of the addition of a new two car garage, but we’ve also been able to reduce the setbacks a little bit, both to the south and also between 2.8 foot from the shoreline there because of the changes to the existing deck that’s on site. So in terms of drainage and stormwater because the overall disturbance is going to be less than 5,000 square feet the net increase of impervious is less than 1,000 square feet, we actually do not need a stormwater plan for this project, but we’re still doing quite a few things to enhance the overall treatment of runoff on the site such as adding permeable pavers. I know sometimes there’s criticism with pavers as it relates to ongoing maintenance and their long term efficacy. So in addition to that there’s the filter strips at the perimeter of all those that actually tie that to the drainage material associated with the permeable pavers. So there’s a little bit of a redundancy there. Similarly with the drywell. That stone would be connected to the reservoir below the permeable pavers. So the permeable pavers will still have infiltration in those areas, and there’s a brand new septic system. It’s an enhanced treatment system, Claris Elgin system, with UV filtration. In terms of shoreline buffer, we’re keeping those green hashed areas, there’s like some pretty dense existing native vegetation, quite a few large mature trees. None of that will be touched. And then looking at, between that there’s a few terraced areas where there’s currently grass and looking at converting some of that, those terraces to native adaptive shrubs there to enhance the shoreline buffer, and then here, it’s just overall site renderings so you can see illustratively what some of those areas are, landscape and hardscape. Here’s a view back looking from the lake so you can see kind of to the north all of that vegetation that won’t be touched right there for shoreline buffering, visual impact, and that’s kind of the other side where, again, those trees to the left, some of those are still on the site. So those won’t be touched, and then kind of the middle terrace area. The plan there is to plant that with native and adaptive shrubs and herbaceous 5 (Queensbury Planning Board 10/26/2021) material. There’s kind of a view back to the structure. I’ll turn it over to Trevor right now to talk about the architecture. MR. FLYNN-The existing home is an existing camp and our plans architecturally is to keep the entire foundation and building footprint in place and then we’re building a second floor on top of that. So the existing first floor, we’re looking to attach a garage. I’ll show it on the proposed plan, but for the base of it it’s important to note that it’s all bedrock on the lower level and as you try to keep the foundation in place, both from a sustainability standpoint and a cost effective standpoint, we’re keeping the existing footprint and building off from that second floor up. So the plan is rotated now, but additions wise we’re looking to add the garage away from the water. That’s our only addition to the structure itself besides the addition going up on the second floor is well. This entire area is less than 250 square feet per the APA guidelines and that’s when you’re providing an addition away from a lakefront area. It’s also important to note that the overall impervious area that we’re adding to the site is roughly that 255 square feet, which happens to be half of the garage. We’re balancing those other acts with reducing impervious area at the driveway and then that doesn’t even account for the permeable pavers themselves. We’re also reducing as much of our impact on the lake by removing some existing deck areas that were closer to the lake themselves, and then keeping the existing screened porch intact as well. So that setback stays the same. Again the lower level we’re planning to keep completely intact. There’s a couple of existing bedrooms down there and then you’ll see the shaded area. That’s all existing bedrock. So it’s not habitable space. We’re not able to use it. So that’s why we had to end up building upwards with the structure. As you look at the upper level, what we started to do was really investigate how this can fit within the zoning envelope and studied, you know, almost copying the topography of the 28 feet and started to mold and shape the building within that envelope to not trigger another variance, essentially, because we have all the other ones with the non-conforming structure within the setback and reducing the other setbacks, but we studied it in great depth, figured another bedroom up on the second floor, a master bedroom, and then a bedroom to the rear. The third space is a bonus room. We’ve, in full disclosure, been asked to reduce this area as well, you know, as its added square footage to the site itself, but our understanding from the Town and conversations with Craig Brown, is it doesn’t matter if it’s habitable or not, it’s more than five feet in height. So it’s considered habitable space and counts towards gross square footage. So it’s still somewhat found space to put a roof over the top of the garage. These are just examples that you’ve seen in the other site plans, too, a lot of these volumes of the different roofs coming together with their garage, you know, shedding the water away in both directions to allow access into the garage and space above it and the connector piece between the two. So there’s a lot of studies that involved how those roof lines came together. This is just that diagram that we discussed. This is that 28 foot height setback and keeping the entire volume under that area and then there are additions to the rear. We tried to pull the additions further away from the lake and overall keeping our presence, you know, roughly at the same height that it was before the additions to the second floor. This is just a consideration of the site itself. It’s a very difficult site to navigate, regardless of stormwater. It slopes right down to the lake. There’s an existing ledge rock and septic areas and site retaining walls. So just getting the garage in here itself was a feat, to understand how you’re going to attach that to the existing structure. So this is the only addition to the rear, and then this is a rendition, just an understanding of where the existing ridge was, the spread line as you go across, and as we started to push the slope of the roof back and added that space on the second floor, you’ll see a dormer on the left that starts to just peak a little higher than the existing roof, and then the main ridgeline as well as the slope back further away. th MR. TRAVER-So you received your variances from the ZBA on the 20. Were there any changes to your project as a result of your discussions with the ZBA? MR. FLYNN-No. I think there were some concerns mainly in vegetative buffers. So that’s where we decided to take a couple of more images from the lake to show those existing buffers on both sides of the house and really implement more stormwater and vegetative buffers down in that area and we studied those soils as well. MR. TRAVER-Okay. Thank you. Questions, comments from members of the Board? MR. MAGOWAN-From the last time we met I want to thank you because really you did a lot of work. You asked some questions. You got some good answers. I like the stormwater that you’ve changed because it is a difficult, rocky rock ledge. So I’m not worried about it slipping now. I just wanted to thank you for the stormwater. I liked what you did there. MR. KEIL-Thank you. MR. TRAVER-There is a public hearing on this application as well. Is there anyone in the audience that wanted to comment on this application, Site Plan 48-2021? Laura, are there written comments? PUBLIC HEARING OPENED MRS. MOORE-There are written comments. I’ll start with this first one and then I’ll look at the box again. This is addressed to Mr. Traver. The above referenced variance application was personally reviewed in 6 (Queensbury Planning Board 10/26/2021) my capacity as a licensed professional engineer and the Lake George Waterkeeper. The project proposes too much development for a small, constrained lot within the Critical Environmental Area surrounding Lake George. It is recognized that mitigation measures are proposed such as replacement septic system and stormwater management which did not exist. However each of these measures required variances, four for the septic as well as the stormwater controls, which demonstrates the site constraints such as depth to bedrock that reduce the treatment efficiency. The mitigation measures proposed, such as the permeable pavers, have questions about the long-term benefits, especially when annual maintenance is required for the device to function properly. There is concerns regarding additional impacts to Lake George and its water quality and the Lake George Waterkeeper requests the Planning Board to consider these during your deliberations regarding the referenced site plan. The Planning Board must require all aspects to the New York State Stormwater Design manual to be applied to the application. There has been significant increase in the use of permeable pavers in the WR district which allows an applicant to circumvent the most restrictive permeability requirement to protect water quality. This has been allowed through a determination by the Town Engineer to apply previous design standard of 50% impervious credit for permeable pavers towards permeability calculations. It should be noted that this credit is no longer in the updated New York State Stormwater Management Design manual. However the Design manual does require a three foot separation distance to high groundwater bedrock for permeable pavers to function properly. This has not been demonstrated and the Planning Board must require this for approval. There is a concern about the reduction of vegetation cover on the property after this development. Although the project claims to increase permeability through credit applied for permeable pavers, there is an actual reduction in vegetative cover on the property which will have water quality impacts. There are questions on how the proposed stormwater management system will be introducing stormwater. The plan proposes to install catch basins/drywell in front of the garage where a two foot cut is proposed with shallow depth to bedrock that will prevent infiltration. Then the plan is to discharge a pipe towards the lake discharging onto steep slopes that Chazen cited as a concern in their comment letter, which has not been addressed. Regardless of the pipe size, this is a potential erosive condition that should be amended. The applicant should consider installing grass pavers for the upper parking area to reduce the impervious cover and increase stormwater uptake. Due to non-compliant permeability cover and the site constraints present reducing stormwater treatment (depth to bedrock), the Planning Board should require additional shoreline buffer planting for water quality protection. The Lake George Waterkeeper recommends the Planning Board require additional water quality protection measures for the expansion of this noncompliant development located in the Critical Environmental Area surrounding Lake George that require ten variances for the site design and septic system. This is from Chris Navitsky. MR. TRAVER-Okay. Thank you. MR. SHAFER-Laura, is there any way we can get, what is the date of that letter? MRS. MOORE-It was written today. MR. SHAFER-Today? MRS. MOORE-Yes. MR. SHAFER-That’s a very substantive letter. I, as a Planning Board member, would like time to analyze that letter. Because it sounded like there were a lot of substantive comments there. MR. KEIL-I think we could probably answer some of those. MRS. MOORE-I was going to say. There is a response to some of this that has been discussed with the engineer and the applicant as of today. So some of it may go away. MR. TRAVER-Yes, it is public comment, too, John, so the applicant has an opportunity to respond after we hear public comment. MR. SHAFER-I understand that, but I’d like to understand what’s in the letter. It sounded like there were a lot of substantive comments there relative to stormwater. MR. TRAVER-Yes, and it would be nice if, just using the Waterkeeper as an example, but it applies to a lot of written public comment we get, if we had access to it further in advance it would be easier to process. Yes, no question about that. MRS. MOORE-That was the only letter. MR. TRAVER-That was the only letter. Okay. It’s interesting the concern about the permeable pavers, and we hear more and more of this. It was not that long ago when we were urged to encourage the use of permeable pavers. Now it seems that’s coming back to bit us a little bit. One of the concerns about them is maintenance. They do get sand and silt and so on and become ineffective after a while. Is there, as part of your plan and your recommendations to the owner, a maintenance program for these? 7 (Queensbury Planning Board 10/26/2021) MRS. MOORE-So I’m going to interrupt you, only because I didn’t identify that originally. Part of the updates to this project was to include a stormwater maintenance agreement. So the applicant is responsible, with this agreement, to maintain those permeable pavers. So that is part of this application now. MR. TRAVER-Okay. Thank you. MR. VALENTINE-So that was a question I had reading the material. It did say that there was an agreement, maintenance agreement. My question along the side, myself, my own notes was, with whom, and I didn’t know. MRS. MOORE-So that’s with the Town. The applicant, typically what’s done is typically as part of, it’s entered into the record at the County. So it’s part of a document. You, as a Board, could say that the document needs to be located on the site plan drawings. Whoever picks up that site plan drawing will also have access to the stormwater maintenance agreement. It’s a one page document that explains what the applicant’s responsible for. MR. TRAVER-That sounds like a reasonable recommendation. MRS. MOORE-Yes. MR. VALENTINE-On the plan sheet. MR. TRAVER-Yes. MRS. MOORE-Yes. MR. MAGOWAN-I guess my question is, who inspects that? Who makes sure that that’s maintained? Really the main concern I can see that I’ve found with the permeable pavers is really the pollen. Pollen is so fine that it gets right down there and it just clogs them up, along with the fine silt. A lot of that goes away, but it’s the pollen that’s just so fine. MR. KEIL-Laura, do you have that section from, we had that section from the PDF from the ZBA meeting. MR. TRAVER-And I believe the permeable, the manufacturers actually have recommended maintenance procedures, right? They include things like pollen and dust and sand and so on. MR. KEIL-Yes, usually all manufacturers provide a maintenance plan. MR. FLYNN-I think that overall it’s important to note that as we were studying the site, we discussed, just first discussing the impervious area on the site. We reduced impervious area from the driveway in general, and then we added the garage which added impervious area. So we’ve only added 255 square feet of impervious area, and that is before even taking into account the permeable pavers. From that point out we’ve been well aware of the Town’s concern with the permeable pavers and what we’ve done is introduced, besides the maintenance plan, is also this trench drain that you saw on the plans. So if these permeable pavers get clogged or overwhelmed, it’s going to spill over into that trench drain, which then gets it back into the medium underneath the permeable pavers. So it goes back to the intent of the surface. MR. KEIL-So it acts as a backup. It’s similar to the drywell. MR. FLYNN-Kind of a belts and suspenders approach, and then also with that area, the trench area, we haven’t assumed that square footage in any of the calculations of permeable surfaces. So we could technically go back and add that. It’s another 200 square feet. So it might be asking for 50 square feet of impervious area added, again if you’re not counting the permeable pavers themselves. So overall from an impervious surface perspective we feel that we’ve done our due diligence to honor the spirt and intent of the Code and reminding it’s a .44 acre site compared to this zoned area where you’re dealing with, is it five acres usually or six? MRS. MOORE-It’s two acres. MR. FLYNN-Two acres. MR. TRAVER-And, Laura, you said that was the only written comment? MRS. MOORE-Yes. He wrote one back in. MR. TRAVER-We saw it back in August. Right? 8 (Queensbury Planning Board 10/26/2021) MRS. MOORE-He had written one October, no, this is the same one. Someone put it in the file. MR. TRAVER-Okay. All right. We’ll go ahead and close the public hearing then on this application. PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED MR. TRAVER-Other questions, comments from members of the Board? MR. VALENTINE-I had a question on the, and Chris alluded to it in his letter, just looking at this, going from the discharge from the drywell. It just looks like something that would be foreign to this site. To say, okay, take this, and I’m not sure how it works, take it from the drywell and you’re piping it and then, boom, you’re letting it go onto a steep slope into the water. MR. KEIL-Yes, I mean you can see sort of the constraints of the site where you have ledge rock sloping toward the lake and the house sort of encircles that so it becomes a challenging drainage condition where obviously that water at some point needs to go somewhere so the goal is to infiltrate as much of it as possible within that zone, but if there were a certain event that’s large enough, you know, we need an emergency overflow, which is the only time that pipe would function and would shut the water away, and that pipe has been modeled so that I think there’s, you know, it’s only a two foot per second velocity, 100 year storm. So, you know, the erosive capacity of that pipe would be pretty negligible, but it’s just, again, like a safeguard, if there was just that much water, an emergency system. MR. MAGOWAN-If there’s that much water it’s going to be going up and down the shore. MR. KEIL-Exactly. MR. MAGOWAN-I did notice the, and that’s the first time I’ve seen the extra catch basin and that was impressive. I said, to me right off the bat it looked like an overflow. I’m not an engineer, but I’ve been involved in enough building that I see that. So that’s why I commented on your efforts. And that was a good explanation of the overflow. It’s not like going down that well to a pipe. Worst case scenario, if it’s going to be that bad, you know, it doesn’t matter where you live on the lake, it’s going to sheet right down into the lake. MR. TRAVER-Are there any other questions, comments before we proceed? Okay. I think we have a draft resolution with one condition. RESOLUTION APPROVING SP # 48-2021 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. Revision includes 2 new shoreline buffer planted areas, stone trench addition to permeable pavers, and dry well near the garage. 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. 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 08/17/2021; the ZBA approved the variance requests on 08/18/2021; The Planning Board opened a public hearing on the Site plan application on 08/24/2021 and continued the public hearing to 10/26/2021, 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 10/26/2021; 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 48-2021 DARK BAY LANE, LLC; Introduced by David Deeb who moved for its adoption. 9 (Queensbury Planning Board 10/26/2021) According to the draft resolution prepared by Staff with the following: 1) Waivers requested granted; h. signage, n traffic, r. construction/demolition disposal s. snow removal. The items are appropriate for waiver requests as these items are typically associated with commercial projects. 2) The approval is valid for one (1) year from the date of approval. Applicant is responsible for requesting an extension of approval before the one (1) year time frame has expired if you have not yet applied for a building permit or commenced significant site work. 3) Adherence to the items outlined in the follow-up letter sent with this resolution. a) The limits of clearing will constitute a no-cut buffer zone, orange construction fencing shall be installed around these areas and field verified by Community Development staff; b) If applicable, the Sanitary Sewer connection plan must be submitted to the Wastewater Department for its review, approval, permitting and inspection; c) If curb cuts are being added or changed a driveway permit is required. A building permit will not be issued until the approved driveway permit has been provided to the Planning Office; d) If application was referred to engineering then Engineering sign-off required prior to signature of Zoning Administrator of the approved plans; e) Final approved plans should have dimensions and setbacks noted on the site plan/survey, floor plans and elevation for the existing rooms and proposed rooms in the building and site improvements;- f) If required, the applicant must submit a copy of the following to the Town: a. The project NOI (Notice of Intent) for coverage under the current "NYSDEC SPDES General Permit from Construction Activity" prior to the start of any site work. b. The project NOT (Notice of Termination) upon completion of the project; c. The applicant must maintain on their project site, for review by staff: i. The approved final plans that have been stamped by the Town Zoning Administrator. These plans must include the project SWPPP (Storm Water Pollution Prevention Plan) when such a plan was prepared and approved; ii. The project NOI and proof of coverage under the current NYSDEC SPDES General Permit, or an individual SPDES permit issued for the project if required. g) Final approved plans, in compliance with the Site Plan, must be submitted to the Community Development Department before any further review by the Zoning Administrator or Building and Codes personnel; h) The applicant must meet with Staff after approval and prior to issuance of Building Permit and/or the beginning of any site work; i) Subsequent issuance of further permits, including building permits is dependent on compliance with this and all other conditions of this resolution; j) As-built plans to certify that the site plan is developed according to the approved plans to be provided prior to issuance of the certificate of occupancy. k) This resolution is to be placed in its entirety on the final plans. l) Maintenance agreement for permeable pavers to be attached to the site plan. th Motion seconded by Brad Magowan. Duly adopted this 26 day of October 2021 by the following vote: AYES: Ms. White, Mr. Shafer, Mr. Hunsinger, Mr. Magowan, Mr. Valentine, Mr. Deeb, Mr. Traver NOES: NONE MR. TRAVER-You’re all set. The next section of our agenda is Old Business. The first item being Michael and Susan Kajdasz, Site Plan 61-2021. SITE PLAN NO. 61-2021 SEQR TYPE: TYPE II. MICHAEL & SUSAN KAJDASZ. AGENT(S): LUCAS DOBIE, HUTCHINS ENGINEERING. OWNER(S): SAME AS APPLICANTS. ZONING: WR. LOCATION: 113 SEELYE ROAD. APPLICANT PROPOSES A 700 SQ. FT. TWO CAR ADDITION AND TO CONVERT THE EXISTING 2 BAY GARAGE OF ONE BAY AND ANOTHER BAY TO A LAUNDRY/BATHROOM. THE GARAGE IS TO BE A TOTAL OF 1,050 SQ. FT. THE EXISTING FLOOR AREA IS 5,715 SQ. FT. AND THE NEW FLOOR AREA IS 6,765 SQ. FT. PURSUANT TO CHAPTER 179-3-040, 179-5-020 & 179-13-010 OF THE ZONING ORDINANCE, NEW FLOOR AREA IN A CEA AND EXPANSION OF A NON-CONFORMING STRUCTURE SHALL BE SUBJECT TO PLANNING BOARD REVIEW AND APPROVAL. CROSS REFERENCE: AV 5-2017 GAZEBO/LOT LINE ADJ., 2001-348 PORCH, 94646-3985 ADDITION, 8733-1837 BOATHOUSE/DOCK, AV 69-2021. WARREN CO. REFERRAL: OCTOBER 2021. SITE INFORMATION: CEA, LGPC, APA. LOT SIZE: .96 ACRES TAX MAP NO. 227.17-1-49. SECTION: 179-3-040, 179-5-020, 179-13-010. CURT DYBAS & LUCAS DOBIE, REPRESENTING APPLICANT, PRESENT MR. TRAVER-Laura? 10 (Queensbury Planning Board 10/26/2021) MRS. MOORE-The applicant proposes a 700 square foot two car addition and to convert the existing two bay garage where one bay will be converted to a laundry/bathroom and the other bay will remain. The garage is to be a total of 1,050 square feet. The existing floor area is 5,715 and the new floor area is 6,765. The applicant received relief for a setback at last week’s meeting and I think that addresses everything that they had. MR. TRAVER-Okay. Thank you. Good evening. Welcome back. MR. DOBIE-Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and good evening, Board. For the record Lucas Dobie with Hutchins Engineering, PLLC and the project architect Curt Dybas who’s been friends with our clients for 50 years. So it’s very personal to Curt with this project and we received our variances last week for the setback and the expansion of the non-conforming structure and then we discussed it I think at a reasonable length I think with you folks last week. We’ve proposed a new absorption field up near Seelye Road, very typical of what’s in the neighborhood, semi-raised system, elevated above the ground, due to the high bedrock in the area and new pumps in the pump station and new stormwater management to the west of the proposed addition to manage that area, and the driveway area and I was up there today in the pouring rain just to get a feel for the site and everything’s super stable, and it looks like the runoff from the house is managed right where it drops. There’s a lot of planting beds and plants around the home. I didn’t see any overland runoff today, and we’re here to ask for your approval tonight and we’d be happy to answer any questions the Board may have and in speaking with the client today he’s still hoping to get into the ground this fall with at least the concrete so they can get a good start on it anyway. th MR. TRAVER-Very good. Well I see that you received your variance on the 20. As a result of your discussion with the ZBA, were there any changes from the project we reviewed before? MR. DOBIE-There was not, Mr. Chairman, no, sir. MR. TRAVER-Thank you. Questions, comments from members of the Board? MR. DEEB-Today was a good day to test that drain out. MR. DOBIE-It was. MR. TRAVER-There is a public hearing on this application as well. Is there anybody in the audience that wanted to address the Planning Board on this application? I’m not seeing anyone. Laura, are there any written comments? PUBLIC HEARING OPENED MRS. MOORE-There’s written comments. They’re both by the same person. So I’m going to, if I need to paraphrase a little bit, I might do that. MR. TRAVER-Okay. MRS. MOORE-“We are adjacent property owners at 111 Seelye Road, Queensbury. I have reviewed the application of Mr./Mrs. Kajdasz regarding the proposed addition to existing garage space. The proposed addition does not meet the setback requirements on the north side of the property. The proposed addition has a setback of 15 feet versus the requirement of 20 feet. We would ask the Planning Board to consider the following conditions of our/their approval: 1. Construction be completed in a timely basis. 2. All construction equipment/material/debris be removed from the site and landscaping complete before a certificate of occupancy is issued. 3. A wooden fence of approximately 6-8 feet in height be constructed, at the cost of Mr. Kajdasz, between his property and the property of John and Bette Madej to the north. This fence would take the place of an existing fence that is in disrepair. The fence would run along property to Seelye Road. The construction would include the appropriate trimming of various bushes/shrubs and removal lf fallen/intrusive limbs on existing fence and removal and disposal of existing fence. This should be completed at the beginning of the construction process of the addition so as to limit the intrusion of the project. 4. The approval is also conditional on the pre-approval of/by the Kajdasz family on any similar additions/projects that may be considered by the Madej family where the future setbacks may not meet the current setback limits. Similar to this project, any future setbacks would not be closer than setbacks of the existing structures on the Madej property. We are gone for the winter returning in early May, or we would appear at the hearing. If you have any questions we can be reached. Thank you. Sincerely, John and Bette Madej” And then they have one follow up. The new construction will run parallel to our property where we have a small tiled patio that we use as a barbecue or outdoor kitchen during the summer. The proposed construction will create an extremely wet area because of roof runoff, lack of any sunshine and airflow. These conditions would create a perfect environment for breeding mosquitoes. We propose the following to be included with the approval, a gutter system be installed along the length of the structure including Leaf Guard or some anti-clogging system. The gutter outlet or drainage be away from our property line. The area between our property line and the new construction should be pea stone with 11 (Queensbury Planning Board 10/26/2021) front drains ensuring any runoff does not collect in this strip of land. We appreciate your consideration of these modifications or requirements to the project, and if you have any questions you can reach us, and this is again from John and Bette Madej of 111 Seelye Road. MRS. MOORE-What’s the name, Laura? MRS. MOORE-I believe it’s John and Bette Madej. It’s M-a-d-e-j. MR. TRAVER-Are there any other written comments, Laura. MRS. MOORE-No. MR. TRAVER-Okay. Thank you. We’ll close the public hearing. PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED MR. TRAVER-Let’s see. I believe the stormwater is confined to the site. Correct? MR. DOBIE-Correct, sir, and we do have on our plan, S-3, we do show a gutter along the northerly eaves line of the addition. So it’s right the area our neighbor was talking about. MR. TRAVER-There was some comment about a fence and some vegetation. Do you know what they’re discussing in reference to that? MR. DOBIE-I believe there is an existing somewhat dilapidated fence along that property line. MR. DEEB-Whose property is it on? MR. DOBIE-I believe Madej, the northerly neighbor. MR. DEEB-Yes, but is it on her property? MR. DOBIE-It’s on, from our survey it’s right on the property line where it should be. MR. VALENTINE-I don’t think she’d be writing a letter to have her fence removed by her neighbor. MR. MAGOWAN-Maybe she doesn’t know. MR. DEEB-I mean I’ve seen other things like that. MS. WHITE-Are there plans to remove that fence and put up a new one? Is that acceptable. MR. DYBAS-I’m not even sure whose fence it is. MR. MAGOWAN-Well, obviously being dilapidated neither one of them really cared to do anything with it. So, you know, it hasn’t been an issue for a long time. Now it’s become an issue? MR. DEEB-Well it sounds like she designed your plans for you. MR. VALENTINE-That was what I was thinking, too. MR. DEEB-I mean she’s designed everything she wants done for your house. MR. MAGOWAN-I think that’s something that the two neighbors would have to work out. Because if it’s right on the line, who does it benefit, you know. You could take the fence out, period, and then leave it out. MR. DYBAS-Curt Dybas. It appears that the fence will be right behind the proposed garage addition. I would think the screening would occur with the addition, unless you’re sitting, or standing, you don’t want to see the back of the garage from the neighbor’s property. I don’t know. MR. VALENTINE-But it shows a tree cut line going on there that’s going within their own property. It should block off any. MR. DYBAS-I can’t come up with an answer. MR. TRAVER-Perhaps you could ask the applicant to reach out to the neighbor to see if they can come to some accommodation. There’s obviously a concern there. I mean you have your variances and we’ve 12 (Queensbury Planning Board 10/26/2021) reviewed the plan, but it does sound like there’s some issues there that could be resolved amicably I think with a discussion. MR. DYBAS-I will be speaking with Mike and Susan quite frequently in the next week and we’re going to try to get this project out of the ground in a timely manner. So I will bring it up to them. MR. TRAVER-Okay. Thank you. Any other questions or comments from members of the Board? Are we comfortable moving forward, then? MR. DEEB-Yes. MR. TRAVER-Okay. I think we have a draft resolution. RESOLUTION APPROVING SP # 61-2021 MICHAEL & SUSAN KAJDASZ The applicant has submitted an application to the Planning Board: Applicant proposes a 700 sq. ft. two car addition and to convert the existing 2 bay garage of one bay and another bay to a laundry/bathroom. The garage is to be a total of 1,050 sq. ft. The existing floor area is 5,715 sq. ft. and the new floor area is 6,765 sq. ft. Pursuant to Chapter 179-3-040, 179-5-020 & 179-13-010 of the Zoning Ordinance, new floor area in a CEA and expansion of a non-conforming structure shall be subject to Planning Board review and approval. Pursuant to relevant sections of the Town of Queensbury Zoning Code-Chapter 179-9-080, the Planning Board has determined that this proposal satisfies the requirements as stated in the Zoning Code; As required by General Municipal Law Section 239-m the site plan application was referred to the Warren County Planning Department for its recommendation; The Planning Board made a recommendation to the Zoning Board of Appeals on 10/19/2021; the ZBA approved the variance requests on 10/20/2021; The Planning Board opened a public hearing on the Site plan application on 10/26/2021 and continued the public hearing to 10/26/2021 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 10/26/2021; 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 61-2021 MICHAEL & SUSAN KAJDASZ; 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 k. topography, n traffic, o. commercial alterations/ construction details, s. snow removal. The items are appropriate for waiver requests as these items are typically associated with commercial projects. 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 Michael Valentine. Duly adopted this 26 day of October 2021 by the following vote: 13 (Queensbury Planning Board 10/26/2021) AYES: Mr. Shafer, Mr. Hunsinger, Mr. Magowan, Mr. Valentine, Mr. Deeb, Ms. White, Mr. Traver NOES: NONE MR. TRAVER-You’re all set. Next on our agenda, also under Old Business, is Streck’s Inc. This is a subdivision Preliminary Stage 9-2021 and Final Stage 10-2021. SUBDIVISION PRELIMINARY STAGE 9-2021 SUBDIVISION FINAL STAGE 10-2021 SEQR TYPE: UNLISTED. STRECK’S INC. AGENT(S): HUTCHINS ENGINEERING. OWNER(S): SAME AS APPLICANT. ZONING: RR-3A/RR-5A. LOCATION: 1903 RIDGE ROAD APPLICANT PROPOSES TO SUBDIVIDE A 19.36 ACRE PARCEL INTO 2 LOT AS THE PARCEL IS NATURALLY DIVIDED BY RIDGE RD. THE WEST LOT IS TO BE 1.59 ACRES AND TO MAINTAIN THE EXISTING HOME AND OUT BUILDINGS. THE EAST LOT IS TO BE 17.77 ACRES AND WILL MAINTAIN THE BARN BUILDINGS. LOT 1 IS IN AN RR-3A ZONE WHERE LOT CONDITIONS (SETBACKS) ARE PRE-EXISTING. LOT 2 IS IN AN RR-5A ZONE WHERE LOT CONDITIONS ARE PRE-EXISTING. PURSUANT TO CHAPTER 183 OF THE ZONING ORDINANCE, SUBDIVISION OF LAND SHALL BE SUBJECT TO PLANNING BOARD REVIEW AND APPROVAL. VARIANCE: RELIEF IS SOUGHT FOR LOT SIZE, LOT WIDTH, SETBACKS. PLANNING BOARD SHALL PROVIDE A RECOMMENDATION TO THE ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS. CROSS REFERENCE: PZ 246-2016, AV 70-2021. WARREN CO. PLANNING: N/A FOR SUBDIVISION. SITE INFORMATION: APA, LGPC, CEA. LOT SIZE: 19.36 ACRES. TAX MAP NO. 253.3-1-32.1. SECTION: CHAPTER 183. LUCAS DOBIE, REPRESENTING APPLICANT, PRESENT MR. TRAVER-Laura? MRS. MOORE-So the applicant proposes to subdivide a 19.36 acre parcel into 2 lots as the parcel is naturally divided by Ridge Road. The west lot is 1.59 acres and is to maintain the existing home and out buildings. The east lot is to be 17.77 acres and will maintain the barn buildings on that lot. The applicant received the variances necessary for the project, and the applicant for this project has requested a waiver from Sketch Plan Stage, stormwater and grading and as noted in the waiver section these were suitable waivers as there’s no changes to this site. MR. TRAVER-Okay. Thank you, Laura, and we also do need to conduct SEQR tonight as well I’m reminded. MRS. MOORE-Yes. MR. TRAVER-So thank you. Welcome back. MR. DOBIE-Thank you, again, Board. For the record, Lucas Dobie with Hutchins Engineering, PLLC. Our clients are the Streck’s, who are the main owners., Streck’s Inc., as well as the Cleveland family who is the westerly neighbor. As we discussed, they are negotiating a deal to purchase the westerly lands, the proposed lot 1.59 acres and for our public hearing, that’s the Cleveland’s daughter, Katie and Jason Simms who works for me. So it’s going to be their home hopefully sooner than later. So again we received our variances last week from the Zoning Board and it’s a pretty rare project for us. We’re not doing any site work. So we’re not disturbing anything. It’s mostly lines on a map if you will, and we’re here to ask for Preliminary and Final subdivision approval to move the project forward and we’re prepared to make our mylars and do our filings and there’s a fair amount of legal work to still go for deeds and everything. So we’re trying to keep things moving for them and so we’re here to ask for your approvals and we’d be happy to answer any questions that the Board may have. Thank you, again, for your time. MR. TRAVER-So you did get your variances. The ZBA didn’t ask you to move the line on the map, I assume. MR. DOBIE-No, they did not. MR. TRAVER-Okay. So it’s fairly straightforward. Questions, comments from members of the Board? MR. SHAFER-I’ll ask Lucas the same question I asked last time. What will be the use of the property on the other side of the road, do you know? Does anybody have approval? MR. DOBIE-I do not know, aside from I believe they use it as personal storage. Those barns and everything, it’s my understanding. MR. SHAFER-There’s a lot of buildings. MR. DOBIE-I’d love to have it myself, all those barns and everything. 14 (Queensbury Planning Board 10/26/2021) MR. TRAVER-It’s a nice location. MR. DOBIE-Very nice. MR. MAGOWAN-Really it’s a gorgeous house. I was just up there the other day. MR. DOBIE-Thank you. MR. TRAVER-We do have a public hearing on this application, as well. Is there anyone in the audience that wanted to address the Planning Board? PUBLIC HEARING OPENED MRS. MOORE-So I have one written comment. MR. TRAVER-Okay. MRS. MOORE-“I am the principle owner of property to the east of Streck’s Inc., on Ridge Road in the Town of Queensbury, Warren County, New York. This letter is to let you know that I have no complaints concerning the subdivision of the 19.36 acre parcel into two lots as the parcel is naturally divide by Ridge Road. Sincerely Richard and Virginia Combs” MR. TRAVER-Any other comment? MRS. MOORE-No. MR. TRAVER-All right. Well we’ll close the public hearing then. PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED MR. TRAVER-Any follow-up questions, comments from members of the Board? MR. VALENTINE-I have one, and you guys may have discussed this in my absence before, but what is the understanding of a road dividing a parcel? MRS. MOORE-The County has it as one parcel. So that’s what they’re asking is to separate that. MR. VALENTINE-What is the definition of a subdivision? Does a road create a subdivision? MRS. MOORE-No. MR. VALENTINE-It does not. MRS. MOORE-Not the way I would read our Code, no. MR. VALENTINE-Okay. Because there’s always discussion by State, you know, 276, and I looked at it and I’ve always gone by the thing myself that, no, a road does not automatically create a subdivision, but there are those practitioners that say, yes it does. So I was wondering on that. Now the other question I had is when you get one lot, and this is not a reflection on this one, but this is just a definition of a permitted use, where you have the structures there alone. MRS. MOORE-We went through this. MR. VALENTINE-All right. Never mind. MRS. MOORE-So we established that there are principle structures on both parcels. MR. VALENTINE-I can see it with a residence. MRS. MOORE-But the other one because it’s in the APA. It’s considered a principle structure. Trust me. This was a great discussion. MR. TRAVER-So we do have a SEQR resolution to consider. Does anyone have any environmental concerns with any impacts by creating this line on the map? MS. WHITE-No. MR. TRAVER-We have a draft resolution I believe. 15 (Queensbury Planning Board 10/26/2021) MRS. MOORE-We actually don’t. So I wonder if you’re going to be able to do that, David. MR. DEEB-Yes, we can give it a shot. RESOLUTION GRANTING A NEGATIVE SEQR DECLARATION SUBDIVISION STRECK’S INC. A subdivision application has been made to the Queensbury Planning Board for the following: Applicant proposes to subdivide a 19.36 acre parcel into 2 lots as the parcel is naturally divided by Ridge Rd. The west lot is to be 1.59 acres and to maintain the existing home and out buildings. The east lot is to be 17.77 acres and will maintain the barn buildings. Lot 1 is in an RR3A zone where lot conditions (setbacks) are preexisting. Lot 2 is in an RR5A zone where lot conditions are preexisting. Pursuant to Chapter 183 of the Zoning Ordinance, subdivision of land shall be subject to Planning Board review and approval. MOTION TO GRANT A NEGATIVE SEQR DECLARATION FOR SUBDIVISION NO. 9-2021 PRELIMINARY STAGE STRECK’S INC., Introduced by David Deeb who moved for its adoption, seconded by As per the resolution prepared by staff. 1. Part II of the Long EAF has been reviewed and completed by the Planning Board. 2. Part III of the Long EAF is not necessary because the Planning Board did not identify potentially moderate to large impacts. th Duly adopted this 26 day of October, 2021, by the following vote: AYES: Mr. Hunsinger, Mr. Magowan, Mr. Valentine, Mr. Deeb, Ms. White, Mr. Shafer, Mr. Traver NOES: NONE MR. TRAVER-So now we have a Preliminary Stage motion. RESOLUTION APPROVING PRELIM. STAGE SUB # 9-2021 STRECK’S INC. A subdivision application has been made to the Queensbury Planning Board for the following: Applicant proposes to subdivide a 19.36 acre parcel into 2 lots as the parcel is naturally divided by Ridge Rd. The west lot is to be 1.59 acres and to maintain the existing home and out buildings. The east lot is to be 17.77 acres and will maintain the barn buildings. Lot 1 is in an RR3A zone where lot conditions (setbacks) are preexisting. Lot 2 is in an RR5A zone where lot conditions are preexisting. Pursuant to Chapter 183 of the Zoning Ordinance, subdivision of land shall be subject to Planning Board review and approval. Pursuant to relevant sections of the Town of Queensbury Zoning Code-Chapter A-183, the Planning Board has determined that this proposal satisfies the requirements as stated in the Zoning Code; The requirements of the State Environmental Quality Review Act have been considered and the Planning Board has adopted a SEQRA Negative Declaration A public hearing was scheduled and held on October 26, 2021; This application is supported with all documentation, public comment, and application material in the file of record; MOTION TO APPROVE SUBDIVISION PRELIMINARY STAGE 9-2021 STRECK’S INC., Introduced by David Deeb who moved for its adoption. th Motion seconded by Brad Magowan. Duly adopted this 26 day of October 2021 by the following vote: AYES: Mr. Magowan, Mr. Valentine, Mr. Deeb, Ms. White, Mr. Shafer, Mr. Hunsinger, Mr. Traver NOES: NONE MR. TRAVER-And next, Final. RESOLUTION APPROVING FINAL STAGE SUB # 10-2021 STRECK’S INC. A subdivision application has been made to the Queensbury Planning Board for the following: Applicant proposes to subdivide a 19.36 acre parcel into 2 lots as the parcel is naturally divided by Ridge Rd. The west lot is to be 1.59 acres and to maintain the existing home and out buildings. The east lot is to be 17.77 16 (Queensbury Planning Board 10/26/2021) acres and will maintain the barn buildings. Lot 1 is in an RR3A zone where lot conditions (setbacks) are preexisting. Lot 2 is in an RR5A zone where lot conditions are preexisting. Pursuant to Chapter 183 of the Zoning Ordinance, subdivision of land shall be subject to Planning Board review and approval. Pursuant to relevant sections of the Town of Queensbury Zoning Code-Chapter A-183, the Planning Board has determined that this proposal satisfies the requirements as stated in the Zoning Code; This application is supported with all documentation, public comment, and application material in the file of record; MOTION TO APPROVE SUBDIVISION FINAL STAGE 10-2021 STRECK’S INC. Introduced by David Deeb who moved for its adoption. 1. The requirements of the State Environmental Quality Review Act have been considered and the Planning Board has adopted a SEQRA Negative Declaration; and if the application is a modification, the requirements of the State Environmental Quality Review Act have been considered, and the proposed modification\[s\] do not result in any new or significantly different environmental impacts, and, therefore, no further SEQRA review is necessary; 2. Waiver requests granted: sketch plan stage, stormwater and grading. The waivers requested are reasonable as there are no physical changes to the site and all buildings are to remain in their current location. 3. 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. 4. The limits of clearing will constitute a no-cut buffer zone, orange construction fencing shall be installed around these areas and field verified by Community Development staff 5. Engineering sign-off required prior to signature of Planning Board Chairman. 6. The applicant must submit a copy of the following to the Town: a) The project NOI (Notice of Intent) for coverage under the current NYSDEC SPDES General Permit or for coverage under an individual SPDES prior to the start of any site work. b) The project NOT (Notice of Termination) upon completion of the project; and 7. The applicant must maintain on their project site, for review by staff: a) The approved final that have been stamped by the Town Zoning Administrator. These plans must include the project SWPPP (Storm Water Pollution Prevention Plan) when such a plan was prepared and approved; and b) The project NOI and proof of coverage under the current NYSDEC SPDES General Permit, or an individual SPDES permit issued for the project. 8. Final approved plans, in compliance with the Subdivision, must be submitted to the Community Development Department before any further review by the Zoning Administrator or Building and Codes personnel. 9. The applicant must meet with Staff after approval and prior to issuance of Building Permit and/or the beginning of any site work. 10. Subsequent issuance of further permits, including building permits is dependent on compliance with this and all other conditions of this resolution; 11. As-built plans to certify that the subdivision is developed according to the approved plans to be provided prior to issuance of the certificate of occupancy; th Motion seconded by John Shafer. Duly adopted this 26 day of October 2021 by the following vote: AYES: Mr. Valentine, Mr. Deeb, Ms. White, Mr. Shafer, Mr. Hunsinger, Mr. Magowan, Mr. Traver NOES: NONE MR. TRAVER-You’re all set. MR. DOBIE-Thank you very much, Board. 17 (Queensbury Planning Board 10/26/2021) MR. TRAVER-The next section of our agenda is New Business and first item being JP Gross Properties, LLC, Site Plan 60-2021. SITE PLAN 60-2021 SEQR TYPE: TYPE UNLISTED. JP GROSS PROPERTIES, LLC. AGENT(S): CHRIS KEIL, EDP, JON LAPPER OWNER(S): DAVID W. COOK. ZONING: CLI. LOCATION: 407 BIG BAY ROAD. APPLICANT PROPOSES TO CONSTRUCT A 16,000 SQ. FT. OFFICE BUILDING ON AN EXISTING 1.62 ACRE PARCEL. EXISTING 4,324 SQ. FT. CONSTRUCTION OFFICE BUILDING IS TO REMAIN. PROJECT INCLUDES IMPROVEMENTS IN PARKING AREA TO 54 SPACES. PROJECT ALSO INCLUDES CONNECTION TO MUNICIPAL SEWER AND WATER; ASSOCIATED GRADING, STORMWATER MEASURES AND LIGHTING ARE ALSO PROPOSED. PURSUANT TO CHAPTER 179-3-040 OF THE ZONING ORDINANCE, SITE PLAN REVIEW FOR NEW OFFICE BUILDING IN CLI ZONE SHALL BE SUBJECT TO PLANNING BOARD REVIEW AND APPROVAL. CROSS REFERENCE: SP 1-2000, NEW USE LI ZONE, SP 14-2015 BL. ADJ. SP 44-97, AV 59-1997, AV 2-2015 SHED ROOF. WARREN CO. REFERRAL: OCTOBER 2021. SITE INFORMATION: INTERSTATE HIGHWAY OVERLAY. LOT SIZE: 1.62 ACRES. TAX MAP NO. 309.17-1-16. SECTION: 179-3-040. CHRIS KEIL & JON LAPPER, REPRESENTING APPLICANT, PRESENT; JOE GROSS, PRESENT MR. TRAVER-Laura? MRS. MOORE-The applicant proposes to construct a 16,000 square foot office building on an existing 1.62 acre parcel. The existing 4,324 square foot construction office building is to remain. The project includes improvements to parking area to 54 spaces. The project will also include connection to municipal sewer and water. Associated grading, stormwater measures and lighting are also proposed. MR. TRAVER-Okay. Thank you. Good evening, everyone. For the record Jon Lapper with Chris Keil from Environmental Design Partnership and Joe Gross, the applicant of JP Gross Properties is behind us to answer any questions. So I’ll start out with a quick story that addresses this project and the one that’s following where Ethan did the design work and he’s here as well. So Joe was able to negotiate a lease with Brookfield Power to bring basically 50 well-paying jobs into Queensbury, re-locate people from throughout the country. The facility on Big Bay Road is going to be used to manage sites all across the country that are now managed regionally. So they’ll be managed in one control room, if you will for hydro facilities and wind turbine facilities that Brookfield runs. So both of these site work in concert that the Main Street site that we’ll talk about next is a very small building that’s been vacant right on the corner of going into Glens Falls on Western/South Western Ave., and that purpose is that if there’s ever something that happens at this site because it’s important that, this is a 24 hour facility but only with a few people at a time, and if there was ever something that happened that made it so that it couldn’t get to this facility, they need to have a redundant facility where they could go plug in a laptop. So both of these are for the same. Nice jobs that are coming into Queensbury and in both sites they were able to be designed with zero variances that conform to what was there, not just with the Town but also to work with what was there on both sites. The Big Bay site there was a small shop that the former owner of the site, an elderly gentleman, negotiated that he would sell Joe the property, but he has the right to, for the rest of his working life, to work there. So we incorporated that into the plans and we’ll show you that, and that’s about a 4,000 square foot building that will be adjacent to the 16,000 square foot brand new building to be constructed, and then on Main Street it’s an existing building that never was tenanted that went through a tax sale. Joe bought it and was perfect for Brookfield. So that’s both of the existing sites, an interesting story. We’re hoping to get site plan approval on both because he needs to get in the ground on Big Bay before winter. We’ve got a Chazen letter which was really very benign for Chazen, and we’ll go through that briefly, but we’re hoping that you’ll see fit to approve this conditioned upon the Chazen review and Laura will agree that it was a pretty benign letter and we already have our responses which were mostly yes we made that change. So with that I’ll ask Chris to go through the site plan and show you what’s going on. MR. TRAVER-Okay. MR. KEIL-That’s the existing shop, just a metal building. We were able to sort of configure the new proposed parking to the north of there and the proposed building within the setbacks. Kind of to the west is that gray hatched area. Stormwater facilities are to the north of that gray building and then to the south of the existing building as well, and we can talk about the Chazen letter, but in doing the test pits there, it is very homogenous sand all the way to the top. They asked for deepening one of the test pits that didn’t go to the bottom of our proposed drywell area. Our excavator was less than a foot shy of it, but there’s nothing for us to indicate that there’d be any changes to the composition of the soil below that point, but we’re happy, during construction, to deepen that, just to check that box. The other one, while we’re on the topic, is the one south there of the existing building on the proximity to that building, and we can look at moving that a little bit. The other thing is that building is a slab on grade construction, very simple. So we don’t see any sort of problems with infiltration that close to, if it were like a crawl space or foundation wall or something like that. So those were the major comments. Otherwise we will show a landscape plan, 18 (Queensbury Planning Board 10/26/2021) a lighting plan, utility plan and I think for the most part it’s a really good site to build on and I think the use is really compatible with the adjacent uses. We’re pretty happy with how it’s turned out. MR. TRAVER-There was a comment letter I’m assuming you saw from the Fire Marshal that he was looking for some clarification on distances. Fairly standard information he’s looking for clearances for emergency vehicles, Section 503-1-1, 150 foot access and 20 foot unobstructed width. So we’ll have to condition that. Obviously you’ll have to get the signoff from the Fire Marshal, as well as the Town Engineer. MR. HUNSINGER-So is this a good rendering of the building color? MR. KEIL-Yes. It’s going to be close. We’re going to put the glass. It’s a single slope metal building. It’s the glass along the top and all that natural lighting in the building. MR. HUNSINGER-So the view that we’re looking at, that’s actually the north wall? MR. GROSS-That would be the south wall. Joe Gross. That would be the south wall. The back door would not be as, that won’t be that big of a door in the back. That would be facing west, up to our other property that I own. So we’ll have an access, there would be emergency access that way, too, if needed. The glass will be like that. There will be possibly one more door halfway down, but it’s that smoke glass with the same color siding as the building there right now right next door would be the tan color. We’re really excited about the project. Like Jon said it’s bringing 50 new jobs to this area and I’ve been on a six st month hunt getting them. I have to be in the building by June 1. So I have a pretty heft build ahead of me. So I’m hoping everybody feels the same excitement I do. It’s a good building. It’s as good tenant, long term. You’re talking minimum of, they’ve given me a ten year commitment. They’ve already been in the building next door for over 20 years and I’m bringing 50 more jobs. That’s exciting. That’s what my business is about, jobs, with Gross Electric. So I’m really proud of the whole project. So that would be the north side. So there’s minimal glass on the north side, and of course the front. We may switch that single door to a double door to give it a little more curb appeal coming out to the front to Big Bay. MRS. MOORE-So that was one of my comments was the floor plan didn’t seem to match the elevation views. MR. GROSS-We’ve been going 100 miles an hour. MRS. MOORE-Okay. MR. MAGOWAN-When don’t you, Joe. MR. GROSS-Yes. MR. TRAVER-So we do have a public hearing on this application as well. Is there anyone, I’m not seeing anyone in the audience that wants to comment. Laura, are there any written comments on this application? PUBLIC HEARING OPENED MRS. MOORE-I don’t have any written comments. MR. TRAVER-All right. Well we’ll go ahead and close the public hearing, then. PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED MR. TRAVER-We also have a SEQR to conduct on this application. Are there any other questions, comments before we look at SEQR? Does anyone have any environmental concerns as a result of the SEQR portion of the project? MR. MAGOWAN-No. MR. TRAVER-Okay. We have a draft resolution. RESOLUTION GRANTING A NEGATIVE SEQR DEC. SP # 60-2021 JP GROSS PROPERTIES, LLC The applicant proposes to construct a 16,000 sq. ft. office building on an existing 1.62 acre parcel. Existing 4,324 sq. ft. construction office building is to remain. Project includes improvements in parking area to 54 spaces. Project also includes connection to municipal sewer and water: associated grading, stormwater measures and lighting are also proposed. Pursuant to Chapter 179-3-040 of the Zoning Ordinance, site plan review for new office building in CLI zone shall be subject to Planning Board review and approval. 19 (Queensbury Planning Board 10/26/2021) The Planning Board has determined that the proposed project and Planning Board action is subject to review under the State Environmental Quality Review Act; The proposed action considered by this Board is Unlisted in the Department of Environmental Conservation Regulations implementing the State Environmental Quality Review Act and the regulations of the Town of Queensbury; No Federal or other agencies are involved; Part 1 of the Long EAF has been completed by the applicant; Upon review of the information recorded on this EAF, it is the conclusion of the Town of Queensbury Planning Board as lead agency that this project will result in no significant adverse impacts on the environment, and, therefore, an environmental impact statement need not be prepared. Accordingly, this negative declaration is issued. MOTION TO GRANT A NEGATIVE DECLARATION FOR SITE PLAN 60-2021 JP GROSS PROPERTIES LLC Introduced by David Deeb who moved for its adoption. As per the resolution prepared by staff. 1. Part II of the Long EAF has been reviewed and completed by the Planning Board. 2. Part III of the Long EAF is not necessary because the Planning Board did not identify potentially moderate to large impacts. th Motion seconded by Brad Magowan. Duly adopted this 26 day of October 2021by the following vote: AYES: Mr. Deeb, Ms. White, Mr. Shafer, Mr. Hunsinger, Mr. Magowan, Mr. Valentine, Mr. Traver NOES: NONE MR. TRAVER-All right. Let’s see. We know we need Town Engineer signoff and there was some discussion about the comments from the Town Engineer that they’re addressing already. Fire Marshal, we need a signoff from the Fire Marshal. There’s still an open question about the clearances. Any other questions, concerns that members have before we move forward? MRS. MOORE-So I wanted to ask for the updated floor plans and elevations to be submitted as their final plan so that they match, and I had questions about the lighting, whether it was building, so just make sure those cut sheets are involved, are included. MR. TRAVER-Okay. MR. HUNSINGER-Yes, they gave us the photometrics. MR. TRAVER-Yes. MR. HUNSINGER-It was a good landscaping plan. MR. GROSS-It will be state of the art lighting by Gross Electric. MR. LAPPER-For the record. MR. DEEB-So you’ll need an updated floor plan and elevations? MRS. MOORE-Yes. MR. DEEB-We don’t condition the engineer’s signoff. That’s in here. MRS. MOORE-I believe it’s already. The engineering one is in here. I don’t think the Fire Marshal one is in here. MR. DEEB-No, I’ve got the other two, but I don’t need to include engineering because that’s always on here. MR. TRAVER-Yes. RESOLUTION APPROVING SP # 60-2021 JP GROSS PROPERTIES, LLC 20 (Queensbury Planning Board 10/26/2021) The applicant has submitted an application to the Planning Board: Applicant proposes to construct a 16,000 sq. ft. office building on an existing 1.62 acre parcel. Existing 4,324 sq. ft. construction office building is to remain. Project includes improvements in parking area to 54 spaces. Project also includes connection to municipal sewer and water: associated grading, stormwater measures and lighting are also proposed. Pursuant to Chapter 179-3-040 of the Zoning Ordinance, site plan review for new office building in CLI zone 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 has reviewed the potential environmental impacts of the project, pursuant to the State Environmental Quality Review Act (SEQRA) and adopted a SEQRA Negative Declaration – Determination of Non-Significance; The Planning Board opened a public hearing on the Site plan application on 10/26/2021 and continued the public hearing to 10/26/2021, 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 10/26/2021; 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 60-2021 JP GROSS PROPERTIES, LLC.; Introduced by David Deeb who moved for its adoption. According to the draft resolution prepared by Staff with the following: 1) Waivers requested granted; h. signage. The items are appropriate for waiver request as the applicant has indicated no signage is proposed. 2) The approval is valid for one (1) year from the date of approval. Applicant is responsible for requesting an extension of approval before the one (1) year time frame has expired if you have not yet applied for a building permit or commenced significant site work. 3) Adherence to the items outlined in the follow-up letter sent with this resolution. a) The limits of clearing will constitute a no-cut buffer zone, orange construction fencing shall be installed around these areas and field verified by Community Development staff; b) If applicable, the Sanitary Sewer connection plan must be submitted to the Wastewater Department for its review, approval, permitting and inspection; c) If curb cuts are being added or changed a driveway permit is required. A building permit will not be issued until the approved driveway permit has been provided to the Planning Office; d) If application was referred to engineering then Engineering sign-off required prior to signature of Zoning Administrator of the approved plans; e) Final approved plans should have dimensions and setbacks noted on the site plan/survey, floor plans and elevation for the existing rooms and proposed rooms in the building and site improvements;- f) If required, the applicant must submit a copy of the following to the Town: a. The project NOI (Notice of Intent) for coverage under the current "NYSDEC SPDES General Permit from Construction Activity" prior to the start of any site work. b. The project NOT (Notice of Termination) upon completion of the project; c. The applicant must maintain on their project site, for review by staff: i. The approved final plans that have been stamped by the Town Zoning Administrator. These plans must include the project SWPPP (Storm Water Pollution Prevention Plan) when such a plan was prepared and approved; ii. The project NOI and proof of coverage under the current NYSDEC SPDES General Permit, or an individual SPDES permit issued for the project if required. g) Final approved plans, in compliance with the Site Plan, must be submitted to the Community Development Department before any further review by the Zoning Administrator or Building and Codes personnel; h) The applicant must meet with Staff after approval and prior to issuance of Building Permit and/or the beginning of any site work; i) Subsequent issuance of further permits, including building permits is dependent on compliance with this and all other conditions of this resolution; j) As-built plans to certify that the site plan is developed according to the approved plans to be provided prior to issuance of the certificate of occupancy. k) This resolution is to be placed in its entirety on the final plans. l) Fire Marshal signoff required. 21 (Queensbury Planning Board 10/26/2021) m) Updated floor plans and elevations to be included with the site plan. th Motion seconded by Brad Magowan. Duly adopted this 26 day of October 2021 by the following vote: AYES: Ms. White, Mr. Shafer, Mr. Hunsinger, Mr. Magowan, Mr. Valentine, Mr. Deeb, Mr. Traver NOES: NONE MR. TRAVER-All right. You’re all set for that part of the project. MR. GROSS-Thank you. MR. TRAVER-So the next item, also JP Gross Properties, LLC. This is Site Plan 63-2021. As was referenced in the prior discussion, this is for the project on Main Street. SITE PLAN NO. 63-2021 SEQR TYPE: TYPE II. JP GROSS PROPERTIES, LLC. AGENT(S): ETHAN HALL. OWNER(S): SAME AS APPLICANT. ZONING: MS. LOCATION: 1 MAIN STREET. APPLICANT PROPOSES A 389 SQ. FT. ADDITION INCLUDING A NEW OFFICE SPACE AREA AND NEW 24 SQ. FT. ENTRY PORCH ON THE BUILDING. THE PROJECT INCLUDES 138 SQ. FT. NEW HARD SURFACING. THE EXISTING BUILDING IS 824 SQ. FT. WITH A 104 SQ. FT. PORCH ENTRY AND MECHANICAL LIFT SYSTEM. THE SITE H AS AN EXISTING PARKING AREA OF 3,764 SQ. FT. WITH ACCESS TO WESTERN AVE. THE PROJECT INVOLVES ADDITIONAL HARD SURFACING OF 164 SQ. FT. PURSUANT TO CHAPTER 179-3-040-MS AND 179-9-020 OF THE ZONING ORDINANCE, SITE PLAN REVIEW FOR MODIFICATION TO AN APPROVED SITE PLAN SHALL BE SUBJECT TO PLANNING BOARD REVIEW AND APPROVAL. CROSS REFERENCE: SP 3-2014 NEW PORCH, SP 40-2015 PARKING RENO, DISC-36085 2 STORY ADD., AV 5-2014. WARREN CO. REFERRAL: OCTOBER 2021. SITE INFORMATION: MAIN STREET ZONING. LOT SIZE: 0.33 ACRES. TAX MAP NO. 309.11-2-17. SECTION: 179-3-040-MS, 179-9-020. ETHAN HALL & JON LAPPER, REPRESENTING APPLICANT, PRESENT MR. TRAVER-Laura? MRS. MOORE-So the applicant proposes a 389 square foot addition including a new office space area and new 24 square foot entry porch on the building. The project includes 138 square feet of new hard surfacing. The existing building is 824 square feet with 104 square foot porch entry with a mechanical lift. The site has an existing parking area of 3,764 square feet, and the applicant, with the new parking area, the drainage will be included in the rear of the property, what I would call the rear of the property. MR. TRAVER-Okay. Thank you. Hello again. MR. LAPPER-For the record, Jon Lapper now with Ethan Hall, architect. I think I gave you the explanation for what’s going on. So I’ll just ask Ethan to talk to you. MR. HALL-So it’s a pretty interesting site that it has three fronts, one of the few in the Town that does have three fronts, and it’s a very small building, one story. It has a full basement underneath it. We’re adding a 16 foot addition so that they can use this for the emergency use as Jon mentioned earlier, and the way it lays out inside the building, it’s really kind of a mimic of the one that you saw before, just much smaller. So that in the event, like they said, you have kind of a catastrophic emergency, they have a place to go and get everything up and running immediately and can monitor everything from this location. So it will be a great use of the building, but we all hope that it doesn’t get used. MR. TRAVER-Right. Good point. MR. HALL-So that’s really kind of the use of the building, and it’ll be a nice addition. MR. LAPPER-But I do know that Joe mows all of his properties and takes care of them and has a crew that goes around to those properties for landscaping. So even if nobody’s there, it’s going to look good. MR. TRAVER-Questions, comments from members of the Board? MR. MAGOWAN-I remember, this was, I believe, the first project that came under the Main Street zoning of what to do. What they did to this really dressed up the building and I’m really pleased to see it. It’s a nice looking house that’s on the corner. So I’m real pleased to see that. I’m sorry it’s not going to have a full time occupancy, only in an emergency situation. MR. HALL-Yes, but it will be fully ready to go at a moment’s notice. 22 (Queensbury Planning Board 10/26/2021) MR. TRAVER-Very good. We do have a public hearing on this application as well. Which we will now open. I don’t see anyone in the audience that wants to comment on this. Are there any written comments, Laura? PUBLIC HEARING OPENED MRS. MOORE-There are no written comments. MR. TRAVER-Okay. Then we’ll go ahead and close the public hearing. PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED MR. TRAVER-And for the record I think this is the first Planning Board meeting where I’ve successfully opened and closed all of the required public hearings. Let’s see, this is SEQR Type II. Are there any other questions, comments? MR. HUNSINGER-I was just going to reiterate Brad’s comments. I’m glad to see somebody use the building. MR. TRAVER-All right. If there’s nothing further, I guess we’re ready to move forward. RESOLUTION APPROVING SP # 63-2021 JP GROSS PROPERTIES, LLC The applicant has submitted an application to the Planning Board: Applicant proposes a 389 sq. ft. addition including a new office space area and new 24 sq. ft. entry porch on the building. The project includes 138 sq. ft. new hard surfacing. The existing building is 824 sq. ft. with a 104 sq. ft. porch entry and mechanical lift system. The site has an existing parking area of 3,764 sq. ft. with access to Western Ave. The project involves additional hard surfacing of 164 sq. ft. Pursuant to Chapter 179-3-040-MS and 179-9-020 of the Zoning Ordinance, site plan review for modification to an approved site plan shall be subject to Planning Board review and approval. Pursuant to relevant sections of the Town of Queensbury Zoning Code-Chapter 179-9-080, the Planning Board has determined that this proposal satisfies the requirements as stated in the Zoning Code; As required by General Municipal Law Section 239-m the site plan application was referred to the Warren County Planning Department for its recommendation; The Planning Board opened a public hearing on the Site plan application on 10/26/2021 and continued the public hearing to 10/26/2021 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 10/26/2021; 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 63-2021 JP GROSS PROPERTIES, LLC.; Introduced by David Deeb who moved for its adoption; Per the draft provided by staff conditioned upon the following conditions: 1) Waivers request granted: 2) h. signage, j. stormwater, k. topography, q. soil logs, s. snow removal The waiver request of these items is reasonable as the addition is being installed on the existing parking area and the improvements on the site are minor. 3) 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; 23 (Queensbury Planning Board 10/26/2021) 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 Duly adopted this 26 day of October 2021 by the following vote: MR. VALENTINE-Someone had just said about the lawns being mowed and stuff like that. Laura had notes, what’s this area behind the parking? Does it go back to Luzerne Road? That area back there, that’s just lawn? MR. HALL-This is just green space. That’s where everything flows to that space now in the ground. We’ll just pump it out and re-grade it and it’s going to stay exactly that same stuff. MR. TRAVER-Very good. AYES: Mr. Shafer, Mr. Hunsinger, Mr. Magowan, Mr. Valentine, Mr. Deeb, Ms. White, Mr. Traver NOES: NONE MR. TRAVER-You’re all set. Good luck. MR. HALL-Excellent. Thank you very much. MR. GROSS-Thank you so much everybody. MR. TRAVER-Can we entertain a motion to adjourn? MR. DEEB-So moved. MR. VALENTINE-Second. TH MOTION TO ADJOURN THE QUEENSBURY PLANNING BOARD MEETING OF OCTOBER 26, 2021, Introduced by David Deeb who moved for its adoption, seconded by Michael Valentine: th Duly adopted this 26 day of October, 2021, by the following vote: AYES: Mr. Deeb, Ms. White, Mr. Shafer, Mr. Hunsinger, Mr. Magowan, Mr. Valentine, Mr. Traver NOES: NONE MRS. MOORE-So I’m going to interrupt you before you leave. So I had put out an e-mail notice in regards to the sexual harassment/workplace harassment discrimination training, as well as the workplace violence. If you haven’t had them through your own work and you’d like me to just either run through it at an upcoming meeting, or I can e-mail you the document, you can look through it, and you can e-mail me back and say that you’ve completed that. MR. TRAVER-I would like the latter, please. MS. WHITE-The latter, please. MR. DEEB-No, I want a meeting. Didn’t we just do this? MRS. MOORE-You have to do it yearly. MR. DEEB-It’s been a year? MRS. MOORE-It’s been a year. Okay. I will e-mail this information out to those that either watch a meeting or I can make a copy of that, I’ll bring extra copies to our November meeting so that someone can take it home if they wish to. MR. DEEB-E-mail it. MRS. MOORE-I’ll e-mail everyone, but then I’ll just bring extra hard copies with me. th MR. HUNSINGER-I just want everyone to be aware. I’ve asked Mike if he could sit in for me on the 16 of November. 24 (Queensbury Planning Board 10/26/2021) MRS. MOORE-That Tuesday? Okay. MR. HUNSINGER-The first meeting of November. thth MR. DEEB-We have the 16 and the 18? MRS. MOORE-Yes. MR. TRAVER-Yes, twice in a week. MRS. MOORE-So our meeting’s adjourned, right? MR. DEEB-Yes, we’re adjourned. MRS. MOORE-Thanks. On motion meeting was adjourned. RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED, Stephen Traver, Chairman 25