Loading...
01-18-2022 (Queensbury Planning Board 01/18/2022) QUEENSBURY PLANNING BOARD MEETING FIRST REGULAR MEETING TH JANUARY 18, 2022 INDEX Resolution Amendment to Planning Board By-laws, 1. Policies & Procedures Site Plan No. 55-2021 Antonio & Maria Civitella 3. FWW Permit 1-2021 Tax Map No. 239.7-1-20 ZBA RECOMMENDATION Site Plan No. 1-2022 Dan Slote/EDP 5. ZBA RECOMMENDATION Tax Map No. 239.16-1-19 Site Plan No. 2-2022 Patrick Connors 9. ZBA RECOMMENDATION Tax Map No. 227.9-1-1 Site Plan No. 3-2022 Great Escape Theme Park LLC 11. ZBA RECOMMENDATION Tax Map No. 288.20-1-20 Site Plan No. 35-2021 Mountain Vista Properties, LLC 15. (Formerly Chris Racicot) Tax Map No. 309.10-1-60 Subdivision Modification 13-2021 David Howard/Brennan Estates 18. Tax Map No. Road 315.10-1-35 Site Plan 66-2021 CVE North America, Inc. 21. FWW Permit 3-2021 Tax Map No. 303.11-1-4.1;303.15-1-25.2; Special Use Permit 4-2021 303.11-1-5 PZ-0720-2021 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 01/18/2022) QUEENSBURY PLANNING BOARD MEETING FIRST REGULAR MEETING TH JANUARY 18, 2022 7:00 P.M. MEMBERS PRESENT STEPHEN TRAVER, CHAIRMAN DAVID DEEB, VICE CHAIRMAN MICHAEL DIXON, SECRETARY BRAD MAGOWAN WARREN LONGACKER JOHN MOLLOY JACKSON LA SARSO, ALTERNATE MEMBERS ABSENT MICHAEL VALENTINE LAND USE PLANNER-LAURA MOORE STENOGRAPHER-MARIA GAGLIARDI MR. TRAVER-Good evening, ladies and gentlemen. Welcome to the Town of Queensbury Planning Board th meeting for Tuesday, January 18, 2022. This is actually our first meeting for January and also our first meeting for 2022. That being said, this is also our organizational meeting for the year, and I would like to recognize and welcome some new members we have on the Planning Board. We have Warren Longacker who comes to us with some experience in engineering. He’s involved with DEC in engineering. Welcome aboard and thank you for your interest in serving the Town. We appreciate it very much. John Molloy down here. John also is now a member of the Planning Board. He comes to us with a background in economics and public policy. Very interested and active individual in local government. So he will be a real asset. We also have one of two Planning Board alternates. We have Jackson LaSarso who’s with us tonight. He’s also actually going to be filling in for an absent Planning Board member. So out of the frying pan into the fire as an alternate serving as a Board member. Jackson has been involved as an alternate also with the ZBA, the Zoning Board, and has a background in urban planning. So he is an asset to us as well. We have a real good Board I think this year. David Deeb, who’s sitting to my right, has been serving on the Planning Board and also serving as Secretary for a number of years and this year will be our Vice- Chairman. So I thank him very much for serving in that role, and Michael Dixon on my left has been an alternate and has filled in on a number of meetings and has participated in fact has been an acting Secretary once or twice and has done an excellent job and has agreed to serve as Secretary for 2022 for the Planning Board. So we have a very good team and we’re very grateful for that. I do want to apologize to Warren and John. I had intended to visit with them or meet and greet them at their orientation meeting and was some miscommunication, at least in part due to my fault, I went to what I thought was your orientation. It turned out to be your payroll signing. So there was some confusion about that and one of the things I’d like to do is clarify that. Under our Policies and Procedures in the past basically members would show up and be handed a set of By-laws and Town Code and that was it, and over the years, the Town, and especially the Planning Department, has increasingly become much more professional and very concerned with procedures and policies and now they have a fairly formal orientation process that you went through, and if you look at our somewhat dated Policies and Procedures, the last time it was updated was 2017. All it really says is that new members are going to be given a copy of the Planning Board By-laws, Policies, and Procedures, Town of Queensbury Comprehensive Land Use Plan, copy of the Queensbury Town Code and a zoning map, and now the practice is that the Planning Office will actually provide you a much more structured orientation meeting, which is the meeting that I had hoped to attend to greet you. So what I am proposing is an amendment to our Policies and Procedures just to add some language in that one brief Section. It used to say, prior to the organizational meeting in January, new members shall receive the Planning Board By-laws, Policies and Procedures, the documentation basically, and what I’d like to do is update that language to say, prior to the organizational meeting in January, all new members shall receive an orientation to the Planning Board by Planning Staff, and shall receive copies of the following items, the same items, and then also Planning Staff shall notify the Planning Board Chair of the date, time and location of the orientation. So that, you know, there won’t be any confusion about that. So I have a draft I think will work, a draft resolution to approve that would update those. Does it pass muster? MR. DIXON-It looks good to me. MR. TRAVER-Okay. You’re the Secretary. RESOLUTION AMENDING PLANNING BOARD BY-LAWS, POLICIES AND PROCEDURES 2 (Queensbury Planning Board 01/18/2022) The addition of new members to the Planning Board includes providing them with important documents and copies of the Planning Board Bylaws and Procedures as outlined in Section 1B, page 10 of Planning Board Policies and Procedures. The Planning Department has expanded this procedure to include a formal orientation to the Planning Board presented by Planning staff. This procedure needs to be added to Section 1B and also include a provision that the Planning Board Chair be notified of the time and place of this orientation. MOTION TO AMEND THE PLANNING BOARD POLICIES AND PROCEDURES, SECTION 1B, PAGE 10 TO INCLUDE THE LANGUAGE REFERENCED ABOVE, Introduced by Michael Dixon who moved for its adoption, th Motion seconded by Brad Magowan. Duly adopted this 18 day of January, 2022, by the following vote: MRS. MOORE-Prior to you calling the vote, make sure that we have a copy of that. MR. TRAVER-Yes, I will e-mail you a copy. MRS. MOORE-So that Maria can update. MR. TRAVER-Yes. I actually have, I have the motion and I have the amended page, Page 10. And, Laura, I’m going to send you that document again, because when I went on line to look at it, part of it was cut off. I don’t know why, but it was just, I’ll send you that whole thing later tonight. MRS. MOORE-Okay. Sounds good. MR. TRAVER-Or maybe early tomorrow morning, depending on our meeting. AYES: Mr. Deeb, Mr. Dixon, Mr. Longacker, Mr. Molloy, Mr. Magowan, Mr. LaSarso, Mr. Traver NOES: NONE ABSENT: Mr. Valentine MR. TRAVER-All right. Thank you. The only other administrative item we have this evening is approval of minutes for November 16 and November 18 of 2021. APPROVAL OF MINUTES th November 16, 2021 th November 18, 2021 MOTION TO APPROVE THE QUEENSBURY PLANNING BOARD MEETING MINUTES OF THTH NOVEMBER 16, 2021 AND NOVEMBER 18, 2021, Introduced by Michael Dixon who moved for its adoption, seconded by Brad Magowan: th Duly adopted this 18 day of January, 2022, by the following vote: AYES: Mr. Dixon, Mr. Molloy, Mr. Magowan, Mr. Deeb, Mr. Traver NOES: NONE ABSTAINED: Mr. Longacker, Mr. LaSarso ABSENT: Mr. Valentine MR. TRAVER-All right. Thank you, and next we move to our regular agenda items. The first section of that agenda is Recommendations to the Zoning Board of Appeals, and the first item is Antonio and Maria Civitella, Site Plan 55-2021 and Freshwater Wetlands Permit 1-2021. Or would that be 1-2022, Laura? MRS. MOORE-No, these are from, they were started in 2021. MR. TRAVER-Okay. All right. I just wanted to be sure. Okay. Thank you. 3 (Queensbury Planning Board 01/18/2022) PLANNING BOARD RECOMMENDATIONS TO THE ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS: SITE PLAN NO. 55-2021 FRESHWATER WETLANDS PERMIT 1-2021 SEQR TYPE: TYPE II. ANTONIO & MARIA CIVITELLA. AGENT(S): STUDIO A. OWNER(S): SAME AS APPLICANT. ZONING: WR. LOCATION: 104 KNOX ROAD. (REVISED) APPLICANT PROPOSES A TEAR-DOWN OF AN EXISTING HOME TO CONSTRUCT A NEW HOME WITH A FOOTPRINT OF 2,477 SQ. FT. AND A FLOOR AREA OF 4,091 SQ. FT. THE PROJECT INCLUDES INSTALLATION OF A PATIO AREA ON THE LAKE SIDE, NEW DRIVEWAY AREA OF PERMEABLE PATIO PRODUCT, NEW STEPS TO FUTURE SUNDECK AND DOCK, RETAINING WALLS FOR PATIO AND DRIVEWAY, NEW SEPTIC, NEW WELL, NEW SITE PLANTINGS AND NEW SHORELINE PLANTINGS. PURSUANT TO CHAPTER 179-3-040 & 179-6-065 OF THE ZONING ORDINANCE, NEW FLOOR AREA IN A CEA, HARD-SURFACING WITHIN 50 FT. OF SHORELINE, SHORELINE VEGETATION REMOVAL, STEEP SLOPES WITHIN 50 FT. AND WORK WITHIN 100 FT. OF WETLAND SHALL BE SUBJECT TO PLANNING BOARD REVIEW AND APPROVAL. VARIANCE: RELIEF IS SOUGHT FOR SETBACKS, FLOOR AREA, PERMEABILITY AND INFILTRATION PRACTICE SETBACK. PLANNING BOARD SHALL PROVIDE A RECOMMENDATION TO THE ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS. CROSS REFERENCE: AV 62-2021. WARREN CO. REFERRAL: SEPTEMBER 2021. SITE INFORMATION: CEA, LGPC, APA. LOT SIZE: .37 ACRE. TAX MAP NO. 239.7-1-20. SECTION: 179-3-040, 179-6-065. JON LAPPER & KIRSTEN CATELLIER, REPRESENTING APPLICANTS, PRESENT MRS. MOORE-So the applicant proposes a teardown of the existing home to construct a new home. The footprint would be 2,477 square feet and a floor area of 4,091 square feet. The relief sought is for setbacks, floor area, permeability and infiltration practice setback, and I noted, I sent off to the Board today that the variance relief for the floor area is not 32.5. It’s 24.3%. MR. TRAVER-Yes. So make note of that as you look at the Staff Notes, where it says nature of variance on the second line toward the end, it says maximum allowed 32.5. That number should actually be 24.3 if you didn’t see Laura’s e-mail earlier. All right. Thank you, Laura. Good evening. MR. LAPPER-Good evening, everyone. For the record, Jon Lapper, project attorney, with Kirsten Catellier, landscape architect, behind me and Kevin Maschewski the project architect. So they’re available, well Kirsten will make a presentation and Kevin is here if you have any questions. So we started this project, we were here in September with a much larger home. The Civitella’s bought the property about seven years ago. They hired a very good Saratoga architect to design basically their dream home for themselves, their kids and their grandkids and it was what Laura mentioned was still on the agenda, the 32.5% floor area ratio. The constraints on this site are that it’s a pie-shaped, long, narrow parcel that’s only about .39 of an acre, and the Zoning Board has always recognized that when you have a small lot the percentage they usually give us a little bit of relief because you’re not getting a massive house. It’s just that you’re putting it on a small lot, but we came to you for recommendation in September and it didn’t go well. You felt it was much too big of a house for the lot and we decided not to go forward to the Zoning Board. We spoke to the Civitella’s and they switched architects. They brought in Kevin who’s designed and built many homes on the lake and just was a lot more sensitive to what could be approved in Queensbury. So the main thing is that the house dropped from 32.5 to 24.3 FAR which is a pretty dramatic difference, and if you look at what Laura has on the map, the size and the shape of the parcel ,the side setback variances are only on the corners of the building or a portion of that is where we’re asking for the relief. The maximum is just because of the pie-shaped constraint. The lot to the north, the pencil lot, is eight and a half feet to the property line, and at our closest point we’re asking for 14 feet on the north side. So it’s substantially better than the neighbor, and it’s my understanding that all of the lots in this area, because they’re long, narrow lots, they all required area variances of some magnitude or another, but in our case what you see on the house is less than 22 FAR. It’s only the basement which is just mechanical rooms that, about 400 something square feet that got us slightly over the 22%. So certainly the applicants tried to make this as conforming as possible to come back a second time. So the lot is going to be extensively landscaped. They’re doing a very nice job, and I hope you’ll give us our recommendation, and I’ll ask Kirsten to take you through the Site Plan next. MR. TRAVER-Good evening. MRS. CATELLIER-Good evening. Kirsten Catellier from Studio A. So as you guys can see, on the proposed site plan. If you just pull the landscape plan, I think that’s the best. So overall the proposed site plan does look similar to the previous plan that we showed you guys back in 2021, but we did modify it in many different ways. The driveway’s still approaching from the east coming down into the site with the house in the same relative location. The septic is still being proposed to the east of the residence and we actually altered to the driveway to be part asphalt as you come down the entry corridor and then within the motor court we’re proposing permeable pavers. We made two plant beds to each side of the front entrance to the residence with a permeable paver walkway entering Out in front of the residence 4 (Queensbury Planning Board 01/18/2022) previously we did have a fairly extensive patio with an outdoor kitchen and a handful of steps. We’ve cut that back to just be an on-grade patio with permeable pavers right now and landscaping, between the patio and residence and then also two out in front of the residence, or outside the patio, and then we are proposing an open lawn and then extensive landscape along the hillside and slope down to the lake. As you can see generous landscaping is also being proposed along the north and south property lines. We do know we are removing a handful of trees which are existing trees and we did do an analysis to only keep those where there’s going to be grading or building proposed or there are a few that are considered dangerous right now, but we are proposing a variety of trees and shrubs and plantings just to kind of bring back some of the trees that we’re removing but also to sensibly landscape it and meet the requirements of Queensbury. The fire pit is staying currently on-grade where it was proposed before. So no changes to that, and under the 100 square feet, and also, too, previously we did have the walkway coming on the south side of the residence to get to the front of the lakeside where we’ve reconfigured that to be stepping stones to try and soften the landscaping as much as possible, and reduce hardscape. Just piggybacking on Jon’s notes, the permeability we are, we previously are holding at 68.5 and we’ve increased that to 69.5. The north setback, previously we were proposing it at 10.6 feet and we’ve increased that to 14 which is only where the garage is. At its maximum point and along the front of the residence it’s about 15 right there, and then the south setback we are, previously we were proposing it at 17, which we did shorten to just 15.75. So just about one foot. So just as we’re shifting it south more than was previously shown. And I think that sums up all of our modifications that we made, unless you have any questions. MR. TRAVER-Okay. Thank you very much, and just to clarify for the Board, especially the new members, there’s two parts to this process with this particular application. Tonight they’re asking us to make a, I should say the ZBA is asking us to make a recommendation on approval of the variance requests. So generally what we try to do is concentrate on the variance requests, which in this case is relief for side setbacks, floor area, permeability, infiltration practice setbacks, and then if and when they gain approval for this design from the Zoning Board, get their variances, they will return to us for Site Plan Review. So with that I’ll open it up to the Planning Board for questions, comments for the applicant or the engineer. MR. DIXON-I’ll start off with a comment. It’s significantly improved over the last plan that was presented. MR. TRAVER-It is. MR. DIXON-I thought it was much improved. MR. MAGOWAN-I will say thank you. Really, I concur that there’s a big difference. I like the extensive plantings because I was concerned with the amount of trees, but I also understand, too, I mean when you start taking down those, and they’re big trees, and you start tearing those down it’s kind of like the pickup sticks. You thin them out and those single ones actually do become dangerous, but I have to say the landscaping plan, from here it’s going to look beautiful. The only thing I have to say is a lot of the permeable pavers come in for stormwater, and I really appreciate that, but and I’m not sure, in the future, how we’re going to address it because it’s all coming in, but there’s a lot of maintenance to those, especially in the driveways where you get all that fine silt that comes off your car in the winter, you know, and I just know what we have to do along the Beach Road in Lake George because that’s a permeable pavement, but the parking lots, there’s a lot that goes on, but they do take some work. So I just want to make sure that we have in our plan a good maintenance on that. So, thank you. MR. DEEB-Well, I’d like to say it is a good improvement. I am not a fan of four variances, and, you know, members from the last time I voiced my opinion. However, I do recognize the constraints of the lot itself, and when I first saw the 32% FAR, I went, whoa, and I was going to come in here ready for battle, but seeing that it is down quite a bit and you’ve made an extensive change, also you’re talking about the mechanicals that are responsible for the FAR. So I think you’ve done what you can do to this. So I won’t say anymore. MR. TRAVER-Other questions, comments? How do members of the Board feel about the variances in response to our request for a recommendation? Do we feel that the variances can be, can we support those variances? MR. DEEB-I’m okay with it. MR. MAGOWAN-I’m much better with it, yes. MR. TRAVER-Comfortable moving forward then? All right. If there’s no other questions, and note, also, for the audience, there is no public hearing on this application. However, when it returns for Site Plan Review there will be public comment taken. So with that I guess we’re ready for a motion. RESOLUTION RE: ZBA RECOMMENDATION RE: AV # 62-2021 ANTONIO & MARIA CIVITELLA 5 (Queensbury Planning Board 01/18/2022) The applicant has submitted an application for the following: (Revised) Applicant proposes a tear-down of an existing home to construct a new home with a footprint of 2,477 sq. ft. and a floor area of 4,091 sq. ft. The project includes installation of a patio area on the lake side, new driveway area of permeable patio product, new steps to future sundeck and dock, retaining walls for patio and driveway, new septic, new well, new site plantings and new shoreline plantings. Pursuant to Chapter 179-3-040 & 179-6-065 of the Zoning Ordinance, new floor area in a CEA, hard-surfacing within 50 ft. of shoreline, shoreline vegetation removal, steep slopes within 50 ft. and work within 100 ft. of wetland shall be subject to Planning Board review and approval. Variance: Relief is sought for setbacks, floor area, permeability and infiltration practice setback. Planning Board shall provide a recommendation to the Zoning Board of Appeals. The Town of Queensbury Zoning Ordinance, per Section 179-9-070 J 2 b. requires the Planning Board to provide a written recommendation to the Zoning Board of Appeals for projects that require both Zoning Board of Appeals & Planning Board approval; The Planning Board has briefly reviewed and discussed this application, the relief request in the variance application as well as the potential impacts of this project on the neighborhood and surrounding community, and found that: MOTION TO MAKE A RECOMMENDATION ON BEHALF OF THE PLANNING BOARD TO THE ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS FOR AREA VARIANCE NO. 62-2021 ANTONIO & MARIA CIVITELLA; Introduced by Michael Dixon who moved for its adoption, and a) The Planning Board, based on a limited review, has not identified any significant adverse impacts that cannot be mitigated with current project proposal. th Motion seconded by David Deeb. Duly adopted this 18 day of January 2022 by the following vote: AYES: Mr. Longacker, Mr. Molloy, Mr. Magowan, Mr. LaSarso, Mr. Deeb, Mr. Dixon, Mr. Traver NOES: NONE ABSENT: Mr. Valentine MR. TRAVER-You’re off to the ZBA. MR. LAPPER-Thank you, Board. MR. TRAVER-The next item on our agenda, also under Planning Board Recommendations to the ZBA, is Dan Slote/EDP, Site Plan 1-2022. SITE PLAN NO. 1-2022 SEQR TYPE: TYPE II. DAN SLOTE/EDP. AGENT(S): CHRIS KEIL, EDP. OWNER(S): DAN SLOTE. ZONING: WR. LOCATION: 20 BURNT RIDGE ROAD. APPLICANT PROPOSES TO CONSTRUCT A 1,205 SQ. FT. BUNKHOUSE, TWO NEW SEPTIC TANKS SHARING A LEACH FIELD AREA, RETAINING WALL, AND NEW STORMWATER MANAGEMENT FOR BUNK HOUSE AREA. THE EXISTING HOME IS 804 SQ. FT. PURSUANT TO CHAPTER 179-5-020, 179-3-040, 179-6-060, SITE PLAN REVIEW FOR A NEW FLOOR AREA IN A CEA AND A NEW BUILDING WITHIN 50 FEET OF 15% SLOPES SHALL BE SUBJECT TO PLANNING BOARD REVIEW AND APPROVAL. VARIANCE: RELIEF SOUGHT FOR AN ACCESSORY STRUCTURE SIZE. CROSS REFERENCE: SP 45-2002 SUNDECK, AV 2-2002. WARREN CO. REFERRAL: JANUARY 2022. SITE INFORMATION: CEA, LGPC, APA. LOT SIZE: 1 ACRE. TAX MAP NO. 239.16-1-19. SECTION: 179-5-020, 179-3-040, 179-6-060. CHRIS KEIL, REPRESENTING APPLICANT, PRESENT; DAN SLOTE, PRESENT MR. TRAVER-Laura? MRS. MOORE-So the applicant proposes to construct a 1,200 square foot bunkhouse. The project also includes installation of septic and leach field, retaining wall and new stormwater management for the bunkhouse. The existing home of 804 square feet is to remain. The variance relief being sought here is for the bunkhouse at 1200 square feet where 500 square feet for an accessory structure is the maximum allowed. MR. TRAVER-Okay. Thank you. Good evening. MR. KEIL-Good evening, Board. Chris Keil with Environmental Design Partnership, here with the owner and applicant Dan Slote. MR. TRAVER-Okay. Good evening. Tell us about your project. 6 (Queensbury Planning Board 01/18/2022) MR. SLOTE-Well, if you wouldn’t mind, I’d like to just give you a quick introduction of how my wife and I own on the lake. MR. TRAVER-Sure. MR. SLOTE-We closed on this house in 2002. The previous seven years of our marriage we rented homes on the lake. Thirty-four years prior to that I lived across the bay. So both great-grandfathers on both sides of my family, my mom’s and my dad’s, have owned homes on the lake. My great-grandfather owned all of Hemlock Point in the 40’s. My grandfather owned the Antigua and then bought the house across the bay from where they are now, buying it in 2002. My son is actually fifth generation on the lake. So we have true respect and love for the lake, very much so, and when we bought the home in 2002, it was a cottage built in 1945, and frankly our contractor he said tear it down. The money you’re going to spend to make it a four season cottage, you can tear it down, and we said no. We decided to just make it something that worked for us, which it has for 20 years. Now, despite the fact that my son’s away, just came back, we have outgrown this. We needed two more bedrooms. So that’s why we’re here this evening. MR. TRAVER-So that’s why the accessory structure is actually substantially larger than the main house. MR. SLOTE-Correct. So I did have Ruben Ellsworth come to the house and we looked at actually putting a new foundation to the house. Being able to add two more bedrooms. The structure itself is 1945. While we did work on it, we didn’t re-timber the house itself. So we can’t support a second floor. When he came to look at it, our lot, the entire lot, is super grade, 15% or more grade. It’s way too steep. So he would have had to marry the two, put a new foundation, but also go down 20 feet to bedrock. We just thought it was just too much to do at the lake, when the house has always just been a 1945 cottage, at least to us. MR. TRAVER-And the main house, how much is the main house now? MR. SLOTE-It’s 804, plus the front porch which is just about 200 square feet. MR. TRAVER-Okay. MR. KEIL-Just to piggyback a little bit on what Dan was saying. The idea, as he alluded to, it is a steep site, trying to respect and keep that whole waterfront environment intact was the goal from the onset, but one of his desires is to be able to use the property more in the offseason. So having this accessory structure, bunkhouse served as like a remote bedroom. So you’d have to navigate the entirety of the driveway in in climate weather and, you know, the short house would be winterized at that time. It seemed like a good hybrid approach to use the property without creating too intense of a project on the waterfront. MR. TRAVER-Okay. Laura, a question for Staff, and I’m sure you’re probably way ahead of me as I’m almost certain, but wouldn’t it make more sense for them to sort of reverse this and have the bunkhouse be the main house and the accessory structure be the old dwelling? He’d have less of a variance that way. MRS. MOORE-So the accessory structure as it stands has no kitchen. So that what makes it an accessory structure. It doesn’t make it as a second dwelling unit on the site. So the idea of, you’re not permitted two dwelling units on site without relief. So to minimize this folks on the lake have constructed bunkhouses, which don’t consist of a. MR. TRAVER-Okay. All right. Thank you. Questions, comments from members of the Board? MR. DIXON-I have one. Looking at the plans. First of all, it looked like the bunkhouse certainly had more than enough space with all the setbacks. So I didn’t see an issue with that, and this is going to be more of a site plan question really would be, you show two septic systems on the plan. If they’re going to be tied in, have you given any consideration to using one septic system instead of two, so one holding tank? That way, the two units are now tied into each other, if one becomes a rental unit later on or subdivided. So that’s just kind of food for thought. I’d like to know your opinion on it. It doesn’t really have as much bearing on this right now. MR. SLOTE-I guess that’s an engineering question in regards to the septic. MR. KEIL-It seems to, and I’d have to get a little bit more detail on the size of this, but in terms of having that sort of valve at that mid-point and having, be able to shut off, you know, the lower tank, both would obviously have grinder pumps to get the effluent up to that upper field but basically this way as alluded to the properties could sort of function or at least the bunkhouse could sort of function easily on itself without having to rely on having that, a joint system. MR. DIXON-Again, not to deviate too much from this particular resolution that we’re looking at today, but the septic system on the existing house, how old is that? 7 (Queensbury Planning Board 01/18/2022) MR. SLOTE-When we purchased the home, we had it inspected, operational. It’s been operational all through the years. We’re members of the Dunham’s Bay Association. My neighbor is Len Simms who heads that up for us, and everybody in the bay takes very , good care, as much as they can, so we they can, one of the things that was proposed years ago was some type of a grant. With that grant, I think it was with Queensbury inspecting the systems, our Association hired somebody to work with Chris Navitsky who also got that gentleman to come around and check our systems electively. We had ours checked. It works. It worked back then. So we truly don’t know. We bought from our neighbor Myron who’s just to the north of us who’s been there I think since the 70’s or 80’s. He doesn’t know. There’s no actual record of what the system’s age is, other than the fact that it’s operational. It’s not timber lined. It’s a steel tank. On its side is a holding tank with a leach field and I get that pumped out, you know, usually in the spring and the fall just to stay up with it whether it needs it or not. MR. DEEB-How many bedrooms in the original house? MR. SLOTE-It’s listed on there as three, on the Town’s records. It’s actually two bedrooms with a loft, and the loft is like a three foot high space. It’s not really three bedrooms. It’s two actual physical bedrooms. MR. DEEB-And you’re going to use that all year? You’re going to use the original house all year, including the bunkhouse? MR. SLOTE-Yes and no. My wife and I live in Albany. We come up and ski occasionally. I haven’t been up in 60 to 90 days. It all depends. We do not come up and stay on a regular basis in the winter, especially leading up to the holidays. In the next month or two we might come up a night and ski at Gore and then go back home. It changes every year, but nobody spends any appreciable time at the house, but it would be nice when we do show up, we’re getting older. I don’t need to get up and get breakfast. I just need to be able to get up and go skiing and then come back home and spend the night and go home the next day. It’s a lot easier, I know you’ve probably not been to the site. When we bought the house, our neighbor Myron owns almost two acres. He bought the house that we’re in to the south. There was a disagreement over the driveway. There’s a leg and it was shared at the time and he got into a disagreement with his neighbor about who parked where and what. So Myron bought the property. He subdivided it and then put it back out onto the market. So a lot of it, while it is our driveway, it’s actually closer to three acres with one driveway. He has a full easement. We share all expense of the driveway. We own it, but my neighbor uses that driveway as well. MR. DIXON-Mr. Chairman, will this come back as a site plan then, or will it meet all the setbacks? MR. TRAVER-It will come back as a site plan pending the decision of the ZBA. If they get their variance they will come back as proposed with what’s in front of us tonight and we’ll look at it for site plan. If it doesn’t get the variance, then presumably they’ll make some modifications and meet again for modification. That would be the normal procedure. MR. SLOTE-We have no intent of renting. The cost of adding, we have a large home, we have multiple cottages on the property. My parents, my sister, my wife and I from time to time My grandmother who passed away two years ago sold that house. My family cannot come and stay with me with two bedrooms, 800 square feet. This is truly an attempt to create two bedrooms so that my family, my mother and father, my sister and her husband can come stay with us occasionally during the summer, and my son who’s in college can go up the hill, not stay in the same house as us, and he and do what college boys do with their fronts. MR. DEEB-Well, I mean we understand that. If you ever sold the property in the future, that possibility of renting is still there, and I think that’s what our concern is. MR. SLOTE-I’m willing to deed restrict it. We’re trusting the home to my son in will. I’ll deed restrict it. That’s how serious I am about renting the home. We’re not interested in that at all, Mr. Deeb. I have no problem with doing some type of a deed restriction. You spend time on Lake George. There are four months, June doesn’t count. July, August and September. That’s the only spot I want to be. I have no interest in renting the home. I want to be there myself. MR. DEEB-Well, I can see why, too. I understand your reasoning. I don’t know if we want to get into site plan, but I notice the bunkhouse, the 1200 square feet, you’ve got a large living area in the bunkhouse with the two bedrooms and the one bath. Once we get into the site plan, Code says 500 square feet and you’ve more than doubled that, and that’s a pretty big ask. So we have restrictions on the book and yet we’re always trying to get more and more and more. When it comes time, would you consider downscaling a little bit at all? MR. SLOTE-I think one of the reasons that it ended up being the size that it is, is the way that it sits facing the lake from front to back with two bedrooms and a very narrow living area all the way in the back. It’s obviously a galley kitchen in the main residence. When we decided to take the same thing and flip it this 8 (Queensbury Planning Board 01/18/2022) way, rather than to put the bedrooms which would be up against the hill, we thought it would be best to actually put the bedrooms next to each other, which makes a width of about 30 some odd feet, about 11 feet, a little bit less than 11, with 5 feet. It was drawn out that way because the way that it sits on the hill, I guess with the porch it was extended that way. It just, it’s just the way that the sides grew with regard to, what we were attempting to create at one point was a walkout basement, which would be the equivalent of the living space, that’s somewhat here and two bedrooms above it, and I spoke to Danny Williams and he said what are you looking to do, two bedrooms and some living space. So that’s why it’s the size that it is. MR. DEEB-Okay. MR. TRAVER-Other questions, comments from members of the Board? MR. MAGOWAN-I’d like to go back to the front house septic. I know we’re, the County is trying to come up with a septic park and I know Queensbury has theirs, but getting involved, you said it’s a steel tank. MR. SLOTE-Yes. MR. MAGOWAN-I haven’t seen a steel tank in, well, I’ve been in construction a long time, and steel, water, chemicals outside, you know, it kind of turns into a cess pool if you know what I mean. They do get holes. Hot water tanks don’t last that long. Are you tying that in doing a pumping system? MR. KEIL-Dennis MacElroy with EDP has designed an entirely new system. So at the current cottage a completely new system will go in, in place of the current system. The holding tank and pump uphill, a secondary holding tank where the bunkhouse is proposed, two entirely new leach fields on land on top of the hill. So the entire system will be brand new, for both. MR. MAGOWAN-All right. I just was a little, I mean I’m just looking at, I know we have, you know, you have the big field up above and I did see the pipe going up and I did see the two inch and a half force mains to share. So if it’s getting designed that way, but when you said steel. MR. SLOTE-We can’t determine the age. MR. MAGOWAN-And once you hear you can’t determine an age, I mean this is the time to do it and do it correctly and we all need to protect our Queen and I really appreciate you, the years and up there. I kind of like this idea. It’s a different idea than most people come tear down and just build a big house to accommodate, and it sounds like you’re really put a lot of effort in keeping the old cottage and trying to keep it going. Obviously it’s insulated enough that you don’t have to worry about things in the wintertime and the bunkhouse, I kind of like that idea. You have three acres, really an upgrade, but you’re far enough apart that you’re not disturbing anything down by the lake. So it’s a very interesting concept, and I really appreciate it. It’s a different approach. You don’t usually see this too often. MR. SLOTE-One thing, though. We only own a little less than one acre. Our neighbor owns the two acres. MR. TRAVER-.92. MR. MAGOWAN-Okay. I just heard you say three acres. I’m looking at it. MR. TRAVER-So again the variance that we’re here to review this evening is for the accessory structure size. They’re allowed to have, with approval, they’re allowed to have a 500 square foot accessory structure and they’re asking for a 1200 square foot accessory structure and the ZBA is asking for our referral pending site plan review. How does the Board feel about that variance? MR. DEEB-First I was a little nervous about the size of it, but I do recognize the constraints with the old house. They’re still tearing it down and adding to it. What you’ve presented shows that there is a hardship there. So I guess I’m okay. MR. DIXON-Laura, just a clarification on the Code, and I apologize for not bringing my Codebook with me. Don’t we allow up to two accessory structures? MRS. MOORE-So the maximum size is 500 square feet. MR. DIXON-Combined. Okay. Thank you. MRS. MOORE-Combined. Yes. MR. TRAVER-Okay. All right. Well, I’m not hearing any objections, so let’s go with the resolution and see what happens. 9 (Queensbury Planning Board 01/18/2022) RESOLUTION RE: ZBA RECOMMENDATION RE: AV # 2-2022 DAN SLOTE/EDP The applicant has submitted an application for the following: Applicant proposes to construct a 1,205 sq. ft. bunkhouse, two new septic tanks sharing a leach field area, retaining wall, and new stormwater management for bunk house area. The existing home is 804 sq. ft. Pursuant to Chapter 179-5-020, 179-3- 040, 179-6-060, site plan review for a new floor area in a CEA and a new building within 50 feet of 15% slopes shall be subject to Planning Board review and approval. Variance: Relief sought for an accessory structure size. The Town of Queensbury Zoning Ordinance, per Section 179-9-070 J 2 b. requires the Planning Board to provide a written recommendation to the Zoning Board of Appeals for projects that require both Zoning Board of Appeals & Planning Board approval; The Planning Board has briefly reviewed and discussed this application, the relief request in the variance application as well as the potential impacts of this project on the neighborhood and surrounding community, and found that: MOTION TO MAKE A RECOMMENDATION ON BEHALF OF THE PLANNING BOARD TO THE ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS FOR AREA VARIANCE NO. 2-2022 DAN SLOTE Introduced by Michael Dixon who moved for its adoption, and a) The Planning Board, based on a limited review, has not identified any significant adverse impacts that cannot be mitigated with current project proposal. th Motion seconded by Brad Magowan. Duly adopted this 18 day of January 2022 by the following vote: AYES: Mr. Molloy, Mr. Magowan, Mr. LaSarso, Mr. Deeb, Mr. Dixon, Mr. Longacker, Mr. Traver NOES: NONE ABSENT: Mr. Valentine MR. TRAVER-You’re off to the ZBA. MR. DEEB-Good luck. MR. SLOTE-Thank you for your time this evening. Thank you very much. MR. TRAVER-The next item on our agenda also under Recommendations to the ZBA is Patrick Connors, Site Plan 2-2022. SITE PLAN NO. 2-2022 SEQR TYPE: TYPE II. PATRICK CONNORS. AGENT(S): DANIEL RYAN, PE. OWNER(S): SAME AS APPLICANT. ZONING: WR. LOCATION: 95 ROCKHURST ROAD. APPLICANT PROPOSES TO REMOVE AN EXISTING DECK OF 644 SQ. FT. TO CONSTRUCT A 644 SQ. FT. DECK IN THE SAME LOCATION. THE DECK IS ATTACHED TO THE EXISTING HOUSE AND HAS A PATIO AREA UNDERNEATH. THE STEPS FROM THE DECK TO THE LOWER PATIO AREA WILL REMAIN IN THE SAME PLACE. THE EXISTING HOME IS 1,890 SQ. FT. MINUS THE DECK. THERE IS ADDITIONAL WORK ON THE BOATHOUSE STRUCTURE. PURSUANT TO CHAPTER 179-3-040, 179-13-010, 179-4-080, CONSTRUCTION OF A NEW DECK SHALL BE SUBJECT TO PLANNING BOARD REVIEW AND APPROVAL. VARIANCE: RELIEF IS SOUGHT FOR SETBACKS. CROSS REFERENCE: AV 1454-20953, SP 61-88, AV 3-2022. WARREN CO. REFERRAL: JANUARY 2022. SITE INFORMATION: CEA, LGPC, APA. LOT SIZE: 0.25 ACRES. TAX MAP NO. 227.9-1-1. SECTION: 179-3-040, 179-13-010, 179-4-080. DAN RYAN, REPRESENTING APPLICANT, PRESENT MR. TRAVER-Laura? MRS. MOORE-The applicant proposes removal of an existing deck, the size is 644 square feet, replacement is 644 square feet. There’s relief being requested for shoreline setback and side setback, and those are noted in the notes. MR. TRAVER-Okay. Thank you. Good evening. MR. RYAN-Good evening. Happy New Year as well. MR. TRAVER-Yes. So far. 10 (Queensbury Planning Board 01/18/2022) MR. RYAN-Dan Ryan for the record here. Project Engineer. I’m here with Patrick Connors. This project is fairly small in nature but I would like to just give you a brief overview of why we’re here and what the project entails. We’d be happy to answer any questions. Basically the project was derived from the fact that there’s the existing deck structure that needs repair. The existing deck structure is to the point where it basically has to be almost entirely disassembled and re-built in order to do the project the proper way. To do a full teardown and re-build the Town does classify that as essentially as new construction. So in that light we’re here to address the existing deck layout which does encroach on setbacks and so we have to remedy that, tear the deck down and re-build it essentially. The game plan is to match the existing deck size, footprint and dimensions in all ways. So essentially literally remove it and re-build it the way it is today with new materials obviously. So that is the sum of the project was basically the deck issues with variance for setbacks. There is a shoreline setback. The existing deck is 40, 29 feet. That will obviously remain the same from shoreline, and then we have the two side setbacks, one being 8.1, a little over 8.1 feet, and the other being 25 feet where 20 is required. The only land disturbance for the entirety of the project is basically to remove and replace a couple of piers, sonotube piers and some columns. There is one side of the deck that has settled several inches. So we’ve deemed those foundations as in a condition that they have to be replaced. So other than that there is no other site work proposed. Again it is kind of building within the existing footprint and on the existing structure that’s there, other than the couple of piers that have to be replaced. I did want to mention, I did see in the Staff Notes something about septic replacement. I just think there was some confusion. I did provide an original survey and a previous site plan that was approved by the Town for a septic replacement. Both documents were to be informative. I just think that caused a little confusion. So really there is no other work proposed other than the deck replacement. There is also, you’ll see, mention of the boathouse structure. That project has already been permitted. It’s basically repairs. That is receiving a new roof and some new handrails and stair components that have to be replaced. So it doesn’t really affect the variances. It is going to be done all at the same time. So it’s part of the project. MR. TRAVER-Okay. So essentially it’s a repair, in the sense that you’re not altering the design or location or whatever, but it triggers your visit with us because of the fact that it’s a teardown and re-build. MR. RYAN-Right. MR. TRAVER-Okay. Thank you. Questions, comments from members of the Board? MR. DEEB-The plans show a new septic system to be installed. MR. RYAN-Yes, again, this was, you’ll see the septic listed in the front of the property. It says existing septic system on the site plan, but I think there was some confusion because there was an older plan submitted, just to provide site information, and I think that was interpreted to be part of the project, but that work was done I want to say 10 or 15 years ago. That’s been replaced and updated. MR. DEEB-So that septic system is about 10 or 15 years old. MR. RYAN-Yes. MR. CONNORS-Exactly. I purchased the house in 2011 from Roger Howard, working with Sharon Davies, and the septic was old at that time and needed work. So part of the purchase was Roger agreed to pay for a new septic system. Chris Crandall put that in in April of 2012. MR. DEEB-Okay, and I also see that basically all your setbacks are exactly the same as what’s there now. MR. CONNORS-Yes, right. MR. DEEB-It’s just that the teardown and re-build calls for. MR. CONNORS-Yes. Exactly. MR. DEEB-So in effect it’s not a huge impact. MR. CONNORS-No change to the property in any way, other than maybe the style. MR. TRAVER-Okay. Other questions, comments? MR. MAGOWAN-Mr. Chairman, I just would like to make a note, I believe I painted this porch when the Howards owned it. Do I need to disclose that? It was in good shape back then. I have to say I did that a long time ago, and I’m looking at the house, and I’m saying I don’t have to go visit that one. I know that one. That’s been up a long time. 11 (Queensbury Planning Board 01/18/2022) MR. TRAVER-So noted, and I don’t think that that, I don’t think that we will consider that a conflict of interest. MR. DIXON-Mr. Chairman, I will just make a comment. When I did a site visit out there, that deck is in horrible disrepair. So it is a safety hazard. It has to be done. MR. CONNORS-Yes. MR. TRAVER-Very good. All right. Any other questions, comments? Okay. I guess we’re ready to hear that motion. RESOLUTION RE: ZBA RECOMMENDATION RE: AV # 3-2022 PATRICK CONNORS The applicant has submitted an application for the following: Applicant proposes to remove an existing deck of 644 sq. ft. to construct a 644 sq. ft. deck in the same location. The deck is attached to the existing house and has a patio area underneath. The steps from the deck to the lower patio area will remain in the same place. The existing home is 1,890 sq. ft. minus the deck. There is additional work on the boat house structure. Pursuant to Chapter 179-3-040, 179-13-010, 179-4-080, construction of a new deck shall be subject to Planning Board review and approval. Variance: Relief is sought for setbacks. The Town of Queensbury Zoning Ordinance, per Section 179-9-070 J 2 b. requires the Planning Board to provide a written recommendation to the Zoning Board of Appeals for projects that require both Zoning Board of Appeals & Planning Board approval; The Planning Board has briefly reviewed and discussed this application, the relief request in the variance application as well as the potential impacts of this project on the neighborhood and surrounding community, and found that: MOTION TO MAKE A RECOMMENDATION ON BEHALF OF THE PLANNING BOARD TO THE ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS FOR AREA VARIANCE NO. 3-2022 PATRICK CONNORS, Introduced by Michael Dixon who moved for its adoption, and a) The Planning Board, based on a limited review, has not identified any significant adverse impacts that cannot be mitigated with current project proposal. th Motion seconded by John Molloy. Duly adopted this 18 day of January 2022 by the following vote: AYES: Mr. Magowan, Mr. LaSarso, Mr. Deeb, Mr. Dixon, Mr. Longacker, Mr. Molloy, Mr. Traver NOES: NONE ABSENT: Mr. Valentine MR. TRAVER-You’re off to the ZBA. MR. KEIL-Thank you. MR. DEEB-Good luck. MR. TRAVER-The next item on our agenda, also under Planning Board Recommendations to the ZBA, is Great Escape Theme Park, LLC, Site Plan 3-2022 and Freshwater Wetlands 1-2022. SITE PLAN NO. 3-2022 & FRESHWATER WETLANDS 1-2022 SEQR TYPE: TYPE II. GREAT ESCAPE THEME PARK LLC. AGENT(S): FRANK PALUMBO, CT MALE. OWNER(S): SAME AS APPLICANT. ZONING: LC-42A. LOCATION: 1172 STATE ROUTE 9. APPLICANT PROPOSES TO REMOVE THE EXISTING TICKET ENTRANCE STRUCTURE AND ALTER THE ACCESS AREA. THE PROJECT INCLUDES CONSTRUCTION OF A 1,150 SQ. FT. TICKET BUILDING AND A 2,750 ENTRANCE STAGING BUILDING. THE PROJECT IMPROVES THE GREEN SPACE OF THE PROJECT AREA. THERE WILL NOT BE ANY CHANGES TO THE PARK RIDES OR PARKING AREA. PURSUANT TO CHAPTER 179-3-040, 179-6-050, SITE PLAN REVIEW FOR NEW DEVELOPMENTS/STRUCTURES AND ARE IN THE RECREATION COMMERCIAL ZONE, HARD SURFACING WITHIN 50 FEET OF A SHORELINE, AND FRESHWATER WETLANDS PERMIT FOR WORK WITHIN 100 FET OF A SHORELINE SHALL BE SUBJECT TO PLANNING BOARD REVIEW AND APPROVAL. VARIANCE: RELIEF SOUGHT FOR SETBACKS AND LIGHT POLE HEIGHT. CROSS REFERENCE: SP 3-2019 NEW RIDE, SP 54-2019 STREAM STABILIZATION, SP 67-2019 & SP 3-2020 NEW RIDE, AV 6-2022. WARREN CO. REFERRAL: JANUARY 2022. SITE INFORMATION: WETLAND, TRAVEL CORRIDOR. LOT SIZE: 237.64 ACRES. TAX MAP NO. 288.20-1-20. SECTION: 179-3-040, 179-6-050. 12 (Queensbury Planning Board 01/18/2022) FRANK PALUMBO & JOE MARTINEZ, REPRESENTING APPLICANT, PRESENT MR. TRAVER-Laura? MRS. MOORE-So the applicant proposes to remove the existing ticket entrance structure and alter the access. The project includes construction of a 1,150 square foot ticket building and a 2,750 square foot security entrance staging building. The project improves the green space by 34.8% and it’s only that particular project area. This project is in front of us for referral to the Zoning Board. It’s for setbacks to the front property line. As you note, you can see that the DOT took out this strange chunk of property, and I think it all had to do with the wetland as well as the stream function in that area. So it’s a little odd, but that’s what triggered the setback variance for the structures itself and then there’s relief requested, they have proposed matching the pole height for a new light pole, and that exceeds the Town Board’s requirement where we max that out at 20 feet. MR. TRAVER-Okay. Thank you. Good evening. MR. PALUMBO-Good evening, Mr. Chairman, and Board. My name is Frank Palumbo with C.T. Male Associates. Also here is Duncan Millard and Joe Martinez from Great Escape. Thank you, Laura, for pointing out the oddities so it wasn’t just me saying it, and welcome to the new Board members. Thank you for providing a service to the Town. So our two objectives tonight is to discuss some of the site plan items just so that you can give us any direction or ideas, concerns you might have, but primarily what I told Laura I’d focus on first is the zoning requests. What we do have, as Laura pointed out, and as you can see up there, the blue line that jogs into the site, actually VanDusen and Steves had done the property survey. It is an oddity. It’s not exactly known how it ended up that way, but you can see that at one point in time the stream that comes in from the left there, whether or not they had retained that for stormwater purposes when they did Route 9, we’re just not sure, but what it did is it created this odd front setback line, you know, the front line that we now have the setback from. To add to the oddity, there are a couple of small buildings already in and on that property. So we’re actually asking for a variance when we have structures not only closer than that, but within that line. So the purposes of what we’re doing here, the building on the upper far left is a metal detection building and it will also have a men’s and a women’s bathroom in it. The site is going to be used almost exactly the same way. Everybody’s going to come in, cross that bridge, come down, and this is their first point of entry and so the reason that we have the bathrooms there is because some people have had a long drive. They are going to have to go through the process, just have something where, if they need it, they can have a bathroom without being inside. Then it’s just a situation now where we have to have metal detection buildings and they’re not small. They have to go through this process. So one of the things that the old system was, was you walked in, you had the ticket booth, you went through. Then you combined in this way and then you went back out up to the final building where you actually enter into the Park and what that does, it worked at a time when you didn’t already have to go through a metal detection and you didn’t have electronic tickets on your phone and everything else, and what it does is it creates a log jam there, and for the user experience, knowing the things that they have to do, you know, an inconvenience, but go through a metal detection. I think everybody has gotten used to that at this point, and they wanted to also, Great Escape wanted to create an area in the front there where the fountain, that’s the central feature there, where people could actually have a water feature and take a picture, they’re there. It will actually open up the face of that primary building which is really the building that has some aesthetics to it, and it will also allow more flow, free flow of having all the users, you know, they either go towards the ticket if they have to go towards the ticket building, or they can progress up into the building and not have obstructions in the way there, making the flow better, and so it is about user convenience and hopefully they’re enjoying the experience more. In doing that, we have increased the amount of green space in that front area, and for some of the, I know some of the Board members we’ve gone through this a few times on the original GEIS that was done for the project, and for stormwater management, one of the things that was agreed upon that we have done in every successive project that we’ve done is we’ve increased the permeable surface area, and so that has not required us to go any further with our stormwater. In this case we’re actually much higher than we have been on some of the projects, where we use permeable pavers as has been noted before, but we’ve actually increased it even substantially further this time, that even amongst itself we’ve reached that 45% increased level that would take us to not even having to do a full SWPPP if it was an independent project itself , but that doesn’t, because we have had this agreement from the GEIS and we’ve continually improved over the years that. So we don’t think stormwater is an issue at this point, but what that odd line does for us, t here’s two setbacks that we have. The first is the setback from the front property line, and that was a 75 foot setback. What we’re asking, the building, the front corner, right where the metal detection building meets the green space on that bottom corner of the metal detection building, at that point there it’s 60.4 feet in distance. So we’re asking the Zoning Board for the relief from the 75 for that. There is an existing, it doesn’t show up in here but there’s an existing metal detection building there that was approved, and we’re basically building off of that, expanding that, and enclosing it more. So that’s what sets the line of the side of that building to get to that point where we are at 60.4 feet. If that oddity wasn’t there and you had a normal front property line going along Route 9, we’d be well in excess of the 75 feet. The shoreline setback which, and we were focused on the shoreline setback from our original conversation. That’s 75 feet. I think your notes are identifying a 100 foot setback from the wetland? 13 (Queensbury Planning Board 01/18/2022) MRS. MOORE-If there’s work within 100 feet. That’s site plan. MR. PALUMBO-Okay. So the other variance was for the shoreline setback of 75 feet. MRS. MOORE-But the shoreline isn’t, so you have this front, so that, no, there’s not a setback issue to the shoreline. MR. PALUMBO-I thought we had the shoreline setback before. MRS. MOORE-Unless the shoreline, I don’t see that. The shoreline is in that cut out area. MR. TRAVER-The other variance is for the light pole, which is twice the size. MR. PALUMBO-I thought on our original application we might have had that, from my conversation with Craig, but if you guys have reviewed it and you don’t see it that way, then that’s perfectly fine with me. So the lighting, to get to that, there are two lights that are up in the front of the area, and those are the existing high poles. What we are proposing is one much further back into the site, closer to the existing buildings, but still at that 40 foot height because it allows us to not only match the styles, but cover the light area without having to have multiple light poles in the area. So that was what we were looking at there with the lights. So that’s the variance items. If there are any other, certainly we’d be willing to answer any questions regarding site plan or the variances, and we appreciate your questions. MR. TRAVER-Sure. Well the first one I can think of is would you consider putting two poles of 20 feet, rather than one at 40? The light pole height is an issue. MR. PALUMBO-Two poles of 20 feet instead of this 40 foot, actually it’s 35 foot tall that we have on here. MR. MARTINEZ-Yes, sure. We could do that. MR. PALUMBO-Okay. MR. TRAVER-That would remove that variance. The setback, I’ll let other Board members speak, but the setback issue I understand your explanation and the unique nature of the situation that you have there. Frankly my concern was the light poles. So if you can address that, I think we’re in much better shape, and I’ll open it up to questions, comments from other members of the Board. MR. DEEB-Those were my concerns. That works fine. MR. DIXON-Aside from the variance, I thought I saw in my notes as far as, it’s not a new curb cut, but the southernmost entrance, is that going to be utilized now with traffic or not? MR. PALUMBO-No. So I want to make sure I see where you’re talking about. Are you talking about here? MR. DEEB-Yes. MR. PALUMBO-So, no, we are not going to maintain that, and we did talk with the fire department. The access road that comes in and sweeps down there, that is there primarily for fire access and we have sent that to Town Staff. We know that a question came up on that. We showed them how the truck maneuverability can occur there, but we didn’t really need that, and the fire department agreed, at least in our first conversation. We’ll see if they have any further comments on it, but we didn’t really need that entrance for any other purpose and so we’ll add green space there instead of the pavement. MR. MARTINEZ-Basically so when people walk into the Park they don’t see that open space around. MR. TRAVER-And just to clarify, that, turning that area, as Michael described, into additional green space is that included already in the 34.8% calculation, or would that be new green space? MR. PALUMBO-I would have to check on that. MR. TRAVER-I almost think that was a new green space. MR. PALUMBO-It does appear that way. MR. TRAVER-Yes. MR. PALUMBO-But I can’t tell you absolutely, so I will find that out for our next meeting. MR. TRAVER-Well you’ll be back for site plan. Other questions, comments? 14 (Queensbury Planning Board 01/18/2022) MR. MAGOWAN-The only question I have, what are you going to do about the yearly ducklings? The yearly ducklings that seem to like that area there. Every year they’re there, but, no, a lot of times you see the ducks. You haven’t seen them yet? They seem to come out of the, they like that water all around there. It’s kind of amazing. Every now and then it does stop the traffic on Route 9. MR. TRAVER-Well we’ll find out in April. MR. PALUMBO-One thing that Mr. Longacker might know from DEC is that, I know it happened down in Saratoga with the ducks in Congress Park where it was like, no, you can’t do certain, just human management of that. There’s a certain limitation on what you can do. MR. MAGOWAN-The only reason I say that is because you’re creating more green space, and I know, I think it might attract some more. Unfortunately this is the time that we’ve come to where you’ve got to check everybody and like you said, it really makes such great sense. You go to the airport, I don’t even know how to get my ticket on my phone. I’m still a paper guy, but it’s truly just the revolving times and I really like that, the drawings, the renderings there. I can see the flow. MR. DEEB-Do the color schemes on the site plan reflect what they’re going to actually be? MR. KEIL-No. You mean the color of the buildings? MR. DEEB-Yes. MR. PALUMBO-No, that is solely to pop out and show you where the buildings are. So that’s some of the building color there. I guess we’ve had discussions at times when we were doing the last project, and I think that one thing that always impresses me after the fact is that Great Escape has done, I think, you know, you think about that project that is right up front there that they just did, and there was a lot of concern about how the buildings were going to look because everybody really sort of liked the way Western Town looked up there, and I think they did a pretty incredible job doing the re-siding of those buildings. So the color is more than likely to be like that. MR. TRAVER-If you could clarify that for site plan, that would be very helpful. MR. DEEB-I’d appreciate that. MR. PALUMBO-But I do commend them on the fact that their buildings really do end up looking well. MR. TRAVER-Very good. All right. Other questions, comments? And I think that it sounds as though our recommendation is going to be positive provided the 35 foot pole is converted into Code compliant poles. MR. DIXON-Code compliant or 20 foot poles? MR. TRAVER-Well that’s the same thing, Code compliant. . MRS. MOORE-Because you’ve modified it I would include a notation that the applicant has agreed to modify the plan to remove the 35 foot pole and to install two 20 foot poles. Those items would need to be located on the site plan so that we’re clear and then I’m just going to follow up. I did have questions in regards to the, at least the floor plans and things like that. MR. TRAVER-Right. MRS. MOORE-These are artist’s renditions so they’re difficult to follow in the sense that they don’t give me that floor plan. It sounds like there’s two bathrooms and things like that. That sort of stuff is part of the site plan review the Board would need to evaluate. MR. PALUMBO-And I should have said, because I know it was in the notes, there are no new water and sewer lines. There’ll only be laterals to the existing lines that are already in the Park. MRS. MOORE-Okay. MR. MAGOWAN-My only question would be on the lights. If you happen to find that dropping them down to Code compliant, that there’s not enough, do they have an option to add a third? MR. TRAVER-Well, that’s why I said not a number but just make them Code compliant, but they seem confident that two will do it. We’ll see what they come back to site plan with. If it’s 20 feet or less they won’t need another variance. So it’ll be up us. 15 (Queensbury Planning Board 01/18/2022) MR. DEEB-Well I think we leave it at two and if they need more they’d have to come back. MR. TRAVER-Okay. They’ll almost certainly be coming back anyway. MR. DEEB-I’m just saying if they need more. We’d start off at two lights, rather than five. MR. TRAVER-That’s fine. MR. MAGOWAN-I just wanted to give them the option. MR. TRAVER-Yes, well let’s see what they come back with. All right. Do we have a resolution? RESOLUTION RE: ZBA RECOMMENDATION RE: AV # 6-2022 GREAT ESCAPE THEME PARK The applicant has submitted an application for the following: Applicant proposes to remove the existing ticket entrance structure and alter the access area. The project includes construction of a 1,150 sq. ft. ticket building and a 2,750 entrance staging building. The project improves the green space of the project area. There will not be any changes to the park rides or parking area. Pursuant to Chapter 179-3-040, 179-6-050, site plan review for new developments/structures and are in the recreation commercial zone, hard surfacing within 50 feet of a shoreline, and freshwater wetlands permit for work within 100 feet of a shoreline shall be subject to Planning Board review and approval. Variance: Relief is sought for setbacks and light pole height. The Town of Queensbury Zoning Ordinance, per Section 179-9-070 J 2 b. requires the Planning Board to provide a written recommendation to the Zoning Board of Appeals for projects that require both Zoning Board of Appeals & Planning Board approval; The Planning Board has briefly reviewed and discussed this application, the relief request in the variance application as well as the potential impacts of this project on the neighborhood and surrounding community, and found that: MOTION TO MAKE A RECOMMENDATION ON BEHALF OF THE PLANNING BOARD TO THE ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS FOR AREA VARIANCE NO. 6-2022 GREAT ESCAPE THEME PARK, LLC, Introduced by Michael Dixon who moved for its adoption, and b) The Planning Board, based on a limited review, has identified the following areas of concern: 1) Applicant has agreed to modify the existing plan replacing the 35 foot light pole with two Code compliant light poles, and these will need to be included on the final plans. th Motion seconded by Jackson LaSarso. Duly adopted this 18 day of January 2022 by the following vote: AYES: Mr. LaSarso, Mr. Deeb, Mr. Dixon, Mr. Longacker, Mr. Molloy, Mr. Magowan, Mr. Traver NOES: NONE ABSENT: Mr. Valentine MR. TRAVER-You’re off to the ZBA. MR. PALUMBO-Thank you very much. MR. TRAVER-The next section of our agenda this evening is Old Business, and the first item is Mountain Vista Properties, LLC which was formerly the Chris Racicot application. This is Site Plan 35-2021. OLD BUSINESS: SITE PLAN 35-2021 SEQR TYPE: UNLISTED – LEAD AGENCY PB 6/15/21, NEGATIVE DECLARATION 8/17/2021. MOUNTAIN VISTA PROPERTIES, LLC. (FORMERLY CHRIS RACICOT). AGENT(S): NICHOLAS ZEGLEN, EDP. OWNER(S): ALDRICH, LLC. ZONING: MS. LOCATION: 20 NEWCOMB STREET. APPLICANT PROPOSES CONSTRUCTION OF 14 UNITS CONSISTING OF THREE BUILDINGS WHERE TWO BUILDINGS WILL HAVE SIX UNITS AND ONE BUILDING WILL HAVE TWO UNITS. THE BUILDINGS ARE TO BE TWO- STORY WITH GARAGE AND EXTERIOR PATIOS. PROJECT INCLUDES SEWER CONNECTION. PROJECT SITE WORK INCLUDES LIGHTING, LANDSCAPING AND STORMWATER CONTROLS. PURSUANT TO CHAPTER 179-3-040, 179-5-090, 179-5-100, 179-7- 070 & 179-8-050 OF THE ZONING ORDINANCE, NEW CONSTRUCTION SHALL BE SUBJECT TO PLANNING BOARD AND OTHER DEPARTMENT REVIEWS. CROSS REFERENCE: SP 45- 16 (Queensbury Planning Board 01/18/2022) 2008, 2009-039 COMM. ALT., SP 35-2009, 94663-4008 RES. ADDITION, 2005-494 PARTIAL GARAGE DEMO. DISC 1-2021. WARREN CO. REFERRAL: MAY 2021 (DISCUSSION). SITE INFORMATION: MAIN STREET ZONING. LOT SIZE: 1.04 ACRES, .43 ACRES. TAX MAP NO. 309.10-1-60. SECTION: 179-3-040, 179-5-090, 179-5-100, 179-7-070, 179-8-050. MR. TRAVER-And I understand, Laura, this is to be tabled? MRS. MOORE-Right. So this application is to be tabled this evening pending the Town Board. I would suggest you open the public hearing. What happened is because of the district, the consolidation of the sewer district, there’s a Town Board item, a public referendum, so that it needs to wait 30 days from the time that they announced it. So it’s in the middle of that 30 days. It should be resolved by the time it th comes back to this Board on February 15. If it doesn’t, then you’ll further table it, but I don’t identify, I haven’t heard of any concerns at this point. So I would suggest you open the public hearing, and I don’t th know if anybody’s here in the audience for the public hearing, but we would be tabling it to February 15 of 2022. ndth MR. TRAVER-So not the 22 but the 15. th MRS. MOORE-It’ll be tabled to the 15. It was my mistake. I had looked at the Town Board meeting dates and it incorrectly identified one. So I was pushing it off so that we made sure that we met the Town Board meetings and got the applicant back in here timely. MR. TRAVER-Understood. Okay. MR. DEEB-They have to have a public hearing for the water district. MRS. MOORE-Correct. MR. TRAVER-So this application, Site Plan 35-2021, is going to be tabled to the Planning Board meeting of February 15, 2022, and we’ll take public comment at that time, but in the meantime we will open the public hearing and leave the public hearing open even though we’re tabling the application. Is there anyone in the audience that wanted to comment on this application? Yes, ma’am. Please if you would come up to the mic so we can get you on the record. PUBLIC HEARING OPENED JOLENE LAWSON MS. LAWSON-My name is Jolene Lawson. I’ve lived at the property across the street for 45 years. I just did not, I wasn’t aware of the other two meetings so I wasn’t here. I read the minutes to get acquainted with what’s going on with the project, wasn’t aware we were still going forward. So I just wanted to put it on record that I’m still. I haven’t seen the new proposal I did see that there were two buildings and they were going to take the house down, put another two in front. It still seems a little excessive to me. I mean, again, 45 years I’ve seen a lot of progress. Sometimes you have to suck it up and I get that, but just living there it’s a whole other story, and I just wanted to make sure that my voice was heard. I did go door to door and everybody is pretty much in agreement and the letter they promised didn’t come. I just want to put my voice out there and say I appreciate you guys looking out for that plan to say, hey, it’s not quite the monstrosity. MR. TRAVER-Did I understand you to say that you have not seen current proposal? MS. LAWSON-I have not seen anything. I’m sorry. MR. TRAVER-Okay. No, that’s all right. My apology. If you go to queensbury.net, you will be able to view everything that we view. MS. LAWSON-Okay. MR. TRAVER-All of the site plan, all of the information that’s provided by the applicant is all there for you to study. MS. LAWSON-Okay. MR. TRAVER-Also if you look at the application and have specific concerns in addition to having the opportunity to make public comment, tonight and next month when it’s actually presented, you can all the Planning Office. They might be able to help you with some of the questions that aren’t answered by the plans. 17 (Queensbury Planning Board 01/18/2022) MS. LAWSON-Yes, again, not seeing the plans. I did read the minutes, got a little bit of the conversation that they had reduced it to the two buildings and then eventually want to take the house down and put the other two in front, that they were looking to still get the easement for the back property to be able to get the emergency vehicles in there, and again, you’re talking Luzerne onto Main Street. On any given day at any given time, I mean, it takes me 20 minutes to get to my house because the traffic is backed up. So that would be great that I know that we’ve had previous fires over there and they’ve had problems getting back there to get the fire out. That was a concern of mine. Again with the stormwater as well, I know you guys are looking at that. The drainage as it comes down my street when they re-paved they put a drain on the other side in a parking lot that Brian was sharing with the Church. In the spring it all goes into my backyard. So I do want that noted, that if they’re going to put that across the street. MR. TRAVER-Yes, there will be an engineering analysis, including stormwater. MS. LAWSON-Which might help my property. MR. TRAVER-It could possibly. MS. LAWSON-Because honestly I’m flooded every spring, and their solution to that was to put the storm drain on the other side of the road and the way that you look at the road to my driveway it has a little bit of an incline and it just all runs right into my backyard. MR. TRAVER-I would strongly suggest that you look at what is being proposed, because that should clarify a number of issues for you, and again, you’ll have another opportunity for public comment when the applicant is here in February. th MS. LAWSON-Okay, and that was February 15 at 7, too? MR. TRAVER-Well we haven’t done the tabling motion, yet, but that’s what’s being proposed. I would assume that that will pass, but you’ll find out momentarily for sure. MS. LAWSON-Gotcha. I just wanted to make sure that I was here and I’m a person and I’m going to have to deal with it a lot. So I just wanted to be heard. MR. TRAVER-Yes. MR. DEEB-We hear you. MR. TRAVER-Yes, we hear you, and again, knowledge is power. So study those plans and it may help you in your own analysis. It may help you, prompt additional questions for us. MS. LAWSON-I mean I get it. It’s just I’ve watched for years trying to get Main Street on board and then they come in and do Main Street and it didn’t last very long. I mean go down Main Street with the mailboxes that were all torn up. It’s a mess. Now there’s a street lamp that was down. I’m assuming that it was the Town that was going through doing sidewalks this morning and he couldn’t go any further because there’s a lamppost laying in the middle of the sidewalk. Right past Dunkin Donuts, past Safelight, right before you get to the corner. I don’t know how that came down or why, but it was not picked up. So it’s things like that. The garbage from Dollar General constantly. I’m not saying my house is immaculate. I do not have the money for that, but it’s where we live and I’ve been there a long time, and it’s hard. MR. TRAVER-All right. Well thank you very much for your comments, and perhaps we’ll see you again next month. MS. LAWSON-Thank you. MR. TRAVER-Is there anyone else in the audience that wanted to comment to the Planning Board on Site Plan 35-2021? Are there any written comments, Laura? MRS. MOORE-No, not at this time. MR. TRAVER-All right. Then I guess we’re ready for that tabling motion. RESOLUTION TABLING SP # 35-2021 MOUNTAIN VISTA PROPERTIES, LLC (RACICOT) Applicant proposes construction of 14 units consisting of three buildings where two buildings will have six units and one building will have two units. The buildings are to be two-story with garage and exterior patios. Project includes sewer connection. Project site work includes lighting, landscaping and stormwater controls. Pursuant to Chapter179-3-040, 179-5-090, 179-5-100, 179-7-070 & 179-8-050 of the Zoning Ordinance new construction shall be subject to Planning Board and other department reviews. 18 (Queensbury Planning Board 01/18/2022) MOTION TO TABLE SITE PLAN 35-2021 MOUNTAIN VISTA PROPERTIES (FORMERLY CHRIS RACICOT). Introduced by Michael Dixon who moved for its adoption, seconded by Brad Magowan. Tabled until the February 22, 2022 Planning Board meeting with information due by January 18, 2022. th Duly adopted this 18 day of January 2022 by the following vote: nd MR. DIXON-Laura, information to be due by January 22? MRS. MOORE-So there is no information due to this Board. We have all the additional information that we need. It’s simply pending Town Board. MR. DIXON-All right. AYES: Mr. Deeb, Mr. Dixon, Mr. Longacker, Mr. Molloy, Mr. Magowan, Mr. LaSarso, Mr. Traver NOES: NONE ABSENT: Mr. Valentine MR. TRAVER-All right. Thank you. The next item we have under Old Business is David Howard/Brennan Estates. This is Subdivision Modification 13-2021. SUBDIVISION MODIFICATION 13-2021 SEQR TYPE: UNLISTED (REAFFIRM). DAVID HOWARD/BRENNAN ESTATES. AGENT(S): HUTCHINS ENGINEERING. OWNER(S): SAME AS APPLICANT. ZONING: MDR. LOCATION: 23 ELSIES WAY. APPLICANT PROPOSES TO MODIFY A 16 LOT SUBDIVISION TO INCLUDE REMOVAL OF THE BOULEVARD ENTRANCE AND A REVISION OF THE STORMWATER MANAGEMENT PLAN. THERE IS NO CHANGE TO THE NUMBER OR ARRANGEMENT OF THE LOTS. SUBDIVISION MODIFICATION REQUIRED FOR THE UPDATE TO THE SUBDIVISION ENTRANCE ROADWAY AND STORMWATER PLAN. PURSUANT TO CHAPTER 183 OF THE ZONING ORDINANCE, SEQR REVIEW FOR THE UPDATED PROJECT SHALL BE SUBJECT TO PLANNING BOARD REVIEW AND APPROVAL. CROSS REFERENCE: SUB 13-2006. WARREN CO. REFERRAL: N/A FOR SUBDIVISION. LOT SIZE: 22.72 ACRES. TAX MAP NO. 315.10-1-35. SECTION: CHAPTER 183. TOM CENTER, REPRESENTING APPLICANT, PRESENT MR. TRAVER-Laura? MRS. MOORE-This application is to modify the 16 lot subdivision. This will include the removal of the boulevard entrance and revision of the stormwater management plan. As you can, the difference, the applicant provided both plans. The boulevard is removed from the proposed plan, and the cul de sac is a tad different than originally proposed, and the stormwater is actually more up to date than when it was originally submitted. So we’re moving in the direction. MR. TRAVER-Yes. Okay. Thank you. Good evening. MR. CENTER-Good evening. Tom Center with Hutchins Engineering. As Laura said, we are representing Mr. Howard with this project. Prior to starting construction we had a construction meeting with the Town Highway Department to discuss the issues with the road and construction of the road, utilities. The Water Department was there. Everybody was there to discuss this because it was a previously approved project and during discussions it was asked if there was any issues with the boulevard or if we could remove the boulevard. In speaking with Highway, and Mr. Brown was there also, there were some issues as far as Highway was concerned as far as maintaining and plowing with that boulevard. There were two cut sections in the boulevard to access other houses on opposite sides of the boulevard part. So it was requested to remove it. The Highway didn’t see an issue with removing the boulevard for their access in and out. It makes it easy with their plows and their wing swales. So they don’t have to maintain those smaller cut sections. They can come straight off Corinth Road instead of having to back up and take care of the entrance, that they would have to get around that part, that boulevard at the entrance point. We also updated the stormwater management. There were a lot of devices. We were able to limit the clearing a little. We pulled things in a little bit closer to limit the amount of clearing in the rear of the lots as much as we could. We moved, some of the devices actually straddled property lines. One of the things that I wanted to do is take those devices and leave them on a single parcel so that then when we do the stormwater, at the end and we’re signing off individual lots, that stormwater device can be the responsibility of that property owner and then that is deed restricted within the deed that they have to maintain that stormwater device rather than to have it go across a property line. We’re trying to keep it 19 (Queensbury Planning Board 01/18/2022) within the property. So it really those devices are only for the rear roof. All the road is coming in to the drywells, the drywell system in the road. So we were able to modify that a little bit. So it makes a little bit more sense, and it’s also easier for the Town to manage, if there is a potential problem in the future with those devices or not being able to maintain those devices. I don’t expect that. They’re well drained sands. Those lawns aren’t going to really have an effect with the runoff since only the rear roofs, and portions, I think some side driveways in the middle, it might be half the driveway that’s going to those devices. The cul de sac change had a lot of trees in it. One thing I learned from Jim Miller way back when he was a landscape architect working across the hall from me in our office is you have to let, room for trees to grow and also with it being a cul de sac you need sight distance. So we limited the number of trees, kept them in the center. It looks like a few but those trees are all red maples. They’re going to sprout up. They’re going to be tall and so you have the sight distance in the cul de sac. That’s why that changed a little bit from the trees that were proposed. They would have been a maintenance issue and the sight distance. Try to make them higher but yet have that presentation of a nicer tree on that loop road that’s in the middle of that cul de sac, which is a little different than we normally do. MR. TRAVER-Okay. Questions, comments from members of the Board? MR. DIXON-Two items on there. So the boulevard originally had lighting and trees on it. Correct? MR. CENTER-Correct. MR. DIXON-So those will all be removed. Are you planning on putting additional trees elsewhere in the neighborhood? MR. CENTER-We’re trying to limit the amount of clearing. It is a wooded lot. So instead of having that big, wide boulevard we were actually able to narrow down the disturbance from the road. So you do have some natural tree lined areas coming into the development. MR. TRAVER-So as opposed to adding trees you’re not removing so many. MR. CENTER-We’re not removing as many. Because that boulevard went from a larger, I believe it was 60, 80 feet wide entrance because you’ve got the boulevard in the middle, then you have your lanes, and then you have a wing swale. So that would push everything out now. We may change the property line setback for that, but we’re not clearing as far out as we would. MR. DIXON-And as far as the lighting goes, are you putting light posts? Is this going to be a street lined? MR. CENTER-No lighting is proposed, similar to many of the other subdivisions. MR. TRAVER-Other questions, comments? We do have a previously approved SEQR review. So we need to look at that and make a determination if that previous negative declaration still holds. I would say that the environmental impacts are perhaps less than they were before. So I would just ask if the Board is comfortable re-approving the existing SEQR resolution that was made. MRS. MOORE-You also have a public hearing. MR. TRAVER-Okay. Yes, thank you. So we do have a public hearing on this application. Is there anyone in the audience that wanted to address the Planning Board on this application, Subdivision Modification 13-2021? I’m not seeing anyone. Are there any written comments, Laura? PUBLIC HEARING OPENED MRS. MOORE-There are no comments. MR. TRAVER-All right. So we’ll go ahead and close the public hearing, then. PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED MR. TRAVER-And it sounds as though Board members are comfortable doing a reaffirmation motion. So let’s go ahead with that. RESOLUTION REAFFIRMING SEQR NEG. DEC. SUBDIV MOD. # 13-2021 DAVID HOWARD The applicant proposes to modify a 16 lot subdivision to include removal of the boulevard entrance and revision of the stormwater management plan. There is no change to the number or arrangement of the lots. Subdivision modification required for the update to the subdivision entrance roadway and stormwater plan. Pursuant to Chapter 183 of the Zoning Ordinance, SEQR review for the updated project shall be subject to Planning Board review and approval. 20 (Queensbury Planning Board 01/18/2022) 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; Whereas, the Planning Board adopted Resolution SUB 13-2006, on 8/21/2007 adopting SEQRA determination of non-significance, and Upon review of the information recorded on the EAF, it is the conclusion of the Town of Queensbury Planning Board as lead agency reaffirms 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 REAFFIRM NEGATIVE DECLARATION FOR THE PROPOSED SUBDIVISION MODIFICATION 13-2021 DAVID HOWARD/BRENNAN ESTATES. Introduced by Michael Dixon who moved for its adoption. th Motion seconded by Brad Magowan. Duly adopted this 18 day of January 2022 by the following vote: AYES: Mr. Dixon, Mr. Longacker, Mr. Molloy, Mr. Magowan, Mr. LaSarso, Mr. Deeb, Mr. Traver NOES: NONE ABSENT: Mr. Valentine MR. TRAVER-All right. Do Board members feel comfortable going ahead on an approval resolution as proposed? Okay. We’re ready to hear that. RESOLUTION APPROVING SUB MOD. # 13-2021 DAVID HOWARD/BRENNAN ESTATES A subdivision application has been made where the applicant proposes to modify a 16 lot subdivision to include removal of the boulevard entrance and revision of the stormwater management plan. There is no change to the number or arrangement of the lots. Subdivision modification required for the update to the subdivision entrance roadway and stormwater plan. Pursuant to Chapter 183 of the Zoning Ordinance, SEQR review for the updated project 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 January 18, 2022; This application is supported with all documentation, public comment, and application material in the file of record; MOTION TO APPROVE MODIFICATION FOR SUBDIVISION 13-2021 DAVID HOWARD/BRENNAN ESTATES. Introduced by Michael Dixon who moved for its adoption. Per the draft provided by staff conditioned upon the following where the property owner is responsible for the following: Signoff from the Town Engineer. th Motion seconded by David Deeb. Duly adopted this 18 day of January, 2022, by the following vote: MRS. MOORE-Are there any conditions that the Board is proposing? MR. TRAVER-No, I’m not aware of any that we’re proposing. MR. DIXON-I’m getting ahead of myself then here. 21 (Queensbury Planning Board 01/18/2022) MRS. MOORE-So the only other item that would be a condition would be signoff from engineering. MR. TRAVER-Right, and that’s. MRS. MOORE-That doesn’t appear in this one. You typically see it in the Site Plan. So I would add that as a condition. MR. TRAVER-Okay. AYES: Mr. Longacker, Mr. Molloy, Mr. Magowan, Mr. LaSarso, Mr. Deeb, Mr. Dixon, Mr. Traver NOES: NONE MR. TRAVER-You’re all set. th MR. CENTER-Thank you. I also would like to apologize to the Board for missing the December 16 meeting. I had it on my calendar. It was very embarrassing and it’s the first time in 23 of meetings, and when Laura told me, I’m embarrassed and I apologize. MR. TRAVER-We all knew that something extraordinary must have happened because your attendance record is outstanding. The next section of our agenda is New Business, and the first item under New Business is CVE North America, Inc., Site Plan 66-2021, Freshwater Wetlands 3-2021 Special Use Permit 4-2021, and PZ 0720-2021. NEW BUSINESS: SITE PLAN NO. 66-2021, FRESHWATER WETLANDS 3-2021, SPECIAL USE PERMIT 4-2021, PZ 0720-2021 SEQR TYPE: UNLISTED. CVE NORTH AMERICA, INC. OWNER(S): FOREST ENTERPRISES MANAGEMENT. ZONING: CLI, CI. LOCATION: 53 QUAKER RIDGE BLVD/EAST COUNTY LINE RD. (NATIONAL GRID). APPLICANT PROPOSES A SOLAR FARM ON SITE 303.11-1-4.1, WITH ACCESS BY RIGHT OF WAY THROUGH PARCEL 303.15-1-25.2. THE PROJECT WILL INCLUDE OVER 13,000 PANELS ON A 30 PLUS ACRE PORTION OF THE SITE. THE PROJECT WORK INCLUDES PANEL PLACEMENT, DRIVE AREAS, EQUIPMENT BOXES AND STORMWATER MANAGEMENT. THE PROJECT INVOLVES A PETITION OF ZONE CHANGE FOR PARCEL 303.15-1-25.2 FROM CI TO CLI. PROJECT SUBJECT TO SITE PLAN, SPECIAL USE PERMIT AND FRESHWATER WETLANDS PERMIT. PURSUANT TO CHAPTER 169-15-050, TOWN BOARD REFERRED TO THE PLANNING BOARD TO REVIEW FOR SEQR AND RECOMMENDATION. SITE PLAN, SPECIAL USE PERMIT, AND FRESHWATER WETLANDS REVIEW AFTER THE TOWN BOARD COMPLETES PETITION OF ZONE CHANGE. CROSS REFERENCE: DIS 3-2021, PZ 720-2021. WARREN CO. REFERRAL: NOVEMBER 2021. SITE INFORMATION: WETLANDS. LOT SIZE: 80 ACRES/6.39 ACRES. TAX MAP NO. 303.11-1-4.1, 303.15-1-25.2, 303.11-1-5. SECTION: 179-5-140, 179-9-040. CARSON WEINAND, LOU GRECO & JARED LUSK, REPRESENTING APPLICANT, PRESENT MR. TRAVER-Laura? MRS. MOORE-So there’s a lot going on with this project, but this is our first opportunity to go through solar since we have implemented it in our Town Code. So with this project I have three parcels that require an access roadway. I have a parcel where the project actually occurs and I have a parcel that is before the Town Board in the sense that it needs to be converted from a CI to a CLI to allow for the actual passage of the project entryway. So I have gone through in detail information about each of the Special Use Permit as well as our regular Site Plan, the Freshwater Wetlands information, and there were some questions of the Fire Marshal in regards to the permeable paver. I did find that information, forwarded it on to the Fire Marshal and the steps in this process is in reference to accepting Lead Agency Status as the Town Board had sort of given it over to the Planning Board, potentially conducting SEQR and potentially providing a Planning Board recommendation. I know there’s some engineering and maybe there’s some additional questions beyond that. MR. TRAVER-Okay. All right. Thank you, Laura. That’s a great overview of where we stand. Good evening. Good evening. MR. TRAVER-So tell us about your project. MR. WEINAND-Good to see the Board tonight. Thanks for having us. I’m Carson Weinand, Senior Project Developer with CVE. This is Lou Greco with Techtonic and this is Jared Lusk with Nixon 22 (Queensbury Planning Board 01/18/2022) Peabody. Our project is a single five megawatt AC community solar project across a handful of different parcels. So the main parcel is about 80 acres. It’s where the facility is located. It’s zoned Commercial Light Industrial, then you have two access parcels. The main access parcel is about six acres. It’s zoned Commercial Intensive and that’s the parcel that needs to be re-zoned, triangular parcel off of Quaker Road just west of the Wal-Mart, and then the third parcel is a quick right of way that you pass over the National Grid right of way. The limits of disturbance of the facility itself, the area that will be fenced in and cleared is 33 acres. It’ll be a tracker solar system so the panels move during the day. They’ll be facing east in the morning and west in the afternoon. They’re spaced about 15 feet apart, rough spacing, and at its highest point in the mornings and the afternoons the panels would be seven and a half feet high, the tips of them. It’s a very well sited site. Naturally screened, removed from major roads, hidden, a landlocked parcel behind this Wal-Mart, and as we progress in this process if we have to take the Planning Board there for site visits, boots on the ground, if you’d like to do that, and, yes, the benefits, the main benefits are obviously we’re displacing millions of pounds of ground power from the grid. It would also, being a community solar project, you can distribute savings, monthly energy savings to about 1,000 residents in the area. So those members will be saving on their utility bills for the next 25 years each month, and we are seeking that re-zoning of that triangular. MR. TRAVER-And I see there was a glare study done with regards to aircraft and that type of thing as well. MR. WEINAND-Yes. MR. TRAVER-That’s good because that was one of the things that I was initially concerned with. MR. WEINAND-We also did a structure review with the FAA as well, because that airport is near, and they gave us the okay, except for one high point on the northern edge of the property. They were going to install a red light. MR. TRAVER-Okay. MR. WEINAND-You have also a glare study. MR. DEEB-Will it be visible from the road? MR. WEINAND-No. MR. TRAVER-It’s quite a ways back. MR. WEINAND-It’s actually tough to get back to. MR. DEEB-And seven and a half feet is the highest point? MR. WEINAND-Seven and a half feet. At noon they’re five feet high. They’re lying flat. There’s 13,900 panels. MR. DEEB-That’s a lot of panels. MR. WEINAND-Yes. And it’s five megawatts AC, which is the largest National Grid allows us to develop our community solar project. We get community solar credits from the State from National Grid for 25 years and there’s potential to operate for another five to ten years after that. MR. DEEB-Are you leasing the property? MR. WEINAND-It will be decommissioned, per the decommissioning plan we submitted to the Town. We’re purchasing the property. We have an active option to purchase with Richard Lakso. He’s the owner of Forest Enterprises Management. MR. DEEB-I was reading the decommissioning plan and I had a question because it said at one point that the Town could come in, if it wasn’t done. MR. TRAVER-Well we have an option putting in. MR. DEEB-My point was if they were leasing the land if something happened who’s responsible if the Town doesn’t, okay, and at this point it’s a moot point. You own the land. MR. WEINAND-Yes, owning it is a little simpler. MR. DEEB-Yes, it makes it a lot simpler. 23 (Queensbury Planning Board 01/18/2022) MR. WEINAND-And we’ll either put up a bond or cash to get the building permit. MR. TRAVER-So our first step, Laura, this evening, is to accept lead agency status. Correct? MRS. MOORE-Correct. MR. TRAVER-Okay, and I believe we have a draft resolution to that effect. So we might as well do that. That’s certainly one thing that we can do. MR. MAGOWAN-You’ve already bought in? What do they call that, is it a buy-in or something, get all the approvals there, because I know there’s another one up there at the County that they’re putting in. It’s amazing the solar. When you go to decommission it, do you decommission it because the cells only last for so long? MR. WEINAND-Yes. MR. MAGOWAN-So if it’s so successful and it’s really a new wave of things, why wouldn’t you just, you have the structures there, just replace the panels and keep going? MR. TRAVER-Repair and replacement is not the same as decommissioning. MR. MAGOWAN-Right. MR. WEINAND-Yes. I think if we were to replace the entire system though at the end of its useful life, like you’re saying, new technology, 30 years from now, that would require a Special Use Permit. Appear back in front of the Planning Board. MR. TRAVER-Yes, I mean that’s a hypothetical, but, yes. MR. MAGOWAN-Well, I was just wondering because in following all this, you always see them decommissioning and I see them as I’m driving around now more and out in other States these community solar farms and it’s really amazing, especially outside of Whitehall where the 100 year old farmer said, I’m done, but, hey, you guys, go for it. I’m saying why wouldn’t you keep it going so we can get away from the fossil fuels. I mean, you’re right. Thirty years from now who knows. Maybe we won’t need that technology anymore. Maybe everything runs on water. MR. TRAVER-All right. So the first action we’re going to take this evening is to acknowledge and accept lead agency status, and we have a draft resolution to that effect. RESOLUTION TO SEEK LEAD AGENCY STATUS SP # 66-2021 CVE WHEREAS, the applicant proposes a solar farm on site 303.11-1-4.1, with access by right of way through parcel 303.15-1-25.2. The project will include over 13,000 panels on a 30 plus acre portion of the site. The project work includes panel placement, drive areas, equipment boxes and stormwater management. The project involves a petition of zone change for parcel 303.15-1-25.2 from CI to CLI. Project subject to site plan, special use permit and freshwater wetlands permit. Pursuant to Chapter 179-15-050, Town Board referred to the Planning Board to review for SEQR and recommendation. Site plan, special use permit, and freshwater wetlands review after the Town Board completes Petition of Zone change. WHEREAS, the Planning Board of the Town of Queensbury has determined to begin an environmental review process under the State Environmental Quality Review Act (SEQRA). WHEREAS, the Planning Board of the Town of Queensbury has identified the project to be a Type I action for purposes of SEQR review pursuant to 6 NYCRR 617. WHEREAS, the Planning Board is the agency most directly responsible for approving the action because of its responsibility for approving the land uses for the property. WHEREAS, the Town Board has indicated that the Planning Board should be the lead agency. NOW, THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED, the Planning Board of the Town of Queensbury hereby indicates its desire to be lead agency for SEQRA review of this action and no other agencies have been identified other than the Town Board and the Planning Board. MOTION TO SEEK LEAD AGENCY STATUS IN CONNECTION WITH PETITION OF ZONE CHANGE PZ 720-2021, SITE PLAN 66-2021, FRESHWATER WETLANDS PERMIT 3-2021, & SPECIAL USE PERMIT 4-2021 CVE NORTH AMERICA, INC. Introduced by Michael Dixon who moved for its adoption, 24 (Queensbury Planning Board 01/18/2022) As per the draft resolution prepared by staff. th Motion seconded by Brad Magowan. Duly adopted this 18 day of January 2022 by the following vote: AYES: Mr. Deeb, Mr. Dixon, Mr. Longacker, Mr. Molloy, Mr. Magowan, Mr. LaSarso, Mr. Traver NOES: NONE ABSENT: Mr. Valentine MR. TRAVER-All right. So in our process generally the next. MRS. MOORE-So that was only one of two, in reference to Lead Agency. So the next one is acknowledge. MR. TRAVER-All right. I’m sorry. MRS. MOORE-I did not combine those resos. I kept them separate. MR. TRAVER-Yes. Okay. My apologies. RESOLUTION ACKNOWLEDGING LEAD AGENCY STATUS SP # 66-2021 CVE WHEREAS, the applicant proposes a solar farm on site 303.11-1-4.1, with access by right of way through parcel 303.15-1-25.2. The project will include over 13,000 panels on a 30 plus acre portion of the site. The project work includes panel placement, drive areas, equipment boxes and stormwater management. The project involves a petition of zone change for parcel 303.15-1-25.2 from CI to CLI. Project subject to site plan, special use permit and freshwater wetlands permit. Pursuant to Chapter 179-15-050, Town Board referred to the Planning Board to review for SEQR and recommendation. Site plan, special use permit, and freshwater wetlands review after the Town Board completes Petition of Zone change. WHEREAS, the Planning Board of the Town of Queensbury has determined to begin an environmental review process under the State Environmental Quality Review Act (SEQRA). WHEREAS, The Town Board has indicated that the Planning Board should be lead agency and no other agencies have been identified other than the Town Board and the Planning Board; NOW, THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED: MOTION TO ACKNOWLEDGE LEAD AGENCY STATUS IN CONNECTION WITH PETITION OF ZONE CHANGE PZ 720-2021, SITE PLAN 66-2021, FRESHWATER WETLANDS PERMIT 3- 2021, & SPECIAL USE PERMIT 4-2021 CVE NORTH AMERICA, INC. Introduced by Michael Dixon who moved for its adoption, As per the draft resolution prepared by staff. th Motion seconded by John Molloy. Duly adopted this 18 day of January 2022 by the following vote: AYES: Mr. Dixon, Mr. Longacker, Mr. Molloy, Mr. Magowan, Mr. LaSarso, Mr. Deeb, Mr. Traver NOES: NONE ABSENT: Mr. Valentine MR. TRAVER-So the next item for consideration in our process is, as I understand it, a SEQR review under the SEQR. Correct, Laura? MRS. MOORE-That’s correct. MR. TRAVER-Now I must say, one of my concerns with regard to a SEQR review is the engineering report that we’ve received, which seems to have, it doesn’t appear that there’s anything that can’t be corrected, but there’s information that we don’t have access to because the engineer hasn’t reviewed it. Have you looked at that engineering MR. GRECO-We have. We didn’t see any high hurdles when we were looking at this, but we’ll look at it particularly. MR. TRAVER-Well, in the context of an environmental review, you know, looking at, let’s see, provided a SWPPP which needs to be revised. The engineer wants you to revise the Hydro CAD model so that it 25 (Queensbury Planning Board 01/18/2022) can be reviewed. Correspondence from DEC. There’s the issue of the potential to store property that they have not received. MR. GRECO-We do have some notes. I can go through these. If you’d like I can wait until the end. MR. TRAVER-Yes, why don’t you wait until the end. It’s the engineer that needs to review these. Number Seven, do you have it in front of you? MR. GRECO-Yes. MR. TRAVER-Okay. So Number Seven, there’s some issues with the NOI. Test pit results. Number Nine, day lighted pipes. I don’t know if Number Ten, the winter stabilization, if that applies, but the engineer would like a response to that. There’s Number Eleven, there’s issues surrounding vegetation surrounding the solar arrays. A detail was not provided with regard to that. Further it does not appear that a detail is provided for the racking system such that a review of the underlying ground conditions can be reviewed. It’s unclear what pre-treatment practices are provided. Phasing plan does not appear to include acres to be disturbed in each phase. So many of these things, now some of them are mere technical and we see that, it’s not uncommon to see that with a project engineer. The applicant can generally, right away has a solution to that and it’s just a matter of communicating those solutions to the engineer. MR. GRECO-Absolutely. MR. TRAVER-However there are some items in here that are incomplete that have not been reviewed that have potential environmental impacts, and that’s my concern. Without assessing other how other Board members feel about it, and we have to, you know, that is of concern to us because we do have to do an environmental impact review, and in the absence of clarification with regard to things like vegetation and all of these other issues that are there, what I would normally recommend that we postpone a SEQR review until you have resolved these issues in whatever manner with the engineer so that we get a report back from the engineer stating that these environmental issues are clarified and we can be clear in terms of the data that we have with regard to an environmental review. Does that make sense to you? MR. GRECO-It does, yes. MR. TRAVER-Okay. All right. So how do other Board members feel about proceeding with SEQR review? Do we want those responses and a follow up review before we undertake SEQR? MR. DIXON-We should have all the information in front of us. MR. TRAVER-That was my sense. MR. DIXON-And even in the packet that’s going to be part of the environmental review, you did a study th on December 4 as far as endangered species. Well, for mammals you might identify something during the warmer seasons. I don’t know how you would necessarily identify anything, and there was a comment in here regarding the Indiana Brown Bat. MR. WEINAND-The Bat, yes, and an absence, presence survey will be conducted. That was correspondence that was received from U.S. Fish and Wildlife. So they did seem to think that there was a potential habitat, forgive me for the proper naming of what they cited, but it did trigger us needing to perform an absence, presence survey, which will be underway. MR. DIXON-And some of, I was trying to educate myself on the Indiana Brown Bat, too. MR. TRAVER-Is that the one that has the white nose disease and fungus infection? MR. DIXON-I don’t think so. MR. MAGOWAN-Not that one. MR. TRAVER-Not that one. MR. DIXON-So with that, just giving that as an example, if you’re going to disturb 33 acres, as we get deeper into the project, kind of a remediation, hanging bat boxes. I think there’s more that you can do instead of just stripping the land, put in solar panels and move on, as well as the lighting. I didn’t see much for a lighting plan. It must be on there but I didn’t see it. MR. WEINAND-There is no light. MR. DIXON-No lighting. 26 (Queensbury Planning Board 01/18/2022) MR. WEINAND-And in terms of the habitat it had to do with either breeding, not necessarily that there is habitat. It’s just that they need to figure out if there actually is a presence. MR. DIXON-And I don’t know about that one specifically. We do know that there’s bats in there. It’s all swamp. It helps me to get flies out of my yard. So I appreciate those bats. MR. TRAVER-And likewise I believe with the, what was it, SHPO that does the historical. MR. WEINAND-Yes, and we did receive the SHPO No Impact letter. MR. TRAVER-You did? th MR. WEINAND-Yes, we did, September 6. MR. TRAVER-Very good. So that takes care of that issue then. MR. WEINAND-Yes. MR. TRAVER-Okay. So, Laura, if we’re going to wait for clarification on these engineering comments, prior to doing SEQR, we’re not in a position to make a recommendation either at this point. MRS. MOORE-That’s fine That’s why it was a may. It’s not required. So potentially you would be tabling this application, resolving some technical issues with engineering. I don’t know, necessarily, that you’ll get a signoff, but this would move this project probably into a March meeting because today was deadline for February’s meeting. So it would give them the month to identify and clarify some of those items with DEC and SHPO and those other items that are from Chazen’s, actually well that was now the company is no longer Chazen. MR. TRAVER-Right. Yes, that took me back for a second, too. So, okay, well, you know, even though, we made some initial progress tonight, and although, you know, you’re in a tabling situation, what we have often found is this often results in a faster process because when you come back you’ll have all of the information that we need theoretically to proceed. So it might actually be easier to do it that way than to sort of piecemeal through all of these issues to get that clarification and resolve those issues with the engineer. MRS. MOORE-So you do have a public hearing that was scheduled for this evening. So you might need to open that up. I do have one public comment to read into the record. MR. TRAVER-Okay. Yes. So presumably we could look at a March 15? How does that look, Laura? That’s the first meeting in March. th MRS. MOORE-Correct, with information due by February 15, unless the applicant has identified some th outstanding issues that they need a little more time. So a packet should be presented by February 15, but communications with me to make sure, because I know some of this information, as you mentioned, the bat issues might be a little bit different than the rest of the documentation. MR. TRAVER-Yes. Laura is going to be your best asset, moving forward with this, communication with her on some regular basis. Again, it’s going to really help move this forward because in the absence, you know, something might come up and if all of us aren’t on the same page it could cause a delay. So please keep in contact. She’s very familiar with the project thus far. So I would encourage you to keep up that contact, and we do have a public hearing on this application scheduled for this evening. Is there anyone in the audience that wanted to address the Planning Board? I’m not seeing anyone. Laura, you mentioned you have written comment? PUBLIC HEARING OPENED MRS. MOORE-I do. I’m going to read this into the record. This is addressed to the Queensbury Planning Board. “My name is Bev Benway who is one of the owners on Queensbury Avenue. The small red ranch next to National Grid. Eyesore unit. My brother is the other owner, Stan Rymkewicz. We both oppose the project description – Applicant proposes a solar farm – site 303.11-1-4.1, he wants to put 13,000 panels. I do not want to devalue my house as I will be moving there within a year or so. The panels are another eyesore and I feel don’t we have the right to refuse the approval of this? Again two of us – Stan Rymkewicz and Bev Benway oppose this. Please enter this as going on record to oppose the project.” I did look at where this house was, and it is, it is on Queensbury Avenue. It doesn’t have direct site access to this particular property. I’m not quite certain, other than it’s adjacent to the fire training center. So she does seem, this particular property has access to that visual site of what’s across the street which would be that fire tower, training center. MR. TRAVER-But not of this project. 27 (Queensbury Planning Board 01/18/2022) MRS. MOORE-Not, I don’t anticipate this particular project being visible to their sire, but then again there’s property in between her property or between your property and Queensbury Avenue. If they suddenly decide to clear every piece of vegetation from their lot, there’s potential that they could see it. I don’t know that for certain what will happen in the future, but I think that’s what she was envisioning that it would be suddenly all cleared and she’d be able to see all 13,000 panels. MR. TRAVER-But that would be something that that individual would do, not the applicant. MRS. MOORE-Or the properties in between, between Queensbury Avenue and this project. MR. TRAVER-Yes. MR. GRECO-You did say the ranch house on Queensbury Avenue? MRS. MOORE-Queensbury Avenue. MR. GRECO-We did do a visual impact, just to see, and as you said, you can’t see the site. MR. TRAVER-Yes, that was my understanding from looking. MR. GRECO-I can’t speak to, as you said, if it were cleared, how that would impact. MR. TRAVER-But that’s not part of the proposal. MR. GRECO-Correct. MR. TRAVER-Right. Okay. All right. Well we will keep the public hearing on this application open until we hear it again presumably in March. Anything else from members of the Board before we do a resolution to table? Okay. I guess we’re ready for that. MR. DIXON-Do you have something? MRS. MOORE-No, I just wanted to show the applicant the particular property. He’s got it now. I just wanted to make sure he was aware of where it was. MR. MAGOWAN-Can you show us if you don’t mind? That red dot? MRS. MOORE-So that red dot is this particular landowner that wrote the letter and this is the project site over here. MR. MAGOWAN-Right. Okay. Thank you. MR. DEEB-And who owns the property in between? Do you know? MRS. MOORE-So this one is owned by the County of Warren. So this is the fire training tower I believe it is. I think this is, all these are the County of Warren, and I think this is all airport related. I could be wrong completely, but, yes, these are mostly airport related parcels, but this one I know is the fire training tower. MR. GRECO-Between the topography and the preliminary clearing, we’d leave a stand of trees along the eastern property line. Even if those other properties were cleared, I don’t believe that there would be visibility. MR. DEEB-You’re going to have a buffer on your zone, is what you’re saying, on your property. So even if they did clear that. MR. GRECO-Right. So it’s 30 feet at the narrowest. MR. DEEB-So it wouldn’t be visible. MR. TRAVER-No, I don’t believe so. I think we’re all on the same page with that. All right. Anything else from the Board? I guess we’re ready for that motion. RESOLUTION TO TABLE SP # 66-2021 CVE NORTH AMERICA, INC. Whereas, applicant proposes a solar farm on site 303.11-1-4.1, with access by right of way through parcel 303.15-1-25.2. The project will include over 13,000 panels on a 30 plus acre portion of the site. The project work includes panel placement, drive areas, equipment boxes and stormwater management. The project 28 (Queensbury Planning Board 01/18/2022) involves a petition of zone change for parcel 303.15-1-25.2 from CI to CLI. Project subject to site plan, special use permit and freshwater wetlands permit. Pursuant to Chapter 179-15-050, Town Board referred to the Planning Board to review for SEQR and recommendation. Site plan, special use permit, and freshwater wetlands review after the Town Board completes Petition of Zone change. MOTION TO TABLE SITE PLAN 66-2021, FWW 3-2021, & SUP 4-2021 CVE NORTH AMERICA, INC.. Introduced by Michael Dixon who moved for its adoption, seconded by Brad Magowan. Tabled until the March 15, 2022 Planning Board meeting with information due by February 15, 2022. Duly adopted this 18th day of January 2022 by the following vote: AYES: Mr. Molloy, Mr. Magowan, Mr. LaSarso, Mr. Deeb, Mr. Dixon, Mr. Longacker, Mr. Traver NOES: NONE ABSENT: Mr. Valentine MR. TRAVER-All right. Thank you. Good luck. We’ll see you in March. MR. WEINAND-Environmental comment, you said? MRS. MOORE-It wasn’t a comment. He had questions about the surface, and I found the detail that was in the plan set that he couldn’t find. So I sent that over. MR. WEINAND-Okay. Thank you. MRS. MOORE-Thank you. So before Board members leave, the newer Board members that don’t have access to their Town e-mails, if you have not had access to the Town e-mail, you can give me a call in the morning, and/or I’ll try to remember the StoredTech number, but you’re going to end up communicating with StoredTech. MR. TRAVER-I might actually have that. MRS. MOORE-Do you have that? It’s 793, but I can’t remember if it’s, 3111? So the StoredTech number is, sorry, It’s 793-1111. So they do have Town e-mails, but them accessing them is the other trick. MR. TRAVER-Understood. MR. MAGOWAN-Can you give that number again, please? MRS. MOORE-So it’s 793-1111. They made it simple and I made it complicated. MR. TRAVER-All right. So that concludes our agenda. We are off to a good start I think for 2022. Thank you, everyone. We even got Jackson broken in on his very first night as an alternate. So thank you, sir. If there’s nothing further, I’ll entertain a motion to adjourn. MOTION TO ADJOURN THE QUEENSBURY PLANNING BOARD MEETING, Introduced by Stephen Traver who moved for its adoption, seconded by John Molloy: th Duly adopted this 18 day of January, 2022, by the following vote: AYES: Mr. Molloy, Mr. Magowan, Mr. Deeb, Mr. Dixon, Mr. Longacker, Mr. LaSarso, Mr. Traver NOES: NONE ABSENT: Mr. Valentine MR. TRAVER-All right. We stand adjourned, everyone. Thank you very much. On motion meeting was adjourned. RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED, Stephen Traver, Chairman 29