Loading...
01-25-2022 (Queensbury Planning Board 01/25/2022) QUEENSBURY PLANNING BOARD MEETING SECOND REGULAR MEETING TH JANUARY 25, 2022 INDEX Site Plan No. 2-2022 Patrick Connors 1. REQUEST TO TABLE Tax Map No. 227.9-1-1 Site Plan No. 70-2021 Francis & Erin Steinbach 2. MODIFICATION Tax Map No. 226.19-2-18 FURTHER TABLING Subdivision No. 2-2022 Cerrone Builders, Inc. 3. PRELIMINARY STAGE Tax Map No. 301.18-2-1 ZBA RECOMMENDATION Subdivision No. 1-2022 Sharon & Michael Serini 5. MODIFICATION Tax Map No. 240.9-1-16.12 Site Plan No. 55-2021 Antonio & Maria Civitella 9. Freshwater Wetlands 1-2021 Tax Map No. 239.7-1-20 FURTHER TABLED Site Plan No. 1-2022 Great Escape Theme Park, LLC 10. Freshwater Wetlands 1-2022 Tax Map No. 288.20-1-20 Site Plan No. 1-2022 Dan Slote/EDP 15. Tax Map No. 239.16-1-19 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 01/25/2022) QUEENSBURY PLANNING BOARD MEETING SECOND REGULAR MEETING JANUARY 25, 2022 7:00 P.M. MEMBERS PRESENT STEPHEN TRAVER, CHAIRMAN DAVID DEEB, VICE CHAIRMAN MICHAEL DIXON, SECRETARY BRAD MAGOWAN JOHN MOLLOY WARREN LONGACKER 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 25, 2022. This is our second meeting for January and also our second meeting for 2022. Notice the illuminated exit signs. In the event of an emergency that is the way out. If you have an electronic device, a cell phone or other type device, if you would either turn it off or turn the ringer off so as not to disturb our meeting. We also ask that the audience be silent except during public hearings. If you want to have discussion amongst yourselves, please go to the outer room. We have a number of items this evening that unfortunately are going to be tabled. So we should be able to process each applicant fairly quickly. We do have some public hearings as well and we will address those as they arise, and with that we’ll begin with administrative items, and to start we have Site Plan 2-2022 for Patrick Connors. OLD BUSINESS: 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. th MR. TRAVER-This is a request due to a scheduling conflict, to table to the February 15 meeting. Is that correct, Laura? MRS. MOORE-That’s correct. The applicant had requested the tabling. He could not be at meetings this week, or last week. So they referenced that the Zoning Board would be able to hear their application tomorrow, which moved their Site Plan off into February. MR. TRAVER-Okay. Thank you. MRS. MOORE-So you also need to open a public hearing for that. MR. TRAVER-Correct. Okay. All right. So we will open the public hearing and for those who wish to comment on this, and I will ask, is there anyone here that wanted to the Planning Board on the Patrick Connors application? PUBLIC HEARING OPENED 2 (Queensbury Planning Board 01/25/2022) th MR. TRAVER-Okay. Well we’ll be tabling this to the meeting in February 15, next month, and the public hearing will remain open. So we will take public comment at that time as well. Any questions, comments by members of the Planning Board regarding this tabling? As it was said, it’s basically a scheduling issue. So I believe we have a draft resolution for that. RESOLUTION TABLING SP # 2-2022 PATRICK CONNORS 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. MOTION TO TABLE SITE PLAN 2-2022 PATRICK CONNORS. Introduced by Michael Dixon who moved for its adoption, seconded by Jackson LaSarso. Tabled until the February 15, 2022 Planning Board meeting at the request of the applicant. th Duly adopted this 25 day of January 2022 by the following vote: AYES: Mr. Deeb, Mr. Dixon, Mr. Longacker, Mr. Molloy, Mr. LaSarso, Mr. Magowan, Mr. Traver NOES: NONE ABSENT: Mr. Valentine MR. TRAVER-Next under Administrative Items we have Site Plan Modification 70=2021 for Francis & Erin Steinbach. SITE PLAN MODIFICATION 70-2021 SEQR TYPE: TYPE II. FRANCIS & ERIN STEINBACH. OWNER(S): SAME AS APPLICANT. ZONING: WR. LOCATION: 211 ASSEMBLY POINT DRIVE. (REVISED) APPLICANT PROPOSES TO RAISE AN EXISTING 1,352 SQ. FT. HOME FOOTPRINT TO INSTALL A FULL BASEMENT WITH A FOOTPRINT OF 1,550 SQ. FT. THE PROJECT INCLUDES A REMOVAL OF A 444 SQ. FT. REAR DOCK TO CONSTRUCT A 356 SQ. FT. DECK; SITE HAS PREVIOUS APPROVAL FOR 154 SQ. FT. ADDITION. THE FRONT DECK OF 220 SQ. FT. IS TO BE REMOVED TO CONSTRUCT A 357 SQ. FT. DECK. THE EXISTING FLOOR AREA OF 1,949 SQ. FT. INCREASED TO 2,786 SQ. FT. SITE PLAN FOR NEW FLOOR AREA IN A CEA SHALL BE SUBJECT TO SITE PLAN REVIEW AND APPROVAL. CROSS REFERENCE: SP 38-1995 ADDITION, SEP-0657-2019, SP 15-2020, AV 74-2021. WARREN CO. REFERRAL: NOVEMBER 2021. SITE INFORMATION: APA, LGPC, CEA. LOT SIZE: .22 ACRES. TAX MAP NO. 226.19-2-18. SECTION: 179-3-040, 179-6-065. th MR. TRAVER-This is a request to table to the February 15 meeting and this, I guess, is because of an additional disclosed variance, Laura? MRS. MOORE-Right. So in addition to, in reference to Site Plan, it’s for their hard surfacing within 50 feet of the shoreline that should have been picked up, and then in reference to this shoreline which is for the existing deck that’s at the front of the home. So it comes back to this Board as a Planning Board recommendation again. MR. TRAVER-Okay. And I think, is the public hearing already open on this? I thought possibly we did, but in any case, the public hearing is open for Site Plan Modification 70-2021. I will ask is there anyone in the audience this evening that wanted to comment on that application? PUBLIC HEARING OPENED MRS. MOORE-I will also note that they submitted their updated information today. MR. TRAVER-Okay. Good. MRS. MOORE-So we have all their information for the February meeting. MR. TRAVER-Okay. So note that the public hearing is open and will remain open and we will be hearing th this application as well on the February 15 meeting provided our tabling motion goes through, we’re about to hear. RESOLUTION TABLING SP MODIFICATION 70-2021 FRANCIS & ERIN STEINBACH 3 (Queensbury Planning Board 01/25/2022) WHEREAS, the applicant proposes to raise an existing 1,352 sq. ft. home footprint to install a full basement with a footprint of 1,550 sq. ft. The project includes a removal of a 444 sq. ft. rear dock to construct a 356 sq. ft. deck; site has previous approval for 154 sq. ft. addition. The front deck of 220 sq. ft. is to be removed to construct a 458 357 sq. ft. deck. The existing floor area of 1,949 sq. ft. increased to 2,786 sq. ft. Site plan for new floor area in a CEA shall be subject to Planning Board review and approval. MOTION TO TABLE SITE PLAN MODIFICATION 70-2021 FRANCIS & ERIN STEINBACH. Introduced by Michael Dixon who moved for its adoption, seconded by Brad Magowan. Tabled until the February 15, 2022 Planning Board meeting with information due by January 25, 2022. th Duly adopted this 25 day of January 2022 by the following vote: AYES: Mr. Dixon, Mr. Longacker, Mr. Molloy, Mr. LaSarso, Mr. Magowan, Mr. Deeb, Mr. Traver NOES: NONE ABSENT: Mr. Valentine MR. TRAVER-All right. Thank you. Next we move to the next section of our agenda which is recommendations and the first item, Cerrone Builders, Inc., Subdivision Preliminary Stage 2-2022. PLANNING BOARD RECOMMENDATION TO THE ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS SUBDIVISION NO. 2-2022 PRELIMINARY STAGE. SEQR TYPE: UNLISTED-FULL EAF. CERRONE BUILDERS, INC. AGENT(S): TOM CENTER, HUTCHINS ENGINEERING. OWNER(S): CITY OF GLENS FALLS. ZONING: MDR. LOCATION: UPPER SHERMAN AVENUE. APPLICANT PROPOSES A 45 LOT SUBDIVISION OF A 49.5 ACRE PARCEL. THE LOTS RANGE IN SIZE FROM 0.47 ACRE TO 1.57 ACRES. THE PROJECT INCLUDES A HOMEOWNER’S ASSOCIATION PROPERTY. THERE IS TO BE TWO ACCESS POINTS TO SHERMAN AVENUE. THE SITES WOULD HAVE ON-SITE SEPTIC AND BE CONNECTED TO MUNICIPAL WATER SUPPLY. THE PROJECT INCLUDES A 20 FT. NO CUT BUFFER ON THE NORTH PROPERTY LINES. WAIVERS REQUESTED FOR CLEARING PLAN AND LANDSCAPE PLAN. THE PROJECT SITE WAS AT ONE TIME THE LEAF DUMP AREA FOR THE CITY OF GLENS FALLS. PURSUANT TO CHAPTER 183, REVIEW FOR A SUBDIVISION SHALL BE SUBJECT TO PLANNING BOARD REVIEW AND APPROVAL. VARIANCE: RELIEF IS SOUGHT FOR LOT SIZE AND SETBACKS. PLANNING BOARD WILL MAKE A RECOMMENDATION TO THE ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS. CROSS REFERENCE: SUB (S) 7-2021, AV 5-2022. WARREN CO. REFERRAL: N/A FOR SUBDIVISION. LOT SIZE: 49.98 ACRES. TAX MAP NO. 301.18-2-1. SECTION: 183. JON LAPPER, REPRESENTING APPLICANT, PRESENT MR. TRAVER-And we understand, Laura, that this item is going to be tabled as well, although we may Seek Lead Agency status. MRS. MOORE-That’s correct. So this item is a Type I action. It was listed as Unlisted, and it’s due to the number of lots, realty subdivision. So in turn it should be identified as a Type I action and due to that, the Planning Board can seek Lead Agency status at this time, at least get the project still moving forward. MR. TRAVER-Okay. All right. So do members of the Board understand the process that we’re discussing? So we’re, because of the type of action this is under the SEQR, being an Unlisted, and requiring a Full EAF, we are requesting to act as the Lead Agency in that we will be coordinating possible environmental impacts from other potential involved agencies that wish to contribute to our review. MRS. MOORE-You also have Mr. Lapper here if you want to have a description of the project. MR. TRAVER-Okay. Sure. MR. LAPPER-For the record, Jon Lapper. We were here a few months ago for a Sketch Plan on this and you had asked us to look at reducing the number of lots. This is a City of Glens Falls parcel. It’s been vacant in an area that’s now fully developed with other homes. So what we’re seeking for density is bigger lots than most of the neighbors, but we reduced it based upon the Board’s comments and we’ve got a revised plan that we’re going forward with, but we would request that you seek Lead Agency and then tomorrow the Zoning Board can consent to that and we can get started next month. MR. TRAVER-Very good. Okay. Any questions or comments from members of the Board? 4 (Queensbury Planning Board 01/25/2022) MR. MAGOWAN-I’d just like to thank you for listening. I think it’s a great project and looking forward to reviewing it. The one on Sweet Road just came out beautiful. As I stated before I just drive through it just to, really, it just came out nice. So I’m looking forward to it. MR. TRAVER-Very good. Okay. Well the first action we will take then this evening is to make a motion to request Lead Agency status. Can we hear that motion? RESOLUTION TO SEEK LEAD AGENCY SUB # 2-2022 PRELIM. STG. CERRONE BUILDERS, INC. WHEREAS, the applicant proposes a 45 lot subdivision of a 49.5 acre parcel. The lots range in size from 0.47 acre to 1.57 acres. The project includes a homeowner’s association property. There is to be two access points to Sherman Avenue. The sites would have on-site septic and be connected to municipal water supply. The project includes a 20 ft. no cut buffer on the North property lines. Waivers requested for clearing plan and landscape plan. The project site was at one time the leaf dump area for the City of Glens Falls. Pursuant to Chapter 183, review for a subdivision shall be subject to Planning Board review and approval. Variance: Relief is sought for lot size and setbacks. Planning Board will make a recommendation to the Zoning Board of Appeals. WHEREAS, the Planning Board of the Town of Queensbury has determined to begin an environmental review process under the State Environmental Quality Review Act (SEQRA). WHEREAS, 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. NOW, THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED, the Planning Board of the Town of Queensbury hereby indicates its desire to be lead agency for SEQRA review of this action and authorizes and directs the Zoning Administrator to notify any other potentially involved agencies of such intent. That Part I of the SEQRA form will be sent to the following agencies: Department of Health. MOTION TO SEEK LEAD AGENCY STATUS IN CONNECTION WITH SUBDIVISION PRELIMINARY 2-2022 CERRONE BUILDERS, INC., Introduced by Michael Dixon who moved for its adoption, seconded by John Molloy; As per the draft resolution prepared by staff. th Duly adopted this 25 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 MRS. MOORE-There’s also a motion in your packet to table the application because this was the Planning Board recommendation stage. MR. TRAVER-Right. Okay. Thank you. The next action is to table the Subdivision, tabled to the second meeting in February, which is February 22 of 2022. RESOLUTION TO TABLE SUB. # 2-2022 PRELIM. STAGE CERRONE BUILDERS, INC. WHEREAS, the applicant proposes a 45 lot subdivision of a 49.5 acre parcel. The lots range in size from 0.47 acre to 1.57 acres. The project includes a homeowner’s association property. There is to be two access points to Sherman Avenue. The sites would have on-site septic and be connected to municipal water supply. The project includes a 20 ft. no cut buffer on the North property lines. Waivers requested for clearing plan and landscape plan. The project site was at one time the leaf dump area for the City of Glens Falls. Pursuant to Chapter 183, review for a subdivision shall be subject to Planning Board review and approval. Variance: Relief is sought for lot size and setbacks. Planning Board will make a recommendation to the Zoning Board of Appeals. MOTION TO TABLE SUBDIVISION PRELIMINARY 2-2022 CERRONE BUILDERS, INC. Introduced by Michael Dixon who moved for its adoption, Tabled to the February 22, 2022 Planning Board meeting due to SEQR. Motion seconded by Jackson LaSarso. Duly adopted this 25th day of January 2022 by the following vote: 5 (Queensbury Planning Board 01/25/2022) MRS. MOORE-Just so that you understand that due to the amount of items that were in the January agenda that were moved to the February agenda, the Cerrone Builders project will stay at the same position as the second meeting. Typically we like to try to get through Planning Board recommendations and the application within one month. In this case due to the number of applications that are tabled to February, this particular project has to stay in the same position as the second meeting in the month. MR. TRAVER-Understood. Thank you. AYES: Mr. Molloy, Mr. Magowan, Mr. LaSarso, Mr. Deeb, Mr. Dixon, Mr. Longacker, Mr. Traver NOES: NONE ABSENT: Mr. Valentine MR. TRAVER-All right. So now we move to the next section of our agenda which is New Business, and in that New Business we have Sharon & Michael Serini, Subdivision Modification 1-2022. NEW BUSINESS: SUBDIVISION MODIFICATION 1-2022 SEQR TYPE: UNLISTED. SHARON & MICHAEL SERINI. AGENT(S): DENNIS MAC ELROY, EDP. OWNER(S): RAYMOND KRAFT. ZONING: WR. LOCATION: CLEVERDALE OFF ROAD. APPLICANT PROPOSES A SUBDIVISION MODIFICATION IN REGARDS TO A SETBACK TO THE SHORELINE. THE SUBDIVISION MODIFICATION OF SUB 2-2008 (MARCH 2010) INDICATES A 75 FOOT SHORELINE SETBACK. PURSUANT TO CHAPTER 183, 179-3-040 OF THE ZONING ORDINANCE, CHANGES TO A PREVIOUSLY APPROVED PLAN SHALL BE SUBJECT TO PLANNING BOARD REVIEW AND APPROVAL. CROSS REFERENCE: SUB 8-2000, SUB 2-2008, AV 49-2009, SUB(M) 2-2008 (2010), PZ 92-2016. WARREN CO. REFERRAL: N/A FOR SUBDIVISION. SITE INFORMATION: CEA, LGPC, APA. LOT SIZE: 2.28 ACRES. TAX MAP NO. 240.9-1-16.12. SECTION: 183, 179-3-040. DENNIS MAC ELROY, REPRESENTING APPLICANT, PRESENT; MIKE SERINI, PRESENT MR. TRAVER-Laura? MRS. MOORE-So this is a Subdivision Modification. The subdivisions back in March of 2010 indicate the 75 foot shoreline setback in the Waterfront Residential zone. Typically our Code currently says 50 feet setback, and research has been done on our end as Staff as well as the applicants representatives, and there was no identified information that indicates why the subdivision of the current time says 75 feet. So the applicant is trying to modify the subdivision. The actual document will say 50 feet so it matches the Town Code. MR. TRAVER-I see. Okay. Thank you. Good evening. MR. MAC ELROY-Good evening. I’m Dennis MacElroy with Environmental Design representing Sharon and Mike Serini for this subdivision application. Mike is here with me at the table. Sharon is in the audience. As Laura explained, this was a property that had been before this Board several, a couple of times over the years. In 2009 was the original Preliminary and Final subdivision approvals. September of ’09, and then in March of 2010 there was an error that had been noted as far as about, what, 33 hundredths of an acre that had been left out. So through the survey they realized that and came back for a modification in September of 2010. That filed map included the statement that the shoreline setback was 75 feet. Going forward, that lot has been sold to the Serini’s. The 2.28 acre lot as part of that subdivision has been sold to the Serini’s. They intend to develop that lot. We’ll be back to the Planning Board for site plan review on that in the future, but before we commence that we wanted to get a correction of that 75 foot setback that’s shown on the filed map because the Town can’t see why it was that. I can’t see why it was listed as 75 feet. We want to correct that before moving forward and through discussions with Laura and Craig, this was suggested that we come, take this step to get a correction or modification of that original subdivision filed map. It is what it is. Craig or Laura couldn’t do anything different about that. So we’re simply requesting that be changed from the 75 to 50 so we won’t be needing to ask for a variance for the house location that’s going to be proposed. So it’s as simple as that, if you consider it so. MR. TRAVER-Understood. Okay. Questions, comments from members of the Planning Board for the representatives? MR. DIXON-I’ll just make a comment. So Laura and I had spoken prior to the meeting just to confirm what our front setbacks are. So currently it should be 50 for that particular area. As you come forth in the future with site plans, 50 feet is the minimum requirement, but if you’re able to get farther away from the lake at that time, I would encourage you to do so. 6 (Queensbury Planning Board 01/25/2022) MR. MAC ELROY-Yes, and we will, and because of that second condition of setback, 50 feet or the average of the two adjacent, and in that case, the property to the south is further than 50 feet. So in that averaging we’ll be at 57 feet back from the shoreline. That’s what you will see when you get that site plan review application. MR. TRAVER-Okay. There is also a public hearing on this subdivision modification. Is there anyone in the audience that wanted to address the Planning Board on this application. Yes, sir. PUBLIC HEARING OPENED CHRIS NAVITSKY MR. NAVITSKY-Good evening, Board. Chris Navitsky, Lake George Waterkeeper. We would encourage the Planning Board to maintain the previously approved 75 foot shoreline setback to protect the existing shoreline protective buffer. There’s also steep slopes there which are about 33% grade down to the lake. st I actually did find, we did have a copy in our records of I think the original submission, July 31, 2009, and on that it did have, I feel like I’ve been around too long now, but on it, it actually did state there that there was a 75 foot at shoreline setback. So I don’t know if the Town had a copy of that, but anyway, because there was some research that was done on that. We can share it with the Town if they want it, but I guess that’s where it originated. Thank you very much. MR. TRAVER-Yes, thank you. So, Laura, I think from your introduction you explained that you did look at such records? MRS. MOORE-We did look at as many records as we could. We looked at the Zoning Code at that time to determine if there was something that, some language that read at that time, and we couldn’t identify why the plat had said 75 and our Code would have said 50. So typically if it was a wetland, there would be a structure, a 75 foot setback, and we couldn’t identify why the shoreline was at 75. Ordinarily we would have seen 50 on a plat. MR. TRAVER-So the averaging of surrounding properties on the steep slopes might be an issue for site plan review, but as far as the actual subdivision, they would be entitled to what the Code says. Is that not correct? MRS. MOORE-That’s up to this Board to make that modification at this time. MR. TRAVER-Right. All right. Well, members of the Board, you heard public comment. Do you have any follow up comments or questions for the applicant or their representative? MR. DEEB-I think we’ve got to be consistent. If we’re going to have a Code it’s got to be consistent. I think we should have it one way or the other. MR. TRAVER-Well certainly site plan is another ballgame and, you know, we’ll a have to look at it as we get to the actual, what’s actually proposed to be developed on that site. Then we will have to look again at setbacks and so on obviously. MR. DEEB-Well regardless of that, I mean if we have a 50 foot setback, we should probably make it uniform. MRS. MOORE-I do have another public comment. MR. TRAVER-Okay. Yes, thank you. MRS. MOORE-This was addressed to Craig and myself. Our office had served as agents for the applicants Raymond and Wendy Kraft for their original subdivision application of 2009 as well as the subdivision modification of 2010. We have reviewed the issue of the 75’ shoreline setback which is indicated in the zoning table on the subdivision supporting plan prepared by our office and filed in the office of the county clerk. After considerable research into our files as well as permits, correspondence, and planning board meeting minutes, we fail to find any reasoning for the 75’ shoreline setback which is indicated on the filed subdivision plans. This should have been 50’ (or the average of the two adjoining residences), which would be compliant with the zoning ordinance at the time of the subdivision modification, as well as the current zoning ordinance. Our office would urge support of the application presented by Environmental Design Partnership, LLP which would update and file a new subdivision plat indicating the appropriate 50’ (or the average of the two adjoining residences) shoreline setback. Feel free to contact me if you wish to discuss. Regards, G. Thomas Hutchins, P.E.” MR. TRAVER-Okay. Thank you. If there’s nothing else, Laura, I think I’ll close the public hearing. So let’s do that. 7 (Queensbury Planning Board 01/25/2022) PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED MR. MAGOWAN-By looking at the lot and the other houses topography there, that 50 feet is outlined, isn’t it? MRS. MOORE-On this proposed subdivision, the one that’s proposed on our, here. So this is 50 feet. MR. MAGOWAN-That line right there, yes, because it curves with the lake. MRS. MOORE-So this is the 50 foot setback. MR. MAGOWAN-And I can just see why maybe it was 75 foot back because that is more of a gentle slope. I mean allowing that house to be right up on the edge where it drops right down to the lake. I can see where the concern would be and I appreciate you saying the average of 57, but how far back is that second line? MR. TRAVER-The topographic line? MR. MAGOWAN-Well you have the topographic line and then the solid right in front of the buffer or the tree edge. MR. TRAVER-Well that’s the point I was making earlier. At this stage we’re looking at a line on a map, but when they come back with an actual proposal for development, we’ll be looking at setback again and that will take into account the topography. MR. MAGOWAN-All right. I see it now following it around. MR. TRAVER-Right. MR. MAGOWAN-Okay, and then it goes from 340 to, I mean that’s like the flattest part of that lot, instead of allowing that house to be right up where it drops down. I mean I can see why they probably made it. I would just say if there’s any possible way to bring that house back to the flatter part. MR. MAC ELROY-I think that’s what you’ll find when you see this site plan development. MR. MAGOWAN-Okay. MR. MAC ELROY-And I would add you’ll see that there’s a little bit, that topo kind of peters out there. It’s not fully in there. We’ve done a new topo all through that shoreline area, clarified that. So I think when you see the site plan that’s proposed through site plan review that hopefully alleviates any concern. MR. MAGOWAN-All right. MR. TRAVER-Yes, especially when we’re dealing with steep slopes going right into, I mean as you know from discussions with us over time there is a lot of concern about stormwater and all of that has to be, in any property with steep slopes right on the lake, I’m sure you’re going to incorporate that in your design. we’ll have to take a look at all that very carefully in site plan review. So at this stage we’re just looking at the modification of the border of the subdivision not the setback for construction purposes. MR. MAGOWAN-Yes. Okay. I’m good with it. MR. TRAVER-So how do Board members feel going forward with this modification? Okay. All right. Well we have to do a reaffirmation of SEQR, and that is to say that we’re re-affirming an earlier SEQR which would have been, what, 2009? MRS. MOORE-Previous SEQR was completed in 2010 when you re-affirmed the modification. MR. TRAVER-2010. Okay. All right. So in the context of our discussion and the presentation that we heard this evening, we are looking at SEQR again. Now we had previously looked at the subdivision, obviously at 75 feet, and we found a Negative declaration. So now we’re looking at adjusting that lot line to 50 feet. So we need to look at this again, and if we don’t see a change, we can re-affirm our earlier finding of SEQR. If we feel that changing the border of the subdivision creates an environmental impact, and again, this is not site plan this is subdivision, then we need to take a closer look at SEQR. So I’ll ask the Board how members feel about a re-affirmation of the existing SEQR? Are we okay with that? MR. MOLLOY-Forgive my ignorance, but if I understand correctly changing this to a 50 foot, that doesn’t mean we’re approving construction. So this is, at the end of the day, I suppose will allow a little more flexibility when they come up with a site plan? 8 (Queensbury Planning Board 01/25/2022) MR. TRAVER-They will come up with a site plan which we will then have to look at in detail and review and ultimately approve or deny. MR. MOLLOY-So the question I have is whether there’s environmental impacts just from us changing this from the 75 feet to the 50 feet. MR. TRAVER-Just the subdivision only. Right. MR. MOLLOY-Understood. Thank you. MR. TRAVER-Anything else? Okay. I guess we’re ready for that motion, then. RESOLUTION RE-AFFIRMING NEG. DEC. SUB. MOD. 1-2022 SHARON & MICHAEL SERINI The applicant proposes a subdivision modification in regards to a setback to the shoreline. The subdivision modification of SUB 2-2008 (March 2010) indicates a 75 foot shoreline setback. Pursuant to Chapter 183, 179-3-040 of the Zoning Ordinance, changes to a previously approved plan shall be subject to Planning Board review and approval. The Planning Board has determined that the proposed project and Planning Board action is subject to review under the State Environmental Quality Review Act; The proposed action considered by this Board is Unlisted in the Department of Environmental Conservation Regulations implementing the State Environmental Quality Review Act and the regulations of the Town of Queensbury; No Federal or other agencies are involved; Whereas, the Planning Board adopted Resolution SUB 2-2008 on 9/22/2009 adopting SEQRA determination of non-significance, and Whereas, the Planning Board adopted Resolution SUB 2-2008 (2010) on 3/16/2010 reaffirming 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 1-2022 SHARON & MICHAEL SERINI. Introduced by Michael Dixon who moved for its adoption, seconded by Brad Magowan; th Duly adopted this 25 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-All right, and then next we move ahead with the subdivision modification approval itself. Does anyone have any issues with, I think we’ve discussed it at some length, but do Board members feel comfortable in granting this modification to their subdivision? I’m not hearing any objections. So let’s hear that motion. RESOLUTION APPROVING SUB. MODIFICATION 1-2022 SHARON & MICHAEL SERINI A subdivision application has been made where the applicant proposes a subdivision modification in regards to a setback to the shoreline. The subdivision modification of SUB 2-2008 (March 2010) indicates a 75 foot shoreline setback. Pursuant to Chapter 183, 179-3-040 of the Zoning Ordinance, changes to a previously approved plan 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 / Positive Declaration 9 (Queensbury Planning Board 01/25/2022) A public hearing was scheduled and held on January 25, 2022; This application is supported with all documentation, public comment, and application material in the file of record; MOTION TO APPROVE MODIFICATION FOR SUBDIVISION MODIFICATION 1-2022 SHARON & MICHAEL SERINI. Introduced by Michael Dixon who moved for its adoption; seconded by Jackson LaSarso. Per the draft provided by staff conditioned upon the following where the property owner is responsible for the following: th Duly adopted this 25 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. Thank you. MR. MAC ELROY-Thank you very much. MR. SERINI-Thank you. MR. TRAVER-The next section of our agenda is Old Business, and the first item is Antonio and Maria Civitella. OLD BUSINESS: 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. 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. MR. TRAVER-Laura? MRS. MOORE-So for this application I’m asking the Board to table the application. You can open a public hearing. What occurred was the Zoning Board of Appeals didn’t read all of the public comment into the record. So they will read that into the record tomorrow evening. The result of that is we would have to th table tonight’s meeting for the Civitellas. This application moves to the February 15 meeting. MR. TRAVER-Okay. All right, and we last heard this I believe as a recommendation. So it would be appropriate to open a public hearing again tonight. MRS. MOORE-Yes, and I do have a draft resolution for Mike. You would open the public hearing. MR. TRAVER-Okay. So I’ll go ahead and open the public hearing on Site Plan 55-2021 and Freshwater Wetlands permit 1-2021 for Antonio and Maria Civitella. Is there anyone in the audience that wanted to address the Planning Board regarding this application? Written comments, Laura? PUBLIC HEARING OPENED MRS. MOORE-There are written comments, but it’s up to you. I can read them into the record , or do you want me to wait? Those, I would say I’m pretty sure they would like to be here when the whole project’s here, but I will defer to the Board. If you want to hear them, I will read them into the record. 10 (Queensbury Planning Board 01/25/2022) MR. TRAVER-All right. Well I would suggest that we just leave the public hearing open, and we wait th until the proposed February 15 date and then we hear additional public comment. Any questions from members of the Board regarding what we’re doing with Civitella? Okay. We have a draft resolution. RESOLUTION TO TABLE SP # 55-2021 FWW 1-2021 ANTONIO & MARIA CIVITELLA Applicant proposes (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. MOTION TO TABLE SITE PLAN 55-2021 & FRESHWATER WETLANDS 1-2021 ANTONIO & MARIA CIVITELLA. Introduced by Michael Dixon who moved for its adoption, seconded by Brad Magowan. Tabled until the February 15, 2022 Planning Board meeting pending Zoning Board of Appeals decision. th Duly adopted this 25 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. Thank you, and the next two items on the agenda, Steinbach and Connors, we’ve th already addressed in the administrative items. Those items have been tabled both to the February 15 meeting. So the next item on our agenda for hearing this evening is Great Escape Theme Park, 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. FRANK PALUMBO & JOE MARTINEZ, REPRESENTING APPLICANT, PRESENT MR. TRAVER-Laura? MRS. MOORE-Okay. So this applicant proposes a ticket building of 1,150 square feet and an entrance staging building of 2,750 square feet. They did receive their variance from the Zoning Board of Appeals and I had noted some items that were still outstanding and that information has been provided. The Planning Board should just re-review the stormwater. It would be a waiver at this point. The applicant has explained that they’re going to increase the permeability on that side. So if you’re going to grant a waiver, it would be specific to that. In regards to elevations and floor plans, I do have hard copies if the Board wishes to see those. I do have information that I can show on the screen. In regard to the color scheme, that information also has been provided. The fountain area we’ve denoted that there’s an area where they don’t have an actual description of the fountain that’s going to be in place, so we’ve sort of boxed an area out that it can be no higher than that square feet and things like that, and I’ll let the applicant explain, and then in regards to lighting the applicant shows the two light poles meeting our Code requirements and the in regards to emergency access route, I talked with the Fire Marshal today and the truck is 41.5, the truck that’s going to be accessing that area, and in regards to accessing a particular portion 11 (Queensbury Planning Board 01/25/2022) of the buildings that folks go through, there’s a green space that they have agreed that will be green but it will have a textile fabric so that the fire truck can go over top of that. MR. TRAVER-Okay, and did you get the light pole clarification and the cut sheets and so on? MRS. MOORE-Yes, I did. MR. TRAVER-All right. MRS. MOORE-I have images of all that. So if you would like me to go through that. MR. TRAVER-Why don’t we do both. If it’s okay, Laura, why don’t you pass along those hard copies. Since they were provided we might as well have them available. Welcome back. MR. PALUMBO-Thank you. MR. TRAVER-So it sounds as though we are in pretty good shape with this application. You modified the main concern that we had which was the extra tall light poles. It’s now going to be two compliant light poles. You’ve provided the information requested to the Town, including all of the updated information that we discussed briefly last time with the floor plans and elevations and so on. So thank you very much for your help in providing us with that information. That makes the whole process a lot th easier, and I see that you did receive your variances on the 19 with the ZBA. As a result of your discussion and review with the Zoning Board were there any changes to what you proposed to us? Other than the light poles. MR. PALUMBO-Right. The Zoning Board was very much, they understood what was unique about this. So we didn’t have to make any changes per their action. MR. TRAVER-Okay. All right. Well I’ll open it up for questions, comments from members of the Planning Board. MR. DEEB-You didn’t have discussions about stormwater? MR. PALUMBO-So with the stormwater, excuse me, again, Frank Palumbo with C.T. Male and also Duncan and Joe from The Great Escape. So hopefully we can answer all your questions. With the stormwater, we have, from the original GEIS that was done for the entire parcel, the entire Park, the result was that we meet the conditions of that specific GEIS as long as we increase the permeable surface, and in this case we do that significantly. So I know we meet what we had agreed upon during that SEQR action with GEIS and it’s been what we’ve done on each of the successive projects that we’ve done within the Park. That is on the plans in terms of how much we have increased the green space in there, and I think you can, just by eye, because everybody seems to know where we’re talking about. The amount of green space that we have added back in there is substantial. So that is all new permeable area and so it really decreases, and that was the goal all along was that we would continue to decrease the hard surface and get more soft surface in the center. So we’re confident that we’re doing that, and the only thing I would say is that I can’t 100% say it, but I think we would have it, if we did not have to meet, if we weren’t meeting GEIS and didn’t have that originally, I think we’d even meet the standards under the stormwater regulations to be considered a re-development credit site. So we’ve increased it by that much. So if you had a site that was disturbed and you were bringing it back by a certain level, you actually don’t have to go to those higher thresholds that DEC standards call for with stormwater for treatment and everything else by virtue of getting that permeability back. I know we meet the first level and I’m quite confident we meet both. MR. DEEB-These are the color schemes? MR. PALUMBO-These are the color schemes. MR. DEEB-I kind of like those. They’re nice. MR. PALUMBO-I’m happy that you like them because you asked about the color scheme the last time. MR. DEEB-I mean it’s very appealing. It’s soft. MR. PALUMBO-I think it’s, as I said at the last meeting, I’ve enjoyed working on their projects because they do take that care, and up on the hill, the last project that we did, you know how they brought those facades back, and so it’s not all one color, which I think makes sort of that entry village. It’s the aesthetic total, not just on one individual building. MR. DEEB-It’s just unfortunate we’ve got to have metal detection machines today. It’s just a sad situation. 12 (Queensbury Planning Board 01/25/2022) MR. PALUMBO-I agree wholeheartedly. The good side of it is that we know that once people are in the Park they can feel free to go and enjoy themselves. MR. DEEB-Thank you. MR. TRAVER-Very good. Laura, you mentioned a discussion with the applicant regarding the absence of details on the fountain, but you seem to have agreed on some parameters for that proposed fountain. MRS. MOORE-Right. MR. TRAVER-Do we need to have something added to a perpetual resolution? MRS. MOORE-So the resolution would indicate plans that were received today, noting there’s an update to the information from the Fire Marshal, update to the fountain area specifications and you also have information about the color scheme. So you can say indicate plans that were submitted as of tonight are to be made part of the final plan sets. MR. TRAVER-Okay. MRS. MOORE-Sorry, make that more simple, and then in regards to that fountain feature, if my understanding is correct, corporate hasn’t decided exactly what that is yet and so they’re sort of making room for this element and so when the client, the specific client doesn’t have that information from corporate, it makes it difficult for all parties. MR. TRAVER-Yes, but you have some parameters that they can work with. MR. PALUMBO-So the Board knows, and, Laura, not only does she do a great job in reviewing and getting us to get her stuff, but she figured this one out and I’m sure you would have as well. One of the objects of the fountain area is to have, it’s theme oriented. It’s at the entrance, but also when we were re-looking at this, one of the opportunities, as you know when you exit now, they were separated. What they want to be able to do is have, when people come in, they’ve gotten there, they want to take that picture. So it will have something that is an image that they can take a picture sitting there at the fountain, and likewise when they’re going out of the Park they can still access that area, but it is theme oriented. It will not be garish at all, but Laura was very helpful in suggesting that the Building Department, when they get your plans, they would want to know is there a set height. So we set that about 16 feet. It is envisioned as a small seating level, wall with the features above that, and then also that any lighting would be very specific to the feature, not broadcasting to the, or not creating glare or anything else, and all of that is just, if you can imagine that’s a very detailed design. We wanted to make sure, corporate wanted to make sure that we were okay on the site plan before going to the full scale of that design. MR. TRAVER-It sounds like you saw the value in working with the Planning Department closely on wrapping this up. MR. PALUMBO-Laura has been amazingly helpful and I’m not saying that just so we can get an approval. She really, but we understand as we see the number of projects you have and I always hate to have to call her on a day like today because I know she has so many in front of her, but we were able to get some last items to her and hopefully that’s to the Board’s pleasure. There is one item that I do want to bring up, and we thank you. You know the unique status of Great Escape, and that is they can’t start a project until the season ends and they have to get projects done by season’s beginning, and at no time, even on the projects that you’ve worked with us in the past, has that been more critical to, this is the primary entrance. So even st if a ride that we didn’t quite get done by May 31 or Memorial Day, this one we don’t have as much flexibility. So first we thank you for getting us on early. Now we are at the subject of winter when it will allow for construction to begin. We’re going to be working with the contractors closely, and what we just wanted to be totally up front with is we don’t know exactly how much we’ll be able to get done right this year, and it’s such that I can’t even ask you what would you count as Phase I and Phase II. We’re not phasing the project. It’s just a matter of. MR. TRAVER-That wasn’t part of the proposal, but I can tell you that it really, if you believe that you’re going to exceed the one year window for this, just request an extension. MR. PALUMBO-Yes, and we just wanted to be open about that because we didn’t want anybody to be surprised. MR. DEEB-That’s understandable. MR. TRAVER-Yes, it is. I mean and we’ve had a number of, or I should say some applications where that’s been a factor because of things like COVID and so on. The one year window has been a struggle, and in most cases we’ve been fine with granting an extension. 13 (Queensbury Planning Board 01/25/2022) MR. PALUMBO-Thank you. MR. TRAVER-Generally when those are requested it’s for a very reasonable reason and what you’re describing sounds like just that. So, you know, hopefully you’ll get it all done. If not, just let us know, and, again, call Laura and her staff and we’ll get an extension on the agenda and take care of it that way. MR. PALUMBO-We thank you. MR. TRAVER-Any other questions or comments from members of the Board for the applicant before we move on a resolution? All right. MR. DIXON-Before I do the resolution, the plans that were submitted tonight will be in the final submission? Is that how it works? MR. TRAVER-Yes. What was submitted today to the Planning Office is to be part of the final approved plans. MRS. MOORE-To be part of the final plans. MR. PALUMBO-We will be submitting plans for signature. Those plans will have everything in one that was submitted today. MRS. MOORE-You have a public hearing to open. MR. TRAVER-Okay. All right. Well we do have a public hearing on this application. Is there anyone in the audience that wanted to comment on this application? I’m not seeing anyone. Are there any written comments, Laura? PUBLIC HEARING OPENED MRS. MOORE-There are no written comments. MR. TRAVER-Okay. We’ll go ahead and close the public hearing then. PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED MR. TRAVER-And if we’re ready we’ll have that resolution. RESOLUTION APPROVING SP # 3-2022 & FWW 1-2022 GREAT ESCAPE THEME PARK, LLC The applicant has submitted an application to the Planning Board: 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. Pursuant to relevant sections of the Town of Queensbury Zoning Code-Chapter 179-9-080, the Planning Board has determined that this proposal satisfies the requirements as stated in the Zoning Code; As required by General Municipal Law Section 239-m the site plan application was referred to the Warren County Planning Department for its recommendation; The Planning Board made a recommendation to the Zoning Board of Appeals on January 18, 2022; the ZBA approved the variance requests on January 19, 2022; The Planning Board opened a public hearing on the Site plan application on January25, 2022 and continued the public hearing to January 25, 2022, when it was closed, The Planning Board has reviewed the application materials submitted by the applicant and all comments made at the public hearing and submitted in writing through and including January 25, 2022; The Planning Board determines that the application complies with the review considerations and standards set forth in Article 9 of the Zoning Ordinance for Site Plan approval, MOTION TO APPROVE SITE PLAN 3-2022 & FRESHWATER WETLANDS 1-2022 GREAT ESCAPE THEME PARK, LLC; Introduced by Michael Dixon who moved for its adoption. 14 (Queensbury Planning Board 01/25/2022) According to the draft resolution prepared by Staff with the following: 1) Waivers requested granted: h. signage, j. stormwater, k. topography, , n traffic, o. commercial alterations/ construction details, q. soil logs, r. construction/demolition disposal s. snow removal waivers requested are considered reasonable; 2) The approval is valid for one (1) year from the date of approval. Applicant is responsible for requesting an extension of approval before the one (1) year time frame has expired if you have not yet applied for a building permit or commenced significant site work. 3) Adherence to the items outlined in the follow-up letter sent with this resolution. a) The limits of clearing will constitute a no-cut buffer zone, orange construction fencing shall be installed around these areas and field verified by Community Development staff; b) If applicable, the Sanitary Sewer connection plan must be submitted to the Wastewater Department for its review, approval, permitting and inspection; c) If curb cuts are being added or changed a driveway permit is required. A building permit will not be issued until the approved driveway permit has been provided to the Planning Office; d) If application was referred to engineering then Engineering sign-off required prior to signature of Zoning Administrator of the approved plans; e) Final approved plans should have dimensions and setbacks noted on the site plan/survey, floor plans and elevation for the existing rooms and proposed rooms in the building and site improvements;- f) If required, the applicant must submit a copy of the following to the Town: a. The project NOI (Notice of Intent) for coverage under the current "NYSDEC SPDES General Permit from Construction Activity" prior to the start of any site work. b. The project NOT (Notice of Termination) upon completion of the project; c. The applicant must maintain on their project site, for review by staff: i. The approved final plans that have been stamped by the Town Zoning Administrator. These plans must include the project SWPPP (Storm Water Pollution Prevention Plan) when such a plan was prepared and approved; ii. The project NOI and proof of coverage under the current NYSDEC SPDES General Permit, or an individual SPDES permit issued for the project if required. g) Final approved plans, in compliance with the Site Plan, must be submitted to the Community Development Department before any further review by the Zoning Administrator or Building and Codes personnel; h) The applicant must meet with Staff after approval and prior to issuance of Building Permit and/or the beginning of any site work; i) Subsequent issuance of further permits, including building permits is dependent on compliance with this and all other conditions of this resolution; j) As-built plans to certify that the site plan is developed according to the approved plans to be provided prior to issuance of the certificate of occupancy. k) This resolution is to be placed in its entirety on the final plans. l) Plans submitted today will be included as part of the final approval. th Motion seconded by David Deeb. Duly adopted this 25 day of January 2022 by the following vote: MR. PALUMBO-Just to be completely clear, Laura, we don’t have to do any affirmation of SEQR or anything? MR. TRAVER-No, this is a Type II. MRS. MOORE-It’s part of the original. MR. TRAVER-It’s part of the original that goes back some years, and this doesn’t evidently trigger a re- affirmation. MRS. MOORE-It doesn’t trigger, no. MR. PALUMBO-I heard your first one and it was like reaffirming and I was like do I have to do that? But thank you. MR. DEEB-Being thorough. AYES: Mr. Molloy, Mr. Magowan, Mr. LaSarso, Mr. Deeb, Mr. Dixon, Mr. Longacker, Mr. Traver NOES: NONE ABSENT: Mr. Valentine MR. TRAVER-You’re all set. 15 (Queensbury Planning Board 01/25/2022) MR. PALUMBO-Thank you very much. MR. TRAVER-The next item on our agenda is Dan Slote/EDP, application 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 this application is to construction a 1,200 square foot bunkhouse. The applicant did th receive the variance from the Zoning Board of Appeals on January 19, and there are no further changes per the Zoning Board. I did suggest that the Board request information on the shoreline plantings. As you know, this particular application has, the majority of the work is away from the shoreline, but as part of Site Plan Review you have the opportunity to look at shoreline plantings. They had also indicated they would provide additional information. MR. TRAVER-Okay. Thank you. Good evening. Welcome back. MR. KEIL-Good evening. Chris Keil with EDP with Dan Slote. So just to re-cap, at the ZBA we discussed this idea of the bunkhouse as a remote bedroom and the new septic system. We’re here to answer any questions. MR. TRAVER-Okay. Two questions. One, in your discussion with the ZBA, were there any changes to the plan that we saw? MR. KEIL-No, there were not. MR. TRAVER-And what about the shoreline plantings, the buffer requirement? How do you stand with that? MR. KEIL-Sure. Since our last meeting, visited the site, spoke with Dan at length about that. Currently, well first of all the site, there’s quite a bit of shallow ledge rock throughout the site, which makes planting challenging, but along the shoreline setback area there’s at least two dozen mature trees within that zone, the waterfront zone, from the house to the lake, and our closest permanent impact disturbance from the lake is about 108 feet. So uphill there will be the new pump tank, holding tank, which is just temporary in currently a paved area. So our view on that is like most of the disturbance is so far from the lake. It’s already on the existing hard surface that, you know, any sort of impact to shoreline, stormwater would be very minimal. MR. TRAVER-Okay. Thank you for that. Questions, comments from members of the Board? We did discuss this at some length prior to the ZBA review. MR. DEEB-I’d like to go back to the idea if you ever did sell the property, we want to make sure that there are assurances that it won’t be rented. You said you’d be willing to put a deed restriction in? MR. SLOTE-That’s what came to mind. I don’t know if that’s something that is legally binding that allows that, or that is allowed. So it would certainly be something I would look into. MR. DEEB-I know you have no plans to sell it, but there could come a time in the future. MR. SLOTE-Absolutely. We’re putting it in a trust for my son at some point. MR. DEEB-You never know. I don’t know what the legality of it is. MR. SLOTE-I’m in commercial development. So it’s one of the first things that came to mind that there might be an ability to put something together. Again, Mr. Traver did bring up a good point. Certainly to rent something you need to have a kitchen. We have no plan on putting a kitchen in this, and if we were to even attempt to put a kitchen in, I’d have to sit back in front of you and have the same conversation, 16 (Queensbury Planning Board 01/25/2022) whether it be with this Board. So even there’s a vehicle to be accommodated, then I’m happy to do that. I’ve personally rented, but I’ve never rented a personal home. MR. TRAVER-Yes, let me check with Laura. Laura, do you have any suggestions? MRS. MOORE-So I think the condition that may be viable, that’s enforceable, is a condition that there be no kitchen, and that’s something that would be placed on the plan. In reference to deed restrictions, the Planning Board doesn’t get involved with enforcing deed restrictions. We stay away from that. MR. TRAVER-Right. We would make that a condition? MRS. MOORE-I would make it a condition that it be placed on the plat, there’s no kitchen to be installed in the bunkhouse. MR. TRAVER-Right. Okay. All right. Thank you, Laura. All right. Any other questions, comments from members of the Board before we move forward? MR. DIXON-Mr. Chairman, I do have, it’s more of curiosity. So on the site plans, and I didn’t catch it before. So I see the paved surface that goes between the two buildings. Are you proposing any additional walkways to connect the bunkhouse to the original? MR. SLOTE-There’s only the driveway. It’s so steep. So guests and my wife and I can go up and down the hill, but none whatsoever, any type of steps from the one house cottage to the bunkhouse. No. MR. DIXON-As far as shoreline plantings, I know Laura had made a comment. Are you planning on putting any additional plantings in there? MR. SLOTE-So when we bought the house the shoreline was covered in brush. The brush we had removed 20 years ago and all of the mature trees flourished. We have, from the dock to the right there has to be at least eight huge white pines of 75 to 100 feet, and when we built the house, or renovated, the had people come up from Albany who we built a long-term relationship with, and we had them do a ton of plantings around the house, bushes. In the interim as things have died, even the flattest area where there’s still a lot of rock, I spent three weekends this summer putting in well over 60 hosta, you know, things like that. We’re constantly doing those things. We have no intent of putting any new trees in only because it is so darn difficult. Every shovel is not a shovelful. It’s rock. I would encourage a visit. There are mature trees on this nine tenths of an acre that are all of 75 to 100 feet from the shoreline , all the way up to the back, to Burnt Ridge Road. MR. DIXON-I know just looking at Google map, looking down, it’s very, it’s definitely a wooded lot. MR. TRAVER-Yes. MR. SLOTE-I think you can barely see the house. MR. TRAVER-I’ve seen it from the water, too. Okay. Anything else? All right. I think we have a resolution. MS. GAGLIARDI=Excuse me. You need to open a public hearing. MR. TRAVER-Thank you. Yes. There is a public hearing on this application. I’m not seeing anyone in the audience that wants to comment. Are there any written comments, Laura? PUBLIC HEARING OPENED MRS. MOORE-There are no written comments. MR. TRAVER-All right. Then we will open and we will close the public hearing. PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED MR. TRAVER-Thank you, Maria. RESOLUTION APPROVING SP # 1-2022 DAN SLOTE The applicant has submitted an application to the Planning Board: 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. 17 (Queensbury Planning Board 01/25/2022) Pursuant to relevant sections of the Town of Queensbury Zoning Code-Chapter 179-9-080, the Planning Board has determined that this proposal satisfies the requirements as stated in the Zoning Code; As required by General Municipal Law Section 239-m the site plan application was referred to the Warren County Planning Department for its recommendation; The Planning Board made a recommendation to the Zoning Board of Appeals on January 18, 2022; the ZBA approved the variance requests on January 19, 2022; The Planning Board opened a public hearing on the Site plan application on January 25, 2022 and continued the public hearing to January 25, 2022, when it was closed, The Planning Board has reviewed the application materials submitted by the applicant and all comments made at the public hearing and submitted in writing through and including January 25, 2022; The Planning Board determines that the application complies with the review considerations and standards set forth in Article 9 of the Zoning Ordinance for Site Plan approval, MOTION TO APPROVE SITE PLAN NO. 1-2022 DAN SLOTE; Introduced by Michael Dixon who moved for its adoption. According to the draft resolution prepared by Staff with the following: 1) Waivers requested granted: g. site lighting, h. signage, l. landscaping, n traffic, o. commercial alterations/ construction details, r. construction/demolition disposal s. snow removal, waivers requested are considered reasonable; 2) The approval is valid for one (1) year from the date of approval. Applicant is responsible for requesting an extension of approval before the one (1) year time frame has expired if you have not yet applied for a building permit or commenced significant site work. 3) Adherence to the items outlined in the follow-up letter sent with this resolution. a) The limits of clearing will constitute a no-cut buffer zone, orange construction fencing shall be installed around these areas and field verified by Community Development staff; b) If applicable, the Sanitary Sewer connection plan must be submitted to the Wastewater Department for its review, approval, permitting and inspection; c) If curb cuts are being added or changed a driveway permit is required. A building permit will not be issued until the approved driveway permit has been provided to the Planning Office; d) If application was referred to engineering then Engineering sign-off required prior to signature of Zoning Administrator of the approved plans; e) Final approved plans should have dimensions and setbacks noted on the site plan/survey, floor plans and elevation for the existing rooms and proposed rooms in the building and site improvements;- f) If required, the applicant must submit a copy of the following to the Town: a. The project NOI (Notice of Intent) for coverage under the current "NYSDEC SPDES General Permit from Construction Activity" prior to the start of any site work. b. The project NOT (Notice of Termination) upon completion of the project; c. The applicant must maintain on their project site, for review by staff: i. The approved final plans that have been stamped by the Town Zoning Administrator. These plans must include the project SWPPP (Storm Water Pollution Prevention Plan) when such a plan was prepared and approved; ii. The project NOI and proof of coverage under the current NYSDEC SPDES General Permit, or an individual SPDES permit issued for the project if required. g) Final approved plans, in compliance with the Site Plan, must be submitted to the Community Development Department before any further review by the Zoning Administrator or Building and Codes personnel; h) The applicant must meet with Staff after approval and prior to issuance of Building Permit and/or the beginning of any site work; i) Subsequent issuance of further permits, including building permits is dependent on compliance with this and all other conditions of this resolution; j) As-built plans to certify that the site plan is developed according to the approved plans to be provided prior to issuance of the certificate of occupancy. k) This resolution is to be placed in its entirety on the final plans. l) There’ll be no kitchen installed in the bunkhouse with a note placed on the final plans. th Motion seconded by Brad Magowan. Duly adopted this 25 day of January 2022 by the following vote: MRS. MOORE-I would just add that that note be placed on the final plans. The applicant understands that, but I don’t know if you want to amend that. 18 (Queensbury Planning Board 01/25/2022) MR. TRAVER-Yes, we should clarify that. MR. DIXON-With a note placed on the final plans. MRS. MOORE-Yes. MR. TRAVER-So just read that one condition over, if you would, for the record. MR. DIXON-Item L. There’ll be no kitchen installed in the bunkhouse with a note placed on the final plans. AYES: Mr. Magowan, Mr. LaSarso, Mr. Deeb, Mr. Dixon, Mr. Longacker, Mr. Molloy, Mr. Traver NOES: NONE ABSENT: Mr. Valentine MR. TRAVER-You’re all set. MR. SLOTE-Thank you very much. MR. TRAVER-Is there any other business before the Board this evening? It does sound like next month we may have a bigger agenda than we’ve had this month. Laura, is that safe to assume? MRS. MOORE-That is safe to assume. MR. TRAVER-Yes. So be prepared for that, and I thank you all, and we’ll see you next month and we’ll entertain a motion to adjourn. TH MOTION TO ADJOURN THE QUEENSBURY PLANNING BOARD MEETING OF JANUARY 25, 2022, Introduced by David Deeb who moved for its adoption, seconded by Brad Magowan: th Duly adopted this 25 day of January, 2022, by the following vote: AYES: Mr. Deeb, Mr. Dixon, Mr. Molloy, Mr. Longacker, Mr. Magowan, Mr. LaSarso, Mr. Traver NOES: NONE ABSENT: Mr. Valentine MR. TRAVER-We stand adjourned. Thank you, everybody. On motion meeting was adjourned. RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED, Stephen Traver, Chairman 19