Loading...
06-21-2022 (Queensbury Planning Board 06/21/2022) QUEENSBURYPTANNINGBOARD MEETING FIRSTREGUTAR MEETING JUNE2IST 2022 INDEX Site Plan No.21-2021 Ron&Ruth Jameson 1. EXTENSION REQUEST Tax Map No.2S9.11-1-24 Site Plan No. 66-2021 CVE North America,Inc. 2. TO INCLUDE ACCESS REQUEST Tax Map No.296.17-1-42,296.13-1-17.2 Site Plan No.25-2022 3 Antigua Road,LLC 3. ZBA RECOMMENDATION Tax Map No.239.17-1-2 Site Plan No.40-2022 Joe Sheehan 6. ZBA RECOMMENDATION Tax Map No.227.13-2-42 Site Plan No. 36-2022 Alice and Jack Lynch S. ZBA RECOMMENDATION Tax Map No.239.15-1-15 Site Plan No. 39-2022 Meghan Orban 12. ZBA RECOMMENDATION Tax Map No.226.16-1-7,226.16-1-9 (secondary access rd.) Site Plan No. 35-2022 Morgan Gazetos/Greg Francis 16. ZBA RECOMMENDATION Tax Map No.239.20-1-19 Site Plan No. 33-2022 Kimberly Butler 27. Tax Map No. 302.5-1-1 Site Plan No. 3S-2022 Everts Ave Self Storage 29. Tax Map No. 302.S-2-66.12 THESE ARE NOT OFFICIALLY ADOPTED MINUTES AND ARE SUBJECT TO BOARD AND STAFF REVISIONS. REVISIONS WILL APPEAR ON THE FOLLOWING MONTH'S MINUTES(IF ANY)AND WILL STATE SUCH APPROVAL OF SAID MINUTES. 1 (Queensbury Planning Board 06/21/2022) QUEENSBURY PLANNING BOARD MEETING FIRST REGULAR MEETING JUNE 21ST,2022 7.00 P.M. MEMBERS PRESENT STEPHEN TRAVER,CHAIRMAN DAVID DEEB,VICE CHAIRMAN MICHAEL DIXON,SECRETARY JACKSON LA SARSO WARREN LONGACKER BRAD MAGOWAN BRADY STARK,ALTERNATE MEMBERS ABSENT JOHN MOLLOY LAND USE PLANNER-LAURA MOORE STENOGRAPHER-MARIA GAGLIARDI MR.TRAVER-Good evening,ladies and gentlemen. Welcome to the Town of Queensbury Planning Board meeting for Tuesday,June 21",2022. This is our first meeting for the month of June and our 13`h meeting thus far this year. If you would make note of the illuminated exit signs. In the event that we have an emergency in the building those are the emergency exits. If you have a cellphone or other electronic device if you would either turn it off or turn the ringer off so as not to interfere with our discussion this evening we'd appreciate that. Also we do have a couple of public hearings this evening but aside from that,we'd appreciate if the audience would,if you want to have discussions amongst yourselves,if you could go out into the outer lobby for that purpose so that nothing interferes with the recording of our meeting this evening. I also want to recognize Nathan Etu, welcome him to the Planning Board. He is our newly appointed alternate on the Planning Board. He has some good experience and he's going to bring a lot of value to the Planning Board. So welcome aboard and thank you. MR. MAGOWAN-Welcome,Nathan. MR. TRAVER-Thank you for your service. We have a couple of Administrative Items this evening. The first is approval of minutes from our April 19 and April 26, 2022 meetings. I believe we have a draft resolution. APPROVAL OF MINUTES April 19`h,2022 April 26`h,2022 MOTION TO APPROVE THE QUEENSBURY PLANNING BOARD MEETING MINUTES OF APRIL 19`h, 2022 AND APRIL 26th, 2022, Introduced by Michael Dixon who moved for its adoption, seconded by Brady Stark: Duly adopted this 21srh day of June,2022,by the following vote: AYES: Mr. Deeb,Mr. Dixon,Mr. Longacker, Mr. Stark,Mr. Magowan,Mr. LaSarso,Mr. Traver NOES: NONE ABSENT: Mr. Molloy MR. TRAVER-All right. Thank you, and then we have Site Plan 21-2021, Ron & Ruth Jameson are requesting a one year extension. ADMINISTRATIVE ITEMS: SITE PLAN 21-2021 RON&z RUTH JAMESON REQUEST FOR ONE YEAR EXTENSION MR. TRAVER-And we have a letter. Laura? 2 (Queensbury Planning Board 06/21/2022) MRS.MOORE-So this applicant has satisfied the engineering comments and has submitted final plans but still needs to request the extension because they have not started construction yet. MR. TRAVER-Understood. Okay. All right. Any questions, concerns with that request? I believe we have a draft resolution. RESOLUTION GRANTING A ONE YEAR EXTENSION SP#21-2021 RON&r RUTH JAMESON Applicant proposed to demo an existing home and garage to construct a new home with a 2,440 sq. ft. footprint and a 3,47E sq. ft. floor area including an attached garage and a covered patio. The project includes associated site work for grading, stormwater controls and plantings. Revision: New home is to be located further from the shoreline. Pursuant to Chapter 179-3-040 & 179-6-065 of the Zoning Ordinance,hard surfacing within 50 ft.of shoreline and newfloor area in a CEA shall be subject to Planning Board review and approval. The Planning Board approved Site Plan 21-2021 on June 22,2021. MOTION TO APPROVE A ONE YEAR EXTENSION FOR SITE PLAN 21-2021 RON &z RUTH JAMESON. Introduced by Michael Dixon who moved for its adoption,seconded by Brad Magowan. Duly adopted this 21"day of June 2022 by the following vote: AYES: Mr. Dixon, Mr. Longacker,Mr. Stark,Mr. Magowan,Mr. LaSarso,Mr. Deeb,Mr. Traver NOES: NONE ABSENT: Mr. Molloy MR. TRAVER-Next we have,for Site Plan 66-2021 CVE North America. SITE PLAN 66-2021 REVIEW AND RECOMMENDATION ON PROPOSED OPEN AREA DESIGNATION PER TOWN LAW 280-A ACCESS MR. TRAVER-Evidently in our original Recommendation there was an access request omitted,Laura? MRS. MOORE-Correct. So I don't know if anyone had a chance to read through that section of law that I delineated with the Staff Notes. MR. TRAVER-It was a little hard to read. MRS. MOORE-It's also unusual. The applicant has the right to go to the Town Board for this request. Most times the applicants go to the Zoning Board for this type of request and because there's a Town law that says that they can go to the Town Board, as part of their Petition for Zone Change we should have provided a recommendation as part of your positive recommendation to the Town Board. MR. TRAVER-Okay. So if no members of the Board have a concern about that access modification to our recommendation to the Town Board, we have a motion to re-affirm the positive recommendation. Does anyone have any concerns,comments,questions? MR. DEEB-No. MR. TRAVER-Okay. We have a draft resolution. RESOLUTION RE-AFFIRMING RECOMMENDATION TO TOWN BOARD CVE The applicant proposes a solar farm on site 303.11-1-4.1,with access by right of way through parce1303.15- 1-25.2. 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. The project is 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. Upon review of the information recorded on the application and 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,in regards to 2SOa, access is acceptable,therefore; MOTION TO REAFFIRM POSITIVE RECOMMENDATION TO TOWN BOARD TO INCLUDE 280a FOR SITE PLAN 66-2021,FRESHWATER WETLANDS 3-2021&z SPECIAL USE PERMIT 4- 2021 CVE NORTH AMERICA, INC. Introduced by Michael Dixon who moved for its adoption, seconded by Brady Stark; 3 (Queensbury Planning Board 06/21/2022) Duly adopted this 21"day of June 2022 by the following vote: AYES: Mr. Longacker,Mr. Stark,Mr. Magowan,Mr. LaSarso,Mr. Deeb,Mr. Dixon,Mr. Traver NOES: NONE ABSENT: Mr. Molloy MR. TRAVER-Okay,and then we move to our regular agenda. The first item is a Tabled Item. This is for a variance recommendation to the Zoning Board of Appeals. This is 3 Antigua Road, LLC, Site Plan 25- 2022. TABLED ITEM: SITE PLAN NO. 25-2022 SEQR TYPE: TYPE 11. 3 ANTIGUA ROAD,LLC. AGENT(S): EDP. OWNER(S): SAME AS APPLICANT. ZONING: WR. LOCATION: 3&z 5 ANTIGUA ROAD. (REVISED) APPLICANT PROPOSES TO CONSTRUCT A NEW 1,225 SQ. FT. HOME WITH AN 845 SQ. FT. COVERED PATIO;TOTAL FLOOR AREA IS 3,979 SQ. FT. THE NEW HOME WILL BE GREATER THAN 28 FT. IN HEIGHT. THE DRIVEWAY AREA INCLUDES 7,483 SQ. FT. OF HARD SURFACING AND 1,170 SQ. FT. OF PERMEABLE PAVERS. THE PARCEL THAT IS LOCATED IN THE TOWN OF QUEENSBURY ADJOINS A PARCEL THAT IS IN THE TOWN OF LAKE GEORGE THAT HAS FRONTAGE ON THE LAKE. THE PROJECT INCLUDES A NEW AREA FOR THE OUTDOOR KITCHEN THAT IS LOCATED IN BOTH THE TOWN OF LAKE GEORGE AND THE TOWN OF QUEENSBURY. PURSUANT TO CHAPTER 179-9-020,179-3-040, 179-6-065 AND CHAPTER 147, SITE PLAN FOR A NEW FLOOR AREA IN A CEA SHALL BE SUBJECT TO PLANNING BOARD REVIEW AND APPROVAL. VARIANCE: RELIEF IS SOUGHT FOR SETBACK, HEIGHT, AND PERMEABILITY. PLANNING BOARD SHALL PROVIDE A RECOMMENDATION TO THE ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS. CROSS REFERENCE: AV 59- 2014,AV 22-2022. WARREN CO.REFERRAL: MAY 2022. SITE INFORMATION: APA,LGPC, CEA. LOT SIZE: .74 ACRES. TAX MAP NO.239.17-1-2. SECTION: 179-9-020,179-6-065,179-3- 040,AND CHAPTER 147. JON ZAPPER&BRANDON FERGUSON,REPRESENTING APPLICANT,PRESENT MR. TRAVER-Laura? MRS. MOORE-So this application has been revised from its original proposal and it's a unique situation because this property, this owns the property in the Town of Lake George as well as the Town of Queensbury. If you look at this lot, the frontage on Lake George is in the Town of Lake George and the smaller portion is located in the Town of Queensbury where the applicant had a fire to an existing building. The applicant is proposing to re-build anew building. It's not in the same footprint so it ends upcoming before this Board. So at this time it's proposed to be a 1,225 square foot footprint with an 845 square foot covered patio. New total floor area is 3,979. The new home is greater than 28 feet. So that's one of the relief being requested, and in regards to setback for a structure to the lake, the setback portion of that structure is within the Town of Lake George so that setback to the shoreline is not correct, but there is relief for a rear setback because of the way the property line runs. That actually becomes a Town border between the two properties. It ends up being a rear property line in the Town of Queensbury. So relief is being requested from that,as well as stormwater devices less than 100 feet from the shoreline. MR. TRAVER-Okay. Thank you. Good evening. MR. ZAPPER-Good evening, everyone. For the record Jon Lapper with Brandon Ferguson from Environmental Design,the project engineers,Joe Gross the applicant and Ethan Hall the project architect. So as Laura referenced,this is a very interesting story and a very interesting application. The fact that we have the Town line,which all of the properties on Antigua have the Town line going through,but here we have the rear setback, which would usually be a lake setback because it's on the lakeside, but because Queensbury doesn't have the lake frontage it's a rear setback. So that's actually in the middle of the outdoor kitchen area, and Lake George has a 50 foot building setback. Queensbury has 75. It's very interesting, the two ordinances together on this property, but there's certainly no impact to having the zero footprint when it's butting up against the rest of the building that's in the Town of Lake George and we need variances from Lake George and we're working through that as well, but the other interesting part of this story is the fire. So Joe bought the property about a year ago, and he had the right,right after he bought it the guest cottage burned down, and it was such a severe fire that it almost took out the large building, the large house next door. He's having everything re-faced in granite. So it would certainly make it better fireproof,but because of the fire he had the right to replace everything in kind,which,what he's doing now is moving it way back from the north property line. The guesthouse could have been where it was and it's shorter than it was. The reason for the one and a half foot height variance,from 28 foot to 4 (Queensbury Planning Board 06/21/2022) 29 and a half feet,is just,Brandon will show you the diagram,but it's a very,very small portion of the roof and it just has to do with the grade of the lot where in that portion it's a little higher than the 2S feet,but it's really small, and then the last one,the infiltration device,we couldn't get it quite the 75 feet,but it's as close as we could, and it's going to be very effective, and it won't be any impact on the lake because it's set back so far from the lake. So with that,if you could just walk them through. MR. FERGUSON-So I had a little presentation here. So here's the existing parcel. As you can see this blue line. It's so hard to see on this. That is the Town line. So Lake George has lake frontage and Queensbury has the road frontage. Here's an existing survey of the property. So the existing house is located pretty much entirely within the Town of Lake George, and this area over here is where the guest cottage was before it burned. So in total there's about.74 acres within the Town of Queensbury. This is an aerial photograph from before the guest cottage burned down. So you can see that guest cottage located in this location here as well as the driveway access to it. So it's up in that area. It's a little hard to see,and here was a partial survey we had found that kind of showed where that guest cottage was, and so we were able to kind of place it on the lot and get building setbacks and know that it was within that side yard setback. So as far as the variances we're going for, as Laura kind of said the shoreline setback is the first one listed. Because the area that's within that 75 feet is within the Town of Lake George, which is a 50 foot setback,because they're in a different APA zone,that one no longer applies. The rear yard setback is supposed to be 30. We're asking for zero because the rear yard setback is the Town line between his two parcels. Infiltration device from the lake, required is 100. We're at 76, but there's not really any stormwater management on that side of the house existing, and for height, 2S is required and we are proposing 29 and a half,just a little over. So this, I can skip through these couple of slides because they talk about the setback to the shoreline. So we get into the rear yard setback. As I said before,here's,this right here is that outdoor kitchen/patio area that's covered. So it's actually split between the Town of Lake George and the Town of Queensbury,pretty much 50/50. So this is the Town line which becomes the rear property line. So we end up being required to get that setback variance to that line,but he owns both of them. They're all attached to the existing home as well. Stormwater setback from the lake. So on the lakeside of the house,the majority of it is in the Town of Lake George,but this is all going to be a permeable patio out here in front of the home. So that's where this portion of it that's within 100 feet of the lake is right here and it's under that outdoor kitchen. It's all going to be a stone reservoir underneath the patio in there to help collect and infiltrate the stormwater, and that's taking this roof runoff from the outdoor patio from part of the guest cottage and from part of the existing house. So it's not taking any driveway runoff. That's all being handled further from the lake over 100 feet away, and then when we get to building height, which is kind of what Jon was talking about, this diagram here. So the red line is actually existing grade. So if you measure from existing grade, our entire new structure would be under the 2S feet,but because he's doing a walkout on the lakeside,he has to lower that grade on the lakeside a little bit and the house, the structure will get built into that hill. That's what pushes this very minor portion of the house over that 2S feet, and Ethan worked really hard on this trying to get under 2S. He played with a bunch of different roof designs, a bunch of different layouts on the building and this is as close as he could get,hipped the roof and everything on the front to really cut back on that height variance request,but even if you push it back further into the hill,because we're holding grade here for the walkout, that's what controls this 2S feet, or the 29 and a half foot height. And even when you go to the existing guest cottage,what was there before,this is kind of an old photo I found,I mean it was kind of in that same location,it didn't have the walkout,but really from a height standpoint,you know,above the lake from the roof, it's going to be about the same as it was previously. So it's not like we're going much higher than what was there before, and then these are the floor plans for that guest cottage, outdoor kitchen. This is the basement plan, kind of a rec area within the guest house that's why he's got the walkout, kind of a shared space. The second floor,kind of the ground level floor,will be the garage with a bathroom,and then upstairs will be the guest living quarters. So a couple of bedrooms,kitchen, a bathroom, and you can see he kind of really built it in to the dormers trying to really maximize the use of every space up there in order to limit the amount of roof that was above that 2S feet. Here's just a couple of building elevations. Proposed, this is kind of the proposed site layout, the guest cottage over here, outdoor kitchen, colored rendering. We're doing a lot of plantings on the Lake George side,and then we have a building rendering that we did from the lake. As you can see the guest cottage is back in here kind of pushed back behind everything else. There's the outdoor kitchen area. We did a couple of them. That's a nigh one. It's hard to see the evening one. We did a few different renderings here as well. I'll turn it back over to you guys if you have any questions,comments. MR. TRAVER-Yes. First I'm wondering,where are you at with the Town of Lake George? MR. ZAPPER-We've been to the Planning Board,the Zoning Board. The Zoning Board asked us to add a bunch of landscaping to block the wall in front. So we just are going back to show them that next time. The Planning Board was ready to approve it but we had to get the variance first. So we're working out way through it. Should be done in July. MR. TRAVER-Okay. Questions, comments from members of the Board? And a reminder we're here tonight for the recommendation for the variances,not for site plan review. That will come later. 5 (Queensbury Planning Board 06/21/2022) MR. MAGOWAN-I just have to say it really is a unique project. I don't know if I've ever seen one where the Town line goes right through the middle of the property, and so it was kind of confusing trying to figure out what's front and rear and that,but a lot of this is in Lake George. I don't have a problem with the rear setback since really everything always,they say the lake is the front. So even though it's the front, that's what's so confusing about it, but, no, it will be a nice project, and looking at it next to the other house,because that's the house that's existing now, and this is,for the height for that foot and a half, and it's such a small portion and I understand it's with the slope of the line and you worked hard to keep it down as low as possible,but it is still lower than the house next door. I don't think you're even going to notice it,that 16 inches. MR. TRAVER-Other comments,questions,concerns regarding the variances? MR. DEEB-I'm just curious,how do you keep the tax bills straight? I mean,wow. MR.TRAVER-Yes,I don't remember which one,we have had at least one other that I can remember where, perhaps not 500/o,but some part of the project was in the Town. And we also had, quite a while ago, we had a logging project that was within the Town, and I think when we had the zip line, there was part of that that was part. MR. DEEB-Yes,that was Lake Luzerne and Queensbury. MR. ZAPPER-It makes them all trickier when you've got two towns. MR. TRAVER-Yes. As the agenda shows, we're here to make a recommendation to the ZBA regarding these variances. Does anyone have any specific recommendations or concerns that we want to pass along to the ZBA as they look at this? MR. DIXON-I think some of it falls on the Lake George side. MR. TRAVER-And apparently they're progressing through that process. All right, well then if there's nothing specific,we have a resolution. RESOLUTION RE: ZBA RECOMMENDATION RE: AV#22-2022 3 ANTIGUA ROAD,LLC The applicant has submitted an application for the following: (Revised)Applicant proposes to construct a new 1,225 sq.ft.home with an S45 sq.ft.covered patio footprints;new total floor area is 3,979 sq.ft. The new home will be greater than 2S ft. The driveway area includes 7,453 sq.ft.of hard surfacing and 1,170 sq. ft.of permeable pavers. The parcel that is located in the Town of Queensbury adjoins a parcel that is in the Town of Lake George that has frontage on the lake. The project includes new area for the outdoor kitchen that is located in both the Town of Lake George and Queensbury. Pursuant to Chapter 179-9-020,179-6- 065,179-3-040 and Chapter 147, site plan for a new floor area in a CEA shall be subject to Planning Board review and approval. Variance: Relief is sought for setback and height. 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 22-2022 3 ANTIGUA ROAD, LLC. 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. Motion seconded by Jackson LaSarso. Duly adopted this 21"day of June 2022 by the following vote: AYES: Mr. Stark,Mr. Magowan,Mr. LaSarso, Mr. Deeb,Mr. Dixon, Mr. Longacker,Mr. Traver NOES: NONE ABSENT: Mr. Molloy MR. ZAPPER-Thanks,everybody. Hope to be back on Thursday to talk about this more. 6 (Queensbury Planning Board 06/21/2022) MR. TRAVER-The next section of our agenda is also recommendations to the Zoning Board of Appeals. The first item is Joe Sheehan. This is Site Plan 40-2022. PLANNING BOARD RECOMMENDATIONS TO THE ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS: SITE PLAN NO.40-2022 SEQR TYPE: TYPE 11. JOE SHEEHAN. AGENT(S): EDP. OWNER(S): SAME AS APPLICANT. ZONING: WR. LOCATION: 80 ROCKHURST ROAD. APPLICANT PROPOSES A 618 SQ. FT. GARAGE ADDITION TO AN EXISTING HOME AND A 500 SQ. FT. DECK TO REPLACE AN EXISTING DECK. A PORTION OF THE NEW DECK WILL BE COVERED AREA. UPDATES TO THE COVERED ENTRY WAY ARE ALSO PROPOSED. THE PROJECT INCLUDES STORMWATER MANAGEMENT, SHORELINE PLANTINGS, RETAINING WALL AND STEPS TO BE RECONSTRUCTED. THE NEW FOOTPRINT OF THE HOME WILL BE 2,500 SQ.FT.AND A FLOOR AREA OF 3,728 SQ.FT. PURSUANT TO CHAPTER 179-3-040,147,179-5-020,179-6-065,179-13-010,SITE PLAN FOR NEW FLOOR AREA IN A CEA, HARD SURFACING WITHIN 50 FT. OF THE SHORELINE, AND EXPANSION OF A NON- CONFORMING STRUCTURE SHALL BE SUBJECT TO PLANNING BOARD REVIEW AND APPROVAL. VARIANCE: RELIEF IS SOUGHT FOR SETBACKS AND FLOOR AREA. PLANNING BOARD SHALL PROVIDE A RECOMMENDATION TO THE ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS. CROSS REFERENCE: AV 27-2022. WARREN CO.REFERRAL: JUNE 2022. SITE INFORMATION: CEA,LGPC,APA. LOT SIZE: .22 ACRES. TAX MAP NO.179-3-040,147,179- 5-020,179-6-065,179-13-010. TAX MAP NO. 227.13-2-42. SECTION: 179-3-040,147,179-5-020, 179-6-065,179-13-010. ETHAN HALL&BRANDON FERGUSON,REPRESENTING APPLICANT,PRESENT MR. TRAVER-Laura? MRS. MOORE-This applicant proposes a 61S square foot footprint garage addition to the existing home and a 500 square foot deck to replace an existing deck. A portion of that new deck will be a covered porch. Relief is being requested for the deck addition to the shoreline, the deck addition to the south property line, and then the garage addition relief is being requested from the north side as well as the front yard. Relief is being requested from permeability and the floor area ratio. MR. TRAVER-Okay. Thank you. Good evening. For your records, principle with Rucinski Hall Architecture and with me tonight is Brandon Ferguson from EDP. Just a quick rundown of the owner of the property. You remember back in 2015 there was a boating accident on Lake George where the bilge tanks got filled with gasoline and the boat exploded. Joe Sheehan is the guy who was on the boat. MR. TRAVER-He got blown overboard and I guess if I remember right he was not seriously hurt. MR.HALL-No. He was burned over 730/o of his body. MR. TRAVER-He was? MR. HALL-Yes. So Joe's medical condition and where he is in his recovery because of the burns that he suffered, he really cannot be exposed to direct sunlight. He has to wear gloves, long sleeves, hats, long pants forever. So what he's trying to accomplish here, this is his family's home, and it's been there since he was a child, and what he'd like to do is make this,he lives currently down in Downstate, down in the Queens area,Forest Hills, and he would like to eventually make this his permanent residence. To do that, we not only have to make it accessible for him,because he knows that in time he will be in a wheelchair. Currently he's still mobile,but he knows that in time that's going to come to an end and to be able to get from his vehicle into a garage, into the house without spending a great deal of time outside. That also is the reason for having the covered front deck. Right now currently the deck is not covered. So rather than do the whole of the deck,we thought for aesthetic purposes it was better suited to put just a third of the whole of the deck covered so that some of it can still be open So that if people wanted to enjoy it that way they could,but this allows Joe to be outside and not in the direct sunshine. So those are really the reasons for most of the variances that we're asking for. The lot itself,obviously,if you look at the shaded area on Drawing C-1,that's the allowable space to build in,which is rather small. MR. TRAVER-Yes,small. MR. HALL-So no matter what we're going to do we knew we were going to be seeking variances. Floor area ratio is obviously the biggest one that we're asking for, and most of that is because of the size of the garage that he's going to need to be able to have an accessible van that he can get in and out of. So really that's about the extent of where we're at with it. MR. TRAVER-Okay. Questions,comments from members of the Planning Board? 7 (Queensbury Planning Board 06/21/2022) MR. DIXON-I have a couple of questions. Underneath the deck there's an existing concrete patio. Are you planning on taking that out and replacing it with concrete,or it's in good shape? MR.HALL-No,it's coming out. It's not in very good shape. MR. FERGUSON-It's still going to be a patio under there. MR. HALL-It's still going to be a patio. I'm not sure what the material is underneath it. I would say it will likely be something solid,a paver or patio block of some sort. MR. DIXON-Because I think one of the variances was for permeability. MR. FERGUSON-Yes,but I think the permeability is actually getting better on the site,because they are taking out,so the concrete slab and pad over on this side of the structure. MR. HALL-Currently that whole area to the south is paved right to the property line,right from the road right to the retaining wall to the lake that's all pavement. So that's all coming out. MR.FERGUSON-Yes,so I think existing there's over 620/o permeable and proposed will be a little over 67. MR. TRAVER-Seventy five is required. MR. FERGUSON-So it would be an improvement over what's required. MRS. MOORE-So there's not a relief being requested for permeability. MR.HALL-Yes,just for setbacks and floor area ratio. MR. TRAVER-And floor area is 40.41 and 2S is the maximum allowed. MR.HALL-The current is. MR. TRAVE R-Thirty-three. MR. HALL-Thirty-three and change. So as I said the floor area ratio that is there,there's currently a full basement,a walkout basement,a main floor and then there's attic space that is over five feet of height. So that's all counted towards the existing floor area ratio. When we get done, that's all going to become vaulted space. So that kind of cuts that out,but the garage is what the kicks the floor area ratio up higher. We're not doing space over the garage. I mean the garage itself has a high bay in it because he's going to need a van with a high top to get in and out of, and we're not proposing putting space above the garage. We're just putting the garage up there to kind of match the house peak. So we don't flatten the front of t the garage and a nice high peak on the house. The house is actually,it's a barn that was originally part of, I think he said it was part of the Sagamore that got moved here in like the early 1900's. It's a timber building. It's been around for a while. MR. DEEB-Well the biggest setback is Side Yard 2. Forty feet one inch. Is that the garage? MR.HALL-That's the garage,on the north side of the building. MR. FERGUSON-Yes, the other side actually it's a variance because they're replacing the deck. They're actually holding what's there now. So that's not getting any worse than it is. It's just that that deck is getting reconstructed. MR. TRAVER-So tonight we're looking at recommendations for the setbacks,floor area and permeability. Does anyone have any concerns at this stage that you want to share with the ZBA as they look at the variances? MR. DEEB-Circumstances dictate these variances. We certainly would look pretty rotten with the situation the way it is. I mean normally I don't think we would, I don't know if I would consider those huge variances,but under the circumstances. MR. DIXON-Does the garage need to be as big as it's planned to accommodate the vehicle? MR. HALL-To accommodate a vehicle, a van that he can drive in still and have the part that goes out of it so he can get in and out of the van and stay inside the building. It's not sized to put a boat in. A boat and a trailer won't fit in there. It's strictly for his van that he's contemplating getting. MR. DEEB-The van has a ramp. S (Queensbury Planning Board 06/21/2022) MR. HALL-Yes,it's got a mechanical ramp that comes out so that he can get out of the van and still have space to get into the building. I mean basically like the van spots that you see for unloading at the Mall. That's basically what we've got. It's basically a 12 foot wide parking space and a 12 foot wide unloading zone and then have enough space to have a little bit of storage in the garage. MR. DIXON-Have you heard from any of the neighbors as far as on the western side? MR.HALL-We have letters from all of the surrounding neighbors. MR. TRAVER-Yes,we'll see that in site plan. MR. HALL-Yes,you'll see hose, if we get through tomorrow night we'll see you back and you'll have all those letters. I think there were five. MRS. MOORE-I believe five in support. MR. TRAVER-Well I'm not hearing any concerns that we want to share with the ZBA. So I guess we can move ahead with our standard resolution. RESOLUTION RE: ZBA RECOMMENDATION RE: AV#27-2022 JOE SHEEHAN The applicant has submitted an application for the following: Applicant proposes a 61S sq. ft. footprint garage addition to an existing home and a 500 sq.ft.deck to replace an existing deck.A portion of the new deck will be covered area. Updates to the covered entryway are also proposed. The project includes stormwater management, shoreline plantings, retaining wall and steps to be reconstructed. The new footprint of the home will be 2,500 sq. ft. and a floor area of 3,72E sq. ft.. Pursuant to chapter 179-3-040, 147,179-5-020,179-6-065,179-13-010, site plan for new floor area in a CEA,hard surfacing within 50 ft. of the shoreline, and expansion of nonconforming structure shall be subject to Planning Board review and approval. Variance: Relief is sought for setbacks, and floor area. 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 27-2022 TOE SHEEHAN, 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. Motion seconded by Brady Stark. Duly adopted this 21"day of June 2022 by the following vote: AYES: Mr. Magowan,Mr. LaSarso,Mr. Stark,Mr. Longacker,Mr. Dixon,Mr. Deeb,Mr. Traver NOES: NONE ABSENT: Mr. Molloy MR. TRAVER-You're off to the ZBA. MR.HALL-Thank you very much. MR. MAGOWAN-Good luck. MR. TRAVER-The next item on our agenda, also under Recommendations to the ZBA,is Alice and Jack Lynch,Site Plan 36-2022. This does include some unapproved development for a shed. SITE PLAN NO. 36-2022 SEQR TYPE: TYPE 11. ALICE AND JACK LYNCH. AGENT(S): REDBUD DEVELOPMENT. OWNER(S): SAME AS APPLICANT. ZONING: WR. LOCATION: 14 HIGHVIEW ROAD. APPLICANT PROPOSES TO CONSTRUCT A NEW OPEN DECK ADDITION OF 563 SQ. FT., INSTALL A 123 SQ. FT. POOL, AND CONSTRUCT A 166 SQ. FT. COVERED PORCH. THE PROJECT INCUDES INSTALLATION OF STORMWATER CONTROL MEASURES,SITE LANDSCAPING,AND SHORELINE PLANTINGS. THERE IS AN EXISTING 169 9 (Queensbury Planning Board 06/21/2022) SQ. FT. SHED THAT REQUIRES REVIEW FOR AFTER-THE-FACT WORK. THE EXISTING HOUSE HAS A 2,775 SQ. FT. FOOTPRINT AND AN EXISTING FLOOR AREA OF 4,773 SQ. FT. PURSUANT TO CHAPTER 179-3-040, 179-6-065, 179-6-050, 179-5-020, 147, SITE PLAN FOR A NEW FLOOR AREA IN A CEA AND HARD SURFACING WITHIN 50 FT. OF THE SHORELINE SHALL BE SUBJECT TO PLANNING BOARD REVIEW AND APPROVAL. VARIANCE: RELIEF IS SOUGHT FOR SETBACKS AND POOL LOCATION. PLANNING BOARD SHALL PROVIDE A RECOMMENDATION TO THE ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS. CROSS REFERENCE: AV 45- 1996,SP 42-1996 (ADDITION TO BACK AND DECK). WARREN CO. REFERRAL: JUNE 2022. SITE INFORMATION: CEA,LGPC,APA. LOT SIZE: 0.69 ACRES. TAX MAP NO. 239.15-1-15. SECTION: 179-3-040,179-6-065,179-6-050,179-5-020,147. GEFF REDICK, REPRESENTING APPLICANT,PRESENT;ALICE LYNCH,PRESENT MR. TRAVER-Laura? MRS. MOORE-So this application is to construct a new open deck area addition of 563 square feet, installation of a 123 square foot pool area and construct a 166 square foot covered porch. The project includes installation of stormwater erosion control measures as well as site landscaping and shoreline plantings. There is an existing shed on the site,169 square feet. The applicant, actually a representative, had a similar situation with another applicant. So he identified it up front that it was built without approvals and they're asking for that approval now. MR. TRAVER-Okay. Thank you. Good evening. MR. REDICK-Good evening. MRS. LYNCH-Good evening. MR. REDICK-My name is Geff Redick from Redbud Design. I'm here representing Alice and Jack Lynch, and this is Alice Lynch here to share her thoughts on the project. So the proposal for the project right now is we currently have a deck here. This is not the deck. This is the proposed plan. We're going to be taking that deck off. It's old. It's tired. It needs to be replaced. So this is the existing footprint of the house,if you follow this line all the way across. So there's a couple of goals that the clients are after. The primary goal is to be installing what we're referring to as a new therapy spa,but the Town Code calls it a pool. Town Code requires anything over 100 square feet, 100 gallons, to be a pool, but international building code actually defines this as a spa. So it's a heated unit. It's got sanitation and it's more of a therapy for the family to be able to use on a regular basis. Recognizing that there's sort of a nuance between the definition of a pool and spa,we're really of the belief that it is a spa. Part of our goal with this project,too,is to,again,replace this piece, add this spa component here,but to do this we have significant grade changes from the house elevation here out here to about 16 to IS feet. So we are proposing to build new retaining walls here, a new retaining wall here so that we can have kind of a stair stepped approach, and then have the spa piece up in here and also what that is going to do is that spa,as far as views from the lake,you're not going to be able to see it at all. If you were at the lake you would have no idea. The only thing that you would really be able to see would be the retaining walls,and then we have a lot of plantings in this space, and then we're also proposing the stormwater retention area which there is no stormwater management on the site whatsoever at this point. Everything just sheds from the house toward the lake. So that's one of the reliefs that we're asking for, and then, Laura,if you wouldn't mind going out towards the lakeside. Thank you. So this is the existing shed that's there and this is the existing patio. As part of the project,there's a couple of things to note. This is the tree line, and it's very difficult. You can kind of see this little squiggle right here. The existing tree line from here is very dense and then you can also see,these squiggles are in here, and that's taken from the surveyor. From here over, which is not a lot of land,but that's all mature and existing trees. So we only end up having a very small footprint of what we'll call currently it's just lawn. So the owner mistakenly a few years ago decided they needed a shed, which actually makes sense because they have no basement in the house. Everything is built on bedrock, and then with regards to the garage, there is no room in the garage. It literally just fits two cars and that's it. So they have no storage for anything down on the shoreline. They worked with another company to install the shed, and they admit the fact that they did not go and get a permit for it, didn't necessarily realize it. They understand that that was a mistake, but their reasoning for putting the shed here was when they purchased the property this was kind of a landfill area from the previous owner, a lot of trees, debris and litter,stuff like that,and because it's one of the few spots down near the shoreline where the shed is literally hidden from the lake. Again, I mentioned this tree line. All of this is already heavily vegetated. So kind of tucking it in here and then when you come into the bay,you really don't see where the shed is. Putting it anywhere else,even within the setbacks,is difficult,or I mean outside of the setbacks,and then if we get all the way to where the 75 foot setback is,it's nothing but bedrock, and it's steep slopes. So it made this a very logical location to put the shed,but again we understand it's in violation. So the goal is,we'd like to be able to keep it here. So the other thing that we're proposing is to put more vegetation in here to actually truly beef this up even more so that from the lakeshore you don't even see the shed anymore. So in general that's sort of the, actually,I'm sorry, Laura,if you wouldn't mind kind of scanning back up again. That's about., Sothis stormwater retention area is not just for any of the things that we're proposing here. We're 10 (Queensbury Planning Board 06/21/2022) also going to be capturing,there's a gutter here,another gutter here,another gutter here and another gutter here that we're going to be able to take all of that roof water and bring it into the space. So it's going to be going into that retention space. I think we're probably about 100 feet or so from the lake as we're putting that into the ground rather than just let it rundown the slope and toward the water. So in essence that's the description of the project. MR. TRAVER-Getting back to the shed for a minute, can you explain, I understand that the owners wanted some storage. How did that shed get built? Who was the contractor who installed it? MRS. LYNCH-I'd have to check. I don't remember. It was a landscaper who had done it several years ago. MR. TRAVER-Several years ago. MRS. LYNCH-Several years ago. Yes. MR. TRAVER-Okay. Thank you. Questions, comments from members of the Board regarding the variances? MR. DEEB-Is the shed permanent,or can it be moved? MR. REDICK-In theory it can be moved,but moving it would be a major endeavor. MR. DEEB-You've explored all the other possibilities on the property near the house? MR. REDICK-Well, Laura, if you wouldn't mind. So from exploring other options, you can see the contours on the property. All the way up by the house there's no space along the side of the house quite literally because there's very little property between the house,I'm sorry,very little land up in here between the house and the property line. So trying to get it up here would be very difficult. Anything in here is all heavily treed. Again I'll reference back to this that comes off of the surveyor. This is all heavily treed and vegetated,and then this is all,effectively this piece and all of this is virtually all bedrock and it's very steep. So trying to get it further up this way,I mean physically it would be possible,but I think one of the things I'd probably do, I didn't elaborate enough on prior, was the goal behind the shed is for storage of lake supplies, floats, stuff like that for the boats, things for kids, grandkids, etc. So trying to drag all of this furniture back up to the house that has no storage was one of the challenges and then on the other side of the property, here's our, actually the 75 foot setback is in here. So it would be really squeezed into an extremely tight spot over in here, which is still just significantly further away from the house or from the lake, and as we start getting on the side of the house,the grading is here is so extreme. As I talked about before,when you walk out of that current living room of the house and it drops about 15 to 1S feet straight down, so all the side of the house is just nothing but almost sheer rock and sheer cliff and then the street side of the house is extremely tight as well. MR. DEEB-I can understand. One of the things I try to weigh is,had this been done properly and came b before us before it was built,try and speculate would it have passed, would it have gotten through, and you gave valid reasons as to why you needed it done obviously,but I guess we can't just conjecture whether it would have gotten passed or not. MR. TRAVER-Yes,that's a hypothetical. MR. DEEB-It's a tough one,but we're getting tough on unapproved development. I think we need to be as a Board. Because it's happening more and more in the Town of Queensbury and I think we're getting a reputation that we're getting tough on unapproved development. MR. TRAVER-Well it's not about being tough. MR. DEEB-But people will keep coming back and saying we can get away with it. MR. TRAVER-Well I think a concern is, if we tolerate it, what message does it send to people that go through the process and own up to it and they negotiate a plan and carry out the plan. This wasn't applied for so there wasn't an opportunity to really negotiate it. MR.DEEB-And I know it's circumstances beyond your control at that point,and there is a fine line,would it have been approved. I tend to think it might have. MR. TRAVER-Perhaps. MR. DEEB-It's just a comment. 11 (Queensbury Planning Board 06/21/2022) MR. TRAVER-One of the things I would add, too, is at some point you'll be coming back for Site Plan Review and we would appreciate the name of the contractor that did install the shed. It would be useful for us to be aware of. Any other questions,comments from members of the Board? MR. DIXON-1 do have a comment. So the spa, and this is just out of curiosity,because any time there's pools or spas near the lake,is it a salt water spa,chlorine spa? MR. REDICK-We haven't talked to that level of detail yet,but it could be either. MR. DIXON-And in either case,I guess my concern would always be,when you're maintaining, draining, we don't want any of that to even approach the lake. So having a plan in place to keep it on the property I think would be important. MR. TRAVER-Yes,good point. MR. DIXON-As far as the shed goes,is there any power run to that shed right there? MRS. LYNCH-No, MR. DIXON-And is that hard scape that's in front of the shed? I see something denoted. MRS. LYNCH-What's hard scape? MRS. MOORE-It's a patio area that you have your fire ring is in that area. MRS. LYNCH-It's got blue stone,but I don't know if it's considered hard scaping. MRS. MOORE-So it's considered hard surfacing within 50 feet. So that's part of the review. MR. DIXON-Okay, and that also was not pre-approved? That's also the nature of the discussion? Just questions. MR. TRAVER-Yes. MR. DEEB-What is the size of the shed? MR. REDICK-169 square feet I think. Yes,it's 169 square feet. MR. DEEB-And it's hidden from the lake. MR. REDICK-Yes. And we're proposing additional plantings to further hide it more from the lake than it is currently. MR. DEEB-That's a tough question, a spa, pool, but it's a matter of semantics, and the front yard, back yard,etc. It's not a big spot. Mike's point about chlorinated water getting into the ground. You have to be careful of that. So I agree with him as far as having any plans set up. MR. TRAVER-Yes,it would be helpful for us to have a plan for managing the water when it's empty. MR. REDICK-We can do that. MR. MAGOWAN-Doesn't spa water you have to recycle every now and then? MR. REDICK-Typically a spa you're somewhere every six months you do need to empty the spa and clean it and fill it again. MR. MAGOWAN-So in that case you've got to determine where that water is going to go. MR. REDICK-Correct. MR. MAGOWAN-And into a raingarden which, you know, and it sounds like there's a lot of rock and what we have asked before is an upgrade on the septic but that's a hot tub. It's a little bit larger than that. So I'm leaning more toward a new salt,you know,it's not like swimming in an ocean,but I hear they're a lot easier to maintain, too. Trust me. But that is really a major concern. For the shed it's really an unfortunate situation and we probably would have never known if you didn't come with the spa,but now we have that situation. I admire adding more buffering along the shoreline to hid it. That's an admirable thing. After listening to you explain and looking at the topography here,it's a tough place to move and I'm sure it didn't come in on a trailer and it was able to be moved. I'm sure it was hand built. So they're not easy to move, but I would like to see more of what you can do around that shed and the hard surface in 12 (Queensbury Planning Board 06/21/2022) doing some kind of water retention that could help that would make it a more favorable shed in my view, and I'm only speaking for myself. MR. TRAVER-You mean stormwater management? MR.MAGOWAN-Stormwater management. Because you do have the shed,and,you know,the blue stone is a hard surface. MR. DIXON-So most of these items are items for Site Plan Review. MR. TRAVER-Correct. MR. DIXON-And I'm not hearing anything for the recommendation. MR. TRAVER-Are there any specific concerns or comments that we want to include with our referral to the ZBA? I'm not hearing any. RESOLUTION RE: ZBA RECOMMENDATION RE: AV#24-2022 ALICE AND JACK LYNCH The applicant has submitted an application for the following:Applicant proposes to construct a new open deck addition of 563 sq.ft.footprint,install a 123 sq.ft.pool, and construct a 166 sq.ft.covered porch. The project includes installation of stormwater control measures, site landscaping, and shoreline plantings. There is an existing 169 sq. ft. footprint shed that requires review for after-the-fact work. The existing house has a 2,775 sq. ft. footprint and an existing floor area of 4,773 sq. ft.. Pursuant to chapter 179-3-040, 179-6-065,179-6-050,179-5-020,147, site plan for a new floor area in a CEA and hard surfacing within 50 ft. of the shoreline shall be subject to Planning Board review and approval. Variance: Relief is sought for setbacks and pool location. 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 24-2022 ALICE &z TACK LYNCH, 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. Motion seconded by David Deeb. Duly adopted this 21"day of June 2022 by the following vote: AYES: Mr. Magowan,Mr. LaSarso,Mr. Deeb,Mr. Dixon,Mr. Longacker,Mr. Stark,Mr. Traver NOES: NONE ABSENT: Mr. Molloy MR. TRAVER-You're off to the ZBA. MR. REDICK-Thank you very much. MRS. LYNCH-Thank you very much. MR. TRAVER-The next item on our agenda is Meghan Orban. This is Site Plan 39-2022. SITE PLAN NO. 39-2022 SEQR TYPE: TYPE 11. MEGHAN ORBAN. AGENT(S): STEFANIE BITTER. OWNER(S): MEGHAN&z STEPHEN ORBAN. ZONING: WR. LOCATION: 21 &z 25 DUNCAN COVE ROAD. APPLICANT PROPOSES DEMOLITION OF AN EXISTING HOME AND OUT BUILDINGS TO CONSTRUCT A NEW 2,539 SQ. FT. HOME AND PORCH AREA OF 447 SQ. FT. WITH A FLOOR AREA OF 4,584 SQ. FT. THE PERMEABLE PATIO FACING TH E LAKE WILL ALSO INCLUDE A HOT TUB, WHICH IS CLASSIFIED AS A POOL PER TOWN CODE. PROJECT INCLUDES SITE WORK FOR STORMWATER MANAGEMENT,SHORELINE AND SITE PLANTING PLAN, DEVELOPMENT FOR PERMEABLE PATIO, DRIVEWAY AREA. PROJECT INCLUDES A NEW ONSITE SEPTIC SYSTEM AND WATER SUPPLY DRAWN FROM 13 (Queensbury Planning Board 06/21/2022) THE LAKE. PURSUANT TO CHAPTER 179-3-040, 147, 179-6-050, 179-6-065, SITE WORK FOR NEW FLOOR AREA IN A CEA AND HARD SURFACE WITHIN 50 FT. OF THE SHORELINE SHALL BE SUBJECT TO PLANNING BOARD REVIEW AND APPROVAL. VARIANCE: RELIEF IS SOUGHT FOR STORMWATER DEVICE AND POOL LOCATION. CROSS REFERENCE: AV 82-1992 ,AV 29-2022. WARREN CO. REFERRAL: JUNE 2022. SITE INFORMATION: CEA, LGPC, APA. LOT SIZE: .5 ACRES, .66 ACRES. TAX MAP NO. 226.16-1-7, 226.16-1-9 (SECONDARY ACCESS ROAD). SECTION: 179-3-040,147,179-6-050,179-6-065. STEFANIE BITTER&ANDY ALLISON,REPRESENTING APPLICANT,PRESENT MR. TRAVER-Laura? MRS.MOORE-This project is a demolition of an existing home and outbuildings to construct a new home of 2,539 square feet with porch areas of 447 square feet and the total new floor area is 4,554. This project includes permeable patio facing the lake as well as a hot tub which per Town Code is identified as a pool. The project includes stormwater management, shoreline and site plantings as well as driveway areas and new on-site septic system and then they have a portion of the project that includes a new driveway area to adjacent property off of Cleverdale Road. The variances requested is the stormwater device as well as location of the pool/spa area. MR. TRAVER-Okay. Thank you. Good evening. MS. BITTER-Good evening. I'm Stefanie Bitter. I'm here with a whole slew of folks. Andy Allison and Sarah Tuttle from AJA Architecture and Brandon Ferguson is back to join me again from EDP Engineering. The applicants purchased this property in January. If you're familiar with the property, the property actually maintains two principle residences and a garage. Both principle residences are pretty close to the lakeside. What the intentions are is to demolish all of those buildings,pull the home back so it actually meets the setback and is in a setback compliant location. In doing so the two variances that we are left with is one for stormwater, relative to allowing those stormwater systems to be within 100 feet of the lakeside, and the other is the item that you just visited in the other previous application that was news to all of us. The applicants wish to put a hot tub between the home and the lake, but the lakeside is also considered the front yard, as is the front of the home is considered the front yard, and pursuant to Section 179-5-020,you can only place a pool structure,which the hot tub is considered,in the rear yard,but we are left with no rear yards because the lake is considered the front yard. So that being said, our request this evening, although we will return on Thursday night to talk about Site Plan, our request this evening is simply to discuss those variances and to seek your recommendation. Understanding when we go before the Zoning Board we have to look at the balancing test and we feel that both of these variances are minor requests and that the benefit to the applicant outweighs any detriment to the community. That being said, the re-development plan, as I mentioned, that vastly brings this property up into zoning compliance, making these two relief requests minor at best. The benefit for either the stormwater or the hot tub cannot be achieved with any other opportunity other than seeking a variance. The request should not be deemed substantial relative to all the benefits achieved with the re-development plan. No adverse effects could be deemed to exist with the relief being sought because the stormwater will obviously improve the environmental condition of the property, and the hot tub is for peace and tranquility and will not be a nuisance in its location,and there's no other location to actually place it. Although the difficulty might be deemed self-created, we believe, reviewing the project as a whole, that should not be detrimental to the balancing test. I'm going to turn it over to Andy to talk about the details. MR.ALLISON-Great. Thank you all. I'm just going to walk through the project quite quickly and then Brandon can answer any questions about the setbacks or engineering and Sarah can give you a brief introduction to the architecture,but the clients came to us,and literally the first thing out of their mouth was we want to build anew house but we want it to be compliant with zoning. Part of their driving force for that is they want to get in the house quickly. So they don't want to be burdened with an overly burdensome permitting process,but they really do have the intention of making this thing better for the lake. The wife is a long time resident of the area. Her family's been here for generations. This project is almost a mirror image of the project that was approved a few years ago just to the south,in terms of the size of the house,the septic,the way the driveway works, all of the setbacks, and as Stefanie said it's the most compliant project that we could do on the lot,outside of the stormwater and the hot tub,and I'm just going to talk about the hot tub real quick. This is probably a six by eight in ground hot tub. It's going to be a salt water hot tub. We actually had talked to the owners about how are they going to care for it, knowing that they have to have it cleaned out every six months. So they're going to pump it,just like you would a septic tank, and get all the water off site, and then deal with that every year, and we've allowed for that. We interpreted,we took some of the language out of the zoning which has some language about what do you do with a pool on a corner lot and talks about how do you have that set up in the backyard, and they asked for a 20 foot setback from the lot line to any pool structure, and so we actually set our hot tub,it's 42 feet off of the back lot line,which would be the water line. We dealt with that,made that as far away as possible. You can see this is kind of shoved up in the northwest corner of the property. That's on purpose. The house that's just to the south that sits almost parallel with our house, and the bulk of their sort of outdoor area is more in the northwest corner. So we wanted to stay as far away from that as 14 (Queensbury Planning Board 06/21/2022) possible. The house on the north side has a significant amount of plantings already in here,and their house actually sits quite close because it's an older camp, and this was just a nice place to get it out of view of everybody. There is apart of the project that's an outdoor kind of gathering area under a covered porch. So it made sense to have it right here, and this is really the most active part of the outdoors of their lot which will come down to the boathouse. So we wanted to keep this really open to the south to get a lot of sunlight in,but also to create as much of a buffer to that property to the south as possible. So that was really the driving factor for the location of it. Do you want to talk about any of the engineering? MR. FERGUSON-Sure. So as far as the stormwater management on the property, as you know a lot of these projects on these small lots, getting 100 feet from the lake with the stormwater on these major projects is not very feasible. So this site has no stormwater right now, and if you look at the existing conditions plan of the houses are right on the water. I think the one's five foot off and the other one's twelve. So they're right on the water. The larger structure is right there. Everything just goes right into the lake. There's a large driveway existing on the site now that kind of loops through. So this whole driveway is going to be permeable pavers. The patios on the lakeside are going to be permeable, and then we're doing some shallow vegetative depressions on both sides in order to take the roof runoff. So we're treating everything on the site for proposed impervious area. So it's a huge improvement as far as protection from the lake, and then the other things we're doing to improve the property, they're doing substantial plantings along the lakeshore as well. Those are going to be an improvement to the buffer and to the buffering on the sides of the house as well. So I think it's going to be a large improvement. There will be a new septic,Elgin septic system. We got it to fit without any Board of Health variances. So it is a zoning compliant septic system. . So it will be a large improvement. MR.TRAVER-There was discussion about pumping the saltwater periodically out of the,that the owners are going to have the water removed from the pool and taken off site. When we get to site plan, can you ask them to put some kind of a plan together as part of that package,so we have that? Thank you. MR. FERGUSON-Yes. MR. TRAVER-Questions,comments from members of the Board? MR.MAGOWAN-Well,yes. I remember before we've had a hot tub on the lakeside. I like the salt system. Back in the day I think when we approved one that was close to the lake,I asked them was it a chlorine or bromine. Now we've come up with salt,but I know what we ended up approving is designing a septic system to be able to handle that form of pumping that up into the septic. To rely on, oh, we're going to bring in, you know, a pump tank is not a feasible thing. These owners might do that because they're worried about the lake and have had so much time on the lake,but you've got to think down the road,what happens if they sell they don't. The people don't understand that and they just drain it. So on your design I would ask to make sure on the septic that we're able to, that would be pumped up into the septic and treated on your property. Do you understand? I mean most people aren't going to say, I want a sewer hose run down my yard and pump out my little tank,you know, and they find out it's a $300 bill they're going to say well nobody's around I'll just pull the plug. Just got to think out of the box here, and I don't know the owners,but I would hope that they would do that,but if they do this where it's pumped up and the septic can, and six months a year, and it is a hot tub. It's not a spa. So I think that is a feasible way to do it,and that's how we've,that I remember many years ago I was a newbie back then. I think I actually got some kudos from the group for bringing that one up,but if that's something we could do,I'd appreciate it. I really like the design. I really appreciate you taking this property and removing all those structures and presenting something that really doesn't need much variance except for the spa, the hot tub doesn't, you know,that's not a major one compared to some of the other ones. So really,please pass that on, and thank you, and all of you for designing something to me that really conforms with the lot and you're not trying to cram everything in there. And a maintenance program for these permeable pavers. Everybody says we're going to put them in, but if you don't have a maintenance program and maintain them and vacuum,you know, ten years down the road it's just like macadam with all that fine silt that goes down there and the water's just going to run. So that's something else that's we've been hearing so much is we've been pushing for maintenance programs. MR. FERGUSON-Yes,we'll add the maintenance requirements right on the plans. MR. DEEB-In the site plan you'll also include the draining of the spa or the hot tub,whichever you want to call it, is included in the site plan. Just in case. I mean Brad made a good point, we don't want to encourage people to pump it into the septic.. We'd rather, I'd much rather have you do it the way you planned on doing it,okay. So if that's in there also. MR.DIXON-I'll comment on the hot tub as well. So it has nothing to do with the variance,but when you get ready for site plan, again,you might want to consider some type of catch basin,just on the lower side. That way if there is a leak of some sort that's going to catch that, and then the other item was really a question. On the plan I didn't see the septic system before. Again, it's not the nature of the variance. Were all the buildings feeding into the one septic system before or did they all have their own and now they're consolidated? 15 (Queensbury Planning Board 06/21/2022) MR. FERGUSON-So I'm not really even sure what the existing septic situation was because they actually waived their, they're not using the property right now after they purchased it. So they didn't do an inspection since they decided not to use the property. So I'm not sure if it's one or it's two or if there's m multiple dry wells. We haven't really explored what's there now. MR.DIXON-The reason I'm asking,it's not a trick question or anything In my mind I'm trying to process how much you're improving the lot. MR. FERGUSON-Whatever it is now,it's probably a lot further from the lake than what's there now. MR. DEEB-It's a vast improvement. We're always glad to see new septics. It's a really nice project. I congratulate you on your design. MR. MAGOWAN-Do we know the year of,the age of the buildings that are existing now? MR.ALLISON-They're probably from the 1950's. MR. MAGOWAN-Chances are they're all, see they were all camps. A lot of these places were just camps back in the day they were built,and they were just cess pools that,you know,metal drums that were just put down in there. MR. ALLISON-There's a circular driveway on the east side, and we think it's kind of,whatever just goes to the middle, just based on what's is growing there. MR. MAGOWAN-But really, as Dave says,it's a nice project. MR. DIXON-Laura, can I ask of the Town, when they apply for their permit for demolition, does that include like asbestos abatement, lead abatement? And how does that handle any of the existing septic systems that they identify and how do they retire them? MRS. MOORE-They have to decommission them according to the regulations. MR. DIXON-Okay. So that's all the permit. MR.ALLISON-All the abatement studies are done and that's all underway. . MR.TRAVER-All right. Well with that being said we do have a referral to the ZBA regarding this project. Does anyone have any concerns or comments that we wanted to forward to the ZBA as they look at this? I'm not hearing any,so I guess we're ready for a motion. RESOLUTION RE: ZBA RECOMMENDATION RE: AV#29-2022 MEGHAN ORBAN The applicant has submitted an application for the following:Applicant proposes demolition of an existing home and out buildings to construct a new 2,54 S sq.ft.home and porch area of 463 sq.ft.with a floor area of 4,554 sq.ft.. The permeable patio facing the lake will also include a hot tub,which is classified as a pool per Town Code. Project includes site work for stormwater management, shoreline and site planting plan, development for permeable patio, driveway area. Project includes a new onsite septic system and water supply drawn from the lake. Pursuant to chapter 179-3-040,147,179-6-050, 179-6-065, site work for new floor area in a CEA and hard surface within 50 ft.of the shoreline shall be subject to Planning Board review and approval.Variance: Relief is sought for stormwater device and pool location. 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 29-2022 MEGHAN ORBAN 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. Motion seconded by Brad Magowan. Duly adopted this 21"day of June 2022 by the following vote: 16 (Queensbury Planning Board 06/21/2022) AYES: Mr. LaSarso, Mr. Deeb,Mr. Dixon,Mr. Longacker,Mr. Stark,Mr. Magowan, Mr. Traver NOES: NONE ABSENT: Mr. Molloy MR. TRAVER-You're off to the ZBA. MS. BITTER-Thank you. See you Thursday. MR. TRAVER-The next item on our agenda is also a recommendation for unapproved development. This is Morgan Gazetos/Greg Francis, Site Plan 35-2022. SITE PLAN NO. 35-2022 SEQR TYPE: TYPE II. MORGAN GAZETOS/GREG FRANCIS. AGENT(S): MORGAN GAZETOS. OWNER(S): GREGORY R.FRANCIS TRUSTEE. ZONING: WR. LOCATION: 2930 STATE ROUTE 9L. APPLICANT REQUESTS APPROVAL FOR CONSTRUCTION OF A DECK ADDITION NOT CONSTRUCTED PER APPROVAL. ADDITIONALLY, THE APPLICANT HAS COMPLETED ADDITIONAL WORK WITHOUT APPROVAL INCLUDING DECK AREA NEAR SHORELINE,SHORELINE PATHWAY DECKING, AND A RECONSTRUCTED SHED/CHANGING ACCESSORY STRUCTURE NEAR THE SHORE. THE EXISTING HOUSE FOOTPRINT OF 1,285 SQ.FT.TO REMAIN THE SAME. THE DECKING AREAS OF 2,270 SQ. FT. TO BE REDUCED TO 1,930 SQ. FT.; ORIGINAL APPROVAL WAS FOR 1,408 SQ. FT. PURSUANT TO CHAPTER 179-3-040, 179-13-010, SITE PLAN FOR HARD SURFACING WITHIN 50 FT. OF THE SHORELINE AND EXPANSION OF A NON- CONFORMING STRUCTURE SHALL BE SUBJECT TO PLANNING BOARD REVIEW AND APPROVAL. VARIANCE: RELIEF IS SOUGHT FOR SETBACKS. PLANNING BOARD SHALL MAKE A RECOMMENDATION TO THE ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS. CROSS REFERENCE: SP 72-2014, AV 85-2014, AV 25-2022. WARREN CO. REFERRAL: JUNE 2022. SITE INFORMATION: CEA, APA, LGPC. LOT SIZE: 92 ACRES. TAX MAP NO. 239.20-1-19. SECTION: 179-3-040,179-13-010. MORGAN GAZETOS,PRESENT MR. TRAVER-Laura? MRS.MOORE-This application requests approval for construction of a deck addition not constructed per approval. Additionally the applicant has completed additional work without approval including a deck area near shoreline, shoreline pathway decking, and reconstruction of a shed or changing accessory structure near the shoreline. I've identified the setback relief requested. I won't go in depth,but most of it is due to the shoreline and I'll provide additional information as we go through. MR. TRAVER-Okay. Thank you. Good evening. MR. GAZETOS-Good evening. Morgan Gazetos from Lake George Docks. For the record, I'm just the guy here to clean up the mess. I was doing the dock for Mr. Francis it was like 2014, and I was supposed to go first,and then the next guy was going to go and do all the terraced decks and all this other stuff,right. So this way I can make a mess,break whatever stairs along my way down,get the dock done, and then the next guy was going to come in and do this,and so this is sort of what he did. Then I'm there again last fall and Mr.Francis asked me,hey,I have this problem,and so because I'm a fool and he's a nice client,I offered to come before you and try to find a way to mediate the mess,and so when you were speaking earlier about how to deal with these unapproved structures, I come after a great act with a great project, super conforming with a tiny variance, and to clean up this mess, and I'm saying these are the last people I want to go after. It's difficult when you're the guy cleaning up because you're trying to figure out,looking from the Board's view, and I've been before you before. We used to come before you for boathouses and that kind of stuff. You have to show normally a hardship for stuff like this or an environmental whatever that makes no sense that, hey, I need a variance because, like the folks with the 28 and a half feet. Just so happens the hill does this,act of God if you will,and so mine is obviously self-created,but I'm on the other side where the other contactor,we're able to get enough lined up with surveys and figuring out the former numbers and what was impermeable and how much driveway there was and setbacks. So Laura and I spent, I would argue a couple of hours, and some time on the phone,just trying to figure out what was there in the first place. What do you apply on the zoning and then what's actually there now,and so when I was looking at this, I'm a dock guy, so 900/o of my business is on the other side of the mean high water mark. So I look in. I don't look out,and when I'm looking in,when I was highlighting in pink on the one survey, I'm saying what can I cut out that's in,my mind, the most egregious infractions? So he, I guess they put in this walkway to give his parents this wooden walkway to get his parents to the boat, and the first thing I said is,all right,this is going to have to go. You're too close. I started looking at pictures from before. They built this little deck underneath the stairs on top of my beautiful compliant dock and I said, okay, that's got to go, and so I'm really here to talk to the Board about, there's no right mechanism in 17 (Queensbury Planning Board 06/21/2022) Queensbury. It's not like my work at the Park Commission,you mess up,you get fined,not just the owner, but the builder,and they have an order of consent and you have to fix it,whatever it is. MR. TRAVER-Well as far as fines for unapproved development, we're working on that,but as it stands tonight,no,but it seems to me that there are really two ways to go. One is to come into compliance. You have an approved plan. The owners like many others before have come to the Planning Board with what they would like to have,and we have a discussion with the Planning Board and we respond with what we would like to have and you end up generally with some kind of a compromise and that apparently took place in 2014. So a little give and take on both sides. We came up with a plan in 2014, and then you mentioned a contactor that did not follow the approved plan. Who was that? MR. GAZETOS-I believe the gentleman's name was Bill Oelher. MR. TRAVER-Bill,what was the last name again? MR. GAZETOS-Oelher,O-e-1-h-e-r I think. MR. TRAVER-Okay. So it seems to me that one, you can come into compliance, right, with what is approved,or you can try to get our recommendation that the ZBA approved this unapproved development. What are your feelings about those two choices? MR. GAZETOS-So,the problem with the project to begin with was previous to him coming in to zoning the first time in 2014,it was already non-conforming and it's an awful piece of property from the standpoint that there's this cliff that divides it in half. MR. TRAVER-Right,but it can come into compliance with the approved plan. I mean if there were, in 2014 when it was reviewed there would have been a pre-existing conditions provided. So we knew what was there, and then came up with a plan for what to put there, all right. So there is a method to move forward that's already been approved. So that can be done,or,if,I understand you're seeking approval,or a recommendation from us to the ZBA for these variances that are caused by this unapproved development. I can't speak for the other Planning Board members,but I can tell you that you're not going to get that from me. So I think the easiest thing would be to simply come into compliance with everything that's already been designed and planned and done in 2014. MR. GAZETOS-So the only problem with that,sir,is I feel that there's two points in the project where the previous contractor, it's hard to know what a guy thinks, but I think the one issue where he extended further to the north when he changed the stairs had to do with the outcrop of the stone and in my heart of hearts I feel if he had come into the Town,in the midst of the project,and said,hey,I've got a problem. I've got to bump out to get around this giant rock, when I've been in that situation with the Town, normally I'd say hey, I have a problem, and everybody likes it when you say you have a problem when the problem occurs. They're much easier to deal with than when you just go ahead and do it. MR.TRAVER-But when the original plans were designed and presented to us in 2014,that rock was there. So why did they plan to build something through this rock? Was there an earthquake or something that produced this,made this rock a problem after they submitted? I mean it was their plan,not ours. MR.GAZETOS-I 1000/o agree with that. Ijust think that by,I've spent hours going through all the pictures, all the drawings, and I think a good part of this was the guy may have had every good intention of what I think his preparation wasn't great,and I feel like there are certain aspects of this that,again,I would have done it differently if it was my job,and I think that. MR. TRAVER-But you're talking about what he might have had. I'm talking about what we've got. MR. GAZETOS-Right. MR. TRAVER-And to resolve this issue, you come into compliance or you try to convince us that these variances should,you know,you're asking for our recommendation to the ZBA,presumably to approve the variances. That's what we have before us this evening. Well, I've said my peace. I'll open it up for the members of the Planning Board for questions,comments. MR. DIXON-I have a couple of comments. So I guess based on what's in front of us,I would agree with the Chairman that the non-conforming structures should be brought back into compliance however possible.. Also within the,especially in the photographs,there's a shed on the property that is now on the water's edge whereas the older shed, although it is dilapidated,looks like it's back from the shoreline. So at first pass I would recommend that the shed be removed. MR. TRAVER-Yes, I mean, I think, looking at the bigger picture, the unapproved development, you've heard comments about it earlier this evening. We've had more and more of this going on. Should this be approved, closer to the shoreline,bigger than approved, all the rest of it,what message are we sending to 18 (Queensbury Planning Board 06/21/2022) people, other people who have homes on the lake in the Town who go through the process of designing these plans, come in and negotiate with us, end up with a plan that may isn't everything they wanted, maybe not everything we wanted,but they end up with a plan and they go and they build it in a compliant fashion. That's a concern. I'm sure you can understand that. MR. GAZETOS-Absolutely. And again,my reason for coming in, so if you look at my one nice drawing and do you have the one with the pink on it,Laura? MR. MAGOWAN-Question, while she's looking that up, is this is what we approved in 2014 or is that, because they don't look the same. MR. GAZETOS-So the upper stuff, to my knowledge, is what was getting re-built. And then where he got outside the lines was connecting the lower deck to the shed and expanding the shed and then adding the walkway from the lower deck to the other boathouse. MR. TRAVER-Right. MR. GAZETOS-And so my proposal. MR. TRAVER-And the deck was also changed,correct? The deck was built larger and closer. MRS. MOORE-So the upper deck, what I call the upper and lower deck, they're modified, and the only portion of that upper deck is the portion that is a little bit wider going towards the shoreline by I think maybe a half a foot. MR. TRAVER-But it wasn't built according to what was approved. MRS. MOORE-Correct. It was not,but again,I think what was the applicant is trying to say is that the position,like the location of the footings and things like that was what jogged the location of that deck. Again,correct,he needed to come in and he was told,he actually started the project,this individual started the project without even notifying the office. It was found after the fact, and that's when all the process going through saying you're in violation,please come into compliance. We're now into 2022 and at least we got an applicant to come forward. It's unusual to have it go on this long. MR. TRAVER-Yes. MR. MAGOWAN-So my question,what is this? MRS. MOORE-That was what was supposed to be constructed. MR. MAGOWAN-That's supposed to be the 2014 approved project? MRS. MOORE-Correct. MR. MAGOWAN-That's what I wanted to know. All right. Thank you. MR. GAZETOS-That's up here. MR. MAGOWAN-Okay. MR. GAZETOS-This is the upper deck. There's an upper deck, a lower deck. What we consider the shoreline deck, and so Laura's talking about,it's trying to follow the breadcrumbs. So really what I think is initially this needed to be six inches further out to fit something in here when he set his footings to get his stairs in the right place, and I think if I had been in that position,I have. I have. I had a boathouse I had to come back to you guys and say,hey,I need to swap the concrete for decking because of the way the Park Commission wants this,and went through my three meetings and then went back to work. Because if you raise your hand at the time,you guys are way more understanding,which is right,because that's how it was meant to be. Things happen,follow the process. So my thought here was, I want to eliminate all this,this and then these on the side immediately. My proposal is how much can I cleanup as fast as I can, because changing this, I get more into the structural and I think more of this is about too much square footage within the shoreline setback. So what I'm trying to figure out is what else, should I say,hey,let's table this and go back to my client,what more,besides trying to turn this into that. MR. TRAVER-Well,we call it unapproved development. MR. GAZETOS-Yes,sir. MR. TRAVE R-That's the bottom line. It's not about square footage or whatever. It's just that, I mean, and we have had cases with unapproved development where somebody comes in and they build a shed or 19 (Queensbury Planning Board 06/21/2022) they do something,they repair a set of stairs and didn't realize they needed to check with the Town and of course ignorance of the law is no excuse,but that's one thing,but it's quite a different thing,at least in my mind,for unapproved development to take place when the project was negotiated in good faith with the Town, reach an agreement, had an approved plan and then walked away and built something totally different. I mean, that's the kind of unapproved development that I think we have to be very alarmed about. It's much more serious than an omission of picking up the phone and calling the Town. That's serious and it's still unapproved development,but this is really egregious in my mind. So where are we at? You're looking for a variance to make some modification to this but still get approval for what you're submitting now. Correct? MR. GAZETOS-Yes,sir. But at the same time,if the members of the Board wouldn't mind,I'd love a little feedback,because again I represent somebody else and obviously it's a process with me doing this. I want to figure out what else, short of tearing up and starting over and going back to what was approved,we're trying to figure out how to move the footings and cut this back and do whatever I can do. You said it's not about square footage. MR.TRAVER-Right. It's about compliance with what's approved. Unapproved is what we're concerned about. So you can either come into compliance and construct what is approved,modify this until it comes into the original approved plan, or ask us to support something that, even if you make modifications to what's there now, it's still unapproved development. It's still not going to be what was approved, and that's what we need to be concerned about is what message are we sending to residents in the Town that go through the time and money and effort to come in here and negotiate in good faith with us,reach a plan which,you know,may not be,very often is not everything that they want,but they understand that there has to be a process. They understand the environmental concerns and the concerns about stormwater and shoreline setback, and they walk away and they execute the plan that they agreed to, and,you know,this is why a project like this is such a concern,but I'm swinging after the bell. I want to open it up to other members of the Board. MR. DEEB-I need clarification. You want to take that whole walkway down to the dock? MR. GAZETOS-Yes,I want to take that all off. MR. DEEB-The whole walkway. Now you're talking about the footings for the deck, at one point, it brought it out of compliance by six inches. MR. GAZETOS-Yes,sir. MR. DEEB-Okay. That's something I could live with because it,if he had come back and asked for that, I'm pretty sure he would have gotten it, but the rest of it is what, I agree with Steve, that the non- compliance part,I think you're asking for a great deal to come back and say I'll do this,this, and this, and then approve the rest of it. MR. TRAVER-I mean my concern is,if they had a prior approval from 2014 and they get anything beyond that that they probably wanted in 2014 and they're allowed to retain it, that's a win for unapproved development. Bottom line. MR.DEEB-Okay,and I understand that,and I agree with that,but I was thinking about that six inch,that right there. Again,if he goes back to the previous site plan,he would have to pull out the footings,and I'm okay with that staying there as long as you comply with the rest of it. MR. TRAVER-Well,there could still be a request for a modification to an approved site plan. MR. DEEB-Okay. MR. TRAVER-But that's not what we have before us tonight. MR. DEEB-No. I understand that. MR. GAZETOS-So is that the direction? We're asking how to make this right with you. So do I have to change my application,modification of the site plan? Is that the way I need to go? MR. DEE&Well,we think you've got to comply with the original site plan from 2014. MR. TRAVER-Well,my feeling would be,you know,remove any of the unapproved development,and if you cannot comply,if you feel that the proposal from 2014 was made in error or is not feasible in some way, you can submit a request to modify,come in with a modified site plan application which is very different than unapproved development,but that's not what we're looking at tonight, and that's what I think we need to focus on. We're looking at unapproved development. We certainly will consider, and it's not unusual for us to have applications that come in after there's been an approved plan and they want to make 20 (Queensbury Planning Board 06/21/2022) a modification to an approved plan. They'll say,you know,we got into it and we found out that we really prefer to do this instead of that,and we can certainly look at that,right,but that's very different than what we're looking at this evening. MR. DIXON-Maria shared a nice term with me last time, what were we calling it, looking at this with clean hands. That somebody from the Zoning Board uses,and when we do look at it from the perspective of clean hands, so you're presenting this to us,there's components that we definitely would not approve. So pretend that no construction has taken place. I think I would approve the upper deck,but then I would expect you to come back asking for an adjustment. The shed I don't think I would approve, putting something so close. From the picture it looks like it's on the water. When people start storing things in the sheds,it's ripping through the bottom,it's ripping into the lake,maintaining the sheds,if you're going to paint it, again,what's dripping into the lake. So the shed,where we are today,I would not be in favor of that. MR. MAGOWAN-I've got to get a grip on this because I really appreciate you coming in. It took a lot of guts to take on this project,but,you know what,it's very admirable and I just need to get an understanding of really what happened here. In 2014 we approved this,okay. They went above and beyond. We knew it and we shut him down and he proceeded to do? I mean this is 2014 and now it's 2022. Eight years later and we're looking at it,why? MRS.MOORE-Because the applicant wouldn't come in. We can't chase them down as much as you'd like us to. MR. MAGOWAN-No,that's what I wanted to hear. So we have asked the applicant to. MRS. MOORE-Almost every year since 2014. MR. MAGOWAN-Okay. Thank you,because you're right, I don't want to beat you up,but it's going to help me on my decision because,you know, as our Chairman has said, we really,it's getting out of hand. People are just doing what they want to do, and what we're trying to do is protect our lake. This is the Queen of Lakes, and it's stuff like this that takes away. So I just needed to really get a grip of how we got here today, and I appreciate you coming. MR. GAZETOS-And the other part of that was, and up until November,the other contractor had sort of acted as,and I don't want to talk about the guy. He worked with Laura a little bit. He turned in some stuff to get here, and then he just never decided to ever get all the way there, and so my client expected this guy to make right on what he did. Hey,I hired you to do a job. I paid you to do a job. You've been paid to do a job,and you left me with this. MR. TRAVER-And they weren't aware that what he was doing was not in compliance with what was approved? MR. GAZETOS-Well part of the problem is this,and I mean again,it's hard to speculate because I did the nice compliant dock,but,you know,you ask for stuff. My clients do it all the time. Hey, can I get this. Hey,can I get one of these, and it's a hard conversation to say,they're going to say they're going to say no. And on my end, when you're doing the Park Commission side, I'm LEED defined, and that's good when you've got it's 5/Sths of an inch over on a stupid handrail and it ruined my Christmas. Sometimes it's an accident. Sometimes you should know better, and after a while you know better. And I think that this guy, for whatever reason, like I said, I really do believe on the upper deck, sir, if I came back in, in mid process,and said to you I have a problem. Here's the picture. I have to put the footing here not here. You guys are reasonable, but this is, like you said, beyond the fact. Nobody raised their hand and it is unapproved development. So I'm trying to figure out how to make, I'm trying to figure out how to put lipstick on this pig,so that you guys will approve it. MR. TRAVER-Laura, a procedural question. Would one option be to table this and have the applicant submit a modification to a site plan and indicate what it would look like? MRS. MOORE-So this is sort of what it is, this is. So we don't have an Unapproved category as an application process. MR. TRAVER-No,I understand,but. MRS. MOORE-So this is a site plan modification. MR. TRAVER-And right now it's asking for our recommendation to the ZBA. I'm just wondering if it would be in the applicant's interest to submit,I don't know what it would be called,modified modification to the 2014 site plan and it would show the removal of the non-compliant components and what they would like to do to clean up the situation today? 21 (Queensbury Planning Board 06/21/2022) MR. DEEB-Isn't that what he's doing now? MRS. MOORE-That's how I foresee this application is that this is what the applicant is showing you is that here's the conditions today and this is what we're removing as part of that. MR. TRAVE R-Right,I understand that,and they're going to remove part of it. Okay, all right. MRS. MOORE-And the only other thing I can think of is taking the deck plans that Mr. Miller has done and maybe overlaying them on top. I think that's a difficult thing to do to confirm the size and things like that that may be of assistance,but again I think some of the quandary is that the previous contractor did not provide enough information to clarify what was on this site. MR. MAGOWAN-All right. So looking at your pink page, okay,I see the upper deck area and the steps going down. Now is that lower wood deck in front of your compliant dock that you did, all right, that wood deck that's connected to the pink pad that goes all the way over to the other. Is that out of compliance where the shed is? MR. GAZETOS-The shed and the wood deck,that was always there,and the stairs coming down from the wood deck to the dock were always there. And he added the weird spot that I put in pink between the two and then he connected the shed and the lower wood deck, the one by the shoreline. So that little bridge right there and then the difference in the width of the upper deck is I think like SO%of my issue. MRS. MOORE-So if you look on my, on Item Seven, it says the shoreline deck size is 120 square feet of additional decking, approved was 2SS and existing is 409. So that's the shoreline decking, and that includes the areas on either side of the steps. MR. GAZETOS-If I may. So this is part of that difference in space and then this right here. MR. MAGOWAN-So the other wood deck was there. MR. GAZETOS-This was here,yes. MR. MAGOWAN-All right. MR. GAZETOS-And so this makes no sense. I don't know why he did this. It has two potted plants on it. And the stairs were fine. That was confusing. This, the way the shed was, and the shed was shorter and it had a flat roof. He went to this peaked roof and they probably expanded it out like a four by five, made the little bridge, and the walkway all had to do with, Mr. Francis'parents are in their SO's, and so when they comedown for the day,they comedown once and they go up once. Sothis is how they got into the boat. This is where everybody changed,that was that,and so in his mind I think that's how he sort of justified it was because of the difficulty created by the property. Again, now that we have the "U" dock here, this doesn't, he doesn't want this anymore. This is sort of in disrepair. I hope to get to that next year,but it's really the additional square footage,here,here,here,here and then this right here are the bulk of it. The shed itself is maybe 14 square,16 square bigger, and they changed the roof line inside of it. MR. TRAVER-And it's within the shoreline buffer. MR. GAZETOS-Yes,sir,but there was always a shed within the shoreline buffer. It's almost like,the way it looks in the pictures it's almost on the one side of the tree and then it grew and went like halfway past the tree,and then it connected with the bridge,but to tell you the truth,when I came back to fix the dock last fall,the biggest thing that I noticed was the crazy walkway because that's a super nova. MR. TRAVER-That one was built a year ago. MR. GAZETOS-What,the walkway? MR. TRAVER-Yes. MR. GAZETOS-No, that's, well, I haven't been there in eight years and I just came back to tune up the dock and all of a sudden I'm like,what is that. MR. TRAVER-Yes. MR. DIXON-So are you saying the boathouse to the north is in total disrepair? MR. GAZETOS-It's not in total disrepair, but it could use,you know,you could always tune it up, but now he brings the boat over for the old folks to get in. MR. DIXON-Is it worth removing? 22 (Queensbury Planning Board 06/21/2022) MRS. MOORE-We don't have jurisdiction over the boathouse. MR. DIXON-Scrap that question. MR.GAZETOS-That's hard,too,sir,because giving up dock space is,as you know,it's at a super-premium these days. MR. DEEB-So the walkway would go. MR. GAZETOS-Yes,sir. MR. DEEB-What about that lower deck, and probably the dock,the newer dock. MR.GAZETOS-So if I can get most of this out through here,except for maybe that little center push which really doesn't do anything,it supports the stairs,that's about it. So my thought was to clip the wings off, get as much square out of here,trim off that, and then since that is still in the setback,get rid of that,just to try to,as you say you can't trade square to get into compliance,but I thought the more compliant I could be the better I would be. And then I'm asking from you guys,if I did some more shoreline plantings,what else can I do to make this,even if I have to,what can I do to make this better? MR. DEEB-The shed's a concern to me, also. Is there a way it can be moved? MR.GAZETOS-The problem with this whole lot,that creates most of this,the decks themselves,probably somewhere into here there's about a 15 to 20 foot cliff. So I got the six by six's down to fix this. I slid them down with a rope because there's no way we're carrying them. MR. DEEB-A lot of the non-compliance could be removed by removing the walkway,removing that lower decking and that other part behind the upper boathouse. MR. GAZETOS-Molly who used to be the LGPC permit lady,used to do the smaller stuff. Anything that she said there's no chance to be,she'd do the red pen. My daughter only had pink highlighters. So I went that way,but my whole point was not to come in and ask for something ridiculous. It was to come in and say help me close this out for you. Let me pack the wooden walkway and all the junk on my barge and throw I out in a dumpster somewhere. MR. TRAVER-But it's not our,I mean you can't make it our project. I mean it was our project in 2014 and we did our job. MR. GAZETOS-And I agree. My client got himself over his head and now he wants to do right, and his words to me the other day were, well can't they just fine me and tell me how to fix, and I was hoping for some feedback in that vein. The problem is the way the process is,you guys don't have a process for that. It's almost like I have to come in and act like this didn't exist and we're doing it new and come in for a variance and a site plan. MR. TRAVER-You could submit a site plan modification. MR. MAGOWAN-Well that's what this is here. MR. DEEB-That's why he's here now. It is a modification. MR. MAGOWAN-This is your site plan modification. So in my case, I like,get rid of your shed. Get rid of your pink highlighted areas like you said, and let's look to see what you could do to do some more shoreline buffering from there to the dock,or to the boathouse and down below. It is,like I said,I can see the big drop offs and I can see the challenges of doing that. The six inches over, I can live with that. I mean,that,you raised your hand,put a stop,and I admire you doing the process,but that I can be favorable on that,but I like the idea of removing what you can and see what we can do to get the Board,and I'm only one,more shoreline buffering. MR. DEEB-Can you give me an estimate of how close you'd be coming to compliance if you did everything we just talked about? How close would you have been to compliance from 2014? MR. GAZETOS-I'm within I think 100 square, something like that. 120 square. Here's the biggest problem also,the last applicant,the application was so bad that Laura and I are trying to figure out from the pictures from RPS plus the notes I have when I did the dock,plus the guy literally,you know what,he could have done a more complete application and it was tough to follow what the actual difference was, and so I think in his mind he thought he was just re-building the existing with just the modification a little bit in the upper deck, and obviously that's now how it turned out, but even when we go to do the impermeable,we had the hardest time trying to make the math work. 23 (Queensbury Planning Board 06/21/2022) MR. DIXON-Well knowing that we've got issues down by the shoreline, is there anything else on the property that you're wanting to disclose now? I mean,are there any other structures? MR. GAZETOS-No. The footprint of the house is the same. All he did was side it through the roof. The whole problem comes into this,the way he connected it to the boathouse. MR. DEEB-If this,these modifications which are there now, and you get rid of all your pink areas and you do something with the shed, add plantings,if you're like within 10, 150/o of the 2014 site plan, I probably could live with that,but I can't put a number on it. MRS.MOO RE-So actually you can. So in your information you have an updated site data sheet,and if you look at sum to be removed,it's 310 , and the deck total approved in 2014 was 976, existing today is 1,310, this is 334 more than approved. So 334 minus 310,24 square feet. MR. MAGOWAN-Twenty-four square feet. MR. DEEB-From 2014. MRS. MOORE-If you talk about square foot only. MR. DEEB-Okay. MR. TRAVER-Well the decking is 150E square feet, and what was approved was 976, and they're only talking about taking it down to 1262. MR. GAZETOS-The one behind the boathouse I don't think was in his number. Right? A bunch of stuff, he just didn't follow directions the right way. I'm trying to be nice. MR. DEEB-I understand. I understand what you're saying. MRS. MOORE-Also with regards to that boathouse, it wouldn't necessarily all be included because a portion of it is obviously on the shoreline. In this case because there was some discrepancy about how that shoreline weaved its way around the boathouse the entirety of it has been included in the numbers. So it inflated it. MR. GAZETOS-It's better to show all my cards and raise my hand at this point,right? MR. DEEB-Rather than do it and ask for permission later, or forgiveness and ask for permission and not get it. Right? MR. GAZETOS-Yes. So it's weird because the way you do the math is, and this has a giant boulder in here that connects into this. The mean high water mark is where it comes in and then back out,and so I included all of this, but I thought, again, it's not compliant, but I'm more compliant by getting rid of as much of it as I can was the thought,and then I could say to Mr. Francis,hey,when we go to yank this out, we do a couple of big,you call them a buffer garden type thing. MR. DEE&We're going to request plantings. MR. GAZETOS-And I'm all for that,because as a guy who makes his living, for example, I did this one. I've got another one to do in the fall three houses over. I've got another one. I'm up and down here. So the quality of the lake,obviously. MR. DEEB-It's about 300 square feet over the 2014 site plan. Right now. If he does everything,not right now,but he's got to tear all that out and that brings it down to just over 300 square feet,which is tolerable. MR. GAZETOS-Part of that was pre-existing. I think his math was wrong. Because I can point out at least,Laura,I figured,right,behind the thing and I mean there's another 500 square feet that he just didn't take the time. I have a really hard time not saying this. MR.DEEB-I don't know how Steve feels,but I think we probably should table and have you come up with a real specific remedial program to get this taken care of and then come back and see us again. MR. GAZETOS-My thought was if I came in and you guys said this plus let's say you said I want four big, whatever you call them, deciduous plantings going along where the path was,right? I go to the zoning, will they also agree with that. MR. DEEB We can't speak to that. MR. TRAVER-Well you don't need a variance for shoreline buffer. In fact it's required. 24 (Queensbury Planning Board 06/21/2022) MR. MAGOWAN-Shoreline buffering is required. MR. TRAVER-Yes,but that's not a variance. MR. GAZETOS-But didn't you have a zoning variance, Laura correct me if I'm wrong, as part of this, and so that same six inches. MR. TRAVER-Well,yes,if you need a variance because it's not in compliance with what's been approved, that requires a variance. You're talking about plantings. MR. DEEB-You have to have it for the square footage over what the site plan called for. MR. TRAVER-My concern is if an applicant comes in,hypothetically, and they say we'd like a 900 square foot deck,and we say,no,it's got to be 600 square feet,and they say okay,and then they build it 900 square feet,and then they comeback and say,gee,we made it 900 square feet. Will you give us the extra 300 feet. What message are we sending? I mean that's the position that we're being placed in here. MR. DEEB-Is there any way you can lop off that,go back to the 2014 site plan? MR. GAZETOS-Which puts me in the spot of,I'm going to end up,I'm going to make a mess of that deck, of the upper deck,trying to figure out how to cut it back. 1100%understand that,sir,but my thing is the way the system is,and again,like you said,it would be great if I could come back in and do a variance. The system isn't set up that way. So I'm here doing the best I can to negotiate an answer and I want to ask whatever I can add,subtract,do to the Town's favor to clean up this mess. MR. TRAVER-Yes. Well I like the Vice Chairman's suggestion of perhaps tabling, considering tabling this and have you come back with a detailed, a more detailed explanation in comparison with the 2014, what was approved, and not so much what's there now but what you're proposing, and what the differences would be between the two. MR. DEEB-That would be more palatable. Really, I mean I think then we get a much closer look at it to see this versus this. MR. GAZETOS-So specifically, all right, you want to see the difference in size with this, right? So whatever the difference is on the overlay from what was drawn and approved. MR. DEEB-Yes. MR. GAZETOS-To what's there now. Correct? MR. DEEB-Yes. MR. GAZETOS-So if it's six inches and then maybe a foot this way,whatever it turns out to be. MR. DEEB-Yes. Everything you're going to remove. MR. TRAVER-And my suggestion would be to eliminate as much,if not all, of unapproved development, you know, approving any unapproved development is sending a message. So anything you can do, at the very least,if you can't eliminate it,at least make it as small as possible. MR. GAZETOS-Because that's what I started out to try to do here, and then I was thinking,I don't need to add. I'm not building anything new,but what could I make my client promise to do,as we were talking about the shoreline buffer or anything else like that I could add in addition. MR. TRAVER-Well that would be part of your proposal would be the shoreline. MR. GAZETOS-Because this is my proposal. MR. MAGOWAN-If I may,because I really understand what you're trying to do here, all right. What I would be happy, if you can get us the upper deck, what was approved of what's there now and some measurements so we can understand and plan ongoing for a variance for that, all right. Can't guarantee you anything,but that,because if the variance board turns it down,then you'll have to do something about that,but if that gets passed,then what I would ask for is the removal of the pink, and a really,really nice extensive shoreline buffering. MR. DEEB-And do something with the shed. MR. MAGOWAN-And the shed's gotta go. 25 (Queensbury Planning Board 06/21/2022) MR. GAZETOS-Okay,the shed has to go in its entirety. All right. So even though there was an existing shed there,that overlapped that footprint,the entire shed's got to go? MR. MAGOWAN-It's a give and take. You've got to give and take. Eight years. MR. GAZETOS-All right. MR. DEEB-And you'll need that six inch variance also, for the footing, which I don't think should be a problem. MR. GAZETOS-In theory,if I convince my client the shed's going to go, and if the shed goes,theoretically the shed's little tail has to go. Right? MR. MAGOWAN-Right. MR. GAZETOS-So then the only thing at that point that I think I'm out of compliance,Laura tell me if I'm wrong,is that tiny strip along here, which is a strip like I said in my heart of hearts I believe if he'd come running in here and said I've got a problem,I screwed up,that you guys would have been sympathetic to if he had taken pictures of here's what's wrong with the hill. Sort of like the guys who need the 29 and a half feet. Hey,I can't put this here because of this. I need that. MR. DEEB-And also that's along the same lines as the footing that you have to move six inches. Actually those are the only two that you'd be asking for if I'm valuing this correctly. Those would be the two minor variances that you'd be asking for as a modification after you. MR. TRAVER-Well it's still unapproved development,but it's a lot more palatable. MR. DEEB-Yes,he'd be taking most of it out. MR. GAZETOS-Again,really close to the margin of error. MR.MAGO WAN-Do it,go for the variance. We have to approve a recommendation to the variance board, and by getting rid of all that, I'd feel more comfortable with that,but like I said, I'm only one here,but I would like to see that with an extensive shoreline buffering. MR. TRAVER-Yes, I mean we have to be careful because it's not our project, but I think if we give the representative an opportunity to come in with a more detailed description of exactly what's going on, I think it might get a better reception. MR. DEEB-He's rectified most of the errors that were made. MR. GAZETOS-I'm hung up on that shed and the upper deck. That's where I'm stuck at, and when I looked at the upper deck, again,it should have been done in compliance or they should have during the process as you said come back and said we need a modification,but I think that one is close enough where it would, because it makes sense when you see it, and maybe I've got to take some pictures and sort of show. So what you want is, and follow me one more time so I get this all right. I had a blue line,this is my variance. This is what I'm asking for at the end of the day, and then anything else I can get him to give up in pink and then we'll say I have my green spot, which is going to be where my extensive shoreline buffer comes in. MR. DEEB-If I recall you need the variance for the six inches for the footing,and then the square. MR. GAZETOS-The footing I think is in the right spot. This has something to do with the stairs. His problem,the way I see it,this is,again,like being an archeologist,contractor. I'm trying to figure out why he had this problem. I think it has to do with he had trouble with the stairs. MR. DEE&Well just clarify. MR. GAZETOS-Yes, sir. All right so then from here do I table it and come back next month? Where do I go? MR. TRAVER-Well, what's the schedule look like, Laura? How long will it take you to update the proposal? MR. GAZETOS-I can have it done tomorrow. MRS. MOORE-So there's no room on the July agenda at all. And I would say that August is almost full. MR. DEEB-I would jump on August. It's almost full. 26 (Queensbury Planning Board 06/21/2022) MR. MAGOWAN-That gives you time. MR.TRAVER-It's a recommendation,and if it comes in significantly modified,it doesn't sound like it may take too long to review after the long discussion we had this evening. So how about August? Will that work,Laura? MRS. MOORE-I'm just saying that August is almost filled. MR. TRAVER-I would say now it is filled if we let him come in in August. MR. GAZETOS-So,Laura,what do you need from me to? MRS. MOORE-We'll chat about this. MR. DEEB-You get together with Laura,she'll help you out with this. MR. GAZETOS-Doing this sheet with Laura,the one's with the difference in the like floor area ratio now with this project is the most difficult one I've ever done. It's like how do we make this work? Was this here before or was it not? MR. DEEB-This is a great learning experience. MR. MAGOWAN-Isn't she great to work with? MR. GAZETOS-She's the best. She puts up with me. MR. MAGOWAN-We're blessed to have her with us. MR. TRAVER-Laura,between the 16`h and the 23rd meeting,does it make a difference which one? MRS. MOORE-If you're going to make a recommendation, then you'd like to be able to have it be on the Zoning Board of Appeals. MR. TRAVER-So the 16`h? MRS. MOORE-Yes. MR. TRAVER-Okay. All right. So this would be tabled to the August 16`h Planning Board meeting. MR. DIXON-And when do we want the information due by? MR. TRAVER July 15. Probably sooner than that so he can continue his discussion with Laura. Does anyone have any concerns about the tabling idea? Okay. Go ahead. RESOLUTION TABLING SP#35-2022 MORGAN GAZETOS/GREG FRANCIS Applicant proposes Applicant requests approval for construction of a deck addition not constructed per approval.Additionally,the applicant has completed additional work without approval including deck area near shoreline, shoreline pathway decking, and a reconstructed shed/changing accessory structure near the shore. The existing house footprint of 1,255 sq.ft.to remain the same. The decking areas of 2,270 sq.ft. to be reduced to 1,930 sq. ft.,- original approval was for 1,40E sq. ft.. Pursuant to chapter 179-3-040,179-13- 010,site plan for hard surfacing within 50 ft.of the shoreline and expansion of a non-conforming structure shall be subject to Planning Board review and approval. Variance: Relief is sought for setbacks. Planning Board shall make a recommendation to the Zoning Board of Appeals. MOTION TO TABLE SITE PLAN 35-2022 MORGAN GAZETOS/GREG FRANCIS. Introduced by Michael Dixon who moved for its adoption,seconded by Jackson LaSarso. Tabled until the August 16,2022 Planning Board meeting with information due by July 15,2022. Duly adopted this 21'day of June 2022 by the following vote: AYES: Mr. Deeb,Mr. Dixon, Mr. Longacker,Mr. Stark,Mr. Magowan,Mr. LaSarso,Mr. Traver NOES: NONE ABSENT: Mr. Molloy 27 (Queensbury Planning Board 06/21/2022) MR. TRAVER-All right. We'll see you in August. Good luck. MR. GAZETOS-Thank you,gentlemen. See you all in August. MR. TRAVER-The next section of our agenda is New Business, and the first item is Kimberly Butler, Site Plan 33-2022. NEW BUSINESS: SITE PLAN NO.33-2022 SEQR TYPE: TYPE IL KIMBERLY BUTLER. AGENT(S): BARTLETT, PONTIFF, STEWART &z RHODES. OWNER(S): QUEENSBURY MASONIC HISTORICAL. ZONING: NR. LOCATION: 15 BURKE DRIVE. APPLICANT PROPOSES USE OF ABOUT 3,600 SQ. FT. OF THE LOWER PORTION OF THE EXISTING MASONIC HISTORICAL SOCIETY BUILDING TO OPERATE A DAYCARE CENTER. THE LOWER PORTION IS TO BE DIVIDED INTO SECTIONS FOR CARE ROOMS,REST ROOMS,AND ACCESS. THE PROJECT INCLUDES AN OUTSIDE PLAY AREA. THE PARKING AREA WIL BE SHARED BETWEEN THE HISTORIC SOCIETY AND THE DAYCARE. HISTORIC SOCIETY PORTION OF THE BUILDING, INCLUDING VESTIBULE,IS 4,020 SQ.FT.PURSUANT TO CHAPTER 179-3-040,SITE PLAN FOR A NEW USE IN A NEIGHBORHOOD RESIDENTIAL ZONE FOR A DAYCARE SHALL BE SUBJECT TO PLANNING BOARD REVIEW AND APPROVAL. CROSS REFERENCE: SP 11-2009, PZ 535-2021. WARREN CO.REFERRAL: JUNE 2022. LOT SIZE: 4.29 ACRES. TAX MAP NO. 302.5-1-1. SECTION: 179-3-040. STEFANIE BITTER, REPRESENTING APPLICANT,PRESENT;KIMBERLY BUTLER,PRESENT MR. TRAVER-Laura? MRS. MOORE-This application is to use a lower portion of the existing Masonic Historical Society building. This is 3,600 of this building and then the upper half which the Society operates is 4,020. This applicant went through a Petition of Zone Change or the Masonic Lodge went through a Petition of Zone Change,to add daycare to Neighborhood Residential and therefore this is why this applicant comes before us because they now have the opportunity to go through Site Plan Review to have a daycare use. MR. TRAVER-Very good. Thank you. Good evening. MS.BITTER-Good evening. Stefanie Bitter. I'm here with Kimberly Butler as well as the head of the board who is here relative to the property ownership. Fairly simple request. The building is existing. Her interest is to put a daycare center in the lower portion of the building. The only real change to the exterior is that she will have an outdoor play area that's 35 by 35. So that is going to be the only modification to the site as it exists. Even her signage is going to be part of the existing sign. No further illumination. Parking doesn't need to be added upon. There's enough spaces to address what's permitted and necessary for a daycare center use,and we're just trying to revitalize this space at this point in time,and we're seeking waivers,obviously,because it's an existing building that she's simply trying to occupy. MR. TRAVER-Well it sounds like a great idea. MR. DEEB-Are you going to have a fence around it? MS. BUTLER-There is already a fence there. MR.DEEB-Yes,I think we discussed it when Chris was on the Board,and he said it was a good use for the building,if I remember correctly. MR. TRAVER-Yes. It's certainly a needed service. MR. DIXON-Are you going to put anymore buildings outside that house toys or anything at this point? MS. BUTLER-No, there's two sheds there, but, no, there will be a playground. There won't actually be toys outside. I don't want the clutter. We don't want just little toys thrown around. There'll be a commercial playground that will be per the State. MR. DIXON-I'm just thinking to myself,good luck with the clutter. MS. BUTLER-Well,I've done daycare at my home for 23 years. Sothis is not my first rodeo. MR. DEEB-How many kids? MS. BUTLER-There will be 5S if the State approves the license number. Square footage allows for 5S children. 2S (Queensbury Planning Board 06/21/2022) MR. DEEB-Fifty-eight. How many employees will that require? MS. BUTLER-About 10. MR. TRAVER-That's quite a staff ratio. MR. MAGOWAN-I'm also on the Board of Supervisors, and this is one of the things that we've been working on,and,please,I don't know if you're going to need any help,but reach out to our EDC,but child care is a huge benefit to our area and it is needed greatly,and I appreciate you reaching out,but really the Masonic Lodge,still keeping together and your group are realizing that they don't need the whole building, and with the churches, and I remember when we came with the re-zoning and everything. To me I was just baffled because,you know,we have the apartments behind and the two churches and the schools,but I understand that process. It's been a long haul getting here. So I'm really excited that it's to come to fruition and,my gosh,that's a lot of kids. I hope the State comes through for you. My heart goes out to you.. MR. DEEB-Do you anticipate any problems finding employees? It's hard to find people to work. MS.BUTLER-No,because I'm a really good boss. I have two employees right now. So I need to find eight, but,no,I'm a positive thinker. MR. TRAVER-There is a public hearing on this application. Is there anyone in the audience that wanted to address the Planning Board on this application Site Plan 33-2022? Are there any written comments? PUBLIC HEARING OPENED MRS. MOORE-There are no public comments. MR. TRAVER-Okay. All right. We'll go ahead and close the public hearing,then. PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED MR. TRAVER-Any further questions, comments from members of the Board? Do members feel comfortable moving forward on this? Okay. I guess we're ready for that motion. RESOLUTION APPROVING SP#33-2022 KIMBERLY BUTLER The applicant has submitted an application to the Planning Board:Applicant proposes use of about 3,600 sq.ft.of the lower portion of the existing Masonic Historical Society building to operate a daycare center. The lower portion is to be divided into sections for care rooms,rest rooms,and access.The project includes an outside play area. The parking area will be shared between the Historic Society and the daycare. Historic Society portion of the building,including vestibule,is 4,020 sq.ft. Pursuant to chapter 179-3-040, site plan for a new use in a neighborhood residential zone for a daycare shall be subject to Planning Board review and approval. Pursuant to relevant sections of the Town of Queensbury Zoning Code-Chapter 179-9-OSO, the Planning Board has determined that this proposal satisfies the requirements as stated in the Zoning Code; As required by General Municipal Law Section 239-m the site plan application was referred to the Warren County Planning Department for its recommendation; The Planning Board opened a public hearing on the Site plan application on 6/21/2022 and continued the public hearing to 6/21/2022 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 6/21/2022; 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 33-2022 KIMBERLY BUTLER, Introduced by Michael Dixon who moved for its adoption; Per the draft provided by staff conditioned upon the following conditions: 1) Waivers request granted: g. site lighting, j. stormwater, k. topography, 1. landscaping, n traffic, o. commercial alterations/construction details, q. soil logs,r. construction/demolition disposal s. snow 29 (Queensbury Planning Board 06/21/2022) removal as the waivers requested are reasonable as project activity is focused on the lower level and the use of daycare will not alter the site. 2) The approval is valid for one(1)year from the date of approval. Applicant is responsible for requesting an extension of approval before the one(1)year time frame has expired. 3) Adherence to the items outlined in the follow-up letter sent with this resolution. a) If application was referred to engineering,then engineering sign-off required prior to signature of Zoning Administrator of the approved plans; b) Final approved plans should have dimensions and setbacks noted on the site plan/survey,floor plans and elevation for the existing rooms and proposed rooms in the building and site improvements, c) Final approved plans,in compliance with the Site Plan,must be submitted to the Community Development Department before any further review by the Zoning Administrator or Building and Codes personnel; d) The applicant must meet with Staff after approval and prior to issuance of Building Permit and/or the beginning of any site work; e) Subsequent issuance of further permits,including building permits is dependent on compliance with this and all other conditions of this resolution; f) As-built plans to certify that the site plan is developed according to the approved plans to be provided prior to issuance of the certificate of occupancy; g) Resolution to be placed on final plans in its entirety and legible. Motion seconded by Brad Magowan. Duly adopted this 21"day of June 2022 by the following vote: AYES: Mr. Dixon, Mr. Longacker,Mr. Stark,Mr. Magowan,Mr. LaSarso,Mr. Deeb,Mr. Traver NOES: NONE ABSENT: Mr. Molloy MR. TRAVER-You're all set. MS. BUTLER-Thank you so much. MS. BITTER-Excellent. Thank you so much everyone. MR. MAGOWAN Jim Siplon,EDC,Economic Development Downtown. MS. BUTLER-Okay. MR. MAGOWAN-Have him reach out. We have the LDC for loans that might be able to help you out. Like I said,this is a needed thing in the community and,really,thank you very much. MS. BUTLER-Thank you. MR.MAGOWAN-This means we might be able to get some more people back to work again because now they can have daycare. MS. BUTLER-Yes. MR. TRAVER-The next item on our agenda is New Business also Unapproved Development. This is Everts Avenue Self Storage, Site Plan Modification 38-2022. SITE PLAN MODIFICATION 38-2022 SEQR TYPE: TYPE II. EVERTS AVE SELF STORAGE. AGENT(S): DANIEL RYAN. OWNER(S): SCOVEPROPERTIES LLC. ZONING: CI. LOCATION: 106 EVERTS AVENUE. APPLICANT PROPOSES MODIFICATION OF AN APPROVED SITE PLAN FOR SITE CHANGES THAT WERE NOT CONSTRUCTED PER APPROVAL. THE SITE CHANGES INVOLVE A SPLIT RAIL FENCE SECTION, CHANGE F LOCATION OF CHAIN LINK FENCE, REDUCING A BUILDING SIZE REPLACEMENT WITH PAVEMENT, LANDSCAPING NOT INSTALLED DUE TO EXISTING VEGETATION AND A LIGHT POLE. PURSUANT TO CHAPTER 179-9-120, MODIFICATION OF A PREVIOUSLY APPROVED SITE PLAN SHALL BE SUBJECT TO PLANNING BOARD REVIEW AND APPROVAL. CROSS REFERENCE: SUB 3-1999, SP 74-2010, PETITION FOR ZONE CHANGE 2-2002, SP 11- 2017,FWW 1-2017,FWW 1-2017,SUP 2-2017,SUB(F)5-2017. WARREN CO.REFERRAL: JUNE 2022. LOT SIZE: 3.26 ACRES. TAX MAP NO. 302.8-2-66.12. SECTION: 179-9-120. DAN RYAN,REPRESENTING APPLICANT,PRESENT MR. TRAVER-Laura? 30 (Queensbury Planning Board 06/21/2022) MRS. MOORE-So in regards to this application,it is a modification of an approved plan. There are some changes to the site in one building. It involves a split rail fence, change of location of another fence type and then reducing the building size and replacing that area with pavement. Also included is landscaping not to be installed and a light pole that was to be installed and was not installed. MR. TRAVER-Okay. Thank you. Good evening. MR. RYAN-Hi. Good evening. Dan Ryan here on behalf of the applicants. Unfortunately they were not able to attend tonight. So I'll do my best to answer any and all questions you have. This project was approved in 2017 and has been constructed in I think three or four phases, a couple of buildings initially and then I think one building each subsequent year. As they've kind of operated the site and gotten used to the types of uses and needs on the site, they have requested some changes that are basically more in terms of operations as they see moving forward,now that the site is fully developed. The permits are not closed out. It's basically in its final step,which is to,final site stabilization,and once the grass is growing they'll be able to close out the permit. So there were a couple of minor,I would consider minor alterations to the approval. I think there's six of them so I'll just go through them real quickly and then hopefully if you find them to be minor as well, we can basically approve an as built condition, but if you have any questions or issues,you know, we can discuss those as they come up. So Item Number One is regarding, this area on the east side of the parcel is wetlands, and so there is a 100 foot adjacent area which was part of the original approval with Freshwater Wetland permit. We also did require a wetland permit with DEC. The reason we originally proposed split rail fence along this edge of the storm basin was DEC had requested that to act as a physical barrier to that adjacent area. If you're familiar with the site, it's a big open field. It is starting to grow in now,but they were concerned they would put RV's over there,stored stuff. Once DEC came back out to the property,upon completion of the site development,they realized that we did have a four foot deep basin along that whole eastern edge of the property which basically acted as a physical barrier. It's impossible to get anything across that. So DEC approved, from their permit perspective,the removal of split rail fence along that edge. We did have the owners install split rail from about the northern edge of the pavement to the corner and then likewise the southern side there's also a section of split rail to close off that area where the basin doesn't exist. So that is the first approval request. The second one,I guess relating to fence,is the chain link fence. Laura, can you scroll just up a little bit? Thank you. You'll seethe chain link fence was originally proposed right along the backside of that Building E for kind of like space for plowing and ability to mow the grass,rather than having to get,install a gate and get outside of that area. They put the fence right along the back property line to meet up with that last section of split rail that's right here. So that chain link fence, instead of being proposed there, was installed along the back property line, and that really is just to facilitate snow storage as well as mowing. Number Three,can you scroll back down,sorry,Laura,I'm jumping around a little bit. Originally we had two pole lights at the main entrance drive here. So one is right about where the pointer is. The other one is here at this parking area. The key fob for opening and closing the gate is about halfway between those, and it was pretty dark at that location of the key fob. So they did install a third pole mounted light right at that key fob location where you punch in the code to get into the facility. So that was change number three. Change number four, the signage. Originally the entrance sign had a landscaped berm and then also originally was proposed to have a planter box built up around it that the sign would be installed in. That became a little bit cumbersome and they wanted something a little bit simpler to maintain. So what they've installed is basically a rock lined landscape area around a ground mounted sign. I did provide some pictures. Hopefully you got a chance to look at those. So again that was just more of a simplification of the type of sign that they wanted. We've got two more. Can you just scroll up a little more, Laura. Thanks. MR. MAGOWAN-But the size of the sign is compliant. MR. RYAN-The size and location, everything is compliant. So the only modification really is the style. The landscaping around it is a little bit different that there was no planter box installed. I think there is a photo of it that was included. Do you have the full application there or no? MRS. MOORE-I'm obviously trying to work on a couple of different systems. It's telling me that there's a virus. MR. RYAN-I think if you go up one more. It was the one you were on,the first one. MR. MAGOWAN-Yes,it is quite a moat there. I can see them, DEC, saying that you don't really have to worry about anything crossing that. MR. RYAN-Yes,it's almost impossible. There's the sign. Okay. Thanks,Laura. So again compliant sign in terms of location, size, again, it's really just absent that planter box that was originally detailed and proposed in the original application. Could you go back to,okay,perfect. Building E,which is the smallest building to the south,I think that was originally proposed as 140 feet long, and it was constructed 20 feet shorter than proposed. So that building basically is 20 feet shorter, and that area,that 20 by 20 area,was replaced by asphalt. So that was one of the other additional changes. And then the last is landscaping. Can you go back to the photos. If you just want to get to the next sheet I guess. So basically the original 31 (Queensbury Planning Board 06/21/2022) project was based on the survey and an anticipated disturbance area and so we were proposing some landscaping around the periphery. Landscaping in the front, we had several trees proposed right along this northern edge. What basically ended up happening is the position of this wetland pond and all that existing vegetation was able to be remaining in place and was allowed to continue to grow,and so over the last few years since the project was initiated this buffer area has been growing in pretty substantially and so rather than drive over there and plant a couple of trees along that northern edge,they'd like to just omit those trees and allow this natural buffer to remain. Figured that would be more of a native style growth and it is fairly thick. So that was one area they want to omit some landscaping that was originally proposed. You can scroll down to the next one. That's another view. So you can see how tight that vegetation is along that wetland,stormwater wetland. So they'd like to just let all that grow in naturally and just let that establish itself and continue to grow. You can go to the next sheet. Originally there were a few trees proposed along, this is a four to five foot deep stormwater pond. There's kind of like a steep one on one embankment up to that fence, and so there were trees originally proposed along this edge. They'd like to omit those because it's really hard to mow on that slope and also having to traverse around trees. They did install, as part of the original application, some screening for 200 feet of that fence, and then this edge of this fence is almost 300 feet to Everts Ave. So it's quite a distance of forest between Everts Ave and that edge of the property. So they'd like to omit those trees for convenience of mowing and considering that there's already a pretty substantial buffer along that west property line. MR. DIXON-That buffer that you're speaking of, those adjoining neighbors, it's not that property that's owned by. MR. RYAN-Correct. It wouldn't be on their property. That is a residential neighbor over there and part of that screening, that was like in initial discussions with that neighbor. It's a rental property. So that area was basically discussed back when. We do have,as it wraps the corner,there is no cut zone that was proposed and is remaining. It's 30 feet. So from here all the way to that 2S0 foot to that Everts Ave there is a 30 foot no cut zone along that edge as well. So that's going to remain as well. MR. MAGOWAN-On these,can you come down two,go back to the,would be the north side picture. MR. RYAN-So the back parking lot of that auto dealer or shop is right there. MR. MAGOWAN-Hewitt's. MR. RYAN-Or Hewitt's is here. MR. MAGOWAN-One of the things that I'm, on the trees, I do see the buffer, the vegetation and the growth, and I don't have a problem with that,but it's the grass area between the pavement,the drive and the stormwater basin,planting trees there, and also on the other side if we could do that,it's really, and also on the front,it's really not,it's really two,because what you see now is storage buildings,but if you put up some trees it will buffer that in,you know,it will kind of, I don't want to say camouflage it,but it will give it,you know,right now it just looks like a storage warehouse,but if you throw in some trees,to me,it will give it a little more beatification to it,you know. It will soften it a little bit more. What do you think of that? MR. RYAN-I don't disagree with the theory of buffering and screening buildings, especially with natural vegetation. I certainly think that's warranted on most projects. I just would ask you to take into consideration,this site,can you go to the aerial. I think it's the last sheet. This site is almost impossible to see from any public space,public highway or public road. MR. MAGOWAN-Well I drive up Everts Ave. MR. RYAN-And if you get that one peekaboo lane as you look up the driving lane, and that is the only visible spot on the entire project where,so right here,when you're driving by Everts,you can see down this path and that's it. This is all screened. This has got obviously commercial properties in front of it. This is forever wild wetland property,and this is all wetland property at the south end as well. This is probably the only storage facility in Queensbury that cannot be seen from hardly anywhere,and so they're really just asking for omission of some of that landscaping. Not because it's cheaper or easier to do. It's just in this instance where the visibility is very low it's not necessarily warranted for buffering for public view. While it would look nice maybe for users of the facility,that would be its primary purpose rather than buffering to an adjoining neighbor or from a public space, and so I don't disagree with screening and buffering and that would be a good location for it,between that driving lane and that wetland area,but again,it wouldn't serve any purpose in terms of Everts Ave. Maybe a tree or two here would help with that view that you're talking about as you drive by but the property's not visible from any other location. MR.MAGOWAN-It's really more for beautification,but the trees that are over there in that buffer,they're all low-lying. You've got an occasional tree,you know,but if we had,down the road,because these metal buildings are going to be here for a long time. If you can get a nice maple or a nice,you know,taller tree in there that would eventually bring in some more shade. You're omitting 17 trees. 32 (Queensbury Planning Board 06/21/2022) MR.RYAN-I don't disagree. I think this is a compromise. I'm always willing to recommend to my clients the right compromise, and I feel like considering beautification and if there's a need to install some trees for that purpose, I would recommend that they do what you ask, but they're here asking, not for forgiveness. They haven't finished the project,but it's more or less trying to mitigate some cost. Obviously everything has escalated in pricing since they began the project,and,you know,in terms of the logical side of landscaping from a buffering standpoint,while this would be more beautification,like you said. MR. MAGOWAN-I'm thinking more of beautification,because they're just roads,you know. MR. TRAVER-That's why they were originally proposed. That's why they were part of the approved plan. MR. MAGOWAN-Right. And I don't expect you to go on the other side of the stormwater basin, especially on the dry side,you know. They would look nice, and it would make it easier to mow around, and they could do little mulch beds around them. The back side, since that's really forever wild, I could forego that,but that,and the front just get something that's going to grow taller than some of the lowbrush that is there now. MR. RYAN-Laura,do you have the plan that has the red mark ups that I submitted in that set? I think it's Drawing C-5. MR. DEEB-Well ecologically I think it would be a smart idea to put trees in. I think it's going to help global warming, it's environmentally friendly, and I really think non-conforming is really the thing that we're talking about. MR. RYAN-I mean, this is classified as unapproved development. It's an incomplete project and they're asking for changes. This is the classic modification of an approval. MR. DEEB-It is. You changed everything. This Board knows my feeling on storage facilities. I've voiced it several times. They're ugly. They need to be updated. MR. RYAN-And there are quite a few of them that need a lot of beautification. MR. DEEB-They really do,but you're here now. MR. RYAN-I am here now, and this site, like we always says, talk about the merits of your project and forget all those other projects. MR. DEEB-That's right. MR. RYAN-And this site is unique in terms of location and how it's buffered. MR.DEEB-It is,and,you know,you don't want to put the split rail fence,because the APA said you didn't have to do it. MR. RYAN—We lucked out one time. MR.DEEB-I'd like to see a nice vinyl fence go there instead of a split rail fence. I'd like to see that. I'd like to see the trees put back in. As far as the pole light goes,I mean that was done without approval. MR. RYAN-Actually we did get administrative approval from Craig Brown on two or three of these items, but since we were coming here,we put them all on the site plan. MR. DEEB-Can you tell me which ones you got administrative approval on? MR. RYAN-I'm pretty sure that light was administratively approved. I've got e-mails. I'd be happy to provide them to Laura. MR. MAGOWAN-I know Craig has,in the past, done some small modifications to some things without coming back to the Planning Board,which. MR. RYAN-The fence was administratively approved. The split rail fence was administratively approved by Craig as was the light. MR. DEEB-All right. Well when you were shortening up the other building and you paved, does that affect the green space? MR. RYAN-No,it's hard surface for hard surface. 33 (Queensbury Planning Board 06/21/2022) MR. DEEB-All right. Well then that's fine. You've got a smaller building. I'm okay with that. MR. RYAN-Fewer units. MR. DEEB-But a lot of these things, I think we should have the trees. I'd like to see the fence go up. As long as you got administrative approval for the light and the fence. MR. RYAN-I think the theory was to come with an as built so that you saw everything that was different, essentially,from the original. MR. DEE&Well you came on the wrong night. MR.MAGOWAN-So if you want to get back to,I don't have a problem omitting the trees in the backside, because like I said from that all the way back to Mack the Knife it's pretty full, and that's,right now,it's all right with me. MR.RYAN-Would you,let me offer something,in terms of,obviously you want trees,and,you know,they want a beautiful facility,you know, they're really proud of it. So if we talk about the front stretch here, installing this tree here. I think we can add some additional vegetation. Like you said,if you drive down Everts, I think that would be a nice tree to have aesthetically. We're trying to remove these here. We don't want to encroach over into that. There are wetlands here. If you can see that mapped out barely here on this line. So we really don't want to go over and disturb that area if we don't have to. MR. MAGOWAN-I'm saying bring them towards the units more. MR.RYAN-Would you be okay with two or three in that space along that length as an alternative? Those were evergreens,but. MR. MAGOWAN-How about four? Because we're going to,well I don't have a problem with the ones in the back,but how about,can we do four along that? So you're going to have two coming in your driveway. Put one on the corner. MR.RYAN-Well they'd like to eliminate that one there just because that's where their sensors and all their equipment is for the sliding gate. So that was one of the ones they were trying to remove for that reason, but we did install these two here. They're installed,the ones along this,there was a gap in that existing buffer. So we installed those. MR. MAGOWAN-All right. All right. So I can see that one, you take that one on the corner. I can understand the sensors. How about put one right on the other side of that, and that would be one of the four that I'm asking for that driveway. MR.RYAN-Okay. So we would install that entrance one,behind the sign,in this vicinity behind the sign, and then four along that space to beautify the visible portion of the property let's call it. MR. MAGOWAN-Right. MR. RYAN-Okay, We could omit these along this side. MR. MAGOWAN-Right. MR. RYAN-And then these ones,I don't know if you could tell in the photo,there's really not a good place for those. MR. MAGOWAN-And that's pretty thick back there. MR.RYAN-You do have almost,well 2 SO feet from hereto here. Obviously that is a parcel we can't control what happens in the future,but it is residential. So it's unlikely that that huge area would be cleared at any point in time. So we do feel like there is a really substantial buffer in here and so omitting those may not be a detriment to the project,but I certainly think if we could compromise on these ones in the front where it is most visible that makes a lot of sense, as a tradeoff. MR. MAGOWAN-And then how about another one on that southeast corner at the end of the short building there. MR. RYAN-Like down in this area? MR. MAGOWAN-You have a tree removed there,yes,one in there. What do you think? 34 (Queensbury Planning Board 06/21/2022) MR. RYAN-That is a big area for snow stockpiling. So if you didn't want it there, then if we took these out, maybe we can get one in back over at the southern corner rather than the southeast, maybe the southwest. I just don't know,it wouldn't serve a big purpose there. MR. MAGOWAN-I can see that. We do need to have snow removal. I mean,that's,I'm only one. MR. RYAN-Like I said,they're willing,I'm speaking for them,I'm not asking them. I feel like they should, if they're asking for some assistance and relief,then that's the time to compromise a little bit. So I'm just trying to put some logic on it. MR. TRAVER-I like the improved tree plan. MR. MAGOWAN-And I'm happy with the sign MR. TRAVER-I think it was nicer when it was originally approved with a planter, but I think it's acceptable,because of where it's located. I don't think it's. MR. RYAN-I think their original sign was going to be much taller and so they wanted to do something a little shorter and simpler. MR. MAGOWAN-Dan, I'm looking at this picture here with the sign, all right. Okay. I asked for that tree in that front corner up here,then you're saying due to the sensors. MR. RYAN-The way it's shown on the other side of the fence. It's probably hard to tell there. MR. MAGOWAN-So if I look at this sign, it looks like this buffer is back a lot further than what it's showing here on the print. MR. RYAN-I think it was intended to be,let's see. I'm having trouble reading this. Thirty feet, I think, twenty or thirty feet. Let me see if it's on here. MR. MAGOWAN-So we're going to get those trees planted over here,you know. MR. DIXON-So four in that northern portion. MR. MAGOWAN-Four in that northern. MR. RYAN-Four here,the one by the sign. MR. MAGOWAN-And you can't get two on that drive in? MR. RYAN-We could. You're talking like this stretch,right? MR. MAGOWAN-Right. It looks a lot wider in this picture. It's pretty wide where you could put a nice tree there. MR. RYAN-Okay. So we would do. MRS. MOORE-Sorry,I just wanted to make sure,you're putting trees in this area now. MR. RYAN-Yes. We're talking about maybe two along that stretch. MR. MAGOWAN-Two there and the four on the other side. MR. RYAN-And we can call that good? MR. MAGOWAN-And then you said one over here in the corner. MR.RYAN-Either of these corners really are the big areas where all the snow ends up,I mean because they don't want to push it into the front area, and I'm going by four winters,you know, since this project was developed. MR. MAGOWAN-I can see that. MR. RYAN-All the snow does end up at the south end of that property unfortunately. MR. DIXON-So it was mentioned the southwest corner. 35 (Queensbury Planning Board 06/21/2022) MR. RYAN-Yes, it's the same thing where all this snow gets pushed right into this area, and then all this snow gets pushed into this area. So I think,if we're talking about getting six new trees or six trees,you know,that really does beautify,which is it's primary purpose for this particular site. It really does beautify the area that needs to be. MR. TRAVER-So two trees along the entranceway between the sign and the sensor,or the gate,right? MR. RYAN-Yes. MR. TRAVER-And then four more on the northern side of the storage property. MR. RYAN-Yes,that's six total. MR. MAGOWAN-By the south side of the. MR. RYAN-Of the basin. MR. MAGOWAN-Yes. MR. RYAN-And then the rest would be omitted, so that, again, snow storage, this is really just a really hard area to maintain and have trees and then that's just the natural buffer for DEC. MR. TRAVER-Okay. MR. DIXON-And these are all going to be deciduous trees from your? MR. RYAN-It sounds like that's what the preference would be, I mean because they get bigger and then they get the canopies on them. MR. TRAVER-Like the maple trees probably,something like that. MR. RYAN-Yes. MR. DIXON-Do we need to have anything about capable of having mature size , 30 feet plus? MR. MAGOWAN-Forty,fifty minimum,easy. MRS. MOORE-So start off with,I mean I understand that. So you want to put in six deciduous trees at a certain diameter for installation. MR. RYAN-I mean I would recommend,I mean it's hard to get three to five inch trees right now. They're very expensive. So,I mean,if you could do an inch and a half to two inch,you know,diameter or something. MR. MAGOWAN-No disrespect,Dan,but you mentioned money a few times. Now we've omitted trees. We're allowing that. We're asking for a little bit,but an inch and a half,two inch trees. MR. RYAN-You can disregard the money statement. MR. MAGOWAN-Okay. MR. RYAN-I'm trying to talk about ease of availability and installation. MRS. MOORE-I was going to say,there's not a lot of supply out there,and I'm familiar with that. MR. MAGOWAN-Well,I mean it's something that you're still. MR. RYAN-It's in the works. MR. MAGOWAN-We can place and order and get them in there. MR. RYAN-Yes, and ideally they wouldn't do it, if they could do it now, but ideally not in August, you know. MR. MAGOWAN-It would be more in the fall. MRS. MOORE-So no smaller than a one and a half. MR. MAGOWAN-I'd like three inch. 36 (Queensbury Planning Board 06/21/2022) MR. DEEB-How about three and a half inch. MR. RYAN-It's hard to get a three inch fifty foot tree right now. MR. MAGOWAN-Can you do the best you can? MR. RYAN-Yes. I mean give them some leeway. MR. TRAVER-Probably two and a half you could get,right? MR. RYAN-I say if you do two to three inch,you're giving yourselves flexibility. Would you be okay with that? MRS. MOORE-That's acceptable. MR. RYAN-We're talking diameter breast height,right? MR. TRAVER-Yes. MR. MAGOWAN-No,no,no, across by tape measure. I don't bring string with me. MR. RYAN-Okay. So six deciduous two to three inch, and two on the entrance and four in front of that north side. MR. MAGOWAN-Right. MR. DIXON-I thought I came up with seven. MR. RYAN-We took out the southwest corner one. MR. MAGOWAN-We took out the southwest for snow removal. MR. RYAN-Six total. MR. DEEB-Am I getting my vinyl fence? MRS. MOORE-No. MR. RYAN-The wildlife isn't into vinyl these days. So it's not the preferred material. MR. TRAVER-All right. Anything else from members of the Board? Are we comfortable moving forward with the modification including the restoring of some of the trees? I think we have a draft resolution. Do we not? MR. DIXON-I think I do. MS. GAGLIARDI-Excuse me,Mr. Chairman,you need to open the public hearing. MR.TRAVER-Yes. Thank you, Maria. There's nobody in the audience,but we'll open the public hearing. Laura, are there any written comments? PUBLIC HEARING OPENED MRS. MOORE-There are no written comments. MR. TRAVER-Okay. Then we'll close the public hearing. PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED MR. TRAVER-So I guess we're now read the for the motion. RESOLUTION APPROVING SP MOD#35-2022 EVERTS AVE SELF STORAGE MOTION TO APPROVE SITE PLAN MODIFICATION 38-2022 EVERTS AVE SELF STORAGE; Introduced by Michael Dixon who moved for its adoption; Per the draft provided by staff conditioned upon the following conditions: 37 (Queensbury Planning Board 06/21/2022) 1) Waivers request granted: g. site lighting, h. signage, j. stormwater, k. topography, 1. landscaping, n traffic, o. commercial alterations/ construction details, p floor plans, q. soil logs, r. construction/demolition disposal s.snow removal as the waiver is for these items that were previously addressed in the original 2017 application where the application is for as-built conditions request. 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. 3) Adherence to the items outlined in the follow-up letter sent with this resolution. a) If application was referred to engineering,then engineering sign-off required prior to signature of Zoning Administrator of the approved plans; b) Final approved plans should have dimensions and setbacks noted on the site plan/survey,floor plans and elevation for the existing rooms and proposed rooms in the building and site improvements, c) Final approved plans,in compliance with the Site Plan,must be submitted to the Community Development Department before any further review by the Zoning Administrator or Building and Codes personnel; d) The applicant must meet with Staff after approval and prior to issuance of Building Permit and/or the beginning of any site work; e) Subsequent issuance of further permits,including building permits is dependent on compliance with this and all other conditions of this resolution; f) As-built plans to certify that the site plan is developed according to the approved plans to be provided prior to issuance of the certificate of occupancy; g) Resolution to be placed on final plans in its entirety and legible. h) Six deciduous trees,two to three inch diameter,to be added. That the trees be added to the north boundary denoted as wetlands closest to the north storage building. Two deciduous trees added to the southwestern entrance between the sign and the sensor on the gate. Motion seconded by Jackson LaSarso. Duly adopted this 21st day of June 2022 by the following vote: AYES: Mr. LaSarso, Mr. Deeb,Mr. Dixon,Mr. Longacker, Mr. Stark,Mr. Magowan,Mr. Traver NOES: NONE ABSENT: Mr. Molloy MR. TRAVER-You're all set. A reminder that we'll be back for another meeting on Thursday night,and if there's no other business before the Board this evening, I'll entertain a motion to adjourn. MR. DEEB-So moved. MOTION TO ADJOURN THE QUEENSBURY PLANNING BOARD MEETING OF TUNE 21ST,2022, Introduced by David Deeb who moved for its adoption,seconded by Brad Magowan: Duly adopted this 21"day of June,2022,by the following vote: AYES: Mr. Deeb,Mr. Dixon,Mr. Longacker, Mr. Magowan,Mr. LaSarso,Mr. Traver NOES: NONE ABSENT: Mr. Molloy MR. TRAVER-We stand adjourned. Thanks,everybody. On motion meeting was adjourned. RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED, Stephen Traver,Chairman 3S