Loading...
11-29-2022 (Queensbury Planning Board 11/29/2022) QUEENSBURYPLANNINGBOARD MEETING SECOND REGULAR MEETING NOVEMBER 291r,2022 INDEX Site Plan No.26-2022 Eric Carlson 2. Freshwater Wetlands 5-2022 Tax Map No.239.12-2-S4 Site Plan No.29-2022 Reds LG LLC 11. Tax Map No.239.17-1-15 Site Plan No.73-2022 Schermerhorn Residential Holdings 19. Freshwater Wetlands 1S-2022 Tax Map No.2S9.16-1-5 Site Plan No.75-2022 Loreen Harvey/Kasselman Solar 24. FURTHER TABLED Tax Map No.266.3-1-76.1 Site Plan No.76-2022 3 Sons and Holly LLC 25. FURTHER TABLED Tax Map No.239.12-2-57 Site Plan No. 69-2022 Garden World Associates 25. Petition for Zone Change 5-2022 Tax Map No. 302.5-1-49;302.5-1-50 Site Plan No.74-2022 Steve&Tracey Bureau 30. Tax Map No.2S9.13-1-7 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 11/29/2022) QUEENSBURY PLANNING BOARD SECOND REGULAR MEETING NOVEMBER 29TH 2022 7.00 P.M. MEMBERS PRESENT STEPHEN TRAVER,CHAIRMAN DAVID DEEB,VICE CHAIRMAN MICHAEL DIXON,SECRETARY NATHAN ETU BRADY STARK WARREN LONGACKER BRAD MAGOWAN 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,November 29,2022. This is our second meeting for November and our 24`h meeting thus far for this year. I'd like to draw your attention to the illuminated exit signs in the building. Those are the emergency exits in the event that we all have to evacuate for one reason or another. So please make note of their location. If you have a cell phone or other electronic device,if you would either turn it off or turn the ringer off so as not to interrupt our proceedings,we'd appreciate that,and we also ask that,aside from public comment,public hearing,which we do have tonight for every item on the agenda,we ask that the audience maintain silence. If you want to have a discussion amongst yourselves,if you could just go to the outer lobby. We do record the audio of the meeting for taking the minutes. So we do appreciate your silence aside from the public hearing. We have a couple of administrative items this evening. One is the vote,the Board has to vote on the proposed meeting dates for next year,2023. You'll note that in the spring,March,April and May,we have draft third meetings. We don't always use them,but at one point we've found that in the spring, we've come to call that the growing season, we tend to have a lot of applications in the spring. So we've found that it's easier to propose a third meeting and end up cancelling it then it is to not have a third meeting and need one and try to organize one. So there are three on there. We did have a discussion this fall about possibly adding another third meeting,say in October because we had kind of a busy fall this year, and Staff looked at that and at this point they're not recommending that. We think we can do that with agenda management. So I would recommend that the Board approve these dates. Is there any discussion on the proposed calendar? We have a draft resolution for that. RESOLUTION APPROVING QUEENSBURY PLANNING BOARD 2023 MEETING DATE CALENDAR MOTION TO APPROVE CALENDAR YEAR 2023 PLANNING BOARD MEETING DATES. Introduced by Michael Dixon who moved for its adoption,seconded by Brad Magowan. Duly adopted this 29`h day of November 2022,by the following vote: AYES: Mr. Deeb,Mr. Dixon,Mr. Longacker, Mr. Stark,Mr. Magowan,Mr. Etu,Mr. Traver NOES: NONE MR.TRAVER-Okay,and next I wanted to mention that the second November becomes part of our annual Board member officer election procedure,in that at our annual meeting,which this year is December 15`h the Board will vote on the Planning Board Vice Chairman, the Planning Board Secretary and make a recommendation to the Town Board for the position of Chairman,which is actually an appointed position by the Town Board, and the procedure was established a few years ago and I'll just read this paragraph so people understand. As the presiding officer of the Planning Board,the Board Chairperson shall endeavor to ensure that there is continuity in the leadership of the Board in the form of its officers. By the final meeting of the month of November, the Chairperson shall poll the current Vice-Chair and Secretary to ascertain whether they wish to be nominated to serve for another term.At the final meeting of the month of November, the Chairperson shall announce their own intentions as to whether they wish to serve another term a Chairperson. Any officer willing to serve another term will be placed in nomination by the Secretary at the Annual Meeting prior to the vote.Also note that at the Annual Meeting,prior to any voting, the floor will also be open to any additional nominations for any office to be voted upon. So tonight I have spoken with both David and Michael they are willing to serve, as am I, another term. So we will be, according to the policy,we will be added on the vote and will take nominations also from the floor at our December 15`h annual meeting. Also December 15 we are having some training provided by the Town,and I ask all Board members to please be here at 5 p.m. rather than 7. We're going to have an important discussion with Town Counsel from five to six thirty regarding a couple of issues,conflict of interest and, what's the other one,Laura? Conflict of interest and? Well,in any case,it's an update to some issues that 2 (Queensbury Planning Board 11/29/2022) we've been dealing with and it's very important that we take advantage of that to ask questions and so on of counsel and get some updated training. Also for the public to be aware,the room will not be open to the public that evening until 6:30 so that we can conduct that training. Any questions by members of the Board regarding that? All right. With that, we'll go to the regular agenda. The first section is Tabled Items, and the first item is Eric Carlson. This is Site Plan 26-2022 and Freshwater Wetlands Permit 5- 2022. TABLED ITEMS: SITE PLAN NO. 26-2022 FRESHWATER WETLANDS 5-2022 SEQR TYPE: TYPE II. ERIC CARLSON. AGENT(S): EDP (CHRIS KEIL). OWNER(S): SAME AS APPLICANT. ZONING: WR. LOCATION: 67 BRAYTON LANE. (REVISED) APPLICANT PROPOSES TO DEMOLISH AN EXISTING HOME AND DETACHED GARAGE TO CONSTRUCT A NEW HOME WITH A FOOTPRINT OF 3,381 SQ. FT. WITH AN ATTACHED GARAGE. NEW FLOOR AREA TO BE 6.,033 SQ. FT. THE PROJECT INCLUDES STORMWATER MANAGEMENT,ALTERATION OF A SHARED DRIVEWAY AND PARKING ARRANGEMENT, AS WELL AS GRADING AND EROSION CONTROL. THE HOUSE IS TO HAVE 3 BEDROOMS. PURSUANT TO CHAPTER 179- 3-040,179-6-065,147 CHAPTER 94,NEW FLOOR AREA IN A CEA,HARD SURFACING WITHIN 50 FT. OF THE SHORELINE, A NEW STRUCTURE WITHIN 50 FT. OF 15% SLOPES, WORK WITHIN 100 FEET OF WETLANDS,AND DRIVEWAY OF 10% SLOPE SHALL BE SUBJECT TO PLANNING BOARD REVIEW AND APPROVAL. CROSS REFERENCE: SEP 241-2019,AV 20- 2022. WARREN CO.REFERRAL: MAY 2022. SITE INFORMATION: APA,LGPC,CEA. LOT SIZE: 1.25 ACRES. TAX MAP NO.239.12-2-84. SECTION: 179-3-040,179-6-065,147 CHAPTER 94. NICK ZEGLEN,REPRESENTING APPLICANT,PRESENT MR. TRAVER-Laura? MRS.MOORE-So the applicant proposes to demolish the existing home and detached garage to construct anew home with a footprint of 3,3SI square feet with an attached garage. The new floor area will be 6,033 square feet. The project includes stormwater management, alteration of a shared driveway and parking arrangement as well as grading and erosion control. In regards to the variance that was granted on November 16`h by the Zoning Board,this included the garage location as well as a stormwater device from the lake as well as the wetland. MR. TRAVER-Okay. Thank you. Good evening. MR. ZEGLEN-Good evening. Nick Zeglen with Environmental Design Partnership and the applicant, Eric Carlson, is also in attendance tonight. We're here tonight seeking Site Plan approval for improvements to the applicant's property at 67 Brayton Lane. The applicant is proposing to remove the existing dwelling, detached garage and shed on the property and construct a new dwelling with an attached garage. This new dwelling will be located further away from the lake,beyond the 50 foot setback, whereas the existing structure is 43 feet from the lake. Also part of the site improvements will be alterations to the existing gravel driveway that runs through the property that provides access to the adjacent neighbors,as well as landscaping and planting will be added and on site stormwater management is proposed for the property where no stormwater management currently exists on the developed property. We did receive three variances two weeks ago for the side yard setback of that detached garage, as was mentioned, 14 feet versus the 25 feet required and the two stormwater infiltration devices, 50 feet from Lake George and 50 feet from the off-site wetland on the adjacent property. With that I'll turn it over to the Board with any questions. Thank you. MR. TRAVER-Okay. The question I normally ask is, in your discussion with the ZBA regarding the variances,were there any changes to the plans since the last time we met? MR.ZEGLEN-So the original plans had the garage side yard setback at six feet. After going through some discussion with the Zoning Board,they had concerns about that distance. We went back to the drawing board, so to speak, and revised that garage to shift it further to that 14 feet, kind of changed around the foyer area and everything, as well as there were concerns from the Board regarding specifically the stormwater device that was 50 feet from Lake George being behind the retaining wall. So we did go back and re-work that grading and we have two smaller retaining walls and the stormwater devices are actually terraced now. So runoff will go through the first device and have an overflow structure that will go to the second terraced wall and that was also going through the design process, re-working the site to work better at the discretion of the Zoning Board. MR. TRAVER-Okay. Thank you. Questions,comments from members of the Board? 3 (Queensbury Planning Board 11/29/2022) MR.MAG OWAN-I just want to thank you for doing that. I like the new proposed design,along with the 14 feet. I can see that making them happier for zoning. Thank you. MR. TRAVER-We do have a public hearing on this application as well, and we will open that and ask if there's anyone in the audience that wanted to address the Planning Board on this application,Site Plan 26- 2022,Freshwater Wetlands application 5-2022? Yes,ma'am. PUBLIC HEARING OPEN LORI SHAY MS. SHAY-Good evening. My name is Lori Shay. I'm actually the northbound neighbor of Mr. Carlson. I've written to the planning committee when I submitted my letter to the Zoning Board. I have reviewed the newplans. I'm aware of the changes that they've made, and I still have some concerns. Mr. Carlson's plan is moving a road that's going to eliminate and destroy the buffer that is in a wetlands area to move the road. That's Number One. His grading plans will undermine the wall that has been there for S0 years that is half his wall and half my wall,that's been there for that much time. His grading will undermine it on my side and will need to be repaired, at a minimum,to fix it or replace it,based on how his stormwater management was set up. He has a porch on my side which is the north side, and his drains are going perpendicular to my property and stopping exactly at the base of this wall that's the corner of my property and his property, okay. The water will run along the base of the wall and it will,it should be re-directed in the other direction. The wall that he has that runs perpendicular he's taking down. So his grading is completely changing. It isn't being,on my side of the property. It's going into stormwater management. Okay. So the front of his property has stormwater management that the Zoning Board approved which is two planters on the garage side,the south side and the north side west of his tanks. He has them closer to the driveway and in the form of two grass depressions with stone reservoirs that are in that space between the house and the driveway. There's a swale out and a ditch putting water from the north planter to the grass depression which would be fine except for his roof isn't going to have any gutters around it. Okay. He's going to have valleys which will concentrate the water when it drops off his house and will overflow those planters in that stormwater management system. As a result,that will flow, again,to the north side of the property where he has a stormwater management. There is water that is already wet on that side as it currently exists. So my property,his stone wall that he's ripping down,is a little higher than my current wall that we share. That whole wall is coming down and I don't think he has an adequate system to basically take that water and move it away. Rather I think it's going to push towards my property. MR. TRAVER-So let me ask a question that other Board members may have as well. The stonewall that you reference,that he's taking down,that's on your property? MS.SHAY-That's on his property. That's perpendicular to his property. I have a stonewall that's original that runs along that side, his wall, my wall, and mine loops all the way around to the north side of my property. That original wall that my dad added on to 30 years ago, or 20 years ago when he re-built his house,is original wall. The wall that goes to the north side all has drainage that my dad put in when he made the new wall. The wall on Carlson's side,that he and I share and he abuts,has no type of drainage at all in it. MR. TRAVER-I guess that's what I want to make sure that I understand. When you say that you share the wall,how can you share a wall that's on his property? MS. SHAY-It sits on the property line. MR. TRAVER-Okay. MS. SHAY-Okay. That's where it sits. MR. TRAVER-So part of the wall is on your property? MS. SHAY-Yes. Okay, and it's original wall that kind of goes back five or ten feet and it kind of parallels that whole entire area that's elevated at Carlson's house right now that's all going to betaken down. His wall is coming down. So all of that area is not going to be graded. It's going to be well lower than what our wall currently exists. MR.TRAVER-One of the pieces of information you should be aware of is that our understanding regarding stormwater, and it sounds like one of the primary issues you have with stormwater,is there is little or no stormwater management on the property currently. MS. SHAY-There isn't,but he has a wall. 4 (Queensbury Planning Board 11/29/2022) MR. TRAVER-What I was about to say is that he's proposing stormwater management that's under review by the Town Designated Engineer. MS. SHAY-Okay. MR. TRAVER-And the regulations require that no stormwater runoff leave the property. MS. SHAY-Okay. MR. TRAVER-So he has to get an approval of the engineer that these stormwater features will function. Otherwise he will not be able to get his. MS. SHAY-Right. I have no doubt that they will actually function, but I think that what he's putting there, added on to how he's doing his roof with no gutters,will overflow this, and there's going to be too much on an area that's already wet now. I turned my sprinkler system off on that side of the property, down by the water because it's a swamp,like even with just regular rainwater, and my dad has the drip system and the rocks around our house. I know it's wet there already. My concern is it will undermine that wall, and that wall will come down because it doesn't have, my dad didn't re-do that wall. That's original wall. MR. TRAVER-Okay. Anything else? MS. SHAY-No. Thank you. MR.TRAVER-Thank you. Is there anyone else in the audience that wanted to address the Planning Board on this application? Yes,sir. CHRIS NAVITSKY MR. NAVITSKY-Good evening. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Chris Navitsky, Lake George Waterkeeper. I have questions regarding the wetlands and how they were delineated, and whether that delineation was actually approved by the APA. I did submit a copy of the Warren County community map which does show the wetland, shows it extending. These are the APA wetlands, on the County's maps. That show them extending much farther into the property. I questioned the ZBA how the variance could be granted without the approval by the wetland agency or the APA. I also question how a Freshwater Wetlands permit can be reviewed if the wetland delineation has not been approved by the APA. This application fails to comply with the 75 foot protective buffer,the wetlands under 179-6-050. This plan clears to within 14 feet of the wetland for a driveway that is actually not even necessary and is proposed as a convenience. For this plan to proceed,a special cutting plan must be provided to show the existing vegetation,one inch in diameter with trees, the proposed cutting plan and the proposed re-vegetation plan. These are all requirements under 179-6-050b. The Planning Board may approve this plan if it finds that the natural vegetation is preserved as far as practicable and where it is removed it is replaced with other vegetation that is equally effective at retarding runoff. So there really is no re-vegetation proposed there except grass, and we all know grass is not as well at reducing runoff as trees and a forest. Also there is no shoreline buffering planting and it's just shown as a lawn to the lake. There are some trees that will be shielding the retaining walls that they're building at 50 feet from the lake,but nothing along the shoreline. That's where we want a shoreline buffer. I mean it's a lawn to the lake, and that's a big concern because we know in this area that there are harmful algae blooms that are being experienced. The previous speaker talked about the discharge from the stormwater pipe from a raingarden that goes, you can't see it, but that property to the right side, actually I don't know why a stormwater drain would go to the property line. That shouldn't be, and where she was referencing,right in that area,if you go to Sheet Five, they show a two foot cut in that area, and that's where she's talking about that existing retaining wall being undermined. So I think that that's a concern as well, and we do have questions about the retaining walls that are being proposed supporting the stormwater devices,but they also show foundation drains. Where are those foundation drains going? Will they be really short circuiting the stormwater that's supposed to be infiltrated but will be captured by the foundation drain. So I think that there are some questions, and really we need to find out where that wetland truly is. Thank you. MR. TRAVER-Thank you. Is there anyone else that wanted to address the Planning Board on this application? Are there written comments,Laura? MRS. MOORE-There are written comments. So this was a comment back on May 16`h of 2022. It says, "Dear Mr. Traver and Board members: I live on Assembly Point at 66 Bay Parkway,Lake George,NY. The unique thing about the Carlson proposal is that the Carlson lot is larger than most on Assembly Point,even though its configuration is unusual.. Nevertheless, there are two aspects that are concerning about the site plan. First,the infiltration devices are too close to the Lake. Given the 150/o slope it is important to relocate these devices. Possibly, a good stormwater management could assist the Carlsons in pulling the infiltration devices back from the Lake. Second, the height of the garage is way out of line with Town Code. From the architectural design,it appears that there will be room for a second floor in the garage 5 (Queensbury Planning Board 11/29/2022) that could accommodate additional bedrooms. This will change the FAR ratio. I ask the Board members to table this proposal and ask for revisions for the infiltration devices and clarification on the garage design. Yours sincerely, Lorraine Ruffing Assembly Point Water Quality Coalition" And as noted it was written in May. There are other comments. Chris had written a letter and then Lori Shay spoke. She had written letters in July, and then these,the following. I believe these are all the same letter. This one's addressed to Craig. "I'm writing in connection with a planned project for 67 Brayton Lane that my neighbors Eric and Donna Carlson, have submitted for review and approval. I am the owner of one of the properties adjacent to the Carlsons',69 Brayton Lane. I have seen the plans for their project and have discussed them with the Carlsons. For the record, I have no issues with what they have submitted for approval and, should you approve their project, I look forward to being situated next door to a beautiful home on the lake. Should you or your colleagues need to reach me regarding this matter, please feel free to call me. Sincerely,Amy Knapp" This is addressed to Craig. "My wife Chris and I live at 73 Brayton Lane. We are Eric and Donna's neighbors. We would like to send you a quick note of endorsement of Eric and Donna Carlson's project at 67 Brayton Lane. We believe the plans look wonderful and will fit perfectly with the character of the neighborhood. If you have any questions regarding our endorsement,please feel free to contact me by email or phone. Scott Carroll" This is,"My name is Stephen O'Leary. Myself and my wife are the owners of 77 Brayton Lane, Queensbury. I would like to take a moment to voice my support for the construction project proposed by Eric and Donna Carlson at 67 Brayton Lane. If approved, and completed,the project would provide a welcome improvement to our neighborhood. Thank you for your time and consideration. Steve O'Leary" This is"Good morning. My name is Lee Kruger and our residence is at 6 Morton Dr., Lake George. Our neighbor, Donna Carlson, is trying to get approval for a Planning Board project. We are fine with her project and do not have any issues with it. Thanks so much for your time,Lee Kruger." And that's it. MR. TRAVER-Okay. Thank you. So with that we will close the public hearing on this application. PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED MR. TRAVER-So you heard a good deal of public comment, a lot of concern about stormwater management. Certainly concern about the lakefront buffer which is an issue that we've been trying to address,especially in recent years. Do you want to try to address some of that? MR.ZEGLEN-Yes. So first off,the wetlands were delineated by my office,EDP,for the adjacent property owner. The flags are still out there today. Two weeks ago our wetlands biologist did go out there and confirm the flags, confirm the wetlands were there in the location shown, and they are accurate on our plan. So that was confirmed by our wetland biologist. MR. TRAVER-Okay. So the wetlands,the flagging of the wetlands was not formally approved by APA or DEC or any governmental body. You had it done by a professional in your office. MR. ZEGLEN-We had originally had the wetlands delineated professionally in our office, yes. I don't know for certain if it was,it was for a different project, so I don't know for certain if it was approved by the APA or not. I know that if this project does move forward it will be reviewed by the APA. If they have not,it will get their input. At this point,this late in the year,we couldn't get the APA to come out a take a look now. They just don't do the site visits at this time of the year. So that's kind of where that stands. MR. TRAVER-So you recognized that it would be significant to have the APA approve the delineation of the wetlands but you were just not able to do it. MR. ZEGLEN-Correct. MR. TRAVER-What about the shoreline buffer? MR. ZEGLEN-So currently there is next to no buffer on this shoreline. So we have proposed additional plantings in that shoreline buffer, which is on Sheet Seven, and we would be open to adding additional shoreline plantings should that be deemed necessary. I know that the Town Code, I just did some quick calculations,requires 273 plants over here on the shoreline,which is a lot of plants,and we currently have proposed,based on my quick calcs, about 106 plants within that area,another large tree and other trees to remain,but like I said, we're open to adding more plants along the shoreline because we understand the importance of this. MR. TRAVER-How many plants according to Code,by your calculations? MR.ZEGLEN-By my calculation,and in the Staff Notes,it was 93 native shrubs and 1S3 herbaceous plants. MR. TRAVER-And some trees as well. Right? 6 (Queensbury Planning Board 11/29/2022) MR. ZEGLEN-Yes, and seven large trees. So we're keeping the one large tree that's there and adding another large tree within that 35 foot setback. MR. TRAVER-And you're looking for approval for that buffer as opposed to what the Code requires? MR. ZEGLEN-That's correct. And then next I just want to touch on the stormwater,because I did hear the concerns from the neighbor to the north, and the last thing we want to do is damage any wall, especially, you know, it's a shared wall and Mr. Carlson did not want to damage his own wall. The stormwater management was reviewed and approved by the Town Designated Engineer. This is a Major stormwater project in the Town of Queensbury. So that means we had hydro CAD models of both pre and post development conditions, and since this was a previously developed project and has no stormwater, again,it has concerns with stormwater now,but we took steps to address those issues. One of the things we do in our model when there is previous development,is we model the whole site as a wooded site. So we don't even take the existing impervious into account for our pre versus post comparison. So that's another thing we do, and another thing that I looked at was the grading between the two property lines, and I will say that Mr. Carlson's existing finished floor is about Elevation 353 and a half,and the driveway elevation of the neighbor to the north is 335. So that house is higher, and there is a swale in between. I think where the issue actually happens,existing right now,is that runoff goes down that swale and it does hit the retaining wall that's perpendicular on Mr. Carlson's site and that we are proposing to remove and hits that retaining wall and it does go over to the property to the north. So by removing that retaining wall I feel that we're giving any overflow from the stormwater device a path down Mr. Carlson's property and not onto the neighbor to the north's property. MR. TRAVER-And where does it go when it goes down the Carlson property? MR. ZEGLEN-It first goes to a stormwater management device, two management devices, one for each corner of the roof. MR. TRAVER-And that's the device that's within 50 feet of the lake? Mr.ZEGLEN-That's correct. One of them is within 50. Obviously the one closer to the lake if that house 50 feet from the lake,that stormwater device is 50 feet from the lake. MR.TRAVER-You mentioned the Town Designated Engineer review and approval,but my reading of their letter states, and I'll just read it. "It should be noted that the revised plans include a new infiltration stormwater facility, stormwater management area S. In accordance with 147-11(3)(c){4} that states in part: "Infiltration devices for major projects shall be l ocated a minimum of 100 feet from Lake George...."SMA S is within 50 feet of Lake George. Sheet 4 indicates the project sponsor is seeking a variance for the infiltration device setback. If the variance is not granted,additional site plan review may be required." So do you have any response to that 100 feet versus. MR. ZEGLEN-So, yes, that's kind of what I alluded to earlier is previously, we had actually gotten the approval with the original stormwater design before we re-worked it, and when we re-worked it we did split it into two devices. So I think that's what they're alluding to. This was prior to getting the variance approval. I think they're just saying if the approval was not granted it would have to be re-looked at,the stormwater design would have to be re-designed and re-looked at by LaBella. MR. TRAVER-Other questions,comments from members of the Board? MR. DEEB-What about gutters? MR.ZEGLEN-I don't believe that gutters are proposed but we have drainage swales so that all four corners will be directed to stormwater devices. MR. LONGACKER-Is that what the overflow pipes are for? MR.ZEGLEN-The overflow pipes are in the stormwater devices. Those overflow pipes would convey any excess rain from a large storm to convey to the planting beds that are down within the shoreline buffer. So it's kind of like the second form of treatment. Any overflow in stormwater devices would go to these planted areas. MR. DEEB-Well would gutters help the stormwater situation? MR. ZEGLEN-Honestly they would convey it to the devices quicker. If you have overlay flow it will go across the grass and get a little pre-treatment before going into the stormwater devices. MR. DEEB-It couldn't hurt. 7 (Queensbury Planning Board 11/29/2022) MR.ZEGLEN-If gutters are requested then we will add gutters in those corners. I just have to check with the architect. MR. DEEB-The shoreline buffers, it's recommended that you get your plantings more in line with the recommendations of the Town. MR. ZEGLEN-Yes. MR.DEEB-I really believe that's the best form,we get that shoreline buffer up to snuff,where it should be. MR. ZEGLEN-Yes we can do that. MR. TRAVER-Now adding gutters is going to alter,to some degree,your stormwater management plan. correct? So would that not need to be re-reviewed? I guess that's a question for Staff. Would we want the engineer to re-evaluate stormwater with the change to the plans? MR. LONGACKER-You did hydro CADs. I'm assuming that you already accounted for the roof runoff across the areas. MR. ZEGLEN-Yes. MR. LONGACKER-So like the applicant said,it was a matter of timing for the water to get there. MR. ZEGLEN-Yes, it gets there quicker through the gutters than it does through vegetated grass swales and overlay flow. So that's kind of why we like having it like that. MR. DEEB-So you feel that not having gutters would slow it down? MR. ZEGLEN-Yes. MR. DEEB-And would be more effective? MR. ZEGLEN-Yes. MR. DEEB-I'm fine with that. I thought that gutters would mitigate the stormwater. MR. TRAVER-My experience is the gutters tend to manage the stormwater a little better than just having it run off,and I admit I'm not an engineer. MR. DEEB-I'm not either,but he is. MR. DIXON-Mr. Deeb had talked about shoreline buffer and you were interested in improving the shoreline buffer? MR. ZEGLEN-Yes,we can add additional plantings. MR. DIXON-Code compliant? Is that what your goal is, to put enough plantings in where you're Code compliant? MR. ZEGLEN-Like I said,it's a significant amount of plantings. In the past on projects we've had, added a good amount. I don't know if I have been part of one that's gone all the way up to the Code compliant with,like I said,273 plants. MR. TRAVER-We have to protect the lake. I mean,you know,it's part of the lakefront living. We need to do whatever you can do,particularly,as the Waterkeeper pointed out,we have had some HAB's in that area,and,you know,the only way to stop it is really to control runoff and management. So I certainly feel that compliance with the Code, at a minimum,should be required. So I guess, again,the question would be asked,would you come into compliance with that 35 foot buffer as it's described? MR. ZEGLEN-Yes,we will. MR. DEE&We're going to need specifics. MR. TRAVER-Yes. So we want an updated. MR. DEE&Well,we've come close to it here. MR. ZEGLEN-Yes,we have the numbers. 8 (Queensbury Planning Board 11/29/2022) MR. TRAVER-Other questions,comments from members of the Board? MR. DEEB-Laura,do wetlands have to be delineated by APA? MRS. MOORE-I would put it as a condition. MR. DEEB-But do they have to do that with the APA? MR. TRAVER-Well,the condition would be that they be surveyed by APA and if there were changes that affected the site plan. MRS. MOORE-Right. So the APA would confirm the delineation,confirmation that the delineation that the applicant provided is still standing. I'd have to look back. I would believe that the previous application that was part of,that was an APA delineated wetland. MR. DEEB-That's a good condition,then I feel. MR. TRAVER-Okay. So,getting back to the buffer,we're looking at seven, a total of seven trees at three inches in diameter. You say that there's one there now? MR. ZEGLEN-There's one there now, and we have one proposed currently. MR. TRAVER-Okay. So that would be. MR. DEEB-Add five more. MR.TRAVER-Add five more,right,five more of the trees. Then 91 native shrubs,and 13 herbaceous plants. MRS. MOORE-So if you're looking for the applicant to be Code compliant,IS2. MR. TRAVER-I'm looking at your analysis from the Staff Notes on the project site. MRS. MOORE-So the shoreline buffer would be seven large trees total. MR. TRAVER-Right. MRS. MOORE-Ninety-one native shrubs and 1S2 herbaceous plants. That's 13 times 14. MR. DIXON-So in the resolution I was looking to just have them submit a Code compliant updated plan. MRS. MOORE-That's fine. MR. TRAVER-I think it might be an advantage to be specific in numbers. MRS. MOORE-Well,Code compliant would be meeting these numbers. MR. TRAVER-Okay. MRS. MOORE-So if you were to not have it Code compliant in the sense, this is the guideline. Do you want to maximize the guideline or do you want a percentage of that guideline to be met? MR. DEEB-I'd like to see it maximized. MRS. MOORE-It's up to the Board. MR. DEEB-I think he agreed to that. MR. TRAVER-Yes, and then you would want to,rather than. MRS. MOORE-Yes, up to you. So the new plan, as part of this application, would come in with that updated planting plan as part of their plans,but that's up to the Board. MR. TRAVER-My personal feeling is that it should be updated and reflected in the plan, at the very least the final plan they submit to you. Whether we need to table the application and wait for us to review it again,I guess is another matter. I think since the applicant's representative has said that they will come into compliance, I think that that's sufficient, provided there's a condition that the, an updated plan reflecting those conditions be submitted to you. How do other Board members feel? MR. DEEB-I'm fine with the condition. There has to be maximum compliance. 9 (Queensbury Planning Board 11/29/2022) MR. TRAVER-Right. MR. DIXON-Well,compliance is compliance. MR. DEE&Well,no,it's just recommendation. MR. TRAVER-Yes,I would say,if we could,I would like the resolution to reflect the numbers,seven large trees,three inches in diameter, 91 native shrubs and 1S2 herbaceous plants, specifically in the buffer area. And then you have the wetland delineation condition. MR. DEEB-And the gutters. MR. TRAVER-Well, my instinct is that it should be there because that's what we've typically seen on applications, but as to whether or not what the representative is suggesting that it's actually a disadvantage to have gutters is something I have not heard before but on the other hand I'm not qualified to necessarily disagree. MR. DEEB-For stormwater management, would it be better to have the stormwater slower infiltrated, rather than faster? MR. ZEGLEN-Yes. I guess it all depends on what type of stormwater device is receiving the runoff. In one instance we have a swale that's carrying flows to a shallow grass depression. In another instance we have a raingarden that is receiving flows from the roof. So it really is on a case by case basis. I don't want to make a big,generalized statement about gutters. MR. TRAVER-And how does the Board feel about the Stormwater Management Area No. S within 50 feet of the lake where 100 feet is, shall be located a minimum of 100 feet from Lake George. This is from the Town Designated Engineer. MRS. MOORE-So the variance was already granted for that setback. MR. DEEB-Yes,they have their variance for that. MR. TRAVER-I thought that was for the other. MRS. MOORE-So it's both for the wetland and the lake. MR. DEEB-The variance. MR. TRAVER-Okay. Anything else from members of the Board? I guess when you're ready we have that resolution. RESOLUTION APPROVING SP#26-2022 FWW 5-2022 ERIC CARLSON The applicant has submitted an application the Planning Board:(Revised)Applicant proposes to demolish an existing home and detached garage to construct a new home with a footprint of 3,3SI sq. ft. with an attached garage.Newfloor area to be 6,033 sq.ft.The project includes stormwater management,alteration of a shared driveway and parking arrangement,as well as grading and erosion control.The house is to have 3 bedrooms. Pursuant to chapter 179-3-040, 179-6-065, 147 chapter 94, new floor area in a CEA, hard surfacing within 50 ft.of the shoreline,a new structure within 50 ft.of 150/o slopes,work within 100 feet of wetlands, and driveway of 100/o slope 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 made a recommendation to the Zoning Board of Appeals on 5/17/2022-1 the ZBA approved the variance on 7/20/2022-1 The Planning Board opened a public hearing on the Site plan application on 5/26/2022 and continued the public hearing to 11/29/2022,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 11/29/2022; 10 (Queensbury Planning Board 11/29/2022) 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 26-2022 &z FRESHWATER WETLANDS 5-2022 ERIC CARLSON,- Introduced by Michael Dixon who moved for its adoption. According to the draft resolution prepared by Staff with the following: 1) Waivers requested granted:h. signage,n traffic,o. commercial alterations/construction details,s. snow removal as it is reasonable to request a waiver as these items are typically associated with commercial projects; 2) The approval is valid for one (1) year from the date of approval. Applicant is responsible for requesting an extension of approval before the one (1)year time frame has expired; 3) Adherence to the items outlined in the follow-up letter sent with this resolution. a) The limits of clearing will constitute a no-cut buffer zone, orange construction fencing shall be installed around these areas and field verified by Community Development staff, b) If applicable, the Sanitary Sewer connection plan must be submitted to the Wastewater Department for its review, approval,permitting and inspection; c) If curb cuts are being added or changed a driveway permit is required. A building permit will not be issued until the approved driveway permit has been provided to the Planning Office; d) If application was referred to engineering then Engineering sign-off required prior to signature of Zoning Administrator of the approved plans; e) Final approved plans should have dimensions and setbacks noted on the site plan/survey, floor plans and elevation for the existing rooms and proposed rooms in the building and site improvements;- f) If required,the applicant must submit a copy of the following to the Town: a. The project NOI (Notice of Intent) for coverage under the current "NYSDEC SPDES General Permit from Construction Activity"prior to the start of any site work. b. The project NOT(Notice of Termination)upon completion of the project; c. The applicant must maintain on their project site,for review by staff: i. The approved final plans that have been stamped by the Town Zoning Administrator. These plans must include the project SWPPP (Storm Water Pollution Prevention Plan)when such a plan was prepared and approved; ii. The project NOI and proof of coverage under the current NYSDEC SPDES General Permit,or an individual SPDES permit issued for the project if required. g) Final approved plans, in compliance with the Site Plan, must be submitted to the Community Development Department before any further review by the Zoning Administrator or Building and Codes personnel; h) The applicant must meet with Staff after approval and prior to issuance of Building Permit and/or the beginning of any site work; i) Subsequent issuance of further permits, including building permits is dependent on compliance with this and all other conditions of this resolution; j) As-built plans to certify that the site plan is developed according to the approved plans to be provided prior to issuance of the certificate of occupancy. k) This resolution is to be placed in its entirety on the final plans 1) Shoreline buffer to be Code compliant with seven large trees at three inch diameter;91 native shrubs and 13 herbaceous plants, for a total of 182. An updated planting plan will be submitted to the Town prior to any site work. Shoreline buffer will be added to the plans as part of the final plans. m) APA to confirm delineation of wetlands prior to any site work. Motion seconded by Brady Stark. Duly adopted this 29`h day of November 2022 by the following vote: MRS.MOORE-Before you call the vote,in reference to the shoreline buffer,that should be part of the final plan set,versus prior to any site work. MR. DIXON-1 missed that. MR. TRAVER-She's saying that the buffering should be added to the plans as part of the final submission. MRS. MOORE-So you had indicated prior to any site work. MR. TRAVER-Okay. MRS. MOORE-Sorry. I need it as part of the final plan set. MR. DIXON-Part of the plans. MR. TRAVER-Yes,to be submitted. 11 (Queensbury Planning Board 11/29/2022) MR.DIXON-We'll addend Item L to include Shoreline buffer will be added to the plans as part of the final plans. AYES: Mr. Dixon, Mr. Longacker,Mr. Stark,Mr. Magowan,Mr. Etu,Mr. Deeb,Mr. Traver NOES: NONE MR.TRAVER-The next item on our agenda is also under Tabled Items. This is unapproved development. This is Reds LG LLC, Site Plan 29-2022. SITE PLAN NO. 29-2022 SEQR TYPE: TYPE II. REDS LG LLC. AGENT(S): EDP (NICK ZEGLEN). OWNER(S): SAME AS APPLICANT. ZONING: WR. LOCATION: 7, 9 &z 13 NUTLEY LANE. (REVISED) THE APPLICANT PROPOSES TO COMPLETE ALTERATIONS TO TWO EXISTING DWELLING UNITS ON THE SITE AND REDUCTION OF 7 NUTLEY LANE TO AN ACCESSORY STRUCTURE. SITE WORK HAD STARTED ON ALL THREE BUILDINGS PRIOR TO REVIEW. ALTERATIONS INCLUDE 7 NUTLEY LANE NOW REDUCED TO 330 SQ. FT. ALTERATIONS TO 9 NUTLEY LANE 704 SQ. FT. FOOTPRINT WITH TWO BEDROOMS AND KITCHEN FLOOR AREA OF 1,408 SQ.FT.,NEW OPEN DECK OF 440 SQ.FT.—WALKOUT AREA BELOW ; INTERIOR ALTERATIONS FOR 13 NUTLEY LANE EXISTING FLOOR AREA 2,053 SQ. FT. WITH FOUR BEDROOMS. PROJECT INCLUDES GRASS DEPRESSION AREAS, SHORELINE PLANTINGS, CONSTRUCTION OF A ROCK WALL WITH STEPS AND REDUCTION OF HARD SURFACING. PROJECT SUBJECT TO SITE PLAN FOR NEW FLOOR AREA FOR 7 NUTLEY LANE, EXPANSION OF NON-CONFORMING STRUCTURE FOR 9 NUTLEY LANE, HARD SURFACING WITHIN 50 FT. OF THE SHORELINE. PURSUANT TO CHAPTER 179-3-040,179-6-065,147,SHALL BE SUBJECT TO PLANNING BOARD REVIEW AND APPROVAL. CROSS REFERENCE: SEP 37-2021,AV 21-2022. WARREN CO.REFERRAL: MAY 2022. SITE INFORMATION: APA,LGPC,CEA. LOT SIZE: 0.53 ACRES. TAX MAP NO.239.17- 1-15. SECTION: 179-3-040,179-6-065,179-6-050, 179-13-010,147. NICK ZEGLEN,REPRESENTING APPLICANT,PRESENT MR. TRAVER-Laura? MRS. MOORE-So this application is alterations of two existing dwelling units on the site and reduction of a 7 Nutley Lane to an accessory structure. I won't go through the square footages,but I will identify that the variance was granted where 7 Nutley Lane would be reduced with no kitchen,bathroom or deck, and the building size is reduced to 330 square feet. A height variance was not required. It was noted as 13 feet S inches. Nine Nutley Lane received setback variances, and in reference to 7 and 9, expansion of a non-conforming structure was received, and I just note on the summary the project work on the site includes stormwater management and shoreline plantings. MR. TRAVER-Okay. Thank you. Here we go with Reds LG. MR. ZEGLEN-For the record, Nick Zeglen with Environmental Design Partnership and the applicant, Tom Ensslin, is also here tonight. So I'm here tonight seeking site plan approval for unapproved development at the applicant's property at Nutley Lane. So the existing property consists of three properties,7,9 and 13 Nutley Lane. The structure closest to the lake,13 Nutley,interior renovations were performed only on that structure. Nine Nutley the existing deck off of this structure was removed and replaced in a larger footprint of the deck without any approvals, permit or site plan approval and the 7 Nutley structure,which has been the topic of a lot of the discussion,there was a lot of back and forth about what this structure was,was it previously a cabin,was it shed? We did have a survey from 1996 showing it as a small wood frame cabin,but that survey showed it in a different location and a different footprint. So we treated this 7 Nutley structure as new construction and went for a variance for an accessory structure. Since that point we have gone through the review process with the Zoning Board of Appeals and as Laura mentioned we did get variance approvals for three variances,the side yards on both sides of the 9 Nutley deck, as well as approval of the accessory structure which is 7 Nutley. So that 7 Nutley structure will not be used for habitable space. It will be storage use only,none of the proposed deck,no bathroom,kitchen or bedroom,storage only. Also part of the site improvements to this property that we have proposed is a reduction in the impervious area down below the existing, cleaning up a lot of the unnecessary driveway on this property and what not. I will note that we had removed the asphalt path that was shared between the two properties down to the shore, and the neighbor has requested that we leave that in place for use. So we will leave that,because we currently have that shown as being removed. So we won't be removing that. We've also provided on-site stormwater management for the property that wasn't there previously as well as shoreline buffering and plantings, and the applicant did recently put in a new engineered septic system in the last,I think it was 2020 or 2019. So just to sum it up,the applicant understands the wrongdoing in building without permits and approvals and we hope that the site 12 (Queensbury Planning Board 11/29/2022) improvements that we are proposing at this point outweigh the negative impacts of this unapproved development. With that I'll turn it back over for any questions. MR. TRAVER-Okay. Thank you. Questions,comments from members of the Board? MR. MAGOWAN-Well before Chris comes up,talk about the shoreline buffering. MR. ZEGLEN-Yes. So this one we have proposed shoreline plantings at the buffer. So the large trees required are four total. We have three existing and one proposed. So we do meet that requirement. Native shrubs required is 56. We have three shrubs proposed and the herbaceous plants required is 12 and we have 66 plants proposed. MR. DEEB-That brings it up to capacity? MR. ZEGLEN-No,that does not come up to the full compliance. MR. DEEB-How many short are you? MR. ZEGLEN-So we are,the large trees we meet. We are about 500/o plants and we are about 50 shrubs short of the required. MR. DEEB-I recommend we get up to maximum. MR. ZEGLEN-I concur,yes. MR. DEEB-Okay. MR. TRAVER-So there's another,do you need the numbers? MR. DIXON-I'll just reference here. MR. TRAVER-Other questions,comments from members of the Board? MR. DEEB-Is there any power to that storage building you're going to use? TOM ENSSLIN MR. ENSSLIN-The answer is,because we had approval for the,hi,I'm Tom Ensslin. I own the property. The Building Department granted us approval for the new septic system with pump tanks. MR. TRAVER-For the accessory structure? There's no bathroom.. MR. ENSSLIN-There was a bathroom back in 2020. MR. TRAVER-As part of the unapproved development. MR. ZEGLEN-There's approval for grinder pumps for each one of those structures. MR. ENSSLIN-Obviously the one's not going to be used,as just a shed. MR. DEEB-Is there a bathroom in it? MR. ENSSLIN-No. Well there won't be. It's a shell. The bottom line is in that same trench we put the grinder pumps, need to dig a trench up to the parking lot where we took all the pavement off and that's where the leach fields are, and so anyway there's wire running, but it's not working. So it won't be, although it would be nice to have light in there. I mean there's wire running but it's not working. MR. DEEB-I don't see any problem with a light. MR. ENSSLIN-Yes,light and a basic outlet,just inside. MR. TRAVER-You mentioned a pathway that sounded like it was on the borderline that was being removed. MR. ENSSLIN-Yes, he kind of said that wrong. So Mr. O'Brien owns to the north of me and this was Carey's cabins back in the 60's and there were all these cabins. It's a long history. I won't bore you with it,but at one point,you know,he's walking down to the lake,he's on my property,and then the path does an"S" down to his little gazebo he has. He only has 30 something feet of lake frontage, and so it's always been this way. It's just a shared"S",little"S"thing. So I'm on his for 20 feet,then he's on me for 40 feet 13 (Queensbury Planning Board 11/29/2022) and then he goes his way, and then I go from there down to my dock, and that's what was removed. Just that section,but that's not shared, and what Mr. O'Brien called and talked to me about an hour and a half ago on my way up here,he said he's fine with that shared path staying the way it is. That's all. MR. TRAVER-Okay. So I guess one question that prompts is does that change the permeability from the discussion you had with the ZBA where you took it from 67.7E to 69.60. MR. ZEGLEN-I'd have to look at the area that's specific to that part and see. MR. TRAVER-Well I'm not looking for a number. I'm just saying it will change it. MR. ZEGLEN-It will change it. Yes. MR. TRAVER-Okay. So the permeability will go down? MR. ZEGLEN-Correct. I think it's a small enough amount that it probably won't put us over the permeability of the existing,but,yes,it will change it. MR. TRAVER-Right,it still would be less than what's existing because you're getting rid of that area up at the top. Right? MR. ZEGLEN-Right. MR. MAGOWAN-Now do you have floodlights or do you have downcast lights? MR. ENSSLIN-There was an old floodlight on a tree that's not there anymore. So the only lights are just like house wall lights outside. MR. MAGOWAN-And they're all downcast lights? MR. ENSSLIN-Yes,they're not shooting out. They're not up high. MR. DIXON-You had commented on the 7 Nutley property that it would be for storage only. I guess I would like to see that be something that says that it's for storage only and not habitable space. MR. TRAVER-Well that's part of the variance approval,right,Laura? So that's already. MRS. MOORE-It was not identified at the Zoning Board in that fashion. So I don't see any reason why you couldn't identify it as a condition in this. MR. TRAVER-Good point. Yes. Anything else from members of the Board? We have a public hearing on this application. Is there anyone in the audience that wanted to address the Planning Board on this application? PUBLIC HEARING OPEN CLAUDIA BRAYMER MS. BRAYMER-Thank you very much, Chairman. Claudia Braymer, attorney representing Mr. O'Brien who we heard resides to the north, his property to the north, and I just think some of the issues have definitely been addressed,but I do want to make a few comments. Two quick notes. One, as you know, this is the Waterfront Residential district on Lake George and only one single family residence is permitted by the Code. Two,my client's family has tried to maintain a good relationship with the applicant's family throughout these last several months,and certainly over the time period that they've owned the property it's been a good relationship. So I know that they appreciate that last change about the asphalt pavement, and I'll try to be brief on my comments,but I wanted to make that point,too. This did come before your Board in May for a recommendation about the variances, and you recommended at the time that none of the variances should be approved. So when it went through the process of going to the ZBA, we did advocate there and we were disappointed that the variances were granted. As was mentioned,the third structure,the one that's farthest away from the shoreline,7 Nutley,we advocated for that to be completely removed. They are saying they would use it as a storage shed and,yes, one of my comments to the ZBA, and again tonight,is that you make a condition that it not be habitable. That it not be connected to the septic system either because the septic system was designed for additional capacity to include this building. So we would ask that it not be connected,and a condition was not put in place at the ZBA level about this. So we're asking that you would do this here. MR. DEE&We just discussed it. 14 (Queensbury Planning Board 11/29/2022) MS.BRAYMER-Yes. The middle structure,you know,the applicant,wait,I wanted to showyou. If you're looking at the lake,this is my client's home,his property looking towards the lake,and then there's a shared driveway in between,and then this building that you see here is the 7 Nutley structure I believe as it's still standing and has not yet been reduced in size per the variance. So this is what they were looking at, and it was concerning to them the size of that particular building. In any case, the middle building, it was unapproved development going from one bedroom to four bedrooms, and there is a Stop Work Order in place about that violation. We are asking that there be some firm condition indicating that the middle building can only have two bedrooms,and that the other two bedrooms that were constructed not be used as bedrooms. My understanding is that they are in the basement and they do not meet code,fire code. We also asked for the deck to be removed or that it be reduced back to its original size. We do not agree with the variance that was given allowing it to be four feet from the north boundary line which is right near our property line. So we were very concerned about that because it is that much closer. It's that much bigger. Accommodates that many more people to be on the deck creating noise and that sort of thing. My other comments, I'll be quick, the one was about the asphalt on the shared path. It does, as was described, I actually brought a picture of it tonight. It goes back and forth between the two properties,and the section that we would like to remain asphalt is the piece that goes from our client's property over theirs and then back onto ours right before the gazebo. If they want to remove the rest,that's fine. MR. TRAVER-That's what we understand. MR. DEEB-I think they agreed to that. MS.BRAYMER-We just would like that to be on the plans as they submit them for the final. Great. Okay. There's two more things. The tree, there is a proposal for a new tree right near our boundary line on the northern side. It would be very close. I'm not sure what the distance is but it could even be inches. I don't think it's that close, but we are asking that that be moved to the southern boundary line of the property near the applicant's other family members. It's very close to the shared pathway,as I mentioned, close to the structure on our property,the gazebo, and it will eventually degrade our view of the lake from our residence. We would ask for full compliance with the buffer requirements as you did with the last applicant,and the last thing I want to mention is we have a concern about construction vehicles going over the shared pathway,and so we would ask that they not be allowed to do that without our permission. So that we can be advised of when that's happening and that we have some sort of heads up about that. The shard pathway is for walking. It's not for construction vehicles. MR. TRAVER-Well to that end, I think if the vehicles are driving on your property, that you would be entitled to participate in approving that. If it's on their property, that's part of their project. If they're driving over onto your property,or your client's property,that's obviously a different matter. MS. BRAYMER-Yes. We're just not sure how they're going to get down there. So they're willing to accommodate,but they don't want them to just drive the construction vehicles over their property on our side. Thank you very much. MR. TRAVER-Thank you. Is there anyone else that wanted to comment on this application? Yes,sir. MR. ENSSLIN-I just wanted to address a couple of things real quick. MR. TRAVER-The public hearing isn't closed yet. So if you would allow us a few minutes. MR. ENSSLIN-Sorry. MR. TRAVER-And you'll have an opportunity to address public comment. Is there anyone else that wanted to comment this evening? Are there written comments,Laura? MRS. MOORE-Yes. I'll note that this comment is from May IS", and it's addressed to"To Whom It May Concern: As a lifelong owner resident of 9 Big Slide Drive on Lake George I am voicing my opposition to any variance for buildings at 7, 9 and 13 Nutley Lane. This owner has not followed any of the rules or regulations or building codes in the past. He has converted a shed to a building with no permits or approval and has now erected a second building. Now this request for a third non-conforming structure sure to push any limits on water,septic and less green for further run off into the lake. The fact that even one building exists on this lot is ridiculous when as a 55 year plus owner on this property I cannot get a variance to make my dock 1 inch bigger,how can this unchecked building in a sliver of land go unchecked? This person is not a resident. He is running a business and has created congestion in an area not designed to handle the increased number of guests now staying in a very small area and pushing the limits of our small communities septic,utilities and roads. In addition, the overcrowded number of guests staying at his rentals have increased the loud noise,drunken behavior,limited parking,exceptionally loud music and bright lights, none of which are in keeping with our Lake George community. I strongly oppose any variance to allow additional building expansion and further request the past violations of this LLC with failure to request permitting and any and all codes and regulations be reviewed by this body as it appears a pattern of abuse, the building already exists and was erected in secret, how can you allow this? I am 15 (Queensbury Planning Board 11/29/2022) requesting the Planning and Zoning Board deny any variances for this property. Thank you for your attention in this matter. Kathleen Toomey Noonan" And then I will note that, as Claudia had stated, she had written a letter back in May as well, and has updated that information. MR. TRAVER-Okay. MS. BRAYMER-I'm just going to submit these for the record. MR. TRAVER-Sure. All right. Well with that we'll close the public hearing. PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED MR. TRAVER-I'll ask the applicant to return to the table. MR. ENSSLIN-The father is Bob O'Brien, the neighbor to the north of me with the shared driveway,but the son is the one that called me on my way up here and we talked for over a half an hour. So he's the one that put the idea of the pathway not being disturbed, because he didn't want to like park right near the neighbors, and then what it is now on his side,I personally don't care if we do it,made it all new. That's what I told him. So his property line,his front porch is like two feet from my line, and his gazebo down at the lake is like six inches from my property line. MR. TRAVER-Did I hear you say his property line is two feet from your property line? MR. ENSSLIN-Yes. I don't know what pictures he just sent you,but his front porch,there's a stake in the ground. It's probably his far away. So, I mean it was Carey's cabins. It was like seven or eight cabins. That's just the way it was,and there was always three properties there,and he's got two cabins in his front yard and one he uses for storage for kayaks and stuff and the other one for extra sleeping. I don't think there's a bathroom working in there,but there probably was at one time. I never asked him,but I joked with Sean today because I said I've got an extra grinder pump I could sell you when you might have to replace your septic system,and they have no way to get on their property because they only own two feet, and there's only like a ten foot opening between our two buildings. That's just the way it is. They own the old game room,check in room. That's what was converted into their house,and their septic is right in front of their front porch,but getting back to that equipment on our end,it just so happens my sister and her husband bought the house south of us on Fantastic, the old Sullivan property, and they have direct shoot off their driveway that I can get right in. I don't need to go down that shared pathway. So that addresses that problem in the future,other than the actual work to the pathway,if we re-do it or whatever. MR. TRAVER-Okay. There was the question about the number of bedrooms in the second building. MR. ENSSLIN-Yes,it's going to be reduced to two. I mean it was COVID time,May 2020 or March,and it'll be new bedrooms and four in the first house, which it always has been, and the comments on the Zoning Board is you're on a seven bedroom septic system that's going to have six bedrooms. Because the cabin was disallowed. MR. TRAVER-Okay. MR. DEEB-From what I can see,most of Ms. Braymer's comments were addressed anyway. MR. TRAVER-Many of them,yes. MR.DEEB-I think most of them,and then this one here with the bedrooms has been addressed. So I would think everybody would be happy. MR. TRAVER-Yes. Well,not everybody. MRS. MOORE-I want to address the permeability issue. So since there was no permeability variance requested because it remains the same. MR. TRAVER-It was reduced,right? MRS. MOORE-It wasn't reduced. It didn't change,I think. MR. TRAVER-Okay. MRS. MOORE-Sorry, it could be different, but I'm just saying the permeability, there was no relief requested. I just need to confirm that the same goes when you maintain that path. MR. ZEGLEN-I need to confirm that and figure out the area of that path to confirm that. Yes. 16 (Queensbury Planning Board 11/29/2022) MR.TRAVER-My notes say that no relief is required as the site is improving the permeability on site. Now that's before not removing the walkway,but it sounds as though that shouldn't be a significant addition to the permeability,to the impermeability. MR. ZEGLEN-So our existing permeability was 67.7E%. Proposed was 70.40/o. So we're increasing the permeability on site. MR. TRAVER-Right. I actually have that proposed is 69.6. MR. DEEB-Improved to 69.6. MR. ZEGLEN-Well this might have been updated after we came for that 7 Nutley change. MR. TRAVER-Okay. Understood. Okay. MR. ZEGLEN-So I just have to confirm that keeping that, say it's just for purposes of discussion it's a 60 square foot area of walkway. I just have to confirm that that 60 square feet does not put us,you know, under the permeability that was existing. MR. TRAVER-Right. All right. MR. ENSSLIN-I just want to say,I don't care if we have to make that path permeable. MR. TRAVER-Yes,understood. MR. DIXON-I just want to point out something. So there was a question,concern regarding 9 Nutley as far as the deck that's on there now. MR.ENSSLIN-Well,the deck on there was so unsafe it was unbelievable,and,yes,we put on a brand new deck, and, yes, there's a power line going from the telephone pole, again, the properties are really close together, down to the house closest to the lake, and so in order for someone not to, for it not to be dangerous,the steps come off that end,but there's still a lot of property line. MR. DIXON-So the existing deck that was there,did that run the full length of the house originally? MR. ENSSLIN-No. MR. DIXON-And the stairs that are on there,could they be,at the very least re-worked,where they're not as close to the neighbor's property? MR. ENSSLIN-It would be very difficult,because like everything, again,if you look at the plan,his front porch is two feet from my property line. When I walk down that path I'm on his and he's on mine. MR. ZEGLEN-I think if you re-work the steps, looking at it, they would almost get closer to his main building on his lot,the way that I look at it right now. MR. DIXON-And what's involved with shortening up the deck? MR. ZEGLEN-Shortening it up? MR. DIXON-Yes,on the north side,bringing it back. MR. ENSSLIN-That's where the original deck was. It was on the north side. MR. DIXON-That's where it ended? MR. ENSSLIN-That's where it was. It started at that corner of the house and went south. So it would just be more people condensed in that corner. MR. DIXON-So that section is very similar to what was there originally is what you're saying. MR.ENSSLIN-That same deck,away from the 12 feet,but instead of 16,it's the length of that property,the building,I'm sorry. MR. TRAVER-So can we talk about,what conditions do we have thus far? Proposed conditions. MR. DIXON-We're looking at,proposed conditions would be that 7 Nutley is going to be for storage,not for habitable space. It's not to be connected to the septic system. You've got the shoreline buffer plan. Go through the list of plants. 17 (Queensbury Planning Board 11/29/2022) MR. TRAVER-Native plants. MR. DIXON-Yes. I've got that. Also the shoreline buffer plan will be added to the final plans and submitted, and then I think that's it. MR. TRAVER-Okay. MR. DEEB-Laura,I have question,going back to permeability. If,when you come in with a site plan,and even though the permeability is being improved,if it's still not,it's still below what's required,doesn't that still trigger a variance? MRS. MOORE-No. Consistently we've had,if the applicant can maintain the permeability that it was at, they're not,and not go below the permeability that they were at originally,it does not trigger a variance. MR. DEEB-That's setbacks,too,right? And permeability doesn't? MRS. MOORE-It's a new setback. MR. DEEB-Even if you have the same setback,it doesn't require? MRS. MOORE-I'm just telling you what it,in consistency. MR. DEEB-I'm okay. I just wanted to make sure that we're okay with this, and do we need a number on this before we approve site plan? I mean we've got the percentages here now,but we don't know what they're going to be. MR. TRAVER-Well, the change by not removing the foot path, I don't think it's going to significantly impact permeability. It will have an impact, and the representative agreed with that, but in terms of percentage overall,I mean they are removing the asphalt up above,so it is definitely an improvement. MR. DEEB-Okay. As long as we're within,but I think we should have concrete evidence of that. MR. TRAVER-But the final plans would have to be updated to reflect the actual permeability. Correct? MR. ZEGLEN-Yes,we'll update the final plans and have the permeability right on there. MR. DEEB-Okay. MR.MAGOWAN-Mr. Chairman,I'd like to go back to discuss the lights again. Because in these pictures, one of them looks like,I would say a mercury halide wall pack sticking out. MR. ENSSLIN-Where is that located? MR. MAGOWAN-On 9 Nutley on that corner. MR. ENSSLIN-On the house? MR. MAGOWAN-Yes. And then the front of that looks like, on 9 Nutley, on that front left corner,that looks like a mercury or a sodium. MR. ENSSLIN-There's one up there that never worked. That was there when we bought the property. I have no desire for spotlights,take down anything that's not flush with the house. MR. MAGOWAN-Well I'd like to make it all exterior lights downcast,Code compliant. MR. ENSSLIN-Yes,I'm fine with that. MR. DEEB-And that you remove these that are on there,even if they don't work. MR. ENSSLIN-Yes, I don't think it's even there anymore. I don't know how old that picture is. I'd be curious to see. MR. TRAVER-Anything else? I think we're close to a draft resolution here. \ MRS. MOORE-The other suggestion, in regards to conditions, you already identified lighting to be downcast fixtures and then in regards to the storage building is storage only. You also mentioned,or the applicant requested at least basic electric,and I just want to make sure that we're all on the same page that that's what the Board wishes to allow. 18 (Queensbury Planning Board 11/29/2022) MR. TRAVER-Well,it's not to be a residential structure. That doesn't eliminate having lighting,but it does eliminate anything that would make it habitable. Right? MRS. MOORE-Correct. I just want to make sure that someone doesn't go out there and say, well you're not supposed to have electric in this building. That's not the case. MR. TRAVER-Right. Yes. Understood. MR. MAGOWAN-Lighting and an outlet or two. RESOLUTION APPROVING SP#29-2022 REDS LG LLC The applicant has submitted an application the Planning Board: (Revised) The applicant proposes to complete alterations to two existing dwelling units on the site and reduction of 7 Nutley Lane to an accessory structure. Site work had started on all three buildings prior to review. Alterations include 7 Nutley Lane nowreduced to 330 sq.ft.Alterations to 9 Nutley Lane 704 sq.ft.footprint with two bedrooms and kitchen floor area of 1,40E sq.ft.,new open deck of 440 sq.ft.-walkout area below,interior alterations for 13 Nutley Lane existing floor area 2,053 sq. ft. with four bedrooms. Project includes grass depression areas,shoreline plantings,construction of a rock wall with steps and reduction of hard surfacing.. Project subject to site plan for new floor area for 7 Nutley Lane, expansion of non-conforming structure for 9 Nutley Lane,hard surfacing within 50 ft. of the shoreline. Pursuant to Chapter 179-3-040,179-6-065,147, 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 made a recommendation to the Zoning Board of Appeals on 5/17/2022-1 the ZBA approved the variance on 7/20/2022-1 The Planning Board opened a public hearing on the Site plan application on 5/26/2022 and continued the public hearing to 11/29/2022,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 11/29/2022; 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 29-2022 REDS LG, LLC; Introduced by Michael Dixon who moved for its adoption. According to the draft resolution prepared by Staff with the following: 1) Waivers requested granted:h. signage,n traffic,q. soil logs,r. construction/demolition disposal s. snow removal as it is reasonable to request a waiver as these items are typically associated with commercial projects; 2) The approval is valid for one (1) year from the date of approval. Applicant is responsible for requesting an extension of approval before the one (1)year time frame has expired; 3) Adherence to the items outlined in the follow-up letter sent with this resolution. a) The limits of clearing will constitute a no-cut buffer zone, orange construction fencing shall be installed around these areas and field verified by Community Development staff, b) If applicable, the Sanitary Sewer connection plan must be submitted to the Wastewater Department for its review, approval,permitting and inspection; c) If curb cuts are being added or changed a driveway permit is required. A building permit will not be issued until the approved driveway permit has been provided to the Planning Office; d) If application was referred to engineering then Engineering sign-off required prior to signature of Zoning Administrator of the approved plans; e) Final approved plans should have dimensions and setbacks noted on the site plan/survey, floor plans and elevation for the existing rooms and proposed rooms in the building and site improvements;- f) If required,the applicant must submit a copy of the following to the Town: a. The project NOI (Notice of Intent) for coverage under the current 'NYSDEC SPDES General Permit from Construction Activity"prior to the start of any site work. b. The project NOT(Notice of Termination)upon completion of the project; c. The applicant must maintain on their project site,for review by staff: 19 (Queensbury Planning Board 11/29/2022) i. The approved final plans that have been stamped by the Town Zoning Administrator. These plans must include the project SWPPP (Storm Water Pollution Prevention Plan)when such a plan was prepared and approved; ii. The project NOI and proof of coverage under the current NYSDEC SPDES General Permit,or an individual SPDES permit issued for the project if required. g) Final approved plans, in compliance with the Site Plan, must be submitted to the Community Development Department before any further review by the Zoning Administrator or Building and Codes personnel; h) The applicant must meet with Staff after approval and prior to issuance of Building Permit and/or the beginning of any site work; i) Subsequent issuance of further permits, including building permits is dependent on compliance with this and all other conditions of this resolution; j) As-built plans to certify that the site plan is developed according to the approved plans to be provided prior to issuance of the certificate of occupancy. k) This resolution is to be placed in its entirety on the final plans 1) Seven Nutley will be for storage only and not to be habitable space. m) Seven Nutley will not be connected to septic system. n) Shoreline buffer plan to be Code compliant with planting plan reflecting four large trees at three inch diameter;56 native shrubs;and 8 herbaceous plants for a total of 112. o) Shoreline buffer to be added to the final plans and submitted to the Town prior to any site work. p) Final plans wi11 reflect any updated permeability and must be approved by Town prior to site work. q) All lighting to be Code compliant downcast lighting fixtures. Motion seconded by Brady Stark. Duly adopted this 29`h day of November 2022 by the following vote: MR. DEEB Just clarification. Sorry to do this. You're going to go to two bedrooms from four bedrooms. Does that have to be in the resolution? MRS. MOORE-It does not have to be in the resolution because those other bedrooms are not Code compliant. AYES: Mr. Longacker,Mr. Stark,Mr. Magowan,Mr. Etu,Mr. Deeb,Mr. Dixon,Mr. Traver NOES: NONE MR. TRAVER-You're all set. MR.DIXON-Before you leave,can I just make a comment? I'm really discouraged that this even took place. So if anybody's involved with this in the future,I would really not like to see this come in front of the Board again. Even though I voted yes,I'm very disappointed. I just wanted to throw that out there. MR. TRAVER-The next section of our agenda is under New Business, and the first item is Schermerhorn Residential Holdings. This is Site Plan 73-2022 and Freshwater Wetlands permit 18-2022. NEW BUSINESS: SITE PLAN NO. 73-2022 FRESHWATER WETLANDS 18-2022 SEQR TYPE: TYPE 11. SCHERMERHORN RESIDENTIAL HOLDINGS. AGENT(S): EDP. OWNER(S): SAME AS APPLICANT. ZONING: PUD. LOCATION: 67 HAVILAND ROAD. APPLICANT PROPOSES A 1,650 LINEAR FEET DRIVEWAY AT 18 FT. WIDTH TO BE CONSTRUCTED ON A 15.2 ACRE PARCEL. THE PROJECT INCLUDES DISTURBANCE AND WORK WITHIN 100 FT. OF A DESIGNATED WETLAND AND WORK IN THE WETLAND FOR DRIVEWAY CROSSING, STORMWATER MANAGEMENT IS ALSO PROPOSED FOR THE PROJECT. PURSUANT TO CHAPTER 179-3-060, 179-6-050, 94, SITE PLAN FOR DEVELOPMENT OF A DRIVEWAY AND WORK WITHIN 100 FT.OF WETLANDS SHALL BE SUBJECT TO PLANNING BOARD REVIEW AND APPROVAL. CROSS REFERENCE: SUB 7-2005. WARREN CO.REFERRAL: NOVEMBER 2022. SITE INFORMATION: WETLANDS. LOT SIZE: 15.25 ACRES. TAX MAP NO. 289.16-1- 5. SECTION: 179-3-040,179-6-050,94. JON ZAPPER&NICK ZEGLEN,REPRESENTING APPLICANT,PRESENT MR. TRAVER-Laura? MRS. MOORE-This application is for a 1,065 foot linear foot driveway at 18 foot width to be constructed on a parcel of 15.2 acres. The project includes disturbance and work within 100 feet of a designated wetland and work in the wetland for driveway crossing. The project includes stormwater management. 20 (Queensbury Planning Board 11/29/2022) MR. TRAVER-Okay. Thank you. Good evening. MR. ZAPPER-Good evening. For the record Jon Lapper with Nick Zeglen who I don't have to introduce since he's been here for all the applications tonight. MR. TRAVER-You're really getting the hard hat of the night tonight. MR. ZAPPER-So this is the last lot in Hiland Estates Subdivision, right behind Town Hall. Rich and I both live there. His house actually looks out over this lot, as a 15 acre lot it could have accommodated more than one building lot,but he just thought that an estate lot was the way to do this. So there's a small ranch house that he doesn't own that's right at the beginning that has an access easement over property that,his 15 acres for their access. Because there are wetlands on this site,it wasn't able to be designed to completely avoid them,but it's mostly avoiding them. There were just two areas that I'll show you on the map where the driveway had to go over a little bit of disturbance into the wetland buffer but we did get a DEC permit for that and we have a letter from Army Corps that it's not jurisdictional and there's ample stormwater devices to address that. So that couldn't be designed without that,but the one estate lot was the least we could do and somebody else would probably subdivide it into a bunch of lots,but that's not Rich's plan. So with that I'll just ask Nick to walk you through the plan. MR. ZEGLEN-So again it's a driveway that comes to the high and dry part of the lot where the favorable land is and it just,it makes it a lot more marketable and better. So again, IS foot wide driveway that we have provided stormwater management for in accordance with the Town Code. We also have an erosion and sediment control SWPPP because it does go over an acre of disturbance in accordance with the DEC standards. We did receive a Town Engineer letter with comments, mostly kind of just making it clear what part of the Code this falls under and what we are exempt from based on this being a part of a larger subdivision, and we have responded to those comments. A lot of them were about, like I said, being exempt from certain portions of the Code and we did provide stormwater for the 25 year storm which is part of the Town's requirements on that front. MR. TRAVER-Okay. Yes, it looked to me as though most of the comments were technical. Questions, comments from members of the Board? MR. LONGACKER-Were there any Fire Marshal comments on that at all, about the number of turnarounds required? Since it's over 1,000 feet long? MR. TRAVER-I didn't see Fire Marshal comments,no. MR. ZAPPER-It's not a road. It's just a driveway. MR. LONGACKER-I know,but I thought the Building Code required that for over certain distances. MR. ZAPPER-I think it's just for roads,not for driveways. MR. TRAVER-Laura's checking on that. We do have a public hearing on this application as well. Does anyone want to comment on Site Plan 73-2022 or Freshwater Wetlands permit IS-2022? Yes,sir. PUBLIC HEARING OPENED JOHN WILLIAMS MR.WILLIAMS-Hello. My name is John Williams. I'm herewith my wife Ellen Williams,and we own property that abuts this,and so our main concerns really are around the wetlands disturbances or potential disturbances. So I'd like to make,to understand clearly that the only disturbance to the wetlands will be, as it mentions on the plan,the 50 foot,the side,the driveway, and I'd also like to understand how damage to the wetlands will be prevented in terms of hay bales or whatever it is they use to prevent any kind of damage to the wetlands, and also after construction how removal of such hay bales or whatever and the property is restored back to its natural state. I've seen construction projects in the past where that has not been done. The construction people just left them there. So that's,I just want to understand that. I also want to understand how, after, in the process of any construction that's going on, how will it be policed, in the sense that if there's any disturbances or any other disturbance to the wetland not part of the plan,how will this be policed? And the reason why I'm concerned about that is that we have actually had Schermerhorn Holdings come onto our property last year and bushwhacked a strip of land to expose a manhole cover without our permission or knowledge, and we're very concerned that Schermerhorn Holdings will maybe do a similar sort of act. It seems to me that they sometimes run roughshod over other people and seem to get away with it,and so I want to make sure that that doesn't happen and that people take notice of what they're doing and ensure that they do everything according to the plan. I have read through the plans and the plans look reasonable and sensible. I just want to make sure that the construction is done according to those plans. 21 (Queensbury Planning Board 11/29/2022) MR. TRAVER-Well, in answer to that, typically these plans are reviewed by Staff prior to the onset of construction and the Town does visit the project during construction and there is a sort of signoff,if you will,when the project is complete,verifying that it's constructed according to approval. MR. WILLIAMS-Okay. Thank you. Also any changes to the plan, I'd like to be able to see them fairly quickly. I've asked in the past to have notice of what's going on here and this is the first,my letter to the Town has been ignored and this is the first opportunity I've had to look and see what's going on,and since part of our property does abut this development I would like to know what's going on. Are updates to the plan published regularly on the website? MR. TRAVER-After, hypothetically, if this plan were approved, and after the fact they decided they wanted to alter the plan in such a way that it would be constructed differently than what was approved, they could submit an application for a modification to the site plan, which we would again review that updated change. MR.WILLIAMS-How would we know? MR. DEEB-You'd get a notice. You'll get a notice of the meeting. MR.WILLIAMS-Okay. Another meeting? MR. DEEB-Yes,there'd have to be another meeting. MR. TRAVER-It's also on the Town's website,queensbury.net. MR.WILLIAMS-Okay. MR. TRAVER-You can look at the Planning Board meeting documents and see the application and all the materials. MR.WILLIAMS-Okay. MR. DEEB-And there would probably be another public hearing. MR. TRAVER-Yes. MR. DEEB-Which would give you a chance to come back. MR. WILLIAMS-Okay. So the other thing was we were curious about the, apart from the residential building, construction, there's also a very large barn which seems odd for a residential building in our neighborhood like ours. For what purpose is this barn being built? MR. TRAVER-I don't believe that's part of this application. MR. WILLIAMS-1 think it said on our,43,000 square foot barn? Somewhere. MR. TRAVER-We will ask the applicant to clarify. MR.WILLIAMS-This is just for the driveway then? Is there going to be another meeting concerning the construction of the home? MR. TRAVER-There's another application. MR.WILLIAMS-Okay. MRS. MOORE-Could I just clarify that,in reference to the home? If a home were to be constructed and it met all the criteria of,you know,it didn't need any additional review,it would not come back before the Board. MR. TRAVER-If it was completely compliant. MRS. MOO RE-If it was compliant,they would just be applying for their building permit. So you would not get notice if it was compliant with the requirements of the Code. MR. TRAVER-So they would need to get a permit to build from the Town,a construction permit,but if it were completely compliant in all respects,then we wouldn't necessarily see it and it's just for a residential. The Town would because they'd still need a permit. 22 (Queensbury Planning Board 11/29/2022) MR.WILLIAMS-Okay. I have no other questions. Thank you. MR. TRAVER-Thank you. Was there anyone else that wanted to comment on the application before us? Are there written comments,Laura? MRS. MOORE-There are no written comments, and there is no comment in there from the Fire Marshal, but the Fire Marshal is notified of all projects. They just didn't have any comment on this one. MR. TRAVER-Okay. Thank you. MR. LONGACKER-I did look it up real quick, and the Fire Code does require 500 feet for driveways less than 20 feet in width and over 1,000 you have to have a turnaround, a designated dimension,too. So just take a look at Section 500 of the Fire Code. MR. ZEGLEN-So actually on our plan,right at the,pretty much halfway between,it's about a 1,000 foot road,so halfway between we have a gated entrance and turnaround. MR. LONGACKER-All right. So that's at about 500 to 600 so you're over the 500 there,plus there's no dimensions there. So just the dimensions to make sure that that turnaround does meet the Code. MR. TRAVER-So,Warren,does that meet with what your thoughts were? MR.LONGACKER-If they just re-locate that down. The Fire Marshal can talk better to that. if he's okay with it 50 feet from the 500 foot line,but I'd just like to see the dimensions to make sure the fire apparatus can make a turn in that hammerhead. MR. ZEGLEN-The turning radius is shown. MR. TRAVER-Okay. MR. DEEB-That has to be reflected on the plan. MR. TRAVER-Yes. All right. Anything else from members of the Board? MR. MAGOWAN-Did you want to bring up something about the barn or something? MR. DEEB-No. MR. MAGOWAN-So that was just hearsay? MR. ZAPPER-Well there's no plan. I don't know if Rich is going to sell it or build a house. There's no plan for a house yet. MR. TRAVER-That's not part of the application before us. MR. DIXON-I'm all set. MR. TRAVER-All right. RESOLUTION APPROVING SP#73-2022&FWW IS-2022 SCHERMERHORN RESIDENTIAL The applicant has submitted an application to the Planning Board:Applicant proposes a 1,650 linear feet driveway at 1S ft.width to be constructed on a 15.2 acre parcel. The project includes disturbance and work within 100 ft. of a designated wetland and work in the wetland for driveway crossing. Stormwater management is also proposed for the project. Pursuant to chapter 179-3-060, 179-6-050, 94, site plan for development of a driveway and work within 100 ft. of wetlands 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 11/29/2022 and continued the public hearing to 11/29/2022,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 11/29/2022; 23 (Queensbury Planning Board 11/29/2022) 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 73-2022 &z FRESHWATER WETLANDS 18-2022 SCHERMERHORN RESIDENTIAL HOLDINGS; Introduced by Michael Dixon who moved for its adoption. According to the draft resolution prepared by Staff with the following: 1) Waivers requested granted: g. site lighting, h. signage, 1. landscaping, n traffic, o. commercial alterations/construction details,p floor plans,r.construction/demolition disposal s.snow removal as it is reasonable to request a waiver for these items specific to the development of the driveway additional review may be required for the house development; 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) The limits of clearing will constitute a no-cut buffer zone, orange construction fencing shall be installed around these areas and field verified by Community Development staff, b) If applicable, the Sanitary Sewer connection plan must be submitted to the Wastewater Department for its review, approval,permitting and inspection; c) If curb cuts are being added or changed a driveway permit is required. A building permit will not be issued until the approved driveway permit has been provided to the Planning Office; d) If application was referred to engineering then Engineering sign-off required prior to signature of Zoning Administrator of the approved plans; e) Final approved plans should have dimensions and setbacks noted on the site plan/survey, floor plans and elevation for the existing rooms and proposed rooms in the building and site improvements;- f) If required,the applicant must submit a copy of the following to the Town: a. The project NOI (Notice of Intent) for coverage under the current "NYSDEC SPDES General Permit from Construction Activity"prior to the start of any site work. b. The project NOT(Notice of Termination)upon completion of the project; c. The applicant must maintain on their project site,for review by staff: i. The approved final plans that have been stamped by the Town Zoning Administrator. These plans must include the project SWPPP (Storm Water Pollution Prevention Plan)when such a plan was prepared and approved; ii. The project NOI and proof of coverage under the current NYSDEC SPDES General Permit,or an individual SPDES permit issued for the project if required. g) Final approved plans, in compliance with the Site Plan, must be submitted to the Community Development Department before any further review by the Zoning Administrator or Building and Codes personnel; h) The applicant must meet with Staff after approval and prior to issuance of Building Permit and/or the beginning of any site work; i) Subsequent issuance of further permits, including building permits is dependent on compliance with this and all other conditions of this resolution; j) As-built plans to certify that the site plan is developed according to the approved plans to be provided prior to issuance of the certificate of occupancy. k) This resolution is to be placed in its entirety on the final plans. 1) Fire Marshal to confirm that plan is compliant and any changes that may be made reflected on final plans to be submitted to the Town prior to any site work. Motion seconded by Warren Longacker. Duly adopted this 29`h day of November 2022 by the following vote: MR. DIXON-And the addition of L, Fire Marshal review and approval prior to any site work and any changes reflected on final site plan to be submitted to the Town. MRS. MOORE-I just want to comment that I don't know if it's approval or whether it needs to be confirmed that it meets the requirements of the turnaround? So you're asking for approval from. MR. TRAVER-It's a necessary requirement. MRS.MOO RE-But I don't know if it's necessarily an approval. I know he has to confirm,but you're asking the Fire Marshal to approve it. MR. ZAPPER-We could submit it to Laura and have Laura approve it. MRS. MOO RE-Well,I can't. I'm just saying that the Fire Marshal needs to confirm that it's compliant. 24 (Queensbury Planning Board 11/29/2022) MR. DEEB-Yes. MR. TRAVER-All right. So we'll use that language. The Fire Marshal to confirm that it's compliant. MR. DIXON-All right. Let's amend that. L. Fire Marshal to confirm that the plan is compliant and any changes that may be made reflected on final plan to be submitted to the Town prior to any site work. AYES: Mr. Stark,Mr. Magowan,Mr. Etu,Mr. Deeb,Mr. Dixon,Mr. Longacker, Mr. Traver NOES: NONE MR. TRAVER-You're all set. MR. ZEGLEN-Thankyou. MR. TRAVER-The next section of our agenda is Old Business, and actually the first two items are to be tabled. The first item is Loreen Harvey,Kasselman Solar. OLD BUSINESS: SITE PLAN NO. 75-2022 SEQR TYPE: TYPE 11. LOREEN HARVEY/KASSELMAN SOLAR. AGENT(S): LOREEN HARVEY OWNER(S): RORY RUSSELL TRUST. ZONING: MDR. LOCATION: 1516 RIDGE ROAD. APPLICANT PROPOSES A SOUTH FACING GROUND MOUNTED SOLAR PROJECT FOR 2592 kW (54 PANELS), APPROXIMATELY 1,348 SQ. FT. THE EXISTING 5,035 SQ. FT. HOME IS TO REMAIN UNCHANGED. THE PROJECT WILL BE LOCATED ON THE NORTH PROPERTY LINE WHERE NO VEGETATION WILL BE REMOVED. PURSUANT TO CHAPTER 179-5-140, SITE PLAN FOR A RESIDENTIAL GROUND MOUNTED SOLAR PROJECT SHALL BE SUBJECT TO PLANNING BOARD REVIEW AND APPROVAL. CROSS REFERENCE: AV 60-2022. WARREN CO. REFERRAL: NOVEMBER 2022. SITE INFORMATION: APA,LGPC. LOT SIZE: 6.1 ACRES. TAX MAP NO. 266.3-1-76.1. SECTION: 179-5-140. MR. TRAVER-This is to be tabled to the December 15 Planning Board meeting. Is that correct,Laura? MRS. MOORE-That's correct. MR. TRAVER-The ZBA has tabled it actually to tomorrow night. So they may looking at updated new plans and we'll be responding. We have a draft resolution to that effect. RESOLUTION TABLING SP#75-2022 LOREEN HARVEY/KASSELMAN SOLAR Applicant proposes a South facing ground mounted solar project for 25.92 kW(54 panels),approximately 1,345 sq.ft.The existing 5,035 sq.ft.home is to remain unchanged.The project will be located on the North property line where no vegetation will be removed.Pursuant to chapter 179-5-140,site plan for a residential ground mounted solar project shall be subject to Planning Board review and approval. MOTION TO TABLE SITE PLAN 75-2022 LOREEN HARVEY/KASSELMAN SOLAR. Introduced by Michael Dixon who moved for its adoption,seconded by Warren Longacker. Tabled until the December 15,2022 Planning Board meeting. Duly adopted this 29`h day of November 2022 by the following vote: AYES: Mr. Magowan,Mr. Etu,Mr. Deeb,Mr. Dixon,Mr. Longacker,Mr. Stark, Mr. Traver NOES: NONE MRS. MOORE-And just to note that you'll leave the public hearing open. Open the public hearing and leave it open. MR. TRAVER-Okay. Even though their plan may change? MRS.MOORE-I don't think the size. I think it's location is changing. I don't think the project's changing. It's the location of the site,the unit itself. MR. TRAVER-All right. Very good. Well then we will open the public hearing. 25 (Queensbury Planning Board 11/29/2022) PUBLIC HEARING OPENED MR.TRAVER-And we will leave that public hearing open pending our review on December 15. That's not part of the motion though,right? Okay. The next application under Old Business is 3 Sons and Holly LLC, Site Plan 76-2022. SITE PLAN NO.76-2022 SEQR TYPE: TYPE 11. 3 SONS AND HOLLY LLC. AGENT(S): STUDIO A. OWNER(S): SAME AS APPLICANT. ZONING: WR. LOCATION: 28 HOLLY LANE. APPLICANT PROPOSES ALTERATIONS TO AN EXISTING HOME AND SITE. THE PROJECT INCLUDES A 416 SQ. FT. ADDITION TO AN EXISTING HOME WITH A 1,275 SQ. FT. FOOTPRINT. THERE IS TO BE A NEW 72 SQ. FT. PORCH AND A NEW 200 SQ. FT. PORCH WITH A NEW FLOOR AREA OF 3,225 SQ.FT. SITE WORK INCLUDES INSTALLATION OF AN ON-GRADE PAVER PATIO AREA WITH STONE SLAB PATCH AND ENLARGING THE FIRE PIT AREA. ADDITIONALLY, THERE IS TO BE A RAINGARDEN AND SHORELINE PLANTINGS ADDED TO THE SITE. THERE IS NO CHANGE TO THE EXISTING 1,152 SQ. FT. FOOTPRINT OF THE GARAGE AND LIVING SPACE. PURSUANT TO CHAPTER 179-3-040, 179-6-065, 147 AND 179-4-080, SITE PLAN FOR NEW FLOOR AREA IN A CEA, EXPANSION OF A NON- CONFORMING STRUCTURE,AND HARD SURFACING WITHIN 50 FT. OF THE SHORELINE SHALL BE SUBJECT TO PLANNING BOARD REVIEW AND APPROVAL.. VARIANCE: RELIEF IS SOUGHT FOR PERMEABILITY, AND SETBACKS. CROSS REFERENCE: AV 63-2022. WARREN CO. REFERRAL: NOVEMBER 2022. SITE INFORMATION: CEA LOT SIZE: .38 ACRE. TAX MAP NO. 239.12-2-57. SECTION: 179-3-040,179-6-065,147,179-4-080. MR. TRAVER-This application is also being tabled and also being tabled to December 15. Laura? MRS. MOORE-So this application is also being reviewed by the Zoning Board in regards to the permeability and amendments. The applicant has already submitted an updated plan that both the Zoning Board and the Planning Board will receive. So that's why it's December 15`h as well. MR. TRAVER-Okay. So we will also open the public hearing on this application. PUBLIC HEARING OPENED MR. TRAVER-And leave it open pending their return on December 15. And I think we have a draft resolution. RESOLUTION TABLING SP#76-2022 3 SONS AND HOLLY LLC Applicant proposes alterations to an existing home and site. The project includes a 416 sq. ft. addition to an existing home with a 1,275 sq. ft. footprint. There is to be a new 72 sq. ft. porch and a new 200 sq. ft. porch with a new floor area of 3,225 sq.ft.. Site work includes installation of an on-grade paver patio area with stone slab patch and enlarging the fire pit area.Additionally,there is to be a raingarden and shoreline plantings added to the site. There is no change to the existing 1,152 sq.ft.footprint of the garage and living space. Pursuant to chapter 179-3-040,179-6-065,147,and 179-4-080,site plan for new floor area in a CEA, expansion of a non-conforming structure, and hard surfacing within 50 ft.of the shoreline shall be subject to Planning Board review and approval. MOTION TO TABLE SITE PLAN 76-2022 3 SONS AND HOLLY,LLC. Introduced by Michael Dixon who moved for its adoption,seconded by David Deeb. Tabled until the December 15,2022 Planning Board meeting. Duly adopted this 29`h day of November 2022 by the following vote: AYES: Mr. Etu,Mr. Deeb,Mr. Dixon,Mr. Longacker,Mr. Stark,Mr. Magowan,Mr. Traver NOES: NONE MR. TRAVER-Thank you. Okay. This is Old Business,although this is Garden World Associates. This is a referral from the Town Board,Site Plan 69-2022 and Petition for a Zone Change 5-2022. OLD BUSINESS—TOWN BOARD REFERRAL SITE PLAN NO. 69-2022 PETITION FOR ZONE CHANGE 5-2022 SEQR TYPE: TYPE I. GARDEN WORLD ASSOCIATES. AGENT(S): HUTCHINS ENGINEERING. OWNER(S): SAME AS APPLICANT. ZONING: MDR,C1. LOCATION: 2 CARLTON DRIVE/537AVIATION ROAD. APPLICANT PROPOSES A CHANGE OF ZONE FOR A 0.32 ACRE PARCEL AT 2 CARLTON DRIVE IDENTIFIED AS PARCEL # 302.5-1-49 FROM MODERATE DENSITY 26 (Queensbury Planning Board 11/29/2022) RESIDENTIAL TO COMMERCIAL INTENSIVE. THE PROJECT ALSO INCLUDES A PARKING LOT EXPANSION OF A 0.76 ACRE PARCEL AT 537 AVIATION ROAD WITH THE 0.32 ACRE PARCEL. THE PROJECT INCLUDES ASSOCIATED SITE WORK TO INCREASE PARKING TO 86 SPACES. THE PROJECT ALSO INCLUDES A PARCEL MERGE. PURSUANT TO CHAPTER 179-3-040,179-15-040,PETITION OF ZONE CHANGE, TOWN BOARD REFERRAL,SEQR FOR PETITION OF ZONE CHANGE AND PARKING EXPANSION, ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS FOR VARIANCE RELIEF AND PLANNING BOARD RECOMMENDATION SHALL BE SUBJECT TO PLANNING BOARD REVIEW AND APPROVAL. THE PLANNING BOARD WILL MAY ACCEPT LEAD AGENCY,REVIEW SEQR AND PROVIDE RECOMMENDATION. VARIANCE: RELIEF IS SOUGHT FOR PERMEABILITY. CROSS REFERENCE: SP 49-2017,AV 44-2017,AV 50-2022. WARREN CO. REFERRAL: OCTOBER 2022. SITE INFORMATION: TRAVEL CORRIDOR OVERLAY. LOT SIZE: .32 ACRES,.76 ACRES. TAX MAP NO. 302.5-1-49,302.5-1- 50. SECTION 179-3-040,179-15-040. JON ZAPPER&TOM CENTER, REPRESENTING APPLICANT,PRESENT MRS.MOO RE-This is back before the Board and we waited the 30 days. Now it comes back to this Board. Again,this is the applicant proposes a change of zone for a.32 acre parcel on Carlton Drive from MDR to CI and then in reference to the project itself, they're proposing a parking lot expansion on this parcel to coincide with the restaurant on the adjoining parcel. Both parcels are to be merged. This triggered, unusual for a project,is it triggered an Area Variance as well because of the permeability. So the Board has to contend with the referral to the ZBA as well as the Town Board. MR. TRAVER-Okay. And this is also a SEQR Type I application for SEQR. Thank you. Good evening. MR.ZAPPER-For the record Jon Lapper with project engineer Tom Center. Fred and Frank Troelstra are here. They're the owners of Gardentime and Garden World. You notice that a lot of the Gardentime products are sold at The Silo. So they have some of their nursery products and pumpkins that comes from the nursery centers. This is a case where The Silo is so popular that they're sort of a victim of their success that there's just inadequate parking and if you look across the street at the Diner that has probably twice as much parking and certainly every Saturday and Sunday when you drive by every spot is taken at The Silo,mostly because the food is so good and it's such a popular place. The building was constructed at the time that the Northway was built. So the Town has changed. Now it's at the entrance to the Town and it's extremely popular because of the historic barn building because of, it's just a good place, good food. They don't have adequate parking and it's a problem, somewhat of a safety issue. You drive through the parking lot and you can't find a place to park. So the house in the back was their dad's house. He recently passed and the plan is to demolish the house,build a buffer to the neighbor on the other side of it. Fred has talked to the neighbor, Brad Patch, who's well known in Town. He doesn't live there. It's a rental property and we've offered to landscape on their side of the property line if they want that, and certainly something that can be done,but it's just a way of making it easier for the public and the employees to have somewhere to park that can accommodate them in the parking lot. So I think it needs to get done for the sake of the Town and it's just that everything's changed. That's now Exit 19 and a huge amount of cars drive by every day and people want to go to The Silo. So it's a small project in terms of square feet,but important to add the parking spaces. So with that I'll ask Tom to go through the site plan. MR. CENTER-The site plan is pretty straightforward. What we had tried to do to reduce some of the impermeability is include porous pavement in the parking stall sections of the project and then collected the stormwater also down at the lower portion and take it to an infiltration device underneath the parking area. Deep well drained sands. Don't really see any issue. I don't see anything with the engineering comments we can't take care of. So it's a pretty straightforward parking project, similar buffer with the same plantings that are there now between the parcels. I'll just leave it to any questions you have with regard to the site plan. MR. TRAVER-Okay, and, Laura, just to clarify for our procedure, this evening we're going to be considering, well, we'll be accepting Lead Agency, which we had requested, conducting SEQR, and potentially providing a recommendation on the zoning recommendation,zoning change. Correct? MRS. MOORE-So there's two recommendations that you can potentially propose. One is a recommendation to the Town Board, and the other would be the recommendation to the Zoning Board. MR.TRAVER-Okay. Very good. Thank you. Questions,comments from members of the Board? I know when we first looked at this we reviewed it fairly carefully. MR. DIXON-I guess there's two components to it. So from a SEQR perspective,I don't think that there's any issues because it's not any additional traffic. There's no safety concerns. There's nothing that I saw. MR. TRAVE R-They're actually increasing permeability. Did we have a motion to accept Lead Agency? MRS. MOORE-You have a motion in your packet,yes. 27 (Queensbury Planning Board 11/29/2022) MR. TRAVER-Okay. Why don't we do that first. MR. DIXON-Okay. RESOLUTION ACCEPTING LEAD AGENCY STATUS SP#69-2022 GARDEN WORLD WHEREAS,the applicant proposes a change of zone for a 0.32 acre parcel at 2 Carlton Dive identified as Parcel#302.5-1-49 from Moderate Density Residential to Commercial Intensive. The project also includes a parking lot expansion of a 0.76 acre parcel at 537 Aviation Road with the 0.32 acre parcel. The project includes associated site work to increase parking to S6 spaces. The project also includes a parcel merge. Pursuant to chapter 179-3-040,179-15-040,petition of zone change,Town Board referral,SEQR for petition of zone change and parking expansion, Zoning Board of Appeals for variance relief and Planning Board recommendation shall be subject to Planning Board review and approval. The Planning Board may accept lead agency,review SEQR and provide recommendation.Variance: Relief is sought for permeability. WHEREAS, the Planning Board of the Town of Queensbury has determined to begin an environmental review process under the State Environmental Quality Review Act(SEQRA). WHEREAS, in connection with the project, the Town of Queensbury Planning Board, by resolution, previously authorized the Community Development Office to notify other involved agencies of the desire of the Town Board to conduct a coordinated SEQR review, WHEREAS, the Zoning Administrator has advised that other involved agencies have been notified and have consented to the Town of Queensbury Planning Board being lead agency; NOW,THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED: MOTION TO ACKNOWLEDGE LEAD AGENCY STATUS IN CONNECTION WITH SITE PLAN 69-2022,PETITION OF ZONE CHANGE 5-2022&z AREA VARIANCE 50-2022 GARDEN WORLD ASSOCIATES,Introduced by Michael Dixon who moved for its adoption,seconded by David Deeb. As per the draft resolution prepared by staff. Duly adopted this 29`h day of November 2022 by the following vote: MRS. MOORE-So I'm going to have you amend that. I apologize I didn't catch this. You should also identify the Area Variance that's associated with it. So that's Area Variance 50-2022. MR. DIXON-Can you say that one more time? I can't hear you. MRS. MOORE-So you're including the Area Variance which is Area Variance 50-2022. MR. DIXON-Okay. AYES: Mr. Deeb,Mr. Dixon,Mr. Longacker, Mr. Stark,Mr. Magowan,Mr. Etu,Mr. Traver NOES: NONE MR. TRAVER-Does the Board have any initial questions or comments before we take public comment? We do have a public hearing on this application. Is there anyone in the audience that wanted to address the Planning Board regarding Site Plan 69-2022 or Petition for Zone Change 5-2022? I'm not seeing any. Written comments,Laura? PUBLIC HEARING OPENED MRS. MOORE-There are no written comments. MR. TRAVER-Okay. Thank you. So we'll go ahead and close the public hearing. PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED MR.TRAVER-And now we can consider the State Environmental Quality Review Act. We have a SEQR resolution. Are there members of the Board that envision environmental impacts that we need to consider on this application? MR. DEEB-No. 2S (Queensbury Planning Board 11/29/2022) MRS. MOORE-So I also want you to include Area Variance 50-2022, and just note that is a permeability variance. So I just want to make sure that,it currently is not included in your SEQR resolution either. So you need to add that. MR. TRAVER-Okay. RESOLUTION TO GRANT A NEGATIVE SEQR DEC. SP#69-2022 GARDEN WORLD The applicant proposes a change of zone for a 0.32 acre parcel at 2 Carlton Dive identified as Parcel#302.5- 1-49 from Moderate Density Residential to Commercial Intensive. The project also includes a parking lot expansion of a 0.76 acre parcel at 537 Aviation Road with the 0.32 acre parcel. The project includes associated site work to increase parking to S6 spaces. The project also includes a parcel merge. Pursuant to chapter 179-3-040,179-15-040,petition of zone change, Town Board referral, SEQR for petition of zone change and parking expansion, Zoning Board of Appeals for variance relief and Planning Board recommendation shall be subject to Planning Board review and approval. The Planning Board may accept lead agency,review SEQR and provide recommendation.Variance: Relief is sought for permeability. The proposed action considered by this Board is Type I in the Department of Environmental Conservation Regulations implementing the State Environmental Quality Review Act and the regulations of the Town of Queensbury; No Federal or other agencies are involved; Part 1 of the Long EAF has been completed by the applicant; Upon review of the information recorded on this EAF, it is the conclusion of the Town of Queensbury Planning Board as lead agency that this project will result in no significant adverse impacts on the environment,and,therefore, an environmental impact statement need not be prepared. Accordingly,this negative declaration is issued. MOTION TO GRANT A NEGATIVE DECLARATION FOR SITE PLAN 69-2022, PETITION OF ZONE CHANGE 5-2022 &z AREA VARIANCE 50-2022 GARDEN WORLD ASSOCIATES. Introduced by Michael Dixon who moved for its adoption. As per the resolution prepared by staff. 1. Part II of the Long EAF has been reviewed and completed by the Planning Board. 2. Part III of the Long EAF is not necessary because the Planning Board did not identify potentially moderate to large impacts. Motion seconded by Warren Longacker. Duly adopted this 29th day of November 2022 by the following vote: AYES: Mr. Dixon, Mr. Longacker,Mr. Stark,Mr. Magowan,Mr. Etu,Mr. Deeb,Mr. Traver NOES: NONE MR. TRAVER-So with that, we then consider a recommendation to the Town Board as favorable or unfavorable for the zoning change. Discussion? MR. DEEB-It's needed. It's pretty cut and dried. MR. TRAVER-Yes. It seems like it only makes sense. We're actually enhancing some of the issues of that area. MR. ETU-What will happen to the existing house on the rear? MR. CENTER-Demolished. MR. ZAPPER-Demolished. MR. ETU-It already is,or it will be? MR. ZAPPER-No,it will be once it's approved. MR. TRAVER-Am I recalling that it's sort of an all in the family situation? Yes. I thought so. 29 (Queensbury Planning Board 11/29/2022) MRS. MOORE-So this project will actually come back to the Planning Board for Site Plan Review,but it has to go to the Town Board. MR. TRAVER-Based on the zoning change. MRS. MOORE-For the zoning change. MR. DEEB-When do we do the variance,tonight? MRS. MOORE-That's the,you could provide the recommendation to the Town Board as well as provide a recommendation to the Zoning Board. It is unusual because we don't typically get a petition of zone change with a variance. MR. DEEB-I suggest we do that. MR. TRAVER-Yes. Good idea. All right. So let's open that up for discussion. Does anyone have any concerns regarding the variance request for the ZBA and/or the petition to the Town Board to amend the zoning? Or do we have a favorable recommendation on both? Okay, and our resolution currently only includes the Town Board. So we want to update that to reflect the Zoning Board of Appeals as well. MR. DIXON-We're going to incorporate them both? MR. TRAVER-In the recommendation. MR. DEEB-So they only have to come back here for site plan. MRS. MOORE-Correct. So we were trying to see how quickly we could get this project,in reference to the timing and dates, and unfortunately the Town Board will not meet versus the Planning Board time schedule for December. So it will move into the January,potentially February. MR. TRAVER-So we actually have two recommendations, one to the Town Board and one to the Zoning Board. So we'll do t hem one at a time,I guess starting with the Town Board. RESOLUTION RE: RECOMMENDATION RE: TOWN BOARD GARDEN WORLD WHEREAS,the applicant proposes a change of zone for a 0.32 acre parcel at 2 Carlton Dive identified as Parcel#302.5-1-49 from Moderate Density Residential to Commercial Intensive. The project also includes a parking lot expansion of a 0.76 acre parcel at 537 Aviation Road with the 0.32 acre parcel. The project includes associated site work to increase parking to S6 spaces. The project also includes a parcel merge. Pursuant to chapter 179-3-040,179-15-040,petition of zone change,Town Board referral,SEQR for petition of zone change and parking expansion, Zoning Board of Appeals for variance relief and Planning Board recommendation shall be subject to Planning Board review and approval. The Planning Board may accept lead agency,review SEQR and provide recommendation.Variance: Relief is sought for permeability. WHEREAS,the Town of Queensbury Town Board is proposing a zoning change to Commercial Intensive. The Town Board referred this proposed change to the Planning Board for an advisory recommendation pursuant to Section 179-15-020,resolution number 334,2022 dated on September 12,2022; MOTION FOR RECOMMENDATION TO THE TOWN BOARD AS FAVORABLE FOR ZONING CHANGE FROM MODERATE DENSITY RESIDENTIAL TO COMMERCIAL INTENSIVE; The Planning Board based on limited review has not identified any significant adverse impacts that cannot be mitigated with this proposal. Introduced by Michael Dixon who moved for its adoption. Motion seconded by Brad Magowan. Duly adopted this 29`h day of November 2022 by the following vote: MRS. MOORE-And the only comment is at the top of the page we will add the Area Variance 50-2022. 50-2022 will be added because it's not currently included. MR. TRAVER-So we have an amended motion. MR. DIXON-Laura,do you want any of the header information included in that resolution? MRS.MOO RE-No,you don't have to. I'm just telling you that it will be amended. Similar to the previous resolutions. We just need to add it to the resolution title. AYES: Mr. Longacker,Mr. Stark,Mr. Magowan,Mr. Etu,Mr. Deeb,Mr. Dixon,Mr. Traver 30 (Queensbury Planning Board 11/29/2022) NOES: NONE RESOLUTION RE: RECOMMENDATION RE: AV#50-2022 GARDEN WORLD The applicant has submitted an application for the following: Applicant proposes a change of zone for a 0.32 acre parcel at 2 Carlton Dive identified as Parcel# 302.5-1-49 from Moderate Density Residential to Commercial Intensive. The project also includes a parking lot expansion of a 0.76 acre parcel at 537 Aviation Road with the 0.32 acre parcel. The project includes associated site work to increase parking to 86 spaces. The project also includes a parcel merge. Pursuant to chapter 179-3-040,179-15-040,petition of zone change,Town Board referral,SEQR for petition of zone change and parking expansion,Zoning Board of Appeals for variance relief and Planning Board recommendation shall be subject to Planning Board review and approval. The Planning Board may accept lead agency, review SEQR and provide recommendation.Variance: Relief is sought for permeability. 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 50-2022 GARDEN WORLD ASSOCIATES 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 29`h day of November 2022 by the following vote: AYES: Mr. Stark,Mr. Magowan,Mr. Etu,Mr. Deeb,Mr. Dixon,Mr. Longacker, Mr. Traver NOES: NONE MR. ZAPPER-Thank you very much. MR. TRAVER-The next item on our agenda, also under Old Business,this is for unapproved development as well. This is Steve&r Tracey Bureau,Site Plan 74-2022. SITE PLAN NO. 74-2022 SEQR TYPE: TYPE 11. STEVE &z TRACEY BUREAU. AGENT(S): RUCINSKI-HALL ARCHITECTURE. OWNER(S): SAME AS APPLICANT. ZONING: WR. LOCATION: 5 CHESTNUT ROAD. APPLICANT HAS CONSTRUCTED A 45 SQ. FT. MUDROOM AND A 22.1 SQ. FT. ADDITION/CLOSET TO AN EXISTING HOME THAT HAS A FOOTPRINT OF 1,110 SQ. FT. AND DECK/PORCH OF 463 SQ. FT. IN ADDITION,APPLICANT REPLACED A GARAGE WITH A 228 SQ. FT. SHED. THE HOME HAS AS A FLOOR AREA OF 1,338 SQ.FT. PURSUANT TO CHAPTER 179-3-040,179-6-065,179-5-020&z 179-13-010 SITE PLAN FOR A NEW FLOOR AREA IN A CEA, SHED INSTALLATION AND EXPANSION OF A NON- CONFORMING STRUCTURE SHALL BE SUBJECT TO PLANNING BOARD REVIEW AND APPROVAL. CROSS REFERENCE: 59-2022. WARREN CO. REFERRAL: N/A. SITE INFORMATION: CEA,GLEN LAKE. LOT SIZE: .16 ACRE. TAX MAP NO. 289.13-1-7. SECTION: 179-3-040,179-6-065,179-5-020,179-13-010 ETHAN HALL, REPRESENTING APPLICANTS,PRESENT MR. TRAVER-Laura? MRS.MOORE-So this project was in relation to a mudroom addition and an addition of a closet as well as replacement of a garage with a shed. The Zoning Board of Appeals granted the variance relief in reference to setbacks. MR. TRAVER-Okay. Thank you. Good evening. Welcome back. MR. HALL-Good evening. For your records, Ethan Hall,principle with Rucinski Hall Architecture. I'm here tonight with Steve and Tracey Bureau, the owners of the project. We were before you for a recommendation about two weeks ago, went to the Zoning Board,received the Area Variances we were seeking there. We're back before you tonight for final Site Plan Review. 31 (Queensbury Planning Board 11/29/2022) MR. TRAVER-Okay. Any changes as a result of your chat with the ZBA? MR.HALL-No. MR. TRAVER-So it's the same plan that we looked at last time. Questions, comments from members of the Board? I know we discussed this at some length when they were here for the recommendation. MR. DEEB-It was egregious unapproved development. MR. TRAVER-This one wasn't all that terribly egregious,but it was unapproved development. Is there anyone in the audience that wanted to comment on this application, Steve and Tracey Bureau, Site Plan 74-2022? We'll open the public hearing. I'm not seeing any takers. Are there any written comments, Laura? PUBLIC HEARING OPENED MRS. MOORE-I'll check,but I don't believe there are any. MR. HALL-There was a dozen for the Zoning Board. I don't think there were any for you. There was a dozen letters that came from surrounding neighbors and there were five people that spoke at the Zoning Board. That's the only time I've ever been in front of a Board where I've had that many people and letters that came in and everybody was approving. MR. TRAVER-That is unusual. MR. DEEB-Kudos. MRS. MOORE-There were no written comments. MR. TRAVER-All right. Thank you. Then we will go ahead and close the public hearing. PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED MR. TRAVER-Any additional questions, comments for the applicant from members of the Board? We feel comfortable going ahead? We have a resolution. RESOLUTION APPROVING SP#74-2022 STEVE&r TRACEY BUREAU The applicant has submitted an application to the Planning Board:Applicant has constructed a 45 sq. ft. mudroom and a 22.1 sq. ft. addition/closet to an existing home that has a footprint of 1,110 sq. ft. and deck/porch of 463 sq. ft.. In addition, applicant replaced a garage with a 22S sq. ft. shed. The home has a floor area of 1,33E sq. ft.. Pursuant to chapter 179-3-040, 179-6-065, 179-5-020 &r 179-13-010, site plan for new floor area in a CEA,shed installation and expansion of a non-conforming structure shall be subject to Planning Board review and approval. Pursuant to relevant sections of the Town of Queensbury Zoning Code-Chapter 179-9-OSO, the Planning Board has determined that this proposal satisfies the requirements as stated in the Zoning Code; The Planning Board made a recommendation to the Zoning Board of Appeals on 11/15/2022-1 the ZBA approved the variance requests on 11/16/2022-1 The Planning Board opened a public hearing on the Site plan application on 11/29/2022 and continued the public hearing to 11/29/2022,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 11/29/2022; 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 74-2022 STEVE&z TRACEY BUREAU;Introduced by Michael Dixon who moved for its adoption. According to the draft resolution prepared by Staff with the following: 1) Waivers requested granted:h. signage,n traffic,o. commercial alterations/construction details,q. soil logs,r.construction/demolition disposal s.snow removal as it is reasonable to request a waiver as these items are typically associated with commercial projects; 32 (Queensbury Planning Board 11/29/2022) 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) The limits of clearing will constitute a no-cut buffer zone, orange construction fencing shall be installed around these areas and field verified by Community Development staff, b) If applicable, the Sanitary Sewer connection plan must be submitted to the Wastewater Department for its review, approval,permitting and inspection; c) If curb cuts are being added or changed a driveway permit is required. A building permit will not be issued until the approved driveway permit has been provided to the Planning Office; d) If application was referred to engineering then Engineering sign-off required prior to signature of Zoning Administrator of the approved plans; e) Final approved plans should have dimensions and setbacks noted on the site plan/survey, floor plans and elevation for the existing rooms and proposed rooms in the building and site improvements;- f) If required,the applicant must submit a copy of the following to the Town: a. The project NOI (Notice of Intent) for coverage under the current "NYSDEC SPDES General Permit from Construction Activity"prior to the start of any site work. b. The project NOT(Notice of Termination)upon completion of the project; c. The applicant must maintain on their project site,for review by staff: i. The approved final plans that have been stamped by the Town Zoning Administrator. These plans must include the project SWPPP (Storm Water Pollution Prevention Plan)when such a plan was prepared and approved; ii. The project NOI and proof of coverage under the current NYSDEC SPDES General Permit,or an individual SPDES permit issued for the project if required. g) Final approved plans, in compliance with the Site Plan, must be submitted to the Community Development Department before any further review by the Zoning Administrator or Building and Codes personnel; h) The applicant must meet with Staff after approval and prior to issuance of Building Permit and/or the beginning of any site work; i) Subsequent issuance of further permits, including building permits is dependent on compliance with this and all other conditions of this resolution; j) As-built plans to certify that the site plan is developed according to the approved plans to be provided prior to issuance of the certificate of occupancy. k) This resolution is to be placed in its entirety on the final plans. Motion seconded by Brady Stark. Duly adopted this 29`h day of November 2022 by the following vote: AYES: Mr. Magowan,Mr. Etu,Mr. Deeb,Mr. Dixon,Mr. Longacker,Mr. Stark,Mr. Traver NOES: NONE MR. TRAVER-You are all set. MR.HALL-Excellent. Thank you very much. We appreciate your time. MR. TRAVER-Is there any other business to come before the Board this evening? All right. Well,thank you everyone. We'll see you next month and we'll entertain a motion to adjourn. MOTION TO ADJOURN THE QUEENSBURY PLANNING BOARD MEETING OF NOVEMBER 29TI,2022,Introduced by Brady Stark who moved for its adoption,seconded by David Deeb: Duly adopted this 29`h day of November,2022,by the following vote: AYES: Mr. Deeb,Mr. Dixon,Mr. Longacker, Mr. Stark,Mr. Magowan,Mr. Etu,Mr. Traver NOES: NONE MR. TRAVER-We stand adjourned. Thank you,everybody. On motion meeting was adjourned. RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED, Stephen Traver,Chairman 33