Loading...
12-13-2022 (Queensbury Planning Board 12/13/2022) QUEENSBURYPTANNINGBOARD MEETING FIRSTREGUTAR MEETING DECEMBER I31r,2022 INDEX Site Plan No. 66-2022 Alisha&Michael Griffey 1. Tax Map No.239.16-1-23;239.16-1-24 Site Plan No. 52-2022 Dan Hunt 12. Petition of Zone Change 3-2022 Tax Map No. 30S.15-1-5S Subdivision No.12-2022 Paul Nasrani 19. PRELIMINARY STAGE Tax Map No.2S9.15-1-47 Freshwater Wetlands 17-2022 ZBA RECOMMENDATION Site Plan No.77-2022 Adirondack Retirement Specialists 21. ZBA RECOMMENDATION Tax Map No. 302.E-1-16;30.S-1-17 Site Plan No.7S-2022 Garvey KIA 23. Tax Map No. 303.6-1-4 Subdivision No.IS-2022 Cerrone Land Holdings 27. FINAL STAGE Tax Map No. 301.1E-2-1 Subdivision No.16-2022 Sean StumvoIl 29. PRELIMINARY STAGE Tax Map No.253.-1-4 Subdivision No.17-2022 FINAL STAGE Freshwater Wetlands 19-2022 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 12/13/2022) QUEENSBURY PLANNING BOARD MEETING FIRST REGULAR MEETING DECEMBER 13TK,2022 7.00 P.M. MEMBERS PRESENT STEPHEN TRAVER,CHAIRMAN DAVID DEEB,VICE CHAIRMAN MICHAEL DIXON,SECRETARY WARREN LONGACKER BRADY STARK NATHAN ETU WILLIAM MAGOWAN ZONING ADMINISTRATOR-CRAIG BROWN STENOGRAPHER-MARIA GAGLIARDI MR.TRAVER-Good evening ladies and gentlemen. Welcome to the Town of Queensbury Planning Board meeting for Tuesday, December 13`h, 2022. This is our first meeting for December and our 25`h meeting thus far for 2022. Please make note of the illuminated exit signs. In the event that we have an emergency in the building, those are the emergency exits. Be aware of those. If you have a cellphone or other electronic device,if you would either turn it off or turn the ringer off so as not to interrupt our proceedings we would appreciate that. We also ask,as the meeting is recorded and transcribed,other than during the public hearing,if you wish to have a conversation amongst yourselves, if you wouldn't mind going out to the other lobby to have that conversation we'd appreciate it, so again our meeting isn't disrupted. The only real administrative item we have this evening is approval of minutes, and this is from our October I8 and October 25 meeting. I believe we have a draft resolution for that. APPROVAL OF MINUTES October 18`h,2022 October 25`h,2022 MOTION TO APPROVE THE QUEENSBURY PLANNING BOARD MEETING MINUTES OF OCTOBER 18`h &z OCTOBER 25`h, 2022, Introduced by Michael Dixon who moved for its adoption, seconded by David Deeb: Duly adopted this 13`h day of December,2022,by the following vote: AYES: Mr. Deeb,Mr. Dixon,Mr. Longacker,Mr. Stark, Mr. Magowan,Mr. Etu,Mr. Traver NOES: NONE MR. TRAVER-Moving to our regular agenda, the first section of the agenda is Tabled Items, and we are going to make a minor adjustment temporarily in the agenda in that the attorney for the Dan Hunt application is not yet here. He's expecting to be here shortly. So we're going to move to the second application and make that the first one heard this evening, and that being for Alisha & Michael Griffey. This is Site Plan 66-2022. TABLED ITEMS: SITE PLAN NO.66-2022 SEQR TYPE: TYPE II. ALISHA&z MICHAEL GRIFFEY AGENT(S): EDP (BRANDON FERGUSON). OWNER(S): SAME AS APPLICANT. ZONING: WR. LOCATION: 26 TALL TIMBERS ROAD. (REVISED) APPLICANT PROPOSES A NEW DRIVEWAY CONFIGURATION TO HAVE ACCESS FROM AN ADJOINING LOT FROM ASSEMBLY POINT ROAD. PROJECT WORK INCLUDES 5,470 SQ. FT. OF NEW DRIVEWAY SURFACE WITH STORMWATER MANAGEMENT AND STONE RETAINING WALLS. SITE DISTURBANCE IS LESS THAN 15,000 SQ.FT. ADDITIONAL STORMWATER CONTROLS ARE BEING ADDED FOR EXISTING HARD SURFACES. THE EXISTING RESIDENCE AND OUTBUILDINGS TO REMAIN UNCHANGED. THE PROJECT INCLUDES MERGING TWO LOTS. PURSUANT TO CHAPTER 179-3-040, SITE PLAN FOR SITE DEVELOPMENT IN THE WR ZONE FOR A NEW DRIVEWAY AND MAJOR STORMWATER SHALL BE SUBJECT TO PLANNING BOARD REVIEW AND APPROVAL. WARREN CO. REFERRAL: OCTOBER 2022. SITE INFORMATION: APA,LGPC,CEA. LOT SIZE: 1.79 ACRES. TAX MAP NO. 239.16-1-23, 239.16-1-24. SECTION: 179-3-040 2 (Queensbury Planning Board 12/13/2022) NICK ZEGLEN,REPRESENTING APPLICANTS,PRESENT MR. TRAVER-Craig,comments? MR.BROWN-Does Laura just usually read the agenda? MR. TRAVER Just if she has anything in the way of introduction. MR. DEEB-She usually reads the project description. MR. TRAVER-It's not necessary,if you want to skip that. MR. BROWN-We'll go through it real quick. The applicant proposes a new driveway configuration to have access from an adjoining lot from Assembly Point Road. Project work includes 5,470 square feet of new driveway surface with stormwater management and stone retaining walls. Site disturbance is less than 15,000 square feet. Additional stormwater controls are being added for existing hard surfaces. The existing residence and outbuildings to remain unchanged. The project includes merging two lots. Pursuant to Chapter 179-3-040, Site Plan for site development in the WR zone for a new driveway and major stormwater shall be subject to Planning Board review and approval. MR. TRAVER-Okay. Thank you. Good evening. Welcome back. MR. ZEGLEN-Good evening. Nick Zeglen with Environmental Design Partnership, here tonight on behalf of the applicant,Alisha and Michael Griffey. The applicants unfortunately couldn't be here tonight. They're out of Town,but we are here tonight seeking Site Plan approval for a proposed driveway off of Old Assembly Point Road to the existing residence at 26 Tall Timbers Road. So the purpose of this application is to provide improved ingress and egress to the applicant's residence. The existing access is through Tall Timbers Road,which is a narrow,difficult to traverse road. There was actually an issue,a little over a year ago, where there was an emergency and a fire truck actually couldn't get to the Griffey's residence. So that's the purpose of this new driveway. So this project was before the Board back in October where it was tabled based on concerns mainly around the stormwater management design. So there were some updated comments from the Town Designated Engineer as well as some concerns from the Board as well as the Waterkeeper and some off-site pre-existing drainage issues between the Dunton and Brother's property. So since October we have gone back to the drawing board, taken into account some of the Town's concerns, did reach out to the Lake George Waterkeeper for some,you know, additional insight into some of the best stormwater practices for a situation like this. So we did add some additional stormwater in the form of a perforated pipe and stone trench that will run linearly along that proposed driveway to just add more infiltration area throughout the whole length of the driveway,and we also added some stone level spreaders which will be placed on the down gradient overflow side of the proposed shallow grass depression. So during a large storm event,in the event those depressions were to fill up and overflow, the runoff would hit these level spreaders and dissipate and would be able to sheet flow out across the existing soil and forested area to provide additional infiltration areas. So that's kind of what we added to the stormwater design. We also did achieve signoff from the Town Designated Engineer. So we addressed all their comments,and they provided a signoff signifying that this was a major stormwater design per the Town Code where what we do is essentially model the site as pre-development,pre-existing conditions where the entire site is wooded,and that's where we'd get our basis of design for our runoff rate and runoff volumes and that's what we use for our post-development conditions to show that our stormwater designs will reduce those rates and volumes. I will just touch briefly on some of the topic of discussion at the last meeting,which we also some drainage issues between the Dunton's and the Brother's property,and I just want to say unfortunately the Griffeys can only handle the runoff on their property and they have done so with this stormwater design. It's gone through the proper channels, and gotten signoff from the Town Engineer. They can't handle any runoff on the down gradient properties. So we feel that it would be unfair to hold up this application based on its pre-existing condition that they had no part in causing or anything else of that matter. And furthermore we did submit this new driveway plan to the North Queensbury Fire Department for their review and they came back with a letter very much in support of this new access,utilizing the benefits of this new way to get to the property. So I'll turn it back over to the Board for any questions or comments. Thank you. MR. TRAVER-One of the things that drew my attention was when I was reading the stormwater management is going to be phased in over a 15 year period. MR. ZEGLEN-So as part of the Town Code,with existing impervious area, so not the new driveway,but the house and all the other hard scape down near the lake,the way that the Code works is so you provide all the stormwater for the new impervious, and then the rest is conceptual to treat a half inch rainstorm that has to be implemented over I believe it is a 15 year period. So all the stormwater for the road and everything pertaining to that would be installed immediately during construction. The other stormwater techniques are intended for the existing impervious which is the house and the garage, which would be implemented over a 15 year period of time. 3 (Queensbury Planning Board 12/13/2022) MR. TRAVER-Is there any reason why you couldn't implement it over a shorter period of time? Like one year,two years? MR. ZEGLEN Just feasibility and just costs of putting in additional stormwater. I think that's the intent of the Code, is to just kind of break it up so it's not as much of a burden,you know, right of way, for the applicant. MR. TRAVER-Okay. Thank you. Questions,comments from members of the Board? MR. MAGOWAN-I'll say,I drove out there. It's quite a road,especially right therefrom Brothers'garage there. That's a rather tight corner, and,you know,my main concern is as we stated before,we have some issues that are down below, and now you're saying that the rest of the stormwater you want to initiate over the next 15 years. MR. ZEGLEN-So this would be stormwater, all that stormwater is down gradient, completely separate from the issues on the adjacent properties, and I will, sorry,I forgot to add. So back in November a plan for a retrofit and stormwater for the Dunton property was submitted to the Town and is currently under review by the Town. So that is completely separate. There is a proposed stormwater fix for those issues that has nothing to do with the 15 years. That would be implemented immediately. MR. MAGOWAN-All right. Well,you know, after driving out there and driving up through,I mean,you come all the way off of the Tall Timbers and really snake through, and my truck is a pretty big truck, and it was like, wow, this is, I can understand the need for the driveway. It almost kind of feels like you're going back into the middle of nowhere,you know what I'm saying, actually,with the new driveway. My concern is really the stormwater around the top, now that we've kind of addressed all the stormwater that's going to head basically, north, we said, right? Yes, it's pretty much due north because it all goes downhill there. Is any of the stormwater,you've addressed all of the driveway,but I'm concerned with the paved parking lot and everything up,that is already connected to the existing road that you want to leave there,because it all flows down all right to the Brother's garage,from kind of what I see. MR. ZEGLEN-So are you talking about this area right here? MR. MAGOWAN-Well I'm talking from in front of the house, right, two story house, which you've got the paved parking, you know, then you have the concrete pad, then you've got the paved driveway that goes all the way down over to the Dunton's,and then from the Dunton's it goes over the Brother's over onto Tall Timbers Road,or is that all Tall Timbers Road? I don't know. MR.ZEGLEN-So right here where my pointer is,that's actually a high point in Tall Timbers. So all of this runoff would go down towards the lake. It wouldn't go down over that way towards Dunton's then Brother's. This is a high point right here. So this is all lower than here. So it wouldn't. MR. MAGOWAN-All right,and I did see that. I just want to make sure that we are capturing,since that being a high point, all right, is that stormwater going to be going on the shallow depression area right in front,in front of the concrete pad? MR. ZEGLEN-So the stormwater from here would go into this shallow grass depression area and there's also,this s also what we added is the stone level spreader that I was talking about. So it would hit that, and that's all the same elevation. So that would allow the runoff to dissipate and sheet flow across the lawn area there. MR.MAGOWAN-All right. I just want to make sure. I mean I understand the need for the driveway,but I also did check out,you know,the other ones at the Dunton's,but that's not part of this application. MR. ZEGLEN-Correct. Right. MR. MAGOWAN-I'd really like to make sure that it's all correct, because it's not fair for really the Brother's property,which is actually the lowest,you know,on there. So everything we can do to keep our water there and flow it,because it is pretty,there's not much there. MR. ZEGLEN-Correct. MR. MAGOWAN-Besides rock and a little bit of topsoil and shrubbery. I mean it's pretty rocky. MR. ZEGLEN-So I will add that the project architect, Dennis, is also here tonight, and the applicant is going to work to make some improvements to that house and the property down below, all that, so stormwater will also be incorporated into that. So that's another phase of this project,but there will be additional stormwater measures on the property that should improve overall. MR. MAGOWAN-But you're asking for a 15 year improvement project. 4 (Queensbury Planning Board 12/13/2022) MR. ZEGLEN-That's correct. For this application,just as the driveway,yes. That is what we're asking for,as per the Town Code. MR. MAGOWAN-Does it say that in the Town Code that we can,we allow up to 15 years for stormwater corrections? MR. TRAVER-That's a question for Staff. Craig? MR.BROWN-I think that's where it starts and I think what we're talking about is the retrofit stuff around the house. MR. ZEGLEN-Correct. MR. BROWN-All of the stormwater associated with the new driveway goes in immediately after construction of the driveway. That extra stuff,the retrofit to deal with the existing hard surface areas,the house, the sidewalks, the patios around the house, they're looking for an extended schedule to do that. They're asking for 15. You can ask for a different number and do a little horse trading. MR. TRAVER-Yes. And we should have a phasing plan for that,too, to split that out, exactly what the timing would be for each phase. MR. MAGOWAN-Yes,because by changing all of this,you know,this is the time you want to correct it. MR. TRAVER-Right. And they're proposing it over 15 years,which I started by saying my thinking was that was too long a period of time,but we can discuss it. In any case,whether it's 15 years or 5 years,we should have a breakdown of the specifics of when the different components are going to be installed. MR. MAGOWAN-Maybe some others feel the same way I do, and I'm really happy here that we have something in for the Dunton's to correct that. I mean,like I said,I really did spend some time up there and really looked at it,and it's quite a terrain,but I could see why the driveways are needed,you know. MR. ZEGLEN-Yes, and we are actually open to a shortened timeframe and I apologize,I don't remember if it's five years or fifteen years in the Town Code. I don't remember the exact duration,but.,you know, we are open to a shortened timeline and like I said,they're going to be making some modifications to the house. Just with some budgetary constraints we went with the driveway first because that was the real pressing need, and to be honest with you,this driveway will go a long way to getting equipment there to actually make these improvements for the stormwater retrofit. MR.MAGOWAN-I guess what I'm kind of saying is that by putting this driveway in and hopefully design that's going to work perfectly,but in case not,you know,what I'm saying,it contributes to flow up north, is that, you know, we could say well it didn't work but we've got 15 years to fix it. That's what I'm concerned about. MR. ZEGLEN-I understand. MR. TRAVER-Other questions,comments from members of the Board? MR. ETU-You said in the beginning there was going to be a,since the last time you were here,there was a four inch perforated pipe? MR. ZEGLEN-So along the bulk of the driveway, on the upper side, there's a stone rain with a four inch perforated pipe throughout it so that runoff from the driveway will go directly into that and that will promote more infiltration, not just in those small isolated areas where the shallow grass depressions are, but along a good majority of the length of the new driveway. MR. DIXON-Does the driveway pitch towards that now? MR. ZEGLEN-It pitches to that,yes,and then that will also discharge to those shallow grass depressions. MR. MAGOWAN-Being as rocky as it is,do you think four is enough? I'm not an engineer. MR. ZEGLEN-Well it's four inches within another,the depth of the trench is at least a foot. So it's four inches within another foot in the stone trench. MR. TRAVER-We do have a public hearing on this application as well. Is there anyone in the audience that wanted to address the Planning Board on this application? Yes,sir. PUBLIC HEARING OPEN 5 (Queensbury Planning Board 12/13/2022) CHRIS NAVITSKY MR. NAVITSKY-Thank you. Good evening. Chris Navitsky, Lake George Waterkeeper. The Planning Board tabled the application back in October requesting more enhanced stormwater management on this project,to provide more mitigation measures and guarantee that the stormwater will stay on the property. In my professional opinion there's been minimal changes to the plan. The plan has not met those requests by the Planning Board. In addition there are outstanding drainage concerns from the same stormwater management approach that they're basically applying here, and those concerns are on the neighboring property, the 1S Tall Timbers, which was alluded to, the Dunton property. That same approach on Dunton's is being used here. For the record,I was reached out to by EDP. They asked me for some input on this. I felt obligated to do that and discussed some matters. I don't think those were completely implemented,but I did qualify my answer by saying I really don't think that this project is necessary. The concerns of the Waterkeeper presented at the previous meeting remain,the amount of disturbance on the steep forested slopes and the ability of the site to provide adequate management for the increased stormwater runoff due to the lack of the soils present,and the shallow depth to bedrock. Negative impacts regarding the proposed project that the Planning Board must consider are, in concentrating the stormwater management instead of mimicking natural hydrologic conditions by spreading throughout the site. They basically have three I think infiltration areas, which really the stormwater would be concentrated. They put in the perforated in the gravel trenches,similar to what the Dunton's did,but that perforated pipe is actually going to pick up that stormwater in a trench and move it to the infiltration basin. So it's really going to be concentrating it. It's not dispersing it What they should do is take the water from the trench, put it out into another perforated pipe that is outside of that trench. That will spread it out through those soils which are very shallow through that site. Instead they're really being concentrated into three primary areas, not mimicking natural drainage. The amount of blasting for the driveway, and there's been no discussion on that, and the associated runoff has not been calculated. Six inches to twelve inches to bedrock,but they're proposing five to seven foot cuts on that steep slope going down. How much blasting is there going to be? How much will that actually turn that hillside into an exposed drive that hasn't been thought in stormwater runoff,and that's a 19%grade on that driveway,and the runoff from the lower 50 feet of the driveway will not have adequate stormwater management. I was just saying there was going to be runoff directed down towards the lake. They have a gravel trench across that existing road,but that's not going to capture runoff coming down from a 19%grade. So the necessity of the project is questioned. I respect Mr. Magowan's opinion on this,but it appears the negative impacts associated with the amount of disturbance on 25 to 40% slopes, excessive grading, earthwork proposed, and the removal of the mature vegetation and the root systems outweigh the benefits,and we recommend that you deny this as proposed due to the negative impacts on a Critical Environmental Area surrounding Lake George. MR. TRAVER-Chris, a question. With regard to stormwater on site and so on,were you aware that the Town Designated Engineer gave them a sign off on their plan? MR. NAVITSKY-I did not see that in the package,but I have to go by my professional opinion. MR. TRAVER-It sounds as though your concern is more with methodology and not technical compliance with the regulation. MR. NAVITSKY-I just don't think what they propose is going to work. I think it's going to concentrate the stormwater. It's not distributing it. When you only have that much soil,you know,you need to spread that out as much as possible,and that's why,you know,the hillsides have been as stable as they have been. You go down to the next driveway down, Dunton,they have cut into the hillside. They used infiltration trenches and there weren't the soils there to adequately infiltrate that and it starts popping up on the next property. I think similar things will happen here. MR. TRAVER-Okay. Thank you. MR.DEEB-Chris,I have a question. Are you suggesting adding an additional four inch pipe below the one that's above it? MR. NAVITSKY-Yes. I think you have an infiltration pipe,or an infiltration trench. Stormwater's going to enter that and filter into the ground and it'll rise up as more stormwater. Then they've got that perforated pipe. I don't think that perforated pipe is going to distribute it. I think it will carry that down towards where the basin is. It would almost be like a pipe conveying it. I think if you had kind of a leader coming off of that infiltration trench, of course this is on a driveway that I don't think is necessary, then you could have a second perforated pipe that could distribute that more evenly over those limited soils, and I think that,because what you want is low impact development and mimic natural hydrologies to kind of spread out,like rain falls on the trees and intercepts and drips down. So you want to kind of drip down outside and seep into the ground where instead of putting it in these three kind of areas for the infiltration which I think are just going to cause problems. If that helps. 6 (Queensbury Planning Board 12/13/2022) MR. TRAVER-Okay. Thank you. MR. NAVITSKY-Thank you. Is there anyone else in the audience that wanted to comment on this application to the Planning Board? Yes,sir. PETER BROTHERS MR. BROTHERS-Thank you. For the record, Peter Brothers, 12 Tall Timbers Road, next door neighbor to Marylou Dunton at 1S Tall Timbers Road and they are next to the applicant here,the Griffey's,at 26 Tall Timbers Road. First in my correspondence here included, but I should mention for the record that the previous owner of this property,in whatever the capacity, I'm not sure the exact details, discussed with Dunton about having a berm of some sort that was near our shared access driveway and/or even taking out the driveway was included in the conversation,but I know that that was some sort of what was suggested and unfortunately the Dunton's were not even remotely interested to the best of my knowledge, and I will mention my correspondence here for you folks. My comments before you this evening are like what I mentioned previously a couple of months ago. I remain opposed to the permit for a new road at 26 Tall Timbers Road. There are many reasons this should not be permitted to go forward. At the very least, regarding 1S Tall Timbers Road, it has been S months at least since there was an independent engineering report by Lake George Waterkeeper Chris Navitsky submitted to Town of Queensbury including the Planning Board requesting corrections be made to the newly constructed road by next door neighbor to us Mary Lou Dunton at 1S Tall Timbers Road.Despite the new plans recently submitted I guess in last several weeks by Mary Lou Dunton for remediation,they fall far short of the recommendations from independent engineer Chris Navitsky in his most recent updated communication which I will give to you as a matter of record. As this board is aware, Mary Lou Dunton at 1S Tall Timbers Road had a new road of her own constructed recently which is disposing much of the storm water onto 12 Tall Timbers Road owned by my father,John T.Brothers. This was due to parties involved with Mary Lou Dunton including Environmental Design Partnership (also lead engineer for 26 Tall Timbers Road for project before you this evening for similar project), Town of Queensbury, McCall Construction building a new road that was outside of the permit that was granted.At the very least,someone needs to be held accountable for the flawed project at 1S Tall Timbers Road owned by Marylou Dunton. To consider a project for next door at 26 Tall Timbers Road would be a huge mistake as it could significantly compound the problems already created by Mary Lou Dunton at 1S Tall Timbers Road. The photos I submit as part of my communication here should also raise serious concerns. The storm water that is emptying onto property owned by my father John T. Brothers at 12 Tall Timbers Road is going in multiple directions causing damage in multiple locations at 12 Tall Timbers Road. Relatively new concrete steps, new concrete steps, have broken and unfortunately need to be replaced. These concrete steps were installed,put in,not maybe seven to eight years ago. MR.TRAVER-Excuse me,sir,it sounds like you're talking about,you're not talking about this application this evening. You're talking about some other issues related to that. If you could confine your remarks to what the Planning Board is considering this evening,we'd appreciate it. MR. BROTHERS-Okay. Sure. Well I would also then submit my comments here for the record for you folks to respectively take into consideration and I just thought much of it was relevant as you're considering this application with the stormwater and the problems with next door and a similar proposal being considered here that's taken a long time to get it corrected. That's really what my concern is also at 1S Tall Timbers Road at our place at 12 Tall Timbers Road. As the lead healthcare proxy for my father I have a responsibility for his care and wellbeing and already a couple of caregivers of ours that come in on a daily basis for my father have slipped and fell as a result of the ice skating rink, and I feel this particular project will compound our problem below at 12 Tall Timbers Road and mainly am concerned with how do we correct that. That's really my concern is that whatever the solution should be,and I've included a new report here, an engineering report for each of you respectively to review for the record pictures and also including a couple of photos of the ice that is occurring as well as also our personal healthcare responsibility that lays out my responsibility as the person who is responsible for taking care of my dad. MR. TRAVER-Okay. Thank you. If you can submit those to Staff as part of the record. MR.BROTHERS-Thank you,sir. I appreciate it. MR. TRAVER-Is there anyone else that wanted to address the Planning Board on this application this evening? I'm not seeing any. Craig,do you know if there's written comments? MR.BROWN-There are two letters,or actually three letters. One from Mr.Navitsky. Can we forgo that? It looks like it mirrors your comments that you had made? Okay, and we had two other letters,one from a Ted Dabrowski from 34 Old Assembly Point Road. Does Laura just read them verbatim,just to be read in? MR. TRAVER-Sure. 7 (Queensbury Planning Board 12/13/2022) MR. BROWN-"Dear Planning Board members: Once again regarding this application with revisions to the initial proposal, I remain opposed to granting a permit for this project. During the last meeting regarding this project,it had been 5-6 months since an independent engineering report had been submitted to the Town of Queensbury pertaining to the flawed project for the new road that was built for next door neighbor Mary Lou Dunton at 1S Tall Timbers Road between the Griffeys at 26 Tall Timbers Road and John T. Brothers at 12 Tall Timbers Road. Right now as mentioned previously, we are going on S months since the Town of Queensbury has been notified of concerns with Mary Lou's storm water from her new road being dumped onto the property owned by John T. Brothers at 12 Tall Timbers Road. Even if plans have been submitted by Mary Lou Dunton for remediation to correct the problem caused by improperly constructing her new road,it is not yet clear if the proposed remediation plans are sufficient to address the problem. In addition, if the plans proposed by Mary Lou Dunton at 1S Tall Timbers Road address the problem, equally if not more important, there is no construction equipment at the site ready to start the much overdue remediation project. It is interesting and quite troubling that the same engineering firm is designing the new road for Griffey at 26 Tall Timbers Road when it is well known that the same engineering firm was involved in the project at 1S Tall Timbers Road where what was approved by the Town of Queensbury is not reflected in the physical layout of the roadway for 1S Tall Timbers Road owned by Mary Lou Dunton. During the winter,it is an ice skating rink all around the residential structure at 12 Tall Timbers Road owned by John T. Brothers who at age 94 requires some assistance getting around. I was visiting Dr.Brothers during the winter when he had to be at a medical appointment. I slipped and fell near the entry doorway of their residence close to the parking lot while I was helping their son Peter get Dr. Brothers transported in wheelchair from house to the car. As you might guess with a review of the proposed project, any storm water runoff from the Griffey residence at 26 Tall Timbers Road would compound the problem created by Mary Lou Dunton at 1S Tall Timbers Road. It is only fair to Dr. Rev. John T. Brothers at 12 Tall Timbers Road for his safety and wellbeing that the Griffey project be put on hold for consideration of approval until Mary Lou Dunton at 1S Tall Timbers Road corrects the problem she created. Dr. Brothers has had to wait nearly eight months for correction since son Peter submitted a completed independent engineering report. This board should require a COMPLETED REMEDIATION PROJECT AT 1S TALL TIMBERS ROAD BEFORE ANY POSSIBLE APPROVAL FOR A SIMILAR PROJECT AT 26 TALL TIMBERS ROAD.I am also submitting photos of icy conditions at 12 Tall Timbers Road caused by storm water runoff at 1S Tall Timbers Road.It is not fair that Dr.Brothers is compromised as far as his health and well-being is concerned when he needs to get to medical appointments during the winter. Ted Dabrowski 34 Old Assembly Point Road" And the other one is from Chief Ed Carr, North Queensbury Fire Department. "To Whom It May Concern: We are writing this letter in regard to the driveway proposed at 26 Tall Timbers Road in the Town of Queensbury. We have done a visual inspection of the site and determined that the new driveway will greatly improve access to property as it is very tight to the north by the Brothers residence. Many of our existing trucks would have difficulty accessing the property in the current state. We are very much in favor of the proposed driveway if you have any questions or need any additional information, please call me. Thank you. Edward Carr Chief North Queensbury Fire Company" MR. TRAVER-Thank you,Craig. All right. With that we'll close the public hearing. PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED MR. TRAVER-Any additional questions from members of the Board? MR. DIXON-1 do, Mr. Chairman. So I keep hearing comments regarding stormwater runoff, primarily around wintertime, spring thaw, fall thaw and winter, and I guess I'm still struggling with, even though you've got the infiltration trenches, are they going to freeze over? Are they going to be effective in the wintertime? MR. ZEGLEN-So to answer your question,yes,we have the infiltration trenches along the driveway that were incorporated as part of our conversation with Mr.Navitsky. The additional stone pipe,the additional perforated pipe,is where I would have concern in terms of the freezing. It sounds like that pipe would be installed within the,what's been stated,the six to twelve inches of soil above the bedrock. So if you were to take that and install it in that little bit of soil above the bedrock it would freeze. That's why we went with the level spreader idea. When the runoff hits that it would still be overlay and sheet flow on top of the surface and be able to infiltrate down through all twelve inches and that would be better for wintertime conditions instead of a pipe that only has about six inches of cover. So that's why we opted with the stone level spreaders in lieu of additional perforated pipe. MR. DIXON-And in the Site Plan Page Four of Four it's talking about a grass depression with wall, and it's saying fill swales to be green granular material free of organic debris and frozen material. So living in the North Country,we have the thaw and then we have the freeze and it'll thaw. There's usually a period of time in there where whether it's a drain, drainage. They freeze over. They're ineffective. So then I'm struggling with, because I, again, looking at the pitch of this driveway, if that's not effective, and you're going to be putting salt or some sort of ice melt down, the only place left for it to go is either across the road and heading towards the lake,or it's going to take a sharp right and head north and dissipate amongst the neighbors'property. So I guess that's one area that I'm struggling with on the lakeside. Now as we S (Queensbury Planning Board 12/13/2022) talk about Old Assembly Point Road, it looks like you've made some improvements there, but again, in those late fall,early spring and winter I still see the same issues arising. So that's on that all together. The other part as it's been commented on the 15 year period to implement the other components. I would feel more comfortable if this was all done within a 24 month period. MR. ZEGLEN Just to touch on the frozen organics,that note is particular to during construction the fill being placed in that area so they don't take from a pit that's got a bunch of frozen material. It's the good fill material that's similar to the native material,just so they don't take some debris and trash or anything like that and use that as fill. So that's what that note is referring to, and the stormwater depressions will also have a stone reservoir that goes down below the frost layer to allow for infiltration to happen during wintertime conditions. So that's what, if you look at your Detail Four of Four, on Sheet Four on that bottom left hand corner,there's a big stone reservoir that goes down below the frost layer to help alleviate any wintertime conditions that might prohibit infiltration. And we are agreeable to the two year timeframe for the additional stormwater. Like I said we're working through some housing improvements with the architect. So all that stormwater would be incorporated in that anyway,I would imagine. MR. DEEB-Regarding Mr. Navitsky's second trench,pipe,it sounds,and I'm not an engineer either,but it sounds like maybe that would help additional stormwater, since he did present it and you had worked with him previously. I mean is that something you'd be amenable to adding to the site plan? MR. ZEGLEN-Well,the stone pipe was added along the driveway and then I guess where would we put? I guess I'm a little unsure of where that additional pipe would go. Like I said,that's why we put the stone level spreaders in to keep it above ground and not put it underground where it could freeze. So, I mean, and this was reviewed by the Town Engineer and signed off on. They agreed with our techniques and principals. MR. DEEB-I understand that,but it doesn't hurt to have a conversation with him,because anything that helps the situation, which is a tough situation for everybody, would be, would help this whole site plan, this whole project. The other thing I feel we have to clarify is from the comments from the public,we are really talking about two separate issues here. We're talking about stormwater on the project, which as you said was signed off by our Town Engineer,and I feel badly for Mr.Brothers and his father,etc.,but we have to act on this project and not work on any projects that are asked to remediate past issues. So I just wanted to make sure we're clear on that. MR.ZEGLEN-And for the record he did work on that project and it's my understanding that that driveway and stormwater is not build according to the design EDP had prepared for those approvals. MR.DEEB-I'm sure there's extenuating circumstances all through this,but we have to be focused on what we're doing here, and I think it's important that we distinguish that,but I would encourage you to talk to Mr. Navitsky and see if that would help the stormwater. MR. TRAVER-Do you have something to offer? MR.BROWN-I just have some questions for clarification. So in this storm trench detail section you have here,the pipe's not right on the bottom of the trench,right? So there's an ability for infiltration below the pipe in the event that the water, or the backup doesn't infiltrate as fast as it's coming in. That's when it gets in the pipe and goes down to the basin? MR. ZEGLEN-Correct. MR.BROWN-Okay. Just trying to understand. MR. TRAVER-Other questions,comments? MR. LONGACKER-I just have a couple of comments. One thing Mr. Navitsky brought up was the bedrock. I do like this plan better than the last one. I compared it. I do think you did a good job of grading everything and just this grading where the contours all work and everything staying on site. With the exception of the area down by Assembly Point Road, one thing I didn't think of before until just now is would you consider maybe putting in a trench drain at the beginning of the driveway right there,almost like on top of a boat ramp,where you actually capture the water so it wouldn't go on to Assembly Point Road? MR. ZEGLEN-Yes,kind of like adjacent to where that would be. MR.LONGACKER-Maybe the same thing even up top by the paved driveway area up top,if that could be done as well, and then go into that grass depression area,just as possibly another measure to prevent any water shooting down from the driveway areas,but I do like the grading plan a little better here,but Mr. Navitsky does bring up a good point about the bedrock. Do you plan on blasting for five feet? There are significant cuts. 9 (Queensbury Planning Board 12/13/2022) MR. ZEGLEN-So I will say that,you know,before this driveway layout was developed,we did go out and walk the site to find the best areas with the most soil to place this driveway,but,yes,there will be some blasting anticipated to install the driveway. MR. TRAVER-Other questions? MR. MAGOWAN-See that brings me right back to,I was trying to look at the test pits,and I see that you have them all over, a lot up here near the house,but I'm looking at really,it says here soil test probes were performed. So you just stuck a rod in? MR. ZEGLEN-We went around with a rod and stuck it down to the limit. MR. MAGOWAN-All right. So you have six to twelve inches in depth or six to twelve inches? MR. ZEGLEN-To bedrock,yes. MR. MAGOWAN-I just turned 60 and at 60 years old, I know that water does not go through rock well, unless there's a big crack in it. So six to twelve inches of soil. Now you're going to be taking that and putting stormwater sheeting. Mr. Navitsky had a great idea,is laterals coming off,that would carry that water up and bring it to the south side of that property more. Because you don't have that much soil to absorb anything and now you're taking out all the low-lying shrubs and the trees and that,and now you're going to be blasting. So when you're going to be blasting,there's going to be no soil at all. MR.ZEGLEN-So in those depression areas,we're going to be grading in fill so that there's three feet of soil between the bottom of those depressions and the ground,or the bedrock. So there'll be three feet of soil in those areas where the runoff is more concentrated along the driveway. There'll be three feet of soil in those areas. MR. TRAVER-That's not on your plan,is it? MR. ZEGLEN-Yes,it's in with the grading in those three areas, and it's also on that same detail on Sheet Four of Four in the bottom left hand corner. It shows the different hatching for where that existing grade is,and then the dotted hatching would be that fill brought in. MR. MAGOWAN-So is this project going to be bonded? Because the one before you mentioned wasn't done the way that it was designed. MR. ZEGLEN-Correct. MR. MAGOWAN-So how do we know that this one is not going to have the same problem? Mr.ZEGLEN-So in my experience when the project is,you know,when they're ready to get their CO,they usually call us and tell us,hey, can you come out and go to the site and provide a certification letter that this is built per the plans? So that's what happens to get the CO. MR. TRAVER-Well there are also typically site visits during construction. MR. MAGOWAN-But the Town also did the one before and it was missed, and now you're waiting for a CO. That's what I'm saying is that,you know,this is not like you just cut a road in there. I don't know if anybody's driven back in there and seen this property, but there's not much there but rock,period, and, you know,we have Old Assembly Point Road and we've got everything,it really does,so much sheets down to the north,which is really surprising, and I just have a hard time, I know I'm just supposed to look at this particular project, but I have a hard time agreeing with this project when the one before it is not working, and what happens if, within the remediation of the one before, you have to use more of the depression down at the bottom,which is right next to yours, your bottom,the shallow depression at the bottom. MR. ZEGLEN-So down at the bottom near the house you're talking about. Right? MR. MAGOWAN-Right down on Old Assembly Point Road. MR. ZEGLEN-Near Assembly Point Road. MR.MAGOWAN-Old Assembly Point Road,the driveway comes in. You have a catch basin down there. MR. ZEGLEN-We have like a standard road culvert down there. We have a depression here,yes. MR. MAGOWAN-And can you tell me how deep that test pit was? 10 (Queensbury Planning Board 12/13/2022) MR. ZEGLEN-It was six to twelve inches deep,but again that grade, that existing grade is about. MR. MAGOWAN-Not that much higher off of Assembly Point Road. MR. ZEGLEN-390,and the finished grade with that depression is about 393. So that's why it's raised up and that's why there's the walls around it. So that it's raised up to have that three feet. MR. MAGOWAN-So you're going to be building the wall up around it. So basically what you're going to do is creating a pool type effect. MR. ZEGLEN-Correct. MR. MAGOWAN-All right. MR. ZEGLEN-That has devices so that you,that has infiltration. It also has an overflow device that will overflow and hit the level spreader and sheet flow. MR.MAG O WAN-All right. Now what happens if the,and I know we're not supposed to be talking about it,but the Dunton property,you know, supposedly something's been submitted to address that problem, and if you have to kind of do the same over there, now you're concentrating all that water on both properties,right along Old Assembly Point Road,where you have six to twelve inches of soil. MR. ZEGLEN-So that area we were just talking about is, it's separate from the Dunton and Brothers' property. If you see,that's down here,and the Dunton's and Brothers'property,the issue is occurring over there. MR. MAGOWAN-Yes, but that other driveway comes all the way right down, right next to your depression. That's where that driveway. Like I said,I've been there. MR. ZEGLEN-The Dunton,the start of the Dunton driveway,but the issue with the Dunton driveway is down near the Brothers'house and the house is down that way. Correct? MR. TRAVER-We also need to focus on the application in front of us. MR. MAGOWAN-I understand. All right. Fine. All right. So I'm not happy moving forward with this, and also the 15, I agree with at least 24 months. I mean there's too much going on here, and I don't feel comfortable with what I've seen and what we get for storms and what's there,without having more laterals that we can,you'd have to bring more,coming off where you're going to obviously have to bring it downhill, but you're going to have to bring it across at the same time to pick up. There's just not anything around it to really absorb anything. You're creating areas to gather the water and then it's going to, three feet is not much before you're sitting on bedrock. MR. TRAVER-So it sounds like you're a no. MR. MAGOWAN-I'm a no. MR. TRAVER-Okay. Let's poll the Board. Warren,how are you feeling about this,as it stands? MR. LONGACKER-I wouldn't mind just seeing some of the recommendations brought up on the plan, personally. Things that I mentioned,things that Brad even mentioned. Maybe you could even put a couple of those cross pipes like I mentioned at the top end of the driveway,maybe put those intermediate,just so you could direct that and spread it out a little more off and towards your level spreaders. MR.TRAVER-So as it stands before us,you'd be opposed,but you might consider some recommendations. MR. LONGACKER-I'm on the fence,but I might consider it. Yes. MR. TRAVER-David? MR. DEEB-With some additional mitigation I'd be okay. MR. TRAVER-Okay. Mike? MR. DIXON-I would like to see a little bit more as well, to, we haven't even touched on management of snow removal. So I'd like to see what the plans are for snow removal. I'd like to seethe specifics and have it documented again that the stormwater measures would be completed in a 24 month period versus the 15. I know you agreed to it,but if we have these items going into it, it just makes our jobs a whole, not easier,but less complicated,more specifics on the retaining wall,the details on that,and going off some of 11 (Queensbury Planning Board 12/13/2022) the comments that we have here, documentation of lot combination, the stormwater management. All stormwater management areas really need to include the maintenance plan,prior to this. So I think we're a little closer. We made some progress,if that's what we want to call it,but I think that there's still some other concerns here,and again,as winter approaches,it's going to be some interesting times there. I know you'd like to move forward on it today. Everybody would, but longwinded answer of I'm not quite comfortable yet. MR. TRAVER-So it sounds like you're with the others here. MR. DIXON-I am. MR. TRAVER-Brady? MR. STARK-Yes, I agree with what Brad said earlier actually. I'm a no as it currently stands. I think there needs to be a little bit more done in terms of stormwater runoff. Maybe we could table it for some aspects of it. MR. TRAVER-Okay. Thank you. Nathan? MR. ETU-I was going to be a no,but with changes that were conditional I would be a yes. MR. TRAVER-Okay. So it sounds as though with what we have in front of us there is not support to approve it. So you have a couple of choices. Typically what you would do is request that we table it. It would give you an opportunity to go back and modify the proposal somewhat and then come back and hear it again,or we could vote it down and deny it and then you'd be more or less back to square one. MR. ZEGLEN-Yes,we'll table it. MR. TRAVER-Well actually we would be the ones to table it. MR. ZEGLEN-We would agree to table. MR. TRAVER-Do you feel with the comments that you've had from members of the Board, and the ones that the secretary had prepared for our resolution that you are comfortable with what you need to come back? MR. ZEGLEN-I mean I guess again it's a tricky situation because we do have the signoff from the Town Designated Engineer. So I guess we'd have to revise our stormwater and try to incorporate more laterals, figure out where those would go, and I guess it would have to go back to the Town Engineer for another review. I mean if we were to revamp this and then have to wait for the Town Engineer, we don't get a response before the next meeting,are we just going to be in the same situation again? So we're just looking for some kind of clarity that we'll take a step in the right direction. Because we already have a signoff and we're being told that the stormwater still needs more. MR. TRAVER-The suggestions that were made as far as what are being called laterals I think originally came from your reaching out to the Waterkeeper or some suggestions. So you might want to repeat that and try to get some recommendations in more specific fashion for that,incorporate that into your plan,and that should address that. As far as the other issues, we would want to see documentation of the lot combination. MR. ZEGLEN-Yes,that's part of the deed,but we can provide the deed. MR. TRAVER-Yes,if you can put that on the plan. Stormwater maintenance agreement,that's going to be especially important,and also there are some retaining walls that are being done by third parties. If we could have details on that,we'd appreciate that. MR. ZEGLEN-Yes,we have a retaining wall detail on the plans,but if,yes,we can. MR. TRAVER-And then the phasing plan,a specific phasing plan covering a 24 month period to complete all the proposed stormwater including the new things, and then the question would be,how long would you want. MR. DEEB-Snow removal. MR. TRAVER-Yes,sorry,indicate snow removal,how that's going to be handled upfront. So in terms of tabling,we generally table to a specific date and information is due to the Town the 15`h of the month. So my question to you now,with all of that in mind,is how long will it take you to prepare a response do you think? 12 (Queensbury Planning Board 12/13/2022) MR. ZEGLEN-I mean we can have an updated plan by you know,before the,I'd say the pre-app is usually the S"of January. I think we can have something together before then so that we can try to stay on the agendas. A little bit's going to be up to getting some suggestions from the Waterkeeper and going to LaBella again. A lot has to do with their schedule,but we'll get everything on our end. MR. TRAVER-Okay. MR. DIXON-So we're into December. MR. TRAVER-Well if he submits for January,he should be able to get on a February agenda. MR. DIXON-Okay. I was hearing January. MR. TRAVER-What's the first meeting in February 2023? MR. MAGOWAN-Also,can they indicate the blasting area and how much they plan on blasting? MR. TRAVER-Yes the blasting detail would be good. Thank you. So how about Valentine's Day, Februaryl4? MR. ZEGLEN-That's for everything to be submitted by then? MR. TRAVER-I thought you had indicated that everything would be submitted by the middle of January. MR. ZEGLEN-Right. For the February 14`h meeting. MR. TRAVER-So what we would be doing is hearing you again on Tuesday, February 14`h. All right. Anything else from the Board? Are we ready to entertain a tabling motion? RESOLUTION TABLING SP#66-2022 ALISHA&MICHAEL GRIFFEY (Revised) Applicant proposes a new driveway configuration to have access from an adjoining lot from Assembly Point Road. Project work includes 5,470 sq. ft. of new driveway surface with stormwater management and stone retaining walls. Site disturbance is less than 15,000 sq. ft. Additional stormwater controls are being added for existing hard surfaces. The existing residence and outbuildings to remain unchanged. The project includes merging two lots. Pursuant to chapter 179-3-040, site plan for site development in the WR zone for a new driveway and major stormwater shall be subject to Planning Board review and approval. MOTION TO TABLE SITE PLAN 66-2022 ALISHA&z MICHAEL GRIFFEY. Introduced by Michael Dixon who moved for its adoption,seconded by Warren Longacker. Tabled until the February 14,2023 Planning Board meeting with information due by January 17,2023. Duly adopted this 13`h day of December 2022 by the following vote: AYES: Mr. Dixon, Mr. Longacker,Mr. Stark,Mr. Magowan,Mr. Etu,Mr. Deeb,Mr. Traver NOES: NONE MR. TRAVER-We'll see you in February. MR. ZEGLEN-Thankyou. MR. TRAVER-With that I think we can return to the first item on our originally scheduled agenda which was Dan Hunt. This is also under tabled items. This is Site Plan 52-2022 and Petition for Zone Change 3-2022. SITE PLAN NO.52-2022 PETITION OF ZONE CHANGE 3-2022 SEQR TYPE: 1. DAN HUNT. OWNER(S): SAME AS APPLICANT. ZONING: MDR. LOCATION: 3 PINELLO ROAD. APPLICANT PROPOSES TO OPERATE A 6 UNIT MANUFACTURED HOME PARK. THE PROJECT PROPOSES 4 NEW UNITS TO BE INSTALLED WITH ASSOCIATED GRASS, PLANTINGS,BLACKTOP ROADWAY AND NEW UNDERGROUND UTILITIES. TWO UNITS WERE APPROVED FOR THE EXISTING SITE;THE PARK WOULD CONTAIN 6 TOTAL. THE PROJECT IS PART OF REZONING WHERE THE MOBILE HOME OVERLAY ZONE IS PROPOSED FOR THIS PARCEL. PURSUANT TO CHAPTER 179-9-040 REFERRAL FROM THE TOWN BOARD WHERE THE PLANNING BOARD IS TO COMPLETE SEQR AND PROVIDE RECOMMENDATION TO THE TOWN BOARD. PURSUANT TO CHAPTER 113-17, 173-3-040, SITE PLAN FOR MANUFACTURED HOMES SHALL BE SUBJECT TO PLANNING BOARD 13 (Queensbury Planning Board 12/13/2022) REVIEW AND APPROVAL UPON COMPLETION OF REZONING. WARREN CO.REFERRAL: AUGUST 2022. LOT SIZE: .8 ACRES. TAX MAP NO. 308.15-1-58. SECTION: 179-9-040,113-17. JON ZAPPER, REPRESENTING APPLICANT,PRESENT;DAN HUNT,PRESENT MR. TRAVER-Craig? MR. BROWN-Applicant proposes to operate a 6 unit manufactured home park. The project proposes 4 new units to be installed with associated grass, plantings, blacktop roadway and new underground utilities. Two units were approved for the existing site;the park would contain 6 total. The project is part of rezoning where the mobile home overlay zone is proposed for this parcel pursuant to Chapter 179-9-040 referral from the Town Board. You guys did SEQR. So it's just coming back to re-hear some items you asked for. MR. TRAVER-Okay. Thank you. Welcome back. MR. ZAPPER-Good evening. For the record,Jon Lapper with Dan Hunt. I apologize for being late. I was starting in Lake George at five at the Planning Board and thought I'd be on time,but thanks for moving this down the agenda. You had asked Dan to re-submit,and he did, a drawing that shows new plantings along both roads, the fence in the back, the fence along the perimeter and the architectural rendering of how the units would be after he moved them away from each other and added a bit of a parking area as you had previously requested. So you have that in your packet, and we're hoping with that that you're comfortable with approving this site plan for the six units where there used to be eight. MR. TRAVER-Well I know we spent a lot of time reviewing this once before,twice before I guess, and it seemed that,as I recall,the main issue seemed to be the number of units on the site, and you did submit a nice rendering. That does help us somewhat visualize the site. So we thank you for that. Other than that, were there any other changes to what you proposed the last time you were here? MR. ZAPPER-No. MR. TRAVER-No. All right. Well we'll open it up for questions,comments from members of the Board? MR. DEEB-I guess my first question,is this going to be for senior citizens? MR.HUNT-Yes,sir. MR. DEEB-That should be written that it's just for senior citizens. MR.HUNT-Yes. MR. DEEB-Mr. Etu's summation at the last meeting made sense. We do need more senior housing and I think with seniors you're only going to have maybe two people in there at one time and I think they would tend to keep things neat,I would hope. I'm a senior citizen. So that's kind of swayed my point of view. MR. TRAVER-To follow up on that, is there any kind of documentation, or is it a requirement? I know that there are some senior housing programs that are regulated by the Federal government for example and there's actual documentation requirements. Is this one of those? MR.HUNT-Not that I'm aware of. MR. ZAPPER-So we would just offer it as a condition of approval that it's for 55 and over. MR. TRAVER-I see. Okay. MR. ZAPPER-The ones that you're talking about where there's subsidies, and that's not this. MR. TRAVER-Right. Okay. Thanks for clarifying that. MR. DEEB-And you're going to sell these? MR.HUNT-Absolutely. MR. DEEB-And so you'll do the maintenance? MR.HUNT-Yes. Correct. MR. TRAVER-Other questions? 14 (Queensbury Planning Board 12/13/2022) MR. DIXON-I did come up with a couple. So first of all,I did listen to the Comprehensive Land Use Plan was it last week or the week before. MR. TRAVER-Yes,because we are in the process of revising that by the way. MR. DIXON-And there was discussion as far as housing for up and coming families as well as senior citizens I think came in to the conversation, and when I heard that,to give you a little bit of history here, I was just having a recollection that I had a family member, grandmother, years ago, she went from a beautiful three story house in Rhode Island and her husband, grandfather, passed away and one of her daughter's passed away. She was done with that house. She moved into a manufactured home community and that was her little piece of paradise, and it was one of the prettiest little communities. You saw many more trailers than this,but the spacing when I looked at it was about the same. So I say that because some of this, it's resonating a little bit. The other thing is I went through the HOA. There were a couple of items that stood out to me. So it looks like for sheds it is restrictive as far as what people can do,but I didn't see the detail n there as far as what we would consider ancillary buildings, and, Craig,you may be able to help us as well. When people have these type of homes, they're still going to have some type of items that need to be stored and I would think that an ancillary building would be. MR. TRAVER-A shed. MR. DIXON-Acceptable,but on a much more limited size,maybe 64 square feet,nothing major,but in a facility like this,once they get beyond two sheds,would they be prohibited from,well,six units,so they'd only have two sheds and the other four would be prohibited? MR. BROWN-No,that's not how we currently do it. That's absolutely the math for a single family home parcel. If it's less than three acres,you can have up to two sheds,but that property has one home on it. If this property ends up having six homes on it, we would, from the zoning side of it, look like everybody could have a shed in there. If you guys want to put a condition on,or a limit on the size of the sheds as part of the approval for this park,I think that's probably reasonable. Currently the number,120 square feet or less does not require a building permit and can be as close as five feet to any property line. Remember in a park like this or any park,there's really no internal property lines. There are lot lines that people rent and say this is my yard,but the only property lines are the four sides around the outside of the park,and that's where all the setbacks have to be maintained. MR.DIXON-All right. So in the HOA it looks like Mr.Hunt is very explicit on what can and can't be done, but it was to your discretion I think as far as the shed. I'd recommend to the board that maybe we consider keeping it to something of a 64 square foot which would be an S by S. MR. DEEB-I'm thinking 10 by 10. MR. BROWN-So a 120 square foot shed on, we'll call it a conventional parcel, doesn't need a building permit and can be as close as five feet to the side and five feet to the rear. It always has to meet a front setback,but five and five. MR. ZAPPER-Dan would be happy with a 100. MR. DIXON-And the other item that was in your HOA,which I appreciate it but I don't necessarily agree with it,you have in Section 25.17, the curfew,you currently have I think it's at 6 p.m. So I'm thinking if this is a senior home and you have somebody in there and they have grandchildren visiting even during the summer,you're going to boot them out at six o'clock? Let me just go and see if I can find that. Curfew. All children under 16 years of age must be off community streets and at home or with an adult at dusk. That's what it was. So dusk,kids would have to already be off the streets. So I don't know if you're,it's your business,but I think as we're trying to develop the community,I think that's a little restrictive. MR. TRAVER-We can certainly encourage them to follow those guidelines, but I think to require them for us,I'm not sure if it's out of our jurisdiction,but it's a bit much. MR. DIXON-That's true,too. So throw it out there as a recommendation. It's your HOA. MR. TRAVER-We do have a public hearing on this application as well. Is there anyone in the audience that wanted to address the Planning Board on this project, Site Plan 52-2022? Yes,sir. PUBLIC HEARING OPEN GREG HEWLETT MR. HEWLETT-My name's Greg Hewlett. I operate a similar 55+ community in the Town of Moreau. Demand is through the roof. There's a lot of our senior population that would like to have privacy and their own independent structure and their own property that they can maintain because they still have the 15 (Queensbury Planning Board 12/13/2022) capacity to do their own yardwork and things like that. So what Dan is doing, I'll also say that I work with Dan. I've seen some of his projects in the past. The man's a fanatic. It probably should be a very well done project when it's all through and done and there's big demand in the market,and as to one of the other questions that was asked earlier, in New York State if you are registered as a 55+ community you must maintain that 55+ standard as a mean aggregate of the overall age of everybody in the community. So there is some regulation that if you're identified as a 55+ community,you have to stay that way. Thank you. MR. TRAVER-Thank you. Is there anyone else that wanted to address the Planning Board on this application? Are you aware of any written comments,Craig? MR. BROWN-One comment. A letter that was received after the deadline for the last meeting. I don't know if it was read at the last meeting. MR. TRAVER-Yes,we would have heard it then. MR.BROWN-It looks like the public hearing was left open. Brooke Needham e-mailed this letter,would like it read into the record. So it looks like it didn't'get read in. MR. TRAVER-Okay. MR. BROWN-It looks like it's from seven residents in the area. My apologies for not being able to read all the signatures. "This letter is written on behalf of several Pinello Road residents. Last year,parents that park at the end of Pinello to get their kids on the bus had issues with Dan. Dan said he would plow for parking. He cleared a Tx Tarea so the kids could stand there in freezing whether instead of clearing enough space for the vehicles like we have done since our children started school years ago. The parents need to be able to park their cars with heat on for the children and not block the roadway.It has been done this way with no problems since one of the oldest residents on Pinello Road attended school back in 1965. While looking at the new drawings Mr. Hunt has provided,we have a few questions-what is the setback going to be with the fence on Pinello Road side? Will there be enough room to park cars on the right of way? Will overflow parking be banned on Pinello Road due to very limited parking provided for the tenants?After driving by the lot,we have noticed that the location of the trailers is now taped off in pink tape but still do not match the most recent drawings as the septic on the right side closest to Pinello is right on the corner of the trailer partially under according to the septic caps. The drawing shows 25 feet between trailers,most trailers have a back door on the opposite side of the front door so with that being said,how much of the 25 feet does the adjoining trailer have? Porches are generally about 5 feet wide on the backside of a trailer,what if they want to fence it in for their animals?What's left a 20-foot-wide yard? Dan proposed putting in smaller trailers to accommodate parking but that leaves tenants with a 13 x 56 trailer. They will need a place to store their belongings. Holiday decorations, Seasonal clothes, etc. They will need a shed of some sort.From our understanding an S x S does not need a permit.Can they fit 6 sheds, a porch,a set of stairs for the other door? In our opinion the tenants are receiving the bare minimum which in return they will not appreciate their trailer/yard.After driven around a few trailer parks in Queensberry for comparison this is what they seem to be doing. Trying to cram six trailers in there at 72S square feet each is too much. In our opinion it is not realistic to place these many homes in such a small area. The density is too much for that lot size. Yes,there were eight trailers on that lot back in the 60s. They did not come close to today's codes; they were 4 feet off property lines and much smaller, approximately 10 x 40 and 12 x 60. There is a reason those trailers are no longer on that lot.And placing 6 trailers at the end of a street so close to businesses and attractions like west mountain and directly across from the church is a huge eye sore.There are approximately 20 single family homes on Pinello with the average lot size of 20,000 square feet for a single-family home. Dan is proposing to take 25,750 square feet and put six trailers on it. While we know the trailers will look nice-at first-this may not be the case a few years down the road. If we look at other trailer parks in the area, Monterey, aviation road,home stead;they are all run down but they also have the benefit of being off the main road and hidden for the most part. There will be no way to hide this as it is on Corinth Road.We feel that two doublewides would be appropriate for that lot size and fit in with the neighborhood. There was recently a double wide there and although it wasn't the nicest is still fit in with the rest of the street. Dan evicted those people and demolished it to place 3 trailers where the one house was. It took a long time to get the previous trailers out of there and it doesn't make sense to just go and put more in. We don't think the location is right. We have had the pleasure of being across from a beautiful church,the storage units across from that are always well maintained. Honey-do-man is always well maintained, along with GF Heating and oil. Putting a trailer park right in the center of those will really take away from the atmosphere. This is not how we view Queensbury. It is unfair to the homeowners of Pinello road.Everyone on Pinello gets along and we have a great neighborhood.We all help each other out whether it is shoveling for the neighbor or getting the neighbors kid off the bus for them or helping with yard work. We are a community. Dan has proven to Pinello road residents that he does not want to participate in this beginning last winter. The neighbor plows at the end of the road for the parents to pull over safely to get the kids on the bus. Dan went down and put in"do not plow" signs along Pinello road. These photos can be seen on the property map on Queensbury website. Fast forward to the end of September when he approached a resident who was parked waiting for the bus and asked him to move his vehicle off the property. The resident explained to him that if he is to park in the road it turns Pinello into 16 (Queensbury Planning Board 12/13/2022) a one lane road and is not safe. Dan called him a Piece of shit and told him that his trailers will be nicer than any house on Pinello road.Dan hydro seeded only the side of the lawn where residents park to get the kids on/off the bus and then proceeded to not maintain the grass until 2 days before his meeting with the board.It went over 7 weeks without being cut/watered which was a huge eye sore.This raises the question; Will Dan maintain this property after he gets the approval from the board to do what he's asking?Actions speak louder than words and so far,Dan's actions are not convincing. Dan had the septic's installed before going in front of the board. Have these septic's been inspected?Why was this allowed? Dan gave his word to the parents of Pinello road that he would have stone laid down for them to park on before school started in September,it is now the middle of October and Dan has not done anything with the property other that going last week to tape the trailer positions. While we encourage Queensbury residents to be entrepreneurs it should not be at the expense of other residents. Dan putting 6 trailers on one lot is only to benefit him financially.To the residents of Pinello road it is only an eye sore,inconvenience for bus safety and lowers the value of our property,as no buyer is going to want to buy on a street that has a trailer park." And I think it's Rick Habshi,maybe Nancy Hewitt. MR. TRAVER-Maybe you could just tell us how many signatures. MR.BROWN-Seven. MR. TRAVER-Thank you. All right. With that we'll close the public hearing. PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED MR. TRAVER-Any comments on,I know there was a lot in there,some of which we've discussed already, but anything else to add? MR. ZAPPER-I should have started out describing the new submission,because Dan did provide the bus parking area which the Board asked him for. MR. TRAVER-Yes,we talked about that previously. MR. ZAPPER-And that's on there. So it shows that clearly that's all there for the neighborhood. MR.HUNT-Does anybody have any questions for me? MR. DEEB-Yes, before, I do. I guess before you went in with all this, the neighbors parked on your property? So they can get their kids from the bus? MR. HUNT-So the situation they're referring to was back like three days before the end of school. I was about to have the property hydroseeded that evening. MR. DEEB-I understand what you're going to say,but you allowed them to do that before,before you did that. MR.HUNT-Yes, all along. MR. DEEB-And they don't own the property. MR.HUNT-That's correct. MR. DEEB-Okay. All right. MR.HUNT-That is correct. MR. TRAVER-Anything else? MR. LONGACKER-I've just got one question. I know I beat you up last time you were here about the septics. I did call DOH, and just like Mr. Brown said, it really surprised me, the separation distances between residences. Like usually it's 20 feet for the fields. So again it's one lot. It's not individual ones. So it isn't,but the new plan you have here, are you planning to re-use the drywells or are you going to do the fields? MR. HUNT-So that's all determined by the engineer. If the drywells are usable and he says yes,we take that to the Department of Health,and if they sign off,then,yes. MR. LONGACKER-You will use that. All right,and that one in the middle does not have a drywell as far as you know? MR.HUNT-That's correct. There was not one there. 17 (Queensbury Planning Board 12/13/2022) MR. LONGACKER-Okay. MR. MAGOWAN-Last time we were here I thought you were going to look into the septics. MR.HUNT-You do have the map. You should have that map right there. That's what you wanted. MR. MAGOWAN-And what's that tell me? That they're drywells and they're not leach fields? MR.HUNT-So you asked me to provide you a map. MR. MAGOWAN-I asked for a map. I wanted to know what they were and were they going to be used or are you designing? Because I have seen another map here with laterals in here. MR.HUNT-That's proposed. It says right on it proposed. MR. MAGOWAN-So what are we doing? What I don't understand is how can you get approval for a septic and how we can approve a project when you don't even know what's there is going to be able to work. MR. TRAVER-We're not approving a septic. MR. MAGOWAN-Well if you're going to approve the units, you want to make sure there's a septic in there. MR. TRAVER-He's got to have a septic in order to install the units. MR. MAGOWAN-Okay. Well I'm not going to go on all night long,but I'm still sticking to, I think six units is way too much and I'm sticking with my four. MR. TRAVER-Okay. Anything else? MR. STARK-I'd just like to comment. You guys can all see that we do need housing in this community. It's a big issue, especially for the 55 and up community. This 3-D rendering looks great. I have no doubt Dan's going to do a great job with this. I'm obviously in favor of this. I think we should vote on it. MR. TRAVER-Okay. Anything else? MR. DIXON-I just had one question. When we're talking about this being a 55+ community, is that something that's typically in the HOA,or is that through the registration process? MR. TRAVER-We can make it a condition of approval. Anything else? We have a draft resolution. RESOLUTION APPROVING SP#52-2022 PETITION OF ZONE CHANGE 3-2022 DAN HUNT The applicant has submitted an application the Planning Board: Applicant proposes to operate a 6 unit manufactured home park. The project proposes 4 new units to be installed with associated grass, plantings,blacktop roadway and new underground utilities.Two units were approved for the existing site; the park would contain 6 total. The project is part of rezoning where the mobile home overlay zone is proposed for this parcel pursuant to Chapter 179-9-040 referral from the Town Board where the Planning Board is to complete SEQR and provide recommendation to the Town Board. Pursuant to Chapter 113-17, 179-3-040,site plan for manufactured homes shall be subject to Planning Board review and approval upon completion of rezoning. 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 has reviewed the potential environmental impacts of the project,pursuant to the State Environmental Quality Review Act (SEQRA) and adopted a SEQRA Negative Declaration Determination of Non-Significance; The Planning Board opened a public hearing on the Site plan application on S/25/2022 and continued the public hearing to 12/13/2022,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 12/13/2022; 1S (Queensbury Planning Board 12/13/2022) 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 52-2022 &z PETITION OF ZONE CHANGE 3-2022 DAN HUNT;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, j. stormwater, k. topography, n traffic, o. commercial alterations/ construction details, q. soil logs, r. construction/demolition disposal; Waivers also granted per Chapter 113— • Showing lot lines—tenants are provided with park rules that explains utilization of space between each unit • Lot size-where 10 acre is rewire and 0.8 ac is proposed—there have been as many as 8 units on this site and proposed is 6 per staff this is not a variance but to be addressed by theplanning board. • Topography -lot is level • Surface drainage —no issues on site with 8 units proposed is 6 units and the site is to be maintained lawn and l andscaping on the borders of the parcel no probl ems with stormwater will begenerated • Density- only proposing 6 units where 4 units would be all owed—again previous was for 8 and proposed is for 6 • Lot size and setbacks—tenants are provided with rules as to how space is used between units 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) HOA to reflect this is for senior citizen as a 55 plus community only. m) HOA is to limit shed size to be no more than 100 square feet. Motion seconded by Brady Stark. Duly adopted this 13`h day of December 2022 by the following vote: AYES: Mr. Longacker,Mr. Stark,Mr. Etu,Mr. Deeb,Mr. Dixon,Mr. Traver NOES: Mr. Magowan MR. TRAVER-You're all set. MR. ZAPPER-Thanks,everybody. 19 (Queensbury Planning Board 12/13/2022) MR. TRAVER-The next section of our agenda is Recommendations to the Zoning Board of Appeals, and the first item under that section is Paul Nasrani. This is Subdivision Preliminary Stage 12-2022 and Freshwater Wetlands permit 17-2022. PLANNING BOARD RECOMMENDATIONS TO THE ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS: SUBDIVISION PRELIMINARY STAGE 12-2022 FRESHWATER WETLANDS 17-2022 SEQR TYPE: UNLISTED. PAUL NASRANI. AGENT(S): JARRETT ENGINEERS. O WNER(S): PAUL NASRANI, ENVAR MIR. ZONING: MDR. LOCATION: 790 BAY ROAD. APPLICANT PROPOSES A 3 LOT SUBDIVISION OF A 6.29 ACRE PARCEL. LOT 1 WILL BE 2.13 ACRES WITH HOUSE,LOT 2 WILL BE 2.08 ACRES AND LOT 3 WOULD BE 2.27 ACRES. TWO NEW HOUSES TO BE CONSTRUCTED ON THE REMAINING LOTS. THE PROJECT INCLUDES A NEW SHARED DRIVEWAY FOR THE SECOND AND THIRD LOTS. THE NEW SITES WILL HAVE ON-SITE SEPTIC AND CONNECT TO THE EXISTING MUNICIPAL WATER. PURSUANT TO CHAPTER 183,179-3-040 AND 94,SUBDIVISION OF 3 LOTS AND SITE WORK WITHIN 100 FT. OF FRESHWATER WETLANDS SHALL BE SUBJECT TO PLANNING BOARD REVIEW AND APPROVAL. VARIANCE: RELIEF IS REQUIRED FOR LOT FRONTAGES. THE PLANNING BOARD SHALL PROVIDE A RECOMMENDATION TO THE ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS. CROSS REFERENCE: SUB (S) 14-2021,AV 54-2022. WARREN CO. REFERRAL: N/A. SITE INFORMATION: TRAVEL CORRIDOR,WETLANDS. LOT SIZE: 6.29 ACRES. TAX MAP NO. 289.15-1-47. SECTION: 183,179-3-040,94,179-4-010. TOM JARRETT, REPRESENTING APPLICANT,PRESENT MR. TRAVER-Craig? MR. BROWN-Applicant proposes a 3 lot subdivision of a 6.29 acre parcel with lots of 2.13,2.OS, and 2.27 acres. Two new houses are to be constructed on the remaining lots. The project includes a new shared driveway for the second and third lots. The new sites will have onsite septic and connect to the existing municipal water. Pursuant to Chapter IS3, Subdivision Regs, and 179-3-040 of the Zoning Code and Chapter 94, stormwater requirements, subdivision of 3 lots and site work within 100 ft. of freshwater wetlands shall be subject to Planning Board review and approval. MR. TRAVER-Thank you. Good evening. MR.JARRETT-Good evening. Tom Jarrett of Jarrett Engineers,representing Paul Nasrani. As Craig read. It's a six acre parcel that's being divided into three lots with an existing house on Bay Road. Two additional lots would be constructed in the rear off a common driveway. Based on the frontage we need variances for the substandard frontages,but we are proposing a shared driveway which is in keeping with the Comprehensive Plan. We did review the concept of flag lots with you at Sketch Plan review some months ago and the Board was supportive of the flag lots at that time,supportive of the shared driveways. We have wastewater management designed for those two new lots and even though the Town Engineer has responded that we were lacking some detail on stormwater management,we did provide stormwater design for a 25 year storm. The calculations are on the drawings. We'll respond to the Town Engineer accordingly and see how we clarify it with them. I'm not sure there's anything more to discuss at my level unless you have questions. We did stay as far away from the wetlands as practicable. The lots are sized accordingly subtracting the wetland areas. MR. TRAVER-Well we're here tonight for a recommendation for the variances which are for the lot frontage correct? MR.JARRETT-Correct. And the flag lot. MR. TRAVER-And the flag lot. Right. Okay. So Lot 2 frontage 7S feet,and Lot Three frontage proposed at 26 feet where 100 feet is required. So those are the two variances there, and then also the creation of two flag lots. Questions,comments from members of the Board? We did see this at Sketch. I believe this is the same design that we saw at Sketch. MR.JARRETT-Almost identical. MR. DIXON-I have a question for you, and it's probably semantics, but when I total up the three lots I come up to 6AS acres,and you're starting off with a 6.29 acre parcel. MR.JARRETT-Something's wrong with that math. MR. DIXON-I'm just wondering if I'm fat fingering something here. MR.JARRETT-We'll check it. We'll double check that. 20 (Queensbury Planning Board 12/13/2022) MR. DIXON-And as far as the flag lot goes, or two flag lots,is there any way to re-configure that you've come up with? I mean where I saw the potential issue long term,we talk about snow removal,things of that nature. We've got what will end up being two driveways pretty much right next to each other. MR. TRAVER-Shared driveway. MR.JARRETT-That's a shared driveway going into where they split off to the two lots. MR.DIXON-So there's different thoughts on shared driveways out there. It's one of those I love them and I hate them. I like that we have one curb cut on Bay Road. And again we're not doing site plan,but I think the County would need to comment on the curb cut. MR. TRAVER-Yes. MR.DIXON-As we get deeper into it,I do have concerns about a shared driveway,the flag lot,not as much. MR.JARRETT-The intent right now, and I can't guarantee this,but the intent right now is this would be a family subdivision with two family houses back there,in which case it's probably going to be far worse than two independent owners, but all kidding aside, I think that right now the concept is fine with the family. No guarantee that they will own it in perpetuity. MR. DIXON-I'd just like to try to avoid squabbles in the future. Long after I'm gone. MR. MAGOWAN-Can we put writing in there that there is a maintenance agreement? MR.JARRETT-We have that on the plans, and you can stipulate it in the conditions of whatever action you take. MR. MAGOWAN-To help, you know, ease any squabbling in the future. I'd like to see it. It's nice a family is moving in there and keeping everybody together,but,you know, down the road. MR.JARRETT-Absolutely. MR. TRAVER-Yes,that's on there. MR.JARRETT-We did put it on there,road maintenance and the stormwater management and the water supply line would all be shared. We have a common waterline that's sized for a hydrant at the end of the common driveway. So that facilitates the fire department. MR. MAGOWAN-Really? MR.JARRETT-Yes. We put a hydrant down at the end of the road. MR. TRAVER-Good idea. MR. MAGOWAN-Well it is kind of back there, and definitely you'll need County signoff for the curb cut because that is a County road. MR.JARRETT-I believe they have it on record. The owner tells me that that was a driveway years ago. The County has it on record. MR.MAGOWAN-Yes,just confirm that,because I believe the County has asked Queensbury to make sure that they are aware. MR.JARRETT-And one of the things they want to do is minimize the number of curb cuts, driveway entrances, and that shared driveway goes to that concept,even though it doesn't meet the other issues at times. MR. MAGOWAN-Because I know we don't like the flag lots, but in this particular instance where it's shared and it's back,I think it would be a nice peaceful spot back there. Not everybody wants to be on the road,but you're still close enough to everything,but yet you're,you know. MR.JARRETT-It maximizes the use of the existing infrastructure. MR. MAGOWAN-So the only thing they're really going to have to worry about is the beeping and the backup of the trucks over here. Right? MR.JARRETT-It backs up to the Highway garage so they'll probably want to put a buffer in. 21 (Queensbury Planning Board 12/13/2022) MR. TRAVER-Does anyone have any concerns with regards to the variances? That's actually what we're here for tonight and not yet site plan. I'm not hearing any. So I guess we have a draft resolution. RESOLUTION RE: ZBA RECOMMENDATION RE: AV#54-2022 PAUL NASRANI The applicant has submitted an application for the following: Applicant proposes a 3 lot subdivision of a 6AS acre parcel. Lot 1 will be 2.13 acres with house,lot 2 will be 2.OS acres and lot 3 would be 2.27 acres. Two new houses to be constructed on the remaining lots. The project includes a new shared driveway for the second and third lots. The new sites will have onsite septic and connect to the existing municipal water. Pursuant to chapter IS3, 179-3-040 and 94, subdivision of 3 lots and site work within 100 ft. of freshwater wetlands shall be subject to Planning Board review and approval. Variance: Relief is required for lot frontages. The Planning Board shall provide a recommendation to the Zoning Board of Appeals. The Town of Queensbury Zoning Ordinance,per Section 179-9-070 J 2 b. requires the Planning Board to provide a written recommendation to the Zoning Board of Appeals for projects that require both Zoning Board of Appeals&Planning Board approval; The Planning Board has briefly reviewed and discussed this application,the relief request in the variance application as well as the potential impacts of this project on the neighborhood and surrounding community,and found that: MOTION TO MAKE A RECOMMENDATION ON BEHALF OF THE PLANNING BOARD TO THE ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS FOR AREA VARIANCE 54-2022 PAUL NASRANI,Introduced by Michael Dixon who moved for its adoption,and a) The Planning Board,based on a limited review,has not identified any significant adverse impacts that cannot be mitigated with current project proposal. Motion seconded by Brad Magowan. Duly adopted this 13`h day of December 2022 by the following vote: AYES: Mr. Stark,Mr. Magowan,Mr. Etu,Mr. Deeb, Mr. Dixon,Mr. Longacker, Mr. Traver NOES: NONE MR. TRAVER-You're off to the ZBA. MR.JARRETT-Very good. Thank you. Hopefully we'll see you Thursday night. MR. TRAVER-Next on our agenda is Adirondack Retirement Specialists. This is Site Plan 77-2022. SITE PLAN NO.77-2022 SEQR TYPE: TYPE 11. ADIRONDACK RETIREMENT SPECIALISTS. AGENT(S): RUCINSKI HALL ARCHITECTURE. ZONING: CI. LOCATION: 310 BAY ROAD. APPLICANT PROPOSES TO COMPLETE ACCESS RENOVATIONS AND OTHER ALTERATIONS TO AN EXISTING TWO STORY BUILDING. THE PLANS INDICATE THAT THERE ARE TWO SOUTH SIDE ENTRY PORCHES TO BE RENOVATED, A NEW ENTRYWAY TO BE CREATED ON THE NORTH SIDE AND A RENOVATION OF THE WEST SIDE FIRST STORY AREA. THE BUILDING WILL MAINTAIN A 3,215 SQ. FT. FOOTPRINT. THE EXISTING PORCH AREAS TO BE IMPROVED WITH 360 SQ.FT. OF NEW PORCH AREAS. PURSUANT TO CHAPTER 179-3- 040,SITE PLAN FOR ALTERATIONS AND NEW CONSTRUCTION TO A BUILDING IN THE CI ZONE SHALL BE SUBJECT TO PLANNING BOARD REVIEW AND APPROVAL. VARIANCE: RELIEF IS SOUGHT FOR SETBACKS. THE PLANNING BOARD SHALL PROVIDE A RECOMMENDATION TO THE ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS. CROSS REFERENCE: SP 62- 99, SP 57-92, AV 136-1992, AP 31-94, SP 4-96, AV 64-2022. WARREN CO. REFERRAL: DECEMBER 2022. SITE INFORMATION: TRAVEL CORRIDOR. LOT SIZE: 0.93 ACRE,0.15 ACRE. TAX MAP NO. 302.8-1-16,302.8-1-17. SECTION 179-3-040. ETHAN HALL, REPRESENTING APPLICANT,PRESENT MR. TRAVER-Craig? MR.BROWN-The applicant proposes to complete access renovations and other alterations to an existing two story building. The plans indicate that there are two South side entry porches to be renovated, a new entryway to be created on the North side and a renovation of the West side first story area. The building will maintain a 3,215 square foot footprint. The existing porch areas to be improved with 360 square foot newporch area. Pursuant to chapter 179-3-040,site plan for alterations and new construction to a building in the CI zone shall be subject to Planning Board review and approval.Variance relief request for setbacks. 22 (Queensbury Planning Board 12/13/2022) MR. TRAVER-Okay. Thank you. Good evening. MR. HALL-Good evening. For your records, my name is Ethan Hall, principle with Rucinski-Hall Architecture, here tonight representing Adirondack Retirement Specialists. They've recently purchased 310 Bay Road,which was formerly Cost Control,and it started off as a residence and changed into an office. There've been several additions made to the building over the years and it's been used as a professional office for the past at least decade. It was two lots when it was purchased. The current owners have combined those lots into one common deed now. So it's all one lot. The existing house sits right up on Bay Road and it is a 75 foot setback. So any of the modifications that we're doing is what's going to require the area variances that we're seeking. Currently there's two accesses on the south side of the building. One of them,the one closest to Bay Road,is not handicap accessible, and that is kind of a main entry into the building that goes inside. Once you get inside the building there's an elevator there. The other access is at the back which does have a handicap ramp on it. That gets you into the back portion of the building and in order to use the elevator you have to go all the way through the office to get back to that. So we're kind of swapping. That's kind of the whole reason for doing this,and the ramp's in pretty tough shape, a lot of landscaping's overgrown. So we're addressing a lot of that. So we're going to put a wheelchair lift in so that we can get to the main entry where the elevator and can get you to the second floor to do those kind of things. The secondary entrance on the north side of the building is for the staff of Adirondack Retirement Specialists so they can get into the building and not have to come through the main entry with all the clients and things like that. So that's basically the crux of what we're asking for, and as I said because of the location of the existing building we need area variances to do that work. MR. TRAVER-Right. So again tonight, as we the other application, you're not here for the site plan application. You're here for the variances for the setbacks, and because this is a pre-existing, non- conforming structure, anything you do in this place,up to and including probably a coat of paint, would need setback variances. MR. HALL-The other thing that I would like to mention, currently when the house was, when it was a residence,the front porch that was on Bay Road had an entry that had a set of steps from the sidewalk that goes down to the Bay Road sidewalk. It's still there. The sidewalk is there. It's not maintained. You can't get into the building that way,but it's a little distracting. So the intent here, and so that they don't have people wandering up from the sidewalk up to that door that no one can get in,the door is going to go away, replaced with a window. The stairs go away. The sidewalk goes away. So as part of our landscaping,we'll take care of all that. MR. TRAVER-Okay. So get rid of the concrete and add some green space. MR.HALL-Yes, absolutely. MR. TRAVER-Okay. All right. Questions,comments on the variance for setback? MR. DIXON-No comments on the variance. We have a reminder,when you do get ready for site plan, as far as any external lighting will need to conform to Town Code. MR. HALL-Yes. All of the existing lighting is on the building and they are,they're overheads. Yes,we've already talked about that. They're going to put all downcast fixtures. MR.TRAVER-Any other questions,concerns,comments regarding the variance they're seeking? We have a draft resolution. RESOLUTION RE: ZBA RECOMMENDATION RE: AV#64-2022 ADIRONDACK RETIREMENT The applicant has submitted an application for the following: Applicant proposes to complete access renovations and other alterations to an existing two story building. The plans indicate that there are two South side entry porches to be renovated,a new entryway to be created on the North side and a renovation of the West side first story area. The building will maintain a 3,215 sq. ft. footprint. The existing porch areas to be improved with 360 sq. ft. of new porch areas. Pursuant to chapter 179-3-040, site plan for alterations and new construction to a building in the CI zone shall be subject to Planning Board review and approval.Variance: Relief is sought for setbacks. The Planning Board shall provide a recommendation to the Zoning Board of Appeals. The Town of Queensbury Zoning Ordinance,per Section 179-9-070 J 2 b. requires the Planning Board to provide a written recommendation to the Zoning Board of Appeals for projects that require both Zoning Board of Appeals&Planning Board approval; The Planning Board has briefly reviewed and discussed this application,the relief request in the variance application as well as the potential impacts of this project on the neighborhood and surrounding community,and found that: 23 (Queensbury Planning Board 12/13/2022) MOTION TO MAKE A RECOMMENDATION ON BEHALF OF THE PLANNING BOARD TO THE ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS FOR AREA VARIANCE 64-2022 ADIRONDACK RETIREMENT SPECIALISTS, Introduced by Michael Dixon who moved for its adoption, and a) The Planning Board,based on a limited review,has not identified any significant adverse impacts that cannot be mitigated with current project proposal. Motion seconded by Brady Stark. Duly adopted this 13`h day of December 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're off to the ZBA. MR.HALL-Great. Thank you very much. MR. TRAVER-The next section of our agenda is New Business, and the first item is Garvey KIA. This is Site Plan 75-2022. NEW BUSINESS: SITE PLAN NO. 78-2022 SEQR TYPE: UNLISTED. GARVEY KIA. AGENT(S): RUCINSKI HALL ARCHITECTURE. OWNER(S): TOWBAR, LLC. ZONING: CI. LOCATION: 473 QUAKER ROAD. APPLICANT PROPOSES AN 18,000 SQ.FT.BUILDING FOOTPRINT WITH A 21,000 SQ. FT. FLOOR AREA FOR AUTO SALES AND SERVICE FACILITY. SITE WORK INCLUDES STORMWATER MANAGEMENT,LANDSCAPE,LIGHTING, PARKING AREA FOR EMPLOYEES, DISPLAY VEHICLES AND VEHICLES NEEDING SERVICE. A WAIVER FOR LIGHTING AND LANDSCAPING IS BEING REQUESTED (POLE HEIGHT AND INTERNAL LANDSCAPING). PURSUANT TO CHAPTER 179-3-040, SITE PLAN FOR A NEW COMMERCIAL BUILDING IN A CI ZONE SHALL BE SUBJECT TO PLANNING BOARD REVIEW AND APPROVAL. CROSS REFERENCE: PZ 4-2003,SP 29-2015. WARREN CO. REFERRAL: DECEMBER 2022. LOT SIZE: 20.4 ACRES. TAX MAP NO. 303.6-1-4. SECTION: 179-3-040. ETHAN HALL, REPRESENTING APPLICANT,PRESENT; SEAN GARVEY,PRESENT MR. TRAVER-Craig? MR. BROWN-The applicant proposes an IS,000 square foot building footprint with a 21,000 square foot floor area for auto sales and service facility. Site work includes stormwater management, landscape, lighting, parking area for employees, display vehicles and vehicles needing service. A waiver for lighting and landscaping is being requested for pole height and internal landscaping. Pursuant to Chapter 179-3- 040,site plan for a new commercial building in a CI zone shall be subject to site plan review by the Planning Board, and I think this is kind of a re-do of an application you guys saw a number of years ago. MR. TRAVER-I thought it sounded familiar. MR.BROWN-Now it's just ready to go. MR. TRAVER-Okay. Thank you. Good evening. For your records,Ethan Hall,principal with Rucinski- Hall Architecture. With me tonight is Sean Garvey,the owner of Garvey KIA and Garvey Auto Body. This is a re-do of a project that was approved. Previously it was Site Plan 29-2015. The project was undertaken. They started. They put in the driveway in actually, got the curb cut, got the driveway started, through circumstances that I'll let Sean discuss,the project kind of ground to a halt. Went back and forth a little bit and there were some extensions that were asked for for the approval. Those eventually ran out and we're back now. The project itself is exactly what was approved before. The one good thing for Sean is that if he had built the project back then, he would have had to come back in and re-brand his project because as we all know auto dealerships flip over their re-branding about every eight or ten years. So the good news is that this now conforms to KIA's new branding. So the building itself, the footprint itself stays the same. The front fagade's a little bit different,and I'll let Sean discuss the back history. MR. GARVEY-Thank you very much. I'm Sean Garvey. The original site plan was approved in 2015. During that same year,why we did not start the project then was my brother Peter,who was a partner of mine, and my brother Mark,my brother Peter wanted to retire. So there was a buy/sell agreement that had to be executed and that same year my brother Mark and I purchased Jerry's Nissan lot. That's a big process, and then trying to build a new dealership, and that's why that original project wasn't finished. I asked for an extension and the Board was kind enough to give me my first extension and in May of'16,and 24 (Queensbury Planning Board 12/13/2022) there was issues with the KIA Corp and modifying the requirements. So simplistically,without going into detail,that was why we did not proceed with the construction, and to be honest the Jerry Nissan project was a five year project. If anyone ever complains about what it's like to build in Queensbury,they've just got to talk to me. MR. DEEB-You've said that before. MR. GARVEY-If you have an agency of natural resources with 5,000 people in it and they don't like anything. Long story short. So that was a five year nightmare, and so when the second extension was approved in November of'17, I thought I'd be done,but that honestly took five years. I mean,that's why you don't see any Wal-Mart and things like that in Vermont because it won't go through, but we persevered and the entrance was started before the second extension expired, and then my brother Mark and I who were in partnership for 44 years,we got a divorce. So I believe that is a rather large distraction, and that's been settled and so I'm the sole owner of this piece of property now, would like to ask for the Board's patience in granting of this site plan. It's a brand new site plan. MR. TRAVER-Yes,well it is essentially the same as the one that we saw. MR. GARVEY-Precisely. I haven't changed a shrub. MR. TRAVER-Right. The only concern I have is with the pole height. Can you drop that to 20 feet instead of 25? MR. GARVEY-Well the purpose of that is, and why I asked for it is because I've been involved and built many projects over the years of being in business. In the North Country when you're clearing a lot that's many acres in size is not like clearing a driveway and you've got front end loaders, and the more obstacles you have in a large parking lot,there are accidents,and I wanted to reduce the number of pole bases in the lot,from my own personal experience, and we've been granted them before. Actually I think 30 foot high poles at the Hyundai lot off Dix Avenue. So I thought it was a reasonable request and the setback is much further than another lot along Quaker Road. So I don't think it would affect anything aesthetically because they're downward light fixtures that are not going to have any concerns bout them. MR. ETU-You're saying because the light would be five feet higher you might need one less light? MR. GARVEY-It would require less poles. MR. DEEB-Do you know how many exactly? How many fewer poles would you have with the two,with the 25 and the 20. MR. GARVEY-To be honest this was a number of years ago, and I used to know those numbers. MR. DEEB-I mean if there was a huge difference. MR. HALL-So in looking at the lighting calc, the site lighting plan that was done, again, this was done a number of years back, but we've got the spacing of the poles set so that within the rows of parked cars, there's one on each island,and then just one in the middle,and then the ones that are closer to the building there are only two poles. So there's a total of five that are kind of in the middle of all where the cars are going to be parked and as Sean said,when you're clearing snow and clearing snow from 150 cars having to move all those, if we went back and put those in, we'd probably wind up with a total of five in the front and then there would be probably four in the second row. So it's four less than what we would have with this current proposal. MR. GARVEY Just in the front. MR. HALL Just in that front part. The rest of them spread around the area, we're probably looking at a total of six or eight more poles if we drop them down. MR. DEEB-What are the height of the poles at the Volkswagen dealership? MR. GARVEY-They're 30 feet. MR. DEEB-They're 30? MR.HALL-Yes. MR. DEEB-And that's just the Volkswagen. Anything on the north side? Just all woods. MR.HALL-It's all woods. There will never be anything back there because that's all wetlands,the entire area. 25 (Queensbury Planning Board 12/13/2022) MR. DEEB-The building is not right on Quaker Road. MR. HALL-This new proposed building is 300 and some odd feet back from Quaker Road. I mean the new building is almost going to be behind where the Volkswagen KIA dealership is. It sits back from there quite a bit because of the wetlands delineation. MR. GARVEY-So the Board approved this back in'15 and during both extensions did that also. MR. DEEB-We've had a couple of applications come in and we've encouraged the 20 feet,but I think this is a different circumstance. MR. GARVEY-If it was a smaller lot, I could see that,but it's a fairly large extensive lot. We need good lighting. MR.MAGO WAN-That makes sense,too. You're right,you're moving cars,and let me tell you,I've plowed and you've got to pay attention. Less obstacles,and this is so far back. I mean I don't have a problem with it. You've got 30 footers right next door at the Volkswagen. I would just like to see this done so we can get that loader off the road there. MR. HALL-That's the big thing is getting the cars unloaded and in a lot and not sitting on the edge of Quaker Road. MR. GARVEY-That was part of the original promise I made. MR. MAGOWAN-Because you have a connector road right there. MR.HALL-Yes. And that is still the case. MR. TRAVER-There is a public hearing on this application as well. Is there anyone in the audience that wanted to address the Planning Board on this application? PUBLIC HEARING OPENED MR. TRAVER-Any other questions,comments on this one? We did review this once before. MR.BROWN-I don't see any public comment, Mr. Chairman,but just for clarification on the pole height versus fixture height,it's the fixture height dimension, and the plans bear that out,but just so there's not 25 foot poles on top of a two foot base, which we've run into in the past, not with this applicant,but on other sites,but just some clarification. The plans are accurate,but there's been a lot of talk of pole height, and it's actually fixture. MR. TRAVER-Yes. MS. GAGLIARDI-Did you close the public hearing? MR. TRAVER-Yes, I have a check mark next to it,but just in case I'll say it again, we'll close the public hearing and entertain that motion. PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED RESOLUTION GRANTING A NEGATIVE SEQR DEC. SP#75-2022 GARVEY KIA The applicant proposes an IS,000 sq.ft.building footprint with a 21,000 sq.ft.floor area for auto sales and service facility. Site work includes stormwater management, landscape, lighting, parking area for employees, display vehicles and vehicles needing service. A waiver for lighting and landscaping is being requested (pole height and internal landscaping). Pursuant to chapter 179-3-040, site plan for a new commercial building in a CI zone shall be subject to Planning Board review and approval. The proposed action considered by this Board is Unlisted in the Department of Environmental Conservation Regulations implementing the State Environmental Quality Review Act and the regulations of the Town of Queensbury; No Federal or other agencies are involved; Part 1 of the Short 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 26 (Queensbury Planning Board 12/13/2022) 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 78-2022 GARVEY KIA, Introduced by Michael Dixon who moved for its adoption. As per the resolution prepared by staff. 1. Part II of the Short EAF has been reviewed and completed by the Planning Board. 2. Part III of the Short EAF is not necessary because the Planning Board did not identify potentially moderate to large impacts. Motion seconded by Brad Magowan. Duly adopted this 13`h day of December 2022 by the following vote: AYES: Mr. Etu,Mr. Deeb,Mr. Dixon,Mr. Longacker,Mr. Stark,Mr. Magowan,Mr. Traver NOES: NONE MR. TRAVER-Next for approval. RESOLUTION APPROVING SP#75-2022 GARVEY KIA The applicant has submitted an application to the Planning Board: Applicant proposes an IS,000 sq. ft. building footprint with a 21,000 sq. ft. floor area for auto sales and service facility. Site work includes stormwater management, landscape, lighting, parking area for employees, display vehicles and vehicles needing service. A waiver for lighting and landscaping is being requested (pole height and internal landscaping).Pursuant to chapter 179-3-040,site plan for a new commercial building in a CI zone 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 has reviewed the potential environmental impacts of the project,pursuant to the State Environmental Quality Review Act (SEQRA) and adopted a SEQRA Negative Declaration Determination of Non-Significance; The Planning Board opened a public hearing on the Site plan application on December 13, 2022 and continued the public hearing to December 13,2022,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 December 13,2022; 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 78-2022 GARVEY KIA;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—lighting poles to be 25 ft.versus 20 ft., 1.landscaping, The landscaping is shown for edge of the parking/display area—versus interior landscaping due to snow removal. 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; 27 (Queensbury Planning Board 12/13/2022) 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 David Deeb. Duly adopted this 13`h day of December 2022 by the following vote: AYES: Mr. Deeb,Mr. Dixon,Mr. Longacker, Mr. Stark,Mr. Magowan,Mr. Etu,Mr. Traver NOES: NONE MR. TRAVER-You're all set. MR.HALL-Thank you very much. MR. TRAVER-The next item on our agenda, also under New Business,is Cerrone Land Holdings. This is Subdivision Final Stage 18-2022. SUBDIVISION FINAL STAGE 18-2022 SEQR TYPE: TYPE I (COMPLETED 9/27/2022). CERRONE LAND HOLDINGS. AGENT(S): HUTCHINS ENGINEERING. OWNER(S): CITY OF GLENS FALLS. ZONING: MDR. LOCATION: UPPER SHERMAN AVENUE. APPLICANT PROPOSES A SUBDIVISION WITH 45 RESIDENTIAL LOTS AND 3 HOA LOTS ON A 49.5 ACRE PARCEL FOR FINAL STAGE. THE RESIDENTIAL LOTS RANGE IN SIZE FROM 0.47 ACRE TO 1.57 ACRES. THE PROJECT INCLUDES A HOMEOWNER'S ASSOCIATION PROPERTY OF 12.2 ACRES,1.7 ACRES AND 1.54 ACRES. THERE WILL BE TWO ACCESS POINTS TO SHERMAN AVENUE. THE LOTS WOULD HAVE ONSITE SEPTIC AND BE CONNECTED TO MUNICIPAL WATER SUPPLY. THE PROJECT ALSO INCLUDES A 20 FT.NO CUT BUFFER ON THE NORTH PROPERTY LINE. THE PARCELS WILL HAVE A REAR SETBACK OF 20 FT.,SIDE SETBACKS OF 15 FT. AND FRONT SETBACK OF 30 FT. VARIANCES HAVE BEEN GRANTED FOR LOT SIZE AND SETBACKS. THE PROJECT SITE WAS ONCE USED AS THE LEAF DUMP AREA FOR THE CITY OF GLENS FALLS. PURSUANT TO CHAPTER 183, SUBDIVISION FINAL STAGE SHALL BE SUBJECT TO PLANNING BOARD REVIEW AND APPROVAL. CROSS REFERENCE: SUB(S)7-2021,AV 5-2022,SUB(P)2-2022. WARREN CO.REFERRAL: N/A FOR SUBDIVISION. LOT SIZE: 4998 ACRES. TAX MAP NO. 301.18-2-1. SECTION: 183. JON ZAPPER&TOM CENTER, REPRESENTING APPLICANT,PRESENT MR. TRAVER-Craig? MR. BROWN-Applicant seeking Final Stage approval for a 45 lot residential subdivision in addition to 3 HOA lots on a 49.5 acre parcel. Residential lots range in size from .47 acres to 1.57 acres. The project includes Homeowners Association properties of 12.2, 1.7 and 1.54 acres. Two access points on Sherman Avenue, lots will have onsite septic and all will be connected to the municipal water. The project also includes a 20 foot buffer along the North Property line of the development, and the parcels will have a rear setback of 20 feet, side of 15 and front of 30. Variances have been granted for lot size and setbacks. Project was once used as the leaf dump for the area, for the City of Glens Falls, and pursuant to Chapter 183 of the Subdivision Regs, Subdivision Final Stage shall be subject to Planning Board review. 28 (Queensbury Planning Board 12/13/2022) MR. TRAVER-Okay. Thank you. So welcome back. We previously did the Preliminary Stage on this subdivision and also conducted the SEQR under the State Environmental Quality Review Act. So we're here now for Final. Correct? MR. ZAPPER-Yes. For the record,Jon Lapper with Tom Center, and the Cerrones are here as well. We have a signoff letter from LaBella and the one question that was in the Staff Notes about whether we could take the three HOA parcels and hook them together, and we can do that. MR. TRAVER-Okay. MR. ZAPPER-And we hope we're ready for Final. MR. TRAVER-Okay. We did look at this once before,but I'll open it up for the Board for any other final questions,comments? MR. MAGOWAN-This is for Tom,from LaBella,on the indicates the equalization connection piping. MR. CENTER-Yes, that's just a clarification. Our standard is to connect in with a solid pipe under the road and then alongside the road that's where the perforated trench and pipe is between the drywells on the edge of the road. MR.MAG OWAN-Okay. I'm happy to see it here. I keep driving by and I've gotten a few calls from some people around the area and really it's well needed and you guys really do a nice job. MR. ZAPPER-The site needs to get cleaned up. MR.MAGOWAN-Do we actually know how deep that leaf dump is? Didn't they take fill out of there and then they filled it in for how many years? MR. CENTER-Yes. I had spoken to the gentleman that was there,the original bulldozer operator when they started filling and he said about 30 feet in the deepest part. MR. MAGOWAN-That's got to be some good topsoil down there. MR. DEEB-Any idea when you'd start building? The prices are coming down. That's what I heard. MR. TRAVER-What is the size of the HOA property? MR. CENTER-The total area of the HOA is 15.4. We've labeled them as Area One, Area Two and Area Three on the subdivision layout plan, and I believe we've noted within this package that they're all going to be one tax parcel. We made a note on the actual subdivision plat. So it's already in there. MR. TRAVER-Good. Thank you. All right. So we're ready for that. RESOLUTION APPROVING SUBDIV. FINAL STAGE IS-2022 CERRONE LAND HOLDINGS A subdivision application has been made to the Queensbury Planning Board for the following:Applicant proposes a subdivision with 45 residential lots and 3 HOA lots on a 49.5 acre parcel for final stage. The residential lots range in size from 0.47 acre to 1.57 acres. The project includes a homeowner's association property of 12.2 acres,1.7 acres and 1.54 acres.There will be two access points to Sherman Avenue. The lots would have onsite septic and be connected to municipal water supply. The project also includes a 20 ft no cut buffer on the North Property line. The parcels will have a rear setback of 20 ft, side setbacks of 15 ft and front setback of 30 ft.Variances have been granted for lot size and setbacks. The project site was once used as the leaf dump area for the City of Glens Falls.Pursuant to Chapter IS3,subdivision final stage shall be subject to Planning Board review and approval. Pursuant to relevant sections of the Town of Queensbury Zoning Code-Chapter A-1S3,the Planning Board has determined that this proposal satisfies the requirements as stated in the Zoning Code; This application is supported with all documentation,public comment,and application material in the file of record; MOTION TO APPROVE SUBDIVISION FINAL STAGE 18-2022 CERRONE LAND HOLDINGS, Introduced by Michael Dixon who moved for its adoption. 1. The requirements of the State Environmental Quality Review Act have been considered and the Planning Board has adopted a SEQRA Negative Declaration; and if the application is a modification, the requirements of the State Environmental Quality Review Act have been 29 (Queensbury Planning Board 12/13/2022) considered, and the proposed modification[s] do not result in any new or significantly different environmental impacts, and,therefore,no further SEQRA review is necessary; 2. Waiver requests granted: 3. The approval is valid for one (1) year from the date of approval. Applicant is responsible for requesting an extension of approval before the one (1)year time frame has expired if you have not yet applied for a building permit or commenced significant site work. 4. The limits of clearing will constitute a no-cut buffer zone, orange construction fencing shall be installed around these areas and field verified by Community Development staff 5. Engineering sign-off required prior to signature of Planning Board Chairman. 6. The applicant must submit a copy of the following to the Town: a) The project NOI (Notice of Intent) for coverage under the current NYSDEC SPDES General Permit or for coverage under an individual SPDES prior to the start of aU site work. b) The project NOT(Notice of Termination)upon completion of the project; and 7. The applicant must maintain on their project site,for review by staff: a) The approved final that have been stamped by the Town Zoning Administrator. These plans must include the project SWPPP(Storm Water Pollution Prevention Plan)when such a plan was prepared and approved; and b) The project NOI and proof of coverage under the current NYSDEC SPDES General Permit,or an individual SPDES permit issued for the project. S. Final approved plans,in compliance with the Subdivision,must be submitted to the Community Development Department before any further review by the Zoning Administrator or Building and Codes personnel. 9. The applicant must meet with Staff after approval and prior to issuance of Building Permit and/or the beginning of any site work. 10. Subsequent issuance of further permits, including building permits is dependent on compliance with this and all other conditions of this resolution; It. As-built plans to certify that the subdivision is developed according to the approved plans to be provided prior to issuance of the certificate of occupancy; 12. Resolutions must be included on Final Subdivision Mylar; 13. The HOA parcels identified as areas 1, 2 and 3, will be combined and shown on the subdivision plans. Motion seconded by Warren Longacker. Duly adopted this 13`h day of December 2022 by the following vote: AYES: Mr. Dixon,Mr. Longacker,Mr. Stark,Mr. Magowan,Mr. Etu,Mr. Deeb,Mr. Traver NOES: NONE MR. TRAVER-You're all set. MR. ZAPPER-Thank you. MR. DEEB-Good luck. MR. TRAVER-Next on our agenda, also under New Business, is Sean Stumvoll, this is Subdivision Preliminary Stage 16-2022,Final Stage 17-2022 and Freshwater Wetlands permit 19-2022. SUBDIVISION PRELIMINARY STAGE 16-2022 SUBDIVISION FINAL STAGE 17-2022 FRESHWATER WETLANDS 19-2022 SEQR TYPE: UNLISTED. SEAN STUMVOLL. AGENT(S): HUTCHINS ENGINEERING. OWNER(S): SAME AS APPLICANT. ZONING: RR- 3A, LC-42. LOCATION: 1917 RIDGE ROAD. APPLICANT PROPOSES A TWO LOT SUBDIVISION OF A 107.63 ACRE PARCEL. LOT 1 WOULD BE 12.71 ACRES AND MAINTAIN THE EXISTING RESIDENCE AND OUTBUILDINGS. LOT 2 WOULD BE 94.57 ACRES FOR A NEW HOME AND SITE WORK THAT WOULD INCLUDE TREE CLEARING, WETLANDS CROSSING, WELL AND SEPTIC INSTALLATION,AND IMPROVEMENTS TO THE EXISTING 30 (Queensbury Planning Board 12/13/2022) DRIVEWAY. THE PROPERTY IS A SPLIT ZONE BETWEEN L C 42 AND RR 3A. WORK FOR THE NEW HOME IS IN THE RR3 ONE. THE PARCEL CONTAINS CRITICAL ENVIRONMENTAL AREA FOR THE PORTION OF THE PARCEL NEAR THE STREAM AND IS NOT WITHIN THE DEVELOPMENT AREA. A WAIVER IS REQUESTED FOR STORMWATER MANAGEMENT. PURSUANT TO CHAPTER 183 AND CHAPTER 94,SUBDIVISION FOR TWO LOTS,WETLANDS PERMIT,AND WORK WITHIN 100 FT.OF WETLANDS SHALL BE SUBJECT TO PLANNING BOARD REVIEW AND APPROVAL. CROSS REFERENCE: SUB (S) 10-2022. WARREN CO.REFERRAL: N/A FOR SUBDIVISION. SITE INFORMATION: APA,CEA,LGPC. LOT SIZE: 107.63 ACRES. TAX MAP NO. 253.-1-4. SECTION: 183,CHAPTER 94. TOM CENTER, REPRESENTING APPLICANT,PRESENT MR. TRAVER-Craig? MR.BROWN-Applicant proposes a two lot subdivision of a 107.63 acre parcel. Lot 1 would be 12.71 acres and maintain the existing residence and outbuildings. Lot 2 would be 94.57 acres for a new home and site work that would include tree clearing,wetlands crossing,well and septic installation, and improvements to the existing driveway. The property is a split zone between LC 42 and RR 3A.Work for the new home is within the RR3 one. The parcel contains a Critical Environmental Area for the portion of the parcel near the stream and is not within the development area. A waiver is requested for stormwater management. Pursuant to the Subdivision Regs and the Freshwater Wetland regulations„ subdivision for two lots, wetlands permit, and work within 100 ft. of wetlands shall be subject to Planning Board approval, and I think Laura had a comment, a suggestion that we seek some stormwater designs and information rather than a waiver. MR. TRAVER-Okay. Thank you. Good evening. MR. CENTER-Good evening. Tom Center with Hutchins Engineering, representing Sean Stumvoll. As updated, I don't know if it was in the Staff Notes,but we do have APA permit for the subdivision that's been filed with the County. So that came in and was approved prior to this evening. The reason we were looking for a stormwater waiver is, as designed on the plans before you, APA did not require any stormwater management. They realized we were going through the wetlands. We had the wetland biologist out there with us. The driveway comes off of Ridge Road back up out of the wetlands and then to the house area. The plan is to grade the driveway and the house away from the wetland and have things out into the woods. It's a large parcel. Any stormwater device, any stormwater management is going to be,you know, some of it would be in the wetlands. Some if it would be within 100 feet of the wetland. You have some thin soils. We're directing that stormwater away from the wetland as best is possible or out of the wetland. So stormwater devices are going to cause some issues. The area of disturbance has been delineated per APA. Anything we do to kind of change that is going to have to go back to the APA for review,but they are the responsible party for the wetlands. They reviewed this and didn't see a need to add any stormwater devices to this. Like I said, we are going to grade the portion of the driveway in the upper hill portion back away into the woods. MR. TRAVER-Okay. We saw this also in Sketch. Correct? MR. CENTER-Yes. MR. TRAVER-Okay. Well it seems fairly straightforward. Questions, comments from members of the Board? MR. DIXON-You guys are going to think I'm picky today. You list the original lot being 107.63 acres. When you add the other two up you come up with 107.25. So there's a slight discrepancy. Not worth worrying about,but. MR. CENTER-I will double check with my clients. MR.TRAVER-Any other questions,comments from members of the Board? We do have a public hearing, but since there's no public,I guess I'll just ask if there are any written comments. Craig is checking for us on that. We also have to consider the State Environmental Quality Review Act. We do have a SEQR resolution to consider on this application as well. Noting that this project has already received APA approval, but nonetheless we'll ask if any Board members have any concerns regarding environmental impacts? MR. DIXON-None from me. MR. TRAVER-Okay. PUBLIC HEARING OPENED 31 (Queensbury Planning Board 12/13/2022) MR.BROWN-I'm not finding any public comments. MR. CENTER-I believe there were two that might have been forwarded to Laura,in favor. MR. TRAVER-So noted. All right. Well we'll close the public hearing. PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED MR. TRAVER-And it sounds like we're ready for that SEQR resolution. RESOLUTION GRANTING A NEGATIVE SEQR DEC. SUB PRELIM STAGE 16-2022 STUMWLL The applicant proposes a two lot subdivision of a 107.2 S acre parcel.Lot 1 would be 12.71 acres and maintain the existing residence and outbuildings. Lot 2 would be 94.57 acres for a new home and site work that would include tree clearing, wetlands crossing, well and septic installation, and improvements to the existing driveway. The property is a split zone between LC 42 and RR 3A. Work for the new home is in the RR3 one. The parcel contains Critical Environmental Area for the portion of the parcel near the stream and is not within the development area. A waiver is requested for stormwater management. Pursuant to Chapter IS and Chapter 94,subdivision for two lots,wetlands permit,and work within 100 It of wetlands shall be subject to Planning Board review and approval. The Planning Board has determined that the proposed project and Planning Board action is subject to review under the State Environmental Quality Review Act; The proposed action considered by this Board is Unlisted in the Department of Environmental Conservation Regulations implementing the State Environmental Quality Review Act and the regulations of the Town of Queensbury; No Federal or other agencies are involved; Part 1 of the Long EAF has been completed by the applicant; Part 2 of the Long EAF has been reviewed by the Planning Board; 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 SUBDIVISION PRELIMINARY 16-2022 &z FRESHWATER WETLANDS 19-2022 SEAN STUMVOLL, 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 Brad Magowan. Duly adopted this 13`h day of December 2022 by the following vote: AYES: Mr. Longacker,Mr. Stark,Mr. Magowan,Mr. Etu,Mr. Deeb,Mr. Dixon,Mr. Traver NOES: NONE MR. TRAVER-Next we can consider Preliminary Stage approval. RESOLUTION APPROVING SUB PRELIM STG. 16-2022 SEAN STUMWLL A subdivision application has been made to the Queensbury Planning Board for the following: Applicant proposes a two lot subdivision of a 107.2E acre parcel. Lot 1 would be 12.71 acres and maintain the existing residence and outbuildings. Lot 2 would be 94.57 acres for a new home and site work that would include tree clearing,wetlands crossing,well and septic installation, and improvements to the existing driveway. The property is a split zone between LC 42 and RR 3A. Work for the new home is in the RR3 one. The parcel contains Critical Environmental Area for the portion of the parcel near the stream and is not within the development area. A waiver is requested for stormwater management. Pursuant to Chapter IS3 and Chapter 94,subdivision for two lots,wetlands permit,and work within 100 ft of wetlands shall be subject to Planning Board review and approval. 32 (Queensbury Planning Board 12/13/2022) Pursuant to relevant sections of the Town of Queensbury Zoning Code-Chapter A-1S3,the Planning Board has determined that this proposal satisfies the requirements as stated in the Zoning Code; The requirements of the State Environmental Quality Review Act have been considered and the Planning Board has adopted a SEQRA Negative Declaration A public hearing was scheduled and held on December 13,2022; This application is supported with all documentation,public comment,and application material in the file of record; MOTION TO APPROVE SUBDIVISION PRELIMINARY STAGE 16-2022 SEAN STUMVOLL, Introduced by Michael Dixon who moved for its adoption. Motion seconded by Brady Stark. Duly adopted this 13`h day of December 2022 by the following vote: AYES: Mr. Stark,Mr. Magowan,Mr. Etu,Mr. Deeb,Mr. Dixon,Mr. Longacker, Mr. Traver NOES: NONE MR. TRAVER-And last but not least Final Stage approval. RESOLUTION APPROVING SUB FINAL STG. 17-2022 SEAN STUMVOLL A subdivision application has been made to the Queensbury Planning Board for the following:Applicant proposes a two lot subdivision of a 107.2E acre parcel. Lot 1 would be 12.71 acres and maintain the existing residence and outbuildings. Lot 2 would be 94.57 acres for a new home and site work that would include tree clearing,wetlands crossing,well and septic installation, and improvements to the existing driveway. The property is a split zone between LC 42 and RR 3A. Work for the new home is in the RR3 one. The parcel contains Critical Environmental Area for the portion of the parcel near the stream and is not within the development area. A waiver is requested for stormwater management. Pursuant to Chapter 1S3 and Chapter 94,subdivision for two lots,wetlands permit,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 A-1S3,the Planning Board has determined that this proposal satisfies the requirements as stated in the Zoning Code; This application is supported with all documentation,public comment,and application material in the file of record; MOTION TO APPROVE SUBDIVISION FINAL STAGE 17-2022 &z FRESHWATER WETLANDS 19-2022 SEAN STUMVOLL,Introduced by Michael Dixon who moved for its adoption. 1. The requirements of the State Environmental Quality Review Act have been considered and the Planning Board has adopted a SEQRA Negative Declaration; and if the application is a modification, the requirements of the State Environmental Quality Review Act have been considered, and the proposed modification[s] do not result in any new or significantly different environmental impacts, and,therefore,no further SEQRA review is necessary; 2. Waiver requests granted: stormwater management 3. The approval is valid for one (1) year from the date of approval. Applicant is responsible for requesting an extension of approval before the one (1)year time frame has expired if you have not yet applied for a building permit or commenced significant site work. 4. The limits of clearing will constitute a no-cut buffer zone, orange construction fencing shall be installed around these areas and field verified by Community Development staff 5. Engineering sign-off required prior to signature of Planning Board Chairman. 6. The applicant must submit a copy of the following to the Town: a) The project NOI (Notice of Intent) for coverage under the current NYSDEC SPDES General Permit or for coverage under an individual SPDES prior to the start of aU site work. b) The project NOT(Notice of Termination)upon completion of the project; and 7. The applicant must maintain on their project site,for review by staff: 33 (Queensbury Planning Board 12/13/2022) c) The approved final that have been stamped by the Town Zoning Administrator. These plans must include the project SWPPP(Storm Water Pollution Prevention Plan)when such a plan was prepared and approved; and d) The project NOI and proof of coverage under the current NYSDEC SPDES General Permit,or an individual SPDES permit issued for the project. S. Final approved plans,in compliance with the Subdivision,must be submitted to the Community Development Department before any further review by the Zoning Administrator or Building and Codes personnel. 9. The applicant must meet with Staff after approval and prior to issuance of Building Permit and/or the beginning of any site work. 10. Subsequent issuance of further permits, including building permits is dependent on compliance with this and all other conditions of this resolution; It. As-built plans to certify that the subdivision is developed according to the approved plans to be provided prior to issuance of the certificate of occupancy; 12. Resolutions must be included on Final Subdivision Mylar; Motion seconded by David Deeb. Duly adopted this 13`h day of December 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're all set. MR. CENTER-Okay. Thank you. MR. DEEB-Good luck. MR. TRAVER-Before we adjourn this evening, just a couple of notes and announcements. One is,as you know we have a compressed schedule this week because of the holidays. So we'll be back hereon Thursday for our follow up Planning Board meeting. That means the Zoning Board of Appeals is meeting tomorrow night and Craig's office is going to e-mail us the Staff Notes Thursday morning. So we won't be getting them well in advance as we typically do because of this compressed schedule. They will also make sure they have hard copies for us here at the time of the meeting itself,but just check your e-mail midday. It probably will be there by then. A couple of other quick notes. One is we're going to be meeting with Town Counsel at 5 p.m. Thursday. We would very much appreciate it if you could attend that for some training and orientation regarding conflicts of interest and civil matters in this room. The public will not be allowed in here until just before our regular meeting time at 7 p.m. We do think it will be over about 6:30. So we'll have somewhat of a break. And then following that training we have annual election of officers and then our agenda and we will be done for the year. So those are the announcements. With that I'll entertain a motion to adjourn. MR. DEEB-So moved. MOTION TO ADJOURN THE QUEENSBURY PLANNING BOARD MEETING OF DECEMBER 13TI,2022,Introduced by David Deeb who moved for its adoption,seconded by Brad Magowan: Duly adopted this 13`h day of December,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,ladies and gentlemen,and we'll see you in 4S hours. On motion meeting was adjourned. RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED, Stephen Traver,Chairman 34 (Queensbury Planning Board 12/13/2022) 35