Loading...
01-17-2023 (Queensbury Planning Board 01/17/2023) QUEENSBURYPTANNINGBOARD MEETING FIRSTREGUTAR MEETING jANUARY17` 2O23 INDEX Site Plan No.1-2023 Stevin O'Brien&Mackenzie Baertschi 1. FURTHER TABLING Tax Map No.252.-1-SS Site Plan No.1-2022 Dan Slote 2. ONE YEAR EXTENSION Tax Map No.239.16-1-19 Site Plan No. 33-2021 333 Cleverdale LLC/San Souci 2. FURTHER TABLING Tax Map No.226.12-1-43 Site Plan No.70-2021 Francis&Erin Steinbach 3. MODIFICATION Tax Map No. 226.19-2-1S ONE YEAR EXTENSION Site Plan No. 62-2022 JP Gross Properties 4. Petition of Zone Change 4-2022 Tax Map No. 309.17-1-3,309.17-1-17.2 Site Plan No. 3-2023 ASD Spartan NY2 Solar LLC 6. Freshwater Wetlands 1-2023 Tax Map No.279.-1-6.1,279.-1-6.2 Special Use Permit 1-2023 ZBA RECOMMENDATION Site Plan No.2-2023 Michael Rozell 9. ZBA RECOMMENDATION Tax Map No.2S9.7-1-17 Site Plan No.4-2023 Torren Moore 11. Special Use Permit 2-2023 Tax Map No.227.1E-1-41 Petition of Zone Change 1-2023 Foothills Builders/Meads 15. Tax Map No. 303.5-1-79 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 O1/17/2023) QUEENSBURY PLANNING BOARD MEETING FIRST REGULAR MEETING JANUARY 17,2023 7.00 P.M. MEMBERS PRESENT STEPHEN TRAVER,CHAIRMAN DAVID DEEB,VICE CHAIRMAN MICHAEL DIXON,SECRETARY NATHAN ETU BRADY STARK WARREN LONGACKER BRAD MAGOWAN LAND USE PLANNER-LAURA MOORE STENOGRAPHER-MARIA GAGLIARDI MR.TRAVER-Good evening,ladies and gentlemen. Welcome to the Town of Queensbury Planning Board meeting for Tuesday,January 17`h,2023. This is our first meeting for January and also our first meeting for 2023. The first meeting in January is also our organizational meeting,our annual organizational meeting. However, any organization, as far as I'm a aware,that we need to do has already been performed. We've had a couple of new Planning Board members that have received training and all have received orientation. The Board panel as it existed prior to the first of the year is the same,the same officers. So I just want to express my appreciation again to the Town Planning Department for their professional assistance and all of the Board members for their continued service to the Town. With that,we have a few administrative items,and before I begin,I should mention the illuminated exit signs are the emergency exits. In the event of a problem those are the emergency exits. If you have a cell phone or other electronic device if you would either turn it off or turn the ringer off so as not to interrupt our proceedings and we also ask that aside from public comment during public hearings if you want to engage in a side conversation amongst yourselves, if you would please do so in the outer area so as not to interfere with our recording of the minutes,we'd appreciate that. And with that we will begin. The first item of business is our approval of minutes from November 15 and November 29 of 2022. APPROVAL OF MINUTES November 15`h,2022 November 29`h,2022 MOTION TO APPROVE THE QUEENSBURY PLANNING BOARD MEETING MINUTES OF NO VEMBER 15`h&z NO VEMBER 29`h,2022,Introduced by Michael Dixon who moved for its adoption, seconded by Brady Stark: Duly adopted this 17`h day of January,2023,by the following vote: AYES: Mr. Deeb,Mr. Dixon,Mr. Longacker,Mr. Stark, Mr. Magowan,Mr. Etu,Mr. Traver NOES: NONE MR. TRAVER-We have some administrative items, and I want to also let the audience members who are here know that we have an item, Site Plan 1-2023, which is also unapproved development under New Business,Stevin O'Brien&r Mackenzie Baertschi. SITE PLAN NO.1-2023 SEQR TYPE: TYPE II. STEVIN O'BRIEN&z MACKENZIE BAERTSCHI. AGENT(S): HUTCHINS ENGINEERING. OWNER(S): SAME AS APPLICANT. ZONING: RR- 5A. LOCATION: 454 LOCKHART MOUNTAIN ROAD. THE APPLICANT IS REQUESTING AFTER THE FACT APPROVAL FOR CLEARING LIMITS OF DISTURBANCE FOR CONSTRUCTION OF A SINGLE FAMILY HOME&z SITE WORK. THE MAJOR STORMWATER PERMIT AS BUILT CONDITIONS FOR DISTURBANCE OF 098 ACRES. THE SITE WORK EXCEEDS 15,000 SQ. FT. TRIGGERING A MAJOR STORMWATER AND SITE PLAN REVIEW. THE APPLICANT HAS CONSTRUCTED A SINGLE FAMILY HOME ON A LOT OF THE HELEN MITCHELL SUBDIVISION WHICH MEETS SETBACK AND PERMEABILITY REQUIREMENTS. PURSUANT TO CHAPTER 179-4-040, 147, SITE PLAN REVIEW FOR MAJOR STORMWATER PERMIT SHALL BE SUBJECT TO PLANNING BOARD REVIEW AND APPROVAL. CROSS REFERENCE: RC 165-2021, SUB 1-2001. WARREN CO. REFERRAL: JANUARY 2023. SITE 2 (Queensbury Planning Board O1/17/2023) INFORMATION: APA, LGPC, SLOPES. LOT SIZE: 5.01 ACRES. TAX MAP NO. 252.-1-88. SECTION: 179-3-040,147. MR. TRAVER-That application will not be heard tonight and instead will be tabled to the March 21" meeting. I believe we have a resolution to that effect. MRS. MOORE-You'll also have to open the public hearing and leave it open. MR. TRAVER-Yes,we will open the public hearing on that application. PUBLIC HEARING OPENED MR.TRAVER-And we will hold that public hearing meeting when they provide us their updated materials in March. And I believe we have a resolution to that effect. RESOLUTION TABLING SP#1-2023 STEVIN O'BRIEN&MACKENZIE BAERTSCHI The applicant is requesting after the fact approval for clearing limits of disturbance for construction of a single family home and site work. The major stormwater permit as built conditions for disturbance of 0.95 acres.The site work exceeds 15,000 sq.ft.triggering a maj or stormwater and site plan review.The applicant has constructed a single family home on a lot of the Helen Mitchell Subdivision which meets setback and permeability requirements. Pursuant to chapter 179-4-040, 147, site plan review for major stormwater permit shall be subject to Planning Board review and approval. MOTION TO TABLE SITE PLAN 1-2023 STEVIN O'BRIEN &z MACKENZIE BAERTSCHI. Introduced by Michael Dixon who moved for its adoption,seconded by Brady Stark. Tabled until the March 21,2023 Planning Board meeting with information due by February 15,2023. Duly adopted this 17`h day of January 2023 by the following vote: AYES: Mr. Dixon, Mr. Longacker,Mr. Stark,Mr. Magowan,Mr. Etu,Mr. Deeb,Mr. Traver NOES: NONE ADMINISTRATIVE ITEMS: SITE PLAN 1-2022 DAN SLOTS—REQUEST FOR A ONE YEAR EXTENSION MR. TRAVER-Site Plan 1-2022, Dan Slote,has requested a one year extension and we've received a letter to that end. Laura? MRS.MOORE-This applicant hasn't been able to find a contractor to start this project. So they're asking for another year. MR. TRAVER-Okay. Any discussion on that? We have a draft resolution. RESOLUTION GRANTING A ONE YEAR EXTENSION SP#1-2022 DAN SLOTE The proposal for Site Plan 1-2022 was to construct a 1,205 sq.ft.bunkhouse,two new septic tanks sharing a leach field area,retaining wall,and new stormwater management for bunk house area.The existing home is SO4 sq. ft. Pursuant to Chapter 179-5-020, 179-3-040,179-6-060,site plan review for a new floor area in a CEA and a new building within 50 feet of 150/o slopes shall be subject to Planning Board review and approval. The Planning Board approved Site Plan 1-2022 on January 25,2022. Applicant is requesting an extension of one year. MOTION TO APPROVE A ONE YEAR EXTENSION FOR SITE PLAN 1-2022 DAN SLOTE. Introduced by Michael Dixon who moved for its adoption,seconded by Warren Longacker: Duly adopted this 17`h day of January 2023 by the following vote: AYES: Mr. Longacker,Mr. Stark,Mr. Magowan,Mr. Etu,Mr. Deeb,Mr. Dixon,Mr. Traver NOES: NONE SITE PLAN 33-2021 333 CLEVERDALE LLC/SAN SOUCI—TABLE TO FEBRUARY 14,2023 3 (Queensbury Planning Board O1/17/2023) MR. TRAVER-Site Plan 33-2021, 333 Cleverdale for San Souci. This is a tabling request to next month, February 14`h. Laura? MRS.MOORE-So this applicant was re-designing some elements on the project plan and that information has been completed and actually was submitted on deadline today, so the February 14`h meeting would work,still works. MR. TRAVER-Okay. Any concerns or discussion about that tabling? Okay. RESOLUTION TABLING SP#33-2021 333 CLEVERDALE LLC/SAN SOUCI (Revised) Applicant requests approval of outdoor seating of 12 seats for three tables. Project includes installation of turf area and permeable pavers. The outdoor eating area also includes a 4 ft. privacy fence. The lower floor remains as a waiting area with the main floor and outdoor seating being used for dining. Pursuant to Chapter 179-3-010,179-4-090&r 179.10,food service in a WR zone shall be subject to Planning Board review and approval. MOTION TO TABLE SITE PLAN 33-2021 333 CLEVERDALE, LLC/SAN SOUCI. Introduced by Michael Dixon who moved for its adoption,seconded by Nathan Etu. Tabled until the February 14,2023 Planning Board meeting with information due by January 17,2023. Duly adopted this 17`h day of February 2023 by the following vote: AYES: Mr. Stark,Mr. Magowan,Mr. Etu,Mr. Deeb, Mr. Dixon,Mr. Longacker, Mr. Traver NOES: NONE SITE PLAN MODIFICATION 70-2021 FRANCIS&z ERIN STEINBACH—REQUEST FOR A ONE YEAR EXTENSION MR. TRAVER-And there's a Site Plan Modification, a request for a one year extension, for Site Plan Modification 70-2021. This is for Francis and Erin Steinbach. Laura? MRS. MOORE-So again this applicant is having some construction issues. So they've asked for another year before they are able to complete the project. MR. TRAVER-Any concerns or discussion about that request? Okay. RESOLUTION GRANTING A ONE YEAR EXTENSION SP#70-2021 FRANCIS&r ERIN STEINBACH The applicant submitted Site Plan Modification 70-2021 which proposed to raise an existing 1,352 sq. ft. home footprint to install a full basement with a footprint of 1,550 sq.ft.. with a new floor area of 2,756 sq. ft. (30.5%). The project includes a removal of a 444 sq.ft.rear deck to construct a 356 sq.ft. deck;site has previous approval for 154 sq.ft. addition. The front deck of 220 sq.ft.has been removed and the proposed new deck is 260 sq.ft.to coincide with the new entry landscape steps.The project also includes converting the driveway to permeable pavers.Pursuant to 179-3-040,179-6-095,179-13-010 site plan for new floor area in a CEA and hard surfacing within 50 feet of the shoreline shall be subject to Planning Board review and approval. The Planning Board approved Site Plan Modification 70-2021 on February 22, 2022. The applicant is requesting a one year extension. MOTION TO APPROVE A ONE YEAR EXTENSION FOR SITE PLAN MODIFICATION 70-2021 FRANCIS&z ERIN STEINBACH. Introduced by Michael Dixon who moved for its adoption, seconded by Brad Magowan: Duly adopted this 17`h day of January 2023 by the following vote: AYES: Mr. Magowan,Mr. Etu,Mr. Deeb,Mr. Dixon,Mr. Longacker,Mr. Stark,Mr. Traver NOES: NONE MR. TRAVER-All right, and with that we can move to our regular agenda and the first section of that agenda is Old Business. This is for a Town Board referral,J.P. Gross Properties, Site Plan 62-2022 and Petition of Zone Change 4-2022. OLD BUSINESS—TOWN BOARD REFERRAL: 4 (Queensbury Planning Board O1/17/2023) SITE PLAN NO. 62-2022 PETITION FOR ZONE CHANGE 4-2022 SEQR TYPE: TYPE I (COMPLETED 11/15/2022) —NEG DECLARATION. JP GROSS PROPERTIES. AGENT(S): EDP (NICK ZEGLEN). OWNER(S): SAME AS APPLICANT. ZONING: WR,CLI. LOCATION: 84 EAGAN&z 27 SILVER CIRCLE. APPLICANT PROPOSES A LOT LINE ADJUSTMENT OF A 6.03 ACRE PARCEL WHICH WOULD REDUCE THE PARCEL'S SIZE TO 2.00 ACRES IN THE WR ZONE. THE REMAINING 4.03 OF THE PARCEL WOULD BE MERGED WITH THE ADJOINING CLI PARCEL. THE PROJECT INCLUDES A REQUEST TO REZONE THE 4.03 ACRE PARCEL FROM WR TO CLI. PURSUANT TO CHAPTER 179-3-040, SITE PLAN REVIEW FOR DEVELOPMENT OF THE 4.03 ACRE PORTION OF THE PROPERTY FOR OUTSIDE GRAVEL STORAGE AND STORMWATER MANAGEMENT SHALL BE SUBJECT TO PLANNING BOARD REVIEW AND APPROVAL. PURSUANT TO CHAPTER 179-9-040, REFERRAL FROM THE TOWN BOARD WHERE THE PLANNING BOARD IS TO COMPLETE SEQR AND PROVIDE A RECOMMENDATION TO THE TOWN BOARD. PURSUANT TO CHAPTER 179-3-040, SITE PLAN FOR NEW USE IN AN INDUSTRIAL ZONE SHALL BE SUBJECT TO PLANNING BOARD REVIEW AND APPROVAL UPON COMPLETION OF REZONING. THE PLANNING BOARD TO CONDUCT SITE PLAN REVIEW. CROSS REFERENCE: SP 39-2002,SP 138-2016,SP 72-2021, SP (M) 30-2022. WARREN CO.REFERRAL: SEPTEMBER 2022. LOT SIZE: 6.03 ACRES,9.38 ACRES. TAX MAP NO. 309.17-1-3,309.17-1-17.2. SECTION: 179-3-040. JON ZAPPER&r NICK ZEGLEN,REPRESENTING APPLICANT,PRESENT MR. TRAVER-Laura? MRS. MOORE-So this application is a lot line adjustment of a 6.03 acre parcel which has reduced parcel size to 2 acres in a WR zone and the remaining 4.03 acres is being merged with a CLI which is an adjoining parcel. On the adjoining parcel will be an area that is going to be for stones for outdoor storage and the only item that I suggested was the parts of the final plans that the final plans reflect that merger. MR. TRAVER-Okay. Thank you. Good evening. Welcome back. MR. ZAPPER-Good evening, everyone. For the record,Jon Lapper with Nick Zeglen from EDP and the applicant Joe Gross is behind us as well. We've been here a few times to talk about this. You previously recommended the rezoning and granted a SEQR Neg Dec. On that basis we went to the Town Board in December and the Town Board approved the rezoning so now we're here to finish up. The lot line adjustment is to take this approximately six acre parcel, keep two acres of it residential. Joe owns that house and rents it out. That'll stay the same, and this is an important historic area for his main business that this is adjacent to. You had previously,last site plan for the adjacent property, asked for a berm and a fence and that' going to be continued on this property. It's an outdoor storage lot for Gross Electric which is a good sized business and a good employer in Town. He needs the space. So with that I'll just ask Nick to quick walk you through the site plan and of course we agree with what Laura said there,the merger as a condition of approval. MR. ZEGLEN-So as Jon said it's mainly a gravel area for Gross Electric. We do have stormwater management on the site. There's good soils. We have an infiltration basin and as well the two foot berm with the six foot fence, similar to the original site plan. That'll continue on this site, and we have responded to all the outstanding Town Engineer comments. So just looking to move forward with the final piece to this puzzle on this property and finish things up. Thank you. MR. TRAVER-Okay. Questions, comments from members of the Board? I believe we looked at this in the past. Okay. We're ready to move forward. MRS. MOORE-And you also have a public hearing on this as well. MR. TRAVER-Thankyou,Laura. MR. TRAVER-We do have a public hearing on this application. Is there anyone in the audience that wanted to address the Planning Board on this application? I'm not seeing any. Are there written comments,Laura? PUBLIC HEARING OPENED MRS. MOORE-There are no written comments. MR. TRAVER-Okay. Then we will close the public hearing. PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED 5 (Queensbury Planning Board O1/17/2023) MR. TRAVER-Now we're ready for the motion. RESOLUTION APPROVING SP#62-2022 PETITION OF ZONE CHANGE 4-2022 JP GROSS The applicant has submitted an application to the Planning Board: Applicant proposes a lot line adjustment of a 6.03 acre parcel which would reduce the parcel's size to 2.00 acres in the WR zone. The remaining 4.03 of the parcel would be merged with the adjoining CLI parcel.The project includes a request to rezone the 4.03 acre parcel from WR to CLI. Pursuant to chapter 179-3-040, site plan review for development of the 4.03 acre portion of the property for outside gravel storage and stormwater management shall be subject to Planning Board review and approval. Pursuant to chapter 179-9-040, referral from the Town Board where the Planning Board is to complete the SEQR and provide a recommendation to the Town Board.Pursuant to chapter 179-3-040,site plan for new use in an industrial zone shall be subject to Planning Board review and approval upon completion of rezoning. The Planning Board to conduct site plan review. 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 9/27/2022 and continued the public hearing to 1/17/2023,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 1/17/2023; 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 62-2022&z PETITION OF ZONE CHANGE 4-2022 iP GROSS PROPERTIES;Introduced by Michael Dixon who moved for its adoption. According to the draft resolution prepared by Staff with the following: 1) Waivers requested granted; 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; 6 (Queensbury Planning Board O1/17/2023) 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) Final plans to reflect merger of properties. Motion seconded by Brad Magowan. Duly adopted this 17`h day of January 2023 by the following vote: AYES: Mr. Etu,Mr. Deeb,Mr. Dixon,Mr. Longacker,Mr. Stark,Mr. Magowan,Mr. Traver NOES: NONE MR. TRAVER-You're all set. MR. ZAPPER-Thanks for working with us. MR.TRAVER-The next section of our agenda is recommendations to the Zoning Board of Appeals and the first item is ASD Spartan NY2 Solar LLC, Site Plan 3-2023 and Freshwater Wetlands 1-2023 and Special Use Permit 1-2023. PLANNING BOARD RECOMMENDATIONS TO THE ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS SITE PLAN NO. 3-2023 FRESHWATER WETLANDS 1-2023 SPECIAL USE PERMIT 1-2023 SEQR TYPE: UNLISTED. ASD SPARTAN NY2 SOLAR LLC. AGENT(S): TERENCE RASMUSSEN. OWNER(S): FINCH PAPER LLC. ZONING: LC -10A. LOCATION: 1096 STATE ROUTE 9. APPLICANT PROPOSES TO UTILIZE 38.5 ACRES OF A 100 ACRE AREA CONSISTING OF TWO PARCELS FOR A 5MW SOLAR FARM ON AN ENCLOSED INDUSTRIAL LANDFILL. THE SOLAR PANELS WILL BE PLACED ON A FIXED BALLAST ON TOP OF THE LANDFILL CAP. THE EXISTING 3,156 SQ. FT. BUILDING TO REMAIN AS A MAINTENANCE GARAGE THAT IS LEASED TO OTHERS WILL REMAIN UNCHANGED. PROJECT INCLUDES SITE WORK FOR IMPROVEMENTS TO ACCESS ROAD,INSTALLATION OF CONCRETE EQUIPMENT PADS AND SOLAR PANELS, AND UTILITY CONNECTIONS. PURSUANT TO CHAPTER 179-3-040,179-5-140,179-10-060,179-10-070 AND CHAPTER 94,SITE PLAN FOR RENEWABLE ENERGY SOLAR FARM, FRESHWATER WETLANDS PERMIT FOR WORK WITHIN 100 FT. OF WETLANDS AND SPECIAL USE PERMIT FOR SOLAR FARM SHALL BE SUBJECT TO PLANNING BOARD REVIEW AND APPROVAL. VARIANCE: RELIEF IS SOUGHT FOR PERMEABILITY. PLANNING BOARD SHALL MAKE A RECOMMENDATION TO THE ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS. CROSS REFERENCE: AV 2-2023. WARREN CO. REFERRAL: JANUARY 2023,TO WN OF FT.ANN. SITE INFORMATION: APA,LGPC,SLOPES, WETLAND. LOT SIZE: 50.38 ACRES. TAX MAP NO. 279.-1-6.1,279.-1-6.2. SECTION: 179-3- 040,179-5-140,179-10-060,179-10-070 AND CHAPTER 94. TERRY RASMUSSEN,REPRESENTING APPLICANT,PRESENT MR. TRAVER-Laura? MRS. MOORE-So the applicant proposes to utilize 38.5 acres of a 100 acre area consisting of two parcels for the installation of a five Megawatt solar farm on an enclosed industrial landfill that has been decommissioned or capped. The solar panels will be placed on a fixed ballast on top of the landfill cap. The existing 3,156 square foot building is to remain as a maintenance garage that is leased to others which will remain unchanged at this time. The project work includes improvements to the access road, installation of concrete equipment pads and solar panels,utility connections,etc. The applicant is before the Board for a Planning Board recommendation for a request to have permeability less than what is required because this zone requires 950/o. The applicant is asking for 89.3. MR. TRAVER-Okay. Thank you. Good evening. MR. RASMUSSEN-Good evening, Mr. Chairman and members of the Board. My name is Terry Rasmussen. I work for AMP Solar Development. We are the developers for this project. It is a 5 Megawatt PV solar array that we're looking to put on top of the proposed landfill. This landfill was proposed in 1998. Paper sludge waste was the primary waste in there. It's capped with a polyethylene liner with I8 inches of topsoil on top. We have permission to connect to the lines on State Route 9 right in front of the property. Our project will be entirely located on top of the landfill. So in order to do that we,protect the landfill,we going to ballast it. So there's big concrete blocks that are going to be on top of the landfill then we affix the rocking and panels to that. It's a fixed tilt system so it doesn't rotate. There are no motors to that either. It faces south,panels angle at 200/o. One of the good things about being up high is any sunlight is going to be reflected back from the sky. It can't reflect downwards. All of our panels will be covered 7 (Queensbury Planning Board O1/17/2023) in an anti-glare either gloss or coating on them. We are seeking three variances. One is,there is a small wetland on site,less than half an acre. It was not on any of the wetland maps in either the State or Federal government,but we are, our biologist came onto the site and they identified it. The only reason we're within 100 feet is that we need to enclose our array with a fence, and the wetland is located right at the base of the cap, so just off the cap. We want to put the fence off the cap. Plus it also slopes up. It's difficult to put a good fence on a sloped landfill. So that's the number one we're looking at, and the permeability, as the landfill already has an impermeable cap, 1S inches below our array, we don't expect any changes in the infiltration pattern of the site, and the third one is a front yard. So because there is existing storage building that people still use for maintenance storage,our array is on the north portion of the landfill. MRS. MOORE-So the freshwater wetlands issue is a site plan issue. It's not an actual variance. MR. TRAVER-Okay, and you have a,I'm trying to recall. I think that there is a decommissioning plan. MR. RASMUSSEN-Yes,there is a decommissioning plan. MR. TRAVER-Questions,comments from members of the Board? MR. LONGACKER-Is your access road,I see it there on your details. It looks like it's actually cut in. Is that all going to be eight inches of gravel on top of the ballast? You're going to put it IS inches above the liner? MR.RASMUSSEN-The only access road we're doing is from the road to right near where the maintenance shed is, and then it goes across the gravel pits to the east of it. MR. LONGACKER-That's not an access road then going all the way around,then? MR. RASMUSSEN-No,we've got a fence going all the way around it and then there's a buffer off of that, and there's no construction of rows on the landfill cap,but there is space in between all the rows so that it will allow the applicant access. MR. DEEB-In the summary you address all the issues A through I and overall height? MR. RASMUSSEN-Overall height is nine and a half feet. That's what our racking shown in our detail. We do usually say up to 12 feet in the case that we need to use different racking for your mechanical or current reasons. MR. DEEB-Underground utility connections. MR. RASMUSSEN-Yes,it is our plan to use underground connection from our pad to the road. MR. DEEB-You gave the fence height,didn't you? MR. RASMUSSEN-The fence height is typically seven and a half feet,unless there's a specific requirement by the Town. I'm not aware of one. I haven't gone through the Code. MRS.MOORE-So commercial projects are allowed,as part of the site plan review,depending on the Board, typically the applicant can request any height. The Board would decide whether that's a reasonable height, as long as they go through site plan review. Typically we've seen six feet, but if the applicant has a particular reason for a seven and a half foot fence and that's what they want,that's up to them. MR. DEEB-I'm okay with that. MR. MAGOWAN-I just have a question. Why seven and a half feet? MR. RASMUSSEN-Seven foot tall with six inches of barbed wire. MR. MAGOWAN-I mean why are they so secure? MR. RASMUSSEN-There are electrical code requirements to secure these facilities because they do operate at voltages enough to harm somebody if they cut the wrong thing. MR. DEEB-And are vehicles permitted on the cap? I'm going right down through the list . Do you have the list on the Staff Notes? MR. RASMUSSEN-Okay. I'd have to go back and see what exact spacing is. MR. TRAVER-Fourteen to forty-seven. S (Queensbury Planning Board O1/17/2023) MR. RASMUSSEN-That is the average spacing. So that's the minimum spacing,but given that we're on sloped material,sloped area,it may be something more than that spaces. MRS.MOORE-So with that cap spacing,are you allowed to drive vehicles on the cap for your maintenance or how does that work? MR.RASMUSSEN-As part of this process,after we hopefully receive our approval from the Town,we will finish up our permit with the State. The DEC requires us to amend the closure plan, and we've initiated that with an inspection of the site and we're do that as well. MR. DEEB-And you did say it's anti-glare. You already stated that. MR. RASMUSSEN-Yes. Most panels are anti-glare. Almost all Planning Boards require that,too. So it's a very standard process. MR. DEEB-And the elevation profile? MR. RASMUSSEN-We have not done that. A couple of reasons. One is it's a well shielded site. So it's surrounded by trees. You cannot see it from the road. You won't be able to see it from any other location with the possible exception of the top of the adjacent landfill next to it,but if the Planning Board would like to see an elevation profile on the visual renderings we can put those together. MR.MAG OWAN-Basically you have here in the dimensions,they're estimated,but that nine foot five one eighth of an inch. MR. RASMUSSEN-For the fence? MRS. MOORE-For the panel itself. MR. MAGOWAN-No,you're talking the fence or the array? MRS. MOORE-So the panel itself. So the explanation is that it's well treed. So it's possible it can't be seen off site. So my question was generally could it be seen off site at the angle because we had such steep slopes, and the angles of the panels that are being placed on the steep slopes. It doesn't sound like that. So I just wanted to make sure that was clarified at the meeting. MR.ETU-Is the applicant going to be a long term lessee and Finch Pryne is still going to be the landowner? MR. RASMUSSEN-Yes. We have a 25 year lease with Finch plus two or three 5 year extensions. MR. ETU-And is there still sampling through the monitoring wells quarterly now? MR. RASMUSSEN-I believe it's annually but we will talk with DEC to see if they'll want to increase that after construction or not. MR. DIXON-Is there any lighting planned for this project? MR. RASMUSSEN-No,we don't light our arrays. MR. LONGACKER-With those slopes and ballasts,I'm just looking at the site plan,there's like three feet of grade on some of those units. How do you do that? Thicken the slab on the ballast atone end,make it four feet thick on one end and one foot thick on the other end? MR. RASMUSSEN-There's kind of two approaches. One is the applicant put gravel under it to make it sit here with the ballasts. What we will end up doing at some point is, when we get to the detailed engineering,we will probably pull them back on the steep slopes. MR. LONGACKE R-There's a serious grade on some of those it looks like. MR. RASMUSSEN-It is. It's pretty challenging. We've had some engineers looking at it for a while and it should be pretty interesting. MR. DEEB-The panels are going to be permanent? MR. RASMUSSEN-Yes,they're fixed. MR. DEEB-And then APA and Army Corps wetland delineation. 9 (Queensbury Planning Board 01/17/2023) MR. RASMUSSEN-So we have submitted them,our delineations,to the Army Corps,DEC and APA. The APA won't give us any feedback until we're done here,but based on the ballast,it's a small wetland,we're probably not going to be jurisdictional. We'll have to wait and see what they say. MR. DEEB-And the last clarification of lot consolidation. MR. RASMUSSEN-No,we do not need to consolidate the lot for our purposes, and given soil conditions on both parcels we will keep them separate. MR. TRAVER-So this evening we're here to discuss this in terms of the referral for the variances for the Zoning Board of Appeals and they need variances for permeability and the solar system in the front yard. Does anyone have any concerns that we want to communicate to the ZBA regarding those two variances? If not I guess we're ready for a motion. RESOLUTION RE: ZBA RECOMMENDATION RE: AV#2-2023 ASD SPARTAN NY2 SOLAR,LLC The applicant has submitted an application for the following: Applicant proposes to utilize 35.5 acres of a 100 acre area consisting of two parcels for a 5MW solar farm on an enclosed industrial landfill. The solar panels will be placed on a fixed ballast on top of the landfill cap. The existing 3, 156 sq. ft. building to remain as a maintenance garage that is leased to others will remain unchanged.Project includes site work for improvements to access road, installation of concrete equipment pads and solar panels, and utility connections Pursuant to chapter 179-3-040,179-5-140,179-10-060,179-10-070 and Chapter 94,site plan for renewable energy solar farm,freshwater wetlands permit for work with 100 ft.of wetlands and special use permit for solar farm shall be subject to Planning Board review and approval.Variance: Relief is sought for permeability and solar farm in the front yard.Planning Board shall make 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 2-2023 ASD SPARTAN NY2 SOLAR,LLC. Introduced by Michael Dixon who moved for its adoption, and a) The Planning Board,based on a limited review,has not identified any significant adverse impacts that cannot be mitigated with current project proposal. Motion seconded by Warren Longacker. Duly adopted this 171h day of January 2023 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 off to the ZBA. MR. RASMUSSEN-Thank you very much. I look forward to seeing you again. MR. TRAVER-The next item on our agenda, also as a referral to the ZBA,is Michael Rozell, Site Plan 2- 2023. SITE PLAN NO.2-2023 SEQR TYPE: TYPE 11. MICHAEL ROZELL. AGENT(S): HUTCHINS ENGINEERING. OWNER(S): SAME AS APPLICANT. ZONING: WR. LOCATION: 56 REARDON ROAD. APPLICANT PROPOSES REMOVAL OF AN EXISTING HOME,BUILDINGS &z DRIVEWAY TO CONSTRUCT A NEW HOME OF 2,201 SQ.FT. WITH PORCH AREAS OF 274 SQ.FT.AND 158 SQ.FT.FOOTPRINTS. THE NEW FLOOR AREA IS 3,819 SQ.FT. THE PROJECT INCLUDES A NEW DRIVEWAY AREA, SEPTIC, WELL AND SHORELINE PLANTINGS. PURSUANT TO CHAPTER 179-3-040,179-6-065,&z 179-8-040,SITE PLAN FOR ANEW AREA IN A CEA SHALL BE SUBJECT TO PLANNING BOARD REVIEW AND APPROVAL. VARIANCE: RELIEF IS REQUESTED FOR SETBACKS. THE PLANNING BOARD SHALL PROVIDE A RECOMMENDATION TO THE ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS. CROSS REFERENCE: AV 1- 2023. WARREN CO.REFERRAL: N/A. SITE INFORMATION: CEA,GLEN LAKE. LOT SIZE: .34 ACRE. TAX MAP NO.289.7-1-17. SECTION: 179-3-040,179-6-065,179-8-040. TOM HUTCHINS, REPRESENTING APPLICANT,PRESENT;MICHAEL ROZELL,PRESENT 10 (Queensbury Planning Board 01/17/2023) MR. TRAVER-Laura? MRS.MOORE-So the application is for removal of the existing,home,building and driveway to construct anew home of 2,201 square feet with porch areas of 274 square feet and 15S square feet. The new floor area is 3,SI9 square feet. The project includes new driveway area and septic,well and shoreline planting. The variances requested for the side yard north setback where 14.5 feet is proposed and 20 feet is required. MR. TRAVER-Okay. Thank you. Good evening. MR. HUTCHINS-Good evening, Board. Tom Hutchins, Hutchins engineers, with Michael Rozell. Michael owns the property at 56 Reardon Road. He's owned it for a fewyears. He also,with his brother, owns the adjoining parcel to the north,which is actually vacant, and what they propose to do is there are two rather old and tired camp/residences on the subject parcel now. They propose to remove the two existing residences and construct one modern, current residence and what we're asking for in terms of variances is we would be 14 and a half feet from that northerly property line in lieu of the 20 foot setback. I would note that the existing house that will be removed is some four and a half feet from that line presently and the other existing house is some two and a half feet from the southerly boundary. So we're taking that two and a half feet and making the median 20 foot on that side and then four and a half feet to the north,we're asking to set the new residence at 14 and a half feet. New septic system,new water supply well,some stormwater controls and a nice new residence on a lot that,or a property that needs a little bit of attention. So with that, I'll be short and sweet and turn it over to the Board. Do you want to add anything? MR. ROZELL-No,you said it well. MR. TRAVER-Okay. Thank you. Questions,comments from members of the Board? MR. MAGOWAN-Your brother came in before. MR. ROZELL-Peter actually bought me out of the house that he and I owned together. We have this and we wanted to move forward on this. I never used that,the other house but our son's in Tucson now and it would be nice to have a place for him to come. He's going to have a baby. He's going to want to have a place to come and stay. So that's basically the plan. The camps there now are,they're old and decrepit. I bought it before the septic systems. Nobody's lived there. So I really don't know what they're like. I've never had any issue with them,but I'm certain that they, I would assume that they probably need some attention. The bath house has asbestos in it. I know I have to take care of that. So I've already done all my environmental studies on what's in there, and I have a good idea. MR.MAGOWAN-And your brother did a nice job,and like I said,that was a property that kind of shared something. MR. ROZELL-The three of us own that one piece of property. Tom Heinzelman,Peter and I, and we tore that one camp down, and that was the three of us, and it was the same year as the camps that we're proposing here. It's sitting on blocks, and that's basically it. They need to come down. MR.MAGOWAN-I kind of agree. I don't blame you. I was impressed with the residence. This is actually my kind of favorite house, ranch, for my age, and the basement floor and the walkout and you can keep everything low and nice and it will fit and conform nice with the property, and looking at your variance, what you're taking away and what you're asking for is actually a better situation. MR. ROZELL-We think so. MR. MAGOWAN-All the way from the shed all the way on the lake, and I know you guys will do a great job. You don't mess around. MR. ROZELL-I try and get along with all the Building and Codes Department because they can shut me down real quick. MR. TRAVER-So again they're seeking a variance for that setback. It is an improvement, significant improvement over the current situation, even though they do still require a variance,but it's 14 and a half feet versus the 20 feet. Does anyone have any concerns about that variance that they want to communicate to the ZBA? MR. DEEB-Does the landscape plan meet the requirements? MR. HUTCHINS-We've shown some buffering and there is some buffering in there. We're not starting with a vacant site without buffering. If you look at all the numbers in your current buffer standard Codes, I don't show 9 S new rough plantings. I show select planting areas and we'll maintain as much of the buffer as we can. 11 (Queensbury Planning Board 01/17/2023) MR. DEEB-All right. MR. MAGOWAN-Can you do a little more? MR.HUTCHINS-Yes,we can probably do a little more. MR. MAGOWAN-I mean that was really the only thing, pretty much, because it does all slope down toward the lake there. MR. TRAVER-They will be back for site plan,assuming they get their. MR. DEEB-Yes,but we'll bring it up now so you're aware. It's just,you know how we feel. If we can get closer to it. MR.HUTCHINS-We'll look at it a little more. MR. DEEB-Thank you. MR. MAGOWAN-Thank you. MR. TRAVER-Again,any concerns regarding the variance? I guess we're ready for a motion. RESOLUTION RE: ZBA RECOMMENDATION RE: AV#1-2023 MICHAEL ROZELL The applicant has submitted an application for the following: Applicant proposes removal of an existing home,buildings&driveway to construct new home of 2,201 sq. ft. with porch areas of 274 sq. ft. and 15S sq. ft. footprints. The new floor area is 3,S19 sq. ft. The project includes a new driveway area, septic,well and shoreline plantings. Pursuant to Chapter 179-3-040, 179-6-065, & 179-5-040, site plan for new floor area in a CEA shall be subject to Planning Board review and approval. Variance: Relief is requested 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: MOTION TO MAKE A RECOMMENDATION ON BEHALF OF THE PLANNING BOARD TO THE ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS FOR AREA VARIANCE 1-2023 MICHAEL ROZELL, 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 17`h day of January 2023 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 off to the ZBA. MR.HUTCHINS-Thankyou. MR. ROZELL-Thank you very much. MR. TRAVER-The next section of our agenda is New Business, and the first item is Torren Moore,this is Site Plan 4-2023 and Special Use Permit 2-2023. NEW BUSINESS: SITE PLAN NO. 4-2023 SPECIAL USE PERMIT 2-2023 SEQR TYPE: TYPE IL TORREN MOORE. OWNER(S): SAME AS APPLICANT. ZONING: WR. LOCATION: 69 HANNEFORD ROAD. APPLICANT PROPOSES TO ADD A RENTAL SLIP TO AN EXITING CLASS A MARINA WITH 4 SLIPS. THE ADDITION WOULD INCREASE IT TO 5 SLIPS. THE PLANS INDICATE 7 PARKING SPACES AVAILABLE FOR THE MARINA, LOCATION OF 12 (Queensbury Planning Board 01/17/2023) RESTROOM AND TRASH COLLECTION AREA. THERE ARE NO CHANGES TO THE EXISTING HOME AND SITE. PURSUANT TO CHAPTER 179-3-040,179-5-060,179-4-090&z 179-10-040,SITE PLAN AND SPECIAL USE PERMIT FOR INCREASED NUMBER OF RENTAL SLIPS SHALL BE SUBJECT TO PLANNING BOARD REVIEW AND APPROVAL. CROSS REFERENCE: SP 62-96, A 88-1996,SUP 6-2004. WARREN CO.REFERRAL: JANUARY 2023,TOWN OF FT.ANN. SITE INFORMATION: APA,LGPC,CEA,SLOPES. LOT SIZE: 0.47 ACRES. TAX MAP NO.227.18-1- 41. SECTION: 179-3-040,179-5-060,179-4-090,179-10-040. TOM HUTCHINS, REPRESENTING APPLICANT,PRESENT MR. TRAVER-Laura? MRS. MOORE-This application, the applicant currently has four slips as a Class A Marina, and, sorry, I thought Tom Hutchins was going to come back in for that one. So I think he will in a second. So there's four slips. He's asking to increase to the fifth slip. The applicant's property has the appropriate number of parking spaces for the slips as well as the existing home. The project has a restroom and trash collection area, and so the applicant is following the process, going through the Special Use Permit, Site Plan with the Planning Board and also in communication with the Lake George Park Commission to complete that process for their fifth slip. MR. TRAVER-Okay. Thank you. Are you here for Torren? MR.HUTCHINS-Yes,I am. MR. TRAVER-So they have an existing marina with four slips and you want to add one. MR. HUTCHINS-Yes. What they have is an existing, they have an existing marina that has been there, they've operated it for 23 years. It has had the existing dockage with five slips,physical slips have been therefor the 22 years they've owned it,and for some years before that. The docks themselves date back at least 40 years. The permit, both through Special Use Permit through the Town as well as the Park Commission permit, is permitted for four slips. During an inspection with the Park Commission they were cited that they have five slips and their permitting documentation is for four. So we want to straighten that out. There's no proposed construction. There's really no proposed physical changes whatsoever. We just kind of want to clean up the record. I worked for, I'm basically filling in for the applicant. The applicants winter in Hawaii and that's a long commute to a meeting. I've done some work for them in the past. We did a septic system replacement for them several years ago. It did take this usage into account, and they've asked me to cover for them. So I believe I understand what they're doing. There's really no physical changes, and it's been ongoing for many,many years and we want to clean it up. So with that I'll turn it over to the Board. MR. TRAVER-So were they renting five slips and they just weren't provided? MR.HUTCHINS-Four. They were renting four,no,I'm sorry. There's five external slips and then there's their boat. So there were five slips that had boats that weren't registered to them. MR. TRAVER-Okay. So they were renting five but they were only permitted for four. MR.HUTCHINS-They were renting five but they were only permitted for four,and the permit goes back 23 years. MR. DEEB-No physical changes. MR. HUTCHINS-No physical changes. The docks are staying the same, and they were cited by the Park Commission and they signed an order on consent to straighten the process out and this is the first step of straightening the process out. MR. DIXON-The existing Special Use Permit,was it a permanent one at the time? MRS. MOORE-It was just a permit. There was a process when all marinas came under sort of an order that they had to come in for Special Use Permit to the Town. So they didn't include Site Plan and Special Use Permit. They only included Special Use Permit at that time period. MR.DIXON-And since you fall under I guess the new Code now,for this Special Use Permit,I guess we've got to decide if it's temporary,permanent or renewable. MRS. MOORE-I'm assuming the applicant's going to request permanent,but that is something between the Board as well as the applicant. MR. DIXON-That's something for discussion. I think I'd be comfortable with a five year permit. 13 (Queensbury Planning Board 01/17/2023) MRS. MOORE-Well I think that the Park Commission is permanent once it's issued. MR. HUTCHINS-Yes,it gets renewed, well by fee it gets renewed,but I don't believe,they don't have to re-apply- MRS. MOORE-Yes,there's no additional. MR. TRAVER-There's an annual fee for the docks. MR.HUTCHINS-Yes. MRS. MOORE-So there's not an additional review process once it's done at this stage, for any marina at this point. MR. DEEB-I think it should be the same as the Park Commission. MR. HUTCHINS-I've been through it with the Park Commission. They have, I won't say they're okay with it because they're waiting for Queensbury to review it,but well the issue they had with it was there were five boats there and there were four registered. Everything is as per their record except for the number of boats. MR. TRAVER-Okay. MR. DEEB-I don't want to waste people's time, but I thought I'd read Page Three, toward the bottom, plans indicated there are pimp out services available. MRS. MOORE-Thanks. MR. DEEB-I'm sorry. I had to do that. MR.HUTCHINS-What's it on? MR. DEEB-Page Three towards the bottom. MR.HUTCHINS-Of the application? MR. DEEB-I thought maybe we'd add a little humor to our meeting. MR.HUTCHINS-Is that on the application or the notes? MR. DEEB-No,I don't think it was. MR. TRAVER-It's part of the process required for their Class A Marina permit. MR.HUTCHINS-Okay. MR. DEEB-They may want to straighten that out. MR. TRAVER-A lot of times these Class A Marinas don't have boats of a size that require a pump out. Some of them do. Any other questions, comments from members of the Board? Do we feel comfortable going forward on this? Okay. We do have a public hearing on this application as well. Is there anyone in the audience that wanted to comment to the Planning Board on this application? I'm not seeing any. Laura's checking for written comments. PUBLIC HEARING OPENED MRS. MOORE-There's no public comment. MR. TRAVER-Okay. All right. We're ready to entertain that motion. MS. GAGLIARDI-Mr. Chairman,you need to close the public hearing. MR. TRAVER-Okay. We'll close the public hearing. PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED MR. TRAVER-Now we'll entertain a motion. 14 (Queensbury Planning Board 01/17/2023) RESOLUTION APPROVING SP#4-2023 SUP 2-2023 TORREN MOORE The applicant has submitted an application to the Planning Board:Applicant proposes to add a rental slip to an existing Class A marina with 4 slips. The addition would increase it to 5 slips. The plans indicate 7 parking spaces available for the marina,location of restroom and trash collection area.There are no changes to the existing home and site.Pursuant to Chapter 179-3-040,179-5060,179-4-090,&r 179-10-040,site plan and special use permit for increased number of rental slips shall be subject to Planning Board review and approval. Pursuant to relevant sections of the Town of Queensbury Zoning Code-Chapter 179-9-OSO, the Planning Board has determined that this proposal satisfies the requirements as stated in the Zoning Code; As required by General Municipal Law Section 239-m the site plan application was referred to the Warren County Planning Department for its recommendation; The Planning Board opened a public hearing on the Site plan application on 1/17/2023 and continued the public hearing to 1/17/2023 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 1/17/2023; 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 4-2023&z SPECIAL USE PERMIT 2-2023 TORREN MOORE, Introduced by Michael Dixon who moved for its adoption; Per the draft provided by staff conditioned upon the following conditions: 1) Waivers request granted: request for waivers for g. site lighting, h. signage, j. stormwater, k. topography,1.landscaping,n traffic,o. commercial alterations/construction details,p floor plans, q. soil logs,r. construction/demolition disposal s. snow removal are reasonable as the site remains the same,no construction only allowing use of a 5 slips for rental as a Class A Marina 2) The approval is valid for one (1) year from the date of approval. Applicant is responsible for requesting an extension of approval before the one (1)year time frame has expired. 3) Adherence to the items outlined in the follow-up letter sent with this resolution. a) If application was referred to engineering, then engineering sign-off required prior to signature of Zoning Administrator of the approved plans; b) Final approved plans should have dimensions and setbacks noted on the site plan/survey,floor plans and elevation for the existing rooms and proposed rooms in the building and site improvements, c) Final approved plans, in compliance with the Site Plan, must be submitted to the Community Development Department before any further review by the Zoning Administrator or Building and Codes personnel; d) The applicant must meet with Staff after approval and prior to issuance of Building Permit and/or the beginning of any site work; e) Subsequent issuance of further permits,including building permits is dependent on compliance with this and all other conditions of this resolution; f) As-built plans to certify that the site plan is developed according to the approved plans to be provided prior to issuance of the certificate of occupancy; g) Resolution to be placed on final plans in its entirety and legible. h.) This Special Use Permit will be permanent. Motion seconded by Nathan Etu. Duly adopted this 17`h day of January 2023 by the following vote: MR. HUTCHINS-Could I just ask a question? There was a thing about a one year,that was for the Site Plan Review resolution. Correct? MR. DIXON-Yes. MR. TRAVER-The Site Plan approval is good for one year. Special Use Permit, as proposed in the resolution,would be permanent. MR.HUTCHINS-Okay. So they're not going to have to take action. MR. DEEB-Nothing has to be done. It's already there. MRS. MOORE-They'll have to communicate with Bruce. 15 (Queensbury Planning Board 01/17/2023) MR.HUTCHINS-You've taken action on this Site Plan,even though there's really no action to take. MRS. MOORE-Right. MR.HUTCHINS-The action could be working with the Park Commission. MR. DEEB-If he goes out and looks and sees that there's five slips. MR. TRAVER-It's the Special Use Permit that's the action. MR.HUTCHINS-Okay. We're good. AYES: Mr. Longacker,Mr. Stark,Mr. Magowan,Mr. Etu,Mr. Deeb,Mr. Dixon,Mr. Traver NOES: NONE MR. TRAVER-You're all set. MR.HUTCHINS-Thankyou. MR. TRAVER-The next item on our agenda is Foothills Builders/Meads. This is a Petition for Zoning Change 1-2023. PETITION OF ZONE CHANGE 1-2023 SEQR TYPE: TYPE I. FOOTHILLS BUILDERS/MEADS. AGENT(S): STUDIO A(MATTHEW HUNTINGTON). OWNER(S): MEAD'S NURSERY INC. ZONING: CI. LOCATION: 361 RIDGE ROAD. APPLICANT PROPOSES A ZONE CHANGE OF A 1099 ACRE PARCEL FROM CI TO MDR. PROJECT INCLUDES ZONING LANGUAGE CHANGE FOR THE MDR ZONE SPECIFIC TO THE DENSITY (WOULD ALLOW UP TO 80 UNITS), LOT SIZE, MUNICIPAL WATER AND SEWER CONNECTION, AND PROPERTY ACCESS. THE PROJECT WORK PROPOSED INCLUDES DEMOLITION OF MEADS NURSERY IN ORDER TO CONSTRUCT 77 MULTI-FAMILY DWELLINGS, IN 4 UNIT STRUCTURES INCLUDING ASSOCIATED SITE WORK, STORMWATER, LANDSCAPING, LIGHTING ETC. PURSUANT TO CHAPTER 179-9-040, REFERRAL FROM THE TOWN BOARD WHERE THE TOWN HAS SPECIFICALLY REQUESTED COMMENT ON FOUR ITEMS: CONSISTENCY, DENSITY,LOT SIZE,AND ACCESS,SHALL BE SUBJECT TO PLANNING BOARD REVIEW AND APPROVAL. CROSS REFERENCE: SP 26-90. WARREN CO. REFERRAL: N/A. SITE INFORMATION: WETLANDS. LOT SIZE: 1099 ACRES. TAX MAP NO.303.5-1-79. SECTION: 179-3-040,179-10-040,CHAPTER 94. JEFF MEYER&MATT HUNTINGTON,REPRESENTING APPLICANT,PRESENT MR. TRAVER-Laura? MRS. MOORE-In regards to this application,the applicant proposes a zone change of a 10.99 acre parcel from CI to MDR. Project includes zoning language change for the MDR zone, specific to the density, would allow up to 80 units, lot size, municipal water and sewer connection and property access. The project work proposed includes demolition of Meads Nursery in order to construct 77 multifamily dwellings in four unit structures, including associated site work, stormwater, landscaping, lighting and other items. The Town specifically requested comment on four items,including consistency, density,lot size, and access, and ultimately the project will end up, if it gets through the Town Board and recommendation,it will be back before the Board for Site Plan Review. MR. TRAVER-Okay. Thank you,Laura. Is there anyone here to represent the? MRS. MOORE-Yes,I think they're out in the lobby. MR. MAGOWAN-Anybody do any research on this property besides it being Meads Nursery? MR. TRAVER-You mean prior to it being a nursery? MR. MAGOWAN-Right. MR. TRAVER-Not that I'm aware of. I thought it was a nursery pretty much forever. MR.MAGOWAN-Well,it has for a long time,but there was a ceramic type factory at one time a long time ago. You dig around there you find little pots and things and one of the houses up on Ridge Street, I've been to an open house and it had very ornate corners and ceramic and stuff like that. Very interesting. MR. TRAVER-Yes. Good evening. Welcome. 16 (Queensbury Planning Board 01/17/2023) MR. MEYER-Welcome. Thank you for having us. It's been quite a meeting so far. I hope we don't keep you too much later. For the record,my name is Jeff Meyer. I'm an attorney in Lake George. With me is Matt Huntington from Studio A and the principles of Foothills Builders are behind me. We have been working with the Town of Queensbury for about two years now on trying to come up with a suitable use for what was formerly known as Meads Nursery. It is a very unique property in the Town of Queensbury. It's proximity to the City of Glens Falls, small urban lots in urban neighborhoods. It's also very close to Quaker and accessible for commuters. It's about a little over 10 acres in size. So it essentially presents a scale dilemma and it's been sitting on the market a little while. They're under contract to purchase it. There's contingencies,this being one of them,because the unique nature of the property required a zoning variance, or in the alternative a zoning amendment,which is the route that will ultimately settle that. In our last meeting with the Town Board we essentially were trying to get past two questions, you know, what is, does the Town Board feel it's suitable to change this property from Commercial Intensive to Moderate Density Residential which matches the adjoining property as you head toward the City of Glens Falls,and if that's a yes,what we're asking for is essentially drafting a density bonus into the Zoning Code, which would allow for increased density, but it would be limited to certain circumstances and certain limitations. It isn't specific to this property because the Supervisor was worried about spot zoning,but what is essentially is at the heart of the language that we selected and that we propose is returning the density to what it was in this area in about 2005,2007 prior to the previous zoning amendments. So what that looks like is essentially eight dwelling units an acre as the basis. There's kind of addition,subtractions and other things that we're working around in the Code. As this Board knows every property is different. So even though you may be entitled to eight, the property may only work for seven, but that would essentially be the basis. The limiting factors that we've talked about and that we are proposing is that the property must be at least 10 gross acres. So 10 acres total,not subtracting out the undevelopable portions which normally come into play and still do come into play. They just come in in a different spot in the calculation. You must have municipal water and sewer present. For any kind of density you simply need to connect to the municipal system. Third is ingress and egress on arterial roads or collector roads. So this is putting it on roads like Ridge and Meadowbrook,but keeping it off the high traffic areas like Quaker, Bay,you know, some of the different areas where the Town has said we prefer to have residential further away from the main road. The other unique factor about this is,again,it doesn't front on Quaker so you're not losing any of the intensive commercial property. It is in line with the existing comprehensive plan. If you look through the recommendations,A I through 5,are all represented by the proposal,or A I through 6,in that it's a cluster development. You're minimizing infrastructure requirements. You're creating this neighborhood setting and there's interconnectivity. It all essentially works with the property, and I recognize that you guys are also in the process of re-doing the comp plan, and even if you look to some of the information that they're collecting,just pulled this off the website the other day. It essentially shows where there's residential ideas,the density and lot sizes,but it highlights,the way the program worked,it actually highlighted developments like Turnberry, and, you know, properties off Glenwood Ave., you know, where you have that high residential developments. That is essentially what we're looking to get back to and what we're proposing. We can't get there without a zoning amendment. The Town Board, as part of the process is essentially once again,even though we've been here informally previously,probably was a year ago now,they would like a more formal recommendation as to whether you think eight dwelling units per acre is appropriate. It is in line. If you look at acreage and what's permissible now, with essentially the area to the east,to the west. To the southwest of the property as you're heading to Glens Falls. It's in line with the neighboring density. My client is in the home building business and spouses are realtors. There's high demand for residential development and single family residential houses are becoming more and more unaffordable for most people. An acre lot with a house,you're looking at a half million dollars to $700,000 once you take into account infrastructure and material costs. By putting together a development like this with a little bit higher density it becomes affordable for tenants and owners. Current zoning only allows for tenants. So it is going to be something that would, ownership would be retained by Foothills Builders and they would be rented, but again, that's something that's permissible in Turnberry and it's not an outlier within the Town of Queensbury. So I'm happy to entertain any questions you guys may have. We have submitted the full blown application packet which Laura has. So to the extent there's technical questions,I have people that are smarter than me sitting with me. MR. TRAVER-Well, one of the things we were asked to comment on was the density, and that's the biggest issue that concerned me when I looked at this. Typically this type of property you'd have one unit per acre with Town water and sewer connected,and you're asking for eight. It seems like that's a little bit extreme. It could be something,it seems to me,less than that,more than what's currently permitted,but going from one per acre to eight per acre seems like a huge. MR.MEYER-In the abstract I'll agree with you,but if you look at the surrounding areas,and again I'm just going to keep resorting back to Turnberry because that's similar to what they have. You have the one to eight, but you also have the ability for multi-family residential dwelling units. You have the ability for condominium units already in this zone. So it's, you know, it may be set up for one structure per acre, which in and of itself is an outlier. There's no other in and around this area that are developed that sparsely. So,you know, if you look at what's there and the structures per acre, almost separate from the dwelling units,it is in line with what is in the surrounding area and it is what's called for in the Comp Plan. 17 (Queensbury Planning Board 01/17/2023) MR. TRAVER-There's also, in recent years, been increasing concern over particularly this sewer. Have you had discussions with the Town regarding the septic load and capacity for this many? MR. HUNTINGTON-Yes. Matt Huntington with Studio A. I've had some preliminary conversations with Chris Harrington regarding the Town's ability to handle the capacity here, and just verbal conversations we've provided some preliminary loading for the 77 units that are here and verbally he didn't see an issue with the Town being able to handle it. MR. TRAVER-Okay. Questions,comments from members of the Board? MR.MAGOWAN-Well I've got a question with that. The sewer runs through the Town. It's the City of Glens Falls that takes cares of the sewage. So that's the concern I have is,you know, the capacity that's going over there. I know we've got a, what is it, a 14 or an 1S inch that comes right across right behind Della and Ford that they just had to replace because of the high water and then it goes to a pump station right at the bottom of Meadowbrook. So I imagine that is the, it's either that one or, well you'd have to pump uphill if you want to. MR.HUNTINGTON-Yes,the idea would be to go from the top of the development near Ridge Road down to Meadowbrook. Now to address the Glens Falls capacity,I've actually been involved with three or four projects over the past two years that have involved having to coordinate with Glens Falls Wastewater regarding the capacity of a project in Moreau, actually one near West Mountain and one near, and there's an abundance of capacity actually in the Glens Falls Wastewater treatment plant. Right now it's set up for the Ceiba Geigy development and other developments over there that, you know, I mean it's fairly, reaching capacity of the plant is more involved in just a financial agreement of who's paying for the amount of capacity that they want there. It's not really a function of the actual plant. MR. DEEB Just clarification. You said you figured out the configuration of the acreage. Do you subtract the wetlands from that for the number of acres that you can use? MR. MEYER-Ultimately when you develop you would, but for the purposes of the zoning amendment, you would not. It's strictly,in order to even get to this stage,you'd have to have at least 10 acres. So you can't take a five acre parcel and try and do these type of high density developments because the parcel's too small. It just doesn't handle it. My own thinking being and,you know,in working with Mr. Baker was,is once you hit that 10 acre parcel,you're really,you know,if there's green space available and there's water and sewer available and it wouldn't create something more into an apartment building, more claustrophobic feel, there is space for everything, there's room for everything, there's going to be green space. MR. DEEB-That's with the new zoning. MR. MEYER-Correct. MR. DEEB-Not with the old zoning. MR. MEYER-Correct. MR. DEEB-The other thing, if the zoning has changed, and we've done this for some other projects, too, and I don't know if we're going to find an answer to this. How many other parcels in the Town of Queensbury would be subject to that new zoning? MRS.MOO RE-So this specific zoning would be all MDR. You would look at it and evaluate it at 10 acres of MDR zone, see what's out there or could make a 10 acre parcel and that actual calculation hasn't been done, and not necessarily simple or not simple,you'd first look at, do the map of the entire MDR zone to show you where, it applies to all MDR zones. So say an applicant does have five acres. The applicant could pursue a variance. So I don't know if that answers your question,but to move,for the applicant,if that question is being asked, then that is something the applicant can pursue if they come up with some data,probably working with George with GIS to come up with that data. MR. DEEB-All right,because we did that with the daycare,if I remember correctly. MRS. MOORE-We did a good guesstimate. I did not do that here because this is a different animal. George and Stu kicked it around when it was five acres and there was over 100 and that's one of the reasons why it's now 10. MR. DEEB-So it limits it. 1S (Queensbury Planning Board 01/17/2023) MR. MEYER-Yes,it's not just the 10 acres. It's also the access on the arterial roads. When you have that combination,again,he didn't run it,talked about running it,but it was his opinion,and these are my words, not his,it was significantly lower and that it wasn't a concern. MR.DEEB-That is one of the concerns. If it goes through and then we have a number of these high density projects,this could be. MRS. MOORE-One of the other, and we've discussed this as well, is whether to add an additional component as a Special Use Permit to this,but it's the same,the same issues arise because of the,you put some of that information under the Special Use Permit,making sure it's an arterial road and other items that are specific that are identified in the zoning change. MR. DEEB-I mean I agree we do need affordable housing in this area. MR. TRAVER-How do you feel about the density? MR. DEEB-I'd like to see it a little bit less dense if possible, but I just don't want to see this create a precedent with a lot of these projects coming up because land's becoming scarce,but the density, I'm on the fence. MR.MEYER-If I could just,one of the other places where we found this eight units an acre,it's in line with the Office zone. Once you're 600 feet from amain road,or Bay Road. Once you're 600 feet from Bay Road, you get this density,but it's only available in the Office zone. So we couldn't make this one is Office. The only one that's Office is surrounded by Commercial Intensive and,I shouldn't say we couldn't. The Town Board was uncomfortable with it,when it's surrounded by MDR and Commercial Intensive,but,and that's essentially, the density we're looking at is otherwise permissible within the Town. It's at a point where it's not an apartment building. We're not trying to put apartment buildings. We're not looking for apartment building density. It's that half step in between that used to be prevalent in the 2000's in Queensbury and disappeared in 2005. MR. TRAVER-Would there be any consideration of reducing the number of units per acre at all? Or does it need to be what you're proposing? MR. MEYER-Our preference is what we're proposing and I guess it,is it a question of a starting point or a finishing point? We could probably scale down from eight,but there is a tipping point. MR. TRAVER-Sure. MR.MEYER-And,you know,to say seven works,but then after you guys actually look at the property and you know, we kind of re-work everything, the property is really only suitable for six, you know, I don't know,it's,everything is kind of a consideration,I guess,and it's not,if the eight looks okay,let's have eight as a starting point and really design this project for this property. If it ends up being seven after eight is the max,that's okay. MR. TRAVER-Well I'm mainly asking because the Town Board is specifically asking us about density, and that's the primary concern I have because that ties into the septic and the water and all the rest of it, and we could talk about traffic and everything else,but the density is,as you would say the starting point, and for me it seems like it's going from one to seven is a lot. So if we could have something, some kind of compromise there,at least for me,and I'm only speaking for myself,not the other Board members obviously, but I would be more comfortable with some smaller number because it's a huge leap to go from one to eight. MR. MEYER-I guess one of the questions I have is if,you know,what we've proposed is seven per acre,or 77 units, and there has been discussions about community centers and things like that,certain amenities that would be, could be located on the property, and it's,you know,how would that all work in? Is that going to count against us in terms of density? Or,you know how would those additional or other buildings be interpreted or counted against us in terms of density? So I didn't really answer your question,but if seven gets us there,then it has to be seven. MR.DIXON-I've got a question then. We're looking at it as X number of units per acre. Can we just look at total buildings per site? Or do we need to get this down to? MRS.MOO RE-You don't,so you're on recommendation. So any opinion that you wish to share as a Board is what you're, if you need additional clarification, you think the Town Board should add additional clarification that,you know,any project like this should have a community center,no larger than X square feet or it has to be this square feet,then you could add that as part of your recommendation to the Board. The applicant is saying is that,you know,with this,having a larger site and having this many units,if you look at the way this design is,is that there is additional green space and drive area and they have included a building and some walking areas. So if you think that is a better presentation, as part of a 19 (Queensbury Planning Board 01/17/2023) recommendation,you could say that you could add that as one of the criteria for evaluation that any project such as this would include a community center or a building of community use. MR. DIXON-Would we also,similar to the manufactured home project that came to us a couple of weeks ago, so we'll say that they could put six units on there, but it was, I think really subject to the Planning Board review to determine the right number. MRS.MOORE-No,different type of project. This would be a specific zoning element that would be added to the MDR zone. MR. DIXON-And I know this project came in front of us,it was about two years ago now. MRS. MOORE-As a discussion. MR. TRAVER-Yes. MR. DIXON-And did anything change from that discussion to today? MR. MEYER-A little bit. Some of the design work has changed. Like if you look at the building that are shown, they're all four unit buildings. Every unit has a driveway and a garage. There is a community building shown with the green scape area. There's internal road sidewalks. So it's,it easily fits. It easily fits in with the quarter acre lots that surround it,and it would fit in within the community,and that's kind of,not that I'm,not necessarily married to the eight units per acre,but it,you know,on a 10 acre lot,there's 20 feet in between buildings. There's plenty of room for everything within this to still essentially design a community within a larger parcel that is becoming more and more rare in the Town, and it allows for residential development where it's becoming scarce. MR. HUNTINGTON-I guess to build off that point a little bit,too. What has happened in the past year and a half,two years,is we have actually significantly advanced the actual site design portion of it to the point that we've developed a full SWPPP, Stormwater Pollution Prevention Plan. We've been able to demonstrate that we can meet all the criteria that comes from our criteria as well as the State stormwater criteria and that still includes, as Jeff mentioned and Laura was kind of building off it,we do have a large amount of green space, community area in there. We potentially could be proposing more buildings in there,but we felt that just for the character of the site to not really over-develop it. We were leaving that community space in there as part of the project. As he said,if you look at the neighborhood next to it,it's really kind of similar in terms of building and placement in terms of separation of green space that's there. MR. DIXON-And I think we asked this question when you came in front of us once before, but the community use area,is it just for this community or is it for any resident in Queensbury? Or are there any restrictions? MR. MEYER-What's before you is just for the residents. MR. DIXON-The reason being I'm just thinking traffic. MR. MEYER-Technically the lot would be private property. So it wouldn't be available to my family. MR. DIXON-Have you done the calculations if it was seven units per acre versus the eight? MR. MEYER-In terms of what? MR. DIXON-What it would end up being for buildings on the lot. MR. MEYER-So we'd essentially lose seven units, and I don't know whether the four become three or whether you just lose two of the buildings. It would really kind of leave it up to the design professionals as to what would be the most aesthetically pleasing functionally. MR. DIXON-I think I'd be more comfortable with seven units per acre. MR. TRAVER-Okay. So we've had some comments on density. What about access? Does anyone have any concerns about access? MR. MAGOWAN-Could we go back to density? MR. TRAVER-Sure. MR. MAGOWAN-All right. Thank you. The layout,I like the layout,really it looks nice. I like the fact that you come off of Ridge and Meadowbrook. My concern is the 20 foot drop between Ridge and 20 (Queensbury Planning Board 01/17/2023) Meadowbrook, but looking at the test pits. Number One, at the top of the hill, all right, you have groundwater at 12 inches below existing grade. MRS. MOORE-I apologize for interrupting. So in regards to recommendation, I mean that sounds more like a site plan issue versus a discussion in reference to the recommendation back to the Town Board. MR.MAGOWAN-No,I'm not going that way. My concern is going down,I'm a little concerned with the test pits, and really the hydrology of this. So when you're talking density, all right, and you're putting up these buildings, I get concerned when we talk about green space and this and that, but looking at the different test pits and the soil is pretty much made up of blue clay, gray clay, light brown clay, all right, medium brown clay. We have a,up there in Number One we have a little light brown sand. Now I lived out in Ohio at one time, and I remember ripping off the bottom of my shoe from my hiking boots because of the clay, all right. So we have all these,we put up these buildings. Right now we have an area which is all open. Water can sit up within the grass and the plants can absorb,you know,everything that's there. So what we do is put up buildings. We concentrate that water back into the ground. Where's that water going in clay? For one. So you've got that pond down at the bottom. So my concern is that it's such a table over there anyway. There's so many houses,believe it or not,even the ones across the street on Ridge up on the hill have sump pumps. I wonder why. Well one is because of clay, and a lot of times what happens is people just pump it back outside and all it does is seeps back towards the house and comes down to the foundation and comes back in,but my whole concern is the hydrology. You have five test pits kind of right down from the center,but it's not telling me more. So I'm just concerned if we go with the maximum density, all right, what happens with all this clay and the water and the stormwater doesn't work and now the other side of Meadowbrook fills up,and the reason I say that is I look at Meadowbrook. We have Schermerhorns. We have The Glen. We have Amedores. We have Michaels Group, all right, and now when we get our heavy rains, what sheets across Meadowbrook? Does anybody know? Does anybody drive Meadowbrook when it rains? The water comes right across the road. MR. TRAVER-We're talking zoning,though., We're not talking about site plan. MR. MAGOWAN-This is the whole point. It's going back,because we've got to make a recommendation to the Town. So this goes all the way back down to density. MR. TRAVER-On general zoning. We're not doing a site review for this particular applicant. MR.MAG OWAN-This is going back to a zoning to the Town. So I'm making my stand is if we're talking about density, it should be smaller and these are the reasons why I feel that it should be smaller. It also gives the applicant an opportunity to know,they've got to come back,if it goes with the Town,is what I'm going to be looking for, and I'm going to be looking for more test pits and more of a hydrology on this property because I know the contents down below and that pond has been there for so long, and what happens with everything going down. So I'm not, so a lesser density,more room for evaporation is what I'd be looking for. MRS. MOORE-So would you apply that across the board to all MDR zones? I think that's what. You're looking at something in regards to soils, even though an applicant could potentially, working with the Town Engineer, indicate that they're able to meet all the stormwater management requirements I guess is that? I guess that's the question. MR. MAGOWAN-I think everything,we had Main Street. Main Street I brought up the fact that we're dumping all that water going underneath,into the center underneath. It's all sand over there. I know. It is sandy,and it does perc down,all right. I'm not happy with it,but I'm going to go with it. Here we have a different. So it really all depends on what the makeup of that project is, what's underneath it. So it wouldn't be for all MDR zones,just particular applications where I'm looking at what I see underneath and where water goes and where it doesn't. MR.MEYER-Right,but I guess to Mr.Traver's point and Laura's point,those are site plan issues that we'll address as necessary. MR. MAGOWAN-I don't want to waste your time if it's not going to. MR. MEYER-No,no. I understand that,but the reference point was an area of the Town that isn't in the MDR,you know,my colleague's an engineer. He puts his stamp on everything saying that the stormwater is going to work. It's been designed to work. It works in clay. I see them in Washington County all the time. MR. MAGOWAN-And what happens if it doesn't? MR. MEYER-It's his stamp,and you guys go after him. You go after my client and tell them to fix it. 21 (Queensbury Planning Board 01/17/2023) MR. TRAVER-So hypothetically if this zoning were to go through and were approved,and you come back with this project for site plan approval, and we don't feel that the density works at this particular site,we could alter that,even if the zoning generally went through. MR. MEYER-Absolutely. MR. TRAVER-So the concerns that have been discussed with the stormwater and so on would come back to apply to this specific site, but wouldn't apply to all zoning everywhere if this hypothetically were approved. MR. MEYER-Absolutely. The comments have absolutely been heard and they will be addressed as part of the site plan,regardless of whether it's,you know, one dwelling unit or eight. It's something that has to be looked at. It's something that has to be addressed. It would be hard to put full foundations if you're doing a five lot subdivision on this lot. It doesn't matter if it's that or it's these multi dwelling units that are slab on grade. You have to deal with stormwater. You have to deal with depth to water table. You have to deal with the soils. We understand that. We're designing for it, but as a starting point, as a general zoning,we think that eight works and if it scales down for these individual lots,if there's a 10 acre lot in the MDR zone that's on a steep slope,we're obviously not going to build on the steep slope,but that's something that we'll design for or whoever the applicant is,you know,Jon Lapper when he's in here,you know,it gets designed for at that point in time,based on that specific property. MR. DIXON-Mr. Chairman, can I, so in listening to everybody, I've got two recommendations,potential recommendations I'll throw out. So if I can just read those to the Board. MR. TRAVER-Sure. MR. DIXON-So, One, potentially, a recommended density of less than eight units per acre may be a possibility,and then,Two,soil and water table should be considered when determining maximum density. I think that's what Brad. MR. TRAVER-Well the second one, with regard to the stormwater essentially is what you're talking about,or potentially septic,that's considered as part of the individual specific site, as part of the site plan review, and not related to the zoning,if I'm understanding correct. MRS.MOORE-I guess the question is whether you wish to apply that across the board to all projects that would be, fall in line with, in an MDR zone that met the requirements. So this would be an additional requirement,but I don't know how to quantify that requirement. MR. TRAVER-I guess my question is,wouldn't it apply anyway because if you had a 10 acre site and they wanted to put X number of buildings on it,it's still going to come in for site plan review, and if they can't manage the stormwater,maybe they'd only end up with three buildings not eight. Right? So what I'm saying to the secretary is that that second comment,reflecting concern about soils and so on, is entirely appropriate, but it has nothing to do with zoning. It's a site plan issue which automatically would be concerned with anyone that came in,whether or not this zoning were approved for two or ten or however many units. When they actually go to design,then it's up to the engineering and us to decide whether or not they can max out the number of units on that site based on, among other things,the soils. Right? MRS. MOORE-Yes. MR. MAGOWAN-We're making a recommendation to the Town. MR. TRAVER-For the zoning. MR. MAGOWAN-For the zoning. MR. TRAVER-Right. MR. MAGOWAN-And the Town has asked for. MRS. MOORE-There's four questions. MR. MAGOWAN-Would six units per acre be more in accord to the intent of the MDR zone. That's what they're asking. MR. TRAVER-Yes. MR. MAGOWAN-So are they asking it based on this application or are they asking it in general? MR. TRAVER-General as far as the zoning is concerned,changing the zoning. 22 (Queensbury Planning Board 01/17/2023) MR. MAGOWAN-Then six units. I'll go with what they recommend. MR. TRAVER-If and when whatever is approved as far as the zoning is concerned, this applicant presumably would come back with a specific plan for this site. MR. MAGOWAN-So why would the Town ask for us to say would six units per acre be more in accord? MR. TRAVER-Because what the applicant is proposing is that the zoning be changed throughout the MDR zone to allow it to be eight units per acre instead of the one per acre now. MR. MAGOWAN-Well the applicant is always going to go for the max because,you know,of the money. So I'm looking at environmental wise and I see what's left in Queensbury,you know,we either have slopes or wetlands. MR. TRAVER-Yes. MR. MAGOWAN-In the MDR,so let's bump it down. Let's chop it off before it gets out of hand. MR. TRAVER-Well,those are site plan issues, and to Laura's point, do we want to limit all MDR zoning to certain soil conditions or certain? That really is not what zoning is intended. That's really what our job in doing site plan is intended. So if you have a zone,let's say you have a 10 acre parcel and theoretically if this is approved you could put eight buildings on there,but then you come in to us and we say, wait a minute, the soils aren't going to permit that because you're not going to be able to do the stormwater, or some other reason. Maybe you don't have Town septic and you've got to put in the septic system. MR. MAGOWAN-I've been in building trades my whole life. I see it and I've been through the trenches. I have argued with engineers, all right. I've argued with lawyers. It's things that I don't see that come natural. I guess my question is,if this is all really that's left in Queensbury, all right,why do we want to go with the max and allow the max for all the MDR and then fight with the applicants afterwards,you know,at the end. I mean I'm just looking at this particular property and I've had two years to kind of look into it and do my research on it. Not that I'm against any of it. I think it's a great project. So why push it to the max. That's what the applicant wants. Why don't we just start and say,hey,you know,six units, that's what the Town's asked for. MR. TRAVER-Well, I've already expressed my concern regarding density. So I go along with you there, but I think that we need to separate, and mentally it's difficult because you have an applicant sitting in front of us with a specific application, but you have to separate the zoning issue sort of globally from a specific application where we then have the ability to go in and say well maybe the zoning permit system, it's not going to work in our opinion for this particular site and that's where I think we're getting our wires crossed a little bit. MR. MAGOWAN-All right. Being in government and being involved sometimes it just gets very frustrating,but why can't we say six units and if a piece of property comes in the MDR where the soils are better or whatever,then we can say,well,gee,you can put eight units there. MR. TRAVER-Then they would have to get a variance. MRS. MOO RE-They would have to get a variance. They would pursue a variance at that point. MR. MAGOWAN-That's all I want to say. MR. MEYER-If I can just follow up quickly. MR. TRAVER-Sure. MR. MEYER-Those type of considerations are why certain uses, certain zones, create the Special Use Permit system. Soto the extent that the Board likes the layout of this and sees that this project,you know, eight units could work, or something more than six could work and we need to fine tune it, we `re okay with eight but we'll draft in some Special Use requirements to deal with steep slope, to deal with stormwater,to deal with,you know,high groundwater. That's where you can really make a difference in the design a project to a site would be that Special Use. MR. TRAVER-Or a specific project. MR. HUNTINGTON-Exactly. Not necessarily start off on a project that's borderline because we've created a situation where more units ae acceptable,but it's still not enough for the full layout for the project to essentially function. 23 (Queensbury Planning Board 01/17/2023) MR. MAGOWAN-Well my job here is to protect Queensbury. MR. MEYER-I understand that. MR. MAGOWAN Just so we understand that. All right. Thanks. MR. DEEB-I think we go back to the stormwater issue. Each site plan has to have stormwater review. MR. MEYER-And we did it. MR. DEEB-That's what I'm saying. We're kind of duplicating things if we start considering that now, as a condition. MR. TRAVER-We can't theorize what might be in front of us down the road. MR. DEEB-The other thing is,and I don't want to beat a dead horse,but I really would like to get an idea, the zoning change, how many plots of land approximately is that going to affect in the Town of Queensbury? Because I think that's an important issue, and I don't know how we'd do that. We'd have to take a look at,like you say,do a study. MR. TRAVER-We'd have to look at the GIS. MR. DEEB-Yes, and take a peek at it. MRS. MOORE-So you could make that recommendation to the Town Board to make sure that an analysis is done prior to them making a decision. So unless you prefer that it come back. At some point it may come back to this Board for additional recommendation. This was a unique situation where the Board only asked for these specific items. So it's possible that this application may be re-referred for recommendation,but if you want to make the suggestion to the Town Board and they have that analysis done so that they have all that information in front of them when they do, when they potentially make their recommendation, it may come back to this Board. It may not. It doesn't have to come back. It doesn't have to come to this Board at all as we know. MR. DEEB-I would like to see that submitted to the Town to see what we could get. MR. TRAVER-You want that as a recommendation. MR. DEEB-Right, and also, as far as density goes, that's something we'd have to handle later. Once we submit the zoning request,it sounds like you're wanting to work a little bit on the density anyway. So I mean we've got to push it forward. MR. MEYER-Yes. To start to answer your question, we're essentially, if everything goes perfect for my client,we're guaranteed back here a few more times. Once for the final recommendation an SEQR and one for the site plan,and the process has us,you know,spend$100,000 to fully develop an application with all the stormwater numbers. We're here because the site works and everything works,you know,with seven to eight dwelling units an acre project on this parcel. So we're happy to run numbers and off the cuff comments with Stu that he was guessing it was a couple of dozen. I am not speaking for him. I am certain to be wrong,but it's,you know,we've limited the scope and the outward reach of this essentially as much as possible because the ancillary impacts, anytime you change zoning there's always a concern. You try and plan for everything. You always miss something and,you know,I get it and I appreciate it and that's kind of why we're trying to think ahead. So,you know,even if,you know,just to make sure that they look at those numbers before they send it back. We're not losing time, you're not wasting time and energy. You'll see it again. MR. DEEB-That's my concern. MR. MEYER-So it's still,it allows the process to continue to creep forward. MR. DEEB-I just didn't want to make a huge mistake to start with. Just to cover our bases. That's all. Again,I think it's a good project. I like the project. MR. TRAVER-If I could for a minute,if we could go back and look again at the four items that the Town has specifically asked us to comment on. We've had a lot of discussion about density,and I think that that also goes to lot size. We talked a little bit about access. I did not hear any real concerns about access going through Meadowbrook and Ridge as opposed to Quaker. Does anyone have any real concerns about the access on this? MR. MAGOWAN-The only one I'd say is Meadowbrook. You really can't do much on the Ridge Road side because of the property,but that's pretty much far back because the property, that's quite a bit of a 24 (Queensbury Planning Board 01/17/2023) ways back off of Quaker Road,but the front road. I mean I just want to make sure that we have enough for the people coming out. It doesn't jam out really trying to go left,you know,everybody stacking up for the light, because that can be a funny light, and that might be something that we can review, if there's something we can do with that lighting. Because that light doesn't make sense,even after they re-opened Bay Road. I mean I've got it now,but the lights,sometimes they're. MR. MEYER-And the access point was essentially chosen to avoid the pond. To be as far away from the intersection without disturbing the pond because for some reason the Federal government likes that pond. MR. MAGOWAN-Do you have any form of traffic study, an estimate of how many cars you think would be going in and out? MR.HUNTINGTON-We haven't performed a traffic assessment yet. MR. MAGOWAN-Not a traffic study,but how many cars you plan on having inhere exiting. I mean I'm trying to picture all the other apartment areas around. You really don't get any stacking except for really school time. MR. HUNTINGTON-Like I said, we haven't really anticipated any traffic numbers. Just knowing that Quaker Road it's going to be significantly less. MR. MAGOWAN-Because Meadowbrook,right about there,right past that going toward Quaker, splits to a left hand turn and straight up Meadowbrook. MRS. MOORE-I guess one of my thoughts is that they're maintaining it to an arterial road,which I think is a good thing, but I'd also suggest maybe making sure that there's always two access points, and I'm thinking of Weeks Road. MR. MAGOWAN-I like the fact that you have the two options. Like I said overall the layout and everything it's really. I like the community center. I think it would fit in nice, and we do, we definitely need affordable housing. That's the key. Some of these rents I see out there. MR. TRAVER-Well, if I could, let's see where we're at in terms of recommendations that Michael has developed for us and see what Board members think of what we've got so far. MR. DIXON-And this one we still need clarification, recommendations. Density, less than, are we still recommending less than eight units per acre? MR. TRAVER-I would like that recommendation,and I think that Mr. Magowan would. MR.DIXON-Okay. We'd also like to recommend an analysis of MDR sites to determine re-zoning impact. This should include the number of sites potentially impacted. MR. TRAVER-Yes,how many potential properties would be affected by a theoretical change of zoning. I think that's what we're looking for. MR. ETU-The number and location of them. MR. TRAVER-Yes. MR. ETU-A GIS map of where they are. If he's going to do the analysis anyway,he can just print it up. MRS. MOORE-I know George will do it,but I know you have the ability. MR.DIXON-So that'll translate back into a recommendation analysis of MDR sites to include number and location of sites. All right. Applicant should,and it's not just this applicant,but applicant should confirm with Queensbury and Glens Falls wastewater treatment land and sewer connections will be made and access. Should have a minimum of two access points for traffic. MR. TRAVER-Okay. I think the one before the access points,with regard to the septic hookups and so on,that's,again,part of site plan. So I don't think we need to include that in this resolution. MR. DIXON-All right. MR. TRAVER-Because that's something that we would need to review in any case, as well as the Board of Health and the Town Engineer would be reviewing that,and finally we would be for site plan. MR. DIXON-Okay. And then the one we really didn't spend much time on is recreation facilities. So don't know if we have a recommendation on that at all. If they should be required,not required,optional. 25 (Queensbury Planning Board 01/17/2023) MR. TRAVER-We touched on it a little bit briefly in the beginning, whether or not there should be a community center type facility. MR. DEEB-There is a community center on site. MR. MEYER-Correct, but it's whether it should be a requirement. So is it seven and a half acres and a community center,two points of access. MR. DEEB-With a gym,a track. MR. TRAVER-I guess that could be considered at site plan review. MR. DIXON-Okay. So we'll leave that off. MR. TRAVER-So that leaves us with. What are we left with? So far. MR. DIXON-That's really it. So we're talking about the density,less than eight units. Everybody agrees on that. Recommend the analysis to include the number and location of MDR sites and access. The project should have a minimum of two access points for traffic. MRS. MOORE-I'm sorry to interrupt. So one of the questions is, that the Town Board asked is, do you feel that it's consistent with the purpose of the MDR zoning district. So this type of projects,that's one of the questions that was in their resolution. I'm hoping I'm saying that correctly. MR.TRAVER-I think my own feeling with regard to that was requiring the minimum lot size it would be. MRS. MOORE-I'm just wondering if you have a recommendation that. MR. MEYER-It sounds like the recommendation is yes. MRS. MOORE-Yes. Okay. So I think as part of your response back to the Town Board,I would identify that you feel that it is consistent. MR. DIXON-That multi-family dwellings are consistent? MR. ETU-Yes. They seem more appropriate. MR. TRAVER-All right. Board members all heard those recommendations. Did anyone have anything else they want to add as a recommendation? We covered density,access,also lot size,of course. Anything else? And again we will be looking at this at least a couple of more times probably. MRS. MOO RE-So,sorry. It says would a minimum lot size of 10 acres. So do you think it should be less? Do you think it should be more? MR. TRAVER-It also puts a limit on the number of potential projects in other parts of Town. MR. DEEB-Absolutely. MR. TRAVER-Yes. So I think 10 acres. MRS.MOO RE-This is a good question. So the way it's worded it says two roads,versus two access points. This one actually has two roads. My suggestion was just to make sure it had two access points. MR. TRAVER-Yes, and that's what we've included in our recommendation. MRS. MOORE-Okay. MR. DEEB-I think that's what you meant. Two points of ingress and egress. MR. MEYER-Yes. MRS. MOORE-Not necessarily two different roads. All right. MR. TRAVER-So you think we should be that specific, say two roads as opposed to two access points? MRS. MOO RE-Not necessarily. I'm just saying that. MR. TRAVER-Right now we're saying two access points. 26 (Queensbury Planning Board 01/17/2023) MRS. MOORE-That's what I was speaking of. MR. MAGOWAN-You say two roads,there's an attorney that will pick that up and say no,it just has to be on two roads. You didn't say anything about entrances. MR. MEYER-And that's why it's access versus. MR. MAGOWAN-Two accesses, and like I said,if not,then we'd have to go for a variance. MR. TRAVER-Right. All right. So is everyone comfortable with what we've got? MR. DIXON-So do we want two access points from two arterial? MR. TRAVER-Not two roads. Two access points. MR. DEEB-That makes it less complicated. MR. TRAVER-Potentially. All right. So are we ready to hear that resolution,then? MR. DIXON-Let's give it a shot. RECOMMENDATION RE: TOWN BOARD RECOMMENDATION RE: FOOTHILLS BUILDERS WHEREAS,the applicant proposes a zone change of a 10.99 acre parcel from CI to MDR.Project includes zoning language change for the MDR zone specific to the density (would allow up to SO units),lot size, municipal water and sewer connection, and property access. The project work proposed includes demolition of Meads Nursery in order to construct 77 multi-family dwellings, in 4 unit structures, including associated site work, stormwater, landscaping, lighting etc. Pursuant to Chapter 179-9-040, referral from the Town Board where the Town has specifically requested comment on four items: consistency,density,lot size, and access,shall be subject to Planning Board review. WHEREAS, the Town of Queensbury Town Board is proposing a zoning change to Moderate Density Residential(MDR). The Town Board referred this proposed change to the Planning Board for an advisory recommendation pursuant to Section 179-15-020,resolution number 435,2022 dated on 12/5/2022; MOTION FOR RECOMMENDATION TO THE TOWN BOARD AS FAVORABLE FOR ZONING CHANGE FROM COMMERCIAL INTENSIVE (Cl) TO MODERATE DENSITY RESIDENTIAL MDR The Planning Board based on limited review has not identified any significant adverse impacts that cannot be mitigated with this proposal. However have the following recommendations: 1. Multifamily dwellings are consistent with the purpose of the MDR zoning district; 2. We would recommend density being less than eight units per acre; 3. Minimum lot size of 10 acres is consistent and appropriate with the MDR zoning district; 4. Two access points should be required; 5. Recommend an analysis to include number and location of MDR sites; Introduced by Michael Dixon who moved for its adoption. Motion seconded by Brad Magowan. Duly adopted this 17`h day of January 2023 by the following vote: MR. ETU-Do we want to say MDR sites that are a minimum of 10 acres or meet this? MR. TRAVER-Yes,that's what,I mean that's the context we're making the resolution. AYES: Mr. Longacker,Mr. Stark,Mr. Magowan,Mr. Etu,Mr. Deeb,Mr. Dixon,Mr. Traver NOES: NONE MR. TRAVER-You're off to the Town Board. MR. DEEB-Good luck on your long journey. MR. MEYER-Thank you very much,gentlemen. MR. TRAVER-Is there any other business before the Planning Board this evening? If not, I'll entertain a motion to adjourn. 27 (Queensbury Planning Board 01/17/2023) MRS. MOORE-Before the Board leaves,Brad has indicated that he's not able to be here next week. Fritz, will you be able to attend next week's meeting? Because at this point Brad's not going to be able to attend. It's possible that David's not going to be able to attend. So I just want to be sure that the Board understands that we may be short one member. MR. TRAVER-Yes. Okay. All right. Thanks for clarifying that,Laura. Anything else? All right. MOTION TO ADJOURN THE QUEENSBURY PLANNING BOARD MEETING OF JANUARY 17Tx 2023,Introduced by Brady Stark who moved for its adoption,seconded by David Deeb: Duly adopted this 17`h day of January,2023,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,everyone. See you next week. On motion meeting was adjourned. RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED, Stephen Traver,Chairman 2S