Loading...
02-14-2023 (Queensbury Planning Board 02/14/2023) QUEENSBURYPTANNINGBOARD MEETING FIRSTREGUTAR MEETING FEBR UARYI4Tr,2023 INDEX Site Plan No. 66-2022 Alisha&Michael Griffey 2. Tax Map No.239.16-1-23,239.16-1-24 Site Plan No. S-2023 Queensbury Realty Partners 12. ZBA RECOMMENDATION Tax Map No.296.17-1-45 Site Plan No. 33-2021 333 Cleverdale,LLC/San Souci 14. Special Use Permit 2-2021 Tax Map No.226.12-1-43 Site Plan No.7-2023 Marc&Betsy Fuchs 32. ZBA RECOMMENDATION Tax Map No.239.14-1-2 Site Plan No.5-2023 Geraldine Eberlein 34 ZBA RECOMMENDATION Tax Map No.227.17-1-25 FURTHER TABLING Site Plan No. 9-2023 Gary Charlebois 35. ZBA RECOMMENDATION Tax Map No. 303.20-2-1S Site Plan No.10-2023 Sharon Serini 37. Freshwater Wetlands 2-2023 Tax Map No.240.9-1-4 ZBA RECOMMENDATION FURTHER TABLING 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 02/14/2023) QUEENSBURY PLANNING BOARD MEETING FIRST REGULAR MEETING FEBRUARY 14TK,2023 7.00 P.M. MEMBERS PRESENT STEPHEN TRAVER,CHAIRMAN DAVID DEEB,VICE CHAIRMAN MICHAEL DIXON,SECRETARY WARREN LONGACKER NATHAN ETU ELLEN MC DEVITT,ALTERNATE FRITZ STEFANZICK,ALTERNATE MEMBERS ABSENT BRAD MAGOWAN BRADY STARK 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,February 14`h,2023. This is our first meeting for February and our third meeting for 2023. Please make note of the illuminated red exit signs. In the event that we have an emergency of some kind 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 device off so as not to interrupt our proceedings and we also ask, other than during public hearings, if you wish to have a conversation amongst yourselves, if you would please move to the outer room to have that conversation so it doesn't interfere with our taking of the minutes. I also want to note that on our agenda are a couple of items that we anticipate tabling this evening. Neither of them are actually scheduled for public hearing this evening,but just in case there are folks that are here just to hear the presentation on these items,and we will table them as they come up on the agenda,but just to let you know on is an Eberlein application, Site Plan 5-2023. That's going to be tabled until April 1S and Sharon Scrim,this is Site Plan 10-2023. That's going to be tabled until March. So just to advise people of that. MRS. MOORS Just a note with Eberlein. It can be tabled to March. We don't need to table it out. So when you come to that tabling resolution, I don't know, it must have been the second meeting April, or the first meeting in April,it can now be the first meeting in March. MR.TRAVER-Okay. Well maybe you can let us know how the agenda looks for March and we'll use those dates as opposed to what I have for my notes. We have one administrative item this evening, and that is approval of minutes from the December 13`h and December 15`h of 2022 meeting. Does anyone have any corrections to those minutes? I think we have a draft resolution. APPROVAL OF MINUTES December 13`h,2022 December 15`h,2022 MOTION TO APPROVE THE QUEENSBURY PLANNING BOARD MEETING MINUTES OF DECEMBER 13`h&z DECEMBER 15`h,2022,Introduced by Michael Dixon who moved for its adoption, seconded by Warren Longacker: Duly adopted this 14`h day of February,2023,by the following vote: AYES: Mr. Deeb,Mr. Dixon,Mr. Longacker,Mr. Stefanzick,Mr. Etu,Mr. Traver NOES: NONE ABSTAINED: Mrs. McDevitt ABSENT: Mr. Magowan, Mr. Stark MR. TRAVER-We now move onto our regular agenda. The first section of that agenda is Tabled Items, and the first item is Alisha and Michael Griffey. This is Site Plan No. 66-2022. 2 (Queensbury Planning Board 02/14/2023) TABLED ITEMS: SITE PLAN NO.66-2022 SEQR TYPE: TYPE II. ALISHA&z MICHAEL GRIFFEY AGENT(S): EDP (BRANDON FERGUSON). OWNER(S): SAME AS APPLICANT. ZONING: WR. LOCATION: 26 TALL TIMBERS ROAD. (REVISED) APPLICANT PROPOSES A NEW DRIVEWAY CONFIGURATION TO HAVE ACCESS FROM AN ADJOINING LOT FROM ASSEMBLY POINT ROAD. PROJECT WORK INCLUDES 5,470 SQ. FT. OF NEW DRIVEWAY SURFACE WITH STORMWATER MANAGEMENT AND STONE RETAINING WALLS. UPDATES TO THE NORTH SIDE OF THE NEW DRIVEWAY AND ON THE LAKE SIDE. SITE DISTURBANCE IS LESS THAN 15,000 SQ. FT. ADDITIONAL STORMWATER CONTROLS ARE BEING ADDED FOR EXISTING HARD SURFACES. THE EXISTING RESIDENCE AND OUTBUILDINGS TO REMAIN UNCHANGED. THE PROJECT INCLUDES MERGING TWO LOTS. PURSUANT TO CHAPTER 179-3-040, SITE PLAN FOR SITE DEVELOPMENT IN THE WR ZONE FOR A NEW DRIVEWAY AND MAJOR STORMWATER SHALL BE SUBJECT TO PLANNING BOARD REVIEW AND APPROVAL. WARREN CO. REFERRAL: OCTOBER 2022. SITE INFORMATION: APA,LGPC,CEA. LOT SIZE: 1.79 ACRES. TAX MAP NO. 239.16-1-23, 239.16-1-24. SECTION: 179-3-040. STEFANIE BITTER&r BRANDON FERGUSON,REPRESENTING APPLICANTS,PRESENT MR. TRAVER-Laura? MRS. MOORE-This application is the construction of a 5,470 square foot new driveway with stormwater management and stone retaining walls. I noted in the information that the in regards to the applicant,in regards to the stormwater, the applicant updated some information for the stormwater including installation of a three foot wide stone level spreader along the edge of the pavement to assist with the stormwater management. The application materials were sent back to the Town Designated Engineer and the Town Designated Engineer signed off on that amendment. MR. TRAVER-Okay. Thank you. Good evening. MS. BITTER-Excellent. Stefanie Bitter. I'm here, new to the team, with Brandon Ferguson from EDP. Before I turn it over to Brandon to give his presentation. I've had an opportunity to review the minutes of the last two Board meetings relative to this application and kind of just want to give a number of the main points that seem to be articulated in those minutes. Number One,as you know,this project is to allow my client to have a driveway on their property to their residence. This access is a necessity. The current access is not feasible for all purposes,specifically emergency vehicles and that was evident by the incident that occurred last year and there is a letter from the Fire Department articulating that the current access is inadequate and the new access as proposed would be a great improvement and that's what they've identified. Number Two,this driveway has been designed by a professional engineer from EDP. They're well renown in this area. There's been a number of projects in which they've come before the Town of Queensbury which have been presented and have been ideal and have been completely to Code. EDP, before they designed this, did a site visit. They looked at the characteristics of the property. They made sure there was minimal clearing relative to this proposal. The best mitigation measures for the slopes as well as the soils were put into the design as well as the stormwater mitigation. It's been signed off by the Town Designated Engineer not once but twice, and as you know this particular project is relative to the Griffey's project, the Griffey's parcel. I only say that because as many of you who have reviewed the minutes or who were present,there's a lot of discussion about an adjacent land,but this plan that EDP will review with you again tonight will not increase the runoff that's currently happening on this property today. This project won't. This plan will not change the existing flows and he'll describe to you how he'll do that and he'll even have a flow chart demonstrating this. And last I have to say that we don't want to have a second child discussion and I say that in the nicest way,and I'm a second child so I can say that,but we know that there have been problems caused by others and we shouldn't be penalized by the problems that may be existing in the community,and I'd ask you to kind of curtail the discussion so that we're only talking about Griffey's and the EDP plan and the signoff by your Town Designated Engineer and what we're doing to accept and promote the runoff on this property. We're containing it. We're not the Dunton's. We didn't do anything that caused those problems. EDP did not fail on that project. In fact it's already been a fact that the construction company did not adhere to the EDP plan and those are being resolved on a separate note,but what I'm asking you to do is focus on this project and I'm asking you to do that with an assurance and a stipulation,I wish Brad Magowan was here. We're stipulating that we are going to offer to have an engineer certify through the construction that the plan is being followed. My client believes in this plan. EDP believes in this plan,and we're going to do that so that there's no question that we are addressing it in the capacity that we are to address it per Town Code. I'm going to leave it to Brandon,now,to review the project and how's it's evolved and the Board comments and the Waterkeeper's comments. MR.FERGUSON-Good evening. Brandon Ferguson from EDP. So as you know,we've been here a couple of times. Once in October of last year and during that meeting you guys asked us to work with the LaBella 3 (Queensbury Planning Board 02/14/2023) to complete their engineering review. At that point we had just received our first comment letter. So we were not in a signoff with them yet,and then you asked us to reach out to the Waterkeeper on stormwater design and look at some enhanced stormwater designs. After that meeting we worked with LaBella and got a signoff letter. We incorporated some enhanced stormwater design with level spreaders to help try to spread out any flows over the existing ground. At the December meeting there were a number of requests by the Board for additional information. This included looking into additional stormwater measures as recommended by the Waterkeeper, timeline for implementation of concept stormwater around the house, showing snow removal, retaining wall details, ensuring that there was a lot consolidation, looking at a maintenance agreement as well as blasting plans. So this is our current stormwater plan, and I can go over kind of some of the upgrades that were made. The three green areas you see on there, those are the three stormwater infiltration areas. So those are shallow stormwater infiltration. Those that remain are relatively similar to what was always proposed there. And the red lines, which are a little hard to see on there, I apologize for that, along the upper side of the driveway. Those are stone trenches that were designed to convey the stormwater to those shallow infiltration areas, and in having some discussions with the Waterkeeper we altered that design slightly to allow for those to spread out and allow for additional infiltration on the site, and I'll get to that in a second, and the yellow line kind of going down the steeper end of the driveway,that's a riprap swale, and even on the other side going to that stormwater,the great stormwater area over by Old Assembly Point Road,instead of a swale there they're going to have check dams there. These weren't incorporated in our hydro cad analysis,but behind those check dams,stormwater will run into them allowing for additional storage,a little additional infiltration behind those, and then the blue lines on there, we have level spreaders so that if there is any discharge out of these stormwater areas it would get caught up in these level spreaders which would help spread those flows out through the existing soils. So really every area has kind of three kind of backup stormwater areas. It's going to go to the trench which is going to help it infiltrate, the main infiltration areas, and then the level spreaders, before it would ever have the chance to leave the site. So this we worked on with Chris Navitsky the Waterkeeper. I know at the last few minutes we talked about kind of a piping system that would be laid on the ground. We had more discussions with him and I explained our concerns,mostly it was to do with maintenance and feasibility of it,having kind of pipes on top of the ground would easily get crushed by falling trees,frost,UV rays. There's a lot of maintenance and concerns with it, and he,in the end,generally agreed with that. So we kind of worked with him to come up with this. So that infiltration area along the length of that driveway, we're proposing to deepen the stone underneath the conveyance pipe in it by a foot,to a foot. So any water that goes in there is first going to go down into that stone beneath it, and that will allow for some additional infiltration in that area, and then we're also proposing check dams along that to keep the water from just being conveyed through it so that it can kind of stay there and infiltrate into the ground. In larger stormwater events that'll fill up and go into that conveyance pipe and that's when it'll go to those shallow depressions, and our modeling was very conservative. We didn't even actually incorporate that in our model. So our numbers I'll show you shortly are actually quite conservative. MR. STEFANZICK-Is that throughout the 570 feet of the driveway? MR.FERGUSON-So that goes along,if you go back a couple of slides,you'll see that red line kind of along the,right here closer to the property to the north,that's where it would. MR. STEFANZICK-So basically in two areas. MR. FERGUSON-So there's a low area in here near close to Old Assembly Point Road that would be incorporated as well. There's just two areas, and the other areas it actually flows into an open swale. So some kind of stormwater design notes. These revisions were based on discussions between EDP and the Waterkeeper, how to best handle stormwater on the site. They were reviewed by LaBella, the Town Engineer who provided their signoff letter on this project,and really the intent is to try to,all the runoff in the newly created developed area to get into those existing soils on the site in order to most closely match the existing hydrology out there. This is also designed by EDP, a professional engineering firm, and was reviewed by LaBella who's another professional engineering firm to ensure compliance with the Town regulations. So in here this is on the stormwater report. I don't know how closely you guys looked at it, but we looked at multiple design points. We looked at what goes to the lake on the site. We looked at what goes to the property to the north labeled as Dunton on here,then what goes to Old Assembly Point Road, and as you can see for the 10 year storm reducing or maintaining the pre-development runoff rates and volumes for all the required design storm events, and like I said earlier, our modeling's quite conservative. We didn't incorporate the check dams or the additional storage,the swale,and adding those in would greatly reduce these rates as well,but we felt it would be safer to be conservative with the design. So then one of the other things brought up last meeting was some of this concept stormwater we had down around the house and that was implemented in order to meet any requirement that LaBella pointed out in the Town Code that requires major stormwater projects. If there's existing impervious area on the site you had to come up with a concept stormwater design for how you handle that runoff in those areas. So that's essentially what that was,and we kind of broke it out so it's in the stormwater report now and there would be some shallow depressions and some eaves trenches to handle the first half inch off of these impervious areas. I know there were some discussions thrown out like they can implement it over the next 15 years and I know there's talk about wanting a shorter timeline. We've kind of offered up five years 4 (Queensbury Planning Board 02/14/2023) in this plan. We feel like that gives them enough time to kind of come up with if they're going to make some changes to the house to ensure that they're not doing this and then carrying it out the next year. So kind of incorporating,you know,if nothing else happens within five years they'd have to implement these stormwater,but this is all in an area of the site where the project,it's outside of the project area. Sothis is all downstream of it. Sothis, as I said, was to meet that Section 147 in the Town Code. So this is a drainage map and I'll clarify some things. So the area,the green area to the right,that's what's draining to Old Assembly Point Road. The blue area to the left,that's what's draining to the lake. Now this is existing conditions off site. The red area in the middle is what currently drains to the north of the neighboring property,and I know we're trying to not get involved in the whole issue with the Dunton's,but just to kind of show the Board, that existing drainage issue, area of the drainage issue, is highlighted in that yellow circle up top. So the area is red, so the existing house and all that area that we're showing that concept stormwater, none of that goes towards where there's a current issue with drainage. So this is our post development stormwater and as you can see,the green goes to Old Assembly Point Road. The red goes to the property to the north,blue goes to the lake. The area going to the lake really hasn't changed. The area going to the north actually shrank a little bit because some of that's getting conveyed by the new driveway just because the grade we're trying to hold on it to the stormwater area near Old Assembly Point Road. Snow storage was brought up at the last meeting. So we created a plan. We added the plan, areas with snow storage. Obviously this is a residential driveway and they'll probably plow it, snow blow it depending on how they end up removing their snow, weather snow blowing or plowed. We've shown that there's areas along the sides of the road, and once they start to melt they would actually flow into those proposed stormwater management areas as well. Retaining walls. You guys asked for details on retaining walls. These were actually on the original plans,but I just wanted to point out that there are details for retaining wall construction. Behind the retaining wall where that trench,in order to keep water from seeping out from behind that wall we're actually proposing an impervious liner behind that wall to keep water from seeping out. That way it goes down and into those existing soils. As you're probably aware through this project area there's some rock on this site. It is a pretty rocky area. So we are anticipating some blasting being necessary. So there was a blasting plan requested. Sothis is our blasting layout plan and this was taken kind of a little conservative as well because we're assuming that any areas where there's greater than a foot of cut are going to have to be blasted, and that's not always the case. A lot of times this bedrock is broken up enough in there, especially shallow at the surface,but they have to remove some first. So this is a little bit of a conservative plan, but as you can see there would be some blasting on the site. Most of it I've shown is like four foot max. It was my understanding at a conference is that when they do blast they typically, they can't just blast the top foot off. They actually have to go down deeper. I believe four foot I believe is the minimum and they have to blast that for safety reasons so that's why I kind of just started at four feet. So there's always a little bit of over blasting when they have to blast just because for safety reasons they can't just blast a foot off the top. The other remaining items that were asked for were a lot consolidation deed. This was filed with Warren County back in August of 2022 and the maintenance agreement which has been included in the stormwater narrative to get approval because they want to start construction. They'll be executing the sign before the start of construction. Then just quickly touching on emergency services. So right now the current Tall Timbers Road does not meet New York State Fire Code nor the Town of Queensbury Codes for shared drives. So the New York State Fire Code actually requires all driveways serving more than four buildings to be designed as a fire apparatus access road and a fire apparatus road actually needs to be 20 foot in width where the current Tall Timbers is only about eight and a half to twelve and a half. It varies in width. So it's quite narrow. It has a tight turn that we'll get to in a second, and the Town of Queensbury Code also says that shared driveways should have a minimum of 20 feet. So right now that driveway does not meet current standards and by taking it and giving them their own single driveway they wouldn't be shared. While Tall Timbers still wouldn't meet standards, it would make the situation better. So this is kind of Tall Timbers Lane right now. When you first come in,the first house breaks off and then you get to a pretty narrow section. I think it gets to eight and a half,nine feet wide in that section, and then there's a really tight turn around an existing garage to properties to the north,and because of these issues emergency services were not able to get to there to serve these residents not that long ago when they had an emergency call there. So there's already been a kind of a field incident where they couldn't get down it and we've had emergency services review these plans and they think it's a big improvement on helping them get to this site. So I guess in conclusion existing access along Tall Timbers is restricted and doesn't meet current Codes. The proposed driveway will allow for better access to the existing residents as well as allow for improved fire and emergency service access which we had the letter from the fire department. Stormwater management has been designed in accordance with Town Code and has been reviewed and approved by LaBella and revisions were made,I do believe,in accordance with those Planning Board comments at the last meeting. We feel like we've addressed all of your issues at that last meeting. That's the conclusion of my presentation and we'll open it up to any questions. MR. TRAVER-Okay. Thank you. A couple of quick things. I know this is proposed to occur over five years. Is there a,like a phasing plan that you could provide? MR. FERGUSON-The driveway would be built all at once. They would build the driveway and the stormwater right off the bat. The only thing that would be over the next five years would be the concept stormwater stuff around the house. If nothing else happens to the house within five years, if for some 5 (Queensbury Planning Board 02/14/2023) reason they can't decide what they want to do with it,they don't make any other changes,the Board doesn't approve any changes that come before them,they would have to implement that stormwater. MR. TRAVER-So do you anticipate changes being made? MR. FERGUSON-To the house? Yes,I think we'll come forward with changes to the house. MR. TRAVER-Okay. Thank you for that. The other thing was an elevation cross section through the driveway. I didn't see that anywhere. MR.FERGUSON-So we didn't provide a cross section of the driveway. We have the pavement details on the plan. It's a three percent frost load on the driveway. It all cross pitches across the driveway with the stormwater areas. MR. TRAVER-Okay, and when the construction and blasting and so on is done,there will be,well,never mind,you answered my questions. Questions,comments from members of the Board? MR. DEEB-An outside engineering firm is going to do the certification you said? MR. FERGUSON-We said we would certify it,or if they want to hire another engineering firm to do it. MR. DEEB-I wasn't sure if there was an outside or just you doing it. MR. FERGUSON-Yes. We'd come there as they're building it, stop in a few times to make sure they're constructing it correctly,and then at the end do an actual certification of it. MR. STEFANZICK-How about over the five year period? Do you go back periodically, check it out and make sure everything's working? MRS. MOORE-So I apologize maybe it's my confusion, is that the stormwater around the house as required by the Town Code was conceptual and it was specific to area around the house and that's they anticipate over five years that they may implement that,versus the driveway which is,I see what I did. So the driveway itself,they're saying that'll be constructed all at once. There is probably enough opportunity to confirm,to come up with a phasing plan so each time that you need to certify it. My understanding is when,you'll have the pre-construction meeting with Bruce Frank that you may come up with a plan like that,or if the Board feels that it's necessary to come up with that plan sooner,either way,but I think that might be something that Bruce and the contractor and the engineer will design that checklist. MR. FERGUSON-Yes. I mean they would also enter into the stormwater maintenance agreement with the Town as well. So that would ensure that if there was an issue the Town could come out there and enforce it. MR. DEE&Well I guess we gave you a homework assignment and boy did you do it. MR. TRAVER-Other questions,comments? MR. DIXON-I have comments. So I did have a chance to go back there this weekend,and this time I took my truck. That was one heck of a driveway to get around or non-conforming road I guess is how we would put it. So I can really seethe safety risk there. As far as ponding goes,the nice thing about this weekend, we had some rain,I think it was Friday/Saturday. I didn't see any ponding. So I didn't see any concerns at that point. I think you've done a marvelous job. It would be nice if we didn't have to have a driveway there at all,but I really see a safety issue there. MR. STEFANZICK Just out of curiosity, all the blasting, all the material, all the land disturbance, what happens to all of that? Does that get spread throughout the property or thrown away? MR.FERGUSON-Typically with blasting they'll probably be able to use some of that blasted rock to build some of these retaining walls we're showing on there, where necessary, and other than that it's not that usable on site. Sometimes they can use it smaller underneath for some of the fill areas to try and balance out the site more and then the remaining material would be recycled. MR. TRAVER-We do have a public hearing on this application as well. Before I open the public hearing, I just had a couple of comments, some guidelines perhaps for tonight's public hearing. We have taken public hearings on this application twice previously, and we've received a great deal of information not directly related to this application but regarding the history of this area and some of the stormwater issues which at the time was quite useful to us,but I would ask that that history not be repeated. The other thing that obviously has been quite a point is the stormwater plan. Obviously stormwater management is critical anywhere and especially around the lake and especially in the context of this neighborhood. So I would just point out that if you have comments on the stormwater please confine those comments to the 6 (Queensbury Planning Board 02/14/2023) updated proposed stormwater and not the history of stormwater or something that is not is being proposed this evening,and I'd also ask you to take note that although there may be perhaps more than one way to do stormwater,the proposed design has been approved by our Town Designated Engineer. So with that I will open a public hearing. Also I would ask that comments be specific to this project and this property and not issues that are not related to what is before us this evening. I know that we did,in both the first and second public hearing and previous meetings,we did get a lot of history which was helpful to the Board at that time because it gave us a source of context,but I think at this point, since we have that history, we need to focus on the new developments and the response that the applicant has made to the Board and the Waterkeeper's concerns about what was proposed previously and what is currently before us tonight. So with that,let's open a public hearing. I'll ask if there's anyone in the audience that wanted to address the Planning Board on this updated application. Yes,ma'am. PUBLIC HEARING OPEN LORRAINE RUFFING MRS. RUFFING-Good evening. My name is Lorraine Ruffing and I live at 66 Bay Parkway on Assembly Point. Given your instructions I'm going to have to modify my statement,but I would just like you to know that stormwater runoff is a primary and continuous problem on Assembly Point. Now another obvious point is that water runs downhill and I was very grateful that you had a diagram up there showing the mid- section where it is clear that water runs towards the north. Now the Griffey's are asking you to approve the new road for 26 Tall Timbers and the question is,is this road really necessary. There is an access road I understand. It's not the perfect road, but this particular area has important physical characteristics which I'm sure the letter from the Waterkeeper will detail,such as steep slopes,shallow soils and shallow bedrock. All facilitate runoff. And this property already has a large amount of impervious surface from the existing driveway, the house, the shed, the garage, the patio. We learned tonight that stormwater plans include a number of infiltration basins. The question is will these infiltration basins be adequate given their placement and the fact that the slope in some places 250/o and the soil over the bedrock is between eight and twelve inches whereas two feet is required. One issue that you always consider in making your decisions is whether there will be a negative impact on the neighborhood from the development and I think we already have a test case in this particular area and that you have been briefed on it, as you said, in previous meetings, but I would just like to say something from my own personal experience. Very often I've cared,I'm called upon to be a caregiver for Ted Brothers. This winter I could not access the house because of the stormwater conditions which of course turned into a buildup of ice. Now I believe the Town, I'm very grateful for this,has been informed of this particular situation and it is now pressing the property owners for remediation and we were very grateful that John Strough visited the property and assessed it himself. However, I think the Planning Board has to be very sure that we will not have a repeat incident and so I ask the Board to deny this request for a new road given the amount of impervious surface already in this area with such steep slopes and with the risk of increased stormwater runoff from yet another road in a Critical Environmental Area. Thank you very much. MR. TRAVER-Thank you. Is there anyone else that would like to address the Planning Board on this application this evening? Yes,sir. PETER BROTHERS MR. BROTHERS-Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and I will keep my comments brief. I did already submit comments. I won't repeat myself,and first thank you to this Board and fellow Board members, alternates that have been listening previously making decisions on situations with regard to impact and things of that nature. Not always an easy decision and I respect the time that you folks take to try to address these situations. Peter Brothers at 12 Tall Timbers Road. I will mention just here briefly,in addition to what Lorraine was just mentioning,that one diagram with the middle where stormwater was going to be going to the north, and I should highlight, did have correspondence, mentioned a corporate letterhead from Ferrell Gas was informed that they no longer can deliver propane fuel,our home heating fuel,to us because of ice and so in considering this application and I think that the infiltration situation is really,you should address the situation and this situation with us not having the home heating fuel,we have a hardship,and trying not to play favorites we should all be considered equal in this regard and I don't really feel that this road would be necessary and I'll leave the rest of my comments to be read by the Board. Thank you. MR. TRAVER-Thank you. Is there anyone else that would like to address the Planning Board on this application this evening? I'm not seeing any others. Are there written comments,Laura? MRS. MOORE-There are written comments. I'll just ask, Mr. Brothers, do you want me to read this information in? MR.BROTHERS-The Ferrellgas. MRS. MOORE-The Ferrellgas one. So as he indicated there's a letter with information he just provided, and then this letter from Ferrell Gas. "To Whom It May Concern: Ferrellgas was unable to deliver on 7 (Queensbury Planning Board 02/14/2023) 1/12/2023 due to ice buildup on the driveway and property of,12 Tall Timbers Rd.,Lake George,NY 12545. Mr. Brothers has stated this new hindrance is due to his neighbor at, IS Tall Timbers Rd. installing a new drain funneling all stormwater to his property through their shared driveway. If this is the case,the drain will need to be rerouted to prevent the water and eventual ice due to low temps building up on 12 Tall Timbers Rd. Kind regards,Jaeila Preseau,Senior Customer Service Specialist" And then a letter from the Waterkeeper. I'll just identify it. "Although I have offer suggestions to improve the stormwater management plan, some that were implemented,this should not be interpreted as support for the project and the concerns the Waterkeeper presented at the previous meetings remain: amount of disturbance on steep, forested slopes and the ability of the site to provide adequate management for the increased stormwater runoff due to the lack of soils present and shallow depth to bedrock. Negative impacts regarding the proposed plan the Planning Board must considered are: Concentration of stormwater mitigation instead of mimicking natural hydrologic conditions by spreading throughout the site. With the minimal soils present and shallow depth to bedrock,the impacts of increased stormwater runoff will have a greater impact. Although this will be reduced where the check dams can be installed in the infiltration trench, areas remain on the steep slopes where that cannot be implemented, and runoff concerns remain. The amount of blasting for driveway and exposed bedrock will increase runoff, which is not calculated.Soil investigations indicate 6"42" depth to bedrock.However,the plan proposes 5-T cuts for the 19% driveway section which will require significant blasting that will result in increased stormwater runoff. How will this volume be managed? Runoff from the lower 50' of driveway will not have adequate stormwater management.The application proposes a level spreader which appears to be inadequate, especially with the existing grading and the new 19% driveway grade. The necessity of the project is questioned and appears the negative impacts associated with the amount of disturbance on 25- 40% slopes, excessive grading and earthwork proposed, and removal of mature vegetation and root systems will outweigh the recognized benefits. The Waterkeeper recommends that the Planning Board deny the proposed application based on the excessive disturbance and potential negative impacts within the Critical Environmental Area surrounding Lake George. The Lake George Waterkeeper looks forward to working with the Town of Queensbury Planning Board to defend the natural resources of Lake George and its watershed. Thank you for your consideration. Sincerely, Christopher Navitsky,PE Lake George Waterkeeper" MR. TRAVER-Is that it? MRS. MOORE-Yes. MR. TRAVER-Thank you. With that we'll close the public hearing and ask the applicant to return to the table. PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED MR. TRAVER-I just had a couple of follow up questions and again I'll open it up to the Board. It appeared to me from looking at the materials, and I haven't looked at them today,but the stormwater calculations appear to include calculations on the effect of the blasting. Is that not the case? MR. FERGUSON-So we looked at that level spreader on the,to start with the blasting,they have to over blast a little bit in order to get the grade they want. If they blast,if they don't have the shape for what the final grade actually is they need to blast a little bit deeper and that gets covered with soil, six to twelve inches of soil afterwards,which would actually match the existing conditions on site and then when you get down to the level spreader on the left hand side of this, kind of on the other side of Tall Timbers, we designed that to handle the first half inch of runoff from the whole contributing area, not just from the driveway. We're looking at the whole area, as if this whole area was contributing. So we kind of conservatively designed it like that instead of just looking at the full runoff rate out of it. And like I said,it doesn't get, and Mr. Dixon said he was out there. I don't know if there was too much snow cover to tell, but that area right now,if there wasn't snow on it,it looks like a blasted slope. It's all rocks,cobbles,rock outcroppings in that area. So it's not like it's four feet of nice sandy terra that we're taking out. It's existing rock. The existing proposed areas on the site will closely match what's there now. MR. TRAVER-Okay. MR. FERGUSON-It will probably actually be an improvement. MR. TRAVER-Okay, and also, and again obviously I'm not an engineer, but it appeared to me from the numbers that at the conclusion of this project the stormwater runoff off site would actually be reduced. Am I not interpreting that correctly? MR. FERGUSON-That's correct. Yes,per Town Code we're required to reduce the runoff volume for the 10 year storm and the rate for the 25 and we meet both of those. So it would actually be reduced. MR. TRAVER-So that would include the lake. That would include neighboring properties and all the rest. S (Queensbury Planning Board 02/14/2023) MR. FERGUSON-Yes, we looked at the lake. We looked at the property to the north and we looked at the road, all three of them separately to show that we're reducing,we're maintaining the pre-development conditions for each of those areas. MR. TRAVER-Okay. Thank you for that clarification. Additional questions, comments from members of the Board? MR. STEFANZICK-I guess, how do you go about validating the results of your models? I mean your models, all these profiles and everything,the count. You go through your blasting may be different than what's in the model. At the end of the day when everything's done,how do you validate that to make sure your results are correct? MR. FERGUSON-So we actually use a program called HydroCAD which uses a,which is modeled after a, I think it was actually developed by the EPA,TR-5,which is a standardized stormwater modeling system for engineering throughout the Country. So this has been tested on numerous projects and thousands of projects that have been built not just in the State of New York,but throughout the Country. It uses the same modeling techniques that we're using on this site. MR. STEFANZICK-Okay. So then after the project's done, there's no reviews afterwards to make sure that everything that was assumed in the model is working correctly? MR. FERGUSON-So I mean after the project's done, typically there are site inspections by towns and everything as well, towns which, there's large projects which are required to have DEC SPDES permits. They're monitored by towns and everything to make sure everything's functioning properly. So there have been plenty of tests done. I'm sure when they developed the program initially and it's been used for probably 25,30 years at least,HydroCAD, and that system,and I know TR-5's have been used for a while. MR. TRAVER-I can provide some guidance on that as well. The computer algorithms that are used in the HydroCAD model are quite standardized. You'll see them on many of the, if not most of the applications that we review,but to answer your real concern,the Town Designated Engineer looks at the specs that are proposed in terms of stormwater management,looks at the numbers,which has to do with capacity and the nature and the angles and slopes and so on, and also does mathematics and compares the results with their own HydroCAD system and then that's based on the design. For example the depth of a swale,the angle of a slope,the size of the retaining walls,the type of pipe that's being used, all of those types of things, and there are, during construction and following construction,inspections,to make sure that the plan,hypothetically if we approve this plan, the implementation of this plan is monitored by the Town enforcement to make sure that, in fact, what they're saying they're going to do is what is actually done. MR. DEEB-The Town has to signoff. They have to go look at it when it's done. MR. TRAVER-Yes. The engineer has to sign off on what is proposed, and then they also sign off on what they call an as built after the fact. MR. STEFANZICK-I was just really taking some of the comments from the public on is this going to increase what we have now. So I just wanted to kind of make sure I understand. MR. TRAVER-Yes,it's a major concern. The other thing that does happen,I wouldn't anticipate it in this particular application,but from time to time we will see situations where there will be a proposal that we will review and the engineer will review and we may approve it,and then when the actual implementation of the plan takes place, they find that for a variety of reasons they need to make some changes in it, and they come back with a proposal to modify the site plan, which we would then do another review. The Town Engineer would do another review, and it would be almost like a new plan basically. I wouldn't expect in this case that that would happen,but that does happen occasionally. MR. STEFANZICK-Thankyou. MRS.MC DEVITT-So my question is,and I respect the amount,the HydroCAD and all of that information, I do,but what happens if it does fail and all the people have signed off on it? MR. TRAVER-I mean,like what point of failure can you see? I mean there's a lot of different stormwater structures that are proposed. So if a particular structure were to fail it could be modified. MRS. MC DEVITT-Such that it didn't control the runoff the way it's proposed to. MR. TRAVER-If it's designed as proposed and as the EPA model, the HydroCAD model says will work, and the Town Engineer independently does their own analysis,and they say it will work,but in theory the only way that it would not work would be if it was not constructed as designed or as proposed,and it's up 9 (Queensbury Planning Board 02/14/2023) to the Town to make sure that that,in fact it's done the way it's proposed. Now if the applicant's engineer and the Town Engineer and the EPA computer program,the HydroCAD model, all say that it will work and somehow it doesn't work,I've never seen that happen,but there can be,you know,as we all know sort of the planet,and therefore the stormwater issues that arise are almost like a living thing,and there can be changes,not necessarily based on what's being planned today,but say 10 years from now the stormwater situation almost certainly will not be exactly the same as it is today, and as problems arise,particularly as development takes place, there's already discussion about an upcoming proposal to modify a piece of property related to this. So all of the stormwater would be re-looked at and we would have the results of, hypothetically,this implementation between now and when the next development is proposed. So we'd be able to look at that as well. So we not only have a model that's been reviewed and approved,but we begin to have a history of performance. MR. DEEB-My guess is,too,you'd have to take mitigating measures to keep that from happening. MR. TRAVER-Yes. MR. DEEB-End up taking mitigation measures for how it's done, if it fails. Rarely does it fail, but sometimes it does,but then you look at it at that time and say this has to be done. I have a question. The project is certainly not exacerbating the ice problem that's there now. It actually should be making it better because you're going to incorporate more stormwater onto the property. Is that an accurate statement? MR. TRAVER-Less stormwater. MR. DEEB-I mean less stormwater. MR. FERGUSON-Hypothetically I don't know the exact cause of all the existing issues over there on that property. So I can't sit here and say that we're going to make it better. MR. DEEB-It won't be making it worse. MR. FERGUSON-It won't be making it worse. MR. DEEB-I'm just trying to tie this into that propane delivery and whether or not this project goes through,that's not going to change the propane delivery problem that Mr.Brothers has. So I don't know. MR. TRAVER-Because this project is separate. MR. DEEB-Separate and then that's why I want to make sure we discern that. So, all right. MR. DIXON-Mr. Deeb,to your point,so is 26 Tall Timbers,do you have propane at that house as well? MR. FERGUSON-1 don't know offhand. MR. DIXON-The reasoning behind that is if Mr. Brothers is having issues with the pre-existing, non- conforming road,then the driveway itself may alleviate deliveries at your location. As we talked about the driveway, would you be open to making sure that it was never a gated driveway? You talk about safety, fire trucks early on. It was if somebody was to come in on Tall Timbers Road they could potentially come down there. Obviously you don't want everybody traversing it, but if there's no gate, then there's a possibility that if an ambulance came in they could use your driveway in an emergency. MS. BITTER-There's no plans for agate. So I don't see that as being a problem. MR. DIXON-Okay. MR. DEEB-And you'd be open to emergency vehicles using it? MS. BITTER-Absolutely. MR. TRAVER-Other questions,comments? Does the Board feel comfortable moving forward? MR. DIXON-I have a few comments for the Board, or questions. Do we still want to talk about,well the applicant is going to contract with an engineer to ensure the plans are followed. Stormwater plans around the house to be implemented within five years. I didn't see it spelled out. So did we want to include that? MR. DEEB-As it's stated on the plan. MR. TRAVER-That is part of the proposal. 10 (Queensbury Planning Board 02/14/2023) MR. DEEB-And they're not, as far as farming out the engineering, the engineering's going to be done by EDP. MS. BITTER-Right. MR. DEEB-They're not going to,so if you want to put that in there,fine,but. MR. DIXON-Then we'll leave that out. I'm going to put in about the driveway not to be gated. Stormwater plans associated with the driveway to be implemented at time of driveway install. I believe I heard that. MR. TRAVER-That's a requirement. MR. DIXON-And then the applicant also to provide phasing plans to the Town with engineering review and signoff. MRS. MOORE-So I just want to get back to the engineering. If the project goes through, the applicant receives a letter explaining to them that they need to contact our Code Compliance Officer. The Code Compliance Officer meets with the contractor and the engineer,in this case most likely EDP, and sets the stage for what happens next,when are you starting,have you applied for your building permit. So there's a whole other side of it happens once this Board takes action on it. MR. TRAVER-The nuts and bolts. MRS. MOORE-Yes, the nuts and bolts are the applicant has to meet with our Code Compliance Officer, go through the pre-construction meeting with them for site plan code compliance versus building permit code compliance. Two separate tings. MR. DEEB-That's all triggered on approval. MRS.MOORE-That's all triggered on approval,and then in reference to what EDP is saying is that they're certifying certain aspects of the project as it goes through,versus, some projects they'll come at the end. EDP will certify at the end that it's billed as certified. They're indicating that they'll do certain elements of it during the construction, and so that is something that we can work out with our Code Compliance Officer about that timing, or if the Board would like something more specific. Does that help what you were looking for? MR. DIXON-It sounds like it's all covered. MR. DEEB-Yes. MR. DIXON-And as long as it's covered,I don't think we need to add anything. MR. TRAVER-Anything else? All right. We have a draft resolution. RESOLUTION APPROVING SP#66-2022 ALISHA&MICHAEL GRIFFEY The applicant has submitted an application the Planning Board: (Revised) Applicant proposes a new driveway configuration to have access from an adjoining lot from Assembly Point Road. Project work includes 5,470 sq.ft.of new driveway surface with stormwater management and stone retaining walls.Site disturbance is less than 15,000 sq. ft. Additional stormwater controls are being added for existing hard surfaces. The existing residence and outbuildings to remain unchanged. The project includes merging two lots.Pursuant to chapter 179-3-040,site plan for site development in the WR zone for a new driveway and major stormwater shall be subject to Planning Board review and approval. 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 10/25/2022 and continued the public hearing to 2/14/2023,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 2/14/2023; 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, 11 (Queensbury Planning Board 02/14/2023) MOTION TO APPROVE SITE PLAN 66-2022 ALISHA &z MICHAEL GRIFFEY; Introduced by Michael Dixon who moved for its adoption. According to the draft resolution prepared by Staff with the following: 1) Waivers requested granted: g. site lighting, h. signage, n traffic, o. commercial alterations/ construction details, p floor plans, r. construction/demolition disposal reasonable to request as these items are typically associated with commercial projects; 2) The approval is valid for one (1) year from the date of approval. Applicant is responsible for requesting an extension of approval before the one (1)year time frame has expired 3) Adherence to the items outlined in the follow-up letter sent with this resolution a) The limits of clearing will constitute a no-cut buffer zone, orange construction fencing shall be installed around these areas and field verified by Community Development staff, b) If applicable, the Sanitary Sewer connection plan must be submitted to the Wastewater Department for its review, approval,permitting and inspection; c) If curb cuts are being added or changed a driveway permit is required. A building permit will not be issued until the approved driveway permit has been provided to the Planning Office; d) If application was referred to engineering then Engineering sign-off required prior to signature of Zoning Administrator of the approved plans; e) Final approved plans should have dimensions and setbacks noted on the site plan/survey, floor plans and elevation for the existing rooms and proposed rooms in the building and site improvements;- f) If required,the applicant must submit a copy of the following to the Town: a. The project NOI (Notice of Intent) for coverage under the current "NYSDEC SPDES General Permit from Construction Activity"prior to the start of any site work. b. The project NOT(Notice of Termination)upon completion of the project; c. The applicant must maintain on their project site,for review by staff: i. The approved final plans that have been stamped by the Town Zoning Administrator. These plans must include the project SWPPP (Storm Water Pollution Prevention Plan)when such a plan was prepared and approved; ii. The project NOI and proof of coverage under the current NYSDEC SPDES General Permit,or an individual SPDES permit issued for the project if required. g) Final approved plans, in compliance with the Site Plan, must be submitted to the Community Development Department before any further review by the Zoning Administrator or Building and Codes personnel; h) The applicant must meet with Staff after approval and prior to issuance of Building Permit and/or the beginning of any site work; i) Subsequent issuance of further permits, including building permits is dependent on compliance with this and all other conditions of this resolution; j) As-built plans to certify that the site plan is developed according to the approved plans to be provided prior to issuance of the certificate of occupancy. k) This resolution is to be placed in its entirety on the final plans. 1) The driveway will not be gated. m) Stormwater plans associated with the driveway to be implemented at the time of driveway installation. n) Applicant to provide phasing plans to the Town with Town Engineer review and signoff. Motion seconded by Nathan Etu. Duly adopted this 14`h day of February 2023 by the following vote: AYES: Mr. Dixon, Mr. Longacker,Mrs. McDevitt,Mr. Stefanzick, Mr. Etu,Mr. Deeb,Mr. Traver NOES: NONE ABSENT: Mr. Magowan, Mr. Stark MS. BITTER-Thank you so much. MR.ZAPPER-Mr. Chairman,before we get started,I wonder if we could switch the order of the next two, because I have both, and the second one is a recommendation that I think will take five minutes and the San Souci will probably take a while. MR. TRAVER-Are you talking about the Fuchs? MR. ZAPPER-No, Queensbury Realty Partners. The WellNow to replace the Gambles Bakery. Just so my client and engineer can head back to Albany. MR. TRAVER-According to my agenda,those are the next two. MR. ZAPPER-Yes,but can we switch the order? 12 (Queensbury Planning Board 02/14/2023) MR. TRAVER-I see what you're saying. My apologies. Go ahead. So then next we're going to hear Queensbury Realty Partners,Site Plan 8-2023. This is a recommendation to the Zoning Board of Appeals. So we'd be looking only at the variances requested tonight and not doing Site Plan Review at this point. PLANNING BOARD RECOMMENDATIONS TO THE ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS: SITE PLAN NO.8-2023 SEQR TYPE: TYPE II. QUEENSBURY REALTY PARTNERS. AGENT(S): BOHLER ENGINEERING. OWNER(S): JOHN JAROSZ &z ANNE JAROSZ. ZONING: CM. LOCATION: 920 STATE ROUTE 9. APPLICANT PROPOSES A DEMOLITION OF THE EXISTING BUILDING TO CONSTRUCT A NEW SINGLE STORY 3,516 SQ. FT. MEDICAL BUILDING. THE SITE WORK INCLUDES A NEW PARKING AND ACCESS TO SWEET ROAD. THE PLANS INCLUDE NEW LANDSCAPING, LIGHTING AND STORMWATER MANAGEMENT. PURSUANT TO CHAPTER 179-3-040, 179-7-050, 179-8-050, SITE PLAN FOR NEW CONSTRUCTION AND SITE WORK IN A CI ZONE SHALL BE SUBJECT TO PLANNING BOARD REVIEW AND APPROVAL. VARIANCE: RELIEF IS SOUGHT FOR SETBACKS. THE PLANNING BOARD SHALL PROVIDE A RECOMMENDATION TO THE ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS. WARREN CO. REFERRAL: FEBRUARY 2023. SITE INFORMATION: TRAVEL CORRIDOR. LOT SIZE: 0.51 ACRES. TAX MAP NO.296.17-1-45. SECTION: 179-3-040,179-7- 050,179-8-050. JON ZAPPER, REPRESENTING APPLICANT,PRESENT MR. TRAVER-Laura? MRS.MOORE-The application is to remove the existing Gambles single story building to construct a 3,516 square foot medical building. The site work includes a newparking area and access to Sweet Road. There are setback variances to Sweet Road in regards to the building being proposed and in the future there will be most likely a Sign Variance application,but right now from this Board it's a setback variance. MR. TRAVER-Okay. Thank you. MR.ZAPPER-Thankyou For the record with Caryn from Bohler Engineering,project engineer and Jared George on behalf of the applicant is here as well. So very simply Gambles has been on that corner of Sweet Road and Route 9 for generations and obviously designed before Wal-Mart and before the road was as busy as it is. So it's a site with constraints because the traffic light,and right now Gambles has a curb cut, a very wide curb cut, on Route 9, which is not something that could be approved today because it's too close to the intersection. So in looking at this site to replace the building,they want to have the driveway and the parking behind the building, have the building in front closer to the road so that they can have traffic access,and because it's a corner lot you have two fronts and two rears. So it just makes its impacts, under the Code,larger,but we think what we're proposing,a medical office building,that it's not that busy and there's one right now in Glens Falls by the CVS and they have a traffic control and to get it away from the intersection,get it away from Route 9,is much better and that's the reason for the variances. We'll be back for stormwater and landscaping,but it's a nice neat little site. MR. TRAVER-Lighting is one of the concerns that I had. Just to give you a heads up. MR. ZAPPER-Certainly. So with that I'm just going to ask Caryn to just walk you through the site plan. CARYN MLODZIANOWSKI MS.MLODZIANOWSKI-Thank you. For the record,Caryn Mlodzianowski with Bohler Engineering and as Laura and Jon both mentioned,we think this is a great use for a re-development of the property. We're actually going to be reducing the size of the building from what's there today to about 3500 plus or minus square feet and we believe that the location and orientation of the building fits in well with the corridor, with other buildings closer to the road,but with ample green space between the building and road,unlike what's there today,which is essentially a sea of asphalt on both Route 9 and Sweet Road. So we are closing the Route 9 access,proposing a sidewalk extension, a couple of trees and grassed area up front. We're also proposing a sidewalk connection from the intersection to the facility,as you can see on the north side. So that sidewalk would be here on the north side. Entrance to the facility is here,and then all of the parking behind the building along Sweet Road. We are consolidating, again, an existing sea of asphalt as I'll call it leading into Sweet Road with two curb cuts that are here for adequate circulation. There are 29 parking spaces proposed to serve the facility and we are increasing green space slightly. Water and sewer serve the site today. So we will re-use and improve those connections for the use. Our stormwater area is proposed under the parking lot with a series of chambers and pipes over here and everything ultimately makes it this way today. As Jon mentioned we need setbacks. So there's essentially,because of the size of the lot and the Travel Corridor Overlay and setbacks, this is our buildable area here. So requesting setbacks both from Sweet Road, Route 9 and to the south here. The majority of that is in existing non- 13 (Queensbury Planning Board 02/14/2023) conformance today. So we will be seeking those variances and are looking for that recommendation this evening. MR. TRAVER-Okay. Thank you. Questions,comments from members of the Board? MR. DEEB-It looks like a nice project. It's going to improve the corridor quite a bit. MR. STEFANZICK-What's the difference between this and the Urgent Care basically across the street from there? MR. ZAPPER-It's essentially the same use. MR. STEFANZICK-The same use. The other question is on the backside of the boundary there's like this rundown,broken guardrail. It's coming off of Sweet Road. Is that part of this project, or is that part of the driveway that goes for the hotel? MS. There's one over here. That one is off. We would have a new one for us. MR. TRAVER-The only comment I would have is we have seen in the past,it doesn't happen all the time, but we have seen in the past that when there's sort of an uplift to an area it tends to prompt other property owners to take a look at maybe improving things a little bit. There's no requirement to do that, but it sometimes happens that way. MR. STEFANZICK-I think it'll look nice. MR.DIXON-I have a comment. First of all,full disclosure,I work for a hospital. Not the local one,but the one that actually owns the Urgent Care that's just up the road. The project itself, I didn't see anything going on there,but I'll just throw a comment out there, since it is a recommendation. I'd encourage you to try to work with the local hospital as well,too. I have a pet peeve out there that everybody's opening up urgent cares. They're opening up imaging centers and hospitals right now, especially post pandemic, virtually all of them are in debt. They're in jeopardy of going belly up, and I view that hospital locally as an asset to our community, and I'd hate to see something else chip away at it. Having said that,urgent cares have a place. They complement hospitals often times,but as we get into the site plans and maybe you'll be able to elaborate a little bit more on diagnostic testing,things of that nature that are going to go on in there,but I'd appreciate it if you looked at what you can do with the local hospital,possibly even talk with them. Again, I think you're going to probably complement their services, but I've said my peace. Thank you. MR. TRAVER-Other comments? Are there any concerns about the variances that are requested that we want to forward to the ZBA? MR. DEEB-It's a non-conforming site anyway. MR. TRAVE R-Right. Okay. All right. I guess we're ready to hear that motion. RESOLUTION RE: ZBA RECOMMENDATION RE:AV#6-2023 QUEENSBURY REALTY PARTNERS The applicant has submitted an application for the following: Applicant proposes a demolition of the existing building to construct a new single story 3,516 sq. ft. medical building. The site work includes a new parking and access to Sweet Road. The plans include new landscaping, lighting and stormwater management.Pursuant to chapter 179-3-040,179-7-050,179-5-050,site plan for new construction and site work in a CI zone shall be subject to Planning Board review and approval. Variance: Relief is sought for setbacks. The Planning Board shall provide a recommendation to the Zoning Board of Appeals. The Town of Queensbury Zoning Ordinance,per Section 179-9-070 J 2 b. requires the Planning Board to provide a written recommendation to the Zoning Board of Appeals for projects that require both Zoning Board of Appeals&Planning Board approval; The Planning Board has briefly reviewed and discussed this application,the relief request in the variance application as well as the potential impacts of this project on the neighborhood and surrounding community,and found that: MOTION TO MAKE A RECOMMENDATION ON BEHALF OF THE PLANNING BOARD TO THE ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS FOR AREA VARIANCE 6-2023 QUEENSBURY REALTY PARTNERS,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. 14 (Queensbury Planning Board 02/14/2023) Motion seconded by Warren Longacker.Duly adopted this 14`h day of February 2023 by the following vote: AYES: Mrs. McDevitt,Mr. Stefanzick,Mr. Etu,Mr. Deeb,Mr. Dixon,Mr. Longacker,Mr. Traver NOES: NONE ABSENT: Mr. Magowan, Mr. Stark MR. ZAPPER-Thanks,everybody. MR. DEEB-Good luck. MR. TRAVER-The next item on the agenda is 333 Cleverdale, LLC/San Souci. This is Site Plan 33-2021 and Special Use Permit 2-2021. TABLED ITEMS: SITE PLAN NO. 33-2021 SPECIAL USE PERMIT 2-2021 SEQR TYPE: TYPE II. 333 CLEVERDALE, LLC/SAN SOUCI AGENT(S): HUTCHINS ENGINEERING — TOM CENTER. OWNER(S): SAME AS APPLICANT. ZONING: WR. LOCATION: 333 CLEVERDALE ROAD REVISED: APPLICANT REQUESTS APPROVAL OF OUTDOOR SEATING AREA OF 12 SEATS FOR THREE TABLES. PROJECT INCLUDES A NEW ARRANGEMENT FOR REFUSE, 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 179-3-040 &z 179-4-090 &z 179.10, FOOD SERVICE IN A WR ZONE SHALL BE SUBJECT TO PLANNING BOARD REVIEW AND APPROVAL. CROSS REFERENCE: AV 38-2009, SUP 45-2009, SUP 9-2012, AV 28-2012, AV 28-2021, AV 32-2021. WARREN CO. REFERRAL: MAY 2021. SITE INFORMATION: LGPC,APA,CEA. LOT SIZE: .27 ACRE. TAX MAP NO.226.12-1-43. SECTION: 179-3-040,179-4-090,179-10. JON ZAPPER &TOM CENTER, REPRESENTING APPLICANT,PRESENT MR. TRAVER-Laura? MRS. MOORE-The applicant has provided some updated information specific to the refuse area, installation of turf area, and permeable pavers. I note under site design, the dumpster location has been situated to be along Mason Road with a 245 square foot dumpster pad. The dumpster is to be enclosed with an eight foot by twelve foot with six foot high green slated chain link fence. The dumpster area is now limited to recycled oil container and cardboard dumpster recycling unit. All other restaurant waste is to be disposed of in typical plastic tote bins picked up once a week on the Cleverdale Road side. I suggested that we note the number of totes to be noted on the plan and maybe at a minimum and maximum and location to be noted on the plan, and then in regards to the landscaping,it's noted that, and this was indicated previously,the privacy fence for the outdoor eating area,there's plantings to be installed four to five feet tall arborvitae near the dumpster enclosure. The outdoor lights were examined. There's nine fixtures, all downcast lights. There are string lights along the eaves that are to be placed on timers to be turned off every night. I just note under grading and drainage,the plans show the area for the reinforced turf and permeable pavers. MR. TRAVER-Okay. Thank you. Good evening. MR. ZAPPER-Good evening, everyone. For the record,Jon Lapper with Tom Center from Hutchins Engineering. So just to recap, I know you know this, the Sans has been here about 70 years. It was purchased a few years ago by a number of local families so it could stay as a tavern for the neighborhood. They're mostly retired folks that had an interest in maintaining this especially so that it will be open at least part time during the winter for everybody to gather. Carl Weiner is here. He's one of the owners, acting as the manager for the ownership group at this point. When we were here before the end of the year you sent us home with a list of items which Laura talked about. The neighbors had asked that the garbage container be moved to the Cleverdale Road side from the Mason Road side and we were able to do that. Tom will get into the detail,but rather than have a dumpster that didn't have the totes because the power lines on that side it wasn't possible to pick up the dumpster,but that should accomplish what the neighbors want with moving the garbage farther away from where the homes are. The homes on Cleverdale are primarily closer to the lake and farther away and the garbage will be picked up more frequently. In general as Laura said there's more landscaping,more turf,new trees,better permeability. So just trying to improve what's there and address the lighting issues and timing that you had asked us to address. 15 (Queensbury Planning Board 02/14/2023) MR. CENTER-In regards to the dumpster, we did contact the waste hauler and because there's a power line that runs across the back right here the owner of the company did not feel it acceptable that his guys would remember every time that they just backed up that there was a power line and maybe they had to back up further, that it was a safety issue. They couldn't guarantee that they wouldn't rip down the overhead power. So what Mr. Weiner did, and he's actually implemented this right now, is switch his dumpster for the garbage to eight totes that are located along the back of the building of the building here, similar to what you have at home. These are plastic totes that have a closeable lid that can be exchanged out easily if they become soiled and smelly and what not in the summertime. He's worked out with the trash hauler. He can replace them as they, if they become an issue of the odor. We did re-locate the dumpster pad to the top corner up here, and that was only for cardboard products, and then the other container is for the fryer grease,which is a sealed container that's on top of the concrete pad. It's not open to the environment. It's a sealed metal container. As far as the patio, the existing patio that's on the residential portion,we've shown that for the patio pavers to be removed as requested and lawn to be put back in its place. We have increased the permeable grass parking area in this area so that there is no increase in permeability. Actually there's a slight decrease in permeability. We also, there was one comment in regards to handicap parking. We're going to place a handicap parking sign in this area. The handicap entrance is right there. Obviously we can't stripe the parking lot. It's gravel,but we can at least move forward and at least put a handicap parking sign there so that we can try to comply with the request that was made by one of the members. We looked at all the lighting. The majority of the lighting is all small little downcast lights. This right here is the only wall pack. It is under the eaves and it's downcast in that area. And then the patio, as we talked about before,is the three tables right here, three 4 person tables on a permeable patio in that area with a small four foot privacy fence around it. And the hours of operation for that, as we talked last meeting, would be ending outdoor patio dining at 9 p.m.. on the weekdays and 10 p.m. on the weekends, and I know there were some questions in regards to the number of seats. It's 105 seats total per the Town Fire Marshal. The facility has a waiting area on the first floor that was originally for 10 people and a second floor seating area for S3 maximum. With the inclusion of the 12 outdoor seats, combined with the total indoor seating of 93, we meet the maximum of 105 seats as determined by the Town Fire Marshal. So there is no increase in seating as was discussed at the last meeting and it's in line with that variance for the parking that we already have. I think that covers all of the comments and requests that we had at the last meeting. MR.TRAVER-Hours of operation. I think we had a discussion about closing the,I know you talked about the outdoor operation,which you've mentioned and adjusted,but I think we also talked about closing the indoor. MR. ZAPPER-We did, and it wasn't in our submittal, but we've talked to Carl about it and he's here to discuss it,but what he would propose would be one o'clock during the summer and midnight the rest of the year. Right now there's no limit. MR. TRAVER-So twelve a.m. MR. CENTER-And that was Memorial Day to Columbus Day. MR. TRAVER-One a.m.from Memorial Day to Labor Day? MR. ZAPPER-To Columbus Day because that's the season. MR. TRAVER-Columbus Day. MR. ZAPPER-And then midnight the rest of the year. MR. TRAVER-Okay. Thank you. Questions,comments from members of the Board? MR. LONGACKER-I didn't see where you pointed to those eight totes,if you don't mind. MR. CENTER-Along the back wall. MR. LONGACKER-Is that going to interfere with any parking in that area? MR. CENTER-No,there's adequate room there. MR. LONGACKER-Would you consider maybe more than just a once a week pickup for that? MR. ZAPPER-I talked to Carl about that as well, and if that's necessary certainly in the summer,he'll do that. MR. LONGACKER-Thank you. Second question, kind of in that same area in there, there's a generator that's out there. It looks like it may be in that one northerly parking spot. I don't see the generator listed. It also references a timber wall I think here, and I think it's a stone wall out there. I don't know if that's 16 (Queensbury Planning Board 02/14/2023) going to,the plan here doesn't necessarily represent that here. So I don't know if that wall's in that exact spot or not. The generator there does look like it's in that last parking spot. MR.CENTER-I believe that the stone wall that was done previously is maybe a little further back. I don't have a location on the generator. We certainly can show it on the final plans. MR. LONGACKER-It would be good just to see if it does interfere with that parking. MR. TRAVER-Other questions,comments? There is a public hearing on this application as well. Before I open the public hearing, again I would like to remind folks in the audience that we've taken a good deal of public comment on this. They have made some revisions to the plan. So I'd just ask that folks focus their comments on the current plan, not history and prior proposals, and with that I'll open the public hearing. Traditionally there's a three minute time limit. I usually try to give people some slack on that, but if it gets to be an issue,we can always implement that. So we'll go ahead and open the public hearing. Is there anyone in the audience that wanted to address the Planning Board? Yes,sir. PUBLIC HEARING OPEN BILL KIMMONS MR.KIMMONS-Good evening. MR. TRAVER-Good evening. MR.KIMMONS-Hi,Board. All right. Bill Kimmons and we live at,my family lives at S7 Mason Road. MR. TRAVER-Okay. MR. KIMMONS-We the residents of S7 Mason Rd remain opposed to the plan for modification of the special use permit for the Sans Souci Restaurant. While we appreciate the applicant addressing the odor issue with the garbage dumpster,their current proposal is still in violation of zoning regulations,refer to our letter dated 10/1S/22 from that particular meeting we had before. The planning board is required to consider the public health, safety and general welfare of the community. The placement of the dumpster pad with the required fencing was discussed at length at the October 1S,2022 meeting. Apparently it fell on deaf ears. They are still placing the dumpster corral for cardboard and grease on the edge of Mason Road. Mason Road is actually the north side. This is Mason Road. This is Mason Street. Cleverdale is a community that has a lot of pedestrian traffic, bike riders and children playing. The position of the dumpster and required fencing obstructs the line of sight and creates a traffic hazard. The 2009 special use permit required, and rightly so, the plantings on the south side of the property to be 20 ft. from the roadway. The north side of the property is now a concern to pedestrians. The blind curve Mason Rd, Mason Rd going to Mason Street, just exacerbates the whole problem. The same standards from 2009 should be applied now. It should be noted the applicant has failed to comply with the board's request, from 10/1S/22 to submit a complete site plan.The board specifically asked for the generator and utility pole to be reflected. They're not. The septic holding tanks and propane tank should also be reflected. This is important for the board to see how this property is already over built.The proposed site plan should reflect the placement of the garbage receptacles,as we've discussed the last few minutes,on Cleverdale Road. The dimensions of the proposed outdoor seating area should also be reflected on the site plan. With regard to the outdoor seating the applicant seems to think they are entitled to modify the special use permit to include outdoor dining.The property,though,was bought fully knowing that there were limitations. That is an indoor dining facility. MR. TRAVER-Excuse me,sir,you're re-stating elements of public comment that we've already heard. Do you have a public comment specifically on this application? MR.KIMMONS-Yes,I do, and I've been very brief. That's why I keep dating back, referring back to that meeting so I don't have to go, and as you can see I have very little left. Okay. So the only time that there was outdoor dining was during COVID. Everybody looked the other way. Everybody did a good job with that as a community. All right. The floor area ratio of the Sans is currently 350/o. This far exceeds the total allowed for the site of 220/o,although open decks are not considered in the square footage for FAR,it is important to note in order to illustrate how the property is maxed out. Under the current regulations this building would not be approved. In essence,the creation of outdoor seating area is only creating more usable space, which further encroaches on the neighbors. Comments from people that live closest to the Sans should be given the most weight. We the people that live with it,day in and day out. The five houses directly across the street from the Sans, S7,S9,93,95,97 Mason Road, are all strongly opposed to outdoor seating. Outdoor dining will also negatively impact our property values. If the Sans wants more seating they should reconfigure their current inside space which was discussed at the last meeting as well, especially the basement area. You should not permit them to expand to the outdoors. They're not entitled to this change at the expense of our neighbors. We respectfully request that the Board decline the permit for outdoor dining. Thank you. 17 (Queensbury Planning Board 02/14/2023) MR. TRAVER-Thank you. Is there anyone else that wants to address the Planning Board on this application? Yes,ma'am. CAITLIN MILLER MS. MILLER-Hi,my name's Caitlin Miller, and I'm one of the owners at 93 and 91 Mason Road. So our property is this back lot here and we share this border with the Sans as well. On our back lot we also share the eastern side of the border with the property also owned by the same owners but one that we're not discussing tonight. This Board has heard me speak in detail on many occasions. So I've made a list,just a bullet list in the interest of time. This new proposal is largely the same as the previous proposal with the addition of a four foot privacy fence and a new handicapped parking sign. All of our previous issues of parking,noise,lighting,garbage location and Code compliance do still remain in various quantities. The proposed new fence around this new area won't do anything to limit sound, and the handicap sign is useless since the entrance is still not meeting Code for handicap access. It is crushed stone. So you still can't push a wheelchair through that to get to the door. So a sign doesn't make a difference. The dumpster is still proposed to sit on the roadside and while it may be cardboard only,it will still cause the same issues of visibility. When we installed our fence on our property,we were required to have a fence that was four feet or lower to address the visibility. We're talking about a fence surrounding this dumper that is eight feet. I don't know why that would be any different,visibility wise,versus our fence which is right next to it. Additionally one of the members of this Board at the last meeting mentioned that the oil/waste container does actually have quite an intense smell as well as the dumpster. That is still being proposed to move closer to our residential property when we already have an odor issue. Once again we're faced with the issue of who will enforce how many seats are inside versus outside to meet the capacity of 105. I previously showed photos of the waiting area that they reference and it is a storage room. It's still a storage room. To continue to offer this as a customer overflow solution is ridiculous and the owners know it won't be enforced. Finally and most importantly these plans are smoke and mirrors. This Board has overlooked the main issue time and time again. The Sans is not and has not been in compliance with the requirements of their current Special Use Permit. They are not meeting Code with the lack of handicap entrance and their current dumpster set up. This should be a deal breaker, full stop,regardless of what they promise to do in the future. Three generations of my family have watched various owners of this property wiggle their way through regulations and the current owners have done the same and then some. Each time we meet in this room the Board and the owners engage in a let's make a deal discussion to come to a compromise with the residents. The things that the Sans are proposing and promising are not optional. They're requirements for the operation of the business and required for compliance with their Special Use Permit. You cannot use base level requirements as bargaining chips to take further advantage of a property that is already in non-compliance. The Sans owners have proven their promises to change and comply are bold faced lies year after year and the fact that we're even considering granting them further permissions is astounding to me. Do not approve this plan and please do not continue to table this issue. My neighbors travel here from hours away and out of state to be here month after month and we are sick of it. Please deny these applicants once and for all. Thank you. MR. TRAVER-Thank you. Is there anyone else that wants to address the Planning Board on this application? Yes, ma'am. I'd just like to comment, although I did ask that we not review previous comments from previous meetings,we're still hearing that tonight. So I'd ask you the same,to not repeat the same information that we've already been presented several times. If you have new comments related to the new plan,we would very much like to hear them. ANNE CAMPBELL MRS. CAMPBELL-Stop me at any point if I'm going the wrong way. Okay. MR. TRAVER-Okay. MRS. CAMPBELL-My name is Anne Campbell. I am a lifelong,year round resident of Cleverdale. I have also worked at the Sans for 25 plus years for the last four owners, one of which is my family. I also have direct knowledge of what it is like living next to the Sans,as I lived in the A-frame for six years. I did not attend the last meeting in October, but I was highly offended, as were a lot of my neighbors, at the characterization that the Sans is a bad neighbor. I agree that the garbage issue is an issue. I believe it's being taken care of. I find it kind of ironic that the Mason Road, Mason Street I've never heard of,Mason Road people are just shifting it to the Cleverdale Road side people. So it's apparently on their backyard anymore. Having worked for the last four owners,I can tell you they each had their own way of operating. Each one of them cared about the community. For examples,meals have been delivered to older neighbors, ones that have been sick,hurt. They make sure that patrons,if they need a ride home,they get a ride home. Recently an older neighbor we had that was having some trouble coming to the Sans late at night. I can tell you that owners and employees made sure that that neighbor got home and practically tucked into bed. I can't count how many locals have been employed, along with our children. The Sans has always donated to proms,golf tournaments,fire department,rescue squad,our annual Easter egg hunt. 18 (Queensbury Planning Board 02/14/2023) MR. TRAVER-Excuse me. That's very interesting,but it's not really relevant to the application. MRS. CAMPBELL-I just want to show the support along with 70 of my other residents. MR. TRAVER-I appreciate it. MRS. CAMPBELL-Years past they've opened the doors for annual Christmas sing-a-longs, pot luck. They've given money to goodwill. They've hosted our weddings, memorials,birthdays. They've been a well-established part of the lives of the people that make their home here, not visiting for six, eight, ten weeks in the summer. The newest owners make it a priority to do spring, summer,fall clean up. They also help out with annual Cleverdale Road clean up and are volunteers in our fire department. Can the same be said about the neighbors complaining about an operation that has been around far longer than they have been since they purchased the house. The Sans was there. They purchased their house afterwards. The bar was there. I'd agree years past it was louder. It's tame in comparison. It's a safe place we all can go and meet up as neighbors. I do also have,it's clearly not very official,but I have about 70 names and signatures from locals,natives,people that have spent their entire lives there, and I can read the names,I can provide them to you. MR. TRAVER-Are these signatures in support of the application? MRS. CAMPBELL-They're in support. They're in support of the Sans Souci. MR. TRAVER-Would you be willing to submit that to Staff so it's part of the record? MRS.CAMPBELL-Absolutely. And I don't have addresses,but I can tell you where everyone lives. Thank you. MR. TRAVER-Okay. Thank you. Is there anyone else that wanted to address the Planning Board? Yes, sir? AUDIENCE MEMBER-Can I just make a quick comment? The addresses are very important on those.. NICK GAZETOS MR. GAZETOS-Nick Gazetos,97 Mason Road. I've been to a number of these meetings and like you said there's been a lot of the same things repeated over and over again. They're asking for a bunch of seats. That's what they're asking for,but we still have the primary issues which are parking. They can't monitor the additional seats. There'll be more people than there are today going to the Sans. The hours of operation continue to be an operation. That was discussed at the last meeting. We've already heard that they've backtracked on that. I agree with the young lady that it was a neighborhood tavern,but that's not what they're trying to do now. They're trying to make it a destination venue with facility. Thank you. MR. TRAVER-Thank you. I saw another hand. Yes,ma'am. DEBORAH MILLER MRS. MILLER-Good evening. I'm Deborah Miller. I live at 93 and 91 Mason Road and for the record I've been therefor 49 years. Sol am not a summer flyby. MR. TRAVER-You live there year round? MRS. MILLER-Yes. The majority of the things I wanted to say have already been said. I did want to say that in 2009 when the variance was given for them to have the pizza place put underneath there was a stipulation that they had to have double doors,two sets of doors,entering the Sans,which they have. They were supposed to remain closed so that it would reduce the sound coming out of the Sans Souci. MR. TRAVER-In 2009. MRS. MILLER-In 2009. Those doors under this ownership, the outside doors are propped open every single night that they are open. So when the second set of doors open we hear the music and the televisions and the people having a nice time. I am not opposed to the functioning of the Sans Souci,but when my family purchased it in 1974,we knew what we were getting and it was a dive. It was a lot of fun. It was fights in the parking lot. We knew exactly what we were getting. Every owner made sure that those doors were closed and then,when it became an issue,two sets of doors were required. You are now talking about putting those people outside. In 2009 the condition for having that building upgraded was to have double sets of doors so that we didn't have to listen to them. Now you're talking about putting people outside. We had two years of COVID. We know what it was like. We tolerated it. It was fine. In terms of we tolerated it. 19 (Queensbury Planning Board 02/14/2023) MR. TRAVER-We'll ask them about the doors. Anything else? MRS. MILLER-I really wish you wouldn't interrupt, but I'll get to more points. The location of the propane tank that functions to serve the Sans Souci remains in the next door neighbor's property, their property,but in the actual physical property of the residents next door. In the middle of the lawn. If they have room to put outside dining, why are they not required to separate the two businesses the business from commercial and residential? The same thing was brought up by you, sir, about the precariously set generator. They have not had a survey. So we don't know exactly where their property runs,that when I go down and look at that area,the patio outside that they're proposing to have there would not fit chairs and table. As soon as you sat down you'd put your chair out and you'd actually be on the next property over. His idea of having grass next door and a privacy fence, I took a picture of what he calls a four foot privacy fence. It's metal rungs, four feet tall. His bar stools are four feet tall. That's not privacy for anybody. The people will be sitting above the fence,as will their food,as will their cocktails. I'd also like to mention that there's no way to prevent people from standing up from those,we saw this during COVID on a daily basis, from standing up from that cocktail outdoors, when the waitress is inside, and going to their car and driving away, or better yet walking down to their rental that they've got down the street. Walking around with cocktails was a constant difficulty. Constant. I took pictures,just for your benefit, last night, of the lighting issue. You will see that their lights shine directly across my property on the corner and into Mr. Gazetos'driveway. These are the ones they say point down. MR. TRAVER-Would you be willing to submit those to Staff for the record? MRS. MILLER-Absolutely. I have labeled them where they are and where they were taken. The string lights are still connected to the illegally built garage on the next door property which they use for storage and if you look at it carefully,it has garage doors on each side, one for their rental property and the other one for the Sans to use. And if you look in that,it's all Sans storage. Once again they are spilling over into a property that is not commercial. They might own it,but it is not commercial property at all. I thought in the interest of this meeting that it would make more sense,and I've heard this at previous meetings,let's give them a two year trial of being outside. I think it's ridiculous. Why don't we give them two years to comply,separate the properties,meet all the Code violations they are in right now,including the fact that their third septic tank required by this committee, okay, and zoning, is not hooked up to the system. I was told this by Mr. Weiner. I confirmed it with Cook's Septic pump out after three in the past year and a half,three,overflows of their sewage. One so bad in 2021 that they had to have the carpets removed from the Sans on July 3rd, it happened. They were not open July 4`h, and it took a week to get the people, the sanitary people,to come in. I have photographs of it all if you'd like me to submit them in the future, and then they posted the following week when they opened,re-modeled brand new carpets. MR. DEEB-Ma'am,this has really nothing to do with this project. MRS. MILLER-It does. It has a lot to do with this project. MR. DEEB-It sounds like a Code compliance issue. You need to get a hold of Code Compliance. There's nothing we can do, but if you feel that they're not, that they're in violation, you can get a hold of Code Compliance. MRS. MILLER-I did, and do you know what the answer was to me? I called them four times. They said the Sans is trying to comply,but by asking for another favor without complying first,I want to know where the trying to comply is. I think that's a valid question. I've lived next to the Sans Souci peacefully. Peacefully. I've never called and made a complaint. Okay. Never. Until this. We don't want outside dining. We submitted, previously, at our first meeting, 22 people, signatures, of the people living immediately around the Sans,okay. MR. TRAVER-We're aware of that. We were at that meeting as well. MRS.MILLER-The 70 people that she has,I don't know what the addresses are,but she doesn't live there. She doesn't live anywhere around the Sans Souci. It's just fact. I believe you're on Hillman Road. I have no problem with the people who have run and own the Sans Souci. I have a problem when it spills outside, reduces the value of my property,reduces the quality of life in Cleverdale. MR. DEEB-To clarify,then,you're really against the outside seating. Am I correct in that statement? MRS. MILLER-This all started with outdoor seating,seven meetings ago,in the initial. MR. DEEB-And the three tables and the four chairs is something that you're not in favor of. MRS. MILLER-I'm not in favor of that. I'm not in favor of the dumpster. I'm not in favor of replacing the corner where the dumpster is now, which is, I don't have a pointer, I'm sorry, but it's where they're proposing to put permeable pavers. The dumpsters are there now. The reason that they want to switch to the road is not valid because they have,the garbage cans,the garbage company has been able to drive in 20 (Queensbury Planning Board 02/14/2023) there and empty those for the past five years without a problem. They've already put the stinky one over on the Cleverdale side. So now they've left the oil and the cardboard and they want to take it out to the end of the road where my fence is and I had to have a four foot fence with slats in between so that people who left the Sans Souci had a visibility site to the blind curve. I came here,I got permission for that. That was the conditions, setback 20 feet, four foot feet,had to have slats for view. Now they're proposing to block that entire thing. I don't understand why they don't have to comply with the same rules that I had to comply with, and most importantly I don't understand why in 2009 they were told they had to have double doors to keep the sound down. We haven't complained about the sound . And now they're proposing to take it outdoors. The other thing is,when you say they can close atone o'clock in the morning on a weekday in the summertime, do you realize that some of us get up at 5:30 in the morning and go to work? That leaves us very few hours of sleep. I say that because the last meeting was the first time I've been harassed in a long time. Following the October meetings, on Thursday night,we had a meeting on Tuesday. On Thursday night I woke up, I don't know what time it was, somewhere between 11 and 12, honking horns and people yelling,you think it's loud now,you just wait. That's harassment. Harassment was also experienced by Mr. Blistrub who lives on the southern end and they built an illegal, not this particular group,but they built an illegal outdoor drinking patio on that side. We had one year of that and Mr. Blistrub took legal action against them when they started throwing bottles and profanities over to his wife who was lying in her yard. MR. TRAVER-That is not the application before us this evening. MRS. MILLER-I realize that. I'm giving you an understanding of what outside drinking behavior does in a neighborhood where you're going to have at least 10 people ask for their taxes reduced because when I called up the local realty company,they told me there is a difference between indoor and outdoor eating in a restaurant, and that our values of our homes will be decreased with outdoor eating, which means you won't get as much taxes. MR. DEEB-Ma'am,did you report your harassment to the police? MRS. MILLER-No,but do you know who serves us for our police? The State Troopers who take care of us also take care of, I checked on this, too, Hadley, Luzerne, Lake George Village, the southern end of Warrensburg and us. By the time they call them they should be at some terrible thing going on in Lake George Village. They're not going to come to me. MR. DEEB-What about Warren County Sheriff's? MRS. MILLER-I have not called Warren County Sheriff's. MR. DEEB-They're responsible for that area also. MRS. MILLER-I have never seen a Sheriff's car in Cleverdale. I've only seen the State Troopers. They stopped one day when the Sans alarm was going off for about nine hours straight and they came and asked me if I knew anything about it. Thank you for your time. I hope you consider how this change in an already grandfathered establishment will be nothing but a negative impact on us. They've been functioning just fine inside. There's no reason to bring them outside. Thank you. MR. TRAVER-Thank you. Is there anyone else that wants to address the Planning Board? Yes, sir. I would just ask the same thing,if you would not repeat comments that we've heard before. BOB FINNECY MR. FINNECY-Certainly. Good evening. My name is Bob Finnecy and I live on Cleverdale Road,just a little bit north of the A-frame. I don't live there year round,but my home is year round. My father lived just south of the Sans Souci until he passed a couple of years ago and then my step-mother moved out of there. For the 20 to 25 years that my father and stepmother lived there I never heard them complain of any noise issues. So I don't live as close as my neighbors do. I respect their opinions and what they experience. I personally have dined outside. In the summertime it can get loud, I understand that,but I have not seen that. I think if it were to close by nine or ten o'clock as a neighbor around there I think that's reasonable. Relative to the doors being opened,I know that if air conditioning were installed,I would be surprised why there would be doors open because the Sans,prior to the air conditioning,used to get quite warm and I would understand that the doors would be opened at that time. One of the things,just for clarity for me is,I did not,I believed,or I thought that the outdoor tables would not increase the capacity of the Sans,that they were going to maintain the same number of people. They're not asking for increased capacity. Correct? MR. DEEB-Right. MR. TRAVER-Right. 21 (Queensbury Planning Board 02/14/2023) MR. FINNECY-So it sounded as though that may not be well understood. Just for clarity across everybody just trying to shift it outside. Some of the wonderful things about where we live in the summertime is being able to dine outside. As it relates to people having drinks, I can honestly say that many people,neighbors walk around with their own drinks from their own home. It isn't just related to that happening from coming out of the Sans. So I'm in support of this. I do respect my neighbors for living close to there and experiencing some unfortunate things. Some things you just can't control,but I have always found Carl and the management team responsive to the neighbors and I think we're very fortunate and lucky to have the Sans there and have the management team that now owns it and runs it. Thank you. MRS. MOORE-Before you get up. You also submitted an e-mail response. Is that also Bob Finnecy? MR. FINNECY-Yes,that was me. MRS. MOORE-Thank you. MR. TRAVER-Is there anyone else that wants to address the Planning Board? Yes,ma'am. JANET STASIO MS. STASIO-I'm Janet Stasio and I have had a summer home at 95 Mason Road for over 40 years. It's located kitty corner to the Sans Souci. I strongly oppose the Sans Souci's application to add outdoor seating with 12 seats and three tables and locate the dumpsters in the northwest corner of Mason Road. In the past I've complained at the Planning Board meetings about the Sans inadequate parking and other issues with their dumpsters which has affected me. So I will not reiterate any of that. Cleverdale has a special atmosphere of the small town friendliness and tranquility and a place to recharge one's energy. Adding outdoor dining and drinking can change this environment for the Sans immediate neighbors. Besides adding traffic,lighting, odor and litter issues, noise can be a concern. How would my neighbors like it if I turned on a radio talk show channel and broadcast it on Mason Road from my property, for several hours and days into the night. In fact I like classical music. How would they like it if I invited some of my friends to practice their instruments and give voice lessons in opera in my backyard? I don't think that they would like it with the noise that is unwanted. Noise from outdoor drinking and dining will negatively impact the atmosphere of the neighborhood. I strongly oppose the Sans's application for any outdoor drinking and dining. It's not an issue of compromise on certain days or certain hours. It's not a dimmer switch. This is an on and off switch. The unique atmosphere of Cleverdale should be preserved. It's just a treasure. Thank you. MR. TRAVER-Thank you. Is there anyone else that wants to address the Planning Board on this application? Yes,sir. JAMES MILLER MR. MILLER-Good evening. MR. TRAVER-Good evening. MR.MILLER-For the record my name is James Miller and my family owns the property at 91 and 93 Mason Road. Our property abuts and is directly opposite the Sans Souci on Mason Road. I am an architect and City Planner by profession and have over 50 years-experience in those disciplines. To be very clear, the approval or modification of a Special Use Permit is not a right. It is an amendment to the land use plan and zoning ordinance to be based on a very special and unique set of circumstances. It is a drastic measure and is not to be taken lightly. It is not a normal variance proceeding. So let's get to the application. The overview is that the applicant is requesting more intensive use of a property that is already maxed out. It's over utilized . The existing property nor the new application do not meet any of the requirements of a WR-IA zone,none,not one. MR. TRAVER-Sir,we have already heard that comment. Do you have new information? MR. MILLER-The application does not meet any of the requirements for modification of the existing Special Use Permit,not one of the requirements. Specific issues,outdoor dining. First and foremost,let us not forget this. Let's stay on point They are requesting the concept of outdoor dining. This is a major change from the Special Use Permit. All the rest of this is smoke and mirrors. The proposal for the 12 outdoor seats is excessive and not permitted normally in a WR-IA zone. It will increase the intensity and utilization of the property. It is requested for a property that is not functioning well and is not currently, as I said,meeting the requirements of the Zoning Ordinance for a WR-lA zone,none of the requirements, setbacks, density and permeability. Parking, landscaping, dumpster siting, site layout, none of the requirements. Secondly,and these next two points are more minor. Keep in mind that it's the concept of the outdoor dining that is in question and quite frankly they're trying to get their foot in the door. If they can get the concept approved,then next year they come back for seats or whatever,but that's what's being discussed. 22 (Queensbury Planning Board 02/14/2023) MR. TRAVER-Sir,that's not the application we have before us. MR. MILLER-So moving to the dumpster. The 2009 SUP called for a landscaping buffer,dumpster in the back corner of I guess it would be the northwest corner. It's location was to be interior to the lot which was never accomplished. The proposed re-location was a fence, not landscaped or buffered, dumpster directly on the road. We've talked about sight lines and all that. I won't re-do that. You cannot do that in the WR-1 zone. I don't know why they're proposing. I won't go into all the reasons why,but it's not allowed. In terms of the turf paver system, it's being presented that this is going to increase the permeability. Anyone who knows anything about turf paver systems would know that that's not true. Currently the facility double stacks car parking. This was not approved in the 2009 SUP. I believe it was 17 parking spaces. The double stacking is not an approved method for on-site parking as per the Zoning Ordinance. It's just not allowed. This leads to congestion and continued shuffling of cars. Also there are no markers designating the spaces. So it's a free for all. The addition of the turf pavers will further facilitate the double parking to their advantage. It will allow a plowable surface in the winter. They're saying it will increase permeability. I don't know if you are familiar with these,but they're a concrete form that has a hole in the middle where you're supposed to put topsoil and grass. However,if you drive over it and plow over it it becomes an impermeable surface. It clogs up. It doesn't work. It works well for their double stacking,but it doesn't increase permeability. As a result,what really is going to happen is there's going to be less permeable area on site. I calculate that the resultant will be a 100/o permeable area versus the 750/o that's required by Ordinance. They're proposing this as a guise under permeability but the reality is that it's just to facilitate their stacked parking arrangements and more utilization of the property. I hope that the Board considered the express concerns of the immediate area, the people that are affected. It's their lives that are being most changed by all this. As you know there's a standing petition from a couple of meetings ago. Soto finish up,the Board is charged as Board members with upholding the Zoning Ordinance as it was adopted. You're in a position to uphold the rights of the people of the Town of Queensbury. The applicant, in this instance, has no inherent rights for approval of this granted modification to the Use Permit and that's because in 2009 they were granted many favors and to further intensify the site is just wrong. I can see no rational reason by any level or any measure to grant approval of this application for modification. One last thing, I would hope that you can put this to a vote tonight. We've all been around for five ZBA and Planning Board meetings,only to have a number of them tabled at the last minute. I think the issue is very clear,to allow outdoor dining or deny the application based solely on what the Zoning Ordinance says,what it's regulations are and the adopted procedures for a Special Use Permit. Thank you very much. MR. TRAVER-Thank you. Is there anyone else that wants to address the Planning Board on this application? Laura, are there any written comments that we have not heard? MRS. MOORE-There are written comments. I will go over some of this information that the applicant has provided,or not the applicant rather this letter writer. It's addressed to the Board members,and it is from Kathy Tabner and Jody Tabner Thayer and this is in regards to, "We are the members of S9 Mason Road LLC which owns S9 Mason Road, Cleverdale located directly across the street from the Sans Souci. We write regarding the revised application of 333 Cleverdale LLC/Sans Souci(the "Sans") (dated January 17,2023 but not publicly available until January 31,2023). We regret that due to the numerous times that this application has been scheduled and postponed we are unable to attend the February 14th Board meeting and ask that this letter be made a part of and read into the record. We once again strongly oppose the Sans' application to add 3 four-person tables outside and to relocate the dumpster to the northwest corner of the parcel along Mason Road. While the Sans has made some changes to its application since this was first proposed in April2021,the main issues remain the same:there is inadequate parking at the Sans,serving patrons outside will negatively impact the immediate neighborhood,and the dumpster move is dangerous and unnecessary. Outdoor Seating: We incorporate by reference our letter of October 17, 2022(which is attached) and the arguments made there as to why outdoor seating is inappropriate in this setting as the Sans' arguments have not changed since the last hearing. In short, we remain opposed to outdoor seating as the Sans lacks adequate parking and serving patrons outdoors will impact the immediate neighbors in ways that have never occurred since the Sans first started operations in the early 1900s. As to the issue of the SUP, at the last hearing, after discussion regarding outdoor dining and compliance, the Sans' attorney proposed that there be "a two-year Special Use Permit on these terms. So we'll just do it for two years and the Town Code Enforcement could take a look at it and prove that it's doing what we said we would do."(October minutes,p.13). That idea is nowhere to be found in the current submission. One of our main concerns with the Sans' application is compliance and monitoring. The Sans is not in compliance with the 2009 SUP. If the Sans were to be granted outdoor dining,the burden will be on us neighbors to monitor whether they are seating more than 12 patrons outside or more than 12 people are "waiting" out there. Thus, were there to be any modification to the SUP, it should be conditional for one summer season so that compliance with the 12-person limit can be monitored in a meaningful way and, further, the Board needs to set out the procedure for monitoring (of the number of patrons and the time restrictions) and enforcement. There should also be a ban on any outdoor music(recorded or live) at the outdoor seating area in the event that it is allowed. In addition,at the October hearing,proposed limits on the outdoor and indoor operating hours were discussed. In its submission, the Sans only proposes limits on the outdoor patio operating hours and nowhere proposes indoor operating hours. Dumpster: 23 (Queensbury Planning Board 02/14/2023) Not surprisingly, the Sans has found reasons not to move the dumpster to Cleverdale Road where its placement would have more impact on its already deficient number of parking spaces. The Sans continues to request that the dumpster be moved from its current location to the edge of its property along Mason Road. Moving the dumpster from its current location and enclosing it in a chain link fence with green blocking material will create visibility issues and a dangerous situation for the many pedestrians,bikers and cars coming around a relatively blind corner onto Mason Road. (We note that while the staff points out that there are arborvitae"near the dumpster"they are placed behind the dumpster,in no way mitigating the dumpster's proposed placement.) There is no reason given as to why the dumpster needs to be moved to this location and either not remain in its current location or be moved to the location approved in 2009 by this Board but it is clear from the map submitted: they want to move it far away from the proposed outdoor dining location. Creating a dangerous and hazardous situation that would exist at all hours of the day and night for many people in a residential area to create a better atmosphere for a location that will be used at most by 12 people for a short interval for a commercial reason is inappropriate and the request should be denied. Compliance with Board Approvals: As this Board is aware, alterations and remedial work to bring the property into compliance that was ordered to be done after the 2009 approvals was never performed by the prior owners. There was no mechanism in place to make sure that the work was performed when the property transferred to the current owners. In order to make sure that this situation does not occur again,we ask that (1) a reasonable end date for any allowed alterations and modifications and 2) an inspection date be imposed and made part of any approval by this Board. Not mentioned in the Sans' latest submission (or any of their submissions in connection with this application) is what they propose to do to bring their parking spaces into compliance with prior approvals(October 1S,2022 hearing p.22)or,as noted at that hearing,into compliance with the ADA. As this Board well knows,Code Section 179-4-090,subsection B, states that angled parking spaces must be no less than nine feet wide and 1S feet deep,and parallel parking spaces must be no less than nine feet wide and 25 feet deep.As we raised in prior hearings and as the Sans has not addressed,the current parking spaces do not meet those requirements.In addition, this code section states that there must be safe pedestrian walkways and that there be one parking space for every four seats and one parking space for every two employees, a requirement the Sans needs to satisfy.Again,these are issues that should have been cleaned up and made compliant a long time ago but have not been. We hope that the Board will respect and understand that the Sans' outdoor dining request creates a vastly different situation for the neighborhood than existed previously. We all were neighborly and cooperative during COVID concerning outdoor dining;that was the right thing to do but should not be the basis for expanding commercial use in a residential zone. Moving the dumpster creates a dangerous situation and, we can only assume, is only desired because of the outdoor dining request. Although we have registered our opposition to the Sans proposal since first proposed,we wish to note that we have never been approached by the Sans owners or their attorney to discuss their many proposals or seek any type of compromise even though we, along with the other neighbors on Mason Road who live nearest the Sans,are most directly affected by the Sans' applications. We urge you to deny the Sans'latest request. Kathryn Tabner Jody Tabner Thayer" That's it. MR. TRAVE R-That's it. Thank you. So with that we will close the public hearing. PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED MR.TRAVER-Well,you heard the public comment. Many of the same concerns were raised as have been raised in the past. One question that I had,with regards to the dumpster,and I know you made a comment about the electric lines and so on,but wasn't the dumpster previously in that location? MR. ZAPPER-So in the last plan we were going to put the dumpster there. That was the waste, and now the waste is downstairs on the other side,you know,in containers. So that's a dramatic change for all the people on Mason that they won't have garbage there unless they have cardboard and this one grease capture they have to have. MR. TRAVER-What I'm saying is wasn't the dumpster for the garbage and all the rest at one point on the Cleverdale side? MR. ZAPPER-No. Well we left the meeting and said that we'd look at that, and we did re-locate the garbage. MR. TRAVER-And that was the electrical line issue. MR. ZAPPER-Yes,because the other stuff,the cardboard,is still a container that has to be lifted. MR. TRAVER-Gotcha. MR. ZAPPER-Somebody mentioned that it's an eight foot fence. In Queensbury you have to have a six foot fence around a dumpster. So it is six foot. It's not an eight foot fence. That would be an industrial. 24 (Queensbury Planning Board 02/14/2023) MR. TRAVER-So just in general, do you have any response or do you wish to comment on the public comment? I know many of the public comments were the same that we've heard previously,but just to give you an opportunity to respond. MR.ZAPPER-I have a very general comment. Tom may have something specific,but of the six people that spoke in opposition,three of them were the Miller family that live across the street and show up at all the meetings. I know that the people across the street, when they're partying and eating outside, they're on the lakeside. They park their cars across from this. So I'm just kind of surprised at the level, still, that we've tried to tweak things,add landscaping. We're only asking for 12 seats outside because people want to be outside in the summer. Moving the dumpster,the garbage away from them,obviously Carl and his ownership group have invested. They've renovated the inside since they've got it. They want to fix up the outside with this plan and improve the landscaping. They're doing what they can. They're not making a ton of money here,but it's an important place. It's unique. It's been there for 70 years. It's important to the community and they're trying to just keep going and make improvements. So there's not a lot of magic to it,but it will be better when it's done. MR. DEEB Jon,what about the door issue,the double doors? MR. ZAPPER-All I know is it's air-conditioned. MR. DEEB-So they're going to be closed? MR. CENTER-I don't remember the double door issue. MR.ZAPPER-So when you're coming in from the Mason Roadside there's a portico. So there's two doors and then you go,and then there's two double doors. The inside double doors have to be closed for the air- conditioning. CARL WEINER MR.WEINER-They're open when the air's not on. We'll sort of open the doors to the restaurant. MR. TRAVER-Are they blocked open? MR.WEINER-Yes. MR. TRAVER-Is that necessary? MR.WEINER-Well,for air flow and not have the air-conditioning going. The dining room,the two doors on the front coming into the dining room. MR. DEEB-We should probably get you up here on the record. MR.WEINER-Carl Weiner from the Sans Souci. MR. TRAVER-So I understand what you're saying about the air-conditioning. When it's not on, you want the outside air,but isn't it the case with your air-conditioning you could have a fan running without the cooling on? MR.WEINER-You can,but it doesn't produce as much air as with the doors. MR. TRAVER-Okay,but one of the issues that has been consistently raised is the sound level, and there was specific talk about the double doors. So as an accommodation,would you consider using the fan and let the doors automatically close? MR.WEINER-Absolutely. MR. TRAVER-Okay. All right. Thank you. That was my question. MR. DEEB-As far as the outdoor seating,that seems to be the major concern here,how high is the fence? Four foot fence on the outside seating? MR. ZAPPER-Yes. For the liquor authority you have to have a four foot fence around the outdoor. MR. DEEB-You can have it higher. MR. WEINER-But the patio, where it's going, it's also two feet below the level of the parking lot above. So if you put a four foot fence,you've got a six foot high barrier for people. 25 (Queensbury Planning Board 02/14/2023) MR. DEEB-So if they're on the stools, are they visible beyond the fence,people? MR. ZAPPER-They would be visible because a barstool is 30 inches. MR. DEEB-You see what I'm driving at. MR. ZAPPER-I guess, Dave, it's just a minor but important thing to have some people outdoors in the summer because people want to be outdoors. So we put it now in the very center of the site. It's really far from any of the houses that border the other side of the street. MR. DEEB-If you would consider maybe a higher fence. You're still outdoors. MR. ZAPPER-If it was a higher fence you'd be like in a cage. You wouldn't see anything. You wouldn't be outside. You'd be in a cage. MR. WEINER-There are still people, even though many of us feel that COVID has passed, many people come in and say can we sit outside,no, and they leave. I know there are restaurants,I live in Westchester and people go to a restaurant. They don't have outdoor dining,they leave. MR. DEEB-I think that's a legitimate concern in today's world with the COVID scare. MR.WEINER-And I've heard a lot that we're increasing the occupancy,but I think it's very important to understand that we're not increasing. MR. TRAVER-That was going to be my next question. So the total number of diners would be the same. MR. DEEB-You're just putting 12 of them outside. MR. ZAPPER-Yes. Just seasonal. MR. TRAVER-Other follow up questions from members of the Board? MR. STEFANZICK-Could you just address some of the comments that came from the public regarding Code compliance? That some of the septic is not to Code or the handicap is not to Code. MR. CENTER-Previously,as approved by the Town Building Department,we have a holding tank system that's on the Mason Road side of the parcel that's been in Code compliance, and as far as the handicapped entrance,that's compacted crush stone gravel graded one in ten. The Code Enforcement Officer has been out there to inspect that,and that's the handicap entrance on that side. MR. WEINER-Those comments about the septic are entirely inaccurate. First, we don't use Cook's Septic, but they're entirely inaccurate. There are three holding tanks, each holding 2,000 gallons. The third tank,the way we pump,water never gets to the third tank because we pump it when it's at the second tank. So you never usually at the third tank. There's usually nothing to pump from the third tank because I pump when I get to 2500 gallons. MR. TRAVER-Okay. Other questions,comments? MR. DIXON-At the last meeting we had a discussion regarding the hours of operation, one a.m., twelve a.m. MR. TRAVER-Right,and outside seating was ending at 10 did I understand? MR. ZAPPER-What we're proposing is 10 on the weekend and 9 weekdays. MR. DEEB-Nine on weekdays. MR. TRAVER-Okay. MR. DIXON-So the inside operations, are you currently open? Now I go on line it looks like you're only open until about nine,but you can't believe everything that's on the Internet. MR. WEINER-I wish we were open until nine. Right now our hours are, kitchen is five to nine and if there are bar customers that stay a little longer,but we're generally wrapping up by 5:30,9:00 o'clock. MR.DIXON-What were you currently approved for? I don't have that in my notes.,for hours of operation? MR. CENTER-I believe it was four a.m. I don't believe there was any closing time, as far as the bar was concerned. 26 (Queensbury Planning Board 02/14/2023) MR. DEEB-I think at the last meeting we talked about 12 and 1. MR. TRAVER-We did, and that's,and they have indicated they would comply. MR. ZAPPER-Imposing that as a condition. MR.WEINER-I can do 1. I don't need four a.m. MR. DIXON-That's good, because I don't think we'll give you four a.m. But even the I a.m. through the summer,for inside seating. MR. WEINER-Correct, and the outdoor would be for dining and not for sitting around and drinking afterwards. MR. DEEB-So nine o'clock you're done. MR.WEINER-Well,nine or ten. Dine,dinner. MR. DEEB-On the outside. MR.WEINER-Outside. If you're sitting there,we're going to ask you to go inside. MR. DIXON-Have you ever had patrons there until four in the morning? MR.WEINER-Not while I've owned it,although I'm sure that people come to our property in the middle of the night because I find all sorts of beer cans all around that we don't sell. MR. DIXON-I mean would you be open to, again this is the conversation that we had before. Instead of staying open until 1 a.m.,even through the summer months,ratcheting that back to 12? I think we had an in depth conversation as far as it's unique where this restaurant is located. It's in a residential area. It's something more unique than any place else. MR. WEINER-I can also say that in the four or five years that I've owned it,I'm aware of one night when there was a noise issue at around midnight,and six girls,young women,walked out of the bar, singing at the top of their lungs, and walked into the Tabner's house who were very opposed to this. That I can tell you. Other than that,I'm not aware of a lot of late night goings on there. I know I've been the bartender and closed some nights and when you're talking about the 12,1 o'clock,the people that are out,customers, they're just generally inside,having a drink or go outside for a smoke. It's not,at that time,it's not a rowdy crowd. We're not like the Village where people are packed in there until It. MR.DIXON-And I think that's a little bit of a dilemma,because the Board here,I don't know of any,unless they're going to hang out there that late at night and see what the noise is like. MR. TRAVER-But we're restricting them as,the one o'clock is a restriction from four. MR. DEEB-That's weekends. One o'clock. MR. DIXON-So that's any day. MR. DEE&Well what's the twelve o'clock? MR. TRAVER-Inside. MR.WEINER-From Columbus Day to Memorial Day. MR.DEEB-I would say the Sans has been around since I was a kid. I remember when I was in high school. MR.TRAVER-I'm interested to hear how the Board feels on the Special Use Permit. If we were to approve it,would we want to set a period during which we would want to look at it again? In other words,it can be say, two years. It can be permanent. It can be time based. We might want to do a review on the history. MR. DEEB-I think in deference to the neighbors,we probably should look at it again. MR. TRAVER-That was my thought. I'm wondering how the Board feels in terms of time. MR. DEEB-I'd say two or three years. I would go with three. 27 (Queensbury Planning Board 02/14/2023) MR. DIXON-I don't think I'd go any farther than three. MR. TRAVER-Three years. So that would give us, hypothetically if we were to approve what they're proposing, they would have a window of time during which they would be operating under these new conditions, and then they would come back,not for site review,but for review of the Special Use Permit, for us to take a look at the history at that time and see how it's working out. MR. ZAPPER-You would review it,in other words, after the three years. MR. TRAVER-Yes. How does the Board feel about that? MR. DEEB-I'm okay with that. MR. DIXON-Would we consider that renewable after three years, then? Or would we consider it temporary? MR. TRAVER-Well, it would come in for our review after three years, and at that point we'd have the same decision. Do we renew it? Do we make it permanent? Do we,you know. MR. DIXON-I guess I'm trying to figure out how we list it,though in the resolution. MR.TRAVER-Special Use Permit,three years. What would the language be,Laura,for say a hypothetical use? MRS. MOORE-So you have three types of permits, a permanent, and I'll just read this verbatim, allows a specific use to continue indefinitely until the specific use ceases for any reason for a period of six consecutive months. Temporary allows a specific use to continue until a specified date,at which time the special use permit shall automatically terminate and the use shall be permanently discontinued. This type shall not be extendable. A renewable allows a specific use to continue until a specific date,unless renewed or extended by the Planning Board for an additional period of time. If not extended, the use shall be permanently discontinued. It is the responsibility of the applicant, and not the Town of Queensbury, or any board, officer, or employee thereof, to initiate the request for the renewal or extension prior to the expiration of the original term of such renewable special use permit. If not extended or renewed prior to the date of expiration, the right to continue such special use shall terminate on such expiration date. An application for the extension or renewal of a renewable special use permit shall be made in accordance with the applicable provisions then applying to special use permits, as if it was an original request. So they'd have to re-apply for the whole process. MR. TRAVER-Okay. So if we make it renewable for three years, let's say February 15, then as they approach that three year period they would apply to renew that. MRS. MOORE-So you would say the first meeting pending the expiration date. MR. TRAVER-The first meeting in February? MRS. MOORE-Within three years,yes. MR. ZAPPER-Carl is asking if it could run from when he gets the work done in a couple of months. MR. WEINER-Because it also has to get approved by the liquor authority. So there's going to be several months of work done to get to be able to be used,if it's approved. So for the three year clock to start once we open,so to speak,christen it. MR. DEEB-When's your opening? MR. WEINER-We don't know yet. We have to apply to the liquor authority and have that added as an outdoor item and then we've got to do all the. MR. TRAVER-So you're not operating currently. MR. WEINER-No, not the outdoor. We're only talking about the outdoor dining portion, right? This renewability we're talking about for the outdoor,the three tables outside. MR. TRAVER-Well,that's the main component of the Special Use. MR. DEE&Well,I would say May's your opening date anyway for the summer. So I would say May. MR. TRAVER-Well what we're looking at it you operate for three years and then prior to a fourth year, which would be for a season. So we're looking at a renewable process in the spring. Right? So we will 2S (Queensbury Planning Board 02/14/2023) have had three seasons of operation under whatever approval you receive tonight, if it is approved, and then after three years of operation,we'd all have a history of your performance under this updated Special Use Permit. We would take another look at it in time for a decision prior to the fourth,what would be the fourth season of operation. MR. WEINER-Right, and we're talking specifically about using those three as that, that's what we're reviewing in three years. MR. TRAVER-Yes, all of the conditions that are in the Special Use. MR. DEEB-Special Use Permit. MRS. MOORE-So the option to this Board, and you may wish to consider it,is to identify the items that you wish to have in the resolution,and have the Town Attorney draft that resolution for you to look at. MR. TRAVER-Okay, and would your recommendation then be the Special Use component of the permit would be specifically for the outdoor seating? Or is that something you want Counsel to look at? MR. ZAPPER-The only issue is they're not,the restaurant's been there for 100 years. So it shouldn't be a risk to get outdoor tables. MR. TRAVER-Seventy years I heard. MR. ZAPPER-So it shouldn't be a risk that if there's people making noise outside that the restaurant gets shut down permanently. We're talking the outdoor dining. That would be fair. MR. TRAVER-So you want us to make the Special Use Permit permanent? Is that what you're saying? MR. DEEB-No. MR. ZAPPER-We're looking at a modification from the existing Special Use Permit. I think it's the modification that would be temporary,three years,to allow the applicant. MR. TRAVER-Right. That's what we're talking about. Yes. MR. ZAPPER-We're all on the same page. MR. TRAVER-Although the suggestion is that we ask Counsel to draft a resolution for our approval. MR. ZAPPER-We'd rather just get it voted on after all this time. MRS. MOORE-It's up to the Board. If you feel that you can craft a resolution that identifies what you're looking for. If you want to review specifically the renewable section. It's one of your conditions. So it's something that you've done in the past. So it's not anything new. MR. TRAVER-Yes. All right. Thank you. So I think the Special Use,renewable portion of the Special Use will be the outdoor seating. I think that that is the new feature that we are doing a three year. Although it's been operating under Code,but this is the first time that it's been,would hypothetically get sanctioned if they get approval. It would be formally sanctioned. So we would be trying a three year Special Use for that, and then we would look at it during the renewable process, which would be three years from,David you said May you thought? May I"? MR. DEEB-I was also thinking that we ought to look at the trash area and the sealed grease thing. MR. ZAPPER-That's fine. MR. DEEB-So,yes,we've got to make sure we can look at that also. MR. TRAVER-That would be part of the Special Use. MR. DEEB-I would make that part of the Special Use. MR. ZAPPER-That's totally acceptable. AUDIENCE MEMBER-Laura did not read a letter that's very important. She did not read something that asked the music to not be permitted outside and I'd like that included. She left out a lot of the Tabner's letter,and we all coordinated so we didn't repeat each other. MRS. MOORE-I apologize. Would you like me to find that letter? 29 (Queensbury Planning Board 02/14/2023) MR. ZAPPER-We already agreed to no outdoor music. That's already something. MR. DEEB-They agreed to no outdoor. MR. ZAPPER-That was in the application. AUDIENCE MEMBER-We'd like it in the resolution. MR. DEEB-Fine. MR. ZAPPER-We have no objection to that. MR. DEEB-Yes,we'll include that in the resolution. MR.DIXON-So when we're talking about the Special Use Permit,so the Special Use Permit is for outdoor seating only. It's renewable for three years from May. MR.TRAVER-We're adding to the outdoor seating. We're also adding to the Special Use Permit outdoor seating, and it's also going to be the location and nature of the trash disposal. MR. DEEB-Trash and the dumpster and the grease container. We just want to make sure that doesn't smell. MR.DIXON-Do we want to start it,though,from May 31"instead of May I". I'm thinking with the season. MR. TRAVER-I think it would be, rather than wait until Memorial Day weekend to find out if they get their Special Use Permit renewed. I think they'd rather have May 1" MR. DEEB-Yes,that makes sense. MR. TRAVER-We don't want to keep them in suspense until Memorial Day. MRS. MOORE-So in turn,in April is when they would submit information for May. MR. DEEB-For May. Yes. MR. TRAVER-Yes,so the first Planning Board meeting in May. MRS. MOO RE-No,the first Planning Board meeting in April. So they have it renewed by May 1" MR. TRAVER-And that would be 26„2026. MR. ETU-Mr. Chairman,I wanted to say before the vote that I would be,right now, after taking our due diligence,listening, discerning,taking into consideration I would be a no. I think the property is maxed out and I think it's an unnecessary outdoor development that I don't think measurably effects the pro forma or profitability of the business to have 12 seats out of 105 go outside given the history that was represented. MR. TRAVER-Okay. Well we will have a draft resolution for the Board's approval or denial here momentarily. MR. DEEB-And we continue this boxing match in three years. MR. DIXON-All right. I did have a comment on the dumpster. I know that you had said the dumpster would be emptied more frequently. I didn't see it anywhere in the notes. Are you comfortable if we have it at a minimum of once per week and more frequently as needed? MR.WEINER-Yes. I was going to say,let's not use the word dumpster. You mean the garbage. MR. DIXON-The garbage. MR. DEEB-The dumpster would be for cardboard only. MR.WEINER-It's for cardboard and glass. MR. DEEB-Cardboard and glass. MR.WEINER-The totes will be emptied weekly in the season. 30 (Queensbury Planning Board 02/14/2023) MR. ZAPPER-And what they're saying is that if there needs to be more,it will be more often. MR. DEEB-There will be eight totes. MR.WEINER-Eight totes. MR. DEEB-And they're be done weekly, and you'll keep them clean,washed out so they don't smell. MR.WEINER-And the totes will seal,whereas the dumpster is open. MR. DIXON-So I'm still struggling with the Special Use. It's going to be effective May 1",2023,good for three years. MR. TRAVER-Effective May I"? Yes. That works. MR. DIXON-All right. MR. TRAVER-Are there any other conditions? MR. DIXON-No,that's part of the Special Use,location of the dumpster and the grease containers,is part of the Special Use. MR. TRAVER-Right. MR. DEEB-Whatever's on the site plan where the dumpster is,that's where it will be. MR. ZAPPER-Carl has a suggestion. When you look at where the cardboard and the grease are on the site,he can switch to outside and the truck can still get in. So it won't be near the road,if that would make everybody happy. I think the neighbors would like that. So we re-locate that. MR. DEEB-Can you show us up there,Jon. MR. CENTER-We're going to take the dumpster and put it where the two arborvitae are, and move the two arborvitae to the outside and we'll change the size of those to two to four foot tall arborvitaes. So we'll keep those shorter,the same size as the fence. MR. DEEB-Okay. That's good. MR.WEINER-And that's the same placement that's on the 2009 site plan. MR. DIXON-All right. Let's give this a shot. RESOLUTION APPROVING SP#33-2021 SUP#2-2021 333 CLEVERDALE,LLC/SAN SOUCI The applicant has submitted an application the Planning Board: (Revised)Applicant requests approval of outdoor seating of 12 seats for three tables. Project includes new arrangement for refuse, 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&179.10,food service in a WR zone shall be subject to Planning Board review and approval. Pursuant to relevant sections of the Town of Queensbury Zoning Code-Chapter 179-9-OSO, the Planning Board has determined that this proposal satisfies the requirements as stated in the Zoning Code; As required by General Municipal Law Section 239-m the site plan application was referred to the Warren County Planning Department for its recommendation; The Planning Board opened a public hearing on the Site plan application on 5/20/2021 and continued the public hearing to 2/14/2023,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 2/14/2023; 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 33-2021&z SPECIAL USE PERMIT 2-2021333 CLEVERDALE, LLC/SAN SOUCI;Introduced by Michael Dixon who moved for its adoption. 31 (Queensbury Planning Board 02/14/2023) According to the draft resolution prepared by Staff with the following: 1) Waivers requested granted: 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 reasonable to request a waiver as the existing building proposes no changes; 2) , The approval is valid for one (1) year from the date of approval. Applicant is responsible for requesting an extension of approval before the one (1)year time frame has expired. 3) Adherence to the items outlined in the follow-up letter sent with this resolution. a) The limits of clearing will constitute a no-cut buffer zone, orange construction fencing shall be installed around these areas and field verified by Community Development staff, b) If applicable, the Sanitary Sewer connection plan must be submitted to the Wastewater Department for its review, approval,permitting and inspection; c) If curb cuts are being added or changed a driveway permit is required. A building permit will not be issued until the approved driveway permit has been provided to the Planning Office; d) If application was referred to engineering then Engineering sign-off required prior to signature of Zoning Administrator of the approved plans; e) Final approved plans should have dimensions and setbacks noted on the site plan/survey, floor plans and elevation for the existing rooms and proposed rooms in the building and site improvements;- f) If required,the applicant must submit a copy of the following to the Town: a. The project NOI (Notice of Intent) for coverage under the current "NYSDEC SPDES General Permit from Construction Activity"prior to the start of any site work. b. The project NOT(Notice of Termination)upon completion of the project; c. The applicant must maintain on their project site,for review by staff: i. The approved final plans that have been stamped by the Town Zoning Administrator. These plans must include the project SWPPP (Storm Water Pollution Prevention Plan)when such a plan was prepared and approved; ii. The project NOI and proof of coverage under the current NYSDEC SPDES General Permit,or an individual SPDES permit issued for the project if required. g) Final approved plans, in compliance with the Site Plan, must be submitted to the Community Development Department before any further review by the Zoning Administrator or Building and Codes personnel; h) The applicant must meet with Staff after approval and prior to issuance of Building Permit and/or the beginning of any site work; i) Subsequent issuance of further permits, including building permits is dependent on compliance with this and all other conditions of this resolution; j) As-built plans to certify that the site plan is developed according to the approved plans to be provided prior to issuance of the certificate of occupancy. k) This resolution is to be placed in its entirety on the final plans. 1) Special Use Permit is renewable specific to the location of the outdoor seating and location of the dumpster,grease containers,and garbage totes that will be effective May Is`,2023 and will need to be renewed three years from this date. m) Hours of operation for outdoor seating will not exceed 9 p.m. on weekdays and 10 p.m. on weekends. n) Hours of operation for indoor seating will not exceed 1 a.m.Memorial Day through Columbus Day,and not to exceed 12 a.m.on all other days. o) Garbage totes on the Cleverdale side to be emptied at a minimum of once per week and more frequently if needed. p) No outdoor music is allowed. q) Exterior doors to remain closed at all times. r) Dumpster and two arborvitae identified on site plans in the northwest property will be swapped with the dumpster moving east. Motion seconded by Warren Longacker. Duly adopted this 14`h day of February 2023 by the following vote: MR. TRAVER-Any further discussion? MRS.MOORE-So I'm just going to clarify,in regards to L,you have specific to the dumpster,the waste oil and the cardboard. Do you want to include the totes in there, the garbage totes? Because they're, they end up being identified differently. And then in regards to O,again,you use the word garbage,but just to clarify it's the totes and it's in reference to the Cleverdale side, and then for R I don't know if you were specific, I can't remember, if it was two arborvitaes that are swapping for the dumpster pad, dumpster location. I think you said it,but I just can't remember. MR. DIXON-Your verbiage is a little bit nicer than mine,but,yes,they're being swapped. MRS. MOORE-Okay. 32 (Queensbury Planning Board 02/14/2023) MR. DIXON-So we should addend L to include the garbage totes,then that is addended. MR. TRAVER-All right. AYES: Mr. Deeb,Mr. Longacker,Mrs. McDevitt,Mr.Stefanzick, Mr. Traver NOES: Mr. Dixon, Mr. Etu ABSENT: Mr. Magowan, Mr. Stark MR. ZAPPER-Thanks,everybody. Carl's going to work hard to try and make everybody happy. MR.TRAVER-We'll see you in three years. The next item on our agenda is Mark&r Betsy Fuchs,Site Plan 7-2023. PLANNING BOARD RECOMMENDATION TO THE ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS: SITE PLAN NO.7-2023 SEQR TYPE: TYPE II. MARC&z BETSY FUCHS. AGENT(S): HAROLD H. GUERTZE &z COMPANY INC. OWNER(S): SAME AS APPLICANT. ZONING: WR. LOCATION: 19 WOOD POINT LANE. APPLICANT PROPOSES A PARTIALLY OPEN CARPORT ADDITION WITH A FOOTPRINT OF 272.25 SQ. FT. TO BE ADDED TO THE EXISTING 509 SQ. FT. GARAGE. THE CARPORT WILL BE ON THE NORTH SIDE OF THE GARAGE. THE EXISTING 2,910 SQ. FT. HOME TO REMAIN. THE FLOOR AREA WILL BE 3,686 SQ. FT. THE PROJECT IS AN EXPANSION OF A NON-CONFORMING STRUCTURE. PURSUANT TO CHAPTERS 179-3-040, 179-6-065 &z 179-5-020, SITE PLAN FOR NEW FLOOR AREA IN A CEA AND EXPANSION OF A NON-CONFORMING STRUCTURE SHALL BE SUBJECT TO PLANNING BOARD REVIEW AND APPROVAL. VARIANCE: RELIEF IS SOUGHT FOR SETBACKS AND PERMEABILITY. THE PLANNING BOARD SHALL PROVIDE A RECOMMENDATION TO THE ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS. CROSS REFERENCE: SP 49- 98,AV 48-02,AV 36-2010,AV 17-2014,SP 15-2014. WARREN CO.REFERRAL: FEBRUARY 2023. SITE INFORMATION: CEA,APA,LGPC,SLOPES. LOT SIZE: .65 ACRE. TAX MAP NO.239.14- 1-2. SECTION: 179-3-040,179-6-065,179-5-020. PATRICK MOONEY, REPRESENTING APPLICANTS,PRESENT MR. TRAVER-Laura? MRS. MOORE-This applicant proposes a partial open carport addition with a footprint of 272.25 square feet to be added to the existing garage of 509 square feet. The carport will be on the north side of the garage. The existing home of 2,910 square feet as well as the floor area of 3,656 square feet of the existing home will remain the same. The applicant has provided information in regards to the setbacks between the garage roof and the header and we clarified that the garage roof will be, the roof itself has 1S inches. That's not considered in the setback. So we asked the surveyor to identify where the header is from that point to the setback. That's what the relief is for. MR. TRAVER-Okay. All right. Thank you. Good evening. MR. MOONEY-Good evening. MR. TRAVER-Tell us about your project. MR. MOONEY-Okay. My name's Patrick Mooney. I represent Harold Guertze & Company, Guertze Builders. I've worked with the Fuchs for quite a few years now. Sothis project entails the extension of the lakeside of the existing two car garage. Enlarging the two car garage to match the overhead doors. He same size and design to go forward with that. The proposal,when we started this whole thing and I made corrections,because the original site plan from nine years ago, ten years ago actually had the impervious areas, included the full basement for the house. There is no full basement for the house. It is a slab on grade. So I re-did all the calculations to resemble what is currently there now. So it actually worked in favor and reduced all that from what it was significantly. So within this we did just a small modification for some stormwater management just to catch the rainwater off the end of the carport,to be in a trench area which I can modify depending on what the existing plan or whatever the engineering is going to require for me to do that. Most of the dirt that's going to come out for two small piers, IS by IS, and the trench for the water is going to be going right in the truck and hauled off site. So there's going to be no runoff from dirt on site. I'm going to leave a small pile to backfill around the piers. It would be on an existing macadam driveway. 33 (Queensbury Planning Board 02/14/2023) MR. TRAVER-So this evening you're here for us to consider the variance request. We're making a recommendation to the ZBA.. We're actually not doing site plan tonight. We're doing a review of the variance request. MR. MOONEY-Okay. I wasn't sure of that. MR. TRAVER-All right. The first question is,why are you adding this carport? MR.MOONEY-There are,at times the doctor keeps his car there,and they have a third car which then the sap from the pine trees is very corrosive to the cars and that's what I'm trying to prevent. MR. TRAVER-Gotcha. Okay. MR. DEEB-Damaged cars. MR. TRAVER-Yes. So the variance is actually for the setback because the 20 foot setback is required and with the carport you'd be down to 12 feet, and it looks from your design, although there isn't really much you can do to reduce that setback requirement. MR.MOONEY-Not without shortening up the actual carport,the length. We could do that,but then the front of the car would actually be uncovered. The current garage setback is 12.5 I believe. So we're even less than what that is existing setback from the garage. MR. TRAVER-Okay. Questions,comments from members of the Board on the variance? MR. STEFANZICK-It's a nice looking garage and I like the design. That carport,why wouldn't you move it up? So you keep the same length,but you move it up,so now. MR. MOONEY-Because where the overhang of the house doesn't allow me to bring it forward like that. Because it's close to the,if you see on the site plan,it's really close to,right there the corner of the house. So it doesn't allow me to bring it forward. MR. STEFANZICK-Okay. MR. MOONEY-I got it as close as I could. MR. TRAVER-So we have a pre-existing setback issue with the existing garage. They're asking for 12.9 feet,but it's basically just an expansion of what they're doing. Does anyone have any objection to, does anyone have any concerns that we want to communicate to the ZBA as they consider this variance? MR. ETU-What's on the other side of the property line? MR.MOONEY-Right now it is vegetation. I'm not sure of the distance to the other residence,but it is 35, 40 feet away I think. MR. TRAVER-Are we ready to consider a resolution? RESOLUTION RE: ZBA RECOMMENDATION RE: AV#5-2023 MARC&BETSY FUCHS The applicant has submitted an application for the following:Applicant proposes a partially open carport addition with a footprint of 272.25 sq.ft.to be added to the existing 509 sq.ft.garage. The carport will be on the North side of the garage. The existing 2,910 sq. ft. home to remain. The floor area will be 3,656 sq. ft.. The project is an expansion of a non-conforming structure. Pursuant to chapters 179-3-040, 179-6-065 &179-5-020, site plan for new floor area in a CEA and expansion of a non-conforming structure shall be subject to Planning Board review and approval. Variance: Relief is sought for setbacks and permeability. 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 5-2023 MARC &z BETSY FUCHS, Introduced by Michael Dixon who moved for its adoption, and 34 (Queensbury Planning Board 02/14/2023) 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 Nathan Etu. Duly adopted this 14`h day of February 2023 by the following vote: AYES: Mr. Etu,Mrs. McDevitt,Mr. Stefanzick,Mr. Longacker,Mr. Dixon,Mr. Deeb,Mr. Traver NOES: NONE ABSENT: Mr. Magowan,Mr. Stark MR. TRAVER-You're off to the ZBA. The next item on our agenda is Geraldine Eberlein. SITE PLAN NO.5-2023 SEQR TYPE: TYPE II. GERALDINE EBERLEIN. AGENT(S): STUDIO A. OWNER(S): SAME AS APPLICANT. ZONING: WR. LOCATION: 12 SEELYE ROAD NORTH. APPLICANT PROPOSES DEMOLITION OF AN EXISTING HOME AND GUEST COTTAGE TO CONSTRUCT A NEW HOME WITH A FOOTPRINT OF 2,411 SQ. FT. , AN OUTDOOR KITCHEN OF 234 SQ. FT. AND A NEW FLOOR AREA OF 3,343 SQ. FT. THE PROJECT INCLUDES INSTALLATION OF A NEW SEPTIC SYSTEM ON THE ADJOINING PROPERTY. PURSUANT TO CHAPTER 179-3-040,179-6-065,179-6-050,SITE PLAN FOR NEW FLOOR AREA IN A CEA AND HARD SURFACING WITHIN 50 FT.OF THE SHORELINE SHALL BE SUBJECT TO PLANNING BOARD REVIEW AND APPROVAL. VARIANCE: RELIEF IS SOUGHT FOR SETBACKS, FLOOR AREA AND PERMEABILITY. THE PLANNING BOARD SHALL PROVIDE A RECOMMENDATION TO THE ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS. CROSS REFERENCE: AV 70-2007. WARREN CO. REFERRAL: FEBRUARY 2023. SITE INFORMATION: CEA, APA, LGPC. LOT SIZE: 0.31 ACRE. TAX MAP NO. 227.17-1-25. SECTION: 179-3-040,179-6-065,179-6-050. MR. TRAVER-Which we understand is to be tabled,Laura? MRS. MOORE-Correct. So this application,it was identified that there's a wetland in close proximity of where their septic system is proposed to be. The information that was identified ultimately mapped out the wetland location and the applicant is proposing to re-locate that septic system outside of the wetland setback. So they don't need to go to the Town Board for a septic variance. That's what would have triggered us to move it to April. So at this point you can table it to the first meeting in March, and then next week you will also have to open the public hearing. So it's still running its timetable. So next week we would have to open the public hearing and leave it open. MR.TRAVER-So we won't open the public hearing until next week you said,or are we opening it tonight? MRS. MOORE-You can't because this still requires a variance to the Zoning Board of Appeals. MR. TRAVER-Gotcha. Okay. So then we can table them to the March 21"Planning Board meeting. RESOLUTION TABLING SP#5-2023 GERALDINE EBERLEIN Applicant proposes demolition of an existing home and guest cottage to construct a new home with a footprint of 2,411 sq. ft., an outdoor kitchen of 234 sq. ft. and a new floor area of 3,343 sq. ft. The project includes associated site work for new permeable driveway, stormwater management, and shoreline landscaping. The project includes installation of a new septic system on the adjoining property. Pursuant to Chapter 179-3-040,179-6-065,179-6-050,site plan for new floor area in a CEA and hard surfacing within 50 ft.of the shoreline shall be subject to Planning Board review and approval.Variance:Relief is sought for setbacks,floor area and permeability. The Planning Board shall provide a recommendation to the Zoning Board of Appeals. MOTION TO TABLE SITE PLAN 5-2023 GERALDINE EBERLEIN. Introduced by Michael Dixon who moved for its adoption,seconded by David Deeb. Tabled until the March 21",2023 Planning Board meeting. Duly adopted this 14`h day of February 2023 by the following vote: AYES: Mr. Stefanzick,Mrs. McDevitt,Mr. Longacker, Mr. Dixon,Mr. Deeb,Mr. Etu,Mr. Traver NOES: NONE ABSENT: Mr. Magowan,Mr. Stark MR. TRAVER-Next on our agenda is Gary Charlebois,Site Plan 9-2023. 35 (Queensbury Planning Board 02/14/2023) SITE PLAN NO. 9-2023 SEQR TYPE: TYPE UNLISTED. GARY CHARLEBOIS. AGENT(S): RUCINSKI HALL ARCHITECTURE. OWNER(S): GARY &z BARBARA CHARLEBOIS REVOCABLE TRUST. ZONING: CLI. LOCATION: 39 BOULEVARD. APPLICANT PROPOSES A 9,192 SQ. FT. ADDITION OF AN UPDATE TO AN EXISTING HVAC COMPANY. THE ADDITION IS FOR A NEW WAREHOUSE, LOADING DOCK AND UPDATE TO THE FLOOR PLAN. THE EXISTING BUILDING IS 6.099 SQ.FT. THE PROJECT INCLUDES SITE WORK FOR STORMWATER MANAGEMENT, LIGHTING AND PARKING AREA,AND DISTURBANCE OF 32,000 SQ. FT. PURSUANT TO CHAPTER 179-3-040, SITE PLAN FOR BUILDING ADDITION, SITE WORK IN THE CLI ZONE,AND HARD SURFACING WITHIN 50 FT.OF THE SHORELINE OF CHAMPLAIN CANAL SHALL BE SUBJECT TO PLANNING BOARD REVIEW AND APPROVAL. VARIANCE: RELIEF SOUGHT FOR SETBACKS. PLANNING BOARD SHALL PROVIDE A RECOMMENDATION TO THE ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS. CROSS REFERENCE: SP 5-89, AV 9-1989, AV 10-1989, SP 11-2000, SP 53-2000. WARREN CO. REFERRAL: FEBRUARY 2023. SITE INFORMATION: FEEDER CANAL. LOT SIZE: 1.76 ACRES. TAX MAP NO. 303.20-2-18. SECTION: 179-3-040. ETHAN HALL, REPRESENTING APPLICANT,PRESENT MR. TRAVER-Laura? MRS. MOORE-So this applicant proposes a 9,192 square foot addition to update an existing HVAC unit. The addition is for anew warehouse,loading dock area and update to the floor plan. The existing building is 6,099 square feet. The project includes site work for stormwater management, lighting and parking area. The project requires a variance for a shoreline setback to the canal where a 50 foot setback is required and the applicant proposes 4 S feet 11 inches, actually 75 feet,I apologize. MR. TRAVER-Okay. Thank you. So tonight we're hereto discuss not site plan but the variance request of one foot one inch. MRS. MOORE-Fourteen feet. MR. TRAVER-Seventy-five. I'm sorry. Okay. All right. So,yes,14 feet 1 inch. Good evening. MR. HALL-If it was a one foot I'd figure out how to get a waiver. Good evening. For your records my name is Ethan Hall. I'm a principle with Rucinski Hall Architecture. Here tonight representing Gary Charlebois. The existing building is currently housing Sid Harvey's HVAC. They're a wholesaler. They do a little bit of retail,but it's mainly wholesale stuff. They have a showroom floor there,some offices and a little bit of warehouse space. The problem is the little bit of warehouse space they have is nowhere near enough for the product that they have and it's full. They also have no loading dock at this time. So everything that they get has to be unloaded outside with a forklift truck and then brought inside. It's terribly inconvenient for them. So the intent is to add a truck dock to the east end of the building and then add additional warehousing space. Gary got a pretty decent deal on a pre-engineered metal building. So we've laid that out based on the building that he's already purchased and is in the process of being built. Pre-engineered metal buildings are running about eight months out now. MR. TRAVER-So they're building it and it's almost like a mobile home. Then they bring it and install it. MR. HALL-It's pre-engineered but it comes in pieces. It comes in,it's metal parts and it comes and gets put together on site, sort of like modular but not really. So it's like big chunks of steel and they put it all together and then they wrap the thing around it. So we've tried to meet the setbacks to the extent possible. Obviously the waterfront setback to the canal is our big challenge. So we tried to move it as far away as we could. We didn't line up exactly with the back of the building. If we'd have done that we'd have done that we'd have had a much harsher ask from zoning. So we did move it forward and we lined up the truck dock with the middle bay of the existing building and went from there. That's what we're asking for. MR. TRAVER-I guess it's encouraging that he needs the space. Right? MR. HALL-It is. It is. Literally there's a tunnel in the building now to get from the two overhead doors. So this is drastically needed. MR. TRAVER-Okay. So again the request is for 14 feet 1 inches. Forty-eight feet eleven inches from the Feeder Canal where a seventy-five foot setback is required. MR.HALL-Correct. MR. DIXON-Construction has already started there. I see the backhoe. MR. HALL-Construction is going on there now. It is the re-lining of the Feeder Canal being done by the Canal Authority. They approached Gary about this project about a year and a half ago. They needed a 36 (Queensbury Planning Board 02/14/2023) staging area to be able to get to the Canal and get their equipment out there. That's what's going on there now. It has nothing to do with this project. MR. DIXON-That's exactly where the building is going to go,though,right? MR. HALL-It is. Luckily enough Gary doesn't really have to do a whole lot of the site work because the Canal Authority came in and did it all for him to get their lay down area. It worked out well in that sense. MR. DIXON-I guess I'm thinking a little bit farther down the road when you get ready for site plan and approval. Are they going to be out of there? MR.HALL-They will. They've drained the Canal of that portion of it so that they can re-line it this winter when there's not a lot of water in it,and then when the water comes in in the spring they hope to be done. So they're in the process. That part of the Canal from Lower Warren Street down around to almost down to the five locks. MR. DIXON-It's a beautiful walkway on the other side. MR.HALL-Yes,the bike path is really nice on the other side. MR. DIXON-Thank you. That was more just curiosity. MR. HALL-I had that same question from Craig Brown. He goes you know they can't do anything until they get approval. I said,yes,we're not doing anything. It's the Canal Authority. MR. DIXON-We'll get after them. MR.HALL-I don't think they need your permission to do that. MR. TRAVER-Any other questions,comments from members of the Board on the variance. MR. LONGACKER-Do you see any issues with that equipment there? I mean structurally you're further away from the Canal with the existing building but the soils there. MR.HALL-Actually,yes,there's a pretty good sized berm actually between where the building is now and they built that up and the Canal is a concrete. It's fairly solid. MR. LONGACKER-Very stable then. MR. HALL-Yes,the Canal itself is very. It's just the liner that's in it. I mean I kayak up and down there so I`ve seen it and you can seethe rubber part of the lining is just all crumpled up inside. It just needed to be re-done. So they're doing that section for the winter. MR. TRAVER-Are we ready to consider a resolution? Anyone have any concerns they want to forward to the ZBA on this variance request? Okay. RESOLUTION RE: ZBA RESOLUTION RE: AV#7-2023 GARY CHARLEBOIS The applicant has submitted an application for the following: Applicant proposes a 9,192 sq. ft. addition for an update to an existing HVAC company.The addition is for a new warehouse,loading dock and update to the floor plan. The existing building is 6,099 sq. ft.. The project includes site work for stormwater management,lighting and parking area, and disturbance of 32,000 sq. ft.. Pursuant to chapter 179-3-040, site plan for building addition,site work in the CLI zone, and hard surfacing within 50 ft. of the shoreline of Champlain Canal shall be subject to Planning Board review and approval.Variance: Relief is sought for setbacks. 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 7-2023 GARY CHARLEBOIS, Introduced by Michael Dixon who moved for its adoption,and 37 (Queensbury Planning Board 02/14/2023) a) The Planning Board,based on a limited review,has not identified any significant adverse impacts that cannot be mitigated with current project proposal. Motion seconded by David Deeb. Duly adopted this 14`h day of February 2023 by the following vote: AYES: Mr. Longacker,Mrs. McDevitt,Mr. Stefanzick, Mr. Etu,Mr. Deeb,Mr. Dixon,Mr. Traver NOES: NONE ABSENT: Mr. Magowan, Mr. Stark MR. TRAVER-You're off to the ZBA. MR.HALL-Thank you very much. MR. TRAVER-The next item on our agenda is Sharon Serini,Site Plan 10-2023 and Freshwater Wetlands permit 2-2023. SITE PLAN NO.10-2023 FRESHWATER WETLANDS 2-2023 SEQR TYPE: TYPE II. SHARON SERINI. AGENT(S): EDP. OWNER(S): SAME AS APPLICANT. ZONING: WR. LOCATION: 15 PRIVATE ROAD # 1. APPLICANT PROPOSES A 2 STORY HOME WITH A FOOTPRINT OF 918 SQ. FT., A PORCH AREA OF 160 SQ. FT. AND A FLOOR AREA OF 1,440 SQ. FT. THE PROJECT INCLUDES A SEPTIC SYSTEM, STORMWATER MANAGEMENT, WIT DISTURBANCE OF 7,000 SQ. FT. THE PLAN INCLUDES AS VEGETATIVE PLAN FOR REMOVAL AND PLANTINGS TO REMAIN. PURSUANT TO CHAPTER 179-3-040,179-6-065&z 179-8-040,SITE PLAN FOR NEW FLOOR AREA IN A CEA SHALL BE SUBJECT TO PLANNING BOARD REVIEW AND APPROVAL. VARIANCE: RELIEF IS SOUGHT FOR SETBACKS AND HOUSE HEIGHT. THE PLANNING BOARD SHALL PROVIDE A RECOMMENDATION TO THE ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS. WARREN CO. REFERRAL: FEBRUARY 2023. SITE INFORMATION: CEA,APA,L GPC,WETLANDS. LOT SIZE: .20 ACRE. TAX MAP NO.2409- 1-4. SECTION: 179-3-040,179-6-065,&z 179-8-040. MR. TRAVER-Laura,we understand this to be tabled as well? MRS. MOORE-Yes. This application is tabled until March as well. They are changing the house design, so it's a little bit larger. So their variance request changes. MR. TRAVER-So will this go to the first meeting or the second meeting? MRS. MOORE-We're still going to the first meeting. MR. TRAVER-The first meeting. Okay so this is another March 21 tabling. MRS. MOORE-Their deadline is tomorrow,February 15`h,for March. RESOLUTION TABLING SP#10-2023 FWW 2-2023 SHARON SERINI Applicant proposes a 2 story home with a footprint of 91S sq.ft., a porch area of 160 sq.ft. and a floor area of 1,440 sq. ft. The project includes a septic system, stormwater management, with disturbance of 7,000 sq.ft. The plan includes a vegetative plan for removal and plantings to remain.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 sought for setbacks and house height. The Planning Board shall provide a recommendation to the Zoning Board of Appeals. MOTION TO TABLE SITE PLAN 10-2023 &z FRESHWATER WETLANDS 2-2023 SHARON SERINI. Introduced by Michael Dixon who moved for its adoption,seconded by Warren Longacker. Tabled until the March 21,2023 Planning Board meeting with information due by February 15,2023. Duly adopted this 14`h day of February 2023 by the following vote: AYES: Mrs. McDevitt,Mr. Stefanzick,Mr. Etu,Mr. Deeb,Mr. Dixon,Mr. Longacker,Mr. Traver NOES: NONE ABSENT: Mr. Magowan, Mr. Stark MR. TRAVER-All right. Anything else to come before the Planning Board meeting tonight? I guess we're ready for a motion to adjourn. 3S (Queensbury Planning Board 02/14/2023) MOTION TO ADJOURN THE QUEENSBURY PLANNING BOARD MEETING OF FEBRUARY 14TI,2023,Introduced by Michael Dixon who moved for its adoption,seconded by David Deeb: Duly adopted this 14`h day of February,2023,by the following vote: AYES: Mr. Deeb,Mr. Dixon,Mr. Longacker, Mr. Stefanzick,Mrs. McDevitt,Mr. Etu,Mr. Traver NOES: NONE ABSENT: Mr. Magowan, Mr. Stark MR. TRAVER-We stand adjourned. Thank you,everyone. On motion meeting was adjourned. RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED, Stephen Traver,Chairman 39