Loading...
03-21-2023 (Queensbury Planning Board 03/21/2023) QUEENSBURYPTANNINGBOARD MEETING FIRSTREGUTAR MEETING MARCH215T 2023 INDEX Site Plan No.15-2021 Paul Derby 1. EXTENSION REQUEST Tax Map No.2S9.17-1-22 Site Plan No.1-2023 Stevin O'Brien/Mackenzie Baertschi 2. FURTHER TABLING Tax Map No.252.-1-SS Site Plan No.5-2023 Geraldine Eberlein 2. FURTHER TABLING Tax Map No.227.17-1-25 Site Plan No.15-2022 Sharon Serini 3. EXTENSION REQUEST Tax Map No.240.9-1-16.12 Site Plan No.17-2023 Phillip Mitchell 3. ZBA RECOMMENDATION Tax Map No.239.20-1-10 Site Plan No.10-2023 Sharon Serini 5. Freshwater Wetlands 2-2023 Tax Map No.240.9-1-4 ZBA RECOMMENDATION Site Plan No.12-2023 David Howard Jr. S. Tax Map No.2S9.1S-1-2S.2 Site Plan No.11-2023 Laura Feathers 16. Tax Map No.2SS.12-1-15 Subdivision No. 3-2023 Paul Nasrani 1S. FINAL STAGE Tax Map No.2S9.15-1-47 Site Plan No.16-2023 Queensbury Gardens Inc./Rudnick 25. Freshwater Wetlands 3-2023 Tax Map No. 302.10-1-1S;302.6-1-21 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 03/21/2023) QUEENSBURY PLANNING BOARD MEETING FIRST REGULAR MEETING MARCH 21ST,2023 7.00 P.M. MEMBERS PRESENT STEPHEN TRAVER,CHAIRMAN DAVID DEEB,VICE CHAIRMAN MICHAEL DIXON,SECRETARY BRAD MAGOWAN NATHAN ETU WARREN LONGACKER BRADY STARK LAND USE PLANNER-LAURA MOORE STENOGRAPHER-MARIA GAGLIARDI MR.TRAVER-Good evening,ladies and gentleman. Welcome to the Town of Queensbury Planning Board meeting for Tuesday, March 21, 2023. This is our first meeting for the month of March and our fifth meeting thus far for 2023. We have some administrative items before we get to our regular agenda, and I want to mention that if you notice the red illuminated exit signs. If we have an emergency,those are your ways out. If you have a cell phone or other electronic device if you would either turn it off or turn the ringer off we would appreciate that so as not to interrupt our proceedings and we also ask that,aside from the public hearing discussions, if you wish to have discussion amongst yourselves if you'd go out to the outer lobby to have your discussions, again, so as not to disturb our proceedings this evening. With that we'll begin with the first administrative item,which is the approval of minutes for our January 17 and our January 24, 2023 meetings. Does anyone have any amendments or changes to either of those minutes? Hearing none,I'll entertain a motion. APPROVAL OF MINUTES January 17,2023 January 24,2023 MOTION TO APPROVE THE QUEENSBURY PLANNING BOARD MEETING MINUTES OF JANUARY 17h &z JANUARY 24`h, 2023, Introduced by Michael Dixon who moved for its adoption, seconded by Warren Longacker: Duly adopted this 21"day of March,2023,by the following vote: AYES: Mr. Deeb,Mr. Dixon,Mr. Longacker,Mr. Stark, Mr. Magowan,Mr. Etu,Mr. Traver NOES: NONE MR. TRAVER-The next administrative items are Site Plan extensions. ADMINISTRATIVE ITEMS: SITE PLAN 15-2021 PAUL DERBY—REQUEST FOR A ONE YEAR EXTENSION MR. TRAVER-The first is Site Plan 15-2021 for Paul Derby. This is a request for a one year extension. Laura? MRS. MOORE-So the applicant is in the audience if you have additional questions,but this is in reference to the additions and items to the existing home. The project, he can't complete the project at this time due to the fact that he's purchased an additional home adjacent to this property and he's looking for contractors for this first project. MR.TRAVER-Understood,and we did receive the letter regarding that. Do any Board members have any questions or concerns regarding that extension? Okay. RESOLUTION GRANTING A ONE YEAR EXTENSION SP#15-2021 PAUL DERBY The applicant submitted an application:Applicant proposed a 639 sq.ft.upper level addition to an existing single story home with a 2,044.5 sq. ft. footprint and new floor area of 2653.9 sq. ft. The project also includes the removal of concrete to be replaced with permeable pavers. Pursuant to Chapter 179-3-040, 2 (Queensbury Planning Board 03/21/2023) 179-6-065,179-13-010&Chapter 91 of the Zoning Ordinance,new floor area in a CEA,expansion of a non- conforming structure in a CEA,hard surfacing within 50 ft.of shoreline and a variance for a septic system in a flood plain shall be subject to Planning Board review and approval The Planning Board approved this site plan on March 25,2021.A one year extension was granted on March 22,2022. MOTION TO APPROVE A ONE YEAR EXTENSION FOR SITE PLAN 15-2021 PAUL DERBY. Introduced by Michael Dixon who moved for its adoption,seconded by Nathan Etu. Duly adopted this 21"day of March 2023 by the following vote: AYES: Mr. Dixon, Mr. Longacker,Mr. Stark,Mr. Magowan,Mr. Etu,Mr. Deeb,Mr. Traver NOES: NONE SITE PLAN 1-2023 STEVIN O'BRIEN/MACKENZIE BAERTSCHI TABLE TO APRIL 18, 2023 MEETING MR. TRAVER-Next we have a request to table Site Plan 1-2023. Laura? MRS. MOORE-So this application has been tabled again. At this time,the reasoning is the applicant still needs to go to the site and there's obviously snow cover. There's some items that are on the site that need to be evaluated so they can get on to the plan. So they can't look at it when it's covered in snow. MR. TRAVER-Right. Very good. All right. Any questions,comments,concerns regarding that request from members of the Board? Hearing none I'll entertain a motion. RESOLUTION TABLING SP#1-2023 STEVIN O'BRIEN/MACKENZIE BAERTSCHI The applicant is requesting after the fact approval for clearing limits of disturbance for construction of a single family home and site work. The major stormwater permit as built conditions for disturbance of 0.98 acres.The site work exceeds 15,000 sq.ft.triggering a maj or stormwater and site plan review.The applicant has constructed a single family home on a lot of the Helen Mitchell Subdivision which meets setback and permeability requirements. Pursuant to chapter 179-4-040, 147, site plan review for major stormwater permit shall be subject to Planning Board review and approval. MOTION TO TABLE SITE PLAN 1-2023 STEVIN O'BRIEN &z MACKENZIE BAERTSCHI. Introduced by Michael Dixon who moved for its adoption,seconded by Brad Magowan. Tabled until the May 16,2023 Planning Board meeting with information due by April 17,2023. Duly adopted this 21"day of March 2023 by the following vote: AYES: Mr. Longacker,Mr. Stark,Mr. Magowan,Mr. Etu,Mr. Deeb,Mr. Dixon,Mr. Traver NOES: NONE SITE PLAN 5-2023 GERALDINE EBERLEIN TABLE TO APRIL 18,2023 MEETING MR. TRAVER-Next we have a request for another tabling. This is for Site Plan 5-2023. Laura? MRS. MOORE-So this application was tabled because of a septic issue. That septic issue has been resolved at this time and they have an updated plan that they submitted. So we'll see this project in April. MR.TRAVER-Okay. Thank you. Any questions,comments,concerns from members of the Board? Okay. We'll entertain a motion. 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. 3 (Queensbury Planning Board 03/21/2023) MOTION TO TABLE SITE PLAN 5-2023 GERALDINE EBERLEIN. Introduced by Michael Dixon who moved for its adoption,seconded by Nathan Etu:. Tabled until the April 1S,2023 Planning Board meeting. Duly adopted this 21"day of March 2023 by the following vote: AYES: Mr. Stark,Mr. Magowan,Mr. Etu,Mr. Deeb,Mr. Dixon,Mr. Longacker, Mr. Traver NOES: NONE SITE PLAN 15-2022 SHARON SERINI REQUEST FOR ONE YEAR EXTENSION MR. TRAVER-The next and last administrative item is for Site Plan 15-2022. This is another request for an extension. Laura? MRS.MOORE-So at this point they've completed some of the site work,but there's a large rock that needs to be moved and they need an additional year to complete that and construct the new home. MR. TRAVER-Okay. Again,any questions,comments,concerns from members of the Board? Okay. RESOLUTION GRANTING A ONE YEAR EXTENSION SP#15-2022 SHARON SERINI The applicant submitted an application proposing construction of a new 4 bedroom home with a footprint of 2,445 sq.ft.. Total floor area is 3,094 sq. ft. Project includes connecting to the existing shared driveway to Cleverdale and installation of a new well and septic system. The Planning Board approved Site Plan 15-2022 & Freshwater Wetlands 2-2022 on March 29, 2022. Applicant is requesting a one year extension. MOTION TO APPROVE A ONE YEAR EXTENSION FOR SITE PLAN 15-2022&z FRESHWATER WETLANDS 2-2022 SHARON SERINI. Introduced by Michael Dixon who moved for its adoption, seconded by Warren Longacker: Duly adopted this 21"day of March 2023 by the following vote: AYES: Mr. Magowan,Mr. Etu,Mr. Deeb,Mr. Dixon,Mr. Longacker,Mr. Stark,Mr. Traver NOES: NONE MR.TRAVER-Next we move to our regular agenda. The first section of that agenda is Recommendations by the Planning Board to the Zoning Board of Appeals and the first item is Phillip Mitchell. This is application Site Plan 17-2023. PLANNING BOARD RECOMMENDATIONS TO THE ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS: SITE PLAN NO. 17-2023 SEQR TYPE: TYPE II. PHILLIP MITCHELL. OWNER(S): SAME AS APPLICANT. ZONING: WR. LOCATION: 2960 STATE ROUTE 9L. APPLICANT PROPOSES TO PLACE A 160 SQ. FT. SHED ON THE PROPERTY. THE SITE CONTAINS AN EXISTING HOME OF 983 SQ. FT. AND A 288 SQ. FT. GARAGE BOTH OF WHICH WILL REMAIN. THE EXISTING FLOOR AREA OF 1,800 SQ.FT.WILL BE 1,960 SQ.FT. THE SHED WILL BE LOCATED NEAR THE DRIVEWAY AREA WITH STORMWATER MANAGEMENT. PURSUANT TO CHAPTER 179-3-040,179-5-020,SITE PLAN FOR NEW CONSTRUCTION IN A CEA SHALL BE SUBJECT TO PLANNING BOARD REVIEW AND APPROVAL. VARIANCE: RELIEF IS SOUGHT FOR SETBACK. THE PLANNING BOARD SHALL PROVIDE A RECOMMENDATION TO THE ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS. CROSS REFERENCE: SEP 34-2022,AV 9-2023. WARREN CO. REFERRAL: MARCH 2023. SITE INFORMATION: CEA,APA,LGPC. LOT SIZE: .42 ACRE. TAX MAP NO. 239.20-1-10. SECTION: 179-3-040,179-5-020. PHILLIP MITCHELL,PRESENT MR. TRAVER-Laura? MRS. MOO RE-Sothis application is for placement of a 160 square foot shed on the property. It includes stormwater management for the shed and the variance that's being requested is a setback where it's proposed at 7.2 feet where a 20 foot setback is required. 4 (Queensbury Planning Board 03/21/2023) MR. TRAVER-Okay. Thank you. Is the applicant or his representative here? Yes, sir. Could you step up to the table,please. MR. MITCHELL-I'm Phillip Mitchell. MR. TRAVER-Okay. Tell us about your project. MR. MITCHELL-I'd like to have a shed on my property. It's pretty simple. It's 160 square feet. It's back up in the woods. You can hardly see it from the neighbors or you can't see it from the road because of the steepness of the grade. You can barely see it from the lake if you're looking for it,that spot. MR. TRAVER-And this triggers a variance from the ZBA because of the setback issues. Correct? MR.MITCHELL-Yes. Right. There's hardly any flat space and there's huge trees all over and this is about the only space to put something like that. MR. TRAVER-Okay. All right. Questions,comments from members of the Board? MR. DIXON-Do you have other neighbors close to you with sheds as well? MR.MITCHELL-Yes. The neighbors to the north have one that they must have gotten a variance for some time ago. Their cabin is 20 feet from the lake. So they're on the north,the neighbors to the north,and so this is far enough behind it that,yes,they could look through the bushes and see it,but it's not going to be obtrusive to them. MR. DIXON-And have you talked to any of your neighbors? Do you have any concerns? MR. MITCHELL-Well the ones to the north are a little hard to talk to. There's four of them that live all over the country, that share that property, but generally they're pretty quiet and I don't see that as a problem. The neighbors to the south for sure don't have a problem. I have talked to them. We're friends. MR. TRAVER-I guess the only other concern would be just the coloration of it,or you're not planning on painting it bright orange or something that's going to,you know break up the? MR. MITCHELL-No. I was going to have it blend and be a natural T-111 siding color for a while and then I'll stain it gray or brown or something like that. MR. TRAVER-Any other questions,comments from members of the Board? Again,this is not for site plan but recommendation. Does anybody have any concerns that they'd like to communicate regarding this variance? MR. MAGOWAN-It's a unique situation,you know,you have the property to move it in,but due to the slopes and the conditions,this is the flattest,easiest spot without re-designing the whole slope of the land. So I feel comfortable in moving forward with this. It's one of those,we have these regulations,but in this particular case,you know, what do, do we disturb more land to get it in and it costs more and it's a shed, 10 by 16. It's not a big shed, and you have the length coming in, you know, instead of going along the property line. You have the length coming across the property. So if that's where you can put it, it's in the best place. I take it you're going to stick build it? MR. MITCHELL-Correct. MR. MAGOWAN-Okay. Thank you. MR. TRAVER-All right. If there's no concerns,then we can entertain that motion to the ZBA. RESOLUTION RE: ZBA RECOMMENDATION RE: AV#9-2023 PHILLIP MITCHELL The applicant has submitted an application for the following: Applicant proposes to place a 160 sq.ft.shed on the property. The site contains an existing home of 9 S 3 sq.ft.and a 2 S S sq.ft.garage,both of which will remain.The existing floor area of 1,S00 sq.ft.will be 1,960 sq.ft..The shed will be located near the driveway area with stormwater management. Pursuant to chapter 179-3-040, 179-5-020, site plan for new construction in a CEA shall be subject to Planning Board review and approval. Variance: Relief is sought for setback. 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; 5 (Queensbury Planning Board 03/21/2023) 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 9-2023 PHILLIP MITCHELL, Introduced by Michael Dixon who moved for its adoption,and a) The Planning Board,based on a limited review,has not identified any significant adverse impacts that cannot be mitigated with current project proposal. Motion seconded by Brad Magowan. Duly adopted this 21"day of March 2023 by the following vote: AYES: Mr. Etu,Mr. Deeb,Mr. Dixon,Mr. Longacker,Mr. Stark,Mr. Magowan,Mr. Traver NOES: NONE MR. TRAVER-You're off to the ZBA. MR. MITCHELL-Thank you. MR. TRAVER-The next item on our agenda is Sharon Serini. This is 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 972 SQ. FT., A PORCH AREA OF 240 SQ. FT. AND A FLOOR AREA OF 2,113 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. NICK ZEGLEN,REPRESENTING APPLICANT,PRESENT; MICHAEL SERINI,PRESENT MR. TRAVER-Laura? MRS. MOORE-So the applicant proposes a 2-story home with a footprint of 972 square feet, a porch area of 240 square feet, and the new floor area is 2,113 square feet. Variance relief is sought for floor area, setbacks,and the house height. MR. TRAVER-Okay. Thank you. Good evening. MR. ZEGLEN-Good evening. Nick Zeglen with Environmental Design Partnership, here with the applicant, Michael Serini. We're here tonight seeking Planning Board recommendation to tomorrow night's Zoning Board meeting. So the Scrim's are proposing a modest 973 square foot footprint, three bedroom single family house on their existing lot located off Private Rd.#I,which is off of Cleverdale Road. The existing vacant lot is rather small. It's 5,250 square feet, and the width is only 50 feet. So as a result of this proposal you have before you there are three variance reliefs requested. The first variance is for building height of 31.35 feet versus the 2S feet which is required. So the nature of this variance is, so the house actually measured from finished grade around the house to the roof peak is actually 27 feet. However,which the house is placed on the lot,it slopes towards the lake and there's a drop off. So on the lakeside, for the Town building height requirements,when we measure from the lowest natural adjacent grade to the peak of the house it ends up being 31.35 feet. So a variance request of 3.35 feet. The second variance is for side yard setback on the south side of 10 feet versus the 12 feet required, a variance request of two feet. We don't believe that two feet is a substantial request,especially given the 50 foot lot width with 12 foot side yard setback on either side leaves only 26 feet of building footprint. Furthermore, the applicant owns the property to the south. So the property directly affected by the setback would be owned by the applicant and they obviously are okay with this setback variance. The other properties on the other sides would not be affected negatively,and the third and final variance is for floor area ratio of 25.60/o versus the 220/o required,and again,it's a small lot, 5,250 square feet. The floor area is just over 2,000 square feet which is pretty standard for a house and the 25.60/o boils down to under 300 square feet over the allowable. So again we feel that this variance is not substantial based on the existing lot size. We'll also be doing on- site stormwater management and on-site septic system that has been reviewed and approved by the Town 6 (Queensbury Planning Board 03/21/2023) Board of Health back in November of 2022, and we're also proposing additional plantings to be added to the shoreline to meet the Town's buffering requirements. So with that, I'd be happy to answer any questions. MR. TRAVER-Okay. You mentioned additional plantings. Are those in addition to what was in the application packet? Because our Staff Notes indicate that the plantings are slightly under what is suggested Town guidance. I mean I understand that's a site plan issue,not a variance issue,but I just want to give you a heads up on that. MR.ZEGLEN-Okay. Yes. I can address that. So for the trees,there's a lot of existing trees and vegetation down near the shore. Those are well over the requirements. We're adding the shrubs to meet that requirement and then as far as the herbaceous plants,we're leaving a lot of the existing vegetation. We have a clearing plan shown. It's showing all that vegetation that we're leaving. So that we feel supplements the herbaceous planting requirements by leaving that. MR. TRAVER-Okay. The only other thing I wanted to mention, and again, this really isn't so much for variance, but just to give you a heads up. I doubt that you've received the engineering review since it's dated today,but there are some,a few concerns regarding stormwater,test pits and so on. Again,you just want to take a look at that. MR. ZEGLEN-Yes. MR. TRAVER-Questions,comments from members of the Board regarding the variance requests? MR. DIXON-I don't have anything regarding the variance. Just if you handle the homework before site plan it will make the process a whole lot smoother. MR. ETU-I think given the small size of the lot,the fact that they own the lot,the building to the south, and the variances being requested are between two and three feet. MR.TRAVE R-Right. So you don't have any concerns to express to the ZBA. Do any Board members have any concerns? MR. MAGOWAN-I do. I like the comments,you know, due to the small lot that we're only two to three feet,but when you put a large building and ask for these variances,especially on a 50 foot wide,you know, remember the septic is uphill,you know. It just concerns me that we're just taking up every bit of space that we can,you know,to squeak. You're asking for 10 feet on one thing and 12 on the other,and we just had an application for a shed that had a 20 foot buffer off the side of the property and yet we've got a 12 and a 10 foot here, and I don't understand that. MR. TRAVER-Well,they're asking for two feet of relief against the 12 foot requirement. So it's not 10 and 12. They're asking,the requirement is 12. They're asking for a variance so they can do 10. MR. MAGOWAN-No the shed is 20 feet. MR. ZEGLEN-So the lot width, the side yard setback varies based on the lot width in the Waterfront Residential zone. So I don't know what the lot width of that lot was. MR.MAGOWAN-It's just funny,you can't put a shed within,you know,he's got to come for a variance to get it closer but yet we can put a big house on a skinny lot,you know. So what can we do to shrink down the house to put it down there? You know. Because you've got all that roof runoff that's going to go down and then,you know, and then it's running down and then I look further into the,you know, and it looks like there's a huge pass down there,and is this the same group that we approved earlier for a rock that's in the middle of the driveway and I believe we allowed a beach. I mean maybe I'm just confused and I'm not trying to be a pain in the neck here,but,you know,when we're trying to protect the lake,when's enough enough,when we go over? And I'm actually shocked that Mr. Navitsky's not here. MRS. MOORE-Because it's under Recommendation. MR.MAGOWAN-He'll be here for,trust me,he'll be here for that one,but I just want to,is there anything possibly we could do to shrink that down a little and keep it within conformity? I mean just think about it. This is the Queen of lakes, all right, and we have issues and we've got to worry about stormwater, and I appreciate the upgraded septic,and we're working on it. Sometimes I just get,these small lots and people trying to put the maximum out there and come for a variance. Why don't we just work with what we have? Just a question. MR. TRAVER-So you want to recommend to the ZBA, again,tonight is for the variance. So you want to recommend to the ZBA. 7 (Queensbury Planning Board 03/21/2023) MR. MAGOWAN-Yes,I just,and I've brought this up before with bigger houses on smaller lots. I would recommend,you know,if anything skinnier and longer. MR. TRAVER-Okay. We can include that in our recommendation and bear in mind as well they will be returning for site plan review assuming this plan is approved or revised and approved through the ZBA. So we'll have plenty of opportunity to discuss stormwater and these other issues with them. We heard the explanation for the height allowance and there's been some discussion about floor area ratio. I'm not hearing any specific concerns from other members about. MR.DEEB-I have a concern with the floor area ratio. Have you investigated trying to cut the house down a little bit to get within the floor area ratio? MR. SERINI-Yes. MR. DEEB-Because that to me, I mean, again, we always come out with higher floor area ratios and we keep giving variances and variances. If every possibility was explored to keep the house within the limits, that's great,but if you haven't,I'd like to hear an explanation. MR. SERINI-We had originally a little smaller house,but we actually laid it out and the living room,the fireplace was six feet in front of you. So we decided to take the porch off and put the living room on the porch. So we raised it up. We did have a smaller site. We could possibly try that. The reason for it being up,because we were in a hole. We're in a hole right there. This house is up here. Our house is up here and this is a hole. So in order to not let the water run,because it all pitches this way. So when we talked to Chris we wanted to raise up the house and bring the water this way instead of this way. So that's why we wanted the variance for the height was crucial to bring it above,instead of in a hole have it level and pitch it towards the road. MR. DEEB-How about addressing the floor area ratio? MR. SERINI-If that's what you really want, we could. I mean nothing is impossible. If we reduced the upstairs and asked for the 12 foot variance and shrunk the upstairs to try to get closer to the ratio? MR. TRAVER-Well this is a discussion you'll be having with the ZBA. MR. DEEB Just for consideration. MR.TRAVER-But it would be wise to be thinking about ways to get approval from the ZBA because you'll need that before moving forward for the variances. Tonight what we're providing is some feedback and a specific recommendation to the ZBA for the variances that are requested with what's in front of us. You can always modify your application and change,you know,reduce the floor area ratio,reduce the setback, that type of thing,but what we're looking at tonight is what has been submitted and the request that you have and what I'm hearing so far is at least one member concerned about the south property line setback and at least one member concerned about the floor area ratio. MR. DEEB-The side setback,I know it's only two feet and it is a 50 foot width lot,that's reasonable. MR. TRAVER-It's a small lot. MR. MAGOWAN-Well,yes,the setback or the floor area ratio. MR. SERINI-You asked about trying to stretch it,we don't have the room with the setback from the lake and the setback for the septic and the road. So we really couldn't stretch it. This was the biggest house we get,lengthwise,in there,to meet the requirement for all the above. MR. DEEB-You may not be able to stretch it,but you can shrink it. MR. MAGOWAN-I redact the stretching word. MR. TRAVER-All right. Are there any other concerns from members of the Board that we want to communicate? I think we're ready for a recommendation to send you to the ZBA. RESOLUTION RE: ZBA RECOMMENDATION RE: AV# 5-2023 SHARON SERINI The applicant has submitted an application for the following: Applicant proposes a 2 story home with a footprint of 972 sq.ft.,a porch area of 240 sq.ft.and a floor area of 2,113 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 and Chapter 94, site plan for new floor area in a CEA and work within 100 ft.of wetlands shall be subject to Planning Board S (Queensbury Planning Board 03/21/2023) review and approval. Variance: Relief is sought for floor area, setbacks and house height. 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 8-2023 SHARON SERINI., Introduced by Michael Dixon who moved for its adoption,and b) The Planning Board,based on a limited review,has identified the following areas of concern: 1) Recommendation that a compliant structure that would not require a south setback variance; 2) Recommend floor area ratio be reduced or to be code compliant. Motion seconded by Brad Magowan. Duly adopted this 21"day of March 2023 by the following vote: MR. TRAVER-Okay, any further discussion? MR. DEEB-Well,floor area ratio to be reduced or to be code compliant. MR. DIXON-All right. AYES: Mr. Deeb,Mr. Dixon,Mr. Longacker, Mr. Stark,Mr. Magowan,Mr. Etu,Mr. Traver NOES: NONE MR. TRAVER-You're off to the ZBA. MR. ZEGLEN-Thankyou. MR. TRAVER-The next section of our agenda is New Business and the first item under New Business is David Howard,Jr. This is Site Plan 12-2023. NEW BUSINESS: SITE PLAN NO.12-2023 SEQR TYPE: TYPE II. DAVID HOWARD JR. AGENT(S): HUTCHINS ENGINEERING. OWNER(S): ROBERT&z NANCY MURTHA. ZONING: RR=3A. LOCATION: FITZGERALD ROAD (NEAREST TO MANNIS ROAD). APPLICANT PROPOSES A NEW 3 BEDROOM HOME WITH ASSOCIATED SITE WORK FOR DRIVEWAY, STORMWATER, SEPTIC AND SITE DEVELOPMENT. THE PROJECT OCCURS WITHIN 50 FT.OF 15%SLOPES WITH A DRIVEWAY GREATER THAN 10%. THE PROJECT INCLUDES 40,500 SQ. FT. OF DISTURBANCE FOR GRADING. PURSUANT TO CHAPTER 179-3-040, 179-6-060, SITE PLAN FOR SLOPES AND DRIVEWAY SHALL BE SUBJECT TO PLANNING BOARD REVIEW AND APPROVAL. WARREN CO.REFERRAL: N/A. LOT SIZE: 3.27 ACRES. TAX MAP NO.289.18- 1-28.2. SECTION: 179-3-040,179-6-060. TOM CENTER, REPRESENTING APPLICANT,PRESENT MR. TRAVER-Laura? MRS. MOORE-This application is a project to construct anew home. The majority of the project that's before the Board at this point is associated with site work for a driveway, stormwater and a project that occurs within 50 feet of 150/o slopes and a driveway that's greater than 100/o. MR. TRAVER-Thank you. Good evening. MR. CENTER-Good evening. Tom Center with Hutchins Engineering representing Mr. Howard for the project before you. It's a unique project. We're stuck between two fixed points,being the existing road and Fitzgerald Road and coming up to the buildable area for this lot. So we started out with trying to keep the driveway to a 10,no more than 120/o slope coming off of the existing road and also having sight distance up and down the road. So that's the reason why we started the driveway at the lower left hand portion of the parcel. Then we worked up with the height we've got to take,you know,moving soil that kind of sets 9 (Queensbury Planning Board 03/21/2023) our elevation to that 110,111 for the finished floor,or for the building area for the house. We're proposing a compliant house. It's going to have to be a custom design to fit in to the space that we have. It's about a 2S by 50 footprint for the house, and then,you know, from there we graded back up the hill and down the hill to get our slopes, and the slopes are as noted in the engineering comments to the south of the driveway are a little tight,one and a half to two in that area. So that will have slope stabilization fabric, and it's not going to be a movable lawn area in that area. It's going to be allowed to go back to brush and grow up over time. We did propose to do eaves trenches for the house roof and stone infiltration trench along the driveway for the driveway. Again knowing that we're moving a lot of soil here. We know that we have deep, well drained sands, cobbly sands over Oakville loamy sands on this site. We'll have to do test pits. Again we didn't do test pits at this point because there is extensive grading that has to be done. We know what the soils are based on that area. We will perform soil test pits and answer all the engineer's questions that he has, but as Laura said, mainly the biggest issue was the 150/o slopes and construction within 50 feet of 150/o slopes. We've provided the drawings,the supplemental drawings,to kind of show where those slopes are and why we're disturbing them. And our cut and fill, we're using mostly soil on site,we have to infill about 1,000 yards in order to balance out the grade and grade the rest of it,but overall it's not,I thought it was going to be,we'd be taking soil off the site,but in the end because we've got to run out the three on one slopes,we have to infill a little bit. MR.TRAVER-Okay. Well I'm glad to hear that you're planning on working with the engineering because there were quite a number of comments, as I'm sure you're aware of from LaBella on that, and the test pit as well. Okay. Questions,comments from members of the Board? MR. LONGACKER-Are you planning on putting your stabilization fabric on everything or just the areas that are like one and a half to two on one? MR.CENTER-Anything that's less than one on three,and we may even put it going to the back side of the house up the hill. I think we're going to probably have to do that. It's going to depend on when we get into the soil, do we hit the Oakville loamy sands,or are we in the cobbly stuff that moves and we're going to have to definitely put stabilization fabric on there. MR.LONGACKER-I see you're using a 10 project. Do you know which one you're going to use by chance? MR. CENTER-Not at this time. MR.LONGACKER-I just recommend,I know you have a note there. If you initiate it,putting stabilization on there every 14 days. My recommendation is just as soon as something's graded, do it immediately because that's a lot of cut. MR. CENTER-Yes,this project's probably going to get the cut and stabilize quickly and then come back and do the house because we do have to move a lot of soil before we start building the house. MR. MAGOWAN-You said you're taking it out? MR. CENTER-No,we're bringing it in. We're bringing in about 1,000 yards. MR. MAGOWAN-I kind of looked at it, and even though it's skinnier in the back,you know, I mean just top that thing off and push it out back. MR. CENTER-Well,we are pulling it. I mean I can't pull it all out the back side, and we're trying to not disturb more than an acre and keep our disturbance limits to where we actually need to build. MR. MAGOWAN-Because you almost could lower that,you know. MR. CENTER-When I lower it,because I'm long and narrow,my slopes get tighter and now you're back into that two on one if you come down any further. Because if you were wider,I could do something like that,but I'm not. I'm kind of hamstrung by the property lines on either side. MR. MAGOWAN-I did, I stopped twice and kind of looked at it in both directions and really it's a nice little piece,but it's kind of up there,but then when I was driving out I noticed how quickly it drops off in the back. MR. CENTER-Right. MR. MAGOWAN-Sounds good. Thanks. MR. TRAVER-Other questions, comments from the Board before we go to public hearing? There is a public hearing on this application. Is there anyone in the audience that wanted to address the Planning Board? Yes,sir. Good evening. 10 (Queensbury Planning Board 03/21/2023) PUBLIC HEARING OPENED BILL KENNEDY MR. KENNEDY-My name is Bill Kennedy. I live at 2S Fitzgerald Road. We own the 10 and a half acres right next to this parcel of land, okay, and,you know, I'm not sure exactly by looking at that,where the driveway is going to go. My main concern is that right at the corner of that property there's a large, 30 foot high,mound, okay, which adjoins both properties, and it looks to me as if a lot of the excavation is going to be into that mound,taking back out. Now what I worry about, is that going to destabilize our side of the property? That's why I'm here. When we purchased this property,and our home is a sizeable home,this was part of our closing documents which showed this house farther down on the lot,closer to Fitzgerald Road, okay. It didn't appear that it would encumber the higher area. It looks like from what I see here,probably some of that 40,000 square feet of excavation is going to tie into that area which borders our properties,okay, and I really can't tell where the driveway is going to go based on that plot plan. So I wanted to get an idea from the builder as to where he's putting the driveway and how that's going to affect us. Because,you know, we certainly want to be fair about this,but we don't want our property affected in our way. We paid a lot of money for it. MR. TRAVER-Sure. Understood. We will ask. MR. KENNEDY-If I could ask that question, and another question. Is this house being built for an individual or is this a spec house? Is that something I could ask? MR. TRAVER-Well we will ask the questions. You ask us and we'll ask them. MR.KENNEDY-I want to know is that a spec house or is that a house being built for an individual? MR. TRAVER-Individual or what was the other option? MR. MAGOWAN-Spec,speculation. MR. TRAVER-Spec. MR. KENNEDY-I want to know is the owner building the house, or is the builder building the house to sell to somebody else? That's all. MR.TRAVER-Yes,that's actually not part of our review,but we can ask for information on that. Anything else? MR. KENNEDY-No. That's my main concern is that the driveway and that main mound,I don't know if you've been. Has one of you people been on that property? MR. TRAVER-We've been by it,yes. MR.KENNEDY-Okay. If you walk up on top of that,where our driveway is. MR. MAGOWAN-Right here. MR.KENNEDY-To the right of it. MR. MAGOWAN-You're talking about this mound right there and your driveway is here. MR.KENNEDY-Right. It looks like they're going to be doing some demo work in there and stuff like that, and my concern is what happens on our side? Because half of that is on our property,okay, and the thing is if you take a big chunk out of it,what's to prevent the rest of it coming down on our property. MR. TRAVER-We will ask about that. MR.KENNEDY-That's what I'm concerned about. Other than that,it's not our property. Welcome to the neighborhood. MR. TRAVER-Okay. Thank you very much. MR. MAGOWAN-Mr. Kennedy,take a quick peek at this while Mr. Center explains it and I'll pick it up from you,if I need to. MR. TRAVER-Is there anybody else in the audience that wanted to comment to the Planning Board on this application? I'm not seeing any. Are there written comments,Laura? 11 (Queensbury Planning Board 03/21/2023) MRS. MOORE-I do have a written comment. So there is a written comment. This is from Chas Frielghaus at 97 Mannis Road. That individual goes and repeats some of the information that's outlined in the application itself. So I'll read a portion of it. "I am writing to the Planning Board to submit comments discussing the significant environmental concerns I have regarding this project. I live adjacent to the southern property boundary. Unfortunately, I will be traveling out of the state (and eastern time zone) on Tuesday March 21"and so cannot attend the public hearing. Therefore,I ask that you allow for a continuance of the public hearing through to the 2S`h for public comment. The current design for this proposed single family home is not aligned with the significant natural site constraints found on the 3.27 acre parcel. The design does not tuck the home into the woods on this long narrow parcel. Instead it proposes to clear a mature forest, and cut, grade and fill the portion of the site with the steepest slopes. The project does not reflect the character of the neighborhood. The numbers tell the story. • The project grades nearly 1/3 (40,500 square feet(SF))of this 3.27 acre. • Grading(at 40,500 SF)is 29 times the area of the proposed 1,356 SF(0.03 acre)house. • The lot's shape and setbacks result in a 1,356 SF postage stamp building envelope. • The western portion of the property is dominated by<:150/o slopes. The majority of the grading will be in this western third of the property,on these steep slopes. • A 15 foot deep cut is proposed on the 125 foot elevation esker in the northwest corner. • Approximately 7,500 cubic yards (CY) of cut, and 5,500 CY of fill are proposed to grade the lot for this 1,356 SF home-equivalent to 567 dumb trucks of soil moved(04 15 CY trucks). • Approximately 1,000 CY of imported fill is proposed to balance the grading plan(66 trucks). • Construction duration is identified at 9 months,likely extended due to this major earthwork. • The steep slopes are associated with an esker which runs north to south along this western part of the site. The soils on this esker are mapped as Hinkley-Plainfield complex, steep. This is an excessively drained unconsolidated soil made up of large cobble, sand and gravel. Examples of this soil can be seen on the exposed road cuts along Mannis Road. Because of the sterile nature of the subsoil, the thin topsoil and its erodible nature, it is difficult to restore vegetation on this soils following disturbance,especially on steep slopes. • The proposed driveway will have 10 to 110/o slopes. This is very steep. See the Driveway Profile on the Detail Sheet, which also shows the depth of the cut proposed above the driveway. Even with a gravel side trench, this steepness is likely to exacerbate stormwater runoff down the sides of the driveway. The stormwater will discharge onto Fitzgerald Road. Discharge of stormwater off a project site is not a good design practice. • The western steep slopes support a forest dominated by many large diameter oak trees in the 70 to SO year age range. Grading this area will result in the cutting of nearly an acre of mature forest. The functions that the forest provides,cannot be replaced in our lifetime. • The short Environmental Assessment Form (EAF) in the Applicant submission states that there are no state or federal endangered species on the site. This is incorrect. According to the US Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) website (IPaC (Information, Planning and Consultation)), this site is in the range of the Indiana bat, a federal (and state listed) endangered species. This site contains habitat (summer roosting trees <=5" diameter breast height (dbh)) for the Indiana bats. On this site, the USFWS would regulate the take of Indiana bat, including habitat impacts (removal of trees), under Section 10 of the federal Endangered Species Act. The Planning Board should assess potential impacts to the trees on the site and how these impacts can be avoided and minimized. This should begin with a tree survey trees<=5" on the property and within 50 feet of disturbance limits (to account for impacts to roots from grading). The survey should assign an identification number and provide location, species and size (dbh) for each tree. Trees should be located on a site plan, and the proposed grading reviewed to identify the number and size of trees that will be impacted. The Planning Board should assess and evaluate impacts from alternative grading plans to determine if there is a feasible alternatives that minimizes impacts to the bat habitat. Finally, to avoid inadvertent take, the USFWS requires that trees be removed between November 1 and March 31,when bats are off the landscape and hibernacula. • In 1959,the Town of Queensbury designated Glen Lake as a Critical Environmental Area, recognizing the important habitat functions associated with the lake,and identifying the need to protect environmental resources within the Lake's watershed. This parcel, including the mature forest and steep slopes found in the western portion of the parcel, are in the watershed. Impacts in a watershed have the potential to impact downstream waters. Therefore, avoidance and minimization of impacts to these resources would be consistent with the Critical Environmental Area designation and the other Watershed Management Planning exercises being undertaken in the Glen Lake watershed. • I have lived in my home for 33 years,which I purchased from the original builder. • The project will grade along SO feet(±400/o)of my northern+200 foot property boundary. This grading will touch my property line along the SO feet. 12 (Queensbury Planning Board 03/21/2023) o The grading will create a swale that directs storm flows away from proposed steep slope leading to the proposed driveway and instead onto my property. This is inappropriate and potential will cause erosion in the northwest corner of my lot. o This grading design does not consider protection of large trees that exist on my property or straddling my northern property boundary. The grading/limits of disturbance should be moved at least 40 feet north along this property boundary to protect these trees and property values. o This grading will create a north facing slope immediately adjacent to my property. This created slope is steeper than the existing slope on the grading plan. The stability of this steeper slope needs to be evaluated by a qualified engineer. It will be difficult to grow stabilizing vegetation on this man-made slope due to its steepness, northern aspect and associated lack of sun exposure, shading from existing hemlocks in this location, and the unstable and excessive drainage characteristics of the Hinkley-Plainfield soils. Consistency with Standards at 179-9-090 This project is inconsistent with a number of standards for Site Plan Review at 179-9-090. Item A Town of Queensbury Comprehensive Plan. The Town of Queensbury Comprehensive Plan sets as its main goals "Protection of natural areas and view sheds in the town, especially unique landforms, ridges, and slopes. Promote the protection of natural resources such as the water, air, Critical Environmental Areas and wetlands." As discussed above,this project stands in direct opposition to a number of these goals. • The project design does not protect the unique esker landform on this property. • The project does not protect the slopes but rather focuses nearly an acre of grading and development onto these S150/o slopes. • The project will cut a majority (nearly one acre) of the large trees associated with the mature forest on the property. The trees currently provide numerous functional benefits to air, water, aesthetics and neighborhood character. These include protecting air quality by generating oxygen, providing natural cooling and shading, serving as a carbon sink, reducing stormwater runoff coefficients,stabilizing steep and unconsolidated soils,serving as habitat for endangered bats, birds (including a whip-o- will which calls at night) and other wildlife, and creating a windbreak from storms, among others. Cutting the trees will result in an irretrievable and irreversible loss of these benefits. • The project discharges runoff onto Fitzgerald Road and my property,rather than retaining the water on the site. • The project is located immediately adjacent to the Glen Lake Critical Environmental Area. See the discussion above. Item B. Compliance with Regulatory Requirements. The SEQRA EAF stated that no other permits or approvals were needed from the Town of Queensbury except for Site Plan Approval. The Project Exhibit of Response to Standards states that an area variance is requested for road frontage. I request that the Planning Board(and as needed, Zoning Board) determine which statement is correct, and,if a variance is required,allow time for public comment for this review. Item E. The proposed project is not in harmony with the general purpose or intent of this Chapter. The numbers identified and discussed above demonstrate that the grading associated with this house is excessive for the site constraints. • The site disturbance area is 29 times the area of the building footprint. • The project is constructed nearly completely on steep s150/o slopes. • The project results in disturbances to nearly one third of the subject property. • The project is not consistent with many of the goals of the Town of Queensbury Comprehensive Plan,see Item A above. Item F. The project has not demonstrated that the prosed project will be in compliance with good site access,traffic flow,safety and general welfare of the environment. • The project access is currently proposed on a curve with a steep hill to the north, and a driveway with 10 to 110/o slopes. The Applicant has not provided a traffic access study to demonstrate that this driveway access is safe. • The project will generate significant construction traffic in and out this narrow lot under the current design. See the discussion above. The Applicant has not provided a Maintenance and Protection of Traffic Plan identifying access in and out of the site and parking for contractors. • My house is in very quiet neighborhood. The Applicant has identified a 9-month construction timeframe. Imagine 9 months of construction. The grading of 7,500 cubic yards(=500 dump trucks)of Hinkley-Plainfield Complex soils. Bulldozer and backhoes and their metal blades regularly scraping against large rocks,setting your 13 (Queensbury Planning Board 03/21/2023) teeth on edge each time. The rumbling of dump trucks transporting 1,000 CY of fill around the front (Mannis Road), (Fitzgerald Road) and rear (Project Site) of my home. Contractors in their trucks rushing down Mannis Road,up Fitzgerald Road and into the site every morning,and leaving every afternoon in reverse. The delivery of rock and building materials on the same transportation route. Backup beepers, concrete trucks,air hammering,etc. The Applicant has not provided a construction traffic study, noise study or mitigation plan, including hours of construction for review and comment. • We live in a quiet neighborhood where homes are tucked into the woods. The east side of Fitzgerald Road is dominated by forests along a unique esker. This project will remove that unique landform and the forested condition and replace it with turf. Item H. The project will have a significant impact on natural,scenic,aesthetic,and ecological resources of the Town. • As discussed in Item A,the project will result in the unnecessary loss of nearly one acre of mature forested habitat to construct an 0.03 acre house footprint. This forested provides habitat for Indiana bat and other wildlife. As currently designed, the project results in the irretrievable and irreversible loss of this mature forest, which is likely 70 to SO years old and replace it with a lawn,resulting in the loss of functions and values of this mature habitat. • As discussed in Item A, the site is on a unique and natural landform, an esker. As currently designed,the project will destroy the entirety of that landform. • As stated in Item A,the project does not retain all stormwater on site. • As stated in Item A, the project, as currently designed, will destroy the aesthetics along this part of Fitzgerald Road. Item J. Regarding Chapter 147, Stormwater, the project proposes to discharge stormwater offsite, including from the on-site driveway onto Fitzgerald Road, and onto my property. This is not good engineering practice and relative to the discharge onto my property is unacceptable. Item I. The project proposes to replace nearly an acre of mature forested habitat with turf in order to construct a house with a 0.03 acre footprint. No existing conditions tree survey has been prepared to analyze impacts to the forest. No alternatives analysis has been prepared to determine if there are other layouts that could avoid and/or minimize impacts to the trees,steep slopes and the natural esker landform. The project proposes to grade immediately adjacent to my property line,which will have an adverse impact on the trees on my property. This is unacceptable. No landscaping plan has been prepared. This project will result in the irretrievable and irreversible loss of functions and values provided by this acre of mature forest. Next Stebs There are many unaddressed concerns and issues associated with this project. There is inadequate data to assess these concerns. Alternative designs that could address these concerns have not been prepared. Therefore, the time is not ripe for the Planning Board to issue approval of the current grading plan. I respectfully ask the Planning Board to direct the Applicant to prepare a tree survey in conjunction with reexamining the grading plan and present alternatives that would reduce the area of grading, site disturbance especially to the steep slopes, the esker and the mature forest. At least three apparent alternatives should be assessed. One would be to locate the driveway along the northern property boundary adjacent to the existing Kennedy driveway, thus consolidating grading impacts to this area. There are numerous side-by-side driveways on Fitzgerald Road, and this would not set a precedent. A second alternative would be to align the driveway directly west from the proposed building lot, taking advantage of a natural topographic saddle in this area.A third alternative would be to locate the driveway further away from my northern property boundary so that there is at least a 40 foot setback to protect the trees on my property. These alternative grading plans should be presented to the public for review and comment. Other studies and information that should be provided prior to making a preliminary decision on the grading plan include the Maintenance and Protection of Traffic Plan, an evaluation construction impacts (focused on noise and traffic), and the ability to retain stormwater on site. I would like to know whether an area variance is needed for the road frontage. I am available to meet with the Engineer and Applicant,if desired to further discuss my concerns and alternatives. Thank you for your consideration of these comments. Sincerely,Christopher Frielinghaus" And I think that's it. MR. TRAVER-Okay. Thank you. No other written comments? MRS. MOORE-No other written comments. MR. MAGOWAN-And who is that again? MRS. MOORE-This is Chris Frielinghaus. MR. CENTER-The parcel owner to the south. 14 (Queensbury Planning Board 03/21/2023) MR. MAGOWAN-All right. MR. TRAVER-So we will close the public hearing. PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED MR. TRAVER-So you heard some of the public comment. There's concerns about a mound. MR. CENTER-So Mr. Kennedy's question, Mr. Kennedy's property, his driveway is up here, going to his house up in here. Our driveway is down in this southwest corner of the parcel. That was one of his questions, and we've got a three on one slope. Again, we've got a high point here at 125, 126. There's a high point mound. So this is going up here to a high point. MR. TRAVER-So that's the mound that he was talking about. MR. CENTER-There's a mound here and then there's also one at 110 that's down in here. So we're stuck between those two that we're coming down and trying to balance our cuts and our fills in order to do that. So those are the two mounds. Again,as I explained,if we tried to come in from the middle,we're fighting grade and the property lines to Mr. Kennedy's parcel. It's very steep there. We have more to work with if we can come in and sweep our 100/o grade in the driveway in from below and then deal with the shorter mound down at the bottom. That was the thought process in how we designed the driveway. MR. TRAVER-So it doesn't sound like you anticipate modifying the mound that he's referring to? MR.CENTER-The backside,it comes up high and then it goes back down going towards his parcel. So if you will there's a large circle right here. So it starts high here and then it goes down towards his lot and down towards his lot. We're cutting the downward side on our parcel. MR. DEEB-How much of it,Tom? MR. CENTER-We're cutting down about 17 feet in order to reach our grade of the house, that III pad elevation,but we still have,you know,there's still 20 feet or so between the top of the slope going towards Mr. Kennedy that's not being disturbed. MR. TRAVER-So what impact or potential impact do you envision for his property, relating to that mound? MR. CENTER-We're lower than him. So we're coming back in our direction. MR. MAGOWAN-Laura, do you mind going back to the one with the red on it because that's the one I gave Mr. Kennedy,if you don't mind. If it's all right with Tom. MR. CENTER-So that's the top of the mound,then you start to get steeper. So this is the drawing that showed the 150/o slope areas. So everything that's hatched is 150/o or greater. So you have a top of the mound here,and then it goes,slopes away from the mound in that direction,and then away in this direction and then back down this way and back down this way. Then you have another mound that's kind of in this area that slopes this way and this way and we're cutting that down,our grade,we're coming down to 100 and that mound right here is 110. So this is coming back in the direction towards us,then everything is going to be graded back along the parcel line. MR. DEEB-The mound on top,is that totally on your property? MR. CENTER-Yes. We're not disturbing anything off of the parcel. Like I said,there's about 30 feet,25 feet,conservatively from that. It's conservatively 25 feet from our edge of disturbance to the property line. MR. TRAVER-Okay. Thank you,and again,you indicated a driveway towards the. MR. CENTER-The driveway is in the southwest corner coming in. MR. LONGACKER-Tom,is that because of sight distance,too? MR. CENTER-There's sight distance, I mean you have telephone poles you've got to deal with. You've got,you'd have to make that cut into the hill at that point to pull it back. It's a better location to come out and be able to look up and down Fitzgerald Road as you come out to it. MR. MAGOWAN-You worry about sight distance, and I'm saying,it's a dead end. MR. CENTER-Yes,but there's traffic coming over. There's a high spot just to the north of us. 15 (Queensbury Planning Board 03/21/2023) MR.MAGOWAN-No,I understand. Just the times that I've been there,and I live right around the corner. It's amazing how many people always come out of there and see that everybody's so busy and got so many things to do or there's a lot back in there. So I understand having the sight distance you need. MR. TRAVER-Any other questions,comments from members of the Board? MR.DIXON-Mr.Chairman,I have two comments. One is,just a question. So everything that the engineer has identified here,you're confident that you can supply the information that the engineer needs prior to any site work? MR. CENTER-Yes,sir. MR. DIXON-All right and Number Two on here it was identified as Item Number Eight, looking for a maintenance agreement between landowner and the Town, ensuring that proper maintenance measures will be implemented for all proposed stormwater management practices. MR. CENTER-Yes,that's not an issue. There's a standard form for that. This is not greater than an acre of disturbance. So we're not into that realm,but we can provide a stormwater maintenance agreement for the eaves trenches and the infiltration trench for the stormwater management. MR. DIXON-Thank you. MR. TRAVER-Any other questions, comments? Board members feel comfortable moving forward? I guess we're ready for a resolution. RESOLUTION APPROVING SP#12-2023 DAVID HOWARD,JR. The applicant has submitted an application to the Planning Board:Applicant proposes a new 3 bedroom home with associated site work for driveway,stormwater,septic and site development.The project occurs within 50 ft. of 150/o slopes with a driveway greater than 100/o. The project includes 40,500 sq. ft. of disturbance for grading. Pursuant to chapter 179-3-040,179-6-060, site plan for slopes and driveway shall be subject to Planning Board review and approval. Pursuant to relevant sections of the Town of Queensbury Zoning Code-Chapter 179-9-OSO, the Planning Board has determined that this proposal satisfies the requirements as stated in the Zoning Code; The Planning Board opened a public hearing on the Site plan application on 3/21/2023 and continued the public hearing to 3/21/2023,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 3/21/2023; 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 12-2023 DAVID HOWARD JR.,- Introduced by Michael Dixon who moved for its adoption. According to the draft resolution prepared by Staff with the following: 1) Waivers requested granted for: g. site lighting, h. signage, j. stormwater, k. topography, 1. landscaping,n traffic, o. commercial alterations/construction details,p floor plans, q. soil logs,r. construction/demolition disposal s. snow removal; 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: 16 (Queensbury Planning Board 03/21/2023) 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) Applicant to provide response and measures to the engineering comments with engineering signoff prior to any site work; m) Applicant to provide maintenance agreement with the Town with all proposed stormwater management practices. Motion seconded by Warren Longacker. Duly adopted this 21"day of March 2023 by the following vote: AYES: Mr. Dixon,Mr. Longacker,Mr. Stark,Mr. Magowan,Mr. Etu,Mr. Deeb,Mr. Traver NOES: NONE MR. TRAVER-You're all set. MR. CENTER-Thank you. MR. TRAVER-The next item on our agenda is Laura Feathers. This is Site Plan 11-2023. SITE PLAN NO. 11-2023 SEQR TYPE: TYPE II. LAURA FEATHERS. OWNER(S): LAKE GEORGE ASSOCIATES. ZONING: Cl. LOCATION: 1498 STATE ROUTE 9. APPLICANT PROPOSES TO INSTALL A 20' X 20'TENT NEAR THE EXISTING BUILDING FOR THE FAMILY FOOTWEAR TENANT TO OPERATE A SEASONAL OUTDOOR SALE. THE SALE WILL BE HELD AUGUST 1 THROUGH AUGUST 31 IN BOTH 2O23 AND 2024. THERE ARE NO CHANGES TO THE SITE EXCEPT FOR THE PLACEMENT OF A TENT AND A SIGN FOR THE TENT SALE. PURSUANT TO CHAPTER 179-3-040, SEASONAL TENT SALES SHALL BE SUBJECT TO PLANNING BOARD REVIEW AND APPROVAL. CROSS REFERENCE: SP 22-04, SSE 2-2005, SP 7-2005,SP 26-2007,SP 11-08,SP 12-2009,SP 13-2010,SP 9-2011,SP 18-2012,SP 25-2014,SP 9-2015, AV 5-2015, PZ 0102-2016, SP 19-2018, SP 23-2021. WARREN CO. REFERRAL: MARCH 2O23. SITE INFORMATION: ROUTE 9 CORRIDOR. LOT SIZE: 1.61 ACRES. TAX MAP NO.288.12-1- 15. SECTION: 179-3-040. LAURA FEATHERS,PRESENT MR. TRAVER-Laura? MRS. MOORE-This applicant is proposing a 20 by 20 tent near the existing building for the Family Footwear tenant to operate a seasonal outdoor sale. The sale occurs August I"through the 31", and will occur both in 2023 and 2024. MR. TRAVER-Good evening. MS. FEATHERS-Good evening. MR. TRAVER-Welcome back. We haven't seen you in a few years. MR. TRAVER-We have reviewed your tent sale a number of times. I guess, if you could give us a quick overview, we do have some new members, and also just reflect upon any changes possibly since the last time we reviewed your application. 17 (Queensbury Planning Board 03/21/2023) MS. FEATHERS-Well, we pretty much have been doing the same thing over the last 15 or 20 years. We put up a 20 by 20 tent at the beginning of August and we hold a sale until the end of August. We bring in all kinds of items from all of our store locations. It attracts other people to come and then they go in the store and shop, which we really could use because obviously business has been very different in the last couple of years. MR. TRAVER-Yes,it has. MS. FEATHERS-August is really important to us. So we hope to get our site approval. MR. TRAVER-Okay, and I see that you have provided us,in anticipation of our previous concerns about flame resistance and electrical provisions and lighting and so on. So I guess I'll open it up to questions and comments from members of the Planning Board. MR. DIXON-I'll just comment that we've never had an issue. You've been phenomenal as far as you stick to your word. MS. FEATHERS-Well,you're supposed to. MR. DIXON-It's appreciated,though. Thank you. MR. TRAVER-There is a public hearing on this application as well. Is there anyone in the audience that wanted to address the Planning Board on this application? I'm not seeing any. Are there written comments,Laura? PUBLIC HEARING OPENED MRS. MOORE-There are no written comments. MR. MAGOWAN-Mr. Chairman,you know she's been coming back here every year, and I saw the name and I knew exactly what was coming,and I have to say you're spot on in getting on very early. MS. FEATHERS-I always try. MR. MAGOWAN-I mean is there any way we can,you know,give her like a two or three year? MS. FEATHERS-Well this one's a two year application. MR. TRAVER-She actually has not had to come in every year. MR.MAGOWAN-But I do remember the tent,and really it's not obtrusive. My question is,does anybody walk out,in the middle of the night,and go through the tent? MS. FEATHERS-No because we bring in all the inventory at night. MR. MAGOWAN-Do you really? MS. FEATHERS-Yes,oh yes. We don't leave anything outdoors. Because people would take it home. MR. TRAVER-After all these years,you've got it pretty much down to a science. MS. FEATHERS-We've been at it a long time. MR. DIXON-Mr. Chairman,would the Board be interested in entertaining a three year this time,because of,well,she's done such a good job so far? MRS.MOORE-Unfortunately,I would encourage her the next time she comes in to add an additional time. Right now it's advertised for only the two years. MR. DIXON-So we'll just stay with it. MRS. MOORE-So at this time you have to stay with it. MR. DIXON-Right. MR. TRAVER-Yes,I'd just echo that,because of your performance and the fact that your application has really not changed. It seems to be working quite well. So please do consider in a few years when you presumably will come back, you know, asking for a longer term, providing everything else remains the same. I think we would look upon that favorably. 18 (Queensbury Planning Board 03/21/2023) MR. MAGOWAN-But if she would have filled it out,Laura, and it was advertised as a four year, say, or a three year,two years from now,do you follow me,is that a possibility then,two years? MRS. MOORE-Yes. MR. TRAVE R-That's what we just said. Yes. MR. MAGOWAN-Is that what you just said? I'm deaf in this ear,Steve. MR. TRAVER-Any other questions, comments for the applicant on this application? I guess we're ready to entertain that motion. MS. GAGLIARDI-Excuse me,Mr. Chairman,did you close the public hearing? MR. TRAVER-Yes. PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED RESOLUTION APPROVING SP#11-2023 LAURA FEATHERS The applicant has submitted an application to the Planning Board:Applicant proposes to install a 20'x 20' tent near the existing building for the Family Footwear tenant to operate a seasonal outdoor sale. The sale will be held August 1 through August 31 in both 2023 and 2024.There are no changes to the site except for the placement of a tent and a sign for the tent sale.Pursuant to chapter 179-3-040,seasonal tent sales shall be subject to Planning Board review and approval. Pursuant to relevant sections of the Town of Queensbury Zoning Code-Chapter 179-9-OSO, the Planning Board has determined that this proposal satisfies the requirements as stated in the Zoning Code; The Planning Board opened a public hearing on the Site plan application on 3/21/2023 and continued the public hearing to 3/21/2023,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 3/21/2023; 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 11-2023 LAURA FEATHERS,Introduced by Michael Dixon who moved for its adoption. Per the draft provided by staff conditioned upon the following conditions: 1) Waivers request granted for: g. site lighting, h. signage, j. stormwater, k. topography, 1. landscaping,n traffic, o. commercial alterations/construction details,p floor plans, q. soil logs,r. construction/demolition disposal s. snow removal as there are no changes to the building or site; 2) The approval is valid for one (1) year from the date of approval. Applicant is responsible for requesting an extension of approval before the one (1)year time frame has expired. 3) Adherence to the items outlined in the follow-up letter sent with this resolution;which includes a 20 by 20 tent will be limited to August 21st,2023 through August 31st,2023 and August 1st 2024 through August 31st,2024 at location described. Motion seconded by Brad Magowan. Duly adopted this 21"day of March 2023 by the following vote: AYES: Mr. Longacker,Mr. Stark,Mr. Magowan,Mr. Etu,Mr. Deeb,Mr. Dixon,Mr. Traver NOES: NONE MR. TRAVER-You're all set. Good luck. MS. FEATHERS-Thanks. Thank you all for your time. MR. TRAVER-The next item on our agenda is Paul Nasrani. This is Subdivision Final Stage 3-2023. SUBDIVISION NO. 3-2023 FINAL STAGE SEQR TYPE: UNLISTED (NEG. DECLARATION 12/15/2022). PAUL NASRANI. OWNER(S): PAUL NASRANI,ENVAR MIR. ZONING: MDR. LOCATION: 790 BAY ROAD. APPLICANT PROPOSES A THREE LOT SUBDIVISION OF A 566.48 ACRE PARCEL. LOT 1 WILL BE 2.13 ACRES AND MAINTAIN THE EXISTING HOME AND 19 (Queensbury Planning Board 03/21/2023) OUTBUILDINGS. LOT 2 WOULD BE 2.13 ACRES AND LOT 3 WOULD BE 2.27 ACRES,BOTH FOR A NEW HOME. AND A SHARED DRIVEWAY BETWEEN THE LOTS. A PORTION OF THE DRIVEWAY IS WITHIN 100 FEET OF THE WETLAND. THE PROJECT ALSO INCLUDES TREE CLEARING, INSTALLATION OF SEPTIC, AND CONNECTION TO THE EXISTING WATER SUPPLY. PRELIMINARY SUBDIVISION AND FRESHWATER WETLANDS PERMIT GRANTED DECEMBER 13,2022. PURSUANT TO CHAPTER 183,FINAL STAGE SUBDIVISION SHALL BE SUBJECT TO PLANNING BOARD REVIEW AND APPROVAL. CROSS REFERENCE: SUB (S) 14-2021,SUB (P) 12-2022,FWW 17-2022,AV 54-2022. WARREN CO.REFERRAL: N/A. LOT SIZE: 6.29 ACRES. TAX MAP NO. 289.15-1-47. SECTION: 183. TOM JARRETT, REPRESENTING APPLICANT,PRESENT MR. TRAVER-Laura? MRS. MOO RE-This application is at Final Stage. It proposes a three lot subdivision of a 6AS acre parcel. Lot One will be 2.13 acres and maintains the existing home and outbuildings. Lot Two would be 2..13 and Lot Three will be 2.27. The project includes a shared driveway. A portion of the driveway is within 100 feet of the wetland. This was approved at Preliminary Stage for that area within 100 feet of the wetland. The project includes tree clearing, installation of septic systems, and connection to the existing water supply. MR. TRAVER-Okay. Thank you. Good evening. MR.JARRE TT-Thank you much. My name is Tom Jarrett,formerly of Jarrett Engineers. The company is now R.U. Holmes Engineers, and I'm an employee. With me is Aaron Roberts of Noar Design. He helped our office with the subdivision design. I'd like to call your attention to Drawing C-2. It will become clear in a second. C-2 shows one of the lot designs, and you'll see on it the stormwater design. Right there is the wastewater design for four bedrooms,a generic or place holder house that's roughly 2200 square feet, and stormwater design in the form of raingardens around the driveway and around the house. If you notice the chart in the upper left corner of your drawings,there's one on each lot drawing,it shows the calculations for stormwater. What we did is design the stormwater conservatively. Normally when you do a full blown stormwater report with calculations you would assess the pre-development runoff before any development happens,you assess the runoff, do all the calculations from that, and then you do another set of calculations for the runoff after development. We didn't do that. We just said okay let's take the full rainfall,forgetting any normal runoff,pre-development. We took the entire rainfall,25 year rainfall,4.4 inches of rain,which is shown in that chart,and designed the raingardens to contain all of that. And they're still oversized. So that's a simple way to do subdivisions when you don't know exactly what house is going to be built in the future and you show a conservative design up front, more simplified calculations. That leads to my comment that we're at an impasse with the Town Engineer. MR. TRAVER-Right. That was going to be my question. MR.JARRETT-I've got a history here if anybody wants me to go through the history,the details you have in your packets obviously. I reached out to Craig because the Town Engineer,LaBella,is requiring detailed calculations for each lot,which are going to change in the future depending on what the landowners,the buyers,propose. I don't think it's warranted to go through those detailed calculations right now because we've shown that each lot is buildable. A reasonable house is buildable on each one of these lots. Sol reached out to Craig, and Craig deferred to this Board. So I want to make sure it's clear to you what we did,why we did it,and I think it has import to all subdivision projects that are in front of you. Complicated subdivisions,large subdivisions,you need more stormwater design,more complicated calculations for sure, but on very simple subdivisions, I don't think it's warranted, and I think it applies to all subdivision applications that come before you. So have I made myself clear on what we're asking for? MR. TRAVER-Well you certainly stated your position, yes. How do you plan on addressing the issues raised by the engineer,or are you suggesting that we simply? MR.JARRETT-We think we've addressed all those. They say they want more detailed calculations and a full blown report. We don't think that's warranted. MR. TRAVER-Well, and they say, for example, that it's not an acceptable practice, the information that was provided. MR.JARRETT-Acceptable to who? They defined it. MR. TRAVER-Well,let me see if I can find the comment. It looks like it's part of the second section of Comment Number Two. "While we understand the applicant's intent,without grading or a stormwater model/narrative,the stormwater plan cannot be reviewed for conformance to Town Code 179-6-OSO. The Applicant's approach of providing a generic/conceptual design that is only reviewed in the future if the 20 (Queensbury Planning Board 03/21/2023) generic design changes, is not an acceptable approach because there is not sufficient detail to support a review of this application. MR.JARRETT-Well, Number One, based on the generic house that we put on the site, there is enough information there. We show the calculations. Now we don't know what will be built in the future. It could be smaller,it could be larger. If it's smaller it's a very easy adjustment to scale the stormwater down. If it's slightly larger,again,it's very easy to scale it up. If it's much more complicated,much different than what we propose,then I would propose that the Building Department has the right to bring it back to this Board. MR. MAGOWAN-Well that sounds to me like, I mean, not having a house there, how do you pick the stormwater? And I,you know, and there's an engineer that's worked in this Town for as long as I can remember. What was it 40 years ago we met there with Valenti and them. I was just a kid. And I have to say that what he says makes big sense. So if that's the case,then once an application comes in to build a house, then it has to come back to site plan and then we can upgrade. Because they won't do anything with this land to subdivide it if they don't get an approval,you know, and with nothing there, nothing's really changing until they put in the road, and the stormwater will be addressed for the driveway that they're putting in,but the lots aren't going to be touched. MR. TRAVER-I understand what you're saying. It just brings to mind the fact that we have repeatedly taken the position that not representing ourselves as engineers, we rely upon the Town Designated Engineer for guidance and now we're looking at the potential of not following that guidance and possibly setting a practice for subdivisions going forward. That's just a concern that I have. MRS. MOORE-So is there disturbance of an acre or greater? Ultimately? MR.JARRETT-No. We're under. MRS. MOORE-You're under completely,even with the driveway? MR.JARRETT-Yes. MR. TRAVER-So less than an acre. MRS. MOORE-So at this point it wouldn't trigger the SWPPP,but we trigger, even if it's less. If it's less than an acre,we have the applicant demonstrate that it meets the 25 year storm for a residential project. MR. TRAVER-And any future development of these hypothetical lots requires site plan review. MRS. MOORE-Well at this point could, and so at this point what I've seen the Board in the past do,they could potentially condition it that when the proposed project comes forward for a building permit that they trigger their own site plan review. MR. TRAVER-Okay. MR. JARRETT-We did design these houses for a 25 year storm and actually we're in excess of that. Number Two,I was proposing that if the development is very similar to what's generically similar to what's shown here,maybe slightly different,the Building Department could require slightly modified calculations as we show on the plan. MRS. MOORE-So the Building Department doesn't review stormwater. That's why it makes it a bit difficult to do that. MR. JARRETT-Okay. It could be conditioned engineer proposed revised calculations without going through full stormwater or full site plan review,but if it's a complicated design or if it's. MRS. MOORE-If they catch it. MR.JARRETT-Well they've caught it before on projects that we've worked on. They absolutely have. They've sent it back to site plan review. So if it's significantly different than it should be referred back to the Planning Board for site plan review. MR. DEEB-It seems to me that if there's adequate protection to start with and it looks like we're doubling the conditions for the applicant,but if there is remediation for, as Tom says,if the project triggers a larger stormwater it can be referred back to us again. MRS. MOORE-So the project moves forward. The project then gets sold. The next engineer comes in and says,here's my project. What's the difference between what was originally proposed? Then that new 21 (Queensbury Planning Board 03/21/2023) engineer says,we need this. Then it's our judgement call to tell this new engineer that,no,that's not how that was designed. MR. MAGOWAN-Well is this the only lot that has a problem with the engineer? MR.JARRETT-Two lots. MR. DEEB-Two lots. MR. MAGOWAN-There's two lots. So why can't we condition it once they do that it has to come back for site plan review? MRS. MOORE-Right. That's not what Tom's asking. MR.JARRETT-I'm not proposing that. That would be the worst case scenario from my perspective. For example, if we fully design this right now with a full stormwater report, calculations, it'll be quite a bit more money,but they're going to have to come back anyway whether they propose an actual house or an actual driveway. It won't be exactly like this. MRS. MOORE-It won't be,then it'll have been designed. MR.JARRETT-Then it'll have to be changed. MRS. MOO RE-By how much? So that's the same question. MR.JARRE TT-I'm saying the same thing. If it's not much,then. MRS. MOORE-It moves forward. Right now I don't have that guarantee. MR. TRAVER-Yes, I think the only way, I mean it's difficult for me to consider not paying attention to what the engineer is saying, but on the other hand I understand what Tom, what the applicant is representing. The only way I think I would be comfortable would be requiring site plan review when the property is sold and further developed. That way we would at least get the engineering and we would know at that stage. MR.JARRETT-I can live with that. Now the owners,by the way,plan to subdivide. They don't plan to develop this for about 10 to 12 years until their kids graduate and then they retire to Queensbury. They plan to hold it for the family,but there's no guarantee. It could be sold. MR. TRAVER-Right. Sure. MR.JARRETT-Site plan review is a fall back I'm willing to accept,but I want to point out one other thing. Wastewater designs are generically done for subdivisions all the time and then they're adjusted up and down depending on when a house is actually built. MR. TRAVER-Those subdivisions are also reviewed for stormwater. This one isn't. So you can't. MR.JARRETT-The Building Department reviews the wastewater designs at the time of actual build out, and they adjust up or down themselves. MR. TRAVER-But that's not what we have before us. MR.JARRETT-I understand,but I'm saying for example. MR. TRAVER-Let's not talk about what we might have. Let's talk about what we have. So it sounds as though we can either have you deal with the engineer and come back when you have signoff,or we can just say we'll just have any development, any developer, come back with a site plan application and we'll deal with it then,whether there are any changes. If there are no changes to what you have generically proposed, then it should be a very straightforward process. MR.JARRE TT-Correct. MR.TRAVER-If it's changed,then it needs to be reviewed anyway,it seems to me,and also by the engineer. So I can live with that,if you can,and I'm only speaking for myself. MR.JARRETT-I'll live with it. I didn't carry my argument,but I'll live with it. MR. TRAVER-Well you did. You're not going to have to get a signoff in order to get your subdivision potential. 22 (Queensbury Planning Board 03/21/2023) MR.JARRETT-No,but I'm arguing for all subdivision applicants going forward. Because it costs an awful lot of money to go through this process unnecessarily,I think. MR. MAGOWAN-You have brought this up before, Tom. MR.JARRETT-I have brought it up,but not as adamantly as I have tonight. MR. TRAVER-So to reiterate,for members of the Board, and we will ask also for Board members to have further questions and comments,but just to reiterate what we might be considering is granting the final stage approval without engineering signoff at this point. However, requiring, as a condition of that approval,that development of these two lots in the future come back for site plan review,which would at that point involve review,you know, stormwater and all the rest. So is that an acceptable alternative to members of the Board and/or are there other questions,comments that Board members have? MR. DEEB-It sounds like a compromise. MR. TRAVER-Yes. MR.DIXON-Well I guess just a question. So if we approve it,conditioned upon any further development or development of the property,then that means that the road,anything going into the property could not be done either. MR. TRAVER-Well only what would be permitted with Final subdivision. MR. DIXON-I mean I jotted a note. If we do it site plan review required for each home prior to any site work specific to each home,that takes it to the home,and I think it would take some of the driveway. MR.JARRETT-Well this is a common driveway. So the driveway won't be put in until the first house is developed. So then it will come to site plan review. It's not a Town road built in advance. MR. DIXON-All right. So it's just site plan review required prior to development. MR. TRAVER-Yes. Any other questions,comments,concerns from members of the Board? What triggers, if someone developed on Lot Two in nine years, how does the Town know that this distinction was made and the site plan has to go through one further time? Is there a notation? MRS.MOORE-So there's two things that happen. There's the site plan itself that's being prepared. That information is placed on that plan about the requirement. There's a flag that's placed into a data system that we have that triggers that, and then the follow up is that when the building permit comes across the desk it'll be sent to our Zoning Administrator who then proceeds to say there's a condition on this property. We can't issue this building permit until this applicant satisfies the condition. MR.JARRETT-So there are red flags in the planning files,and then we will add the conditions of approval on the plans and then we'll also add a note on the coversheet saying site plan review is required for each lot development. MR. TRAVER-Any other questions? MRS. MOORE-I think this is probably the same question, but we should talk about it, is the site plan resolution currently says you need signoff from the Town Engineer. In this case if the applicant presents to the engineer that this condition has been proposed and no further stormwater is being presented at this time, that may prompt a signoff or you, the Board, can remove that language, you can strike it from the resolution. Do you still want information from the Town Engineer, I guess is probably one of the questions. MR. MAGOWAN-Well I've got a question. Tom,in the past, and being in the building trades, and done so many different things in my career,there are times that I've questioned engineers,are there two ways of doing things? I look at it as, and nothing against our engineer group that looks for the signoffs,but a lot of the engineers I see nowadays,you know,it's all computer and this and that,and I look at you,no offense, as the old slide rule,the old way of calculating and you've stated that this was over calculated,you know, over drawn for the 25 year. I mean, are there two ways to come up with the same? MR. JARRETT-Well, we use the same calculations, same software, that LaBella uses for calculating stormwater. It's just much more involved that they're requiring. MR. TRAVER-HydroCAD? 23 (Queensbury Planning Board 03/21/2023) MR.JARRETT-Yes. We did it a more straightforward,simplified way where we just took all the rainfall that's falling on the site and managed it. We didn't bother to try and calculate what the pre-development runoff rates were versus post development. We just,we're going to be managing all of it. MR. MAGOWAN-So I'm just curious for myself because you know a lot of times you do read these comments and sometimes,you know, especially,I've got a lot of respect for what you've done for so many years in our area,and I know working with your firm in the past,and I respect that. I was just wondering, you know,it's a different way. MR.JARRETT-Well, the comments actually say that they don't have enough information to assess it. Well that's not true. They just don't like the fact that we didn't supply HydroCAD calculations and full blown stormwater report. We did address a number of their stormwater comments and changed our design to comply with what they recommended. That's not shown in this latest correspondence,but we did change a lot of our design. In fact we contacted DEC to discuss things and then got back to LaBella with a compromise that DEC suggested. So we went back and forth on a number of different iterations, but now they're saying they want more detailed calculations and more complete stormwater report,and I don't see it necessary, and I don't see it necessary on most simple subdivisions. MR. TRAVER-The question that you're asking, Brad, I think is actually pretty well laid out in the engineering letter,because they state the applicant's position and what their response is. MR. MAGOWAN-Right. MR. TRAVER-So the two positions are basically right there,and what we're doing is kind of sidestepping the whole thing by saying we're not going to deal with it now. We're not saying that it's not relevant,but we're just not going to deal with it now. We're going to deal with it when the actual construction application comes in later on. MR.JARRETT-You could phrase it as not requiring additional stormwater documentation at this stage, and then site plan review would show updated calculations as necessary. MR. MAGOWAN-I'm just confused. Like I said, I just want to make sure it's a fair practice,but I don't want to set any precedents either. I mean that's not,as long as we're going to get the review in their,I just understand,you know,it's not a big enough project to do a full blown,and like I say we really don't know, and,hey,nobody might want to build back there. I mean,who knows. MR.JARRETT-As this Board knows, when we do a site plan on Lake George, which has very,very tight constraints,we do a full blown HydroCAD set of calculations,but that's a specific design for a specific site and much,much tighter constraints. Here we don't have any of those. MR. TRAVER-Any other questions,comments before we move forward? MR. DIXON-Mr. Chairman, I do have one. As far as the common driveway, so I guess if nothing's happening until construction,and we'd address it at that point,so I'll just put it out there at the time that development is going to take place and site plans come to us. MR. TRAVER-That's when that would be addressed is site plan. MR. DIXON-Yes, there might be the need for the homeowners agreement regarding that driveway. All right. So, Laura, Item Number Five you're suggesting that it be amended so that it reads no further engineering signoff required? MR. TRAVER-At this time due to a requirement for site plan review on site development. MRS. MOORS Just a follow up with the homeowners agreement, that can be part of this resolution. I mean the applicant to provide information about how that shared driveway will be part of the project. MR.JARRETT-Which I absolutely agree with. Our project attorney is drafting some of that language now. So we don't have any problems submitting that. MRS. MOORE-Yes,I thought that was already part of. MR.JARRETT-I think that helps the Building Department later on. We have language on the drawings, also,by the way,to that effect. RESOLUTION APPROVING FINAL STG. SUBDIV. #3-2023 PAUL NASRANI A subdivision application has been made to the Queensbury Planning Board for the following:Applicant proposes a three lot subdivision of a 6.4 S acre parcel.Lot 1 will be 2.13 acres and maintain the existing home 24 (Queensbury Planning Board 03/21/2023) and outbuildings. Lot 2 would be 2.13 acres and lot 3 would be 2.27 acres, both for a new home. And a shared driveway between the lots.A portion of the driveway is within 100 feet of the wetland. The project also includes tree clearing,installation of septic, and connection to the existing water supply.Preliminary Subdivision and Freshwater Wetlands Permit granted December 13, 2022. Pursuant to chapter IS3, final stage subdivision shall be subject to Planning Board review and approval. Pursuant to relevant sections of the Town of Queensbury Zoning Code-Chapter A-1S3,the Planning Board has determined that this proposal satisfies the requirements as stated in the Zoning Code; This application is supported with all documentation,public comment,and application material in the file of record; MOTION TO APPROVE SUBDIVISION FINAL STAGE 3-2023 PAUL NASRANI, Introduced by Michael Dixon who moved for its adoption. 1. The requirements of the State Environmental Quality Review Act have been considered and the Planning Board has adopted a SEQRA Negative Declaration; and if the application is a modification, the requirements of the State Environmental Quality Review Act have been considered, and the proposed modification[s] do not result in any new or significantly different environmental impacts, and,therefore,no further SEQRA review is necessary; 2. Waiver requests granted for grading planning to not be provided due to minimal slopes 3. The approval is valid for one (1) year from the date of approval. Applicant is responsible for requesting an extension of approval before the one (1)year time frame has expired if you have not yet applied for a building permit or commenced significant site work. 4. The limits of clearing will constitute a no-cut buffer zone, orange construction fencing shall be installed around these areas and field verified by Community Development staff 5. Engineering sign-off required prior to signature of Planning Board Chairman. No further engineering signoff is required at this time prior to signature of the Planning Board Chairman. 6. The applicant must submit a copy of the following to the Town: a) The project NOI (Notice of Intent) for coverage under the current NYSDEC SPDES General Permit or for coverage under an individual SPDES prior to the start of aU site work. b) The project NOT(Notice of Termination)upon completion of the project; and 7. The applicant must maintain on their project site,for review by staff: a) The approved final that have been stamped by the Town Zoning Administrator. These plans must include the project SWPPP(Storm Water Pollution Prevention Plan)when such a plan was prepared and approved; and b) The project NOI and proof of coverage under the current NYSDEC SPDES General Permit,or an individual SPDES permit issued for the project. S. Final approved plans,in compliance with the Subdivision,must be submitted to the Community Development Department before any further review by the Zoning Administrator or Building and Codes personnel. 9. The applicant must meet with Staff after approval and prior to issuance of Building Permit and/or the beginning of any site work. 10. Subsequent issuance of further permits, including building permits is dependent on compliance with this and all other conditions of this resolution; It. As-built plans to certify that the subdivision is developed according to the approved plans to be provided prior to issuance of the certificate of occupancy; 12. Resolutions must be included on Final Subdivision mylar. 13. Homeowner's agreement regarding shared driveway to be submitted prior to any site work. 14. Site Plan Review required prior to any further development. Motion seconded by Brady Stark. Duly adopted this 21"day of March 2023 by the following vote: AYES: Mr. Deeb,Mr. Dixon, Mr. Longacker,Mr. Stark,Mr. Magowan,Mr. Etu,Mr. Traver 25 (Queensbury Planning Board 03/21/2023) NOES: NONE MR. TRAVER-You're all set. MR.JARRETT-Thank you for hearing me out. MR. TRAVER-Next under New Business is Queensbury Gardens Incorporated, Rudnick, and this is also Unapproved Development,Site Plan 16-2023 and Freshwater Wetlands Permit 3-2023. NEW BUSINESS—UNAPPROVED DEVELOPMENT: SITE PLAN NO. 16-2023 FRESHWATER WETLANDS 3-2023 SEQR TYPE: UNLISTED. QUEENSBURY GARDENS INC/RUDNICK. AGENT(S): EDP. OWNER(S): QUEENSBURY GARDENS, INC. ZONING: CI. LOCATION: 1 RUDLEY DRIVE. APPLICANT REQUESTS APPROVAL OF SITE WORK THAT HAS BEEN STARTED ON A PROPERTY THAT HAS EXISTING APARTMENT BUILDINGS AND A VEGETATIVE AREA WHERE THE WORK HAS BEGUN. TOTAL ACREAGE OF DISTURBANCE IS 0.85. THE PROJECT IS TO IMPROVE DRAINAGE,IMPROVE ACCESS TO AREAS OF THE PROPERTY FOR SECURITY,AND EXPAND AREAS FOR OUTDOOR STORAGE FOR THE APARTMENT COMPLEX SITE MAINTENANCE. PROJECT WORK OCCURS WITHIN 100 FT. OF WETLAND AREAS WITH A TOTAL WETLAND AREA OF 14.4 ACRES. APPLICANT HAS PREPARED A RESTORATION PLAN AS PART OF THE PROJECT. PURSUANT TO CHAPTER 179-3-040 &z CHAPTER 94,SITE WORK IN THE CI ZONE AND FRESHWATER WETLANDS PERMIT FOR WORK WITHIN 100 FT. OF WETLANDS SHALL BE SUBJECT TO PLANNING BOARD REVIEW AND APPROVAL. WARREN CO. REFERRAL: MARCH 2O23. SITE INFORMATION: WETLAND. LOT SIZE: 38.34 ACRES, 4.38 ACRES. TAX MAP NO. 302.10-1-18, 302.6-1-21. SECTION: 179-3-040; CHAPTER 94. TOM WARD, REPRESENTING APPLICANT,PRESENT;CHARLIE RUDNICK,PRESENT MR. TRAVER-Laura? MRS. MOORE-This project is for an area, applicant proposes approval of site work that has been started on a property that has existing apartment buildings and a vegetative area where the work has begun. The total area of disturbance at this point is 0.85 acres where project is to improve drainage and to improve access to areas of the property for security,and expand areas for outdoor storage for the apartment complex site maintenance. Project work occurs within 100 ft. of wetland areas with a total wetland area of 14.4 acres. MR. TRAVER-Okay. Thank you. Good evening. MR.WARD-Good evening. I'm Tom Ward with EDP. This is Charlie Rudnick,the owner of Queensbury Gardens, and as Laura explained the project is pretty much complete at this point. There were three aspects to what Mr. Rudnick had accomplished on the property. The first was alleviating some ponding of water within the mowed lawn area that existed at the end of Rudley Drive. He excavated a small trench in order to drain the lawn so he would be able to mow it easier so there wasn't any standing water on the property. The second portion was he created an ATV trail on the property in order to provide access to the rear of the lot. He's having problems with vagrancy and squatting by homeless people coming onto the property from the adjacent commercial development to the north. So the purpose of creating the ATV trail was so that he could actively patrol his property and make sure that he isn't responsible for anything vagrant going on in the rear of his lot. And the third portion of the project was the establishment of a secured outdoor material storage area,extending off the road,F Street. Previously equipment was stored on the residential roadways in sight of existing apartment buildings, and Mr. Rudnick felt it was imperative that he got that out of sight so that it's more secure and nobody could have access to it. So part of these activities associated with excavating the trench next to the apartment building at the end of Rudley Drive extended into the adjacent wetland. Mr. Rudnick at the completion of the activities was informed that he couldn't work within a wetland and therefore would have needed a permit from the Department of Environmental Conservation and/or the Army Corps of Engineers. We met with both agencies. DEC acknowledged that they didn't have jurisdiction over the wetlands in question. All of the activities by Mr. Rudnick were not under any permitting requirements from their agency so they backed away from the project and didn't have any questions or concerns. The Army Corps looked at it and acknowledged that the majority of the trench that was excavated was made in the residential lawn area outside of the wetlands. However,the creation of the trench established a wetlands that they then took jurisdiction over. And then the establishment of the ATV trail off of Rudley Drive,Mr. Rudnick crossed a small,narrow portion of the wetland and installed a culvert and the Army Corps has requested that that be removed because it wasn't previously permitted. So that's basically what we're in front of you for 26 (Queensbury Planning Board 03/21/2023) tonight is authorization to do the remaining work to remove that culvert and re-route that ATV trail around the narrow section of wetland at the request of the Army Corps. MR. TRAVER-Okay, and I see that the Army Corps has outlined areas to restore. Is that the culvert that you're speaking about? MR. WARD-That is correct. Within the trench area at the end of Rudley Drive there's a small pile of fill that's in the wetland area that they have asked that the fill be spread so it's not in a pile. It can be spread along the boundary of the wetland and then they want it re-planted,but in the area where the ATV trail was constructed, they have asked for that culvert to be removed and any fill associated with it to be removed and the wetland to be restored and then by re-routing the ATV trail around the edge of the wetland we're out of their jurisdiction and they have no other issues. MR.TRAVER-Right. Okay. So the Army Corps permit requirements at this point have not yet been met. Is that correct? MR.WARD-We have a pre-construction notification submitted and a permit application to do the work. It's my understanding that they're awaiting approvals from the Town in order to then authorize us to proceed. MR.TRAVER-Okay. So,hypothetically,should we approve this,and then your permit is approved by the Army Corps,how long will it take to complete the restoration and complete that part of the project? MR.WARD-Less than a month's time. MR. TRAVER-All right. Questions,comments from members of the Board? MR.LONGACKER-Do you plan on doing the post mitigation observations as part of the pre-construction notification? MR.WARD-If it's required by the Corps,then yes. MR. LONGACKER-Laura, does the Town typically get those? I see in the pre-construction notification that it says you will send it to the Town. Do you typically get them? MRS.MOORE-I'll just say I'm not quite sure when they're sent,but if they are,then typically Craig Brown would probably get it and Bruce Frank would probably as part of the follow up of this project. He would probably follow up anything that came from Army Corps. MR. LONGACKER-Okay. MRS. MOORE-So that's what we require as an as built at the end. MR. MAGOWAN-My question,when was this completed? Or how long has this been going on? MR. RUDNICK-Almost a year ago I got the Stop Work Order. So I was working on it before that. MR. MAGOWAN-Yes,because,Charlie,I'm not trying to bust chops here,but a lot of water comes down Foster Avenue. Did any of this have to do with any of the increased water after the storms? I mean,really, it goes all the way down to Route 9. MR.WARD-Right,and this doesn't have to do with that. This is about,I would say about 600 feet north, and so the idea was to actually help that in some way. MR.MAGOWAN-And I want to thank you for coming up because I was trying to read this and go through the pictures and drive by and see everything because I know your property goes back deep there. Doesn't it back right up to,pretty much,Aviation Mall area, doesn't it? MR.WARD-Right. MR. MAGOWAN-But,yes,I know there's a culvert that goes underneath Rudnick Road. MR. RUDNICK-Yes„under Rudley. You mean Rudley Road? MR. MAGOWAN-Yes. MR. RUDNICK-The intersection with Angel and Foster? 27 (Queensbury Planning Board 03/21/2023) MR. MAGOWAN-Right. Isn't there a culvert that goes over and it fills into Halfway? I was just,I know that gets clogged every now and then,or whatever, and I'm not sure who's responsibility that is,but I just wanted to make sure what you did wasn't affecting the culvert and the water coming down Foster Avenue. MR. WARD-Yes. I can attest to the fact that the drainage that goes on the north end of Rudley Drive bypasses that. So any other flow coming from the rest of the development would go through the other culvert,but what he did and what we're proposing to restore already flows to the north of that intersection, or I guess it's the northeast. So, you know, we're not contributing anymore flow to that culvert that's currently backed up,and,yes,I saw it in the springtime. It is a bad culvert and it really should be replaced at some point. MR. MAGOWAN-Thank you. MR. TRAVER-There is a public hearing on this application as well. Is there anyone in the audience who wanted to address the Planning Board on this application? I'm not seeing any takers. Written comments, Laura? PUBLIC HEARING OPENED MRS. MOORE-There are no written comments. MR. TRAVER-Okay. Then we will go ahead and close the public hearing. PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED MR. DIXON-Mr. Chairman,just last comment. So because it's a commercial property,in the future,this is the lecture part,please use the Town as a resource. They don't bite. They're very helpful,before you get into anything,whether you're adding a shed, changing the color of something. I know it seems like a big hassle to go through,but there's Code in place for a reason and the Town's there to help. Just don't let there be a second time. MR. RUDNICK-I'll just tell you,it started out with Bruce Frank yelling at me,you know, and then after an hour we're good friends. So I've learned a lot through this process, and have got good representation now. MR. DEEB-You're getting off easy. MR. DIXON-Yes, we don't care to get these on our list to do here. So I guess you are getting off a little easy tonight. So just don't let it happen again,please. MR. MAGOWAN-He's taking a hit because now he's increased his wetland. He's lost some usable property. By the way,this is nice. You did a good job. MRS. MOORE-So I would note that under waivers, the applicant has requested a stormwater waiver request. There is information in your packet in regards to stormwater,but not a full blown stormwater calculations. So this applicant has requested that of this Board. So if you're going to grant the waiver, you should be aware of that. MR. TRAVER-Okay. Thank you,Laura. All right. RESOLUTION APPROVING SP#16-2023 FWW 3-2023 QUEENSBURY GARDENS INC/RUDNICK The applicant has submitted an application to the Planning Board: Applicant requests approval of site work that has been started on a property that has existing apartment buildings and a vegetative area where the work has begun.Total acreage of disturbance is 0.S5.The proj ect is to improve drainage,improve access to areas of the property for security, and expand areas for outdoor storage for the apartment complex site maintenance. Project work occurs within 100 ft. of wetland areas with a total wetland area of 14.4 acres. Applicant has prepared a restoration plan as part of the project.Pursuant to chapter 179-3-040&Chapter 94,Site work in the CI zone and Freshwater Wetlands permit for work within 100 ft.of wetlands shall be subject to Planning Board review and approval. Pursuant to relevant sections of the Town of Queensbury Zoning Code-Chapter 179-9-OSO, the Planning Board has determined that this proposal satisfies the requirements as stated in the Zoning Code; As required by General Municipal Law Section 239-m the site plan application was referred to the Warren County Planning Department for its recommendation; The Planning Board opened a public hearing on the Site plan application on 3/21/2023 and continued the public hearing to 3/21/2023,when it was closed, 2S (Queensbury Planning Board 03/21/2023) 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 3/21/2023; 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 16-2023 &z FRESHWATER WETLANDS 3-2023 QUEENSBURY GARDENS,INC.;Introduced by Michael Dixon who moved for its adoption. According to the draft resolution prepared by Staff with the following: 1) Waivers requested granted for: g. site lighting, h. signage, j. stormwater, k. topography, 1. landscaping,n traffic, o. commercial alterations/construction details,p floor plans, q. soil logs,r. construction/demolition disposal s. snow removal; 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) Applicant to be compliant with Army Corps and completion of Army Corps comment. Motion seconded by Brad Magowan. Duly adopted this 21"day of March 2023 by the following vote: AYES: Mr. Stark,Mr. Magowan,Mr. Etu,Mr. Deeb,Mr. Dixon,Mr. Longacker, Mr. Traver NOES: NONE MR. TRAVER-You're all set. MR. RUDNICK-Thank you very much. MR. TRAVER-Laura,I saw that anew calendar was distributed. Has there been a change? MRS. MOORE-And that's because of the June 27`h. That's because of the elections. So we moved that one June meeting up to June 22 d It's now 20`h and June 22 d the Planning Board meetings,instead of June 20`h and June 27`h would be the following Tuesday, because there's an election on that Tuesday, a primary. MR. TRAVER-I had June 20 and June 22 d for our June meetings already. 29 (Queensbury Planning Board 03/21/2023) MRS. MOO RE-Because you voted last month to do that. She just officially gave you. MR. TRAVER-I see. So no change from what,okay. That was my question. I was concerned that there was a change. MRS. MOORE-No. MR. TRAVER-All right. So a reminder that again this month we have three meetings. Is there any other business before the Planning Board this evening? If not,I'll entertain a motion to adjourn. MR. DEEB-So moved. MOTION TO ADJOURN THE QUEENSBURY PLANNING BOARD MEETING OF MARCH 2r 2023,Introduced by David Deeb who moved for its adoption,seconded by Nathan Etu: Duly adopted this 21"day of March,2023,by the following vote: AYES: Mr. Deeb,Mr. Dixon,Mr. Longacker, Mr. Stark,Mr. Magowan,Mr. Etu,Mr. Traver NOES: NONE MR. TRAVER-We stand adjourned. Thank you,everyone. On motion meeting was adjourned. RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED, Stephen Traver,Chairman 30