Loading...
05-16-2023 (Queensbury Planning Board 05/16/2023) QUEENSBURYPTANNINGBOARD MEETING FIRSTREGUTAR MEETING MAYI6TH 2O23 INDEX Site Plan No. 36-2023 Timothy Heenan 1. Tax Map No.226.E-1-4 Site Plan No.24-2023 Schermerhorn Properties,LLC 9. SEQR Tax Map No.296.11-1-23;296.11-1-24;296.11-1-25 TOWN BOARD REFERRAL Site Plan No. 34-2023 1533 Queensbury,LLC 13. Tax Map No.2SS.S-1-5.2 Site Plan 35-2023 Rockhurst,LLC/Christopher Abele 16. Tax Map No.239.12-2-35.1 Site Plan No. 39-2023 Christopher Kelley 21. Tax Map No.266.3-1-S1 Site Plan No. 32-2023 Perkins Recycling Corp. 26. Tax Map No. 303.20-2-4S.1 Site Plan No.1-2023 Stevin O'Brien&Mackenzie Baertschi 30. Tax Map No.252.-1-SS 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 05/16/2023) QUEENSBURY PLANNING BOARD MEETING FIRST REGULAR MEETING MAY 16TK,2023 7.00 P.M. MEMBERS PRESENT STEPHEN TRAVER,CHAIRMAN DAVID DEEB,VICE CHAIRMAN MICHAEL DIXON,SECRETARY BRADY STARK WARREN LONGACKER BRAD MAGOWAN NATHAN ETU LAND USE PLANNER-LAURA MOORE STENOGRAPHER-KAREN DWYRE MR.TRAVER-Good evening,ladies and gentleman. Welcome to the Town of Queensbury Planning Board meeting for Tuesday,May 16`h,2023. This is our first meeting for the month of May and our tenth meeting thus far for the year. Please make note of the illuminated exit signs. In the event that we have an emergency and need to evacuate the building, those are the emergency exits. If you have a cell phone or other electronic device if you would either turn it off or turn the ringer off so as not to interfere with our proceedings, we'd appreciate that, and also, although we have a number of public hearings for different applications that we're reviewing this evening, aside from the public hearing, if you wish to have a conversation amongst yourselves, we'd appreciate it if you'd move to the outer room so that it doesn't confuse the minutes which are recorded and transcribed for us for each meeting. And with that we'll begin. The first order of business is the approval of minutes for the month of March. That is March 21 and March 2S`h and March 30`h of 2023. Does anyone have any corrections or amendments to those minutes? Hearing none,we have a resolution. APPROVAL OF MINUTES March 21",2023 March 2S`h,2023 March 30`h,2023 MOTION TO APPROVE THE QUEENSBURY PLANNING BOARD MEETING MINUTES OF MARCH 21 &z MARCH 28 &z MARCH 30, 2023, Introduced by Michael Dixon who moved for its adoption,seconded by Brady Stark: Duly adopted this 16`h day of May,2023,by the following vote: AYES: Mr. Longacker,Mr. Stark,Mr. Magowan,Mr. Etu,Mr. Dixon,Mr. Deeb,Mr. Traver NOES: NONE ABSTAINED: Mr. Deeb(March 2S`h,2023) MR. TRAVER-Thank you. Now we move to our regular agenda. The first section of that agenda is New Business, and the first item is Timothy Heenan. This is Site Plan 36-2023. NEW BUSINESS: SITE PLAN NO. 36-2023 SEQR TYPE: TYPE II. TIMOTHY HEENAN. AGENT(S): STUDIO A. OWNER(S): SAME AS APPLICANT. ZONING: WR. LOCATION: 400 CLEVERDALE ROAD. APPLICANT PROPOSES A SHORELINE PROJECT OF 3,673 SQ. FT. THE SITE WORK INCLUDES VEGETATION REMOVAL IN ORDER TO INSTALL A ROCK RETAINING WALL, RAIN GARDEN AREA, PLANTING BEDS, SHORELINE STABILIZATION AND NATIVE PLANTING PLAN. THE EXISTING 2,440 SQ. FT. HOME WILL REMAIN UNCHANGED. A WAIVER HAS BEEN REQUESTED FOR STORMWATER MANAGEMENT. PURSUANT TO CHAPTER 179-3-040,179=8-040,179-6-050,SITE PLAN FOR SHORELINE PLANTING PLAN AND HARD SURFACING WITHIN 50 FT. OF THE SHORELINE SHALL BE SUBJECT TO PLANNING BOARD REVIEW AND APPROVAL. CROSS REFERENCE: AV 1407-1988,SP 36-88,SP 10-2012. 2 (Queensbury Planning Board 05/16/2023) WARREN CO. REFERRAL: MAY 2023. SITE INFORMATION: LGPC,APA,CEA. LOT SIZE: 0.33 ACRE. TAX MAP NO. 226.8-1-4. SECTION: 179-3-040,179-8-040,179-6-050. QUINN ROESCH&MATT HUNTINGTON, REPRESENTING APPLICANT,PRESENT MR. TRAVER-Laura? MRS. MOORE-So the application is to renovate a shoreline approximately 3,673 square feet. The work includes vegetation removal in order to install rock retaining walls, rain garden areas or rather planting beds, not a rain garden, shoreline stabilization and native planting plan. The existing 2,440 square foot footprint home will remain unchanged and site plan review is required for the updated shoreline planting plan and hard surfacing within 50 feet of the shoreline for the retaining walls. MR. TRAVER-Okay. Thank you. Good evening. MS. ROES CH-Good evening. My name is Quinn Roesch and this is Matthew Huntington with Studio A, representing Tim Heenan, the owner of 400 Cleverdale Road. The project site is located at the end of Cleverdale Road and it is a peninsula. There's approximately 316 linear feet of shoreline along Lake George. The site is currently developed with a residence, a driveway, a patio, walkways and dock. There is some vegetation on the site right now but it's very minimal. There are no proposed changes to the existing impervious surfaces or the residence or the dock. Some vegetation is proposed to be removed and we'll discuss that later. So we are here tonight to seek Site Plan approval for a series of shoreline stabilization improvements. The first of which is the use of a coconut fiber log that's staked into the ground. This provides additional surface area for vegetation to grow, and along with that we're proposing series of additional plantings to supplement existing vegetation and all of the plantings are native shrubs, perennials and trees. Along with living shoreline practices, we are proposing the construction of two boulder retaining walls. These are focused along the existing asphalt driveway and the existing residence, mostly to provide structural stability for the driveway and the residence. These are proposed to be constructed of natural boulders, and they're only about four feet high and one foot, one and a half feet of that is underground. It's the footing. So only about two and a half feet will be visible. The one along the western shoreline is a two tiered wall and that's only because there's a five foot drop there. So it's a 500/o slope. So just to minimize the height of the walls, and then the one along the eastern shoreline,that one's only about two feet of visible rock from the water. Again, these are all natural boulders and we are proposing a vegetation behind the wall and in between the existing impervious surfaces. So we are proposing the removal of nine trees for these improvements. This is just to provide room for construction of the wall, and we are proposing to plant an additional 11 trees as part of our planting plan to supplement the removal of those trees. So that about summarizes the proposed work. MR. TRAVER-Okay. Are there other entities such as DEC participating in this plan? MS. ROESCH-Yes. We did submit a joint app and DEC did respond. We're waiting for their approval. They did ask for a few additional information but they really didn't have any questions. MR. TRAVER-Okay. And this is a,I saw a description,oh,living shoreline. MS. ROESCH-Yes, that's just a term that they use for the coconut fiber logs. Just because they are biodegradable and they are just providing additional surface area for the vegetation to grow. So it's not impervious. MR. TRAVER-Okay. And what,I'm assuming that there's no preservative in these coconut fiber logs. MS. ROESCH-No,they're completely biodegradable. MR. TRAVER-Do they have to be renovated periodically or replaced periodically? MS. ROE SCH-So the purpose of them is to degrade into a soil material. So they should naturally just form into soil and then the vegetation will grow into them. So there should be no replenishing needed. MR. TRAVER-So they're not really part of the structural integrity of the wall. So as they deteriorate they just become part of the structure. MS. ROESCH-Exactly. And then the vegetation provides the stability. MR. TRAVER-Thank you. Questions,comments from members of the Board? MR. DEEB-Can you tell us what additional information DEC asked for? MS. ROESCH-Yes, they wanted to know where we were going to stage the material. So on the revised plans that we sent Laura on May I"we did show little boxes of where,you know,soil,rocks can be staged. 3 (Queensbury Planning Board 05/16/2023) This is a small site. So they were just interested in how equipment was going to come on to the site. So we just provided the areas on the site. MR. MAGOWAN-The material, I see you're using the crushed stone up on the upper, but down and underneath the water it says backfill with a well-drained granular fill. What consists of a granular fill? MS. ROESCH-So that's just something, it could be like a sandy loam material that's well-drained so it doesn't retain water behind the wall and that's just to provide more stability for the wall and long term structural integrity, and the difference between the two walls. So the upper tiered wall,that one is more of a vertical wall, so that's why we have the drainage system there, whereas the one along the shoreline, that's a rebutment. So it's better and that once more kind of clays in the shoreline so that's why there's only well-drained material behind it and not a drainage system. MR. MAGOWAN-No, I see that, and I was just more concerned about what was going down below the water line on the granular fill. Is that going to be a washed granular,or are you bringing in? MS. ROESCH-Right. Like will the material be cleaned and not provide like sediment in the water? MR. MAGOWAN-Right. MS. ROESCH-Yes,that will be like a structural granular material that contractors typically use to provide stability for the bottom of the wall. So that would be a quarry should be approved to provide that,like a Number Two crushed stone. I don't know if you have anything to say about that? MR. HUNTINGTON-No. Pretty much I mean we'll usually add specifications on that as well. I mean you're looking at any kind of poorly graded,or well graded sand or well graded gravel,something like that, that isn't going to lose, and stay in place. MR. MAGOWAN-Well that's what I'm asking, you know, it's like I said, if we don't have our specifications in there,you know, they could say let's take the stuff that we took out of our parking lots that have been leaking oil for a long time and we'll use that, you know. I'm not saying that that would happen. MR. TRAVER-We do have a public hearing on this application as well. Is there anyone in the audience that wanted to address the Planning Board on this Site Plan 36-2023? Yes,sir. PUBLIC HEARING OPENED CHRIS NAVITSKY MR.NAVITSKY-Thank you. Chris Navitsky,Lake George Waterkeeper. The Waterkeeper does support the use of shoreline buffering,especially the bioengineering with that coconut wrap log,but we would like more information regarding the need for the structural method that is proposed,that's the retaining wall. We have the following questions. First of all there's question regarding the shoreline waterline that's indicated on Sheet I.I. It shows the edge of the water and the time of survey which cannot be accurate because it shows that it crosses contour lines. The shoreline of the lake doesn't cross contour lines. According to the USGS Roger's Rock elevation on December 27`h, 2022, the elevation was 319.57 which basically is about what it was today,a hundredth of a foot higher. They actually show it crossing Contour Line 322 on the drawing. So we really think that that should be accurately shown on a project that they are working on the shoreline. We do have a question,you know,why was it proposed? Is there concern about stormwater runoff? Is it causing erosion? Does any stormwater management exist on the site or is any going to be proposed? There are dashed lines from the building shown on Sheet 1.1,the eastern side says they plan to discharge gutters directly to the lake instead of providing stormwater management. It seems there's two dark dashed lines,they're not labeled,going right from the corners of the building right towards the shoreline. There is a detail on Section B, Sheet 1.11 that shows the drain, I think it was referenced by the applicant's agents, that show it draining behind the wall. Now where does that drain go? Is that going to be discharging out and be discharging stormwater? So that's a concern of ours. There are four trees at the point of Cleverdale to remain. I'm just wondering, I'm assuming they're going to remain. I'm just wondering why there was no tree protection measures provided for those? There were great details provided for a lot of the other trees but nothing around those. I had a question on the shoreline,how is that going to be excavated and from where was that going to be excavated. What time of year will this occur? It really should be in September,the time of year when the lake level is at its lowest. They really drop it before the wintertime, assuming the snow melt and the runoff. We support all the native plants that are proposed. We really recommend more sages and grasses, especially in that area where the coy log will be which will take root easier we feel and also be more resistant to the wave action. There's a detail on a sediment filtration bag which basically is a bag that they'll pump the water in from there area along the shoreline. We're just wondering where that will be located? Is it going to be in an area that you won't have the sediment water going right to the lake? There is concern,there were details about mulch being placed near the shoreline. We really have concerns about that because a lot of the 4 (Queensbury Planning Board 05/16/2023) mulch materials now contain herbicides and pesticides in their mixes. We really would not like to see that plus those erode pretty easily. We think that should be eliminated, kind of specify the topsoil in those areas. Lastly concern sources of the rock. Rock can be a big source of calcium. There's a problem with that. That is really an area for Zebra Mussels to grow. Calcium really provides what the Zebra Mussels need to develop their shells. That's why you really only see them developing along marinas,along the boardwalk around the Village. So just wondering where they're getting the rocks and what type of material that will be. These big slabs,you know, can there be some type of quality control on that. We do have information on the Roger's Rock level that was of interest, but really that shoreline, that's one thing that just jumped right out. So if there's any questions I'd be glad to answer them. MR. TRAVER-Thank you. MR. NAVITSKY-Thanks. MR. TRAVER-Is there anyone else that wanted to comment on this application,36-2023 this evening? MRS. MOORE-I do have a written comment. MR. TRAVER-Okay. MRS. MOORE-"To the Planning Board,we are adjacent homeowner's to the Heenan's property. We are not opposed to this project. Peggy and Fred Alexy" MR. TRAVER-Okay. Thank you. We will go ahead and close the public hearing,then. PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED MR. TRAVER-And ask the applicant to return to the table. So as you heard public comment,there were some questions. I noticed on the plan sheets,there is a,let's see, Cross Section B. It looked to me like it was possibly just a coloring,like there's a line pointing to water's edge. I'm assuming that means water level, and the blue extends above that to the contour interval. So I'm wondering if that's just coloration error and the water level is actually not at the dotted line but at the? MS. ROESCH-Yes,I believe there is like a little mix up. So the surveyor did provide us with water tides at the time of the survey, and then they also plotted the actual mean high water mark,which is controlled in Lake George. So we essentially just plotted both of those on our plan so that all of the information is provided,since they are on the plan view. MR. TRAVER-So the 320.2 is the high water? MS. ROESCH-Yes. MR.TRAVER-Okay. I guess that sounds about right. Okay,and there was some discussion about,again, related to the lake level, in that the period during which construction would be undertaken suggestion that that be done toward the lower level of the lake level which would be toward the Fall season. How does that jive with what your plans might be? TIM HEENAN MR.HEENAN-Hi. I'm the homeowner. MR. TRAVER-If you could get on the mic,if you will,and state your name for the record,for our minutes. MR.HEENAN-So the work would be done after the holiday in September MR. DIXON-And if you can state your name for the record. MR. HEENAN-Tim Heenan,the homeowner. And the work would be done from a barge. So just some of the other questions that came,and in terms of why we're doing it,there's a section in front of my house that maybe is four,five feet from the water. So what's happening right now is there's some boulders. As you know there's boulders everywhere along the shoreline,but I really have raw dirt and I have one tree that's just right there on the edge which is going to go. It's a big pine tree. So I have two big trees that I'm worried about, and it's just, it's been 10 years. I haven't touched that front and I've just watched it slowly erode away and erode away, and so really that front of the house that faces the lake we're trying to just stop the,stem the tide,you know,that point,as you probably know,people go over to rush to get their spot in Sandy Bay with the boats and the boats seem to be getting bigger every day and that wave action just actually slams at that peninsula and that's really what we're trying to prevent from getting worse. 5 (Queensbury Planning Board 05/16/2023) MR. TRAVER-Understood, and there was a comment which we have dealt with before, which has to do with the mulch product that's being proposed. It is,and public comment reflected this,which I accurate, very often the commercially available mulch is not what you would say is pure in the sense that it often has contaminants in it. It is normally used for decorative purposes,not the purpose for which you intend. MR.HEENAN-Right. MR.TRAVER-There are other products out there,ground wood products and so on,or the suggestion was soil. MR.HEENAN-I'm happy to use whatever,if it's soil we'll do soil. I don't have a problem. MR. TRAVER-Okay. The main thing is to avoid the use of commercial mulch close to the shoreline because it can leak chemicals. There was a question about tree protection. There is, because of the construction,there is some protective measures being taken on site for some of the trees,but it's not clear that all of them. MR.HEENAN-Yes,I wasn't sure what trees you're talking about. The front of the house,I say front of the house, facing north, northeast, the water there, that's where we're going to take some trees as part of constructing the wall. So I don't really think there's much protection there. The three on the point,they're very large trees. I think that's what the gentlemen was talking about. That is just the core log. So I really don't think there's much disruption when you're putting the core log. It's not like we're building a wall there. That's just a one foot coconut fiber. They take a basketball sized rock or boulder,put it up against the fiber and then they're putting dirt in it. I don't think we really,there's a lot of concern about those big trees getting damaged,if you looked at the site and you knew what they're going to do. MR.TRAVER-Okay. Thank you. The question was raised,too,and you mentioned using native rock for your wall. Are these boulders that are being retrieved from on-site basically? MR. HEENAN-No. I've been talking to the,the folks I've been talking with are Goulds, and it's the ones that they've been using. They showed me pictures,but I don't have information as to the calcium,whatever it was,limestone,what it is. I don't know. MR. TRAVER-Okay. MR.HUNTINGTON-So I have to follow the rules on that. MR. TRAVER-Okay. MR. HEENAN-But I know they've done a lot of work on the lake and it would be the same boulders they have been using on other projects. MR. TRAVER-Okay. If you would make note that that is a concern, that if materials being used have a significant calcium content,that could contribute to the shell growth of some of the invasives that we're trying to defend against. MR.HEENAN-Yes. MR. TRAVER-So I would appreciate that. It sounds like they're someone that's had some experience dealing with this. So it's okay,but if you'd make a point of mentioning it,we'd appreciate that. And lastly, can you talk about stormwater? What's the situation with stormwater? MR.HEENAN-Yes,the proposal is for the front of the house there will be,the arrows are gutters that will be installed,and the idea is to have the bulk of the gutters that would be installed go into the planting bed. So it would not go directly into the lake. It would go into the,we call it a planting bed,not a rain garden. So it's not going to be discharged into the lake. MR. TRAVER-So is this like a rain garden? Or maybe this is a question for. MR. HUNTINGTON-It's mainly a planting bed. One thing to keep in mind is that we are below all of the disturbance limits that require any permitting for stormwater management. The Lake George Park Commission will allow you to disturb up to 5,000 square feet without a permit at all. Similarly the Lake George Overlay Section in Lake George I believe follows the same Park Commission regulations. So we're only talking about roof runoff here that's now going to go into a heavily vegetated area. So in our opinion it's more than adequate as a stormwater management practice for the amount of disturbance that we're creating. MR. TRAVER-Well I appreciate what you're saying. I hope you can appreciate as well that one of our objectives is to try to reduce stormwater particularly going into the lake. So even if it may not be 6 (Queensbury Planning Board 05/16/2023) technically required,you make a formal plan. This Board always likes to investigate and wherever we can make improvements to the amount of stormwater going into the lake. MR.HUNTINGTON-Certainly. I mean this is our formal plan,heavy vegetation to address any roof runoff issues from the gutters. MR. TRAVER-Okay. MR.NAVITSKY-What's the dashed linear feature that was described that doesn't have a call out arrow to it? It looks like another downspout that's not labeled and it looks like it's just going right to the lake. The one to the bottom. There's a downspout that goes to the raingarden and then there's another what looks like a downspout.' MS. ROESCH-Yes, I believe that was just extended but we will revise that to be going into a vegetative area. MR. TRAVER-And that's on the,just to clarify the location of that spout for our resolution,that's on the south,let's see,the southwest side? MR. NAVITSKY-The southeast. MR. DEEB-That's the drain location you're talking about? MR. TRAVER-Yes. MR. DEEB-And I had a couple of things,more sages and grasses instead of. MR. HUNTINGTON-I think that's more of an opinion. We can certainly discuss it with our client,but, you know,I mean if we're going to go typically plant all native species,we actually use the Waterkeeper's list quite often when we plant on the lakeside. MR. TRAVER-Certainly this would be one of those times. MR. HUNTINGTON-Exactly. We could certainly take that into consideration. I don't want to say one way or another. MR. DEEB-As long as you discuss it. MR.HUNTINGTON-Yes,certainly. MR. DEEB-The other thing is the deep sediment bag location. MR. HUNTINGTON-Yes, so I mean those can really almost go anywhere because I don't know if everyone's familiar with them. They're basically a giant geotextile sack almost bigger than this table. What happens is if,you have to de-water to put anything in along the shoreline if you want work in the, and we may not even need it,honestly,but if you have to de-water anything,it pumps to that. That holds all the sediment in it. It's surrounded by silt fence. It sits on a temporary crushed stone layer. So the only thing that comes out of it is the same clean water that was previously in the lake,then you dispose of the bag once it's full. So I mean that thing could really be located almost anywhere because you're pumping lake water in. Clean lake water's coming out. MR. DEEB-What dictates where you locate it? MR. HUNTINGTON-It's just really a flat area and access to your pump if you have to de-water. I mean there's really no magic to it because it's not a contamination issue. We used to do a lot of bridge projects, and we've had people put them right on the edge of a lot of streams throughout the Adirondacks while they're putting in the footings for bridges, and again, it's really, move that some place they would like to see it,we could certainly propose spots for it on the plan,but it really is kind of a moot point. Like I said, it's lake water in,lake water out. The lake water coming out is free of sediments or any contaminants at that point. MR. TRAVER-Other questions,comments from members of the Board? MR. DIXON-I would just like to get some clarification, and it's from our Board as well. So you've agreed that you won't use mulch near the water. Are you agreeable to keeping all mulch say 20 to 30 feet from the shore? MR.HEENAN-Fine. 7 (Queensbury Planning Board 05/16/2023) MR. DEEB-I thought they were going to use soil? MRS. MOORE-I was going to say,could it be an alternative? MR. DEEB-I think they agreed to topsoil. MR. TRAVER-Yes. MR. DEEB-There won't be any mulch. MR. TRAVER-So that could be just part of it. MR. DIXON-If we don't term it right,then mulch is used out by the house. MR.HEENAN-You can just say no mulch. Topsoil. That's fine. MR. DIXON-Okay. MR. TRAVER-Anything else? MRS. MOORE-So one of the comments that you talked about was the stormwater. The applicant has requested a stormwater waiver. So at this point there's no stormwater information provided to the Board. I'm not certain if you wish them to provide stormwater plans or whether you're set to go to engineering or whether you want to give it some modification. MR. DEEB-That's a tough one. MR. TRAVER-Well,how do Board members feel? Do we want a formal stormwater plan? This is right on the lake. MR. LONGACKER-He's not adding any impervious area. The water is hitting the roof currently. He's going to be directing it towards a vegetated area. It won't be dispersed all over. I'm okay without it. MR. TRAVER-Okay. Anybody else have comments? MR. DIXON-I'm okay as well. Unless we wanted it just as stormwater plan provided to the Town Engineer for signoff,but I don't think we need. MR. TRAVER-Well engineering won't be part of it because of the size of the parcel. So this would be for our reference. MRS. MOORE-So providing the information about where the stormwater is going is sufficient? That's been addressed. MR. TRAVER-Yes. I think a general description of existing and proposed stormwater provided with the final plans. MR. DEEB-Stormwater is not triggered. I don't think stormwater is triggered by the size of it. MR. HUNTINGTON-No. Like I said previously, the actual disturbance limits are below anything that requires. MR. DIXON-Any clarification on the downspout? I've got it discharging to the raingarden already. MR.HUNTINGTON-The second downspout. MR. TRAVER-Or you can say all downspouts to be directed to the. With that, we're ready for your motion. RESOLUTION APPROVING SP#36-2023 TIMOTHY HEENAN The applicant has submitted an application to the Planning Board:Applicant proposes a shoreline project of 3,673 sq.ft. The site work includes vegetation removal in order to install a rock retaining wall,planting beds, shoreline stabilization and native planting plan. The existing 2,440 sq. ft. home will remain unchanged.A waiver has been requested for stormwater management.Pursuant to chapter 179-3-040,179- 5-040,179-6-050,site plan for shoreline planting plan and hard surfacing within 50 ft.of the shoreline shall be subject to Planning Board review and approval. S (Queensbury Planning Board 05/16/2023) Pursuant to relevant sections of the Town of Queensbury Zoning Code-Chapter 179-9-OSO, the Planning Board has determined that this proposal satisfies the requirements as stated in the Zoning Code; As required by General Municipal Law Section 239-m the site plan application was referred to the Warren County Planning Department for its recommendation; The Planning Board opened a public hearing on the Site plan application on 5/16/2023 and continued the public hearing to 5/16/2023,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 5/16/2023; 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 36-2023 TIMOTHY HEENAN,- Introduced by Michael Dixon who moved for its adoption. According to the draft resolution prepared by Staff with the following: 1) Waivers requested granted:items g.site lighting,h.signage,k.topography,n traffic,o.commercial alterations/construction details, p floor plans, q. soil logs, r. construction/demolition disposal s. snow removal. The applicant has provided information in regards to 1. site landscaping; 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) No mulch to be used within the shoreline. Topsoil preferred alternate. m) Stone to be used in contact with lake water would be of low calcium content. n) All downspouts located on the southeast on the house to be directed to the highly vegetated area. o) Stormwater plan to be included on the final plans. Motion seconded by Brady Stark. Duly adopted this 16`h day of May 2023 by the following vote: MR. DEEB-It's not a raingarden. 9 (Queensbury Planning Board 05/16/2023) MRS. MOORE-It's not a raingarden. MR.HUNTINGTON-Maybe you could say highly vegetated area. I think that,on the southeast it would be highly vegetated. On the other side it's going to be planted with planting beds. MR. DIXON-Amend that to be directed to the highly vegetated area versus the proposed raingarden. MR. TRAVER-Okay. MRS. MOORE-I would remove the raingarden because that's not what they're proposing. Again,they're only proposing the vegetated areas. MR. TRAVER-I thought you changed it to. MR. DIXON-Highly vegetated. MR. TRAVER-Yes,he amended that. MRS. MOORE-You did,but you used,and I don't know if it would show up in the resolution that's being printed when you say versus a raingarden. So I would just remove that wording. MR. DIXON-I'll amend that and re-read Item N, where all downspouts located on the southeast on the house to be directed to the highly vegetated area. MR. MAGOWAN-Mr. Chairman, a question,though,on the plan,though,when the downspouts goes in as a proposed raingarden,does that need to be changed on the plan. MRS. MOORE-So the applicant provided a revised plan that I e-mailed information to the Board about it. So there's no longer a raingarden. MR. TRAVER Just today. MR. MAGOWAN-I missed it. MR. TRAVER-That was just today. MR. DIXON-And that motion was seconded by Mr.Brady. AYES: Mr. Longacker,Mr. Deeb,Mr. Stark,Mr. Magowan, Mr. Etu,Mr. Dixon,Mr. Traver NOES: NONE MR. TRAVER-You're all set. MR.HEENAN-Thanks. MR. TRAVER-The next item on our agenda is Schermerhorn Properties,LLC. This is Site Plan 24-2023. SITE PLAN NO.24-2023 SEQR TYPE: UNLISTED (COORDINATED TOWN BOARD REVIEW) SCHERMERHORN PROPERTIES,LLC. AGENT(S): HUTCHINS ENGINEERING. OWNER(S): STEPHEN PINCHOOK. ZONING: O. LOCATION: 60 WALKER LANE. APPLICANT PROPOSES TO DEMOLISH AN EXISTING HOME,SHED AND POOL A 60 WALKER LANE AND CONSTRUCT TWO 20 UNIT APARTMENT BUILDINGS WITH ASSOCIATED SITE WORK. PROJECT INCLUDES MERGING 3 PARCELS AND CONNECTION TO MUNICIPAL SEWER AND WATER. THE PROJECT PROPERTIES TO BE COMBINED WILL BE ASSOCIATED WITH THE ADJACENT APARTMENT COMPLEX. THE PROJECT IS SUBJECT TO A TOWN BOARD REVIEW FOR SEWER DISTRICT EXPANSION. PURSUANT TO CHAPTER 179-3-040,179-5-100 &z 179-8-050,SITE PLAN FOR A MULTI-FAMILY DWELLING PROJECT IN THE OFFICE ZONE SHALL BE SUBJECT TO PLANNING BOARD REVIEW AND APPROVAL. PLANNING BOARD MAY CONDUCT SEQR AND REFER INFORMATION TO THE TOWN BOARD. CROSS REFERENCE: SUB 11-1990, AV 71-1993, SP 12-94. WARREN CO. REFERRAL: N/A. SITE INFORMATION: BAY ROAD CORRIDOR. LOT SIZE: 1.62 ACRES,2.0 ACRES,2.1 ACRES. TAX MAP NO.296.11-1-23,296.11-1-24,296.11-1-25. SECTION: 179-3-040,179-5-100,179-8-050. JON ZAPPER&TOM CENTER, REPRESENTING APPLICANT,PRESENT MR. TRAVER-Laura? 10 (Queensbury Planning Board 05/16/2023) MRS.MOORE-This application is overall,the start of it is that they're proposing an extension of the sewer district and then they'll propose demolition of a home, a shed, and a pool at 60 Walker Lane. They'll end up merging three parcels to construct two, 20 unit apartment buildings with associated site work that goes along with that. This will also join a neighboring apartment complex and for this evening's review you're providing the SEQR resolution,if you choose to go that far,as well as recommendation. MR. TRAVER-Okay. So just to clarify, tonight we're not doing any actual site plan review. We're considering whether to perform SEQR resolution and we're going to make a recommendation to the Town Board,which is lead agency for the sewer district. MRS. MOORE-Correct. MR. TRAVER-Thank you. Good evening. MR. ZAPPER-Good evening, everyone. For the record,Jon Lapper with Tom Center. So as Laura said, Rich was able to acquire this property from the State that owned the house and it's adjacent to two of his other apartment complexes. Tom designed this with no variances. So density, permeability, setback, height,everything is proper. We know that there's a single family residential two homes to the north and that Tom spoke with the homeowners this week and since we submitted a neighbor asked for, and Rich agreed,to now showing an approximately 300 foot brown vinyl six foot high fence all along that northern property line to add some additional buffer. There's also S0 feet of buffer between, or S0 feet of setback distance between the northernmost end of the building and the neighbor's property line and we've now also proposed an area that the Town requires a 25 foot buffer. We're saying there's a no cut buffer and Tom is has also supplemented the plantings with,we already had four clusters of five trees and now we're adding another one just to make sure that the neighbor's protected, but it's a pretty great distance, and again,it's a permitted use. So we're hoping that you can issue a SEQR negative declaration so that we can be back to the Town Board. The adjacent project,it's in the sewer district which is a nice extension that allows us to have municipal utilities and we expect the Town Board to act on that next month subject to you as lead agency granting a SEQR negative declaration. So with that I'll ask Tom to walk you through the plan. MR. TRAVER-Okay. MR. CENTER-So as Jon stated, all the existing structures, the house, the pool house, the sheds will be removed. What we've designed is two 20 unit buildings. The northernmost building here,the distance from the edge of the building to the edge of the residential property line is S6 feet. Mr. Schermerhorn also owns this parcel,this little finger that comes up along the northern boundary edge. We're proposing that to show that on the landscaping plan as to be a no cut 25 foot no cut buffer extending all the way from the northeast corner of that jog to the residential property all the way to the west. So we're going to add that. We've also shown notes on the landscaping plan that shows that area for existing vegetation to remain in that areas, as well as the northwest corner. We're only doing enough disturbance for the building and to get a grass swale in there to take the grass lawn area and get it to go around the building and into the swale to the south. As Jon said,we've agreed to add a fence line across the north property boundary about 300 feet from the northwest corner right here all the way to just beyond the building,the northwest corner of that northern building. All drainage is being contained on the site. We're taking the parking areas are draining into catch basins and going into the stormwater basins on the south end of the property and then outletting into the wooded area. There are eaves trenches around the building to collect the runoff from the roofs, and those are tied into the stormwater basins. As Jon said all the sanitary sewer and the water will be supplied by municipal services by tying into the municipal sewer on Rich's project on Gentry Lane. We've been working with Chris Harrington to design that. There's adequate capacity, and we're tying right into an existing gravity manhole sewer and it's going through Rich's system and being pumped to the Town. Other than that,everything's pretty straightforward. We tried to keep the buildings as far to the south as we could,but we have to do stormwater management. So that's why the configuration of what we have here,we tried to leave as much buffer to the north as we could knowing that that was a residential neighborhood. The dumpster pad location is about 60 feet from the residential parcel and we also have, between adding the fence and also adding the cluster of five trees to the left,to the west, is going to also enhance some sound deadening and buffering in that area. If there's any other questions. We have looked at the stormwater comments from the Town Engineer. I had a couple of questions for him. Reached out today. I didn't see anything in there. They all seemed boilerplate stuff for the stormwater report. MR. TRAVER-Right. Well of course for SEQR,if we get to that point,one of the considerations is traffic and I saw also that in the engineering report they felt that the traffic impacts were okay. MR. CENTER-That is correct. We did have Creighton Manning do a traffic study and that was based off of the base that they had for Gentry Lane and then the other apartment,the larger apartment complex in the back. So what they found is that we are well within what was predicted or less than what was predicted for that subdivision based on the traffic today with that fully built out. 11 (Queensbury Planning Board 05/16/2023) MR. TRAVER-And with the four way stop signs added. MR. CENTER-Three way stop sign at Walker Lane and that little street that goes to the west. MR. TRAVER-And the other concern of course that you mentioned briefly is adding 40 apartments to our septic service. You indicated that you've been speaking to Mr. Harrington about capacity. MR.CENTER-Yes,Mr.Harrington,the capacity. There's plenty of capacity in the pump station,in Rich's existing pump station and the pump station on the Town side also. It was,he said that when they designed the build out for that area it was looked at as these parcels,the potential for them to be built out. So that's why he doesn't have any concerns. MR. TRAVER-Okay. Questions,comments from members of the Board? MR. DEEB-I know we're not doing site plan,but you're providing more than adequate number of parking spaces than required? MR. CENTER-That is correct. MR. DEEB-And my concern with that,with the site plan you have two green patches in the parking lot, some little grass land,and looking at the other buildings on the other side,there's nothing but blacktop in the front and I would like to avoid that again if possible. So if you had more room for more grass lands in the front,you could make it look nicer. I was hoping that was something you would look at. MR. TRAVER-There is supposed to be one shade tree for every 15 parking spaces. MR. DEEB-Yes,but I'm talking about the green spots in the front. It's going to be all macadam. MR. CENTER-The fronts, as you're coming up,you have the ponds and the landscaped areas, as you're coming into the. We're leaving a large buffer on the southwest corner between the two ponds. That's a no cut area,or I'm sorry,it's a lawn area which I suppose we could do some plantings in that area if that's what you're looking for,along,in between those two ponds. We can put some planting in there,and some planting along the east side lawn area to the east of the entrance. MR. DEEB-But you can't increase the, along the parking lot itself. You couldn't take a couple of? MR. CENTER-Well, historically, providing the number of parking spaces that we've had, it produces issues within the complex on parking. It's one and a half and I believe we've run over it to two per. MR. ZAPPER-Rich always wants two because he doesn't,for guests,so people aren't parking on the grass and that's with all of the complexes we've done in Queensbury,having two per unit. MR. DEEB-A lot of people have two cars. MR. CENTER-We also tried to layout the parking area to minimize the impact of the existing buffer in the surrounding area and leave as much as we can along the perimeter, especially to the north on the residential side to keep the buffers. MR. DEEB-My concern,when I drove through at the southern half,it's pretty stark. MR. ZAPPER-We can talk about showing some more plantings along those basins when we come back for site plan review. MR.CENTER-And there are,if you go to the landscaping plan,there are several trees,as you're going in to the main driveway, there are trees there, if you look at Drawing S-5. There are two trees in each island, plus there's trees on either side of the dumpster area, on the bump outs, and alongside the buildings. There's five there. We can look at adding additional in the lawn area to the southwest. MR. ZAPPER-The trees don't really show up that well in that plan,but there's a bunch of trees now and we can certainly supplement that. MR. DEEB-You see what I'm driving at? I just don't want it to look like the other side,with all blacktop in the front. That's all I ask. MR. TRAVER-We also,again,this is another site plan issue,but you remember you mentioned additional plantings between the ponds and so on. When you come back for site plan, if you could be prepared to provide numbers and types,so that we'll have that on our plan. MR. DEEB-And you gave us a diagram sheet for the first floor. 12 (Queensbury Planning Board 05/16/2023) MR. CENTER-First and second floor are eight apartments each, and the third floor is four. MR. DEEB-Because we only had the first floor. I'm just trying to figure it out. I couldn't figure it out. MR. CENTER-We'll clarify that. MR. DEEB-Okay. So the third floor is going to have four apartments. MR. CENTER-That's correct. MR. DEEB-But they would be bigger? MR. CENTER-Yes. MR. DEEB-Is there an elevator? MR. CENTER-Yes. MRS. MOORE-Yes. MR. DEEB-All right. Thanks. MR. MAGOWAN-I have to say I really like the design of the building. I like the patios with the sliding glass doors with the little sit out area,kind of reminds me of the Fowlers Square. It looks more luxury too. MR. TRAVER-Other questions, comments from the Board regarding either the environmental review or considering a recommendation to the Town Board as Lead Agency for extension of the sewer district? MR. LONGACKER-I'm just curious. Are you going to get a letter from SHPO or have you received one already? I just see on the form you checked off yes to being located next to an archeological area. MR.CENTER-I'm expecting a letter. There's several projects that,all nearby,between the subdivision on the north for the residential and the two projects that Rich did. MR. TRAVER-Yes, we will need that. Do Board members feel comfortable moving ahead under SEQR, doing the SEQR review? MR. DIXON-I don't think we identified anything. MR. TRAVER-Right. Okay. All right. Well then we'll do that first. RESOLUTION GRANTING A NEGATIVE SEQR DEC. SP#24-2023 SCHERMERHORN The applicant proposes to demolish an existing home,shed and pool at 60 Walker Lane and construct two 20 unit apartment buildings with associated site work. Project includes merging 3 parcels and connection to municipal sewer and water. The project properties to be combined will be associated with the adjacent apartment complex. The project is subject to a Town Board review for sewer district expansion. Pursuant to chapter 179-3-040,179-5-100&179-5-050,site plan for a multi-family dwelling project in the office zone shall be subject to Planning Board review and approval. Planning Board may conduct SEQR and refer information to the Town Board. The proposed action considered by this Board is Unlisted in the Department of Environmental Conservation Regulations implementing the State Environmental Quality Review Act and the regulations of the Town of Queensbury; No Federal or other agencies are involved; Part 1 of the Short EAF has been completed by the applicant; Upon review of the information recorded on this EAF, it is the conclusion of the Town of Queensbury Planning Board as lead agency that this project will result in no significant adverse impacts on the environment,and,therefore, an environmental impact statement need not be prepared. Accordingly,this negative declaration is issued. MOTION TO GRANT A NEGATIVE DECLARATION FOR SITE PLAN 24-2023 SCHERMERHORN PROPERTIES,LLC.Introduced by Michael Dixon who moved for its adoption. As per the resolution prepared by staff. 13 (Queensbury Planning Board 05/16/2023) 1. Part II of the Short EAF has been reviewed and completed by the Planning Board. 2. Part III of the Short EAF is not necessary because the Planning Board did not identify potentially moderate to large impacts. Motion seconded by Warren Longacker. Duly adopted this 16`h day of May 2023 by the following vote: AYES: Mr. Magowan,Mr. Etu,Mr. Stark,Mr. Longacker,Mr. Deeb,Mr. Dixon,Mr. Traver NOES: NONE MR. TRAVER-All right. So next we have to consider the recommendation to the sewer extension, and also we have a public hearing on this application. Is there anyone in the audience that wanted to comment to the Planning Board on this project,Site Plan 24-2023? I'm not seeing any. Written comments,Laura? PUBLIC HEARING OPENED MR. TRAVER-No? Okay. Then we'll go ahead and close the public hearing. PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED MR. TRAVER-Are we prepared to make a recommendation, yes or no, on extending the sewer district? Evidently they have been in communication with the appropriate department at the Town. Okay. We have that resolution. RESOLUTION RE: TOWN BOARD RECOMMENDATION RE: SCHERMERHORN WHEREAS,the applicant proposes to demolish an existing home, shed and pool at 60 Walker Lane and construct two 20 unit apartment buildings with associated site work. Project includes merging 3 parcels and connection to municipal sewer and water. The project properties to be combined will be associated with the adjacent apartment complex. The project is subject to a Town Board review for sewer district expansion. Pursuant to chapter 179-3-040, 179-5-100 & 179-8-050, site plan for a multi-family dwelling project in the office zone shall be subject to Planning Board review and approval. Planning Board may conduct SEQR and refer information to the Town Board. MOTION FOR RECOMMENDATION TO THE TOWN BOARD GRANT SEWER DISTRICT EXTENSION FOR SITE PLAN 24-2023 SCHERMERHORN PROPERTIES,LLC; The Planning Board based on limited review has not identified any significant adverse impacts that cannot be mitigated with this proposal. Introduced by Michael Dixon who moved for its adoption. Motion seconded by Brady Stark. Duly adopted this 16`h day of May 2023 by the following vote: AYES: Mr. Dixon,Mr. Stark,Mr. Magowan,Mr. Longacker,Mr. Etu,Mr. Deeb,Mr. Traver NOES: NONE MR. TRAVER-You're off to the Town Board. MR. ZAPPER-Thanks,everybody. MR. TRAVER-The next item on our agenda is 1533 Queensbury,LLC. This is Site Plan 34-2023. SITE PLAN NO. 34-2023 SEQR TYPE: TYPE II. 1533 QUEENSBURY, LLC. AGENT(S): ENGINEERING AMERICA CO. OWNER(S): SAME AS APPLICANT. ZONING: CI. LOCATION: 1533 STATE ROUTE 9. APPLICANT PROPOSES TO REFURBISH THE CARPORT AREA OF AN EXISTING HOTEL. THE EXISTING 1,152 SQ. FT. CARPORT ROOF WILL BE REPLACED WITH A METAL ROOF AND REMOVING THE GABLES ON EITHER SIDE. THE TOWER AREA WILL BE IMPROVED WITH A RECTANGLE FACADE AND REMOVING THE GABLE FEATURES. THE FRONT TOWER FACADE WILL INCLUDE A PANEL COVERING AND NEW SIGNAGE. THE PROJECT ALSO INCLUDES REPLACING THE FREE STANDING AND DIRECTIONAL SIGNS TO REFLECT THE RE-BRANDING OF THE HOTEL TO LA QUINTA. THE 18,140 SQ. FT. MAIN HOTEL BUILDING AND OTHER SITE DETAILS WILL REMAIN UNCHANGED. PURSUANT TO CHAPTER 19-3-040, SITE PLAN FOR FACADE IMPROVEMENTS SHALL BE SUBJECT TO PLANNING BOARD REVIEW AND APPROVAL. 14 (Queensbury Planning Board 05/16/2023) CROSS REFERENCE: SP 49-2005. WARREN CO. REFERRAL: MAY 2023. SITE INFORMATION: TRAVEL CORRIDOR. LOT SIZE: 496 ACRES. TAX MAP NO. 288.8-1-5.2. SECTION: 179-3-040. TONYA YASENCHAK, REPRESENTING APPLICANT,PRESENT MR. TRAVER-Laura? MRS. MOORE-This applicant proposes to refurbish the carport area and tower entry area of an existing hotel. The existing 1,152 square foot carport roof will be replaced with metal roofing,remove the gables on either side. The tower area will be improved with a rectangle facade and removing those gable features. The front tower will include a panel covering and new signage. The project also includes replacing the freestanding and directional signage to reflect the re-branding of the hotel to LaQuinta. MR. TRAVER-Okay. Thank you,Laura. Good evening. MS. YASENCHAK-So my name is Tonya Yasenchak and I'm with Engineering America and I'm here representing the owners at,their company's name is 1533 Queensbury,LLC. SONI MUKESH MR.MUKESH-I'm Soni Mukesh. I'm representing the owners. I have multiple hotels and this is recently, we have taken over this in the last year and basically this application is about the refurbishment which we are looking to do. MR. TRAVER-So this is essentially like a re-branding effort. MS. YASENCHAK-Yes,it is. So in order for them to re-brand to LaQuinta,currently it's being operated as the George and I believe before that it was the Comfort Inn and Suites. So in order for them to re-brand, LaQuinta it requires them to do certain things to the exterior of the building. Right now the building has a peak in the front,has a gable over the main entryway as well as a carport, and the carport, what we're proposing is that the carport have a metal roof. We'll be taking out the shingles. Also that the wood timbers on the carport would be stained a little bit darker over that main gable of the building. We are going to have a parapet wall that will be approximately maybe another six feet but it will not go any higher than what that peak of that gable is currently that whole front bump out will then be faced with a branded the material that goes on a metal panel system. So we will just be going right over the stone that is there. So we're not increasing the footprint. I did bring a sample of the material. So I think that when they actually install it it does have kind of the wood look. Even though it is a tile,it does have a wood look from far away. So they use this same exact material down in Clifton Park I think as part of the packet that I did submit did include a picture of what it looked like in Clifton Park. So the material has an interesting way of kind of mixing with the environment. I can show this to you. It is just tile. So it is a really interesting material. As much as it is a the when it gets installed in more of a lineal effect,more of a board effect. So I don't know if we have a picture of that that you can see. Perhaps even if you showed a picture of the LaQuinta down in Clifton Park. So this is photo shopped of what the original,the brand,but what LaQuinta wanted us to do. So we felt that this was a little over the top for this location. We felt the signage was too big. They wanted their big logo. So we needed to scale it down so that it would be a little bit more Adirondack in style. So this is where we ended up. You can see we have the metal roofing over the carport,and that the material will be around the top and along the sides where the windows are, but we'd like to continue to have that stone so it would end up looking more like pillars with a capped pillar,rather than putting the material across the whole front. We felt like seeing that stone really helps, so you didn't get hit with this mass of the tile. So it is pretty simple why we're here. We're not changing anything with any impervious area. Shouldn't change much at all. We're not changing the parking. This is a picture of the LaQuinta in Clifton Park. So you can see how that ends up looking very lineal and almost wood like when it's actually installed. I could go through the whole thing but I think it's pretty simple. We're open to questions. It's pretty much the easiest way to answer anyone. MR. TRAVER-Okay. Thank you. Questions,comments from members of the Board? MR. DIXON-One regarding the metal roof. In the North Country here I always point out the fact that if there's no ice hooks or whatever they put on the end,but during snowstorms,post snowstorm,that snow comes off very fast. Do you know, is there anything that's going to be engineered to try to prevent that from causing problems? MS. YASENCHAK-We can put something out there that would help retain, so that you don't get a huge slide all at the same time. MR. DIXON-Do you know,in particular,what exactly they're called? MS.YASENCHAK-I don't know off the top of my head. I can get that information to you. 15 (Queensbury Planning Board 05/16/2023) MR. TRAVER-Your roofing contractor probably would provide for that anyway. MR. DIXON-That's all that I had on that. MR. TRAVER-Other questions? Anyone have any concerns with what they're proposing? We do have a public hearing on this application as well. Is there anyone in the audience that wanted to comment on this application? Any written comments,Laura? PUBLIC HEARING OPENED MRS. MOORE-There are no written comments. MR. TRAVER-Okay. Then we'll go ahead and close the public hearing. PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED MR. TRAVER-We're ready to entertain that motion. RESOLUTION APPROVING SP#34-2023 1533 QUEENSBURY,LLC The applicant has submitted an application to the Planning Board: Applicant proposes to refurbish the carport area and tower entry area of an existing hotel.The existing 1,152 sq.ft.carport roof will be replaced with a metal roof and removing the gables on either side. The tower area will be improved with a rectangle facade ad removing the gable features. The front tower facade will include a panel covering and new signage. The project also includes replacing the free standing and directional signs to reflect the re- branding of the hotel to LaQuinta. The IS,140 sq.ft.main hotel building and other site details will remain unchanged. Pursuant to chapter 179-3-040,site plan for facade improvements shall be subject to Planning Board review and approval Pursuant to relevant sections of the Town of Queensbury Zoning Code-Chapter 179-9-OSO, the Planning Board has determined that this proposal satisfies the requirements as stated in the Zoning Code; As required by General Municipal Law Section 239-m the site plan application was referred to the Warren County Planning Department for its recommendation; The Planning Board opened a public hearing on the Site plan application on 5/16/2023 and continued the public hearing to 5/16/2023 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 5/16/2023; 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 34-2023 1533 QUEENSBURY, LLC. Introduced by Michael Dixon who moved for its adoption; Per the draft provided by staff conditioned upon the following conditions: 1) Waivers request granted: 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 for this specific project as the only change is to the facade, carport and signage for the hotel brand look. The applicant has provided information for:g. site lighting h. signage; 2) The approval is valid for one (1) year from the date of approval. Applicant is responsible for requesting an extension of approval before the one (1)year time frame has expired. 3) Adherence to the items outlined in the follow-up letter sent with this resolution. a) If application was referred to engineering,then engineering sign-off required prior to signature of Zoning Administrator of the approved plans; b) Final approved plans should have dimensions and setbacks noted on the site plan/survey,floor plans and elevation for the existing rooms and proposed rooms in the building and site improvements, c) Final approved plans,in compliance with the Site Plan,must be submitted to the Community Development Department before any further review by the Zoning Administrator or Building and Codes personnel; d) The applicant must meet with Staff after approval and prior to issuance of Building Permit and/or the beginning of any site work; e) Subsequent issuance of further permits,including building permits is dependent on compliance with this and all other conditions of this resolution; 16 (Queensbury Planning Board 05/16/2023) f) As-built plans to certify that the site plan is developed according to the approved plans to be provided prior to issuance of the certificate of occupancy; g) Resolution to be placed on final plans in its entirety and legible. h) Alpine Snow Guards to be added to the metal roofing. Motion seconded by Brad Magowan. Duly adopted this 16`h day of May 2023 by the following vote: AYES: Mr. Stark,Mr. Longacker,Mr. Deeb,Mr. Magowan, Mr. Etu,Mr. Dixon,Mr. Traver NOES: NONE MR. TRAVER-You're all set. MS.YASENCHAK-Thankyou. MR. TRAVER-The next item on our agenda is Rockhurst, LLC, Christopher Abele. This is Site Plan 35- 2023. SITE PLAN NO. 35-2023 SEQR TYPE: TYPE II. ROCKHURST, LLC/CHRISTOPHER ABELE. AGENT(S): EDP. OWNER(S): ROCKHURST, LLC. ZONING: WR. LOCATION: 10 POLK DRIVE. APPLICANT PROPOSES A NEW SINGLE FAMILY HOME WITH A FOOTPRINT OF 5,649 SQ. FT. AND A FLOOR AREA OF 10,567 SQ. FT. THE PROJECT WORK INCLUDES SITE GRADING, PERMEABLE PAVERS, SHORELINE ACCESS AREAS, STORMWATER MANAGEMENT, NEW ONSITE SEPTIC SYSTEM, AND LANDSCAPING. PURSUANT TO CHAPTER 179-3-040,179-6-064&z 147,NEW FLOOR AREA IN A CEA AND HARD SURFACING WITHIN 50 FT. OF THE SHORELINE SHALL BE SUBJECT TO PLANNING BOARD REVIEW AND APPROVAL. CROSS REFERENCE: SUB (M) 13-2022. WARREN CO.REFERRAL: MAY 2023. SITE INFORMATION: LGPC,APA,CEA. LOT SIZE: 1.15 ACRES. TAX MAP NO.239.12- 2-35.1. SECTION: 179-3-040,179-6-065,147. GAVIN VUILLAUME, REPRESENTING APPLICANT,PRESENT;CHRIS ABELE,PRESENT MR. TRAVER-Laura? MRS. MOORE-The applicant proposes a new single family home with a footprint of 5,527 square feet and a floor area of 10,567 square feet. The project work includes site grading, permeable pavers, shoreline access areas,stormwater management,a new on-site septic system,and shoreline plantings. MR. TRAVER-Thank you. Good evening. MR.VUILLAUME-Okay. Good evening. Gavin Vuillaume with Environmental Design,herewith Chris Abele. So I know the Planning Board has seen many different aspects of this project. It's been going on, Chris purchased the property about three years ago, and we were last in front of the Planning Board in 2021 for what we referred to back then as the guest house. We always knew that we were planning someday to do the main house but it was the guest house that was most recently approved back in'21. We needed one variance,I think,for a shoreline setback. It was kind of a technicality because of the way the shoreline was defined within the subdivision this was originally part of it. So we did gain our variances back then in'21 for the guest house,received site plan approval, and over the last few years Chris has done a very nice job with the construction of that. It's completed. Everything looks good as per the plans. That's going to be,this building in the far left corner,and that's the one that is probably I would say 3,000 or 4,000 square feet roughly. This new building, obviously the main house will be quite a bit larger than that. They both have access off of what we call Polk Drive,but it's really Assembly Point. Back then they referred to it as Polk Drive going through this parcel. So that's why the actual nomenclature,the address is Polk Drive. So,yes,we received our approvals back then and completed it. Everything turned out great. So now we're here for the main house. So that's what we'll go through. I'll start off with maybe existing conditions, Laura,if you have that one. So again here's the existing guest house, the way it sits. There's an existing driveway comes off Assembly Road and then there's a gravel driveway that kind of connects the two parcels. This particular survey does show the garage that has since been removed,so has the house that was originally on the Point. The house was very close to the water. We are now quite a ways away from it as you'll see on our site plans. There's a lot of vegetation all around the perimeter of this particular lot. It's 1.15 acres. The 35 foot vegetative buffer is being preserved. We're only removing I think 10 or 12 trees throughout the entire one and a half acres. Mostly in the area of where the proposed home is going to be located and maybe several other damaged trees that need to be removed, but for the most part everything along that shore is going to stay the same. So we can move on, I guess, to the grading plan, Laura. The next one. So again this is the blowup of it. You can see how the house has been designed to carefully move around the peninsula without disturbing anything along the perimeter. We do meet, obviously, all the setbacks, the 50 foot shoreline setbacks in specific. We meet all the criteria as far as permeability. We are at S0010 permeability,floor area ratio,I believe,would allow for an 11,000 square foot building. We're proposing 10. We talked about the 35 foot setback and we also would be meeting the 2 S 17 (Queensbury Planning Board 05/16/2023) foot height for the building and we do have some elevations on, Laura has those in her computer,but we don't have to look at those now,but getting to the grading,I guess this is a good time to point out some of the other features as far as stormwater. So the stormwater, obviously the high spot is where the house is located. Everything kind of pitches away in both directions here. This is the new location for the proposed septic system. So we're getting the drainage away from the septic system. We're using permeable pavers with the drip edges around the building. Infiltration basins,there's a small infiltration basin here that we're proposing. So we're taking care of all the stormwater management on the site. I believe the total disturbance out of the grading plan is approximately 30,000 square feet. So we did a major stormwater review. It's been reviewed by LaBella. We received a comment letter on Friday. It only had really I think three or four comments on it. So it's pretty minor. We've already addressed those comments with Laura today. So we're ready to get back to them,but I don't see them having any issues with any of the stormwater design. And so we can move on now to the planting plan,I guess. If you can go to that one. So again like I had specified it's a little tough to see here with the existing vegetation,but there is a lot of existing vegetation. You can kind of see some of it along the perimeter that we're keeping. There's two areas in particular that we'd be adding some additional plantings, and that would be where the existing docks are. There's not a lot of vegetation there. So in order to protect those areas we're proposing vegetation along those two existing docks. There would be,in the future,a boathouse here. So we're going to be doing planting there as well. I think there's probably over 70 or SO plants and trees on this project. He really does a nice job with plants. I've got to say,Chris did a nice job on that last building. I've seen it. It looks fantastic. With species that we're using,we're going to use the same exact ones that we did on that guest house it all worked out very well. So that's our planting plan. I didn't talk too much about the water but we are drawing from the lake the water,the same as what we did with the guest house. So the water comes from the lake. I reviewed the septic system. I guess that's pretty much it for the initial presentation,and we're happy to answer any questions. MR. TRAVER-Okay. Questions,comments from members of the Board? MR. MAGOWAN-I'm surprised on the,really the guest house did come out nice, and it was'21. It just seemed like the other month you were here. You said you'd be back,but drawing from the lake for such a large house. I mean do you like the softness of the water? MR. ABELE-Well, the water, you know, we do have a treatment system, and actually what we did, we hired a bore machine and I did both bores for each lot,and I did that about I think about two summers ago. So we have a casing that hit the lake below frost and went out in the lake, and,you know, we're going to have individual lines for each home. The water is excellent and we treat it with ultraviolet. MR. MAGOWAN-No sulfur smell,no 600, S00 foot wells,no pump. I mean that's admirable. I like that idea. MR. DEEB-Does your planting plan meet the specifications of our guide? MR.ABELE-Yes. MR. DEEB-Okay. MR. DIXON-I know a question that comes up often, any time people are using permeable pavers for the driveway, are you agreeable to providing a maintenance plan for them? MR.WILLAUME-Sure. MR.ABELE-Yes. MR. DIXON-And then Number Two would be the proposed future boathouse. I didn't see anywhere, is that not part of this plan? MR.WILLAUME-That's not part of this application at this point. MRS. MOORE-We don't get to review that. MR. DIXON-Okay. MR.ABELE-Well we currently do have an application in front of the Lake George Park Commission,but, you know, we haven't gotten our approval yet,but we wanted to show the potential location of another boathouse. MR. DIXON-Okay. MR. ETU-Could you address the comments? 1S (Queensbury Planning Board 05/16/2023) MR.VUILLAUME-So there were really just two of them. They were still wondering if we needed to have the setback, 100 foot setback for the stormwater devices, but I believe back in early April that has been revised. Right,Laura? MRS. MOORE-Correct. MR. VUILLAUME-So we don't need to meet,we just need to meet the 35 foot,not the 100. So then the only other one that they were concerned with was any, I think any of the permeable pavers being close to the septic system. So what we're going to do with that is,again,we've revised the grading a little bit just to make sure that any drainage that comes off of these permeable pavers does,in fact, get away from the septic systems. If we needed to, if for some reason they felt there was still a need to do some type of a barrier between there,we've done that before where we've dug a small, some type of a barrier,it could be anything,just to make sure that there's no interface between the two,but we don't really see a need for it, especially since a lot of the drainage is really going away from the septic system. MR. MAGOWAN-I will say, on the permeable paver maintenance, I would like to bring up to the Board that I had a call up to Assembly Point for a project we approved years ago, and when I showed up to look at the j ob,he happened to be maintaining his permeable pavers and basically it's blasted out with air pretty much because you've got the stone and that and he's got the, it's messy. He said it is messy,but I mean what a difference because they do clog up with the pollens and the poplars,the pollens and,you know,the fine sediment,but if you get on it early enough he said it just blows out with pressure and then he basically sweeps it off and the hoses it all down and it looks like it was just installed. So I was happy. 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 Site Plan 35-2023? Yes,sir. PUBLIC HEARING OPENED CHRIS NAVITSKY MR. NAVITSKY-Thank you. Chris Navitsky, Lake George Waterkeeper. We recognize the important water quality aspects of the proposed project with the increase in compliant shoreline setback and the maintaining of a lot of the natural, mature shoreline buffers. We do have the following questions on wastewater treatment system. We wonder where the septic tank is located. That's not shown on the plan. It can't be located between the building and where the absorption bed is because that's the permeable pavers, and that's used for stormwater and that'll occupy that volume. So we just wondered where that is. Also it appears the system will require a pump station because where that absorption bed is, it's kind of built up above ground. So that information should be provided. We do have a concern about the one foot, there's a one foot separation between the permeable pavers and the stormwater and where the absorption bed is. So that's just much too close. That's inadequate. We feel that a compromise both for the way those systems would provide treatment. There is no subsurface information for the septic system for the absorption bed. There are test pits elsewhere,but those are 50, 60 feet away. We really need to know what those test pits are. Soils change in a matter of feet. Now looking at Sheet 3 of 6,it actually looks like the grading directs stormwater from the permeable pavers right to the absorption bed. If you look on the grading there, there's a little bump out which is between the absorption bed and the garage. There's a little kind of turnaround area. That actually shows the stormwater going towards the absorption field not away from it. I appreciate the discussion on the permeable pavers and how to protect that. One of our concerns is the existing gravel driveway. So they have a gravel driveway going right up to the permeable pavers which it appears that there may be migration of that gravel material which can lead to premature clogging. We had a question why we need two to three feet of fill between the house and the lake. It seems like we really should try to keep things as natural as a lot of that Point is. It's a special Point. I counted that a total of IS trees were being removed, and I really feel that projects in the critical environmental area around the lake should require a no net loss of trees. I saw that there were 10 proposed. If there could be clarification on the number of trees, so that whatever is removed is replaced and there is a no net loss of trees. So those are my comments. Thank you. MR. TRAVER-Thank you. MR.ABELE-I do have a couple of comments. MR. TRAVER-Excuse me,sir. The public hearing is still open. Is there anyone else in the audience that wanted to address the Planning Board on this application? Written comments? MRS. MOORE-There are no written comments. MR. TRAVER-Okay. Then in that case we will close the public hearing. PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED 19 (Queensbury Planning Board 05/16/2023) MR. TRAVER-Yes,sir. Go ahead. MR.ABELE-Thank you for your comments,Chris. I agreed with some of them,and some of them I didn't. When we originally proposed the proposed site development,we did test holes for the entire site in exactly where the new absorption field is. So we did do that and I know we have the data for that. MR. TRAVER-I didn't see anything regarding that in the engineering analysis. MR.ABELE-I know we have that because I did it with Dennis MacElroy. MR.VUILLAUME-Yes,we'll add those on there. For some reason they must be turned off. MR. TRAVER-And the separation issue between the septic field and the permeable pavers I think is part of your discussion and possibly adjusting of the plan,again,with the Town Engineer. Correct? MR.VUILLAUME-Yes. MR. TRAVER-What about the question of the septic tank? MR.VUILLAUME-The septic tank,I thought it was shown out there. MR. ABELE-It is the driveway and there will be a pump tank just like,you know,it went into the septic then it goes into a pump then it went into the leach field. MR. TRAVER-So it's not underneath the permeable pavers? MR.ABELE-No. MR. VUILLAUME-No. And right now it's already installed. Right? You already have the existing one installed. MR.ABELE-Well,no,that's going to be re-located because when I kept the original older home to comply with the Town law for, you know, when you transfer a property we had to put a whole new septic in. That's being removed,and so there's going to be a whole new septic tank,even though that tank's only less than two years old. So we're re-doing it. I do have one comment on the tree. So within the 35 foot buffer we're proposing to remove 10 to 12 trees. One of those is where the detention depression is for stormwater, and most of the other ones, they're leaning towards where the home's going to be built. So, you know, we're trying to be proactive,not to have an issue, and then there's two or three trees by the existing dock. One of them is half dead and the other ones are kind of leaning over the existing dock. So we've been very cognizant of trying to preserve the shoreline buffer, and I think since I've bought the property, which is closing in on three years,I think I've planted over 100 trees that were not required,primarily to establish a buffer between my neighbor,but,you know, even on the cottage lot,you know, a week or two ago I just put a bunch of other trees,just for buffering. MR.VUILLAUME-We could add some more trees to the plan. MR.ABELE-There's no problem. MR. TRAVER-So for this proposal,how many trees total are being removed? MR.VUILLAUME-I think it's 12. Correct? MR.ABELE-Yes. MR. TRAVER-Okay. MR.VUILLAUME-So we'll make sure that we have at least 12 or more on the proposed plan. MR. TRAVER-Yes, we do, you know, trees are a major source of protection and we don't like to see a decrease. I mean we don't even like to see existing trees cut down,but understanding that that,it takes so long for replacement trees to replace the functionality of the original tree. It's still an issue,but at the very least,you know, we don't like a net loss of trees. We would like, if anything,more. So we would appreciate no net loss of trees. MR.ABELE-I have no problem with that. MR. TRAVER-Okay. 20 (Queensbury Planning Board 05/16/2023) MR.MAGOWAN-Should we put in the stipulations. You say 12,but I'm kind of looking at the house and the septic and the trees that are there, not that I'm questioning you, but I can see where Steve came up with a little bit more than 12. MR.WILLAUME-Well the ones that you have marked are big trees,very large trees. MR.ABELE-Yes. MR.WILLAUME-So maybe there are some others that are on the survey that show. MR.ABELE-And I don't think there's a current survey on the new trees that I planted because that's been in the last year or so. MR. TRAVER-Well, with regards to the application that's before us tonight, I think what we're going to suggest as part of our resolution,propose,is no net loss of trees. So if you cut down 100,you replace 100. If you cut down 12,you replace 12 at least. If it's 1S,you replace 1S. That would be part of our conditions. MR. DEEB-The pump station question. Did you mention you had? MR.ABELE-Yes. For the existing cottage lot,you know,we have a septic and then we have a pump tank to pump to the leach field because the leach field has to be 100 foot from the lake. So likewise on this application tonight we're going to have to pump up to the leach field to maintain the 100 foot setback from the lake. MR. DEEB-And Mr. Navitsky mentioned one foot separation from the permeable pavers? MR.WILLAUME-Well,again that's the area where the driveway is very close to the septic and we realize that. MR. DEEB-Okay. MR. TRAVER-And that's part of the engineering comments that they're going to have to satisfy. MR. WILLAUME-So we re-did some of the grading. So,hopefully, I know Mr. Navitsky saw an older grading plan but we have since revised it. We've re-submitted it to Laura. She's going to get it over to those guys so they can take a look at it. Hopefully,if they're okay with it,fine. If we have to do something else in order to make the separation. Like I said, we had situations where we do non-permeable pavers next to the septic if we have to. I don't know if it's needed in this case,but I will do whatever they ask us to do. MR. DEEB-Okay. MR. TRAVER-All right Any other questions,comments? All right. I guess we're ready to go. RESOLUTION APPROVING SP# 35-2023 ROCKHURST,LLC/CHRISTOPHER ABELE The applicant has submitted an application to the Planning Board:Applicant proposes a new single family home with a footprint of 5,649 sq.ft.and a floor area of 10,567 sq.ft.The project work includes site grading, permeable pavers, shoreline access areas, stormwater management, new onsite septic system, and landscaping. Pursuant to chapter 179-3-040,179-6-064 &147,new floor area in a CEA and hard surfacing within 50 ft.of the shoreline shall be subject to Planning Board review and approval. Pursuant to relevant sections of the Town of Queensbury Zoning Code-Chapter 179-9-OSO, the Planning Board has determined that this proposal satisfies the requirements as stated in the Zoning Code; As required by General Municipal Law Section 239-m the site plan application was referred to the Warren County Planning Department for its recommendation; The Planning Board opened a public hearing on the Site plan application on 5/16/2023 and continued the public hearing to 5/16/2023,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 5/16/2023; 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, 21 (Queensbury Planning Board 05/16/2023) MOTION TO APPROVE SITE PLAN 35-2023 ROCKHURST, LLC/CHRISTOPHER ABELE; Introduced by Michael Dixon who moved for its adoption. According to the draft resolution prepared by Staff with the following: 1) Waivers requested granted; g. site lighting, h. signage, n traffic, o. commercial alterations/ construction details, r. construction/demolition disposal s. snow removal as these items are typically associated with commercial projects. The applicant has provided information on j. stormwater,k.topography,1.landscaping p floor plans and q. soil logs; 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) A maintenance plan for permeable driveway be included on final site plan for Town Engineering signoff prior to any site work. m) Applicant to replace removed trees resulting in no net loss of trees. Motion seconded by Brad Magowan. Duly adopted this 16`h day of May 2023 by the following vote: AYES: Mr. Etu,Mr. Magowan,Mr. Stark,Mr. Longacker,Mr. Dixon,Mr. Deeb,Mr. Traver NOES: NONE MR. TRAVER-You're all set. MR.ABELE-Thank you very much. MR. DEEB-Good luck. MR. TRAVER-The next item on our agenda is Christopher Kelley. This is Site Plan 39-2023. SITE PLAN NO.39-2023 SEQR TYPE: TYPE II. CHRISTOPHER KELLEY. OWNER(S): KEVIN QUINN,NAOMI POLITO. ZONING: NC. LOCATION: 1019 STATE ROUTE 149. APPLICANT PROPOSES TO REUSE AN EXISTING 2,160 SQ. FT. BUILDING AND SITE TO OPERATE A RETAIL GOLF CART SALES AND SERVICE BUSINESS. PURSUANT TO CHAPTER 179-3-040&z 179-9-020,SITE PLAN FOR NEW USE IN A NC ZONE AND NO SITE PLAN IN THE LAST 7 YEARS SHALL BE SUBJECT TO PLANNING BOARD REVIEW AND APPROVAL. CROSS REFERENCE: UV 1054-40397(2013). WARREN CO. REFERRAL: MAY 2023. SITE INFORMATION: APA. LOT SIZE: 197 ACRES. TAX MAP NO.266.3-1-81. SECTION: 179-3-040,179-9-020. 22 (Queensbury Planning Board 05/16/2023) CHRIS&LISA KELLEY,PRESENT MR. TRAVER-Laura? MRS.MOORE-This applicant proposes to re-use the existing 2,160 square foot building to operate a retail golf cart sales and service business. They've identified the areas for employee parking, as well as storage of outdoor display of the carts. MR. TRAVER-Okay. Thank you. Good evening. MR.KELLEY-Good evening. MR. TRAVER-So tell us about your project. MR. MAGOWAN-First state who you are,please. MR. KELLEY-My name is Chris Kelley and the project will be very similar but on a much smaller scale as Five Star Golf Carts. That was the past employee there for 13 years and my son and I would like to open our own business and that's pretty much what we're going to do. Pretty much a mini Five Star Golf Carts, sales,service,rentals and stuff like that. MR. TRAVER-It is good to see that building being resurrected. It's kind of alone and it looks pretty terrible after not being used for so long. So that's a good thing,and did I see somewhere in the paperwork that you're doing like custom golf carts? MR.KELLEY-Yes. MR. TRAVER-Should we look forward to a proposal for something like the Villages around here or something? These thing are so popular. MR. KELLEY-We've done a lot of really cool carts over the years. My son and I are looking forward to kind of doing our own spin on that,but,yes,it's a lot of fun. MR. TRAVER-Okay. Interesting. Okay. Questions,comments from members of the Board? MR.MAGOWAN-I think it was a great idea. I saw it and I said at least it's not another diner. I think it's a great idea and your own spin off. I think it's amazing,being a camper,but you go to these just campers alone. You go to Alpine and stuff like that. I mean people put money into these things. I always look forward to people who want to venture out. I've worked for myself for over 42 years. It's got pros and cons,but you know you enjoy what you do and you get your name out there. MR.KELLEY-Thank you. I appreciate that. MR. TRAVER-There is a public hearing on this application. MR. DEEB-Utilities, serviced by on-site septic and well. Do you know how old the septic is,the date of the last inspection? MRS. KELLEY-Lisa Kelley. I'm his wife. It's a family business. We're all involved. The septic system was pumped last year. Kevin showed us where the location of it is and that it was in functioning order, and obviously our use is going to be much less taxing to that system because we're not a restaurant. MR. DEEB-I understand,but you don't have the data? Who pumped it? MRS.KELLEY-I can ask Kevin. I don't know. MR.DEEB-It would be nice if they had just given you a letter that they inspected it and that it's functioning well. MR. MAGOWAN-For you. MRS.KELLEY-Yes. MR.KELLEY-As he left it he said that the last tenant it was working properly and there were no issues. MR. DEEB-How long has the building been vacant? 23 (Queensbury Planning Board 05/16/2023) MRS. KELLEY-That's probably on public record. So I drive from Vermont. So I've been driving by that place for 13 years and I've seen two different businesses in there over 13 years to my knowledge. Three or four years one restaurant. Three or four years empty. Three or four years another restaurant. So that probably should be on record when the last diner was in there and I would say that would be the last time, and I don't know that. MR. DEEB-It might be wise to find out. Laura, is there something about, he should suggest review of waivers to confirm the site conditions and building information? MRS. MOORE-So right now there's no existing site plan that we typically see. The only drawings that are on file for this site are when the building was built and they are all hand-drawn. So the applicant did a nice job of using GIS,but it's not a standard site plan that you would see. So the applicant indicated at least getting off the ground with being able to use what's being presented, and I thought that I would at least shared with the Board, if you were looking for more standard site plans that you would be able to request that at this time,but at least getting the applicant in front of the Board so you can hear the project. MR. DEEB-So you're saying we might want a site plan? MRS. MOORE-You might. I mean as it says,you know, sometimes you want to know where the septic system is. You want to make sure that the area that they're using is display as well as customer and employee parking, that t all measures out. Right now there's no way for me to confirm, other than to observe on site. Typically I'm able to use measurement of site plans to evaluate that. It looks,you know, she based it off of the information on GIS with the measurements available. So it looks like it all fits. So I'm not opposed to continuing the way it's presented,but anything else in the further distance I would say that you should get an official site plan. MR. MAGOWAN-And parking lot lighting. I don't know what you have planned. I see you have some lights on the building. MR.KELLEY-We'll be a daytime operation. So we won't be open at night,but I know there are lights on the,like you said,on the exterior. MR. MAGOWAN-I'm more worried about people coming in,taking your carts in the middle of the night. MR. KELLEY-Okay. That's valid. So we don't have plans for putting in lighting. I imagine anything on the outside,if there's a socket,we'll try to put in,you know, a floodlight MRS.KELLEY-Pointed toward the ground. MR. MAGOWAN-And downcast lights. MRS.KELLEY-Downcast lights. MR. MAGOWAN-But also I would think business wise you would want some form of lighting shining so people driving by at night say,those are nice,one,for your cameras to pick up for anybody who might have sticky fingers in the middle of the night,but also to have people,because that is a well-traveled road. Just something to think about and it's a start up business,and I'm trying to put you under before you even start, but something to keep in mind. MR.KELLEY-I appreciate it. MR. MAGOWAN-But you will have to come,if you do any lighting,downcast,but you'd have to come to site plan review if you add anything to the parking. Am I correct? MRS. MOORE-That's correct. MRS. KELLEY-Yes. There's currently six that go around the perimeter and they downcast around the building and we understand they all work, and anything that's not working we would replace with downcast lighting. MR. TRAVER-There is a public hearing on this application. Is there anyone in the audience that wants to address the Planning Board on this application? I'm not seeing any. Are there written comments, Laura? MRS. MOORE-There are no written comments. MR. TRAVER-Okay. Then we'll close the public hearing. PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED 24 (Queensbury Planning Board 05/16/2023) MR. DEEB-Is the Board comfortable with the plans that were done for site plan? Are we okay with this? MR. TRAVER-Well that was the question I was going to put to the Board. We have some drawings that were submitted as part of the application and Laura's pointed out that we don't have a formal site plan itself. I guess with the few changes that they're proposing and trying to start a new business, I'm personally a little reluctant to ask that they have a formal site plan created at this stage, but I'd like to know what the Board thinks. If we need one,we need one. MR. MAGOWAN-Well basically you have an existing parking lot that's out there. It's pretty much dirt on either side. I'm looking at septic. You've got 250,200 feet of septic,I'm thinking 250,1,000 gallon tank. I mean you're talking probably two toilets. They're going to be,I mean I'm happy with what they have. If they go to,which I'm hoping things take off well,maybe that would be the time we'd ask if they want to extend,you know,lighting,then the addition that you're going to have to do. MR. TRAVER-Okay. So I'm hearing the suggestion that the plans as presented are okay for now, but letting the applicant know that when his business quadruples in size that at that stage we will need a formal site plan. Is the Board all right with that? MR. ETU-What is the service cart rectangle? That's where you're servicing the carts or? MRS.KELLEY-It says on the bottom what that map number is. MR. ETU-This one right here. MRS. KELLEY-No,mostly electric golf cars, and that would just be,that service,you're talking about the back area? MR. ETU-The rectangle that says service carts. MRS.KELLEY-Yes,that's where they would keep carts that needed service and then most of the work will be done inside,but again,mostly electric,so not much gas and oil issues there. MRS.MOO RE-In reference to servicing the carts inside,are you changing any exterior permeability? You can maneuver them into the building just the way they are? MRS.KELLEY-A standard golf cart will go through the double doors with plenty of room. MRS. MOORE-Okay. MR. TRAVER-All right. Anything else? MR. DEEB-I'd like to go back to the septic. You said you'd get it inspected? MRS.KELLEY-I believe he had it pumped and inspected. I'm happy to ask Kevin about that,but no one's used it for,no one's been there for at least two years,but I can try to find out that information. MR. DEEB-I just think,you don't want any surprises. MR. TRAVER-It would be good to have some, even if it's just a receipt with a date on it submitted with final plans for staff to have for your file. So if you could do that,we'd appreciate it. MR. MAGOWAN Just so, with the slight understanding,you have leach lines which have holes in it, so, you know, and being a restaurant and the grease and the traps. So sitting there for two years those lines have dried out and pumped out. So no water was sitting it. MRS. KELLEY-There's actually a grease trap before it gets to the septic. I'm a real estate agent. I know more about septic than I want to know. MR. MAGOWAN-It traps, but not all of it. I'm more worried about the dry period of drying out, and really an inspection,not just the tank,but if you can get to the D box. MRS.KELLEY-He might have the receipt. He could probably send it over to me. MR.MAGOWAN-But if they can get to the D box and take a look at it,just to make sure that your laterals are,just for your benefit. I'd hate to have you start and then,you know. MR.TRAVER-All right. Anything else from the Board? I guess we're ready to entertain that motion when you're ready. 25 (Queensbury Planning Board 05/16/2023) RESOLUTION APPROVING SP#39-2023 CHRISTOPHER KELLEY The applicant has submitted an application to the Planning Board:Applicant proposes to reuse an existing 2,160 sq. ft. building and site to operate a retail golf cart sales and service business. Pursuant to chapter 179-3-040 & 179-9-020, site plan for new use in a NC zone and no site plan in the last 7 years shall be subject to Planning Board review and approval. Pursuant to relevant sections of the Town of Queensbury Zoning Code-Chapter 179-9-OSO, the Planning Board has determined that this proposal satisfies the requirements as stated in the Zoning Code; As required by General Municipal Law Section 239-m the site plan application was referred to the Warren County Planning Department for its recommendation; The Planning Board opened a public hearing on the Site plan application on 5/16/2023 and continued the public hearing to 5/16/2023 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 5/16/2023; 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 39-2023 CHRISTOPHER KELLEY, Introduced by Michael Dixon who moved for its adoption; Per the draft provided by staff conditioned upon the following conditions: 1) Waivers request granted: items j. stormwater, k. topography, o. commercial alterations/ construction details,q.soil logs,r.construction/demolition disposal s.snow removal.the applicant has provided some information about the g. site lighting h. signage 1. landscaping n traffic p floor plans; 2) The approval is valid for one (1) year from the date of approval. Applicant is responsible for requesting an extension of approval before the one (1)year time frame has expired. 3) Adherence to the items outlined in the follow-up letter sent with this resolution. a) If application was referred to engineering,then engineering sign-off required prior to signature of Zoning Administrator of the approved plan b) Final approved plans should have dimensions and setbacks noted on the site plan/survey,floor Plans and elevation for the existing rooms and proposed rooms in the building and site improvements, c) Final approved plans, in compliance with the Site Plan, must be submitted to the Community Development Department before any further review by the Zoning Administrator or Building and Codes personnel; d) The applicant must meet with Staff after approval and prior to issuance of Building Permit and/or the beginning of any site work; e) Subsequent issuance of further permits,including building permits is dependent on compliance with this and all other conditions of this resolution; f) As-built plans to certify that the site plan is developed according to the approved plans to be provided prior to issuance of the certificate of occupancy; g) Resolution to be placed on final plans in its entirety and legible. h) Any additional modifications beyond this proposal will require a complete and formal site plan. i) Any modifications to lighting must be Code compliant. j) Applicant to provide septic inspection to the Town Planning Department which will be included with final submission packet. Motion seconded by Brady Stark. Duly adopted this 16`h day of May 2023 by the following vote: AYES: Mr. Magowan,Mr. Longacker, Mr. Stark,Mr. Etu,Mr. Dixon,Mr. Deeb,Mr. Traver NOES: NONE MR. TRAVER-You are all set. MR. DEEB-Good luck to you. We wish you all kinds of success. MRS.KELLEY-Thank you. MR.KELLEY-Thank you very much. 26 (Queensbury Planning Board 05/16/2023) MR. TRAVER-The next item on our agenda is also under New Business. This is Unapproved Development. This is Perkins Recycling Corp. Site Plan 32-2023. SITE PLAN NO. 32-2023 SEQR TYPE: TYPE II. PERKINS RECYCLING CORP. AGENT(S): TARAWOODS. OWNER(S): ROBERT L.PERKINS,JR. ZONING: HI. LOCATION: 177RIVER STREET. APPLICANT REQUESTS APPROVAL TO CONTINUE UTILIZING AN EXISTING SITE AND BUILDINGS TO OPERATE A RECYCLING CENTER FOR MATERIALS THAT INCLUDE, BUT ARE NOT LIMITED TO, CARDBOARD, PAPER, PLASTIC AND SHREDDED PAPER. OPERATIONS OF THE RECYCLING CENTER STARTED IN LATE MAY 2019. THE MAIN 25,200 SQ.FT.BUILDING IS USED FOR THE RECYCLING MILL FLOOR,TWO STORAGE SHEDS THAT ARE 704 SQ. FT. EACH, STONE OFFICE AND SCALE BUILDING OF 807 SQ. FT. THERE ARE TWO EXISTING OUT BUILDINGS;AN 890 SQ.FT.OFFICE TRAILER AND A 700 SQ.FT.BRICK BUILDING THAT IS MAINTAINED BY ADJACENT OWNERS. THE SITE ALSO CONTAINS A 30 YARD WASTE TRAILER THAT IS TAKEN OFFSITE AS NEEDED TO REMOVE THE RECYCLING WASTE PRODUCTS. THE SITE MAINTAINS SEVERAL TRACTOR TRAILERS THAT ARE USED FOR OBTAINING MATERIALS NEEDED FOR BUSINESS OPERATION. PURSUANT TO CHAPTER 179-3-040,A NEW RECYCLING CENTER IN A HEAVY INDUSTRIAL ZONE SHALL BE SUBJECT TO PLANNING BOARD REVIEW AND APPROVAL. CROSS REFERENCE: SUB 3-2019. WARREN CO. REFERRAL: MAY 2023. SITE INFORMATION: HUDSON RIVER. LOT SIZE: 10.5 ACRES. TAX MAP NO. 303.20-2-48.1. SECTION: 179-3-040. TARA WOODS, REPRESENTING APPLICANT,PRESENT MR. TRAVER-Laura? MRS. MOORE-So the applicant requests approval to continue utilizing the existing site and buildings to operate a recycling center for materials that included,but are not limited to,cardboard,paper,plastic and shredded paper. Operations of the recycling center started in late May 2019. The main 25,000 square foot building is used for the recycling mill floor. There's two storage sheds, 704 square feet each. There's a stone office and scale building of 807 square feet. There are two existing outbuildings, an office building and a brick building that are maintained by the adjacent owners and then the applicant uses a yard waste trailer that is taken off site as needed to remove the recycling waste products. The site also maintain several tractor trailers that are used for obtaining materials needed for business operations, and I note, I guess when the prior owner had passed away, what had happened was there was a subdivision that this Board approved. Unknowingly this applicant purchased this property thinking that all approvals were granted and so therefore he felt that he didn't need to pursue any local reviews. So it was brought up to the current owner and we went through this discuss and she put together a package for us to review. There's no changes to the site at this time. MR. TRAVER-Okay. So in other words this project was operating with approval until the sale of the property? MRS. MOORE-No. They purchased the building after. They purchased the property when, Warren County subdivided it. They were the purchaser of the lot. Therefore they assumed that they could move in the recycling center right in and operate because it was a County subdivision. MR. TRAVER-Okay. So it was never approved. MRS. MOORE-It doesn't even have a building permit at this point. MR. MAGOWAN-Sitting on a County Board I will say we might take a little bit of a hit on that one. We probably forgot. It was a recycling center. MR. TRAVER-For a long time. MR. MAGOWAN-For a long time. And then we were leasing it out,and then the County decided that it wasn't,we needed another garage and we really didn't need the headaches of that building so we sold it. Unbeknownst to all of us,like I said,I think it was an oversight. MS. WOODS-I'm Tara Woods. Nice to meet you guys. MR. TRAVER-Welcome. So this has been in operation prior to your purchasing the property. Right? MS. WOODS-Right. I never really purchased the property. Mr. Perkins actually gave it to his two employees when he,before he passed away. MR. TRAVER-Okay. 27 (Queensbury Planning Board 05/16/2023) MS. WOODS-So,yes,I acquired it. MR. TRAVER-You have title to it. You're the owner. MS. WOODS-Yes. Yes,right now it's still all in court because there is an estate for Mr. Perkins. So once everything gets worked out, everything will be fine and I'm hoping to continue this and still continue it with the kids and show them how to do everything. MR. TRAVER-Right. So the current plan doesn't reflect any changes in the operation that you're aware of? MS. WOODS-Right. MR. TRAVER-It's really just obtaining an after the fact approval for an operation that's existed for some time,as per our discussion. MS. WOODS-Yes,please. MR. TRAVER-Okay. All right. Questions,comments from members of the Board? MR. DEEB-I like the packet. MS. WOODS-Thank you. I tried. I had to do a 57 page one for DEC because they came into our facility and,you know,I was all for it. I was like tell me what I have to do and, Mr.Perkins is like you don't have to do that,but I'm like I have to do that. So I tried, I argued with him several times about a lot of things, but he's older,he's of the older generation and they are just so stuck in their ways. So I respect it. I really do because I have an old soul. So I'm all about that,but I feel like there's a lot of things that need to be done and especially when Laura contacted me and I'm like/. MR. DIXON-Even subtle items,you've not touched lighting. You've not done one iota of work. It's as it was. MS.WOODS-Yes. The only thing that we've done is like with our machines,I mean we've had guys come and fix them but that's about it. That's the only thing we've done,because we had Jade Environmental come out and do an environmental test on the whole property about two years and they gave me the history of the whole entire property and what's gone on in the last,since 19011 think. So everything. It's probably about this thick because I printed it out. When Laura contacted me I was like I need to know about this property and everything that's,go and check everything out,and I was like do you want me to just submit that? And she was like no. MR. TRAVER-Yes. Okay. There is a public hearing on this application. Is there anyone in the audience that wanted to address the Planning Board on this application? I'm not seeing anyone. Written comments,Laura? PUBLIC HEARING OPENED MRS. MOORE-There are no written comments, but I will make a mention that the County, I had a conversation with Ethan Daddy today and his thought was maybe to add some additional screening up towards the roadside, additional screening,plantings. That was his only comment,that there was really no. MR. TRAVER-Vegetation screening between the property and the road or? MRS. MOORE-Yes. MS. WOODS-Yes,right there. MRS. MOORE-If it would work,that would be great. MR. TRAVER-Okay. Is that something you could accommodate? MS.WOODS-Yes. That would definitely work for me because I have a green thumb and I'm all about that type of stuff. So,yes. MR. TRAVER-All right. So screening,plantings along the highway to be reviewed and implemented. MRS. MOORE-Additional plantings. 2S (Queensbury Planning Board 05/16/2023) MR. MAGOWAN-How is the recycling business? MS. WOOD-I'll tell you that once Mr. Perkins passed away in September, it kind of took a crash in October. So it's been,very,very difficult,but he knew me and he knew that I would never give up. So I'm never giving up. We work closely with Waste Management and we work closely with Irving. So we have great relations. I'm hoping that we continue to get product. So if not,then I'm going to have to use some of the ideas in my head and make my product more efficient so I can sell it. Do you know what I mean? As far as getting rid of it and recycling it in the correct way and everything because the market's changed so much. I mean it took a crazy, even cardboard is worth nothing, and I'm like oh my goodness and everything that he taught me,I'm like okay now I have to really put everything down and say okay what can we do because 50 years ago he started his recycling business by looking at an envelope on his parents desk and saying how can I recycle the window in it, the plastic window, and that's how he started his recycling. MR. TRAVER-He was quite a character. I remember years and years ago one of the things that I did in the community was helping people with disabilities get jobs and way back when the earth was still cooling I had a gentleman that got a job there sorting. So I got to meet Mr. Perkins and get the grand tour of the whole place and really quite amazing. MS.WOODS-He was an amazing man. He jumped out the window in seventh grade,sixth grade,seventh grade,somewhere,because he couldn't stand his teacher anymore and I said,did you ever go back to school, and he said,no, I enlisted myself in the service and I changed on my license how old I was so they would accept me and I got in and that's how it all started. MR.MAGOWAN-He was a great guy. He did a great job out thereat the Northern Distributing building and he had the opportunity,and that was one of the reasons it was a quick move. We approved the votes. MR. DEEB-Laura,you've got on the Staff Notes the Board should review the waiver requests. Is there a reason for that? MRS. MOORE-It's just so, in the sense that you know that there's waivers that the applicant has requested. So if you need to review them individually. I don't have any issues with the waivers. MR. TRAVER-We do need to acknowledge it. MRS. MOORE-Yes. MR. DEEB-Because nothing changed. MR.TRAVER-Okay,and clarify the language on the plantings. Laura,you said additional plantings along the roadway? MS.WOODS-Right now it's just grass. Mr.Perkins never liked it longer than that. When he would come to visit he would be like, do you see that out there? And I'd be like what? That little plant sticking up like it needs to be cut. So,yes,I'll do my research and see what's best for that area. MR. TRAVER-Yes,some screening would be nice. MS. WOODS-Okay. Yes,we can definitely do that. MR. TRAVER-Anything else from the Board? All right. I guess we're ready for that motion. MRS. MOORE-I'm going to interrupt you. You didn't close the public hearing. MR. TRAVER-I thought I did,but I will close the public hearing. PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED RESOLUTION APPROVING SP#32-2023 PERKINS RECYCLING CORP. The applicant has submitted an application to the Planning Board: Applicant requests approval to continue utilizing an existing site and buildings to operate a recycling center for materials that include, but are not limited to, cardboard, paper, plastic and shredded paper. Operations of the recycling center started in late May 2019. The main 25,200 sq. ft.building is used for the recycling mill floor, two storage sheds that are 704 sq. ft. each, stone office and scale building of S07 sq. ft.. There are two existing out buildings: an S90 sq.ft.office trailer and a 700 sq.ft.brick building that is maintained by adjacent owners. The site also contains a 30 yard waste trailer that is taken offsite as needed to remove the recycling waste products. The site maintains several tractor trailers that are used for obtaining materials needed for 29 (Queensbury Planning Board 05/16/2023) business operation.Pursuant to chapter 179-3-040,a new recycling center in a heavy industrial zone shall be subject to Planning Board review and approval. Pursuant to relevant sections of the Town of Queensbury Zoning Code-Chapter 179-9-OSO, the Planning Board has determined that this proposal satisfies the requirements as stated in the Zoning Code; As required by General Municipal Law Section 239-m the site plan application was referred to the Warren County Planning Department for its recommendation; The Planning Board opened a public hearing on the Site plan application on 5/16/2023 and continued the public hearing to 5/16/2023 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 5/16/2023; 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 32-2023 PERKINS RECYCLING CORP.Introduced by Michael Dixon who moved for its adoption; Per the draft provided by staff conditioned upon the following conditions: 1) Waivers request granted: j. stormwater, k. topography, 1. landscaping, n traffic, o. commercial alterations/ construction details, q. soil logs, r. construction/demolition disposal for these items for this specific project as there are no changes to the site conditions and all building being used are to remain as is with no changes. The applicant has provided information about:g.site lighting, h. signage,p floor plans and 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) If application was referred to engineering,then engineering sign-off required prior to signature of Zoning Administrator of the approved plans; b) Final approved plans should have dimensions and setbacks noted on the site plan/survey,floor Plans and elevation for the existing rooms and proposed rooms in the building and site improvements, c) Final approved plans,in compliance with the Site Plan,must be submitted to the Community Development Department before any further review by the Zoning Administrator or Building and Codes personnel; d) The applicant must meet with Staff after approval and prior to issuance of Building Permit and/or the beginning of any site work; e) Subsequent issuance of further permits,including building permits is dependent on compliance with this and all other conditions of this resolution; f) As-built plans to certify that the site plan is developed according to the approved plans to be provided prior to issuance of the certificate of occupancy; g) Resolution to be placed on final plans in its entirety and legible. h) Applicant to add additional screening plantings along River Street. Motion seconded by Brad Magowan. Duly adopted this 16`h day of May 2023 by the following vote: AYES: Mr. Stark,Mr. Etu,Mr. Longacker,Mr. Dixon,Mr. Magowan,Mr. Deeb, Mr. Traver NOES: NONE MR. TRAVER-You are all set. MS.WOODS-Thank you so much. I did want to ask one question and it's kind of important. Our address is 299 Lower Warren Street for our mailing address and our actual physical address is the 177 River. Because every time I give trucks our address I always give them the 177 River Street because they can never find us at 299 Lower Warren. MRS. MOO RE-You'll end up discussing that with John O'Brien in regards to E-911. It was definitely a discussion in our office. MS. WOODS-Okay. Because it's been mine ever since we got there and I'm like why are we doing this, why is this happening, and that's just always how it's been and that's how we're leaving it. MR. MAGOWAN-And on your roadside plantings,just remember the plows and the salt and that. Set them back far enough that they don't die in the first winter there because of all the salt. 30 (Queensbury Planning Board 05/16/2023) MS. WOODS-For sure. MR. MAGOWAN-And the County Waste Recycling program,we're really working on and trying to get everybody to recycle. So it's really a market of where you get rid of it. MS.WOODS-Right. Well I get so many phone calls there,and I'm like I wish I could just take everything, you know what I mean,but there's so many regulations and I know what we have. It's just kind of getting out there and having everybody bring it there. I know that a lot of people have it included in their trash. So if they have it included in their trash they're just going to do it right there,but there are a big majority of people that do still go to all of the transfer stations and drop off all of their trash, because they don't want to pay a trash hauler. So where are all their recycles going? I'm going to try to get to those people. MR. MAGOWAN-Now so the Board's aware, what are the plastics,you know, everybody recycles their plastics,but isn't it like 2 and 5? What are the hot? There's really only two that anybody really wants. MS. WOODS-Right. I mean pretty much Twin Bridges is recycling all the hot plastic right now. MR. MAGOWAN-So you see the triangle,but isn't it like a 2 and a? MS.WOODS-Yes,they have different numbers 2,4.,5. I've seen 7,6. I've seen tons of numbers on plastic. We only take plastic wrap at this time. In the future I would love to take more different types of plastic where I can help the community, where they can bring their plastics. Do you know what I mean? But that will take a lot of re-vamping our. MR. MAGOWAN-It's a plastic world now. MS. WOODS-It is. It is. It's crazy. MR. TRAVER-Well thank you very much,and good luck. MR. DEEB-Good luck. MR. TRAVER-So next on our agenda we have a tabled item. This is Unapproved Development. This is Stevin O'Brien&r Mackenzie Baertschi. Site Plan 1-2023. TABLED ITEM—UNAPPROVED DEVELOPMENT: SITE PLAN NO.1-2023 SEQR TYPE: TYPE II. STEVIN O'BRIEN&z MACKENZIE BAERTSCHI. AGENT(S): HUTCHINS ENGINEERING. OWNER(S): SAME AS APPLICANT. ZONING: RR- 5A. LOCATION: 454 LOCKHART MOUNTAIN ROAD. (REVISED) THE APPLICANT IS REQUESTING AFTER THE FACT APPROVAL FOR CLEARING LIMITS OF DISTURBANCE FOR CONSTRUCTION OF A SINGLE FAMILY HOME&z SITE WORK. THE MAJOR STORMWATER PERMIT AS BUILT CONDITIONS INDICATES DISTURBANCE OF 1.5 ACRES. THE SITE WORK EXCEEDS 15,000 SQ. FT. TRIGGERING A MAJOR STORMWATER AND SITE PLAN REVIEW. THE APPLICANT HAS CONSTRUCTED A SINGLE FAMILY HOME ON A LOT OF THE HELEN MITCHELL SUBDIVISION WHICH MEETS SETBACK AND PERMEABILITY REQUIREMENTS. PURSUANT TO CHAPTER 179-4-040, 147, SITE PLAN REVIEW FOR MAJOR STORMWATER PERMIT SHALL BE SUBJECT TO PLANNING BOARD REVIEW AND APPROVAL. CROSS REFERENCE: RC 165-2021, SUB 1-2001. WARREN CO. REFERRAL: JANUARY 2023. SITE INFORMATION: APA, LGPC, SLOPES. LOT SIZE: 5.01 ACRES. TAX MAP NO. 252.-1-88. SECTION: 179-3-040,147. LUCAS DOBIE,REPRESENTING APPLICANTS,PRESENT MR. TRAVER-Laura? MRS. MOORE-Okay. So the applicant, revised description is the applicant is proposing 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 indicates disturbance of 1.5 acres. The site work exceeds 15,000 square feet triggering a major stormwater and site plan review. The applicant has constructed a single family home on a lot of the Helen Mitchell subdivision which meets setback and permeability requirements,and site plan review is for major stormwater permit. MR. TRAVER-Okay. Thank you. Good evening. MR. DOBIE-Good evening. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Good evening, Board. For the record, Lucas Dobie with Hutchins Engineering. I'd like to thank Staff and the Board for their flexibility for putting us 31 (Queensbury Planning Board 05/16/2023) on last. We were on first tonight and I frankly just got back an hour ago from Albany Airport. So I appreciate your accommodations. I'm here to represent our clients, Stevin O'Brien and Mackenzie Baertschi at 454 Lockhart Mountain Road,which is where Lockhart Mountain Road makes the 90 degree turn at the Top of the World entrance, and just a real brief history of how we got involved was they purchased the property in October of 2020 and then their builder is somewhat of a friend of mine or an acquaintance and they were having a little difficulty getting through the building permit process,trying to do a minor project. So they were in somewhat of a time crunch in the spring of 2021. That is when I met them and we were able to scramble and put together a minor stormwater plan with pretty tight clearing limits,no doubt about it,to keep it as a minor criteria so they could fulfill their mortgage timeline. It was my understanding that there was a real push on that, and Staff reviewed it,issued a building permit, and then during construction,no two ways about it,when they were doing their landscaping they got carried away on their clearing limits. Not happy about it,obviously, we've never done an after the fact approval that I'm aware of with our firm. We're always straightforward with the Board. So I'm not sure who was responsible at the time. I suspect the homeowner,and they're a young couple trying to get their new home going. They built a beautiful home. They did the stormwater management for our plan and they just got carried away with their clearing,no two ways about it,and we advised them to reclaim it as best they could this spring. We obviously are behind about six weeks because of the late snowfall. I was by there today. He has planted 35,three to four foot spruce along the clearing, along Lockhart Mountain Road, along the road frontage,and the majority of it has be re-top soiled and seeded,a fair amount of it's grown in and there is still a portion east of the driveway that's working away at to reclaim that lawn area. He's trying to do the work himself. It's certainly not an unlimited budget project. Again, we're not happy about the situation. We're hereto ask for the Board's comments and to ask for your approval as a major stormwater project because of the clearing over the, or the project disturbance exceeding the 15,000 square feet. And we did update our storm report to the major criteria to prove that the as constructed stormwater will work and by the math it with a couple of adjustments to raise our outlet weirs. I measured them all,functionality in the field, there's no issues. I haven't seen any erosion or measured effect to nearby properties. With that I'd be happy to answer any questions from the Board and thank you for your time tonight. MR. TRAVER-So they did this cutting beyond what was approved and then in response the homeowner has planted 45 trees so far? MR. DOBIE-That is correct,Mr. Chairman. Just very recently. MR. TRAVER-Do you know how many trees were cut beyond the clearing limits that were approved? MR.DOBIE-I have no way to quantify that,sir. It's approximately,with the area,so it's 75 feet to the east of the driveway beyond what was approved. I mean it's not that this was a virgin forest by any means,but it's a mixture of some mature pine. I think a lot of it was brushy areas,particularly in front of the home. They cleared out with a tractor to do some landscaping on the side and got a little carried away,no doubt about it,but I don't have a way,I don't have a previous conditions survey where,like we do on the lake,to your point, Mr. Chairman, quantify every tree with this being up on the mountain quite a ways from anything,a five acre,I don't have any way to accurately stake a number. MR. TRAVER-Right. Well,beyond the specific detail I'm just wondering if a resolution to this might be to restore the area that was disturbed beyond the approved clearing limits with plantings. That would be,I mean what's done is done,but at least the damage could be repaired if the area that was cut beyond what was approved was re-planted with trees and so on. MR. DEE&Would that bring it back to a minor stormwater? MR. TRAVER-Well,no,stormwater is stormwater. It has to be based on what was cleared. MR. DEEB-It triggered a major stormwater because of the clearing. MR. DOBIE-Correct,and we have updated and provided for the major. MR. DEEB-For the major stormwater. MR.DOBIE-Yes,sir. The point I wanted to add,too,the feel of pain,if you will,for the applicant is there's been over $10,000 in additional engineering and surveying between us and the Town Engineer and he's told me he's got 10 loads of topsoil with 35 trees, so that's about $15,000. So they feel the crunch of their mistake,no doubt about it. MR. TRAVER-Questions,comments from members of the Board? MR. DIXON-If you could refresh my memory,because I remember this coming in front of us. So was the applicant well aware at the time where the no cut area was when they went beyond that? Did they have full knowledge of what they were doing? 32 (Queensbury Planning Board 05/16/2023) MR. DOBIE-Yes, as part of the construction stake out the surveyor flagged the clearing limits in the rear and along the front I believe some of that evidence is still there,but other than the trees that were taken, it's pretty good to the rear. Where they got carried away was east of the driveway and then in front of the house. MR.DEEB-You placed 35,three to four foot spruce. How many do you plan on putting in there? Are you going to do more? MR. DOBIE-Well that's the proposal to try to provide some mitigation and we're here for your input on that,Mr. Deeb. MR. MAGOWAN-I've got a question. I looked at the aerial view. What were the majority of the trees up there? I just see green. MR.DOBIE-It's mostly the white pine,as I understand it,and some brushy material out towards Lockhart Mountain Road, and then the rest of the parcel is a mixture of the Adirondack forest. MR. MAGOWAN-Because,you know, when, I mean I drive past there, and I have been for many years, and I know it's right on the bend. When you take a clump of trees and,you know,the wind blows,they all go like this,you know,but especially the white pines and some of trees,but when it's,you know,thick and heavy,you don't get the depth in the roof, and then when you cut something out of the middle. Do you know what I'm saying? And the wind blows. It's the inside ones that have a chance to fall toward the house, and I've seen it one too many times, especially when you go in and you take something out of the middle,kind of like pick up sticks,you know, almost in a sense if you think about it, and not that I'm condoning it,you know,but if it was staked out,it was staked out by the engineers,the no cut zone and went beyond that. I mean blue spruce are nice. I would like to be able to see,you know,more of the hard woods that came out, and I'm just one of seven here. And I feel the pain, but even the, it looks like the septic went back into the no cut zone or pretty close to it. Didn't it? If you go with the laterals. MR. DOBIE-Not terribly. Probably by the time we graded off our fill for the shallow system, yes, it's probably another 10 feet after that. MR. DIXON-Do you think the applicant would be willing to put in 40 more trees in that no clear zone that was identified? Having at least 20 hard woods and 20 evergreens? MR.DOBIE-I will certainly speak with them about that. I was pretty sure we were not going to get there tonight. So we appreciate the Board's comments. MR.ETU-Do you know what percent of the area that should not have been cleared has been filled? Is that like a third of the area? MR. DOBIE-They're pretty much installed almost as a line along Lockhart Mountain Road. So it didn't get terribly far back into the property. So to the Board's feedback,I think we can certainly re-group and come back with a planting plan, a further planting plan. I don't want to commit to quantities until I've discussed with my client. MR. DEEB-I think we need numbers,as much as we can get. MR. TRAVER-Well he's talking about putting a planting plan together. MR. DEEB-I realize that,but we're working on approximations. So you're going to discuss it with him? MR. DOBIE-Certainly, and they're under a temporary CO for the house. How this came to light was during their closing stages of the walk thru and Bruce and Craig came out and discovered it, and I don't get called for the final walk thru until the very end. I inspected it during the septic, which would have been,I can remember not very far into t e project,and so let's put the brakes on,re-group on this. It's taken me some time to get to it,but we didn't want to keep putting it off. So they wanted to get to the Board to discuss this item as a good faith that we're not trying to avoid anybody. We just want to make this right. MR. TRAVER-We appreciate that. MR.MAGOWAN-I'm pretty sure he comes up with a good,I would be willing to put a comfortable timing zone on that where it's not killing them. Lucas I really admire you coming and explaining this and showing your frustration as much as we feel the frustration that we have to see you in this point of weakness. MR. TRAVER-There is a public hearing on this application. Is there anyone in the audience that wants to address the Planning Board on this Site Plan 1-2023? Yes,sir. 33 (Queensbury Planning Board 05/16/2023) PUBLIC HEARING OPEN CHRIS NAVITSKY MR. NAVITSKY-Thank you,Mr. Chairman. Chris Navitsky,Lake George Waterkeeper. We appreciate the Town of Queensbury's attention to the unapproved development associated with this project. For historical information, this is part of the Mitchell subdivision that was approved in 2001, which was challenged by the then Fund for Lake George. We had concerns about upland development and the disturbance that was going to happen up there. Now this challenge resulted in important protective covenant restrictions on the individual lot developments that the Town should be aware of since they were part of the initial legal action The individual lots are restricted to a total clearing limit of one acre. The site plan indicates a total clearing of 1.5 acres which is 500/o greater than the allowable by the restrictions. Restrictions also limit the removal of trees 12 inches or greater in size. There's no way to determine the number of excess trees removed that should have been protected. Even the trees that were in that acre to be disturbed were to remain unless they were part of the building,where the building's located,or septic. There is a question whether the stormwater management report includes all the disturbed areas in the calculations. I respect Lucas and the work that he's done. When we've looked at the stormwater report, the total calculations of the disturbed area was LOS acres, which is less than what the total disturbed of 1.5. So we just thought that that should be clarified. Review and approval of unapproved development is meaningless unless there are remedies for such requested improvements in development such as removing or reducing the development, requiring restoration of resources removed or compromised, or, and the Chairman's aware when we had a subcommittee for the Town Board contributions to potential environmental quality restoration fund that the Town could set up. For example, and this gets to a point that you were just talking about,the applicant indicated that they would order several trees that they plan to install in the front and easterly side areas. Now the applicant actually exceeded the allowable clearing by one and a half acres from what the restrictions were,obviously a lot more than what was approved. A mature deciduous tree with canopy cover radius of 15 feet covers about 700 square feet. This would require 30 trees to cover a half an acre. So that kind of gives just a bearing, and those are obviously mature trees. So I recommend the Planning Board consider these conditions and approach to stop future unapproved development. Thank you. MR. TRAVER-Thank you. MRS.MOO RE-Chris,just before you leave,so you had written a letter back in January. Is that considered null and void,or just you've made it sort of amended according to this? MR. NAVITSKY-Amended according to revised plans. MRS. MOORE-Okay. MR. NAVITSKY-That was just on the record. Most of it was about the same, but there were some questions on the actual stormwater ponds that I think were clarified by the report. Thank you. MR. MAGOWAN-Thank you. MR. TRAVER-The written comments,Laura? MRS. MOORE-No. MR. TRAVER-No. Then we will close the public hearing. PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED MR. TRAVER-And, Lucas, can you come back to the mic. So we're in the process of discussing a restoration,but the one question about stormwater,the calculations,based on LOS acres as opposed to 1.5. Can you clarify that for us? MR. DOBIE-I believe with our revised submission of April 14`h' 15`h in which we wrote up a response to engineering comments I believe in that update HydroCad model I included the yard areas as per the 1.5 acres where in our original submission in January it was probably that 1.0. So I believe that has been updated. We did model, 7.7 acres of a drainage area through the site. So I'm confident that the grassed area are accurate for the 1.5 acres now with that revision of April and we will triple check that again. To Mr.Navitsky's point,the grassed area has a higher runoff number than a wooded area. To make sure we're accurate with that. MR. TRAVER-So getting back to the discussion on the restoration of the damaged area,you were talking about having discussion with your client about the re-planting plan. Did you want to do that and come back and present to us a planting plan? 34 (Queensbury Planning Board 05/16/2023) MR. DOBIE-That's what I would propose,if the Board's comfortable with that. We're not here to ask for an approval resolution based on X number of trees and then a little bit of a wing and a prayer if you will. I'd rather do a nice plan where everybody can be comfortable and come back with that. We'll take the first step tonight to discuss it. MR. TRAVER-We appreciate that,and I think,too,the discussion,the point that Mr. Dixon made about a blend of a deciduous and conifer trees goes to the point made in the public comment by the Waterkeeper about the need for the canopy and so on. So maybe you could take that into account. MR. DEEB-Maybe you could work with them on,he gave us the figures. So just a consultation. I mean it looks like the Waterkeeper did his math. MR. TRAVER-So what kind of timeframe would you propose before you want to come back and discuss this with us again? MR. DOBIE-I would think that July would be reasonable. MR. TRAVER July. MR. DOBIE-We don't want to put anybody out that just submitted in June and that'll give us time to re- group a little bit and come up with a better plan. MR. TRAVER-Okay. Do you think you could get the updated information to Staff by June 15`h? MR. DOBIE-Yes,sir,that's plenty reasonable. MR. TRAVER-So do you want to go to the first meeting in July,Laura? MRS. MOORE-Yes,that would be fine. MR. TRAVER-And I apologize. I do not have that date. MR. MAGOWAN-It's right here. The first in July would be the 1S`h MRS. MOORE-The 1S`h MR. TRAVER-Okay. All right. Anything else from the Board? MR. DIXON-I just want to make one more comment. So when you return with the planting plan, restoration plan,I know historically when people put trees in(background noise). MR. TRAVER-The goal,the end product would be before us as it was originally. All right. Anything else from the Board? What we would do, then, is propose a tabling to the July 1S`h, 2023 Planning Board meeting with information to Staff by the June 15`h. All right. We can go ahead and entertain that. RESOLUTION TABLING SP#1-2023 STEVIN O'BRIEN&MACKENZIE BAERTSCHI (Revised) 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 indicates disturbance of 1.5 acres. The site work exceeds 15,000 sq. ft. triggering a major stormwater and site plan review. The applicant has constructed a single family home on a lot of the Helen Mitchell Subdivision which meets setback and permeability requirements.Pursuant to chapter 179-4-040,147,site plan review for major stormwater permit shall be subject to Planning Board review and approval. MOTION TO TABLE SITE PLAN 1-2023 STEVIN O'BRIEN &z MACKENZIE BAERTSCHI. Introduced by Michael Dixon who moved for its adoption,seconded by Brady Stark. Tabled until the July 1S,2023 Planning Board meeting with information due by June 15,2023. Duly adopted this 16`h day of May 2023 by the following vote: AYES: Mr. Etu,Mr. Magowan,Mr. Longacker,Mr. Stark,Mr. Deeb,Mr. Dixon,Mr. Traver NOES: NONE MR. TRAVER-All right. We will see you in July. MR. DOBIE-Thank you,Board. Thanks for your time. 35 (Queensbury Planning Board 05/16/2023) MR. TRAVER-Is there any other business before the Board this evening? MR. DEEB-One thing. I don't know if people know Tom Ford passed away. It was in the paper. He was a member of this Board for I don't know how many years,a long,long time. MR. TRAVER-He was one of my mentors. MR. DEEB-I just wanted the Board to know that and recognize that. MR. TRAVER-He was a good balloon pilot, too. One reminder that we'll be together again Thursday night. So we have two meetings this week. If there's nothing else,I'll entertain a motion to adjourn. MOTION TO ADJOURN THE QUEENSBURY PLANNING BOARD MEETING OF MAY 16TK,2023, Introduced by Brad Magowan who moved for its adoption,seconded by Michael Dixon: Duly adopted this 16`h day of May,2023,by the following vote: AYES: Mr. Deeb,Mr. Dixon, Mr. Longacker,Mr. Stark,Mr. Magowan,Mr. Etu,Mr. Traver NOES: NONE MR. TRAVER-We stand adjourned. Thank you,everyone. See day after tomorrow. On motion meeting was adjourned. RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED, Stephen Traver,Chairman 36