The URL can be used to link to this page

11-14-2023 (Queensbury Planning Board 11/14/2023) QUEENSBURYPTANNINGBOARD MEETING FIRSTREGUTAR MEETING NOVEMBER I4TF;2023 INDEX Site Plan No.70-2023 Edward Ostberg 1. RZ 4-2023 Tax Map No.290.-1-S,290.-1-7 SEEK LEAD AGENCY Site Plan No. 69-2023 Foothills Builders 2. RZ 1-2023 Tax Map No. 303.5-1-79 SEEK LEAD AGENCY Site Plan No. 6S-2023 Northstar Donut Group 4. ZBA RECOMMENDATION Tax Map No. 302.6-1-10 Site Plan No.72-2023 David R.White 6. ZBA RECOMMENDATION Tax Map No.239.15-1-4 Site Plan No.74-2023 Charles&Ethel Weeks 7. ZBA RECOMMENDATION Tax Map No.265.-1-23.3 Site Plan No.73-2023 Lauren&Christian Freyer 9. ZBA RECOMMENDATION Tax Map No.227.14-1-17 Site Plan No.71-2023 Tracey Holdings,LLC 14. Tax Map No. 30S.16-1-S2.1 Site Plan No. 67-2023 Marc Garvey 19. Tax Map No. 303.15-1-3 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 11/14/2023) QUEENSBURY PLANNING BOARD MEETING FIRST REGULAR MEETING NOVEMBER 14TK,2023 7.00 P.M. MEMBERS PRESENT STEPHEN TRAVER,CHAIRMAN DAVID DEEB,VICE CHAIRMAN MICHAEL DIXON,SECRETARY WARREN LONGACKER BRAD MAGOWAN NATHAN ETU ELLEN MC DEVITT,ALTERNATE MEMBERS ABSENT BRADY STARK LAND USE PLANNER-LAURA MOORE STENOGRAPHER-MARIA GAGLIARDI MR.TRAVER-Good evening,ladies and gentlemen. Welcome to the Town of Queensbury Planning Board meeting for Tuesday, November 14`h, 2023. This is our first meeting for the month of November and our 23rd meeting thus far for the year. Please make note of the illuminated exit signs. In the event we have an emergency for some reason,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,we would appreciate that. We also ask that, aside from public hearings,if you wish to have a discussion amongst yourselves during the meeting,if you would move to the outer lobby to have that conversation. We do record the meeting for purposes of the minutes. I wanted to announce that as a result of the elections that we had recently three of our Planning Board members have been elected to public office,Mr.Magowan re-elected;Michael and Nathan also have been elected. As a result of those elections,Nathan and Michael will be leaving the Planning Board at the end of 2023. We appreciate their service a great deal. Our two alternates we expect will be moved from the Town Board from alternate status to regular Planning Board member status and that will be effective starting in January. So some changes to the Planning Board as a result of our recent elections. Let's see. For our agenda we have, the first item is approval of minutes. This is for the month of September. September 19 and September 26,2023. Do any of the members have any changes that they wish to make or questions concerning either of those minutes? Hearing none,I guess we have a motion. APPROVAL OF MINUTES September 19`h,2023 September 26`h,2023 MOTION TO APPROVE THE QUEENSBURY PLANNING BOARD MEETING MINUTES OF SEPTEMBER 19TH&z 26TH,2023,Introduced by Michael Dixon who moved for its adoption,seconded by Warren Longacker: Duly adopted this 14`h day of November,2023,by the following vote: AYES: Mr. Deeb,Mr. Dixon,Mr. Longacker, Mrs. McDevitt,Mr. Etu,Mr. Traver NOES: NONE ABSTAINED: Mr. Magowan ABSENT: Mr. Stark MR. TRAVER-Next we have two Administrative Items. The first is Site Plan 70-2023 and RZ 4-2023 for Edward Ostberg. ADMINISTRATIVE ITEMS: SITE PLAN 70-2023&z RZ 4-2023 EDWARD OSTBERG - SEEK LEAD AGENCY MR. TRAVER-This is a request that we Seek Lead Agency status for their application. Laura? 2 (Queensbury Planning Board 11/14/2023) MRS.MOORE-So this applicant is proposing to add language to the Zoning Code to allow microbreweries in CLI and so I know there's possibly somebody in the audience if you want a little more detail behind that, but right at this moment it's more of an administrative item for this Board to Seek Lead Agency status. MR. TRAVER-Right. MRS. MOORE-And go through the 30 days' notice. The applicant could potentially come back in December and you could start the process of SEQR review and potentially a recommendation back to the Town Board. MR. TRAVER-Okay. So tonight what is before us is the first step and that is seeking Lead Agency status so that we can begin that review process. Do members of the Planning Board have any questions or concerns regarding that? Okay. We have a motion. RESOLUTION SEEKING LEAD AGENCY STATUS SP#70-2023&RZ-4-2023 EDWARD OSTBERG WHEREAS, the applicant proposes to reuse an existing S,OS7 sq. ft. building for a microbrewery with associated uses. The project includes site arrangement for an outdoor cooler and a tasting area of 6 tables at most.The project also includes a petition of zone change to add microbrewery to the allowed uses in the Commercial Light Industrial zone. Site Plan review pending Town Board and Planning Board Petition of zone change review. Pursuant to chapter 179-3-040,179-5-100 site plan for a multifamily buildings subject to Planning Board review and approval. This project is subject to a coordinated SEQR review with the Town Board. The Planning Board seeks Lead Agency status. WHEREAS, the Planning Board of the Town of Queensbury has determined to begin an environmental review process under the State Environmental Quality Review Act(SEQRA). WHEREAS,the Planning Board of the Town of Queensbury has identified the project to be a Type I action for purposes of SEQR review pursuant to 6 NYCRR 617. WHEREAS,the Planning Board is the agency most directly responsible for approving the action because of its responsibility for approving the land uses for the property. NOW,THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED,the Planning Board of the Town of Queensbury hereby indicates its desire to be lead agency for SEQRA review of this action and authorizes and directs the Zoning Administrator to notify any other potentially involved agencies of such intent. That Part I of the SEQRA form will be sent to the appropriate agencies. MOTION TO SEEK LEAD AGENCY STATUS IN CONNECTION WITH SITE PLAN 70-2023 &z PETITION OF ZONE CHANGE 4-2023 EDWARD OSTBERG, Introduced by Michael Dixon who moved for its adoption,seconded by Brad Magowan. As per the draft resolution prepared by staff. Duly adopted this 14`h day of November 2023 by the following vote: AYES: Mr. Dixon, Mr. Longacker,Mrs. McDevitt,Mr. Magowan, Mr. Etu,Mr. Deeb,Mr. Traver NOES: NONE ABSENT: Mr. Stark MR.TRAVER-The next administrative item is Site Plan 69-2023&RZ-1-2023. This is Foothills Builders. SITE PLAN 69-2023&z RZ 1-2023 FOOTHILLS BUILDERS—SEEK LEAD AGENCY MR. TRAVER-Also to Seek Lead Agency status. Laura? MRS. MOORE-So this applicant is proposing the modification of a couple of things here. They'd like to change it to MDR and then add language to the Zoning Code in regards to density and items that are needed for residential development. So,again,this is the process that we need to Seek Lead Agency status and then following, 30 days later,you could potentially provide a recommendation and continue through the SEQR process,and,again,I think there may be somebody in the audience if you wish to have additional information. MR.TRAVER-Okay. Thank you. Questions,comments from members of the Board? Any concerns with regards to the seeking of Lead Agency status to start the clock running on this? 3 (Queensbury Planning Board 11/14/2023) MR. MAGOWAN-I have a question. Reading this. So the Town is zoning it for 16 buildings with four units each? MRS. MOORE-They're requesting that. MR. MAGOWAN-Who? MRS. MOORE-The applicant. MR. MAGOWAN-Okay. MRS. MOORE-So we're not at the point where you the Board are going to review this application and make that recommendation back to the Town Board. MR. TRAVER-But we're not doing that tonight. MRS. MOORE-You're not doing that tonight. MR. TRAVER-We're simply beginning the research project regarding Lead Agency status for gathering information regarding the project. We can't hear it until Lead Agency has been established. MR. MAGOWAN-Okay. I was just,because I was just confused on the numbers. They didn't look like they changed. So,okay. I understand the process. I just didn't want to jump too far ahead.. MR. TRAVER-Understood. Any other questions? Okay. We have that motion. RESOLUTION SEEKING LEAD AGENCY STATUS SP#69-2023&RZ-1-2023 FOOTHILLS BUILDERS WHEREAS, the applicant proposes a zone change of a 10.99 acre parcel from Commercial Intensive to Moderate Density Residential. The project includes construction of 16 buildings with 4 units each. Townhouse units are subject to subdivision as they are individually owned building footprints. The site has a designated wetland. Pursuant to chapter 179-3-040, 179-10-040 and chapter 94, site plan for construction of a newmultifamily building and work within 100 ft.of wetlands shall be subject to Planning Board review and approval.Planning Board shall provide a recommendation to the Town Board for zoning change. WHEREAS, the Planning Board of the Town of Queensbury has determined to begin an environmental review process under the State Environmental Quality Review Act(SEQRA). WHEREAS,the Planning Board of the Town of Queensbury has identified the project to be a Type I action for purposes of SEQR review pursuant to 6 NYCRR 617. WHEREAS,the Planning Board is the agency most directly responsible for approving the action because of its responsibility for approving the land uses for the property. NOW,THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED,the Planning Board of the Town of Queensbury hereby indicates its desire to be lead agency for SEQRA review of this action and authorizes and directs the Zoning Administrator to notify any other potentially involved agencies of such intent. That Part I of the SEQRA form will be sent to the appropriate agencies. MOTION TO SEEK LEAD AGENCY STATUS IN CONNECTION WITH SITE PLAN 69-2023, PETITION OF ZONE CHANGE 1-2023 &z FRESHWATER WETLANDS 12-2023 FOOTHILLS BUILDERS,Introduced by Michael Dixon who moved for its adoption,seconded by Nathan Etu. As per the draft resolution prepared by staff. Duly adopted this 14`h day of November 2023 by the following vote: AYES: Mr. Longacker,Mrs. McDevitt,Mr. Magowan,Mr. Etu,Mr. Deeb,Mr. Dixon,Mr. Traver NOES: NONE ABSENT: Mr. Stark MR.TRAVER-Okay. Thank you,and now we move to our regular agenda. The first section of that agenda being recommendations to the Zoning Board of Appeals. The first application is NorthStar Donut Group. This is Site Plan 65-2023. PLANNING BOARD RECOMMENDATIONS TO THE ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS: 4 (Queensbury Planning Board 11/14/2023) SITE PLAN NO. 68-2023 SEQR TYPE: TYPE II. NORTHSTAR DONUT GROUP. AGENT(S): BARTLETT,PONTIFF,STEWART&z RHODES OWNER(S): CEDAR HOLDING ASSOCIATES. ZONING: CI. LOCATION: 713 GLEN STREET. APPLICANT PROPOSES TO ALTER SIGNAGE AND MODIFY THE BUILDING CANOPIES FOR EXISTING BUILDING AND SITE. THE EXISTING 2,358.5 SQ.FT.BUILDING TO REMAIN WITH NO CHANGES. AN EXISTING WALL SIGN WILL BE REPLACED WITH A 22.3 SQ. FT. SIGN WITH THE WORD "DUNKIN" ON THE NORTH ELEVATION. THE FREESTANDING SIGN WILL BE REFURBISHED TO A 32 SQ. FT. SIGN WITH THE WORDS"DUNKIN DRIVE THRU". ALSO PROPOSED ARE 2 DIRECTIONAL SIGNS OF 2.79 SQ. FT. AT EACH ACCESS AND EXIT POINT. ALSO INCLUDED IS A 2.68 SQ., FT. SIGN ABOVE THE HEIGHT CHECK ARM INDICATING THE DRIVE THRU. THE MENU BOARD WILL BE REPLACED WITH A 19.88 SQ. FT. DIGITAL MENU BOARD AS ANOTHER FREESTANDING SIGN. THE PROJECT INCLUDES REPLACING THE SLOPED CANOPIES WITH FLAT CANOPIES OVER THE ENTRANCE AND DRIVE THRU WINDOW AND A NEW CANOPY OVER THE DIGITAL MENU. THE COLOR SCHEME WILL BE UPDATED WITH MORE GRAY, ORANGE AND PINK. PURSUANT TO CHAPTER 179-3-040 &z 140, SITE PLAN FOR NEW COLOR SCHEME, SIGNS AND CANOPIES SHALL BE SUBJECT TO PLANNING BOARD REVIEW AND APPROVAL. VARIANCE: RELIEF IS SOUGHT FOR NUMBER OF SIGNS AND DIGITAL SIGN. PLANNING BOARD SHALL PROVIDE A RECOMMENDATION TO THE ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS. CROSS REFERENCE: AV 98-2002,AV 42-2003,SP 10-2003, SV 6-2023. WARREN CO. REFERRAL: NOVEMBER 2023. SITE INFORMATION: TRAVEL CORRIDOR. LOT SIZE: 0.11 ACRES. TAX MAP NO. 302.6-1-10. SECTION: 179-3-040,140. JON ZAPPER, REPRESENTING APPLICANT,PRESENT MR. TRAVER-Laura? MRS. MOORE-So this application is for a facade change as well as some signage. So this applicant proposes to have digital signs which is not allowed per our Code so a Sign Variance is being requested. So that's part of the request, and then for site plan review it's facade changes with the color and the canopy sign change. MR. TRAVER-Okay. Thank you. Good evening. MR. ZAPPER-Good evening, everyone. For the record,Jon Lapper on behalf of the applicant. This is almost identical to what the Board reviewed and approved for the Main Street Dunkin Donuts. Now we're on Upper Glen Street. You'll notice that we removed the request for the Queensbury Dunkin sign because we saw everybody didn't like that the first time around. So that's not on the package. The digital, of course,is the digital menu board which no one had a problem with last time. You can't see it really from off site and it's just for the convenience so they can change the menu quicker,but it's very small and just when you pull up in your car. Beyond that,the facade signs,there's a new sign at the digital menu board that shows you what the height is so when you get to the canopy you don't drive through the canopy like it was a railroad crossing and just changing it from Dunkin Donuts to Dunkin basically. So it's a recommendation and then we'll be back to hopefully get the variances and then we'll be back at your next meeting for site plan. I do want to mention that the color of the building is the same as what was done on Main Street. They're going from a tan to a gray,and we're getting that scheduled to get done,even though that's a site plan issue,because of the weather that may or may not happen right about the time that we're back next time,but I presume no one would be offended by the same color that they did on the building next door,on the other side of Town,which is a nice dark gray,but I don't know what date that's going to happen,but beyond that we'll be back here to have you review this as soon as we get done with the Zoning Board. MR. TRAVER-Okay. Thank you. Questions,comments from members of the Board? MR. MAGOWAN-I guess my only question is,I heard digital. It's just the drive thru board. MR. ZAPPER-Exactly. MR. MAGOWAN-With the small numbers. All right. MR. ZAPPER-Nothing else. MR. DEEB-Is it the same owner as the one on Main Street? MR. ZAPPER-It is,yes. MR. DEEB-It's the same owner. All right. I have a question. I thought Sign Variances went before the Zoning Board? 5 (Queensbury Planning Board 11/14/2023) MR. ZAPPER-You're recommending. MRS. MOORE-You're recommending, and there's times when the Board does not see that recommendation for a Sign Variance and in this case you're seeing it this time. So it's not all the time. MR. DEEB-Okay. It's a little confusing. Okay. MR. DIXON-Not that it changes anything. Is this a corporate mandate? MR. ZAPPER-The changing the colors and this also includes this nice metal canopies instead of the ugly vinyl that's there now and that's corporate,but part of it is just that the local franchise has to upgrade and update. MR. DEEB-So basically the same as the one on Main Street. MR. ZAPPER-Exactly. MR. LONGACKER-Queensbury Dunkin is not going to be on the side? I have two different drawings. One has it and one doesn't. MR. ZAPPER-No, the Zoning Board were not happy about that last time so we convinced them not to request it. MR. LONGACKER-And putting new glass, all new windows,the ceiling elevations and floor plans. Are they doing work on the interior? MR. ZAPPER-They're doing interior work that doesn't require Planning Board approval. MR. LONGACKER-Right. One thing I'd just recommend,the Building Department may pickup on it,is your ADA spot there is really not compliant. I mean to do over 50 K worth of work,the Code requires that certain ADA measures be made. Maybe what they could do, and again the Building Department may pick up on this. MR. ZAPPER-How is it not compliant? MR. LONGACKER Just the way that the parking spot and then they have the aisle there to the left of the parking spot,between the parking spot and the building,you have the ramp that actually extends into that parking area. That ramp,it's supposed to be a free and open area and just hard for somebody to get out in a wheelchair between the parking and the actual spot,and then try to get up onto that ramp. Maybe you could flip-flop it. That's all. MR. ZAPPER-It probably was retrofitted before. MR. LONGACKER-It probably was. MR. ZAPPER-I'll certainly mention that to the owners. MR. TRAVER-Any other questions, comments,concerns? This is. again, a recommendation to the ZBA. So we're not doing Site Plan Review but they are looking for a recommendation from us. Do we have any concerns we want to express. I'm not hearing any. RECOMMENDATION RE: ZBA RECOMMENDATION: SV#6-2023 NORTHSTAR DONUT GROUP The applicant has submitted an application for the following: Applicant proposes to alter signage and modify the building canopies for existing building and site. The existing 2,355.5 sq. ft.building to remain with no changes.An existing wall sign will be replaced with a 22.3 sq.ft. sign with the word"Dunkin"on the North Elevation. The free standing sign will be refurbished to a 32 sq.ft. sign with the words"Dunkin Drive Thru".Also proposed are 2 directional signs of 2.79 sq.ft.at each access and exit point.Also included is a 2.65 sq.ft. sign above the height check arm indicating the drive thru. The menu board will be replaced with a 19.SS sq. ft. digital menu board as another free standing sign. The project includes replacing the sloped canopies with flat canopies over the entrance and drive thru window and a new canopy over the digital menu. The color scheme will be updated with more gray,orange and pink.Pursuant to chapter 179- 3-040&140,site plan for new color scheme,signs and canopies shall be subject to Planning Board review and approval.Variance: Relief is sought for number of signs and digital sign. Planning Board shall provide a recommendation to the Zoning Board of Appeals. 6 (Queensbury Planning Board 11/14/2023) The Town of Queensbury Zoning Ordinance,per Section 179-9-070 J 2 b. requires the Planning Board to provide a written recommendation to the Zoning Board of Appeals for projects that require both Zoning Board of Appeals&Planning Board approval; The Planning Board has briefly reviewed and discussed this application,the relief request in the variance application as well as the potential impacts of this project on the neighborhood and surrounding community,and found that: MOTION TO MAKE A RECOMMENDATION ON BEHALF OF THE PLANNING BOARD TO THE ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS FOR SIGN VARIANCE 6-2023 NORTHSTAR DONUT GROUP. Introduced by Michael Dixon who moved for its adoption, and a) The Planning Board,based on a limited review,has not identified any significant adverse impacts that cannot be mitigated with current project proposal. Motion seconded by Nathan Etu. Duly adopted this 14`h day of November 2023 by the following vote: AYES: Mrs. McDevitt,Mr. Magowan,Mr. Etu,Mr. Deeb,Mr. Dixon,Mr. Longacker,Mr. Traver NOES: NONE ABSENT: Mr. Stark MR. ZAPPER-Thank you very much. Nate, you're going to miss the peacefulness of the Planning Board when you're at the County. Thanks,everybody. MR. TRAVER-Next item on our agenda,also under Recommendations to the ZBA,David R.White. This is Site Plan 72-2023. SITE PLAN NO.72-2023 SEQR TYPE: TYPE 11. DAVID R. WHITE. AGENT(S): HUTCHINS ENGINEERING. O WNER(S): MARY WHITE,DAVID WHITE&z CANDICE WHITE. ZONING: WR. LOCATION: 5 WILD TURKEY LANE. APPLICANT PROPOSES TO CONSTRUCT A 124 SQ. FT. RAISED WALKWAY AND A 175 SQ. FT. PAVER ACCESS WALK. THE WALKWAY WILL BE CONNECTED TO THE PREVIOUSLY APPROVED SECOND FLOOR ADDITION. THE EXISTING 1,575 SQ.FT.HOME 431 SQ.FT.PORCH,452 SQ.FT.DETACHED GARAGE,AND 4,096 SQ. FT.HARD SURFACING TO REMAIN UNCHANGED. PURSUANT TO CHAPTER 179-3-040 &z 179-13-010, SITE PLAN FOR A NON-CONFORMING STRUCTURE SHALL BE SUBJECT TO PLANNING BOARD REVIEW AND APPROVAL. VARIANCE: RELIEF IS SOUGHT FOR SETBACKS. PLANNING BOARD SHALL PROVIDE A RECOMMENDATION TO THE ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS. CROSS REFERENCE: AV 6-1990,SP 1-1992,SP 10-2002,AV 37-2002,SP 5-2021, AV 1-2021, AV 44-2023. WARREN CO. REFERRAL: NOVEMBER 2023. SITE INFORMATION: APA, LGPC, CEA. LOT SIZE: 0.83 ACRES. TAX MAP NO. 239.15-1-4. SECTION: 179-3-040,179-13-010. TOM HUTCHINS, REPRESENTING APPLICANT,PRESENT MR. TRAVER-Laura? MRS. MOORE-So this applicant is proposing a raised walkway of 124 square feet. It also includes a 175 square foot paver access walk. Their existing home remains the same. If you remember you approved an addition to the home a while back,and so when they were preparing that addition they utilized a walkway of some sort and they enjoyed that. So they wish to have that permanent. MR. TRAVER-Okay. Thank you. Good evening. MR. HUTCHINS-Good evening, Board. Tom Hutchins on behalf of David, Mary Carol and Candice White. David and Mary Carol are parents and Candice is the daughter, and,yes,we were here in January of 2021. The Board approved the site plan for an addition. It was a second floor addition. It's hatched on my plan,but it's right in that spot right there on the house. There was a variance involved as the existing house is closer to the shoreline than the 75 foot setback,and this is one of those few residences along that corridor in Queensbury that has a 75 foot shoreline setback instead of the regular 50. The unique thing about this property is the main floor is some 13 feet vertically below the parking area, the garage and the parking area. There's a set of stone steps,very nice stone steps,but they are rough,irregular, and can be difficult to navigate, and what the Whites are proposing is a small, basically a deck, five feet wide by twenty-five feet long, that will span from the driveway area to the second floor of the residence to make some easier access. The reason we're here is because that portion of the walkway at the rear of the house is 65 feet from the shoreline in lieu of 75. So we're requesting relief from that 75 foot setback,even though 7 (Queensbury Planning Board 11/14/2023) the entire house is between the lake and this project. So with that I'd turn it over to the Board for any comments. MR. TRAVER-So it's a pre-existing,nonconforming setback basically. MR. HUTCHINS-It's a pre-existing, nonconforming residence, yes, and I would add as part of the last project that they did a complete replacement of the septic system. It's up to current standards, and upon completion of the septic system,a portion of the driveway,a fairly good portion of the driveway got trashed in the process and they replaced over 2,000 square feet of driveway with permeable pavers, and they've done a really nice job with this property. So we're looking for your support to take it to the Zoning Board. MR. TRAVER-Okay. Thank you. Questions, comments from members of the Board regarding a recommendation to the ZBA? MR. DEEB-Tom,will it affect stormwater at all,water coming off? MR. HUTCHINS-No. It's a five foot wide open deck. There's no roof. No nothing. It's just 125 square foot of open deck. MR. DEEB-Okay. MR. TRAVER-Anyone have any concerns they want to express to the ZBA as they consider this variance for the pre-existing setback issue? All right. We have a motion. RECOMMENDATION RE: ZBA RECOMMENDATION: AV#44-2023 DAVID R.WHITE The applicant has submitted an application for the following: Applicant proposes to construct a 124 sq. ft. raised walkway and a 175 sq. ft. paver access walk. The walkway will be connected to the previously approved second floor addition. The existing 1,575 sq.ft.home,431 sq.ft.porch,452 sq.ft.detached garage, and 4,096 sq.ft.hard surfacing to remain unchanged.Pursuant to chapter 179-3-040&179-13-010,site plan for a non-conforming structure shall be subject to Planning Board review and approval.Variance: Relief is sought for setbacks.Planning Board shall provide a recommendation to the Zoning Board of Appeals. The Town of Queensbury Zoning Ordinance,per Section 179-9-070 J 2 b. requires the Planning Board to provide a written recommendation to the Zoning Board of Appeals for projects that require both Zoning Board of Appeals&Planning Board approval; The Planning Board has briefly reviewed and discussed this application,the relief request in the variance application as well as the potential impacts of this project on the neighborhood and surrounding community,and found that: MOTION TO MAKE A RECOMMENDATION ON BEHALF OF THE PLANNING BOARD TO THE ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS FOR AREA VARIANCE 44-2023 DAVID R. WHITE. Introduced by Michael Dixon who moved for its adoption, and a) The Planning Board,based on a limited review,has not identified any significant adverse impacts that cannot be mitigated with current project proposal. Motion seconded by Brad Magowan. Duly adopted this 14`h day of November 2023 by the following vote: AYES: Mr. Magowan,Mr. Etu,Mr. Deeb,Mr. Dixon, Mr. Longacker,Mrs. McDevitt,Mr. Traver NOES: NONE ABSENT: Mr. Stark MR. TRAVER-You're off to the ZBA. MR.HUTCHINS-Thanks,Board. MR. TRAVER-The next item on the agenda, also a Recommendation to the ZBA, is Charles & Ethel Weeks. This is Site Plan 74-2023. SITE PLAN NO. 74-2023 SEQR TYPE: TYPE 11. CHARLES &z ETHEL WEEKS. OWNER(S): SAME AS APPLICANT. ZONING: RR-3A. LOCATION: 70 PICKLE HILL ROAD. APPLICANT PROPOSES TO CONSTRUCT A SECOND GARAGE OF 840 SQ.FT. THE GARAGE WILL HAVE 3 BAYS AND UPSTAIRS STORAGE. THE EXISTING 200 SQ. FT. POLE BARN WILL BE REMOVED. THE EXISTING 4,120 SQ. FT. HOME AND 1,371 SQ. FT. EXTENDED PORCH TO REMAIN UNCHANGED. PURSUANT TO CHAPTER 179-3-040, 179-5-020, &z 179-6-065, SITE S (Queensbury Planning Board 11/14/2023) PLAN FOR NEW FLOOR AREA IN A CRITICAL ENVIRONMENTAL AREA SHALL BE SUBJECT TO PLANNING BOARD REVIEW AND APPROVAL. VARIANCE : RELIEF IS SOUGHT FOR NUMBER OF GARAGES. PLANNING BOARD SHALL MAKE A RECOMMENDATION TO THE ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS. CROSS REFERENCE: AV 46-2023. WARREN CO.REFERRAL: NOVEMBER 2023. SITE INFORMATION: CEA,LGPC,APA. LOT SIZE: 6.34 ACRES. TAX MAP NO.265.-1-23.3. SECTION: 179-3-040,179-5-020,179-6-065. CHARLES&ETHEL WEEKS,PRESENT MR. TRAVER-Laura? MRS. MOORE-So this applicant proposes a second garage, and the second garage is to be S40 square feet. The garage will have three bays and an upstairs storage. The existing 200 square foot pole barn will be removed. The existing home remains. It also have its own garage itself. So that's why this is a second garage request. MR. TRAVER-Okay. Thank you. Good evening. MR.WEEKS-Good evening. MR. TRAVER-Tell us about your project. MR. WEEKS-The property at 70 Pickle Hill currently has a pole barn, four bay pole barn, which has a lawnmower, tractor and associated equipment and it's deteriorated significantly. So that's what's going to be destroyed, taken down, and I'm going to replace it with a three bay detached garage, and I need a variance for that detached garage. MR. TRAVER-Because your home has an attached garage currently. Right? MR.WEEKS-Yes,it does. MR. TRAVER-Okay. So in effect,prior to this application,you had,instead of a second garage,you had an old pole barn that you were using as,in effect, a garage to store all this outdoor equipment and so on. Right? MR.WEEKS-Yes. It's open to the weather. It has no power. It has no utilities. It's just simple storage. MR. TRAVER-And the new proposed garage,will that have power also? MR.WEEKS-No. MR. TRAVER-No. Okay. MR.WEEKS-The same situation. It's going to have a gravel floor,metal roof and siding. That's all. MR. TRAVER-Thank you. Questions,comments from members of the Board? MR. MAGOWAN-I'm sure that's a big shovel you have for that long driveway. I hope you don't do that by hand. MR. TRAVER-Does anyone have any concerns regarding this request for a variance that we want to communicate to the ZBA? I'm not hearing any. We have a resolution. RECOMMENDATION RE: ZBA RECOMMENDATION: AV#46-2023 CHARLES&ETHEL WEEKS The applicant has submitted an application for the following: Applicant proposes to construct a second garage of S40 sq.ft.. The garage will have 3 bays and upstairs storage. The existing 200 sq.ft.pole barn will be removed. The existing 4,120 sq.ft.home and 1,371 sq.ft.extended porch to remain unchanged.Pursuant to chapter 179-3-040, 179-5-020 & 179-6-065, site plan for new floor area in a critical environment area shall be subject to Planning Board review and approval. Variance: Relief is sought for number of garages. Planning Board shall make a recommendation to the Zoning Board of Appeals. The Town of Queensbury Zoning Ordinance,per Section 179-9-070 J 2 b. requires the Planning Board to provide a written recommendation to the Zoning Board of Appeals for projects that require both Zoning Board of Appeals&Planning Board approval; The Planning Board has briefly reviewed and discussed this application,the relief request in the variance application as well as the potential impacts of this project on the neighborhood and surrounding community,and found that: 9 (Queensbury Planning Board 11/14/2023) MOTION TO MAKE A RECOMMENDATION ON BEHALF OF THE PLANNING BOARD TO THE ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS FOR AREA VARIANCE 46-2023 CHARLES&z ETHEL WEEKS. Introduced by Michael Dixon who moved for its adoption, and a) The Planning Board,based on a limited review,has not identified any significant adverse impacts that cannot be mitigated with current project proposal. Motion seconded by Brad Magowan. Duly adopted this 14`h day of November 2023 by the following vote: AYES: Mr. Etu,Mr. Deeb,Mr. Dixon,Mr. Longacker,Mrs. McDevitt,Mr. Magowan, Mr. Traver NOES: NONE ABSENT: Mr. Stark MR. TRAVER-You're off to the ZBA. MR.WEEKS-Thank you. MR. DEEB-Good luck. MRS.WEEKS-Thank you very much. MR. TRAVER-The next item on our agenda is Lauren&Christian Freyer. This is Site Plan 73-2023 and Freshwater Wetlands permit 13-2023. SITE PLAN NO.73-2023 FRESHWATER WETLANDS 13-2023 SEQR TYPE: TYPE II. LAUREN &z CHRISTIAN FREYER. AGENT(S): RU HOLMES, PLLC. OWNER(S): SAME AS APPLICANT. ZONING: WR. LOCATION: PULVER ROAD. APPLICANT PROPOSES TO CONSTRUCT A 2,028 SQ.FT.FOOTPRINT HOME WITH A FLOOR AREA OF 3,456 SQ.FT.THE PROJECT INCLUDES ASSOCIATED SITE WORK FOR STORMWATER MANAGEMENT AND SHORELINE PLANTING PLAN. THE SEPTIC SYSTEM APPROVED BY LOCAL BOH IS PROPOSED FOR CONSTRUCTION ACROSS PULVER ROAD AND CONNECTING TO ADJOINING PROPERTY BY THE SAME OWNER. PURSUANT TO CHAPTER 94,179-3-040,179- 6-065, &z 179-6-050, SITE PLAN FOR A NEW FLOOR AREA IN A CEA, HARD SURFACING WITHIN 50 FT. OF THE SHORELINE AND WORK WITHIN 100 FT. OF WETLANDS SHALL BE SUBJECT TO PLANNING BOARD REVIEW AND APPROVAL. VARIANCE .: RELIEF IS SOUGHT FOR SETBACKS AND PERMEABILITY. PLANNING BOARD SHALL PROVIDE A RECOMMENDATION TO THE ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS. CROSS REFERENCE: AV 45- 2023. WARREN CO.REFERRAL: NOVEMBER 2023. SITE INFORMATION: CEA,WETLANDS, APA,LGPC. LOT SIZE: .37 ACRES. TAX MAP NO. 227.14-1-17. SECTION: 179-3-040,179-6- 065,179-6-050,CHAPTER 94. TOM JARRETT, REPRESENTING APPLICANTS,PRESENT MRS. MOORE-So this applicant proposes to construct a 2,02E square foot footprint home with a floor area of 3,456 square feet. The project includes associated site work for stormwater management and shoreline planting. The septic system was approved by the local Board of Health and proposed for construction across Sullivan Road and connecting to an adjoining property owned by the same owner. The variance relief is for setbacks as well as permeability. MR. TRAVER-Okay. Thank you. Good evening. MR.JARRETT-Goodevening. Tom Jarrett and Aaron Roberts of RU Holmes, and with me tonight are Tim and Karen Wells. They are the parents of Lauren and,well Christian is the son-in-law and Lauren is their daughter. They're representing the family compound tonight. They bought this property in 2020, late 2020 I believe. July of 2020. There was a residence on Pilot Knob Road of which they own, and this is a vacant parcel they bought with the purchase. It's on Pulver Road, and as you can see from the application it borders on the lake. It's an interesting application,interesting site because it's bordered by the lake on two sides. You can see that from the cover sheet. There's frontage on the north side, and then there's also lakefront on the east but with an inlet and a wetland around to the right as you face the lake. The parcel has been vacant for many, many years, and they wish to build a residence. The lot is very narrow,and it is situated near the lake on two sides. So in essence we need two shoreline variances. We're proposing the residence 50 feet back from the north shoreline, but to the right, to the east, we need a shoreline variance to the lake and a wetland variance that borders that lake inlet. The other two variances are a sideline setback on the west side. We tried to balance the site design to maximize the shoreline setback and in doing so we need a setback to the property line on the west side. Lastly we exceed the 10 (Queensbury Planning Board 11/14/2023) permeability by a little over one percent,and that is caused by the fact that Pulver Road is on their property. Without Pulver Road we would be compliant. So I'll throw it open to questions regarding those issues and any other issues the Board has. MR. TRAVER-Yes. When I saw this, I was really quite taken back by the variances, the nature of the variances,particularly since the permeability is an issue in addition to the shoreline and wetland setbacks. It seems like it's a bit much for me,perhaps for the size of that lot. MR.JARRETT-Can you elaborate on a bit much on which of the variances? MR. TRAVER-Well I think it's a combination. I mean you're asking for setbacks from the shoreline. You're asking for setbacks from the wetlands and on top of that the permeability is a problem, which contributes to the whole stormwater issue, and I know that you're going to propose engineering to try to address stormwater,but nevertheless,the combination of those three things, seems excessive to me. We have other Board members obviously that will have different opinions. MRS. MC DEVITT-I agree. MR.JARRETT-The lot is 60 foot wide with 20 foot setbacks on each side. What they tried to do is build as narrow a house as possible. MR. TRAVER-No,I understand. Perhaps that's why it's been vacant for so long. MR.JARRETT-Well actually it was vacant because the other owners used the Pilot Knob Road parcel. They didn't need to build a house on this parcel. The permeability is caused by Pulver Road,that exceeds. We'll try to get it down as tight as possible,but it exceeds by a little over a percent because of Pulver Road, impermeable Pulver Road is on the property. MR. TRAVER-That's a very unusual lot to say the least. MR.JARRETT-It is. MRS. MC DEVITT-And we can't change Pulver Road, and so then everything else just exists then. MR.JARRE TT-Correct. The development we're proposing would be compliant without Pulver Road. MRS. MC DEVITT-But you can't get rid of Pulver Road. So, I mean, to me that argument I don't know what it's supposed to mean. MR. TRAVER-Other questions, comments from members of the Board? I just want to clarify, this is a recommendation to the ZBA for the variances. We would see it later for Site Plan. MR. LONGACKER-I just have an agreement with that. I have no problem. I know it's like a tiny lot so you're constrained by all those setbacks, but I do agree. If you pulled that driveway back, perhaps you could eliminate the need for the variance for permeability,if you just pull the driveway back like eight feet closer from Pulver Road. MR.JARRETT-You mean pull the whole house back? MR. LONGACKER-Yes. MR. MAGOWAN-Well that's nicely said. For me, I'm sorry, you're trying to squeeze something onto something that's too small,in really a Critical Environmental Area,and,you know,you're dealing with two sides on the lake, which is shallow,with a stream that comes down, and with a combination of the other lands and the road runoff and everything else going onto that land, I personally, I think it's too much for this lot. I appreciate you trying to do what you're trying to do,but this is what's happened in the past is a lot of these homes on the lakes that we have all around us were summer camps and then somehow they've turned into,over the course of many years,into bigger homes and then more homes, and everybody wants to live on the lake,which I really can't blame you,because it's gorgeous,but we have problems on the lake and trying to protect the lake, and by trying to squeak in one more house, all right,it's too tiny of a lot for what you're trying to do, and I've got to look at Pulver Road, you know, the runoff from that, what contributes,any runoff that might come off of that road and go into the stream,which is not your problem, but that's the road. So it's all adding into really a very shallow area. On top of that, do we know what's underneath,you know, what kind of soils, rocks,you know. We can put so much water back into the ground,but if it's not going to be absorbed and taken care of correctly it's going to hit the rocks and just end up in the lake,we're defeating the purpose. I don't like these little matchbox lots with homes on them and I've stated that before, and no offense. I don't know you. I appreciate you trying to do what you're doing,but I just,I think it's too much. 11 (Queensbury Planning Board 11/14/2023) MR. TRAVER-Any other comments,questions for the applicant regarding the variances? MR. DEE&Well,I think that,looking at the plans,I mean the house is as thin as you can get. I mean you really pared the house down and tried to get as close as you could to that, and I think that that was an admirable thing to do. I know that you people own this lot and you have a right to do it and you have to go through what the red tape is. I think you have a right to build on the lot. I don't know if you can come in a little more compliant or not. I mean Warren made a good point, and if that could be done,I'd be all for it. I just think,you know,it's a tough situation for you,and I understand that. MR. TRAVER-Yes,it's difficult for us as a Board because,you know,we can't become the designer of your property and make a recommendation as to what to do that might be approved. We can only deal with what we have in front of us right now,and what I'm hearing is that there's a lot of concern with the nature of this particular lot is excessive. I don't know if something can be done to make it more compliant or not, and that's really not our job. That's yours. MR. DEE&Well,I wanted to add to that. We've seen,it used to be Jarrett Engineers,but that we've seen Tom here several times,and Tom has always done the utmost best to work with the Boards and get things done the proper way. So I respect his abilities and everything else he's done,and I think that if there's any consideration we should try and give it to him. MR. TRAVER-Yes. There's certainly nothing improper about the application. We don't mean to imply that. It's just our position and our role this evening in preparation as the Zoning Board prepares to look at the variances required,we're not looking at Site Plan. We're just looking at the variances, and at least there are several of us thus far that feel the variances,that we would recommend against the variances, as proposed. MR. JARRETT-I'd certainly welcome additional comments that the Board might have. From our perspective,we could move the house back somewhat,if our clients are willing to do that,and we can get the permeability under 75,the permeability over 750/o and be compliant there. Pulver Road is really causing the problem. I acknowledge the comment. That's the easiest sell. That's the easiest change. Reducing the house to be compliant from the wetland and shoreline is impossible. Essentially you're not going to build a house that narrow. We can reduce the ridge of the house a bit further,but I don't think we can become compliant. MR. TRAVER-That's my sense as well, although again. MR.JARRETT-Would the Board support something that was improved in those directions? I guess it's hard to ask that question but I'm asking it. MR. TRAVER-I mean I can't speak for the Board, and I really don't want to, and I don't think that we can respond without seeing an application. MR.JARRETT-Acknowledged. MR. TRAVER-However,I think that your comments,and again,this is just myself. I'll certainly let other Board members respond if they wish to,but to do a hypothetical re-design,that still would require a lot of these variances. I'm not sure,it would be difficult for me to approve that. The lot isn't going to change. MR.JARRETT-So basically nothing is approvable on this property? It's a lot of record. MR.TRAVER-You can certainly make an application that's adjusted to be more compliant and,you know, unless we actually see something and see the numbers and see what you propose, you know, we can't make a hypothetical judgment. MR.JARRETT-No,I understand that totally. MR. TRAVER-Okay. It's just my sense, and at least I've heard at least one or two other Board members that the restriction is really not you and your design. It is the lot. The lot itself is just a physically small lot that is approximate to the lake as you point out on both sides and therefore generates a lot of issues. MRS. MC DEVITT-I would think there'd be a lot of water on that lot,too. I mean just naturally from the stream and being surrounded by the lake. MR.JARRETT-Not on the lot itself. They filled it enough years and years ago. The lot itself is dry. MR. DEEB-I respect the fact that at least he's trying to compromise somewhat. We've always looked for compromise on this Board. MR. TRAVER-Yes. I mean we certainly would look at anything you propose. 12 (Queensbury Planning Board 11/14/2023) MR. DEEB-And I think that these people own this lot. They have a right to consideration of it, doing something with it,and I don't know if I would say no,you can't do it. MR. TRAVER-No,no. I mean we certainly would consider any application that you make, as we are this one. MRS. MOORE-Mr. Chairman, I just wanted to offer that in the past when applicants have, when you've come to sort of an impasse, applicants sometimes have in essence tabled it at this point,knowing that the Board may not agree with some of the items in the variance, and the applicant has gone and come back with a new design. They certainly could do that, or you could pass your resolution as you usually do to the Zoning Board of Appeals. I just wanted to point out that that has happened in the past. It doesn't have to happen this time,but it could. MR. TRAVER-I appreciate that. The only concern I might have is that,you know, they have a case to make before the Zoning Board and perhaps even though we may not be supportive of these variances,the Zoning Board might be. So I'm reluctant to override the Zoning Board's role, but certainly I appreciate what you're suggesting,Laura,and I don't know if the applicant wants to consider requesting to be tabled to come back. MR.JARRETT-I appreciate the thoughts,too. Classically what we would do is go to the ZBA, discuss it with them, and then table there if we didn't gain support there. I'm not sure, I think I'm inclined to continue with your resolution tonight and then table it at the ZBA if we have to. MR. TRAVER-Okay. MR. DIXON-Well at the very least if the applicant comes back in front of the ZBA at a later date,if you have improved designs,I think that's helpful to show that there's a progression. MR. TRAVER-Yes. Okay. Anything to add before we work on our motion? MR.JARRETT-No,we're certainly willing to take your comments into consideration and do what we can to improve the site design,but I think we need to forge ahead at least a little further. MR. TRAVER-Sure. Okay. All right. So then for this Board,we need to craft our recommendation to the ZBA, and in this case we're really expressing our concern. So specifically let's outline them so that we have a resolution. MR. DIXON-1 have it as setbacks and permeability. MR. TRAVER-Yes. I guess in a nutshell our concern is with the variance request for permeability and setbacks. MR. MAGOWAN-In environmentally critical areas. MR. TRAVER-Yes,in critical environmental areas. Yes. MR. DEE&Well our concern is that they're asking for a little bit too much. Not that it's overwhelming. So,I mean,how are you going to word the resolution? MR. TRAVER-Well that's what we're about to find out. MR. DEEB-I'd say we have concerns about the size. I don't think we can go any farther than that. MR. TRAVER-Right. And they'll be having a discussion with the ZBA as they have suggested. MR. DIXON-I've got it here as setback and request for permeability appear to be excessive and are a concern in an environmentally critical area. MR.MAGOWAN-Mr. Chairman,I've got a question,and you know in the past I have said no going to the variance board, and I've been looked at as why. I'm a no now. Why do I want to waste the applicant's time and money going to the variance board and coming back for site plan to make changes? MR. TRAVER-Well that's not up to us. MR. DEEB-That's not our decision. They have a right to do it. 13 (Queensbury Planning Board 11/14/2023) MR.MAGOWAN-Well they have a right to do it,and I agree with that. I just have really big concerns on the environmental nature of trying to squeeze, and,you know,that lot has been empty for a long time for those reasons. MR.TRAVER-And I'm confident that the applicant understands that,and I think we've communicated to them that we will certainly look at any application they come up with,but we have serious concerns about any application with the size of the lot. So what they want to do is take our,they want to go to the ZBA and have a conversation with them and then perhaps come back to us, and I think that's certainly one of the ways,it was suggested to table and re-design at that stage,but they need to do their own strategy, as do we. MR. MAGOWAN-That's fine. I heard that. Okay. MR. TRAVER-Okay. RECOMMENDATION RE: ZBA RECOMMENDATION: AV#45-2023 FREYER The applicant has submitted an application for the following:Applicant proposes to construct a 2,02E sq. ft.footprint home with a floor area of 3,456 sq.ft.The project includes associated site work for stormwater management and shoreline planting plan. The septic system approved by local BOH is proposed for construction across Pulver Road and connecting to adjoining property by the same owner. Pursuant to Chapter 94,179-3-040,179-6-065&179-6-050,site plan for new floor area in a CEA,hard surfacing within 50 ft. of the shoreline and work within 100 ft. of wetlands shall be subject to Planning Board review and approval. Variance: Relief is sought for setbacks and permeability. Planning Board shall provide a recommendation to the Zoning Board of Appeals. The Town of Queensbury Zoning Ordinance,per Section 179-9-070 J 2 b. requires the Planning Board to provide a written recommendation to the Zoning Board of Appeals for projects that require both Zoning Board of Appeals&Planning Board approval; The Planning Board has briefly reviewed and discussed this application,the relief request in the variance application as well as the potential impacts of this project on the neighborhood and surrounding community,and found that: MOTION TO MAKE A RECOMMENDATION ON BEHALF OF THE PLANNING BOARD TO THE ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS FOR AREA VARIANCE 45-2023 LAUREN &z CHRISTIAN FREYER,Introduced by Michael Dixon who moved for its adoption,and b) The Planning Board,based on a limited review,has identified the following areas of concern: 1) Setback request and permeability appear to be excessive and are of concern in an environmentally critical area. Motion seconded by Warren Longacker. Duly adopted this 14`h day of November 2023 by the following vote: AYES: Mr. Deeb,Mr. Dixon,Mr. Longacker, Mrs. McDevitt,Mr. Etu,Mr. Traver NOES: Mr. Magowan ABSENT: Mr. Stark MR. TRAVER-You're off to the ZBA. MR. DEEB-Good luck. MR.JARRETT-Thank you for your time and hopefully we'll be back. KAREN WELLS MRS. WELLS-Thank you. I appreciate all the comments because I know the lake is important. So I appreciate it. MR. DEEB-Thank you. Good luck. MRS.WELLS-Yes,thank you. MR.TRAVER-The next section of our agenda is New Business,and the first item is Tracey Holdings,LLC. This is Site Plan 71-2023. 14 (Queensbury Planning Board 11/14/2023) NEW BUSINESS: SITE PLAN NO.71-2023 SEQR TYPE: TYPE 11. TRACEY HOLDINGS,LLC. AGENT(S): AMY RUNNALLS. OWNER(S): SAME AS APPLICANT. ZONING: CLI. LOCATION: 280 CORINTH ROAD. APPLICANT PROPOSES REMOVAL OF 50 LARGE TREES ON THE WEST PROPERTY LINE; NORTH OF THE EXISTING POLE BARN AND BEHIND IT. THE AREA OF TREE REMOVAL WOULD BE REPLACED WITH 20 EVERGREEN BUSHES. THE EXISTING BUILDINGS ON THE SITE TO REMAIN UNCHANGED. PURSUANT TO CHAPTER 179-3-040 &z 179-9-020, SITE PLAN FOR TREE CUTTING AND NEW HARD SURFACING SHALL BE SUBJECT TO PLANNING BOARD REVIEW AND APPROVAL. CROSS REFERENCE: SP 11-89, SP 10-94, SP 10-94M, AV 32-2004, SP 59-2018, SP (M) 36-2021, SP 6-2023. WARREN CO. REFERRAL: NOVEMBER 2023. SITE INFORMATION: TRAVEL CORRIDOR. LOT SIZE: 7.35 ACRES. TAX MAP NO. 308.16-1-82.1. SECTION: 179-3-040,179-9-020. AMY RUNNELLS,REPRESENTING APPLICANT,PRESENT MR. TRAVER-Laura? MRS. MOORE-So this applicant proposes to remove approximately 50 large trees on the west property line,north of the existing pole barn and behind it. The area of the tree removal would be replaced with 20 evergreen like bushes. The existing buildings on the site are to remain unchanged. MR. TRAVER-Okay. Thank you. Good evening. MS. RUNNELLS-Good evening. I'm Amy Runnells from Tracey Road. So we are looking to remove 50 very large evergreen pine trees that are starting to get very old and they are falling into our neighbors'yards. Neighbor asked us to remove them. Here I am. MR.TRAVER-Okay. I did not see a letter from the neighbor in the packet of information. Did you supply that to us? MS. RUNNELLS-No because he called me. MR. TRAVER-Okay. MS. RUNNELLS-He called me and then he showed up. MR. TRAVER-I see. MS. RUNNELLS-When we were cutting down the other trees out front,he came over and told us that he would like those cut,and then I said I can't do that. I have to ask the Town. I didn't want to get in trouble. So here we are. They are getting very,very old, super, super tall,probably will take out my pole barn at some point,possibly the neighbors'houses behind us are mobile homes,or next to us I guess I should say. So they will not enjoy a very large pine tree coming down. MR. TRAVER-So that's the plan. MS. RUNNELLS-That's the plan. MR. TRAVER-The one question I had is the Thuja Green Giant. Laura,is that a tree that we recognize? MRS. MOORE-I don't think so. MS. RUNNELLS-It's the one that you,the ever,I don't know how you say it. The Christmas tree looking ones. MR. TRAVER-Okay. MR. MAGOWAN-The spruces. MS. RUNNELLS-Yes. So I planted 10 out front already,and so we'll do the same exact trees. MR. TRAVER-Well my question,is it a species that is allowed? In other words,there are some that are considered invasives, and I just didn't recognize the name, but I have the absolute opposite of a green thumb. So I have no idea what this is. It just struck me when I was reviewing the application that a Thuj a Green Giant,it sounded like something out of Star Trek. MS. RUNNELLS-I probably just looked it up online. I probably just Googled it, but it's the same type that you suggested in our last. 15 (Queensbury Planning Board 11/14/2023) MR. TRAVER-Okay. Well if we've already suggested then I would throw out my comments. Questions, comments from members of the Board? MR. MAGOWAN-My question is, last time you were here, didn't we make it wider in the front of the road? And did you buy the lot in the back,too,width wise? Didn't we take down some trees? MS. RUNNELLS-We did in the front yard. MR. MAGOWAN-In the front yard off of Corinth Road. MS. RUNNELLS-Correct. MR.MAGOWAN-All right,but that parking area and all that have been along the side where you want to put your proposed arborvitae giant trees. MS. RUNNELLS-We previously put some in from our last conversation, and now I'm going to want 20 more. MR. MAGOWAN-All right. The last time you were approved it was up there off of Corinth Road. Correct. MS. RUNNELLS-So this is what we purchased and were approved last time. MR. MAGOWAN-Right. MS. RUNNELLS-These are the 10 trees or bushes that we put in this last time, and so this is where we're taking out the trees and adding new ones. MR.MAGOWAN-So what was there near the pole barn and that before? How long have those trees been out of there? MS. RUNNELLS-They're still here. MR. MAGOWAN-Well,I mean,in front of that,going to the big building. MS. RUNNELLS-Here? MR. MAGOWAN-Yes. MS. RUNNELLS-Before Tracey Road owned it. MR. MAGOWAN-Okay. MS. RUNNELLS-Because this is the back of our shop. So tractor trailers come through here so that we can bring them in the shop to fix them. MR. MAGOWAN-All right. Because I thought there were other trees that were up there. MS. RUNNELLS-There was,right here. MR. MAGOWAN-And those are the ones you took out before? MS. RUNNELLS-Yes. There were some here. MR. MAGOWAN-I thought there were some big ones around. MS. RUNNELLS-There were some here,yes. MR. MAGOWAN-All right. MRS. MC DEVITT-I have a question. MS. RUNNELLS-Sure. MRS.MC DEVITT-Fifty trees,fifty old pine trees,seems like a lot of lovely pine trees to be taking out,and I guess I'd wonder,is there justification? Are they dying? Has an arborist been in to really say, do 50 of those really need to come out? I mean,I grew up on a tree lot that was way smaller than that,and we had 16 (Queensbury Planning Board 11/14/2023) 50 pine trees on it and they were very old and very few have had to come down. I guess I just don't understand why you would take down mature trees if they weren't dying. MS. RUNNELLS-Well they're falling,the limbs are falling on our neighbors'property,on our property. MRS. MC DEVITT-All 50? MS. RUNNELLS-I don't know if it's all 50, but throughout that whole area, and then we have $300, $400,000 tractor trailers and equipment sitting in that area also, along with people's houses. MRS. MC DEVITT-I think maybe just looking at some tree trimming rather than cutting down 50 mature pine trees,which add strength to each other when they exist as is,instead of taking them down. MS. RUNNELLS-I don't know. MR. DEEB-I think it's an excessive number of trees. A lot of, we used to be,if you took a tree down, we wanted one replaced. I don't think that's going to be a possibility here. MS. RUNNELLS-It won't be a possibility. MR. DEEB-But what I'd like to see is a little bit more selectiveness with the trees, and maybe you could save a few of them. If you could have somebody come in and look at them. MR. TRAVER-Maybe above a certain diameter. MR. DEEB-Yes. Do you know the diameter of the trees at all? MR. TRAVER-I mean the real old ones are. MS. RUNNELLS-They're ginormous. MR.TRAVER-Yes,but of the 50,there must be some that are smaller,that are not yet,have not yet reached. So what would you say the largest diameter would be? In other words, can we come up with a way that you can cut all the trees that are down that are a threat, and yet leave the ones that have some time to go before they become a threat,which could solve some of the concerns that I'm hearing from the Board. So if we could say anything bigger than,here goes my green thumb again. MRS. MC DEVITT-But how can you just arbitrarily say because a tree is large and big,mature,that that's the one that needs to be cut down. Is that the way I'm understanding? MR. TRAVER-Well the application is to cut them all down. I'm trying to come up with a way that we can perhaps cut back on the number. MRS. MC DEVITT-Yes, I guess, to me, I guess a professional arborist, not somebody who's primary business it is to cut trees down,but an arborist, should come and assess which trees are,remain healthy and which ones are at risk. MR. TRAVER-Well part of the issue before us is that the applicant does have some rights to cutting on their property. They're asking us to consider their request to cut all of them down, but they do have a right to cut trees down. So what I'm hoping that we could do is come up with some reasonable compromise so that the ones that are clearly a threat because they are so old could be removed and yet the other ones,perhaps we could spare their lives. MRS. MC DEVITT-Yes,I guess because I'm not an arborist, and so to make an assessment based on size, I'm not sure that's the best way to go about it. MR. MAGOWAN-One of the problems that they have over there is really the density of the trees, so you all have an understanding, because I know the trees, but you have such a large canopy, up and above, is that the lower limbs end up dying, and at the time they'd be big limbs, and then they die and,you know, and then the wind. MR. TRAVER-I understand that part of it. MR. MAGOWAN-All right,so by thinning them,taking out the bigger trees,my concern is once you take out a clump like that and you start leaving the trees, that pine trees don't go deep. They kind of sprawl out,you know,because they're skinny and tall. Like an oak tree or something the trees go out,but they also go down. So they have a bed. It's very sandy over there in the soil. So they'll blow over. I like the idea of going to an arborist and getting a professional,which ones that you can cut down,which ones are 17 (Queensbury Planning Board 11/14/2023) the danger ones and the big ones,open up that canopy a little bit above you,but leaving the smaller trees, you know,say eight inch or smaller or,I mean, are we talking two foot around? MS. RUNNELLS-They're really big,yes. MR. MAGOWAN-Yes,so without any pictures it's kind of hard to see that. MS. RUNNELLS-I do have pictures on my phone. MR.MAGOWAN-Well that's already. So if we can selective cut where you have a professional,A-1's right up the road,you know,come in and get a professional opinion on what you could do to keep the strength of the roots together,with the wind,and get rid of the tall ones,and while they're up there just trim up the dead branches, and that would re-open up,you know,by taking out some of the taller,bigger trees,that's going to open up the sunlight for the canopy for the limbs to start coming out lower again. Because I understand the liability point is,you know,if something falls on a trailer or on your truck,you know,that's not fair either. MS. RUNNELLS-Right. I don't want people to sue us because we weren't able to. MR. DIXON-1 think some of it ends up being an act of God as well,too,if the trees are healthy. Now I'm going to say I didn't do my due diligence. When I went and did my site visit I saw the pines. Are there any hardwoods intermingled between the pines,or is it all pines? MS. RUNNELLS-I don't think so. I think it's all pines. MR. DIXON-Okay, because that was just going to be one of my suggestions is to retain any and all hardwoods. MS. RUNNELLS-Yes. MR. DIXON-Because pines are a problem. MR. TRAVER-So I guess my question for you,so we can proceed,is do you want to consider,do you want us to consider your application as it stands before us,to cut down all the trees, or do you want to suggest that we add a condition that there be some review of the 50 to see if any of them can be salvaged? I realize that's more time,more expense potentially. MS. RUNNELLS-Right. MR. TRAVER-And we have an application in front of us that we can consider and vote on. MR.DIXON-Mr.Chairman,what I would find,that would be helpful for me,if this helps in your decision. Even if you had an aerial shot, even in Google,because I know money isn't free flowing. So I want to be conscious of that, but if you were to identify maybe which ones you're strongly considering instead of essentially clear cutting. MS. RUNNELLS-Okay. I'm not sure about Google. MRS. MOORE-I don't think a Google map will show. MS. RUNNELLS-Because all it's going to show is literally. MR. TRAVER-Yes,it's going to show the canopy,but it's not going to show the diameter of the trees,yes. That's why I was originally thinking that perhaps below a certain diameter. MS. RUNNELLS-Would you consider if we took out the trees but I put new hardwood in, like oaks or something like that? Like,I mean,I wouldn't get the baby ones. I would order. MR. MAGOWAN-The 12 inch round ones? MS. RUNNELLS-Right. The ones that I could hug,but I would get hardwood trees that I would be happy with. MRS. MC DEVITT-Would you get rid of all the pine trees? I mean I think the diversity of the trees is useful. MS. RUNNELLS-I get it,but in our business it doesn't. It adds all this mess to trucks and equipment that, like I can't get pine pitch off tractor trailers. 18 (Queensbury Planning Board 11/14/2023) MR. TRAVER-Laura,you had a comment? MRS. MOORE-So,versus discussion,maybe you can give guidance to the applicant so that we can table the application. You provide some information to the applicant about what you're looking for and see if by,not next Tuesday,but the Tuesday after Thanksgiving. MR. TRAVER-Yes,we don't meet for two weeks. MRS. MOORE-Yes,so it gives you a little bit of time to do some research and then,you know,if there's an opportunity to save some of the pine trees or locate the pine trees that won't cause harm to your vehicles or things like that. MR. TRAVER-That's a good suggestion. Would you like to consider that? MS. RUNNELLS-Absolutely. MR. TRAVER-What we could do is ask that you go back and take a look at, you know, more closely perhaps,perhaps if you wish with the assistance of someone who does have a green thumb,and say. MS. RUNNELLS-Is it okay if it is a tree company? Like A-1? It's okay? MR. TRAVER-Sure,yes. That would be ideal,but recognizing that that's initial expense for yourself,but then come back and we're not meeting, normally we would meet again next Tuesday. We're not doing that because of the holiday week. So we are meeting next on the 2S`h MR. DEEB-Two weeks. MR. TRAVER-So two weeks from tonight we'll be meeting again. So what we could do is table your application tonight,until the 2S`h,and that gives you an opportunity to come back and either say I need to leave it the way it is and all 50 have to go or, you know, I've gotten an opinion that actually only 2S or whatever, and that's entirely up to you. MS. RUNNELLS-And when I said 50,it was small trees,versus ginormous trees,versus. MR. MAGOWAN-Look at taking out the ginormous ones and leaving the smaller ones to grow up. MR. DEEB-I like the idea of hardwoods going in. MR. TRAVER-Sure. MR. DEEB-If you could give us some kind of number that you could do. MR. DIXON-Demonstrate a combination. Can you come up with a quasi-landscape plan for us. MS. RUNNELLS-Okay. MR. TRAVER-And before we go any further, I should point out we do have a public hearing on this application. Is there anyone in the audience that wanted to comment on this application? I'm not seeing any takers. Are there written comments,Laura? PUBLIC HEARING OPENED MRS. MOORE-There are no written comments. MR. TRAVER-Okay. So we'll open the public hearing and leave it open for when you return on the 2S`h MS. RUNNELLS-Okay. MR. TRAVER-And we'll entertain a motion to table this application,in order to give the applicant time to further research the nature of the trees that need to be removed. RESOLUTION TABLING SP#71-2023 TRACEY HOLDINGS,LLC Applicant proposes removal of 50 large trees on the West property line; North of the existing pole barn and behind it. The area of tree removal would be replaced with 20 evergreen bushes.The existing buildings on the site to remain unchanged.Pursuant to chapter 179-3-040&179-9-020,site plan for tree cutting and new hard surfacing shall be subject to Planning Board review and approval. 19 (Queensbury Planning Board 11/14/2023) MOTION TO TABLE SITE PLAN 71-2023 TRACEY HOLDINGS. Introduced by Michael Dixon who moved for its adoption,seconded by Brad Magowan. Tabled until the November 2S, 2023 Planning Board meeting so the applicant has time to prepare new information for us regarding the landscaping. Duly adopted this 14`h day of November 2023 by the following vote: MR. TRAVER-Any discussion? MRS. MOORE-So I would just give,you don't have to,but your motion is that you're giving the applicant an opportunity to come up with an alternative plan. MR. DIXON-Okay. I can amend that. MR. TRAVER-Any other discussion? MRS. MOORE-So the only question I have is when? Would you like to see that information prior to the meeting date or is it okay for her to bring it in the night of the meeting? MR. TRAVER-How would we go about doing that? Have her submit that to you and then you can e-mail it to us? Okay. So as soon as you get any additional information,reach out to Laura and she will see that we are all provided with that information prior to the next meeting. That way it will be easier for us to review and decide at that time. MS. RUNNELLS-Okay. MR. DIXON-Laura,do you want that amended so it reflects that? Okay. MR.MAGOWAN-And if you do have someone come out and they select the trees,see if you can't get them to put a big yellow ribbon on them or something,or orange ribbon,so we can see over,you know,and more pictures,more of the depth. MS. RUNNELLS-Okay. MR. DEEB-Good luck. AYES: Mr. Dixon, Mr. Longacker,Mrs. McDevitt,Mr. Magowan, Mr. Etu,Mr. Deeb,Mr. Traver NOES: NONE ABSENT: Mr. Stark MR. TRAVER-We'll see you on the 2S`h MR. TRAVER-The next item on our agenda is also under New Business. This is also Unapproved Development. This is Marc Garvey,Site Plan 67-2023. SITE PLAN NO. 67-2023 SEQR TYPE: UNLISTED. MARC GARVEY. OWNER(S): GARVEY SISTERS, LLC. ZONING: CI. LOCATION: 257 DIX AVENUE. APPLICANT PROPOSES CONSTRUCTION OF A 7,200 SQ. FT. BUILDING FOR AUTO DETAILING AND BODY WORK. THE BUILDING WILL BE 16 FT. +/- IN HEIGHT AND HAVE 4 BAY DOORS. THE EXISTING 21,425 SQ. FT. SALES AND SERVICE BUILDING TO REMAIN UNCHANGED. THE NEW BUILDING SITE WORK INCLUDES INCREASING PARKING, NEW TRAVEL LANE AREA, CONNECTION OF SEWER AND WATER SERVICES, LANDSCAPING, LIGHTING FOR NEW BUILDING,AND STORMWATER MODIFICATION. THE PROJECT ALSO INCLUDES A SITE PLAN MODIFICATION FOR THE PARKING AREA , ADDITIONAL HARD SURFACING AND SHED. PURSUANT TO CHAPTER 179-3-040, SITE PLAN FOR NEW CONSTRUCTION OF AN AUTO DETAILING AND BODY WORK BUILDING IS SUBJECT TO PLANNING BOARD REVIEW AND APPROVAL. CROSS REFERENCE: SP 75-2000, SP 44-2003, SP 55-2018, SP 10-2022. WARREN CO.REFERRAL: OCTOBER 2023. LOT SIZE: 697ACRES. TAX MAP NO. 303.15-1-3. SECTION: 179-3-040. BRANDON FERGUSON,REPRESENTING APPLICANT,PRESENT;MARC GARVEY,PRESENT MR. TRAVER-Laura? MRS. MOORE-So the applicant proposes construction of a 7,200 square foot building for auto detail and body work. He indicated last month that the number of bays, the height of it, the existing building of 20 (Queensbury Planning Board 11/14/2023) 21,425 square feet remains the same. The new building,site work includes increasing parking,new travel lane area, connection of sewer and water services. Modifications have occurred when the new building was constructed,including the drive aisle parking arrangements and some stormwater modifications. So the applicant's back before this Board to explain that. MR. TRAVER-Okay. Good evening. Welcome back. MR. FERGUSON-Good evening, Brandon Ferguson with Environmental Design, and Marc Garvey from Garvey Hyundai with us tonight. As Laura said we were here last month and we had to table because we had to update the plan set for some things that were on site from the original site plan with the main building. The updates to the plans in front of you include the updated parking layout. So that shows the direct access into the main building,the service area that Hyundai required for Marc. It required that we pull in, that everybody has free access to that service area. So that's what changed, and that mostly impacted this car inventory lot. Then we also showed the shed location. The shed on the lot was originally on the lot. Then it was taken off the original approved site plan,and then Marc decided he needed a shed for storing some parts and stuff in there, and so he wants to keep it there. He's got to have a stone gravel pad. So we show that on there. It does meet the setbacks. It doesn't put us over permeability or anything like that. We also showed some additional lights on the rear of the existing building, a few extra lights that got added on to that side,just to kind of help illuminate that rear area behind the building,especially with the number of doors on there,and then the other change is,on the plans in front of you,is we did add some conifer trees along Barrett Drive as well, kind of spread out. I think that was a request from the Board last month to kind of look at adding some trees onto the site. So those are the main changes from last month. The size of the building,all that stayed the same. The parking layout stayed the same around that building. We're connecting to existing sewer and water facilities on site. Overall the new building is going to be located in an area of the site that was existing lawn. There's no real clearing of vegetation to install this building, and we also got our final Town Engineering letter. It had a few minor comments on it that we're addressing with the final plan set that goes into the Town as well. So I think we're in pretty good shape. I'll open it back up to the Board if you guys have any questions or comments. MR. TRAVER-Okay. Thank you for providing that updated information for us. That's very helpful. And we did look at this, but without the accurate information. Questions, comments from members of the Board? MR.MAGOWAN-The question I have is you're calling just a five percent permeability difference between the building and the parking lot? MR. FERGUSON-Yes, we calculated it over the whole site,yes. So I think the existing,it's almost 500/o. We're down to a little over 45. MR. TRAVER-There is a public hearing on this application as well. Is there anyone in the audience that wants to comment to the Planning Board on this application? I'm not seeing any takers. Are there written comments,Laura? PUBLIC HEARING OPENED MRS. MOORE-There are no written comments. MR. TRAVER-Okay. We'll go ahead and close the public hearing then. PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED MR. MAGOWAN-I've got a question. I'm looking at this here,under a magnifying glass, and I guess my concern is,you know,with all the buildings and the parking lot and everything,you're saying that you have 450/o permeability around that whole lot. MR. FERGUSON-Yes. MR. MAGOWAN-Those calculations are right? MR. FERGUSON-Yes. MR. TRAVER-And they've been reviewed by the engineer,the Town Engineer. MR. FERGUSON-It's a large lot. There's green around the whole exterior, and don't forget, when you look at that plan, those shaded areas, especially on that front sheet, those are green areas, those are the stormwater basins. So those are all green as well. That's green space. Sometimes it makes it seem like a little more density there,especially on an It by 17. MR. MAGOWAN-And you engineered this? 21 (Queensbury Planning Board 11/14/2023) MR. FERGUSON-Yes. MR. MAGOWAN-I guess my only concern is there's a huge high water tab over in that whole area. I've watched them doing the sewer line there for the car wash,and,boy,it's taken forever to get under the road, and what happens,when you start putting buildings on high water lots,you take away evaporation areas, and you have some good retention areas. So you're dumping that water back into the low spots that you've created that puts it back into,pretty much it's all clay over there. MR. FERGUSON-Yes, actually the soils on the site,we did do soil test pits in the existing basin,because that one stormwater basin that is our main infiltration basin still, that is going to remain, and it's been functioning for years. We've checked on it. After rain events it does drain properly. It's been working quite well. MR. GARVEY-It actually drains better now than it did before, after we've done all. MR. FERGUSON-Yes,we did some infiltration tests with that basin. MR. MAGOWAN-Marc,you've done a nice job over there. it's a really nice looking building, and I know you've been in here for the different improvements and I know Hyundai makes it difficult,but it keeps you on your toes, that's for sure. I just wanted to make sure, I just always worry about when we start overcrowding the land and staying within our engineered permeability,but it ends up affecting more than just your lot. It affects other peoples'lots,too. MR. TRAVER-Actually the engineer's signoff says that the stormwater cannot impact outside the site. MR. MAGOWAN-Well, Mr. Chairman,I won't go there tonight on some of these signoffs that I've seen. MR. TRAVER-Good. Are there any other questions or comments from members of the Board? MR. DIXON-Mr. Chairman, I've got two comments. One I'm very familiar with that property. There's no conflict of interest. I helped my father-in-law put the irrigation system in there many moons ago. So I'm familiar with where all that water goes, and it flows nicely in the trenches that are already there. It drains pretty well. Also it's bony in there. MR. GARVEY-Yes,we ended up re-trenching the whole one. MR. DIXON-So the two deeper questions here,we've got two in front of us. One is the SEQR and one is the Site Plan. The SEQR,when I was there,I didn't identify anything associated with this that would be a concern. MR. TRAVER-Neither did I. MR. DIXON-And on the Site Plan the only thing that I would comment, when we get to it is, we'll just make note of the engineering comments. There's two minor items there that are easily correctable before. MR. TRAVER-And that should be part of the resolution. Okay. So the first thing we need to look at, under SEQR,is the State Environmental Quality Review resolution. Does anyone feel that this is creating environmental impacts that we need to review in detail in addition to what's been submitted? Okay. Then we can entertain that motion. RESOLUTION GRANTING A NEGATIVE SEQR DEC. SP#67-2023 MARC GARVEY The applicant proposes construction of a 7,200 sq. ft. building for auto detailing and body work. The building will be 16 ft.+/-in height and have 4 bay doors.The existing 21,425 sq.ft.sales and service building to remain unchanged. The new building site work includes increasing parking, new travel lane area, connection of sewer and water services, landscaping, lighting for new building, and stormwater modification. The project also includes a site plan modification for the parking area, additional hard surfacing and shed.Pursuant to chapter 179-3-040,site plan for new construction of an auto detailing and body work building is subject to Planning Board review and approval. The proposed action considered by this Board is Unlisted in the Department of Environmental Conservation Regulations implementing the State Environmental Quality Review Act and the regulations of the Town of Queensbury; No Federal or other agencies are involved; Part 1 of the Short EAF has been completed by the applicant; 22 (Queensbury Planning Board 11/14/2023) 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 67-2023 MARC GARVEY. Introduced by Michael Dixon who moved for its adoption. As per the resolution prepared by staff. 1. Part II of the Short EAF has been reviewed and completed by the Planning Board. 2. Part III of the Short EAF is not necessary because the Planning Board did not identify potentially moderate to large impacts. Motion seconded by Warren Longacker. Duly adopted this 14`h day of November 2023 by the following vote: AYES: Mr. Longacker,Mrs. McDevitt,Mr. Magowan,Mr. Etu,Mr. Deeb,Mr. Dixon,Mr. Traver NOES: NONE ABSENT: Mr. Stark MR. TRAVER-And next we consider the resolution on Site Plan. RESOLUTION APPROVING SP#67-2023 MARC GARVEY The applicant has submitted an application to the Planning Board: Applicant proposes construction of a 7,200 sq. ft.building for auto detailing and body work. The building will be 16 ft. +/-in height and have 4 bay doors. The existing 21,425 sq.ft.sales and service building to remain unchanged. The new building site work includes increasing parking, new travel lane area, connection of sewer and water services, landscaping,lighting for new building,and stormwater modification. The project also includes a site plan modification for the parking area, additional hard surfacing and shed. Pursuant to chapter 179-3-040, site plan for new construction of an auto detailing and body work building is subject to Planning Board review and approval. Pursuant to relevant sections of the Town of Queensbury Zoning Code-Chapter 179-9-OSO, the Planning Board has determined that this proposal satisfies the requirements as stated in the Zoning Code; As required by General Municipal Law Section 239-m the site plan application was referred to the Warren County Planning Department for its recommendation; The Planning Board has reviewed the potential environmental impacts of the project,pursuant to the State Environmental Quality Review Act (SEQRA) and adopted a SEQRA Negative Declaration Determination of Non-Significance; The Planning Board opened a public hearing on the Site plan application on 10/24/2023 and continued the public hearing to 11/14/2023,when it was closed, The Planning Board has reviewed the application materials submitted by the applicant and all comments made at the public hearing and submitted in writing through and including 11/14/2023; The Planning Board determines that the application complies with the review considerations and standards set forth in Article 9 of the Zoning Ordinance for Site Plan approval, MOTION TO APPROVE SITE PLAN 67-2023 MARC GARVEY,- Introduced by Michael Dixon who moved for its adoption. According to the draft resolution prepared by Staff with the following: 1) Waivers requested granted for 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. 23 (Queensbury Planning Board 11/14/2023) 3) Adherence to the items outlined in the follow-up letter sent with this resolution. a) The limits of clearing will constitute a no-cut buffer zone, orange construction fencing shall be installed around these areas and field verified by Community Development staff, b) If applicable, the Sanitary Sewer connection plan must be submitted to the Wastewater Department for its review, approval,permitting and inspection; c) If curb cuts are being added or changed a driveway permit is required. A building permit will not be issued until the approved driveway permit has been provided to the Planning Office; d) If application was referred to engineering then Engineering sign-off required prior to signature of Zoning Administrator of the approved plans; e) Final approved plans should have dimensions and setbacks noted on the site plan/survey, floor plans and elevation for the existing rooms and proposed rooms in the building and site improvements;- f) If required,the applicant must submit a copy of the following to the Town: a. The project NOI (Notice of Intent) for coverage under the current "NYSDEC SPDES General Permit from Construction Activity"prior to the start of any site work. b. The project NOT(Notice of Termination)upon completion of the project; c. The applicant must maintain on their project site,for review by staff: i. The approved final plans that have been stamped by the Town Zoning Administrator. These plans must include the project SWPPP (Storm Water Pollution Prevention Plan)when such a plan was prepared and approved; ii. The project NOI and proof of coverage under the current NYSDEC SPDES General Permit,or an individual SPDES permit issued for the project if required. g) Final approved plans, in compliance with the Site Plan, must be submitted to the Community Development Department before any further review by the Zoning Administrator or Building and Codes personnel; h) The applicant must meet with Staff after approval and prior to issuance of Building Permit and/or the beginning of any site work; i) Subsequent issuance of further permits, including building permits is dependent on compliance with this and all other conditions of this resolution; j) As-built plans to certify that the site plan is developed according to the approved plans to be provided prior to issuance of the certificate of occupancy. k) This resolution is to be placed in its entirety on the final plans. 1) The applicant shall ensure the culvert from the forebay to the infiltration basin has adequate cover over the pipe. m) The pre and post development HydroCad report models model the 12 inch infiltration basin outlet pipe at invert 320.10 and site plan labels the invert at 319.93. This should be revised prior to being submitted to the Town and it should be reflected on the plan prior to any site work. Motion seconded by Brad Magowan. Duly adopted this 14`h day of November 2023 by the following vote: AYES: Mrs. McDevitt,Mr. Magowan,Mr. Etu,Mr. Deeb,Mr. Dixon,Mr. Longacker,Mr. Traver NOES: NONE ABSENT: Mr. Stark MR. TRAVER-You're all set. MR. GARVEY-I appreciate it. Thank you very much. MR. TRAVER-Laura,before we adjourn,I know you sent out an e-mail regarding training. Did you want to comment on that? MRS. MOORE-So there's a few of you that still have training to complete and hopefully get it done before December 31". That's my suggestion. There is a new training opportunity that New York Planning Federation put out and it's actually, I think it ends up being December 3rd or 2 d but it's in your e-mails and it's an on-line Zoom for four hours. Click,watch. MR. TRAVER-And that does it. Right? MRS. MOORE-So before you, I just want to introduce Heath Brown. He's our additional Code Compliance Officer at this time,and so Heath decided to come sit and enjoy the meeting. MR. MAGOWAN-Well welcome aboard. MR.DIXON-I'm trying to figure out what work we create for you. We try to avoid that whenever possible. 24 (Queensbury Planning Board 11/14/2023) MR. MAGOWAN-Where are you coming from? HEATH BROWN MR.BROWN-I did four and a half years at the Town of Queensbury Water Department. MR. MAGOWAN-So it's a lateral move. Well thanks for staying with Queensbury. MR. TRAVER-All right. That concludes our business tonight. Motion to adjourn? MR. ETU-So moved. MOTION TO ADJOURN THE QUEENSBURY PLANNING BOARD MEETING OF NOVEMBER 14TI,2023,Introduced by Nathan Etu who moved for its adoption,seconded by Ellen McDevitt: Duly adopted this 14`h day of November,2023,by the following vote: AYES: Mrs. McDevitt,Mr. Etu,Mr. Deeb,Mr. Dixon,Mr. Longacker,Mr. Magowan,Mr. Traver NOES: NONE ABSENT: Mr. Stark MR. TRAVER-We stand adjourned,everyone. On motion meeting was adjourned. RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED, Stephen Traver,Chairman 25