Loading...
12-19-2023 (Queensbury Planning Board 12/19/2023) QUEENSBURYPLANNINGBOARD MEETING SECOND REGULAR MEETING DECEMBER I91r,2023 INDEX Planning Board Elections 1. Site Plan No. S1-2023 Dennis LaFontaine 1. Tax Map No.295.12-1-3 Site Plan No.71-2023 Tracey Holdings,LLC 4. Tax Map No. 30S.16-1-S2.1 Site Plan No.70-2023 Edward Ostberg 7. Petition for Zone Change 4-2023 Tax Map No.290.-1-S;290.-1-S LEAD AGENCY SEQR TOWN BOARD RECOMMENDATION Site Plan No. 69-2023 Foothills Builders/Mead's 12. Petition for Zone Change 1-2023 Tax Map No. 303.5-1-79 Freshwater Wetlands 12-2023 LEAD AGENCY 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 12/19/2023) QUEENSBURY PLANNING BOARD MEETING SECOND REGULAR MEETING DECEMBER 19TK,2023 7.00 P.M. MEMBERS PRESENT STEPHEN TRAVER,CHAIRMAN DAVID DEEB,VICE CHAIRMAN MICHAEL DIXON,SECRETARY WARREN LONGACKER BRADY STARK BRAD MAGOWAN NATHAN ETU 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,December 19`h, 2023. This is our second meeting for the month of December and our 26`h meeting for the year. First let me apologize for the heat situation. Evidently our plant is malfunctioning and so our heat isn't operating correctly. It should be repaired by tomorrow morning. So I apologize for that. Please make note of the illuminated exit signs.In the event that we have an emergency those are the emergency exits. If you have a cell phone or other electronic device,if you would either turn it off or turn the ringer off, so as not to interrupt our proceedings,we would appreciate that, and we also ask that, aside from the public hearing portion of our meeting,if you wish to have a conversation among yourselves in the audience, if you would go to the outer lobby to have the conversation, again so that conversation doesn't get mixed up with minutes of the meeting, we would appreciate it. The first order of business tonight is one administrative item which is election of Planning Board officers for next year, starting in January of 2024. So we have a motion for that. MR. DIXON-So I have in accordance with the Planning Board Policies and Procedures, the Nominating Committee works with individuals to select candidates to fill these positions. So far we have Stephen Traver,who's looking to remain Chairperson,Ellen McDevitt has offered to be Vice-Chairperson,and Fritz Stefanzick has offered to be Secretary. So these will be our slate of officers,but before we finalize that,we will open it up for any additional nominees. Are there any additional nominees from the Board? If none we'll close that nominating process and turn it over to our Chairman. MR. TRAVER-Okay. So we have a draft resolution. RESOLUTION FOR ELECTION OF OFFICERS FOR THE PLANNING BOARD FOR 2024 MOTION TO APPROVE SLATE OF PLANNING BOARD OFFICERS FOR 2024,WHICH ARE AS FOLLOWS:CHAIRMAN- STEPHEN TRAVER,VICE CHAIR- ELLEN MCDEVITT,SECRETARY- FRITZ STEFANZICK, Introduced by Stephen Traver who moved for its adoption, seconded by Brad Magowan. Duly adopted this 19`h day of December 2023,by the following vote: AYES: Mr. Magowan,Mr. Dixon,Mr. Longacker,Mr. Stark,Mr. Etu,Mr. Traver NOES: NONE ABSTAINED: Mr. Deeb MR. TRAVER-All right. Thank you, and we are going to make a minor change in the order of our agenda this evening. We're going to move the Dennis LaFontaine application to the first order of business tonight under New Business. NEW BUSINESS: SITE PLAN NO.81-2023 SEQR TYPE: TYPE II. DENNIS LA FONTAINE. AGENT(S): RUCINSKI HALL ARCHITECTURE. OWNER(S): 1133 STATE ROUTE 9,LLC. ZONING: CI. LOCATION: 1133 STATE ROUTE 9. APPLICANT PROPOSES TO CONSTRUCT A 702 SQ. FT. SHED ROOF FOR THE PLACEMENT OF A 648 SQ.FT.COOLER. THE PROJECT WILL BE LOCATED AT THE SOUTHWEST END OF THE BUILDING. THE EXISTING BUILDING'S FOOTPRINT IS 6,248 SQ. 2 (Queensbury Planning Board 12/19/2023) FT. AND THE PROPOSED FOOTPRINT IS 6,950 SQ. FT. THE EXISTING BUILDINGS ON THE SITE AND THE LOT ARRANGEMENT WILL REMAIN UNCHANGED. PURSUANT TO CHAPTER 179-3-040,SITE PLAN FOR NEW COLD STORAGE FOR COMMERCIAL USE SHALL BE SUBJECT TO PLANNING BOARD REVIEW AND APPROVAL. CROSS REFERENCE: AV 122- 1989,SP 74-89,SP 21-95,SP 23-2007,SP 62-2007,AV 68-2011,SP 71-2011,SP 51-2013,AV 41-2014,SP 31-2014, SP 26-2015. WARREN CO. REFERRAL: DECEMBER 2023. SITE INFORMATION: TRAVEL CORRIDOR. LOT SIZE: 2.22 ACRES. TAX MAP NO. 295.12-1-3. SECTION: 179-3- 040. ETHAN HALL, REPRESENTING APPLICANT,PRESENT;DENNIS LA FONTAINE,PRESENT MR. TRAVER-Laura? MRS. MOORE-The applicant is to construct a 702 square foot shed roof for the placement of a 64S square foot cooler. The project will be located at the southwest end of the building. The existing building's footprint is 6,24E square feet and the proposed footprint would be 6,950 square feet. The existing buildings on the site and lot arrangement will remain unchanged and site plan is for new cold storage for commercial use. MR. TRAVER-Okay. Thank you. Good evening. MR. HALL-Good evening. For the record my name is Ethan Hall. I'm a principle with Rucinski Hall Architecture,here tonight also with Dennis LaFontaine,the owner of Martha's. Dennis can explain to you the necessity for why we're here tonight. It is to add a cooler to the backside of the existing building,very similar to the one that we did a few years ago. Dennis can give you the where's and why fore's about why he needs this. MR. TRAVER-Sure. MR. LA FONTAINE-Yes, our present supplier who we get three deliveries a week from for our base mix for our ice cream,comes three times a week,they're moving away, we're moving away from that supplier so we have to go to once every ten days, and so to hold that amount of mix, I need to increase my cooler space. MR. TRAVER-Well I think that pretty much everyone will be happy to have your capacity increase. So that seems fairly straightforward to me,but we'll open it up for questions,comments from members of the Board. MR. MAGOWAN-My only question,a ten day supply,is that cooler going to be bigger? MR. LA FONTAINE-It is. It's a good sized cooler. So we're hoping that it'll hold the supply. MR. MAGOWAN-Really,you've done a nice job with Martha's. I mean the family has been involved for a long time and you all stepped away and you came back very pleased and it's always a happy site to see the crowds there, especially on the first of April when you open there and the lines and it's still snowing out. MR. LA FONTAINE-That's usually one of our busiest days of the year. I've got the plow on opening day. It's our busiest day of the year. It's great. MR.DIXON-Your freezer that you're putting in,that's going to be located on the,it's an existing blacktop spot. MR. LA FONTAINE-Correct. MR. DIXON-So there's no change in impervious. MR. HALL-No change in impervious area. The cooler's going over what was blacktop. They've pulled the blacktop up right now and put down blankets to keep the frost from getting in. Of course as soon as we did that it was 55 degrees out. MR. LA FONTAINE-Yes, and there's no parking spots,not eliminating parking spots. MR. DIXON-As our Chairman pointed out,I think many of us are familiar with that location. MR. TRAVER-Anything else from the Board? There is a public hearing on this application. Is there anyone in the audience that wants to comment to the Planning Board on this application? I'm not seeing any. Are there written comments,Laura? 3 (Queensbury Planning Board 12/19/2023) PUBLIC HEARING OPENED MRS. MOORE-There are no written comments. MR. TRAVER-Okay. Then we will go ahead and close the public hearing. PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED MR. TRAVER-Is there anything further from the Board? Hearing none,we have a resolution. RESOLUTION APPROVING SP#S1-2023 DENNIS LA FONTAINE Applicant proposes to construct a 702 sq.ft. shed roof for the placement of a 64S sq.ft.cooler. The project will be located at the Southwest end of the building. The existing building's footprint is 6,254 sq. ft. and the proposed footprint is 6,950 sq.ft.The existing buildings on the site and the lot arrangement will remain unchanged. Pursuant to chapter 179-3-040, site plan for new cold storage for commercial use 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 12/19/2023 and continued the public hearing to 12/19/2023 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 12/19/2023; 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 81-2023 DENNIS LAFONTAINE,-Introduced by Michael Dixon who moved for its adoption. According to the draft resolution prepared by Staff with the following: 1) Waivers requested granted; 2) The approval is valid for one (1) year from the date of approval. Applicant is responsible for requesting an extension of approval before the one (1)year time frame has expired. 3) Adherence to the items outlined in the follow-up letter sent with this resolution. a) The limits of clearing will constitute a no-cut buffer zone, orange construction fencing shall be installed around these areas and field verified by Community Development staff, b) If applicable, the Sanitary Sewer connection plan must be submitted to the Wastewater Department for its review, approval,permitting and inspection; c) If curb cuts are being added or changed a driveway permit is required. A building permit will not be issued until the approved driveway permit has been provided to the Planning Office; d) If application was referred to engineering then Engineering sign-off required prior to signature of Zoning Administrator of the approved plans; e) Final approved plans should have dimensions and setbacks noted on the site plan/survey, floor plans and elevation for the existing rooms and proposed rooms in the building and site improvements;- f) If required,the applicant must submit a copy of the following to the Town: a. The project NOI (Notice of Intent) for coverage under the current "NYSDEC SPDES General Permit from Construction Activity"prior to the start of any site work. b. The project NOT(Notice of Termination)upon completion of the project; c. The applicant must maintain on their project site,for review by staff: i. The approved final plans that have been stamped by the Town Zoning Administrator. These plans must include the project SWPPP (Storm Water Pollution Prevention Plan)when such a plan was prepared and approved; ii. The project NOI and proof of coverage under the current NYSDEC SPDES General Permit,or an individual SPDES permit issued for the project if required. g) Final approved plans, in compliance with the Site Plan, must be submitted to the Community Development Department before any further review by the Zoning Administrator or Building and Codes personnel; h) The applicant must meet with Staff after approval and prior to issuance of Building Permit and/or the beginning of any site work; 4 (Queensbury Planning Board 12/19/2023) i) Subsequent issuance of further permits, including building permits is dependent on compliance with this and all other conditions of this resolution; j) As-built plans to certify that the site plan is developed according to the approved plans to be provided prior to issuance of the certificate of occupancy. k) This resolution is to be placed in its entirety on the final plans. Motion seconded by Brady Stark. Duly adopted this 19`h day of December 2023 by the following vote: AYES: Mr. Dixon, Mr. Longacker,Mr. Stark,Mr. Magowan,Mr. Etu,Mr. Deeb,Mr. Traver NOES: NONE MR. TRAVER-You are all set. MR.HALL-Great. Thank you very much. I appreciate it. MR. LA FONTAINE-Thanks,guys. MR. TRAVER-The next item on our agenda is under Tabled applications. This is Tracey Holdings,LLC, Site Plan 71-2023. TABLED: SITE PLAN NO.71-2023 SEQR TYPE: TYPE II. 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 RUNNALLS, REPRESENTING APPLICANT,PRESENT MR. TRAVER-Laura? MRS.MOORE-So this application is for removal of 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 additional evergreen bushes. The applicant has provided a letter from Richard Sears. He has identified 4S trees. So his comment is there's a significant amount of needle decline. The trees are compromised with several dead branches which pose a threat to people,buildings and machinery. For the safety of the people and property we recommend removing the trees. I know Amy, when she was here last time, she presented approximately a re-planting plan. So the Board may have a dissuasion about that or ask any other questions. MR. TRAVER-Thank you. Good evening. Welcome back. MS. RUNNALLS-Good evening. I'm Amy Runnalls from Tracey Road. I was finally able to get Paul Archer to the property. He came over, put nails in all of the trees to tree number them, and then went back,went through and made us this list that you guys were looking for. MR. TRAVER-Yes, well you certainly, I must say I was very impressed when I saw this. It's much more detailed,quite frankly,than I expected,but it's excellent. I appreciate it very much. MS. RUNNALLS-Okay. No problem. MR. TRAVER-The only question I have is there were I think four of the group labeled as being in good condition. MS. RUNNALLS-Yes. MR. TRAVER-Do I interpret this letter from him as recommending that they also be cut down or? MS. RUNNALLS-I don't think so. I think I would keep the good ones. MR. TRAVER-Okay. 5 (Queensbury Planning Board 12/19/2023) MS. RUNNALLS-Yes, absolutely. MR. TRAVER-Okay. So the good ones would stay. In addition to that,you'd supplied us some time ago with a planting plan. MS. RUNNALLS-Right. MR. TRAVER-So. Okay. Thank you, again, for that. We'll open it up for questions, comments from members of the Board. MR. ETU-Would the fair trees stay,too,or no? Fair and good? MR. TRAVER-Well, that's a good question. I thought certainly the good ones. She is going to be re- planting. MR. ETU-But of the three categories,good,fair and poor. MR. TRAVER-Yes,my thought was certainly the good,but I don't know. MS. RUNNALLS-My only concern with the fair is having to go back and in a couple of years having to re- do this whole thing again. Why not just get rid of them,do our plantings,and then we'll be good. That's my only concern. MR. ETU-So four of the forty-eight will stay? MR. TRAVER-The ones labeled goods, my thought was those can stay, and then the others will be re- planted,according to her original plan. Any other questions,comments? We do have a public hearing on this application as well. Is there anyone in the audience who wants to address the Planning Board on this Site Plan 71-2023? PUBLIC HEARING OPENED MARILYN TALLON MRS. TALLON-I would just like to ask,where is it that you're putting this. MR. TRAVER-Ma'am if you wish to comment,if you could come up and get on the microphone so we can be sure and get your comments on the minutes we'd appreciate that. MRS. TALLON-I was just curious where the trees are that you're taking down? That was my only question. MR. TRAVER-Ma'am,excuse me,if you would just state your name for the record. MRS. TALLON-Marilyn Tallon. MR. TRAVER-You're just wondering the address,the location? MRS. TALLON-Yes. MR. TRAVER-Okay,is that all? MRS. TALLON-Yes,so far. MR. TRAVER-Okay. Thank you. We will ask her,and you can return to your seat MRS. TALLON-Okay. MR. TRAVER-Is there anyone else in the audience that wants to address the Planning Board on this Site Plan 71-2023? Are there written comments? MRS. MOORE-There are no written comments. MR. TRAVER-Okay. We'll go ahead and close the public hearing. So if you heard the one public comment was the address where the trees are located. MS. RUNNALLS-Yes,so they're at 2S0 Corinth Road in Queensbury. 6 (Queensbury Planning Board 12/19/2023) MR. TRAVER-Okay. Thank you. MRS. TALLON-Thank you. MS. RUNNALLS-You're welcome. MR. TRAVE R-Questions, comments from members of the Board? I'm not hearing any. We have a draft resolution,then. RESOLUTION APPROVING SP#71-2023 TRACEY HOLDINGS,LLC The applicant has submitted an application to the Planning Board: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. 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 11/14/2023 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 12/19/2023; 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 71-2023 TRACEY HOLDINGS, 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: 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) Trees identified as good on the tree evaluation plan will remain. All others listed as poor and fair to be removed. i) Re-planting plan to be included with submission prior to any site work being performed. Motion seconded by Warren Longacker. Duly adopted this 19`h day of December 2023 by the following vote: MRS. MOORE-Before you call your vote, I would include in your conditions that the re-planting plan is included as part of the approval. MR. TRAVER-As proposed. MRS. MOORE-As proposed. 7 (Queensbury Planning Board 12/19/2023) MR. TRAVER-Okay. AYES: Mr. Longacker,Mr. Stark,Mr. Magowan,Mr. Etu,Mr. Deeb,Mr. Dixon,Mr. Traver NOES: NONE MR. TRAVER-You are all set,and thank you,again,for your efforts to clarify that for us. MS. RUNNALLS-Thank you. MR.TRAVER-The next section of our agenda is New Business,and the first item is Edward Ostberg. This is Site Plan 70-2023 and Petition of Zone Change 4-2023. NEW BUSINESS: SITE PLAN NO.70-2023 PETITION OF ZONE CHANGE 4-2023 SEQR TYPE: TYPE I. EDWARD OSTBERG. AGENT(S): SRA ENGINEERS. OWNER(S): SAME AS APPLICANT. ZONING: CLI. LOCATION: 639 &z 0 COUNTY LINE ROAD. APPLICANT PROPOSES TO REUSE AN EXISTING 8,087 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&z 179-5-100 SITE PLAN FOR MICROBREWERY SUBJECT TO PLANNING BOARD REVIEW AND APPROVAL. THIS PROJECT IS SUBJECT TO A COORDINATED SEQR REVIEW WITH THE TOWN BOARD. THE PLANNING BOARD TO COMPLETE SEQRA AND PROVIDE A RECOMMENDATION TO THE TOWN BOARD. CROSS REFERENCE: SP 28-1998,SV 1-1990. WARREN CO.REFERRAL: DECEMBER 2023. SITE INFORMATION: AIRPORT AREA. LOT SIZE: 3.00 ACRES &z 19.00 ACRES. TAX MAP NO.290.-1-8,290.-1-7. SECTION: 179-3-040,179-15-040. ERIK SANDBLOM, REPRESENTING APPLICANT,PRESENT;EDWARD OSTBERG,PRESENT MR. TRAVER-Laura? MRS. MOORE-So this applicant proposes to re-use an existing 8,087 square foot building for a microbrewery with associated uses. The project includes site arrangement for an outdoor cooler and tasting area of six 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. At this Board meeting the Board may accept Lead Agency status. They may conduct SEQR if they wish,and they may provide a recommendation to the Town Board. MR. TRAVER-Okay. So just to clarify. This evening we're not doing site plan. We're just doing the recommendations as you pointed out. MRS. MOORE-And SEQR. MR. TRAVER-Okay. Thank you. Good evening. MR. SANDBLOM-Good evening. Erik Sandblom from SRA Engineers, agent for Ed Ostberg. MR. TRAVER-Okay. I guess our first order of business really is to accept lead agency status which we had requested some time previously. Does anyone have any questions,comments,concerns regarding Lead Agency status for this project? Hearing none,we have a resolution. RESOLUTION ACCEPTING LEAD AGENCY STATUS SP#70-2023 PZ 4-2023 EDWARD OSTBERG WHEREAS, the applicant proposes to reuse an existing 8,087 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 microbrewery subject to Planning Board review and approval. This project is subject to a coordinated SEQR review with the Town Board. The Planning Board to complete SEQRA and provide a recommendation to the Town Board. 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). 8 (Queensbury Planning Board 12/19/2023) WHEREAS, in connection with the project, the Town of Queensbury Planning Board, by resolution, previously authorized the Community Development Office to notify other involved agencies of the desire of the Town Board to conduct a coordinated SEQR review, WHEREAS, the Zoning Administrator has advised that other involved agencies have been notified and have consented to the Town of Queensbury Planning Board being lead agency; NOW,THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED: MOTION TO ACKNOWLEDGE 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 19`h day of December 2023 by the following vote: AYES: Mr. Stark,Mr. Magowan,Mr. Etu,Mr. Deeb, Mr. Dixon,Mr. Longacker, Mr. Traver NOES: NONE MR. TRAVER-So, tell us about your project now that the Planning Board is now Lead Agency for this project. Tell us what you're planning on doing. MR. SANDBLOM-Sure thing. So there's an existing industrial building just north of Hicks Road on County Line Road. The plan is to re-purpose that building into a microbrewery, and the primary use is really going to be for production. There are plans for a small tasting room,but really the primary activities for this establishment is going to be to produce beer. There's really not a whole lot of changes proposed to the existing site. There's ample parking provided with the existing paved area. There'd be a fair amount of renovation inside the building and microbrewery not explicitly being listed in the industrial table for the CLI district. That's the reason why we need to seek a zone change, and ironically enough there's a sewer line right across the road,yet we're tied to a septic system,not being a member of that sewer district. So there are modifications proposed to the wastewater disposal system. There's a very sizeable conventional mound on site. That'll be modified to include a bioreactor for the brewery waste that will bring it to basically residential strength,and then re-purpose that mound system. There's not a whole lot of changes to the site lighting,landscaping. Like I said,there's more than enough parking. There will be an addition of a cooler in the back. That'll add a couple hundred square feet of impervious,and what was not on the original proposal is a small shed in the back. We have since identified an alternative wastewater system. It won't be a buried tank. It'll be a system inside the shed in the back. That's what that's for. I did e-mail to Laura just today the updated site plans, knowing that a decision couldn't be made tonight. We'll make sure that the final plans get submitted in time for the next meeting. MR. TRAVER-Thank you for that. So as you are aware tonight we're going to be looking at the State Environmental Quality Review Act for the project and also considering your request for a zoning change, possibly making a recommendation to the Town Board as they consider that change. So with regard to the environmental impacts, are there going to be unusual noises, odors, byproducts that might have an impact on the community or the surrounding area that we might want to be aware of? I didn't notice anything in the environmental form. MR. SANDBLOM-Nothing unusual from a brewery standpoint. I mean this is a very small production. They're going to be brewing it's 10 barrels. Compare that to a place like Common Roots or something like that, probably 1/3rd, something like that, and the other thing that they will be implementing is a pretty aggressive side streaming program so that the solid wastes and, it's really important to keep that wastewater shrank down as much as possible. So that'll be pretty much stored inside totes and then,you know, taken off to farms or whatever. So there won't be any open storage of anything that would really create odors or any noises. It'll be inside,not that significant either. Bubbling water is not a lot of noise. MR. OSTBERG-The loudest it gets is like a kettle boiling. MR. TRAVER-Right. Understood. So the byproduct that you speak of, that's going to be in totes and removed,can that be used for fertilizer? MR. MAGOWAN-Cows love it. MR. OSTBERG-I already have one farmer right down the road who wants to take everything we've got. MR. TRAVER-No kidding? Interesting. 9 (Queensbury Planning Board 12/19/2023) MR. MAGOWAN-Cows just love it. MR. TRAVER-Yes,I'll bet. MR. OSTBERG-You can feed it to chickens. It's spent grain,just grain that's been through a process and kind of looks like Maypo. MR. TRAVER-Yes,interesting. Okay. So our next order of business then,well I should open it up to the Board for questions,comments of the applicant for the environmental review. MR. DIXON-I do have a question regarding this. I don't believe that there's an impact,but I wanted your take on it. There's a pond adjacent to your property. Do you see any impact on that? MR. OSTBERG-On Dix and County Line,yes. MR. DIXON-All right. Is that a man-made pond? MR. OSTBERG-It was there when I bought the building. MR. DIXON-So it's been there for quite a long time. MR. OSTBERG-I think if you dug a hole you'd get a pond. MR. DIXON-Probably so. Do you foresee any impact to that? MR. OSTBERG-No,I don't. MR. DIXON-Additional traffic on the road? No big tanker trucks or anything at this point? MR.OSTBERG-No. We're not going to be hauling big tanker trucks. It's a 10 barrel system. We're going to be doing small batches. MR. DIXON-Okay. Thank you. MR. TRAVER-There's also a public hearing on this application. Is there anyone in the audience that wanted to comment to the Planning Board on Site Plan 70-2023 or Petition of Zone Change 4-2023? I'm not seeing any. Are there written comments,Laura? PUBLIC HEARING OPENED MRS. MOORE-There are no written comments. MR. TRAVER-So at this stage we'll leave the public hearing open. Am I correct, as we will be doing site plan at a later date? MRS. MOORE-You can,yes. MR. TRAVER-Or are you going to re-advertise? MRS. MOORE-We usually,we'll re-advertise. MR. TRAVER-So I can close it and re-open it again. All right. So for this evening's purposes we'll close the public hearing. PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED MR. TRAVER-Go ahead. MR. MAGOWAN-I had a question, because I was looking up a while back on light industrial uses, and one of the last things on the page,out of 92 uses,was microbreweries. So why is that different here in the Town of Queensbury for light industrial uses? MRS. MOORE-It wasn't listed as a use. It's listed elsewhere,but not in this particular zone. MR. MAGOWAN-But this is a light industrial use zone? MRS. MOORE-I'd have to look at the Code section that you're looking at. 10 (Queensbury Planning Board 12/19/2023) MR. TRAVER-I think it's safe to say the applicant has studied the Code before they made the application, before they felt it necessary to make this application. So what they're saying. MR. MAGOWAN-Well,this could be possible,but if someone stated that it was a non-use,the applicant would have to obviously fill out an application is my only question,but I see that it was an allowable use in the New York State Light Industrial Code. So I was wondering where we came up with our Light Industrial codes for the Town of Queensbury. MR. TRAVER-We have our own Code within the Town of Queensbury that doesn't necessarily perfectly overlap with the Statewide Code. MR. MAGOWAN-Then you answered my question. MR. TRAVER-So, yes, that's the answer, that within the Town of Queensbury it is not currently an allowed use and the applicant would like to amend that with our,with the Town Board's permission, and we're looking at partially looking at that this evening. MR. MAGOWAN-Now is this going to be all future uses of microbreweries or just? MR. TRAVER-For that zone,it would add that as an allowable use in that zone Town wide. MR. MAGOWAN-And,Laura,is this a Light Industrial? MRS. MOORE-This would be consistent with a Light Industrial zone,yes. MR. MAGOWAN-Okay. Thank you. MR. TRAVER-Anything else from the Board on that question? Okay. Let's look at the State Environmental Quality Review. We heard the representation by the applicant regarding what they perceive to be no additional environmental impact, but I'll open that up for members of the Board. Are there any questions regarding environmental impacts with this use,potential change of use? MRS. MOORE-Mr. Chairman,since it's a Full Environmental Assessment Form,do you wish it to be read into the record,or are you going to use the draft? MR. TRAVER-The Form itself is part of the record. Is it not? MRS. MOORE-Yes,it is. MR. TRAVER-So I'm not hearing any questions from members of the Board that have access to that, so I would say not at this stage, and I think we have a draft resolution. RESOLUTION GRANTING A NEGATIVE SEQR DEC. SP#70-2023 PZ 4-2023 EDWARD OSTBERG 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 microbrewery subject to Planning Board review and approval. This project is subject to a coordinated SEQR review with the Town Board. The Planning Board to complete SEQRA and provide a recommendation 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 Long 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 NO.70-2023&z PETITION OF ZONE CHANGE 4-2023 EDWARD OSTBERG. Introduced by Michael Dixon who moved for its adoption. 11 (Queensbury Planning Board 12/19/2023) As per the resolution prepared by staff. 1. Part II of the Long EAF has been reviewed and completed by the Planning Board. 2. Part III of the Long EAF is not necessary because the Planning Board did not identify potentially moderate to large impacts. Motion seconded by Brad Magowan. Duly adopted this 19`h day of December 2023 by the following vote: AYES: Mr. Magowan,Mr. Etu,Mr. Deeb,Mr. Dixon, Mr. Longacker,Mr. Stark,Mr. Traver NOES: NONE MR. TRAVER-So the next item for us to consider is that the applicant has requested, as we've heard and had some discussion regarding,a change to amend the zoning code so that microbrewery can be an allowed use in the CLI zone. It's up to the Town Board to say yeah or nay on that. However,we have been asked to provide a positive or negative recommendation regarding that zoning change. Do Board members feel comfortable in recommending that change, or is there opposition to that change among the Board members? Where do we stand on that? MR.DIXON-Mr.Chairman,I'll pose a question to you. Since this is going to be a zone wide change,would there be any recommendations to the Town Board that there be limits on size, size or scope of the microbrewery? MR.TRAVER-Well,there are specified areas already defined under the CLI zone. So that's a pre-existing thing, and each proposed use would be subject to review as it came along. So we're not, by doing this we're not adding microbreweries throughout the CLI zone. It just means that one could be applied for, and right now one could not apply,well they can apply,but it's not an allowed use. So if the Town Board were to add that as an allowed use,then that's something that could be applied for in the future by other applicants in the CLI zone which currently they cannot do. MR. DIXON-Okay. I don't have any issues,then. MR. TRAVER-Other questions, comments? Do we feel comfortable making a positive recommendation to the Town Board regarding this change? MR.ETU-I think given the surrounding existing land use and the fact,it's not spot zoning in any way,you know,it's just adding another allowable use,reasonable. MR. TRAVER-Right. All right. We have a resolution. RECOMMENDATION RE: TOWN BOARD RECOMMENDATION RE: 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 microbrewery subject to Planning Board review and approval. This project is subject to a coordinated SEQR review with the Town Board. The Planning Board to complete SEQRA and provide a recommendation to the Town Board. WHEREAS,the Town of Queensbury Town Board is proposing a zoning change to add a new use to the Commercial Light Industrial zone. The Town Board referred this proposed change to the Planning Board for an advisory recommendation pursuant to Section 179-15-020, resolution number 365, 2023 dated on 10/16/2023. MOTION FOR RECOMMENDATION TO THE TOWN BOARD AS FAVORABLE FOR ZONING CHANGE ADDING MICROBREWERY TO ALLOWED USES IN THE CLI ZONE. 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 Nathan Etu. Duly adopted this 19`h day of December 2023 by the following vote: AYES: Mr. Etu,Mr. Deeb,Mr. Dixon,Mr. Longacker, Mr. Stark,Mr. Magowan,Mr. Traver NOES: NONE 12 (Queensbury Planning Board 12/19/2023) MR. TRAVER-You're all set. MR. SANDBLOM-Thank you very much. See you soon. MR.TRAVER-The next application on our agenda,also under New Business,is Foothills Builders/Mead's. This is Site Plan 69-2023,Petition of Zone Change 1-2023 and Freshwater Wetlands Permit 12-2023. SITE PLAN NO. 69-2023 PETITION OF ZONE CHANGE 1-2023 FRESHWATER WETLANDS 12-2023 FOOTHILLS BUILDERS/MEAD'S. AGENT(S): STUDIO A. OWNER(S): MEAD'S NURSERY. ZONING: CI. LOCATION: 361 RIDGE ROAD. 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 AS WELL AS COMMUNITY BUILDING AND PATHS. SITE PLAN REVIEW PENDING TOWN BOARD AND PLANNING BOARD PETITION OF ZONE CHANGE REVIEW. PURSUANT TO CHAPTER 179-3-040,179-10-040 AND CHAPTER 94,SITE PLAN FOR CONSTRUCTION OF A NEW MULTIFAMILY BUILDING AND WORK WITHIN 100 FEET OF WETLANDS SHALL BE SUBJECT TO PLANNING BOARD REVIEW AND APPROVAL. PLANNING BOARD TO COMPLETE SEQRA AND PROVIDE A RECOMMENDATION TO THE TOWN BOARD. CROSS REFERENCE: SP 26-1990,DISC 8-2021. WARREN CO. REFERRAL: DECEMBER 2023. SITE INFORMATION: WETLANDS. LOT SIZE: 1099 ACRES. TAX MAP NO. 303.5-1-79. SECTION: 179-3-040,179-10-040,CHAPTER 94. JEFF MEYER&MATT HUNTINGTON,REPRESENTING APPLICANTS,PRESENT MR. TRAVER-Laura? MRS. MOORE-So this application 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 four units each, as well as a community building with paths. Site Plan Review pending Town Board and Planning Board Petition of Zone Change review. In addition there's zoning language change that is being proposed that would read as follows: The zoning map for the Town of Queensbury shall be amended to change the zoning district at 361 Ridge Road from Commercial Intensive to Moderate-density Residential (MDR). Number Two, 179 shall be amended to include a reference Multiple- Family Dwelling" in "Density" column for the Moderate- density Residential (MDR) District table. 1. NOTES: " Multiple- Family Dwelling( s) shall be entitled to a density of six (6) dwelling units per acre,in accordance with§ A1S3-26,subject to the following: (1)the Lot shall have a minimum gross land area of ten(10) acres; (2) the Lot shall be served by municipal water and sewer; and 3) Two points of ingress and egress to the Lot shall be required from local arterial roads or collector roads. And tonight the Board can either accept Lead Agency status,as well as conduct SEQR and they may provide a recommendation to the Town Board. MR.TRAVER-Okay. Thank you. So our first order of business,since we had requested to be Lead Agency, is to formally accept that,if the Board is comfortable. We requested it. So I'm assuming that everybody is willing to accept that Lead Agency status since it's been offered. We have a resolution to that effect. RESOLUTION ACCEPTING LEAD AGENCY STATUS SP#69-2023 FWW 12-2023 PZ 1-2023 FOOTHILLS BUILDER'S/MEAD'S 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 as well as community building and paths. Site Plan review pending Town Board and Planning Board Petition of zone change review. Pursuant to chapter 179-3-040,179-10-040 and chapter 94, site plan for construction of anew multifamily building and work within 100 ft.of wetlands shall be subject to Planning Board review and approval.Planning Board to complete SEQRA and provide a recommendation to the Town Board. 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, in connection with the project, the Town of Queensbury Planning Board, by resolution, previously authorized the Community Development Office to notify other involved agencies of the desire of the Town Board to conduct a coordinated SEQR review, WHEREAS, the Zoning Administrator has advised that other involved agencies have been notified and have consented to the Town of Queensbury Planning Board being lead agency; NOW,THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED: 13 (Queensbury Planning Board 12/19/2023) MOTION TO ACKNOWLEDGE LEAD AGENCY STATUS IN CONNECTION WITH SITE PLAN 69-2023, PETITION OF ZONE CHANGE 1-2023 &z FRESHWATER WETLANDS 12-2023. Introduced by Michael Dixon who moved for its adoption,seconded by Warren Longacker. As per the draft resolution prepared by staff. Duly adopted this 19`h day of December 2023 by the following vote: AYES: Mr. Deeb,Mr. Dixon, Mr. Longacker,Mr. Stark,Mr. Magowan,Mr. Etu,Mr. Traver NOES: NONE MR. TRAVER-Okay. Tell us about your project. MR.MEYER-For the record my name is Jeff Meyer. I'm an attorney representing Foothills Builders. With me is Matt Huntington with Studio A Architecture, engineering and architecture, the principles of Foothills Builders are also in the audience. They're just not at the table yet. For the sake of the public, since they appear to be here for this project, I'll kind of provide a brief re-cap unless the Board shuts me down. In approximately 2021 the Foothills Builders essentially approached the Town of Queensbury looking to potentially turn what was Mead's Nursery into a residential development. It was zoned as Commercial Intensive because Mead's had been in existence for 50 years,but based on the fact that Mead's is having a hard time selling their property,there's essentially no interested parties and the evolving nature of that area of Queensbury and Glens Falls Quaker Road,it was clear that the best use, and the best use based on the Town's Comprehensive Plan, was to have some sort of transition from the Commercial Intensive to the third acre lots that are more common in the area. So based on those conversations, we started putting together different variations of the zoning amendment. What was ultimately arrived at, based on the input that we received from this Board and the Town Board and the public,was it would be appropriate to change the zone to MDR to match the adjoining residential zone and properties and away from the Commercial Intensive and not to try and create any kind of new or different zone. By changing it to that MDR use would allow for residential development in that area. The second change that Laura identified was coming up with essentially a viable density for a very unique piece of property. It is over 10 acres. It has multiple access points for ingress and egress,but those access points and the relatively small size isn't conducive to any economically feasible residential development. So what we were proposing was kind of coming up with a solution that would create more of a smaller town lot and based on the language in the Code the applicable language was multi-family residential dwelling, and it's those words because townhouses and zero lot lines and those type of proposals and different ownership structures aren't easily accommodated in the current Zoning Code in the Town of Queensbury. So what that means is,you know, yes, there's essentially four townhouses per structure, but because it'll all be under common ownership and leased versus owned independently, it gets named multi-family residential dwelling, and in order to kind of accommodate the density and uses, we've proposed internal roads. This was based on, again, density and use,and it enables anyone entering and exiting the property to always be able to make a right turn if necessary. It was done that way to accommodate potential issues with traffic,site circulation and essentially make it easier for folks that live there to get into the City of Glens Falls if they want or conversely to get out onto Quaker Road at a light and go on about their business. Just to reiterate it is encouraged based on the existing language and the recommendations of the Comprehensive Plan and Sections A,A-1,2,3,4,and 5 where they're all talking about this type of infill and residential development. We do understand that the public is here. We also understand that there may or may not be a petition circulating, and having looked quickly at the petition, the comments and questions, you know, we'll certainly be prepared to answer and it's clear from the headline of the petition, these are site plan issues which we are prepared to address and we will address,but we don't even get to that point without having an understanding, a further recommendation from this Board as to,yes,we do want residential on this lot in this area and,yes, we can adjust the density in some capacity. The current request is for six dwelling units,which more or less came from this Board. There was conversation early on about whether it would be appropriate. The consensus of this Board and the Town Board was that six was appropriate so that is why we are here. That's why we put together the full application and why we are in the game of going back and forth between the Town Board and the Planning Board to see if we can have a site plan that works for the community. MR. TRAVER-Okay. So for purposes this evening,we won't be doing site plan per se. MR. MEYER-Correct. MR.TRAVER-But we are going to look at the State Environmental Quality Review Act and also the Town Board is looking for a recommendation from us as they consider your petition of zoning change. So we'll be talking about that as well and potentially doing that. With regard to the engineering,the SEQR aspects of it,the engineering which we received on the 13`h of this month. I didn't see anything that I didn't feel was something that you couldn't address with what you're currently proposing,but you're aware certainly that you need our engineer to sign off on your plan. Do you feel comfortable that you can make those arrangements to do that? 14 (Queensbury Planning Board 12/19/2023) MR.HUNTINGTON-Yes,absolutely. I shared the same type of sentiments as you with the review letter. So they're certainly all addressable. MR. TRAVER-Okay. Well,we'll open it up for questions,comments from members of the Board. MR. ETU-What's the plan for the two underground storage tanks? MR.HUNTINGTON-So those they,Phase IA and B environmental assessment was performed on that. I'd have to look back on that for the engineering. They've already been removed. MR. MAGOWAN-And there were only two. MR.HUNTINGTON-Correct. MR. MAGOWAN-And what were the tanks for? MR.HUNTINGTON-I believe,I think they were made for a petroleum product but I'm not sure. MR. MAGOWAN-And we had soil sample tests around it that we got a signoff? MR. HUNTINGTON-Yes, again, the full environmental assessment was performed and I actually just don't happen to have a copy of it with me right now unfortunately, but I believe it was Sterling Environmental. The report's available, and it may have been submitted in one iteration in this project at one point in time. MR. TRAVER-So that's been submitted as part of the record? MR.HUNTINGTON-I'm not sure if it was,as part of this,but we've been at this since 2020. Maybe Laura came across it. MRS. MOORE-I apologize. It does sound vaguely familiar. MR.HUNTINGTON-We're prepared to submit it. MR. TRAVER-Yes,that's going to be important to make that part of the record. MR.MEYER-Also,if there had been a spill,if the report had revealed anything,the Town would have been notified. We would have been notified. There'd be a spill report. MR. TRAVER-I just want to make sure the record's complete. MR.HUNTINGTON-Absolutely, and that's why we're going to provide it. MR. TRAVER-There also was a question regarding the building height,proposed building height. MR. HUNTINGTON-It's 29 feet 4 inches. That's at the maximum height, at the elevations, the two exterior units are single story and then the two interior ones are two story. MR. TRAVER-Okay. MR. DIXON-On your assessment form you'd identified an aquifer. Is the pond the aquifer or is there? MR. HUNTINGTON-That may be just from the mapping that there is, I believe in that area there is their primary aquifer is in the area in general. The EAF will pick that up when you go through the,or the DEC database to fill out the EAF form. So I mean that could be part of this property. It could continue on down Quaker Road. It's not a spring or pond that's like bubbling up or a cellular thing. MR. DIXON-1 guess I end up getting concerned, I look for an explanation as far as could there be an underground aquifer that's identified on that property that's not being demonstrated on these plans. MR. HUNTINGTON-I don't believe so on there. Again,we will have to check into that,but we also are not introducing anything into groundwater here. We're on municipal water, municipal sewer, and our stormwater practices address that. The pond itself,we received non-jurisdictional letters from the Army Corps and from the DEC regarding the wetlands present on site. So they saw no issue with that. I mean primary and principle aquifers exist all throughout New York State and throughout the country, that there's development on top of,you know,throughout the State in general. If that was one I would have to look back, but the typical concerns for that are if you're putting on-site septic there. DEC, on the EAF map,will pick that up if it's even miles from proximal of a principle or primary aquifer. 15 (Queensbury Planning Board 12/19/2023) MR. TRAVER-One of the things noted,too,I saw,I think it was in the engineering letter,was the need for SHPO and also the DEC, I think the species report. If you don't have those,you need to make sure you have those obviously and make them part of the record as well. Do you see any issues with that? MR. HUNTINGTON-No, but we actually have received two no's on there , which usually constitutes, we've had previous conversations with the DEC. So through the Environmental Assessment mapper it's a no to rare plants and animals, a no to endangered species, and a no to critical environmental areas, and also a no on historical places. So typically that suffices for those letters, and again,this was a previously commercial use that was a nursery. It's not as though this is virgin land. MR. TRAVER-Right. We have a public hearing,but before we go to the public hearing I would like to just give the Board members an opportunity to ask any additional questions or have comments. MR.MAG OWAN-I would like to. One of the things I noticed in your plans there was the retention areas at the bottom on either side of the pond. That seems to maintain its level year round. You never see it go up or down. For years I've driven past it. So,I mean,we talk about aquifers and that,I have some concerns as to what keeps feeding that pond to maintain its level, but also I read that any of the overflow on the areas that you want to put these retention areas in, the overflow goes to the west property. What does that mean? What property are we talking? MR. HUNTINGTON-That would be the wet on that the pond goes through, the culvert under Meadowbrook Road. So that pond itself,we believe that to be man-made and used as an irrigation pond for the nursery. There's high groundwater in that area because it's proximal to the wetlands. Typically, back to the aquifer thing, a primary or principle aquifer, again,is not a source that is bubbling up out of the ground. It's some subsurface geological layer that can be potentially used as a drinking water source. So, again,that could exist from here to West Mountain underground. The EAF mapper will pick that up. So the thing with the pond it does necessarily impact to that aquifer. Again we think the pond was actually man-made. They had a pump in it at the time,when they were doing test pits,to actually water the nursery stock in that area. MR. MAGOWAN-That I can understand, but you have, it's like eight to a ten foot drop between Ridge and Meadowbrook. So it all slopes down with, I've read,four different types of clay. So up at the top of the hill, and I mentioned this before a foot down in your test pit is groundwater,but eight feet away from where the test pits were, all right, seven feet down, there was no sign of groundwater. And that's right next to the pond. So these retention ponds that you're putting in, where's the water going to go? And now you're telling me that the pond that's existing already has a pipe that flows over and goes to the west property. MR.HUNTINGTON-Yes,it will continue in that fashion. The ponds are actually there to connect to the existing pond, and how it works,it's not an additional volume,because we have bio retention areas,rain garden areas ahead of this. None of these are infiltration practices due to the clay soil. They're filtration practices. The ponds are sized appropriately for the 100 year storm, plus, to actually retain the water, allow sediment to filter out, and by the time the sediment filters out it enters the existing pond and ultimately makes its way out to the wetland. So the increase or flooding concern is not there by the mottling and calculations. That's the whole point with those ponds is really to stay wet and to filter sediment out. I mean if you picture,you know,a channel running quickly,it's a large pool. It slows down. It has detention time to pool,settle,sediment filters out,cleaner water leaves. MR.MAGOWAN-And I understand that,but my concern is right now the way the layout of the buildings is and the way Mead's had it,you know,just one down sides and then you have all the trees over there to the,it would be more to the south side,you're going to be clearing that all open,all right,then you're going to be putting up buildings and roads. So you're going to be taking all that roof water, and all that road water, all right,and it's going to be all heading downhill to these retention ponds. As it is now it's able to be absorbed by the shrubs and the trees and the grass, and natural evaporation. So,you know, and I've brought this up before,I have a problem,and I look at on upper Meadowbrook,all right,before we put all the apartments and the homes,we've got The Glen. We've got Schermerhorn's. We've got The Michaels Group. Now in heavy rain you see the water actually sheet across Meadowbrook. So this is what, I'm having a,I just want to make sure that we're not going to be sheeting across Meadowbrook at the bottom, and also, too,is when you start putting all that water back in the ground, water seeks its own level. So it's going to rise, so it's just going to affect the other people down Quaker Road where there's already an existing high water. MR. HUNTINGTON-No, I mean this is not the first site that we've designed with clay soils and very similar stormwater practices. You have to remember upstream of these ponds there's some substantial bio retention areas that actually take the place of the nursery stock plus some. I mean they're designed with an engineered soil mix to slow everything down,to filter it out. So the raise in level that you're talking about would be like a large surge that would happen quickly and the site is designed so that that doesn't happen and specifically. The routing of stormwater has to go through all these filtration practices before 16 (Queensbury Planning Board 12/19/2023) it even gets to the pond. They're there as kind of a final polishing of the stormwater before they go out to the pond that's there right now. So ahead of that we have rain gardens. We have substantial bio retention practices. All these things slow down the transport of stormwater off of the new impervious surfaces. MR. MAGOWAN-Well I did read like the rain gutters are going to be piped,piped to these rain gardens. MR.HUNTINGTON-Yes,well there's rain gardens and then the bio retention practices are basically a rain garden on steroids. I mean they're substantially sized. They have sediment pre-treatment prior to even getting into the bio retention area, and it's a very slow infiltrated mix, I mean they do a good job, and particularly in clay soils like that of slowing down runoff,giving it a chance to absorb. Even though they're clay,they do eventually infiltrate at some point in time. We don't count it,at all,but it does happen. MR. MAGOWAN-Yes, because I did read the stormwater. I actually called to get some questions answered,but it's a lot of numbers there. You know more than I do about them,and I'm not an expert on this,but being in the field as long as I have,I do know a few things,but when I look at the perc rates on all your test holes,they're not good. MR. HUNTINGTON-Well, again, we haven't factored any sort of infiltration into our design as a conservative measure. So,regardless of the perc rate,we're not modeling it that way at all. MR.MAGOWAN-And who is going to be monitoring all this so everything is being done in accordance to your design? MR.HUNTINGTON-Well that's why routinely we have to report SWPPP inspections for the stormwater pollution prevention plan and the DEC permit itself. So we have to be out there weekly. We have to monitor it. They have provisions in the actual permit which is considered the code. If there are inconsistencies with our plan they need to be rectified within a day or so. So they're certainly plenty of language and plenty of regulatory bodies out there responsible for this, as well as us overseeing that it's installed accordingly. MR. MAGOWAN-All right, and I won't take up the whole evening, but I see the Town of Queensbury wetlands permit application, but I also have here the Department of Environmental Conservation, the owner/operator certification form, and that's for SPDES general permit for stormwater. Is that all something? MR.HUNTINGTON-Yes,that accompanies the permit application for the stormwater. So as we progress the Town Engineer asked us to include that in all our stormwater pollution prevention plans that we submit. It doesn't get signed. It doesn't get submitted until we're at final site plan approval. And I believe it's Craig Brown,right,that's the stormwater officer. I believe he signs these things. MR. MAGOWAN-All right. I'll rest for now. MR. TRAVER-Anything else before we go to public hearing,from the Board? MR. LONGACKER-I just want to kind of piggyback on Brad. I know this is probably more of a site plan. So I'm not going to get too far into it, but are you going to go ahead and do additional testing in those pocket pond locations? I understand the pocket pond has standing water in it. That pond right there with the elevation 499 and you're digging down to 494 for the pocket pond. So just to verify what water is in there, what you can achieve to get your standing water, necessary for a pocket pond, and the same thing for the bio retention areas. A bio retention area,as you know,has two to four feet of media in there. You don't want to necessarily be putting that in groundwater. So I think prior to moving on to more detailed design,I think it would,as LaBella does indicate,behoove you to go ahead and do test pits in each one of these locations that you actually have proposed for stormwater measures. MR.HUNTINGTON-Yes,certainly. I mean routinely we have to go back and perform additional test pits as the site plan progresses. So,I mean,we're prepared to do that. I don't think we'll find any surprises. MR. LONGACKER-I agree with Brad, too, you know, the piping of the raingardens there. I just don't want to see something back up,you know, the piping, once that flows back under a heavy storm event, then all of a sudden your raingarden is chuck full of water and then spewing out. MR.HUNTINGTON-Understood. MR. MAGOWAN Just another quick one. Are you familiar with all the land and what maybe was brought into that site over the years? That always can be a concern,what happens once you get into the project and you find out that,you know, it's been a dumping site of,you know,roots and trees and,you know, and it's been under this clay,but it doesn't seem to go anywhere. Do you have a contingency plan in case you get into excavating and find out that there's been stuff that's been buried there? 17 (Queensbury Planning Board 12/19/2023) MR.HUNTINGTON-Well,those are more of a structural concern than a stormwater concern,you know, if you have stumps or anything like that buried in there. I mean that's more of a foundation or road issue than anything, and when we've run into those in the past they have to be hauled out of there and a reasonable granular fill has to be brought in at that point. MR. MAGOWAN-All right. Thank you. MR. DIXON-And I've got one last question. We had asked it of you once before, as far as hook up to sewer. You're looking to hook up. Have you talked to Glens Falls as far as can they handle the extra volume? MR. HUNTINGTON-Well,we spoke to Chris Harrington and some recommendations,they'd prefer the water to only connect at Meadowbrook and not go through. Sewer he saw no issues with. Glens Falls Treatment Plant we're pretty familiar with. We've had a fewprojects in the past two years. They need to tie into that and we're very familiar with their capacity,which they have an excessive amount of capacity there,I mean millions of gallons a day because it was designed to handle Cieba Geigy and most of the pre- cast plant or cement plant that's closed down there, and a lot of industrial development that it's no longer taking. So for 64 units is a drop in the bucket compared to what the plant can handle at this point. MR. DIXON-And then the only last item that I can think of associated with SEQR would be traffic. I know at Ridge Road you've got a stop light. Meadowbrook has a stop light. Do you foresee anything as far as a particular issue? If you have 64 units you're looking at a potential,what is that,12S vehicles,if it's two per unit. Do you have any concerns? MR.HUNTINGTON-We don't have major concerns from similar developments that we have done in this fashion,and again,contrasted,I guess,to if it remained a commercial use and a box store went in there,the number of trips generated would be significantly greater than the residential use. MR. DIXON-Okay. Those are all my SEQR questions. MR. TRAVER-Okay. We do have a public hearing on this application. Is there anyone in the audience that wants to address the Planning Board on Site Plan 69-2023, Petition of Zone Change 1-2023 or Freshwater Wetlands permit 12-2023? Yes,ma'am. PUBLIC HEARING OPENED ANNE GOBBO MS. GOBBO-My name's Anne Gobbo. We have a house over on Meadow Lane, which is between Ridge and Meadowbrook. It's parallel to Quaker. Like when you lookout our backyards you're looking at The Heidelberg and PA Medical back there. I don't know anything about groundwater drainage or anything, but we did get a letter in the mail,and we did talk to some of the neighbors and they didn't seem to know, like they didn't remember getting a letter,but we got one. So I thought I'd ask. Our main concern would be that street is so water logged, is the word I use for it. It seems always wet, and every time we get a heavy rain like today,you could see it from yesterday,or the spring thaw,the topic of conversation is who's basement is wet or whatever. We've been lucky and haven't had that,but some of our neighbors have,but it's awfully water logged over there already and I've had, this summer there were workmen over there I think from the Town. They were doing things like digging up pipes and they were filled with mud,which is why I think the drainage wasn't working that well,and working on that,and somebody said to me,well, they've got Regency apartments and then you've got Meadow Lane right there, and what I was kind of wondering,I know it's across the street and maybe it doesn't come into it,but what they'll maybe do over at Mead's areas,will that make it,like the water drainage situation,will it make it more wet where we are and not a good? There's already a lot of clogged pipes they have to get rid of and fix,and there seems to be always a backup problem. MR. TRAVER-Well, a couple of things regarding the stormwater issue. One is what they're proposing n terms of stormwater management on this piece of property where they're proposing this development is quite a substantial improvement in terms of stormwater management over what's there now which is the abandoned nursery,Number One. Number Two,just so it's not somebody's opinion,the Town Designated Engineer, an engineer that the Town hires to independently verify what these applications are proposing to do, needs to verify the stormwater procedures that they're proposing and review them independently and approve them before the project can move forward. So the object of the exercise is not to increase stormwater beyond the property itself,but I think in terms of context,if you look at what's there now and the stormwater management that's there now, is minimal compared to what they're proposing. So it should either be no change or an improvement. MS. GOBBO-That would be good,yes. Certainly,because things do seem to start out well and then over the years get clogged and backed up or something and then the next thing you know. 1S (Queensbury Planning Board 12/19/2023) MR. TRAVER-And there are maintenance agreements that they have to submit and maintain as well for their stormwater. That doesn't account for what's happening elsewhere,but in terms of this site they have a proposed plan and a maintenance procedure for that plan as was discussed to a limited degree this evening that ensures that system continues to function. MS. GOBBO-Okay. Thank you. MR. TRAVER-Is there anyone else that would like to address the Planning Board? Ma'am, I think you were the first one to put your hand up. MARILYN TALLON MRS. TALLON-Hi. I'm Marilyn Tallon,and I live on Meadowbrook Road. I live behind the Mead's area, and I'm quite a few houses behind it, and we have a huge pond,bigger than all of this room. We've never had it so bad as we've had it yesterday and today. So I've been vacuuming my cellar and cleaning it all out. Anyway, and I feel really bad because I didn't know this was still going on, that someone was going to build. I thought the sale went through. I didn't think anybody was working on this project,but I just think it's,you know,they've been working on it since 2020 and we have never had any notice about that, and they were coming to the Planning Board. I think maybe we should have been noticed a long time ago so we would maybe speak up then. There certainly is a big problem with water in our area,a huge problem with it,when it's wet. We had a bit of a dry summer at times and it was fine,but I went out and I got a few signature on one of the lists you had, and one of the people said if I look out my window I'm going to be seeing big buildings and they don't want to see that. We've been living there a long time, and other people moved in and had no idea that this was going to happen,and we just have at least three pretty new people living on the street within the last,you know,two months. I mean there's two families that have moved in,and another family has only been there a year or maybe two,but they were so surprised. Nobody knew about this. I'm so amazed that no one knew. I know people don't get the paper anymore,but I just think it's a real big deal that's happening and I really wish that you would all think about what it's doing to the people who have lived here for a long time, and I don't know who's going to be moving in. I just think you should look for sandier soil to be building a lot of houses like this. I know over by West Mountain there's a lot of sandy soil. My sister used to live up that way. I just feel that it's excessive. I wouldn't mind a few homes being there and I think Mead's could find another buyer or a builder that could build even ten nice homes on a one acre piece of property. Why don't they look for that and keep it small town. I don't like looking across the street to those big buildings. Last night I came by and saw the sunset going down and those big square buildings are there, okay,but it just kind of ruins the Adirondacks for me,the feel of the Foothills. So thank you for listening. MR. TRAVER-Thank you. Is there anyone else? I think there was another hand over here. Yes,ma'am. JACKIE CORDELL MRS.CORDELL-Hi. I'm Jackie Cordell. I live on Ridge Road. Right there. I'm going to try to avoid the plans and discussing the plans. I know this isn't the place for that,but as far as the zoning actually goes, there's a lot of accidents on the corner of Ridge and Quaker Roads,and I see putting 64 units in there with families, kids that have to cross the street to get to the sidewalk to walk to Jackson Heights school and school district,that being a big safety risk for a community,for the drivers,for the children that would be crossing the street there. In addition this doesn't only affect our neighborhood, but this affects the neighborhood of the Jackson Heights school district and Glens Falls Middle School,High School. A lot of these kids aren't going to be walking to the Middle School,High School about two miles away. They'll be getting dropped off. That's going to create more traffic in those areas for those residents that live around there. There are no sidewalks on Meadowbrook Road. I understand there's going to be an ingress/egress near both intersections,which are already busy intersections. I just see this being a lot of traffic. To echo what Marilyn said,a shame to see large buildings in an area that we've lived in for along time. I know that doesn't necessarily apply to zoning, but just the intensity of that kind of neighborhood almost doubles immediately the population of what's already there,if not more, and all of those cars coming in and out at intersections that are already troubled with accidents and,yes, the proximity to Cumberland Farms and that just all complicates that intersection. I can't really speak to the Meadowbrook. I don't experience that. I don't go that way that much. I avoid that whole Quaker Road actually, and just concerned about the noise level and behind where we live and again the pedestrian traffic for the schools,and Sanford Street School for example they closed in 2012 due to decreased enrollment and census in the School. So what would the impact of having a rapidly increasing census in that School district be if they weren't prepared? What would the school tax funding be for that? Class sizes, etc. So I just wanted to make a statement that I am opposed to the re-zoning of this property to accommodate such a large and intense multi-family dwelling. Wouldn't mind seeing 10 small single family homes in a nice neighborhood back there. I don't know, the planners had said that that wouldn't really be feasible, but this is just too much for our neighborhood. MR. TRAVER-Okay. Thank you. Is there anyone else that would like to address the Planning Board? Sir,I think you were the next hand up.. 19 (Queensbury Planning Board 12/19/2023) VINCE MORIARTY MR.MORIARTY-My name is Vince Moriarty. I live on Ridge Road as well. Three points I'd like to make. The first,I'm not an engineer,but I do work with stormwater. Sothis is a known topic to me. I just want to say a 100 year storm isn't what it used to be. They're putting a lot of pipes in there. We know what we have now tends to work. I'm not questioning the engineering that's gone into this, I just want to put that out there. Because yesterday was a huge storm. So I think we're seeing a lot of that. Infrastructure being strained by the increase in storm intensity. The second question I have is I don't have a good idea of how much,with that area right there is a nice urban island of biodiversity with that wetland there. I don't know how much wild area we'd be losing at this point. I'm always sad when I walk by the wetland. It's trashed,but it is still a valuable piece I think for anyone who lives there in terms of the wildlife that's there. So if we're going to lose a chunk of wild area there, as a resident I would be sad,but I think my main issue I have as addressed before,is traffic. So I live right where Meadowbrook and Ridge come together,that V where The Center for Better Hearing used to be. It's not well marked. I know like one side yields to the other. I live right there. I see it all the time,close two accidents. I've also seen a lot of actual accidents there. Right now there's still debris from the last major accident we had there. Because it's unclear to people who are there if they're going to increase the traffic there, that's just a dangerous intersection. I believe people before me mentioned that the Cumberland Farm intersection is dangerous. I agree,but I'm really worried about the excess traffic where the two come to a point, and then there's also just the nuisance. For some, I live right where the speed limit jumps up to 40. People love to hammer on the acceleration when they hit that. It is so annoying. So just any increase in traffic affecting is a safety issue. It's a noise pollution issue. I have a beagle who needs four walks a day. I'm constantly walking that road. In the last four months I've almost been hit twice by people who weren't paying attention,want to take a left up Ridge. I just feel like we're at capacity for traffic. I'm not a big fan of seeing a lot more traffic there. Thank you. MR. TRAVER-Thank you. Yes,sir. I think you had your hand up next. BRIAN STRAUB MR. STRAUB-Hi. I'm Brian Straub from Ridge Road. The main thing I wanted to tell you is the reaction that I got when I started walking around talking to people on Thursday. Before I tell you that, though, I've been watching the queensbury.net site for months because I knew this would be coming back sooner or later,getting on,watching the Planning Board and meetings showing up on the agendas and so on. Last Thursday, I think it was,it was Wednesday or Thursday, that Harrison Freer called me, or texted Jackie who was just speaking and me and said Jackie you should talk to Brian about this, about what meeting, and I'd been checking the website constantly, every couple of days, and the last meeting on the website was December 12`h,and I just said,well,there are no more meetings in December,and so Harrison said,no, it's on there and Jackie said well I saw it and I said really, and I've been in technology my whole life, and I got on line and I saw. It's not on FireFox. So I'll check Chrome. I checked Edge. Nothing was showing up. Jackie said well I saw it,and I said well I can't see it. I thought I saw it. I came in tonight and I was talking to Laura and I said,you know,yesterday I was talking to Jackie,it was this morning and I said let me look at my phone and I went down on Safari on my phone and I popped it up,and it was still not there, but 10 seconds later it popped up, and so if somebody was just going to the queensbury.net website and looking at Meetings and Agendas, Planning Board, this did not show up, this agenda. When I told Harrison that last week he said let me look. I'm sure it's out there someplace,and he sent me back the link to the calendar that said that Planning Board meeting and it says meeting agenda available,but there was no link,and you go to the meetings and there's not. There wasn't anything. So for most people going out there and just checking, this meeting didn't exist and this agenda didn't exist. So what I would like to request of this Board is we've gone out and tried to reach people,just to let people know what's going on. It's Christmas. People are gone, out for the weekend. There's that big rainstorm, and so a lot of people simply didn't know that this had come up. You've heard some people say that already. So I'd like to request that any decisions that you are planning on making tonight be postponed for two weeks to give people in the neighborhood a chance to know what's going on and a chance to participate in additional comments if they want to, because there really hasn't been effective notification for the neighborhood. Beyond that,I didn't know what people would say when I went out and started walking to my neighbors and see what they said. The uniform reaction was not just opposition to this project but vehement opposition,in very,very harsh language. Some of the people who I reached out to said what in the world is the Town doing? They just went through a project with F.W. Webb,same kind of site. They rejected it because of noise and traffic. They're talking about putting another different project,noise and traffic,in a similar spot, and it has all the same problems, except it's dumping a whole lot of people. This project proposes putting more homes in that one small site than exists in all of the rest of the neighborhood, and they're three bedroom homes. So you're not getting single persons living in those. You're getting families. There could be two, four, five people in there. The population of this neighborhood, if this project goes through, is going to double at least or possibly triple or quadruple the population of this neighborhood. You've already heard traffic's a problem. We've had three dogs killed since I've lived there on Ridge Road, getting on to Quaker Road from either Meadowbrook or Ridge is a problem. Disaster was the word that several of my neighbors used. When I went to one house the next door neighbor was also there and their reaction was, wait, this is dead, they're not doing this. It's cancelled, and I told them and their reaction 20 (Queensbury Planning Board 12/19/2023) was we need a neighborhood association. We need to hire an attorney. This is a disaster for us. We have got to stop this. So this is the reaction that I was getting from every single place. I've already been able to reach eight or nine houses,but this is how that part of the neighborhood was viewing this. The problems are that it's just too dense. There's too many, too dense in that spot, too many families, too many units. Over and over again these people,again,different conversations,not the same ones,different people would say, why don't they put in a dozen single family homes. It would be great. It would be a benefit to the neighborhood, as opposed to something that is just going to be a problem for the neighborhood. The wetlands are a concern for me and for everybody else. In 1972 I was the first student member of the Department of Environmental Conservation's Ward of Governors, and I've been concerned with this kind stuff my whole life. The wetlands on the Mead's property clearly are connected to the wetlands right across the road,which are within 100 feet. If you look at the maps,there are acres of wetlands out there. I don't have the total,but looking at it,it looks to me like it's more than the total,more than the 12.4 acres required for protection under the 1975 New York State Wetland's Protection Act, and,you know, we're going to contact them and see where that leads. I like Mead's. I really liked Dick Mead. I think they are entitled to fair compensation. I support them. I bought an awful lot of stuff from them. The neighborhood did,but the feeling is, well, all of our support over the years, this is what they want to do, dump this problem,which has no benefit. This project has no benefit for our neighborhood. It's only a problem for us. The only benefit is to the developer and potentially to the Town of Queensbury,but there are other places where this project could be built without adding the problems to a neighborhood that would happen with it being built on the Mead's property. So again I'd ask you to table any decisions for two weeks to allow other neighbors in the neighborhood,other residents to hear about this and come and make their comments to you. MR. TRAVER-Let me try to address the notification. Laura, can you talk about the notification requirements for these types of projects? MRS. MOORE-Yes. So properties within 500 feet of this location received a public notice, and then information is shared on the website,as we know. There's multiple places that it's shared on the website. It's also posted in the paper. So that's the process. That's our requirement by law to advertise it,and it's within 10 days of the public hearing. MR. TRAVER-And with regard to the website and having difficulty being able to access the agenda and so on, I'm not sure what difficulty you've had or that you're describing. I know I have had issues with technology,but I have had access to all of this material since nearly the first of the month. As the Planning Board we're notified by e-mail when all the application materials are available for us to study, and at that time they are placed on the queensbury.net website for public view under Planning Board meeting documents and then there's a listing of the dates. You can click on that and access everything that we have. MR. STRAUB-Correct. But, again, and as late, and Harrison, when he looked at it,verified,it ended on 12/12. When you would go to queensbury.net,boards and committees,meetings and agendas,you click on 2023 and you go down and the last one was 12/12. It's not showing up. MR. TRAVER-I've had an issue, occasionally, where there are so many meetings listed that when I try to scroll up, particularly on the tablet, it will start from the first series of meetings and if they add more meetings,then that particular view of that page will hold. When I try to scroll up,I take my finger off and it goes back down again. So you can't actually touch on that date,but it is there. MR. STRAUB-Would it help you if I explained that I have degrees in computer science and have run companies that produce software? MR. TRAVER-I don't know that it would help me,but it seems that it's been an issue for you. MR. STRAUB-Yes,it just was not visible. MR. TRAVER-Okay. MR. STRAUB-It's an issue with the website, and last,12/19 simply wasn't visible. MR. TRAVER-Okay. I don't have any explanation,other than I have not had any difficulty accessing that information and I don't have any special password or access or anything other than the general public. So I'm sorry,I don't know what the issue was that you had. I can only report my own experience, and that was that I did not have an issue. MR. STRAUB-I think you heard the other people, and people just didn't know until last week when we started saying, hey, wait a second, because Harrison noticed. So that was the first time anybody in the neighborhood basically, I mean, and everybody's saying the same thing. This is happening? Why didn't we know about this? 21 (Queensbury Planning Board 12/19/2023) MR. TRAVER-Let me ask a follow up question. Laura,is there a confirmation that that notification was sent out? I mean,do we get something from the paper? MRS. MOORE-We have verification from the paper, and we have a listing of where those notices were sent. MR. TRAVER-Okay. So we have documentation of all those notifications that were sent. MRS. MOORE-Correct. MR.TRAVER-And typically how far in advance,for example,tonight's meeting,would that notice be sent? MRS. MOORE-Ten days. MR. TRAVER-Ten days. So that's all documented. MR. STRAUB-And where are these notifications? MR. TRAVER-Well,they're sent out by the Planning Office,by the Town Staff. MR. STRAUB-To whom? MRS. MOORE-To those within 500 feet of the parcel. MR. STRAUB-So you're talking about notifying a very small group of a project that will impact the lives of an entire neighborhood in a major way. MR. TRAVER-This is within 500 feet of the project. So I would assume that those are the people that are most impacted, and if there's discussions in the community happening about this new project that's going on, you would think that the people most potentially affected would be aware of it and would know something about it when you reached out to me, but apparently that wasn't the case. I guess what I'm saying is I don't personally have an explanation other than there is a process and that process was followed and it's documented. MR. STRAUB-Okay. My request is the neighborhood, the residents in the neighborhood, and when they're speaking to me and to the people who talked earlier tonight, nobody was aware of this. It is obviously your legal right to proceed with your decisions,but you have a neighborhood that's very angry about this,in opposition of this,and many of the people simply don't know yet because they weren't home, nobody contacted them, and giving these people, these citizens of the Town, the right to come in and comment before you make decisions seems like a decent thing to do. MR.TRAVER-Well,the other thing that you should be aware of as well,that our agenda this evening does not include,first of all because we don't have the authority to approve any zoning change. That's done by the Town. So that will not be happening this evening. MR. STRAUB-I understand. MR. TRAVER-We are not looking at the site plan,which is the details of the buildings,the layout,all the rest of it that they're proposing. That will not be happening this evening. The only thing that we have done is accept Lead Agency for the accepting of environmental impacts, other comments from the other government agencies that are affected by this potential site and we will look at the State Environmental Quality Review Act for environmental impacts,which is largely driven by the engineering study that our independent Town Engineer does. So in terms of decisions that are going to be being made this evening, there will be no site plan decision. There'll be no zoning change decision made by this Board this evening. MR.DEEB-The public hearing will be held open for the site plan also. So that will give you plenty of time if you want,when you come back there'll be another public hearing. You have all the time in the world to do what you need to do. MR. STRAUB-I'm certain are absolutely going to want to be able to. MR. DEEB-Laura,I have a question for you. When we get on the Queensbury website,I haven't accessed it yet,my understanding from Brian is that today's meeting,12/19,wasn't on the site. MRS. MOORE-I actually performed the same exercise that he did,and I was able to access it. MR. DEEB-So 12/19 was on the site. 22 (Queensbury Planning Board 12/19/2023) MRS. MOORE-It is. I don't quite know what is going on, other than notifying, now that I understand some glitch has occurred,is notifying our technology folks. MR. STRAUB-But today,I was talking to Jackie,I think it was this morning,and I said it's still not there. I was on my laptop and I checked three times,three different browsers and cleared the cache. It's showing up December 12`h, the last one, and she said well I can see it on my phone. I'm like let me look on my phone,which I had done several times,and I pulled it up and I have the 12/12 is the last meeting there, and I was just holding my phone out there and all of a sudden I said, wait,it's there,like after 10 seconds, to 12/19, and that's what Laura saw. It wasn't there and then all of a sudden it was there just a few seconds later. MRS. MOORE-It was there each time. MR. TRAVER-We'll ask our IT Department to look at it. The only comment I can make is they say to err is human, but it takes a computer to really foul things up. So I have no explanation other than just to repeat my own personal experience that I've read the materials. I've accessed the website to prepare for this meeting. I do that well in advance. So I'm not really sure what happen to you. I certainly apologize on behalf of the Town if you had difficulty accessing that information, and again, in terms of who was aware,this was not a secret. All the appropriate notifications were made. It was advertised in the paper, this meeting,and the public hearing tonight was advertised in the paper. MR. STRAUB-Can I ask what paper,just out of curiosity,because I was looking. Is it the Post Star? MRS. MOORE-It's the Post Star. MR. STRAUB-Okay. MR. TRAVER-So it's actually not unusual that we will ask that there will be people in an audience that will hear about it some way other than being officially notified by the Town. It's not unusual for this project. It's happened before,but there are regulations in place to effect those people that are deemed,and I don't know where the origin of the regulation is but for some reason it was deemed to be a distance,500 feet of the project, those are the people that are considered, hypothetically, to be most impacted. We know from commonsense that they're not the only people that are affected, but generally those are the people that are most interested in these projects as they come up and if they are involved in the neighborhood and they know neighbors and so on it's been our experience that word gets around well in advance of any even hypothetical project,we will hear about it. So again I don't know what the issue was with communication,but this project was treated exactly the same as any other project in terms of public notification. MR. STRAUB-Okay. Thank you. MR. MAGOWAN-One thing I'd like to add, though, if you want to follow through, this will be going to the Town Board for the modification to the zone or the Change of Zone, and that would be the meeting that would be important to go to in your group to voice your opinion there because the Town Board makes the decision, and we'll be here for the site plan whenever it comes back from the Town Board. MR. STRAUB-Okay. Thank you. MR. TRAVER-Is there anyone else that wanted to address the Planning Board? Yes,ma'am. MARIANNE MEAD PENDERGRASS MRS.MEAD PENDERGRASS-Hi. I'm Marianne Mead Pendergrass,and I just kind of want to give a little bit of a reality check. I worked for my dad at Mead's Nursery from 19SO until when it closed in 2019. I think we had about 14 trucks,big trucks,that went in and out every day. In our season we had about 35 employees that went in and out every day. We were a retail operation. So we had customers that went in and out every day, and we had tractor trailers that came in and unloaded, and we would have to stop traffic on Quaker for them to be able to get back out. So I am sympathetic to what people are concerned about,but as I sat there I thought, I didn't intend to speak tonight. I just came to learn and listen,but in fairness,it has been closed since December 2019,and it may seem quiet,but it wasn't always. I just think that that's fair that we remind ourselves of what it was, and, you know, my dad signed the contract in November 2020, and he passed away in March of 2021, but when he signed the contract, he said these neighbors have been good to me for 70 years. I want to be good back to them. I don't want a Wal-Mart or a car dealership or something with bright lights all night long. I want a neighborhood,and he thought he was respecting the neighborliness of everybody around him. He said for 70 years they've been good to me. When I wanted another greenhouse they didn't object, and they put up with the traffic and the big trucks. So it was his thought that a housing development would be a better alternative than a commercial venture and we had two offers that were both on the same order. We did not have somebody coming in wanting to build individual homes. 23 (Queensbury Planning Board 12/19/2023) MR. DEEB-Could I ask you a question? So you're inferring that the traffic and noise and everything else will be less with the apartment building than what was there? MRS. MEAD PENDERGRASS-I would think so,because the trucks we were using,they were big trucks, full of equipment, and we had tractors on the property and there was a lot going on, except December, January,February. Then there was very little going on. Thank you. MR. DEEB-Thank you. MR. TRAVER-Ma'am,I think you were next. TANYA SOMMERS MS. SOMMERS-So my name's Tanya Sommers. I live at 353 Ridge. For the record my property's the one in the middle. I did not receive a letter. My concerns are legitimate related to the placement of the houses and the density in the area and my concern for the neighboring properties that this project will impact. For example, there's 29 foot buildings that are going right, 13 houses behind my yard. Right now my backyard's sopping wet, and this is clay, and I'm not sure, are they going to build up that land in order to populate that area, which is going to make these buildings even higher which is then going to push more water back down to my backyard? So my question is I understand and environmental evaluation was done of this property,but was there one that was done on the corresponding properties and the impact of those properties and how they are going to react to what's going to happen on that particular land? Especially since I border it,it is selfishly my concern. MR.TRAVER-Well to answer the question,the stormwater management that the applicant has to prepare for this project has to be reviewed and pass muster by the engineer that is hired by the Town of Queensbury to do an independent analysis and make sure that their numbers make sense and make sure that stormwater is contained and managed within the site. So I'm not sure if that answers your question. MS. SOMMERS-Well I just know Ridge Road,it goes downhill from there. MR. TRAVER-Sure. Yes. We know there's a lot of concern about stormwater. It appears from my,and I'm not a stormwater engineer, but it appears from my general analysis of what was there in terms of Mead's Nursery versus what they're proposing,from stormwater. I'm not talking about traffic or buildings or whatever,but stormwater,it's actually going to be an improvement in terms of the management of the stormwater that is generated in that particular piece of property. That does not address your other concern,but in terms of the stormwater, and it doesn't mean that there aren't going to continue to be wet properties and stormwater issues that were pre-existing in that area,but this property should not add to that issue. It should actually make it better. MS. SOMMERS-Furthermore, for the three buildings with four units in each building in that very congested populated area right behind me,my home, the reason I bought it seven years ago, it has these beautiful windows that overlook the gorgeous scenery. I'm going to have a significant amount of light and noise congestion that's just back there,and the plans show three shrubs,and I would like to know,is there something beyond a couple of shrubs that are going to reduce the density of this light and noise pollution that this is going to create? MR.TRAVER-To answer that somewhat indirectly,what you're talking about is part of the site plan issue, which has to do with the layout of the plants,what are they're going to do in terms of planting trees and shrubs and various things like that,the layout of the roads and where the buildings are,how big they are, all those kinds of issues, are not being reviewed or addressed by us tonight. That's a site plan issue and should this project get made possible by the Town approving a change in zoning and the project comes back to us for site plan review, that's when we start talking about issues like buffering where you have trees blocking the lighting. You're talking about making sure the lights are downcast so they don't go out into the area, hours of operation, all of that kind of thing is not something that's going to be addressed tonight,but it is a concern,and it's something that we receive proposals from the applicant on and we will be reviewing and looking for another public hearing for people to address those types of things. Tonight we're really looking at only the environmental impact and talking about what we're going to communicate to the Town Board in terms of their,whether or not they are going to approve,in addition to all the public comment they will get,to approve a change in zoning to accommodate a theoretical project like this. MS. SOMMERS-Sure. The last thing I want to bring up is when I did look at the PDF's of the maps,there were some inaccuracies that also made me very concerned,first being that my property wasn't listed under my name, and the second the property lines went through my garage. So I just want to make sure that whoever is reviewing these does look at those. MR. TRAVER-Can I ask how you viewed the project? 24 (Queensbury Planning Board 12/19/2023) MS. SOMMERS-PDF's were e-mailed to me. MR. TRAVER-So you didn't go to the website? MS. SOMMERS-I didn't know anything about this until social media brought it to my attention. MR. TRAVER-All right. Thank you. Anything else? MS. SOMMERS-No. Like I said, I'm concerned about the lines of the property going through mine, and me not being recognized as being that property that is directly affected by this. MR. TRAVER-Okay. We will be looking at that,and additional plans will be submitted and this will not be the only public hearing. MS. SOMMERS-Thank you. MR. TRAVER-Thank you. Let's see. Who's next? Yes. Mr. Freer. HARRISON FREER MR. FREER-I wasn't going to speak either. I was here to listen,being a Town Board representative, and we also have another future Town Board representative who will join us the I"of January. With regard to the issue of access,I did go on the Town Board page and it said click here to get the agenda and it didn't take. I told the people who are responsible that we need to take a look at that. So there is a glitch somewhere, at least from what I saw on the thing,that I've already told Craig, and Karen that we need to make sure we get that right. Thank you. MR. TRAVER-That's the first time I've heard of that. MR. DEEB-Before you go,just state your name for the record. MR. FREER-Harrison Freer. Thank you. MR. TRAVER-Thank you. Let's see,is there anyone else that wants to address the Planning Board? Yes, sir,in the back. NICHOLAS HARPPINGER MR. HARPPINGER-Hi, there. I'm Nicholas Harppinger. I live right on Ridge Road, right across from Meads. It's been pretty quiet. We've lived there for 11 years. The one thing I can say is safety. There's no sidewalks on that side. We've already heard somebody talk about it. I see kids in the night going down the sidewalk on our side,but there's nothing,and there's kids crossing the street to get to Cumbies, something like that. Somebody's going to get hurt,really,putting something on that side of the road. With traffic the way it is,as soon as the weather gets good,you see a herd of bikes doing,50,60 up that road. So unless there's some sort of mitigation,I'm not sure what can be done about that safety. Other than that, drainage really, because you've got two hills on both sides of Quaker, Ridge./Quaker coming down that way,Meadowbrook coming down that way. Everything's coming right down right to that point. So really drainage is key right there. MR. TRAVER-Well as far as what you're talking about speeding and the motorcycles and such, I swear I'm not one of them,that's an enforcement issue and periodically what will happen is they will sometimes set up a radar site. Sometimes they'll park, a police car will. I'm not really sure about that. That's well beyond the purview of this Board. In terms of the potential of installing sidewalks, that's kind of a site plan issue that we may address should that project get to that point down the road,but that's a concern that's been mentioned before this evening and that's certainly a concern. So thank you for that. MR.HARPPINGER-No problem. Thanks. MR. TRAVER-Is there anyone else that wants to address the Planning Board on this? Yes,sir. JOHN GUERRIE MR. GUERRIE-My name is John Guerrie. I live on Meadowbrook Road. ,and I've lived therefor 50 years. We started out as kids,of course,but over the years I've seen a lot of traffic,getting worse, and the biggest thing I'm concerned about is water, runoff, and the water goes in the pond and comes from behind my house in Meadowbrook and then it goes to a culvert over in the pond. So I'm just concerned about the traffic and,you know,I mean I don't have a problem with having residential homes,but something of this magnitude,I think it overwhelms the property,and that's it. 25 (Queensbury Planning Board 12/19/2023) MR. TRAVER-Okay. Thank you. MR. GUERRIE-Okay. MR. TRAVER-Yes,ma'am. I know you spoke already once. We'll give you some latitude if you want to speak again. Go ahead. MARILYN TALLON MRS. TALLON-I'll be quick. Again,I'm Marilyn Tallon on Meadowbrook Road, and if any of you could, tomorrow morning,take a ride past our house at 2S Meadowbrook. Going south,if you look to your left, we've never had water this much and they do have a storm sewer there,but it's way higher than the water table which is down here and the thing to collect it is up high, and I think that's a bad move,but you can see where the contour of the property, I think there was a culvert under the road a long time ago. We've been living in our house for over 50 years. So this,there was a culvert that was a clay one that collects a longtime ago and now there are houses down that way. So you can't put that stormwater over there now. I hope,I'm curious if they have storm sewers,where does all that water go? MR. DEEB-They can answer the questions. We can't answer them. MRS.TALON-Okay,but as a community service and as this Board you would know where,you know,you have storm sewers. Does it dump into rivers? How does it get there? That's my concern. MR.TRAVER-Again,you're speaking about what we call stormwater,and they provide documentation as to how they're going to address stormwater for their property. They are not responsible for stormwater for the entire Town or the entire neighborhood,but they are responsible to deal with whatever stormwater is generated by that piece of property that was formerly Mead's, and they have to provide a documented plan and a maintenance plan for how that system is going to operate and that system as they propose is independently evaluated by an engineer that the Town of Queensbury hires and that engineering organization does an independent analysis of what they're proposing to make sure that it's really going to work. I know that doesn't answer all your questions as far as this project is concerned. MRS. TALON-It doesn't. MR. DEEB-As you know,we had a heck of a storm yesterday and today. MRS. TALON-We did,but this has happened before. I just don't know where the water is all going to go, just because we're saturated already. Well thank you very much. MR. TRAVER-All right. Thank you. All right. Let's see. Well we have to consider SEQR and the resolution to the Town Board. So I think what we'll do this evening, we are going to leave the public hearing open because this is just the beginning of the process. MRS. MOORE-So I do have one item to read into the record. MR. TRAVE R-Right. Yes,you have a petition you wanted to read in. So go ahead. MRS.MOO RE-So the following,there are 63 signatures on these documents that I have in front of me. It's a petition to note opposition to change zoning at 361 Ridge Road, Town of Queensbury. "We, the undersigned residents of the Town of Queensbury and/or within the Glens Falls City School District petition to note opposition to the approval of the change of zoning to the former Mead's Nursery site at 361 Ridge Rd in the Town of Queensbury for the purpose of building a 64 unit multiple-family dwelling development The site plans for the proposed development do not meet the following requirements of local law Section 179-9-OSO: Standard E: The proposed site plan does not take into consideration the intensity of the development with respect to the bordering residences and neighborhood. Sixty-four 3-bedroom units are too intense of a population increase in the backyards of the bordering residential properties. This is not in harmony with the nature, character or size of the neighborhood. This plan does not take into account the increased burden on supporting public services (schools). There are no sidewalks on the southbound side of 9L, nor are there sidewalks at all on Meadowbrook Rd. There are no school buses in the Glens Falls School District. Installation of sidewalks would encroach on the land of properties in the neighborhood.Furthermore,there is potential for rapid increase in school census and class sizes. Standard F: The proposed site plan does create hazards related to traffic and parking and poses safety hazards to those residing in and working in the neighborhood as well as within the Glens Falls City School zones. The potential of stacking at the Ridge & Quaker Roads intersection near the Cumberland Farms ingress/egress poses a hazard and warrants further study.Jackson Heights Elementary School Zone will experience greater traffic and parking at times of drop-off and pickup, as will the neighborhood surrounding the Glens Falls Middle and High Schools." 26 (Queensbury Planning Board 12/19/2023) MR. TRAVER-Okay. Thank you. All right, and we will take additional public comment when we next hear this application after this evening. So the next item for us to consider is the State Environmental Quality Review. I know we had some discussion of that previously. We got a lot of, and before we do that,obviously we got a lot of public comment which you have heard a lot of concern about traffic. These are predominantly site plan issues that we'll have to address,should we get to that stage. I was particularly interested in the comments about pedestrians and the need for sidewalks. I don't know if you've thought about it. I'm sure you've thought about it,but it's something you might want to consider for the site plan portion of it. Noise. We've already talked about stormwater. Traffic. I know there was not a specific traffic study done for this project, but if you have some estimates of numbers and so on, that might be useful for looking at that. Did you have anything else you'd like to add after hearing the public comment? MR. MEYER-Nothing really specifically. Just as you reiterated a few times,the stormwater generated on this site is going to remain on this site. The environmental foundations that are proposed, you know, nothing's really going into the ground. Everything that's coming off the roof is going to remain on this site. MR. TRAVER-Right. Okay. All right. So I mentioned some of the main issues that were brought up this evening. Obviously there will be additional public comment in other meetings. So be prepared to address those. With that I guess I'll bring to the Board's attention the SEQR resolution. Do we feel comfortable in moving ahead with a SEQR resolution at this stage? MR. MAGOWAN-I have a question on Mr. Meyer's statement there, and you brought it up a couple of times,and I've talked to LaBella,and I had questions in the past on the engineering and their practices and what they do, and our engineer reviews what has been submitted to make sure that everything is there, but there is no review in the sense of them doing the engineering themselves, because that's not what they're hired to do. They're just making sure. MR. TRAVER-They're reviewing what's submitted to them. MR. MAGOWAN-What's submitted to them,but that does not say it's going to work or it's not going to work. That is up to the engineer that submitted it,and I know you put a lot of faith in that. MR. TRAVER-Actually,no,the Town Engineer does review what is proposed and what they say they will do to handle whatever the engineering issue is,in this case stormwater,and the Town Designated Engineer does say whether or not, they do adjudicate whether or not, in their opinion, those numbers make sense and that process will work, and we do get that engineering signoff as a requirement before any approval, independent of whatever we do. MR. MAGOWAN-That's your opinion. MR. TRAVER-No,that's a matter of policy. It's not an opinion. MR. MAGOWAN-Well,I disagree with that,from what I have seen in past practices. I'm just concerned with this,but you have stated that you're going to guarantee that the stormwater's going to stay on this property,but yet we have an overflow that comes out of the pond and goes to the west side of the property. So that to me is not retaining the stormwater on this property,which in return's going to raise the water level which in return is going to raise it across a larger area,but,you know. MR. TRAVER-Well the applicant has represented and has submitted plans to our independent engineer that it does. If you disagree with those findings and,you know,what is proposed,you're certainly entitled to vote no or whatever. Myself, I can't speak for everybody on the Board,but my own practice has been that the Town Designated Engineer represents us from the Town standpoint, and I have faith in their analysis. So if you don't,you're certainly entitled not to. MR. MAGOWAN-Well I'm just going over what I was told,how they review and do the process. So I've stated this in the past and I'm just stating it again tonight. I've been in the field for 40 years,all right,and I've seen a lot of things and I've worked with a bunch of different engineers,and I've questioned things,but I'll vote the way I feel that needs to be voted for me. MR. TRAVER-Thank you. Anything else regarding the SEQR? MR.DIXON-Mr.Chairman,I guess I'll raise the concern again regarding traffic. I've heard that numerous times from the residents out here. MR. TRAVER-And we don't have a traffic study. MR. DIXON-And we don't have a traffic study. I guess,you know, that perfect world, I guess I'd like to see a traffic study before we do anything with SEQR,just to either give us piece of mind,validate what one group is saying or the other group. I know it stalls the project, certainly, and we don't want to do that, 27 (Queensbury Planning Board 12/19/2023) but we have to do due diligence here as well,too, and I think that's one stumbling point. I think you can address the sidewalks. MR. TRAVER-Yes,that's a site plan issue. MR. DIXON-I think there's a lot of site plan issues that can resolve many of these items, and then we're going to spill into Item Number Two as far as recommendation for zoning change, and that's going to be a tougher one,because it either could remain commercial and a Cumberland Farms can go in there,or it can be re-zoned,by recommendation,and it can be residential. MR. TRAVER-It can be any number of things. MR. DIXON-But I don't even think you can get to that until you can get past SEQR. MR. TRAVER-Right. Okay, and you're feeling that you would like,prior to a full SEQR analysis,to have a traffic study? MR. DIXON-That would be my recommendation, and this Board knows this is my last meeting here. So I don't want to be an obstruction,but I don't want to give anybody a free pass either. MR. TRAVER-No,well you're still wearing your Planning Board hat for the duration of the evening. MR. DEEB-I'd like to make a comment, and I agree with you,but listening to Mead's family member. I forgot your first name,I'm sorry. MRS. MEAD PENDERGRASS-Marianne. MR.DEEB-Marianne. From her statements,it sounds to me like there was a lot more traffic when Mead's was there then. MR. TRAVER-However it was different traffic. It was largely trucks. MR. DEEB-Trucks. It was a retail business. There were people going in and out every day. I mean,you have people living there. MR. TRAVER-So you don't feel there's a need for a traffic study? MR. DEEB-I don't know about the need for it. There could be,but I just feel that this current project is not going to generate as much as what was there prior. That's just an opinion. That's all it is. I have no facts to base that on. MR. TRAVER-You have the statement from the prior owner. MR. DEEB-But I think Mike wants to make sure that we have it down. MR. TRAVER-Yes, again,we're not talking about site plan. We're talking about the impacts,right. So traffic is clearly an impact. So my question to you,David, and to also the rest of the Board,is the concern, and we heard a lot of concern from public comment regarding traffic or potential traffic. So I put it out to the Board, do other Board members feel they need a specific traffic study or a professional analysis of the potential traffic impact before we do the SEQR review? MR. ETU-Yes. MR. STARK-Same here. I think it would be helpful. MR. TRAVER-Okay. I would agree with that. I'm comfortable with that. So,Laura,back to,a question, then, for Staff, if we cannot do SEQR this evening because we're asking for, it sounds like, additional information,so presumably we cannot then make a recommendation to the Town Board because we don't have environmental impacts. MRS. MOORE-That's correct. MR. TRAVER-Okay. MR.MEYER-Could I potentially let's say propose an alternative? We certainly heard the questions about traffic,and,you know,we know that there's going to be cars coming and going. We have an idea of what the trip counts are going to look like. What we don't know at this point in time is what the ultimate zoning change will look like. We know what we would like it to look like. We know the design of the project we would like will look like,but it wouldn't be improper from a SEQR standpoint to move forward 2S (Queensbury Planning Board 12/19/2023) with the EAF,complete it,tell us now that,you know,any site plan is not going to go any further without a robust traffic study which we can do in the mid-term, and to the extent that the traffic study reveals significant issues, you can always re-open SEQR. You can always re-examine that result and you can always make changes as part of the site plan application. Whatever you decide now doesn't necessarily, later. MR. TRAVER-I hear what you're saying,but what I'm hearing from the Board is we don't want to retro- fit a SEQR resolution in the sense that we want to have the information before we move forward, and I understand that you're proposing an alternative. I'm not sure that we've ever done it that way, and I'm not sure in the long run it's going to help either the public or yourself in terms of the process here. I think it's actually going to be more expeditious to get the traffic information so that we can move ahead as proposed with SEQR and a recommendation to the Town Board,rather than try to,well, and I'm hearing very definitely that the Board will not vote on a SEQR resolution unless we have that traffic information. MR. MEYER-I was just trying to move. MR. TRAVER-Yes,I appreciate what you're saying. So the next question is timing. Laura,how long do we take for getting the requested information? MRS. MOORE-So we haven't finalized the January agenda yet. So the applicant could potentially be on the 16`h or 23rd,but I need to know information about traffic and things like that pretty much by either this Friday or by next Tuesday which would be the 26`h so that we can finalize our agendas,knowing that they can accomplish a traffic study. They don't have to get it done. I just need to know what timeframe you're going to get it,so that I can send it off to engineering. So, again. MR. TRAVER-Yes. I think it's going to be hard for them to even engage the services to enable that study to be done I think in that short a period of time. What do you gentlemen think in terms of how long it would take you to get that information back to the Town? MR.HUNTINGTON-The full study or just someone engaged,I guess? MR. TRAVER-Well we need the study before we can do SEQR. MR. HUNTINGTON-So the study, I mean we use a sub consultant for our traffic studies. With the holiday coming up,I think the likelihood of them engaging before the New Year is pretty minimal. Maybe during the week after Christmas we may get a proposal from them, and it all really rests on what their workload,schedule is. I mean we've seen them happen as quickly as a month. Sometimes it's two for the studies. MR.TRAVER-So theoretically,Laura,we could do a tabling to like the first February date maybe and then we can adjust that as needed,based on the response they get from their support staff? MRS. MOORE-Yes, and so information would be due by January 15`h MR. TRAVER-Okay, and I apologize I do not have a 2024 February calendar. Can you give me the dates? MRS. MOORE-So the first February meeting date would be February 20`h MR. TRAVER-The 20`h. Okay. So to clarify for the Board, and I guess the public as well for public comment purposes,what we have been reviewing is we did accept Lead Agency. Sothis Board is now the Lead Agency on this project for environmental purposes and so on. We then took some limited comment and the public hearing will remain open throughout this process. The next objective for this evening was to look at the State Environmental Quality Review,and we found that in order to complete that review we needed additional information regarding the impacts of the potential traffic of this application. So we are going to be tabling this application until the February 20`h,2024 meeting to allow the applicant to go and engage staff to conduct a traffic study so that they can submit to the Town and therefore give us the potential traffic impacts should this project be completed. Then when they come back in February, presumably we will have the information to judge the environmental impact of this proposed project and we can handle the State Environmental Quality Review resolution at the Planning Board level, which would either say that the plan as proposed can manage whatever minor impacts there are, or if it's adjudicated that there are significant impacts, then additional work may need to be done to do environmental analysis, but we're not at that stage yet. We'll be reviewing that in February. So other questions,comments from members of the Board? Is everybody clear on what we're going to be doing? MR. LONGACKER-Should we also ask just to get a copy of that SHPO letter> I know you can go to their website and see for yourself,but if we got the official,the SHPO letter and the official copy of DEC saying that there's no critical or endangered species there. 29 (Queensbury Planning Board 12/19/2023) MRS. MOORE-I don't know,just based on the conversation, I don't know if it's triggered, if the normal resource generator indicated no,which it did. MR. LONGACKER-SHPO, though, I think, does. I think you've still got to get a letter from SHPO. I always had to. MRS.MOORE-I don't know. . We'll evaluate that. I'm just not sure,once it's generated in that automatic system,if they're triggered to include that in SWPPP if it's already generated. MR. LONGACKER-Not just the SWPPP,but for the EAF. MR. TRAVER-Yes, if it's automatically generated there might be some boilerplate that could be downloaded or something,but that was in the engineering comments as well. They noted the absence of those two. MRS. MOORE-Yes,but the automatic generator, I don't know if you want to explain it further,but if it generates the word "no" through it, it's a check box. It doesn't necessarily trigger them to go towards SHPO to ask them for it if it's already generated a"no". MR. HUNTINGTON-That's correct. I was referring to it earlier. If you have multiple no's on all the environmental questions off of the EAF, which we do, we had the DEC interpret this back to us. The engineer comments were related to the SWPPP specifically,but the multiple no's count as the endangered species,the historical places,and the archeologically sensitive areas. So there's no need to pursue a further study at that point in time. If we had yes to any one of those,then certainly we would have to reach out, but we had no's across the board. MR. TRAVER-All right. Well we will get further clarification on that if needed I'm sure. So with that we'll need a tabling resolution for purposes of submitting a traffic study for further SEQR analysis until the February 20 meeting. MR. DIXON-All right,with information due by the deadline. MR. HUNTINGTON-They analyze the queuing. They analyze the trip generation. They analyze the surrounding intersection. MR. TRAVER-They'll rate the intersections and all that. Yes. MRS. MOORS Just for purposes of the minutes, we couldn't hear you down this way, Nate. Could you repeat that,and if we could have just Nate speaking. MR. ETU-I just was asking if the traffic study's modeling would show for stacking, any concern with stacking at Meadowbrook and Quaker and it was Quaker and they said yes. MRS. MOORE-Thank you. MR. TRAVER-Okay. Are you ready for that resolution? MR. DIXON-1 am. So on your plans,you show an additional 16 spots on that proposed stabilized turf overflow parking spaces. So just make sure that that's also incorporated,if you feel that people are going to be coming in using the recreational area, and I think that would be helpful for the Board. RESOLUTION TABLING SEQR SP#69-2023 P OF Z CHANGE 1-2023 FWW 12-2023 MEAD'S MOTION TO TABLE SEQR, SITE PLAN 69-2023, PETITION OF ZONE CHANGE 1-2023 &z FRESHWATER WETLANDS 12-2023 FOOTHILLS BUILDERS/MEAD'S. Introduced by Michael Dixon who moved for its adoption,seconded by Nathan Etu. Tabled until the February 20,2024 Planning Board meeting with information due by January 16,2024 so the applicant can provide a traffic study for potential impacts. Duly adopted this 19`h day of December 2023 by the following vote: AYES: Mr. Stark,Mr. Magowan,Mr. Etu, Mr. Deeb, Mr. Dixon,Mr. Longacker, Mr. Traver NOES: NONE MR. TRAVER-We'll see you. MR.HUNTINGTON-Thank you. 30 (Queensbury Planning Board 12/19/2023) MR. MEYER-Thank you. MR. TRAVER-Before we adjourn,I just wanted to say, this is our last meeting of the year, obviously, and I just,we're losing two Planning Board members, Mr. Etu and Mr. Dixon are going on to higher office. I want to remind both of them that although you may not be sitting on the Planning Board you're still representing us and we appreciate the service that you have provided the Planning Board over the time that you've been here and look forward to having you go on to represent us in a larger context,I guess. So thank you very much for that, and also congratulations to Ellen and Fritz who last night were voted as regular members of the Planning Board and starting next month will be sitting here as regular members. So you'll be going from alternate to regular members. So we appreciate that very much. And to the Board in general just thank you for everything that you've done the whole year. I think we did well this year and hopefully next year we will do as well. MRS. MOORE-I have one item. I apologize. There was a public comment for the Tracey Holdings and I just want to have it read into the record, and it was a neighbor and she described that information,but I just want to read it into the record so it's in the record. MR. TRAVER-Okay. (SP#71-2023 Tracey Holdings,LLC Cont'd) MRS.MOORE-This is for the Tracey Holdings project. "My name is Jim Muller and I live at 16 Minnesota Ave.,Queensbury. I am in favor of Tracey Road removing the pine trees,and adding nice bushes as a buffer at their location at 2S0 Corinth Road. Previously, I had asked for them to remove them for years with previous owners,but nothing was done. When asked this year, they told me they would get the proper approval. We have had nothing but limbs, sap,needles and pine cones all over our yard and on our roof. We were lucky earlier this year when the top of one of those large trees came off and went the other way onto their property instead of on mine. It would have crushed our house. Currently I am caring for my S9 year old mom who uses a walker&oxygen to get around. I worry about her having her at the house with all the trees. Thank you. Jim Muller" MR. TRAVER-Okay. Thank you for that. All right. With that,if there's nothing further,we'll entertain a motion to adjourn. MOTION TO ADJOURN THE QUEENSBURY PLANNING BOARD MEETING OF DECEMBER 19TI,2023,Introduced by David Deeb who moved for its adoption,seconded by Nathan Etu: Duly adopted this 19`h day of December,2023,by the following vote: AYES: Mr. Deeb,Mr. Dixon,Mr. Longacker, Mr. Stark,Mr. Magowan,Mr. Etu,Mr. Traver NOES: NONE MR. TRAVER-We stand adjourned. Thank you,everyone. See you next month. On motion meeting was adjourned. RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED, Stephen Traver,Chairman 31