Loading...
04-16-2024 (Queensbury Planning Board 04/16/2024) QUEENSBURYPLANNINGBOARD MEETING FIRSTREGULAR MEETING APRIL I61r,2024 INDEX Site Plan No.13-2024 Redbud Development 2. REQUEST TO TABLE Tax Map No.226.19-1-S2 Site Plan No.73-2023 Lauren&Christian Freyer 2. Freshwater Wetlands 13-2023 Tax Map No.227.14-1-17 FURTHER TABLING Site Plan No.5-2023 Geraldine Eberlein 3. ZBA RECOMMENDATION Tax Map No.227.17-1-25,227.17-1-24 (septic) Site Plan No.11-2024 Patten Property Development,LLC 9. ZBA RECOMMENDATION Tax Map No.2S9.11-1-23 Site Plan No.12-2024 Patten Property Development,LLC 13. ZBA RECOMMENDATION Tax Map No.2S9.11-1-59.312 Site Plan No.16-2024 Paul Zemanek 14. ZBA RECOMMENDATION Tax Map No.2S9.10-1-52.2 Site Plan No.17-2024 Victor&Terry Celadon 20. ZBA RECOMMENDATION Tax Map No.2S9.10-1-15 Subdivision No.2-2024 Seeley Machine,Inc. 22. PRELIMINARY STAGE Tax Map No. 309.1E-1-1 Subdivision No. 3-2024 FINAL STAGE ZBA RECOMMENDATION Site Plan No.15-2024 Hudson Headwaters Health Network 24. Tax Map No. 30S.16-2-4.3 THESE ARE NOT OFFICIALLY ADOPTED MINUTES AND ARE SUBJECT TO BOARD AND STAFF REVISIONS. REVISIONS WILL APPEAR ON THE FOLLOWING MONTH'S MINUTES(IF ANY)AND WILL STATE SUCH APPROVAL OF SAID MINUTES. 1 (Queensbury Planning Board 04/16/2024) QUEENSBURY PLANNING BOARD MEETING FIRST REGULAR MEETING APRIL 16TK,2024 7.00 P.M. MEMBERS PRESENT STEPHEN TRAVER,CHAIRMAN ELLEN MC DEVITT,VICE CHAIRMAN FRITZ STEFANZICK,SECRETARY WARREN LONGACKER BRADY STARK DAVID DEEB BRAD MAGOWAN 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, April 16`h, 2024. This is our first meeting for the month of April and our seventh meeting thus far for the year. If you want to make note of the illuminated exit signs. Those are the emergency exits in case we need them. If you have a cell phone or other electronic device, if you would either turn it off or turn the ringer off so it doesn't get recorded as we do record the meeting minutes, and we also ask that,if you want to have a conversation amongst yourselves,if you would just go to the outer lobby to have that discussion we'd appreciate that, again, so that it doesn't confuse the recording of the meeting minutes for us. We have a couple of Administrative Items,but I did want to explain one thing to the Board that I recently came to realize. As we've considered conditions on approvals,we have,and I have said this many times. When there are discussions with the applicants,as we obviously frequently do, and the applicant make representations,we have concerns about various things and they say okay we will do that. I have often said,when the question comes up if it needs to be conditioned or not,if it's not a detailed discussion about a specific item,you've all heard me say,no,it's part of the minutes,we don't need to make that a condition. Well,I have learned that if we want something to be enforceable so that it can at least e absolute, it does need to be a condition of approval. So if it's in the minutes and, you know, we have discussions with applicants all the time obviously and we've had a very good experience,I mean most folks make representation on the record that generally stands. However,if we want it to be rock solid,it needs to be in the resolution, and that has been an error on my part for which I apologize. So I wanted to share that with everybody to make sure we understood that going forward. MR. MAGOWAN-Mr. Chairman,thank you. I appreciate that if we've discussed that. It's a team effort. We can't always rely on the secretary to get it all down. MR. TRAVER-And for me it's typically been,it's a subjective thing,but if it's a concern that we have and it's a concern,we discuss it with the applicant,but if it's not something that's detailed,number of trees or feet or something like that,you know,very often we've said,well,you know,it's in the minutes,we don't have to put it in the resolution,and that's still the case, as long as it's not something that's absolute,but if want 1000/o guaranteed that whatever that discussion is going to be followed up on,then it should be added as a condition and that is something that's enforceable by the Town. So moving on, we have a couple of Administrative Items. The first is approval of minutes, and this is for the February meetings,February 20 and February 27`h. Does anyone have any questions or concerns regarding either of those meeting minutes? I believe we have a draft resolution. APPROVAL OF MINUTES February 20`h,2024 February 27`h,2024 MOTION TO APPROVE THE QUEENSBURY PLANNING BOARD MEETING MINUTES OF FEBRUARY 20`h&z FEBRUARY 27h,2024,Introduced by Fritz Stefanzick who moved for its adoption, seconded by Ellen McDevitt: Duly adopted this 16`h day of April,2024,by the following vote: AYES: Mr. Deeb,Mrs. McDevitt,Mr. Longacker,Mr. Stark,Mr. Magowan,Mr. Stefanzick,Mr. Traver NOES: NONE MR. TRAVER-Next we have Site Plan 13-2024,a tabling to the May 16 meeting. Laura? 2 (Queensbury Planning Board 04/16/2024) ADMINISTRATIVE ITEM: SP 13-2024 REDBUD DEVELOPMENT—TABLE TO MAY 16,2024 MRS. MOORE-This application needs to be tabled as they're at the Zoning Board of Appeals for review prior to coming back to the Planning Board. So they need to be tabled to the May 16`h, and they have already turned in their information. MR.TRAVER-Okay. All right. Any questions,comments on that tabling? All right. We have a resolution to that effect. RESOLUTION TABLING SP#13-2024 REDBUD DEVELOPMENT Applicant proposes to construct a 565 sq. ft.pavilion addition to an existing home and to alter two of the home's dormers. Project work includes improving the site's permeability, a new planting plan, updated patio walkway areas, retaining wall, and new boulder walls. The project also includes existing and new stormwater management. The shoreline area will be improved with plantings and a retaining wall. Pursuant to chapters 179-3-040, 179-6-065, 179-6-080 &r 179-6-050, site plan for new floor area in a CEA and hard surfacing within 50 ft. of the shoreline shall be subject to Planning Board review and approval. MOTION TO TABLE SITE PLAN 13-2024 REDBUD DEVELOPMENT. Introduced by Fritz Stefanzick who moved for its adoption,seconded by Ellen McDevitt. Tabled until the May 16,2024 Planning Board meeting. Duly adopted this 16`h day of April2024 by the following vote: AYES: Mrs. McDevitt,Mr. Longacker,Mr. Stark,Mr. Magowan, Mr. Stefanzick,Mr. Deeb, Mr. Traver NOES: NONE MR. TRAVER-Okay. Next we move to our regular agenda. The first section is Tabled Items and the first item is Lauren&Christian Freyer. TABLED ITEMS: SITE PLAN NO.73-2023 FRESHWATER WETLANDS 13-2023 SEQR TYPE: TYPE II. LAUREN &z CHRISTIAN FREYER. AGENT(S): RU HOLMES, PLLC. OWNER(S): SAME AS APPLICANT. ZONING: WR. LOCATION: PULVER ROAD. (REVISED) APPLICANT PROPOSES TO CONSTRUCT A 1,573 SQ. FT. FOOTPRINT HOME WITH A FLOOR AREA OF 2,874 SQ. FT. THE PROJECT INCLUDES ASSOCIATED SITE WORK FOR INCREASED PERMEABILITY, STORMWATER MANAGEMENT AND SHORELINE PLANTING PLAN. THE SEPTIC SYSTEM APPROVED BY LOCAL BOH IS PROPOSED FOR CONSTRUCTION ACROSS PULVER ROAD AND CONNECTING TO ADJOINING PROPERTY BY THE SAME OWNER. PURSUANT TO CHAPTER 94, 179-3-040, 179-6-065, &z 179-6-050, SITE PLAN FOR A NEW FLOOR AREA IN A CEA,HARD SURFACING WITHIN 50 FT.OF THE SHORELINE AND WORK WITHIN 100 FT. OF WETLANDS SHALL BE SUBJECT TO PLANNING BOARD REVIEW AND APPROVAL. CROSS REFERENCE: AV 45-2023. WARREN CO. REFERRAL: NOVEMBER 2023. SITE INFORMATION: CEA,WETLANDS,APA,LGPC. LOT SIZE: .37 ACRES. TAX MAP NO.227.14-1-17. SECTION: 179-3-040,179-6-065,179-6-050,CHAPTER 94. MR. TRAVER-And I understand that they're asking to be tabled until June,Laura? MRS. MOORE-Correct. They're still pulling together some information to share with the Board and at this point they haven't gotten it all together. So they're hoping to submit by May to be on June's agenda. MR. TRAVER-Okay, and I have a date of June IS. Is that correct? MRS. MOORE-Correct. MR. TRAVER-Okay. So prior to tabling to June I8, any questions, comments regarding that tabling? Okay. We have a draft resolution. RESOLUTION TABLING SP#73-2023 FWW 13-2023 LAUREN&CHRISTIAN FREYER (Revised) Applicant proposes to construct a 1,573 sq. ft. footprint home with a floor area of 2,874 sq. ft. The project includes associated site work for increased permeability, stormwater management and shoreline planting plan. The septic system approved by local BOH is proposed for construction across 3 (Queensbury Planning Board 04/16/2024) Pulver Road and connecting to adjoining property by the same owner.Pursuant to Chapter 94,179-3-040, 179-6-065&179-6-050, site plan for new floor area in a CEA,hard surfacing within 50 ft. of the shoreline and work within 100 ft.of wetlands shall be subject to Planning Board review and approval. MOTION TO TABLE SITE PLAN 73-2023 &z FRESHWATER WETLANDS 13-2023 LAUREN &z CHRISTIAN FREYER. Introduced by Fritz Stefanzick who moved for its adoption, seconded by Brady Stark. Tabled until the June 1S,2024 Planning Board meeting with information due by May 15,2024. Duly adopted this IS"day of April 2024 by the following vote: AYES: Mr. Longacker,Mr. Stark,Mr. Magowan,Mr. Stefanzick, Mr. Deeb,Mrs. McDevitt,Mr. Traver NOES: NONE MR. TRAVER-All right, and the next item on our agenda is Geraldine Eberlein. This is Site Plan 5-2023. This is for a recommendation to the Zoning Board of Appeals. SITE PLAN NO.5-2023 SEQR TYPE: TYPE 11. GERALDINE EBERLEIN. AGENT(S): STUDIO A. OWNER(S): SAME AS APPLICANT. ZONING: WR. LOCATION: 12 SEELYE ROAD NORTH. (REVISED) APPLICANT PROPOSES DEMOLITION OF AN EXISTING HOME AND GUEST COTTAGE TO CONSTRUCT A NEW HOME WITH A FOOTPRINT OF 2,411 SQ.FT.,AN OUTDOOR KITCHEN OF 234 SQ. FT. AND A NEW FLOOR AREA OF 3,343 SQ. FT. THE PROJECT INCLUDES ASSOCIATED SITE WORK FOR NEW PERMEABLE DRIVEWAY, STORMWATER MANAGEMENT AND SHORELINE LANDSCAPING. THE PROJECT INCLUDES INSTALLATION OF A NEW SEPTIC SYSTEM ON THE ADJOINING PROPERTY. PURSUANT TO CHAPTER 179-3-040,179-6-065,179-6-050,SITE PLAN FOR NEW FLOOR AREA IN A CEA AND HARD SURFACING WITHIN 50 FT. OF THE SHORELINE SHALL BE SUBJECT TO PLANNING BOARD REVIEW AND APPROVAL. VARIANCE: RELIEF IS SOUGHT FOR SETBACKS,FLOOR AREA AND PERMEABILITY. THE PLANNING BOARD SHALL PROVIDE A RECOMMENDATION TO THE ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS. CROSS REFERENCE: AV 70- 2007,AV 4-2023. WARREN CO.REFERRAL: FEBRUARY 2023. SITE INFORMATION: CEA, APA,LGPC. LOT SIZE: 0.31 ACRE. TAX MAP NO.227.17-1-25,227-17-1-24(SEPTIC). SECTION: 179-3-040,179-6-065,179-6-050. JON ZAPPER&r KATIE LOFFMAN,REPRESENTING APPLICANT,PRESENT MR. TRAVER-Laura? MRS. MOORE-So this application is to demolish the existing home and guest cottage to construct a new home. It was tabled at the last meeting for additional information and at this point the applicant has increased the permeability to 73.60/o and has reduced the floor area to 23.S%. MR. TRAVER-Okay. Thank you. Good evening. MR. ZAPPER-Good evening, everyone. For the record,Jon Lapper with Katie Loffman from Studio A. I apologize. I wasn't here at the last meeting. I was out of town, and there's a little bit more of a story of the history of the project that I'd like to tell you before we talk about the specific variances. We've been, Gerry, the applicant,is right behind me. We've been working on the project for about a year, took that long to get through the Town Board of Health for the septic variance. So this is,you know,a small cottage on roughly, or a little more than a quarter of an acre parcel. Gerry's owned it since the early 2000's,but the house was built in 1907. So it's a 114 year old cottage that needs to be replaced,and a 114 year old septic system that may or may not be failing,but it certainly needs to be replaced. So there's nowhere on the site to put a septic system, obviously, based upon the size and proximity to the lake. So Gerry was able to negotiate an agreement with her neighbors,the Recces,who are on the street side of her property,behind her farther from the lake, and they had a septic system that needed to be replaced. So what was designed was an advanced treatment unit, a Fuji Clean system, with two raised beds that, because of high groundwater,that was the only thing that would work. So we have a complete signoff at this point from the Town Engineer on both stormwater and on septic, but the neighbors to the south were concerned, even though they have the identical raised bed system along the road,and really it was because they didn't want to have these two mounds on either side of the road,you know,looking like there. As part of that negotiation, we agreed to nicely landscape it and it got moved away a little bit,but more important than that,everybody was concerned about groundwater,just because of the high water table. So as part of this project,which wasn't explained to you yet,there's a curtain drain being installed along the driveway that leads from Seeley Road to this property, and that is intended to drain the groundwater from that whole field,which gets kind of wet because it comes down the hill,you know,up the hill where the new septic, and hopefully the Town sewer system is going to be built,but this area takes the stormwater because it's 4 (Queensbury Planning Board 04/16/2024) lower than that. So as part of this project, to make the Town Board happy and to make the neighbors happy,we're installing a 50 foot long curtain drain which will drain the stormwater from that whole field and it should help everybody. If we wait a year,we probably wouldn't need to do a raised mound system, but it's just being careful,being cautious. So after it was designed to that level, the Planning Board was satisfied, excuse me,the Town Board was satisfied. The Town Engineer was satisfied. So just as part of this project, septic is being moved way away from the lake and it probably shouldn't be where it is now, and we're addressing this groundwater issue which should help that whole neighborhood. So now I get back to a cottage that needs to be replaced, and last time this was presented last month, a few of the Planning Board members thought that the relief requested was a little bit much. When it's percentages, floor area ratio, on a small lot,it always looks like a lot because it's a small number of square feet. A few square feet makes a big difference percentage wise,but at the same time we heard you. So the project was, the house was reduced in size along the south side,as Laura mentioned when we opened up. So we're now at approximately 730/o permeability which isn't quite 75,but close, and the floor area ratio is up 24. So it's not 22,but it's much less than it was last time. Some pavers were removed along the lake and a storage building is being removed. So this was tightened up to ask for less relief, not a smaller house, but on balance when you look at moving the septic away from the lake and dealing with stormwater,I think this is a big improvement for that part of the neighborhood and it's not like Gerry's trying to build a mansion here,just slightly more than what she can have on that lot. So with that, I'm just going to ask Katie to walk you through the site plan. MS.LOFFMAN-So we've located the house in that same location. We only took that south portion of the foundation line and moved it up two feet. So that did increase that side yard setback by two feet from there,and that fire pit patio area that was down by the lakeside,that was removed and will just be a grassed lawn area where you can put lawn chairs or a portable fire pit for entertainment. Otherwise the site plans didn't change from what was presented to you last meeting. MR. TRAVER-Okay. Yes, I was going through some of the history, and I was astounded at how many times this has been looked at by the Planning Board, this is the fourth time, I believe, and for the Zoning Board this will be the 12`h time. Can you talk a little bit about the history, how this project has evolved from the first concept to where we are today,in terms of the setbacks and so on? MR. ZAPPER-Most of what we've done is getting the septic variance,you know, doing this raised system to take the neighbor's lot and Gerry's lot together to do a combined system. So those are most of the changes. The changes on this site were really what you had asked last meeting to tighten it up and what Katie just explained,just making the house smaller,but I also want to mention the house shoreline setback ordinarily would be 50, but of course in Queensbury it's the average of the two houses. So one of the houses next door is much closer to the lake. So it's supposed to be 65.77 which, you know, on this lot there's nowhere to put it. So we're still beyond 50 feet back from the lake. We're 54 feet,but in this case we couldn't get to the 65.77 and still be on the typical 50 foot. There's a couple of houses to the south that are in pretty terrible condition that really need to be replaced. So the setbacks aren't the real issue. It's the size of the lot. MR. TRAVER-Sure. Okay, and a reminder for the Board. Tonight, we're really just looking at the variances. This is a referral to the Zoning Board of Appeals to make comments to them regarding the variances and that theoretically if those variances were granted,they would come back to us for Site Plan Review in the context of those variances. So questions,comments from members of the Board? MR. STEFANZIK-I have a comment. So one of the items,you know,my concern when I look at projects on the lake, any lake,is the floor area ratio. The floor area ratio sets the footprint,impacts the setbacks, shoreline, permeability, and I just see that there's a trend of building bigger houses on smaller lots, and, you know,I think in the aggregate if everybody started to do that,that can't be good for the lake. I realize that you've done continuous improvement on that,but I mean I'd still like to see if you could sharpen your pencil. You're still a little bit under 100/o of the requirements for floor area,you know, and if you could sharpen your pencil a bit,you know,I think that'll help by not only meeting the floor area ratio,but it could also help on the setbacks. I'd like to see if you could still sharpen your pencil. MR.ZAPPER-We certainly came back,you know,making it smaller from last time to do that. It's just it's a year round house. MR. STEFANZIK-I understand. MRS. MC DEVITT-I also have concerns about the permeability. It's really gone down. MR. ZAPPER-So on that one, Ellen, because we do have the Town Engineer's signoff on stormwater, I think we're,you know, on balance we're doing a lot for the property,you know,the answer is, of course, you have to comply with stormwater, but compared to what's there now, stormwater's being treated, which it isn't, and that,you know, 22 to 23.5%, it's really not a lot of square feet. It's really, again,just because we're only at 13,000 square foot lot. 5 (Queensbury Planning Board 04/16/2024) MRS. MC DEVITT-So what is the total permeability that exists now versus what the proposed is. MS. LOFFMAN-So,existing,the total site permeability is 760/o. We're proposing it to be 73.60/o. MRS. MC DEVITT-73.6. And then what happens with the septic? So it's kind of being shared. Is that, legally,what happens,if,when both parties sell? MR. ZAPPER-So it's a deeded easement. So this lot will always have the right to use that site to maintain it,in perpetuity. We had to present that to the Town Board. Good question. MR. STEFANZIK-So even if the house next to you is sold,that agreement continues. MR. ZAPPER-Yes,it's recorded in the Clerk's Office, and they're in the same mound. MR. TRAVER-You'll probably need that requirement to get it approved. MR. ZAPPER-Yes. MR. TRAVER-Other questions,comments? MR. MAGOWAN-My question. I'm looking at the L-110 from December drawing, and then there's the one that came with this package. I'm kind of reviewing. Where did you say you shrunk it down? MR. ZAPPER-On the south side of the house,you've got two feet we're taking off the whole length of the house on the south side. MR. TRAVER-The south side setback is going to be reduced by two feet. MR. ZAPPER-We think we did a lot with what we had to work with here,you know, recognizing it's a small lot and we couldn't get to 22 into 75,but we got pretty close. MR.STEFANZIK-On the front side where it used to be,or right now there's one foot setback,do you need all that 13 and a half? I mean by moving that you'd improve the setback to the shoreline. MR. ZAPPER-The reason to push it,that's the garage, and the reason to push it back was to keep,was to maintain the 54 from the lake, and if we were at 50,like everybody else would be in that zone,we'd have another four feet,but we thought it was better to push it back and stay away from the lake, and that isn't really front setback. It's really to the side of the neighbor's house. MR. STEFANZIK-Right. MR. MAGOWAN-Can you point to that south side where you shrunk? Because I'm looking at it with a magnifying glass here and I see the same numbers. MS. LOFFMAN-So it's this side of the house right here. This dimension increased to 34 feet where previously that was at 30 and a half feet and the reason that decreased a little more than two feet was because there also used to be a bump out right there that we took off too. MR. DEEB-So you were asked to make modifications and you did. MS. LOFFMAN-Yes. MR. DEEB-Okay. MR. TRAVER-Other questions,comments regarding the variances? MR. MAGOWAN-This is ridiculous to look at. MRS. MOORE-You should have an 11 by 17. MR. MAGOWAN-This is the one that came in the. MRS. MOORE-The packet, and then you were provided tonight with an 11 by 17. Well,no,that's why I have a magnifying glass, to be able to see it a little better. I mean I'm looking at this one here is from December. MRS. MOORE-So what I have up on the screen is the one from December, and it shows 30.5 and as described it shows that bump out, and so then the one that they just showed is this one where there's no bump out and it's shifted. 6 (Queensbury Planning Board 04/16/2024) MR. TRAVER-Yes,it went from 30 something to 34. MR. MAGOWAN-So when I look at the building footprint there on the site development data,what you proposed before was 1305 and the new proposed square foot addition,where you're adding the 1229,sorry, 1029. MR. ZAPPER-I'm not sure what the question is because it's a tear down. So it's all. MR. MAGOWAN-Yes,no,I'm sorry. MR. TRAVER-So the existing square footage in the site development data is the existing old cottage. Correct? MR. ZAPPER-Yes. MR. TRAVER-And then proposed addition,and the new total is the new project? MR. ZAPPER-Yes. MR. ZAPPER-And again,that was a cottage and this is a home,but it's still modest. MR. STEFANZIK-And from my notes and reading the minutes, your original, your proposal I think last month,the footprint was 2,411,and now it's 2,334. You've improved it by 7S square feet. MS. LOFFMAN-Yes. MRS. MC DEVITT-And there's still now an outdoor kitchen and bar and also ,yes and a seated area that is outdoor on permeable pavers. Is that what I'm understanding? MS. LOFFMAN-Yes,that's correct. MRS. MOORE-So this area here that's been removed,is that what you're saying? MS. LOFFMAN-Yes,it will just be on lawn now. MR. TRAVER-Okay. So this is, again,on the referral to the Zoning Board of Appeals on these variances. Let's poll the Board why don't we. Warren? MR. LONGACKER-In my opinion they've improved a postage stamp sized lot, setbacks is what it is. They've reduced the size of the house with that. So I'm okay with the variances that are being requested, and I think just during regular Site Plan I'll have some questions about the driveway and how that's actually going to work. MR. TRAVER-But the variances you would be okay with the relief? MR.LONGACKER-I'm actually okay with them. It would be just like two percent,with the permeability, two and a half percent there and the floor area ratio, again,two percent. I'm satisfied with that. MR. TRAVER-Okay. David? MR. DEEB-I'm okay with the variances being requested for the simple reason, we keep asking our applicants to do things and then we come back and we keep saying we want a little more,and I think we've got to be impartial in this. We've got to be fair and look at both sides. So I'm quite comfortable with the variances. MR. STEFANZIK-I kind of like the house. I think it's going to be an improvement. I am stuck on the, I mean even with the new proposal you're eight percent over the floor area ratio. It's just,tome,where does it ever stop? I mean eight percent is good. Then the next applicant says fifteen percent. I know it was a challenge with the lot. So,boy,I'd like to see if you could still sharpen your pencil on that. MR. TRAVER-Well, we can certainly include that in our referral to the ZBA. They're interested in comments,questions,concerns that goes along with our resolution. The question then would be,when it comes back to us,can we basically work with the existing plan more or less,as a Site Plan issue,and that's another different issue. Ellen? MRS. MC DEVITT-I mean I understand it's a postage size. So maybe it's more a function of land. Is it appropriate for the house that you want? And so I do still have problems with the permeability and setbacks. I would be wanting to make those concerns known to the Zoning Board. 7 (Queensbury Planning Board 04/16/2024) MR. TRAVER-Okay. MRS. MC DEVITT-And when it comes back for site review,that's where my concerns will lie. MR. TRAVER-Okay. Brady? MR. STARK-Yes,I think they've done a good job changing certain aspects of this project. They've been in front of us so many times now. You're going from a cottage to a house, so I understand you're kind of limited with the lot itself. So I like the improvements. So I'll support the variances,but if you want to mention those concerns to the ZBA,I have no problem with that. MR. TRAVER-Yes,we'll include the,well we'll discuss that when we make the resolution,but,yes,those concerns would be forwarded to the ZBA. MR. MAGOWAN-Thank you,Chairman. Yes,I will reach out and say I want to thank you for crunching it down,making a valid effort. I believe you could tighten it up a little bit more. What concerns me with the permeability,especially with such a high water tab over there, all that land around there,it is all wet. So when we say we put in the permeable pavers and this and that,you know,you're dumping the water back in the ground where the water's already pretty high up. So,and I like the design. You're really trying to work efficiently with the design of the house, but, you know, I look at the foyer with the dual, the staircases. When we're trying to ask you to sharpen your pencil,is that somewhere you can sharpen your pencil? And have a catwalk to the upper bathrooms? I don't know. Just see if you could do it. I appreciate you moving it back. I appreciate the fire pit,making it more of a movable one. I didn't really have a big problem with that, but when you throw in the outside cook station and the driveways, and the permeability,I would hope that you'd be able to shrink it a little bit more,but that's me. MR.TRAVER-So you're concern is primarily permeability,which we're going to include in our resolution? MR. MAGOWAN-Well the footprint, the footprint of the property, floor area ratio. I kind of agree. We've seen a lot of these projects come up and the houses are just too big for a little,small lot,and we have to remember back in 1906 and then that these were just little camps. I mean Bay Road wasn't even built yet. You come through the swamp, which was actually logs and planks that were put up through the church off of Ridge that you got onto into Cleverdale. So back in those days these were just little camps and now we put all these bigger homes with the roofs and dumping that stormwater back into the ground. All you do when you put all that stormwater back into the ground,it just raises the water level all around. MR. TRAVER-So just one follow up question. The stormwater management that's on site now with the old shed,I'm sorry,the old cottage,what is that like,is there any stormwater management at all? None? MS. LOFFMAN-No,there's no practices existing. MR. TRAVER-Okay. So it sounds like we have support for a referral. We just need to think about what we want to communicate, and I'm hearing permeability and floor area ratio. Right? MR. STEFANZIK-I think I heard setbacks also. Are we talking about the setbacks just to the shoreline or? MRS. MC DEVITT-To the shoreline,yes. MR. TRAVER-So you have a draft resolution. MR. STEFANZIK-Yes,I think I do. MR. DEEB-One more thing. It goes to the Zoning Board and we express our concerns and let's say the Zoning Board approves it and it comes back here. Then what? MR. TRAVER-Then we look at Site Plan Review. They have their variances. MRS. MOORE-Right. So the setback issues and permeability and the floor area ratio are off the table. They're no longer part of the discussion. MRS. MC DEVITT-That's the problem. MRS. MOO RE-You can't do that. That's not part of the process,the Site Plan Review process. You have to look at the elements in Site Plan Review and go through those criteria to evaluate the project on its own. MR. DEEB Just so that's understood. MRS. MOORE-Yes. Thank you. S (Queensbury Planning Board 04/16/2024) MRS. MC DEVITT-So,thank you for that. That changes my mind in terms of whether it would refer it to the Zoning Board. For all of those reasons. Right? MRS.MOORE-So you're potentially referring it to the Zoning Board of Appeals with concerns about floor area,permeability,setbacks. MR. TRAVER-With the understanding that if it comes back and all those variances are approved. MRS. MOORE-Then you're only looking at Site Plan issues, arrangement on the site. MRS. MC DEVITT-Right,and that's the conundrum. MRS. MOO RE-But that's not part of your purview now. Once it's off the table,now you have to evaluate for Site Plan Review. MRS. MC DEVITT-Right. So that's why I'm saying if there's a risk of it being off the table and no ability to improve upon the permeability or improve on the FAR,then. MRS. MOORE-That's up to the Zoning Board of Appeals. MRS. MC DEVITT-Right. MRS. MOORE-That's why you're making that referral. MRS. MC DEVITT-So that's why I'm saying I don't think I can make that referral. MR. TRAVER-And the ZBA has reviewed this 11 times to date. MRS. MOORE-I mean in all actuality no one's actually come to the Board. It's always been tabled. This is pretty much,like last month was the first time the Board actually had a conversation with the applicant. MR. ZAPPER-Because we've been at the Town Board dealing with the septic. MR.MAGOWAN-Ellen,a lot of times I'm a no on a recommendation because I wasn't happen because it's like was said,once it goes there,you know,things change and it's hard to get things changed from there. MRS. MC DEVITT-Right. And that's where we are with this. I feel like I need to learn that lesson. MR. ZAPPER-We're really not that far at 23.5 from 22. I mean these are pretty tight compared to a lot of things you're asked to look at. MR. TRAVER-And in the context of what's there now,too. MR. ZAPPER-Yes,which is horrible. MR. TRAVER-Okay. Well,do we have a draft resolution? MR. STEFANZIK-I'll try it. RECOMMENDATION RE: ZBA RESOLUTION RE: AV#4-2023 GERALDINE EBERLEIN The applicant has submitted an application for the following: (Revised)Applicant proposes demolition of an existing home and guest cottage to construct a new home with a footprint of 2,411 sq. ft., an outdoor kitchen of 234 sq.ft. and a new floor area of 3,343 sq.ft. The project includes associated site work for new permeable driveway, stormwater management, and shoreline landscaping. The project includes installation of a new septic system on the adjoining property. Pursuant to Chapter 179-3-040, 179-6-065, 179-6-050, site plan for new floor area in a CEA and hard surfacing within 50 ft. of the shoreline shall be subject to Planning Board review and approval. Variance: Relief is sought for setbacks, floor area and permeability. The Planning Board shall provide a recommendation to the Zoning Board of Appeals. The Town of Queensbury Zoning Ordinance,per Section 179-9-070 J 2 b. requires the Planning Board to provide a written recommendation to the Zoning Board of Appeals for projects that require both Zoning Board of Appeals&Planning Board approval; The Planning Board has briefly reviewed and discussed this application,the relief request in the variance application as well as the potential impacts of this project on the neighborhood and surrounding community,and found that: 9 (Queensbury Planning Board 04/16/2024) MOTION TO MAKE A RECOMMENDATION ON BEHALF OF THE PLANNING BOARD TO THE ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS FOR AREA VARIANCE 4-2023 GERALDINE EBERLEIN. Introduced by Fritz Stefanzick who moved for its adoption,and b) The Planning Board,based on a limited review,has identified the following areas of concern: 1) Floor area ratio exceeds allowable limits which impacts setbacks to shoreline and permeability.Two Board members are not concerned with the permeability versus the five that have a concern. Motion seconded by Brady Stark. Duly adopted this 16`h day of April2024 by the following vote: MR. DEEB-Before we do that,we're talking about the whole Planning Board has a concern. What if one member doesn't have a concern? MRS. MOORE-You could identify that as well. MR. DEEB-Because myself as a member is not concerned about permeability. MR. STEFANZIK-I'd like to add to that resolution, Mr. Deeb does not have a concern with the permeability. MR. LONGACKER-You can add myself on that,again,too. It's less than two percent. MR. STEFANZIK-Add Mr. Longacker. MRS. MOORE-I mean you could word it that there's members of the Board that are concerned about and there's members of the Board that are not. MRS.MC DEVITT-Is it important to know,though,for the Zoning Board to knowhowmany have concern versus those that don't? MRS. MOORE-I think you'll find that out when you vote,but that's up to you. MR. TRAVER-All right. MR. STEFANZIK-Let me try it again. I'm just going to do Item B. The Planning Board,based on limited review, has identified the following areas of concern: floor area ratio exceeds allowable limits which impacts setbacks to shoreline and permeability. Part of the Board members may not have a concern with the permeability levels. MR. TRAVER-I'd like to suggest that we say that we have two Board members that are not concerned with permeability and five that are,I guess. Let's do it that way,so they have numbers and not names. MR. STEFANZIK-Two Board members are not concerned with the permeability versus the five that have a concern. AYES: Mr. Stark,Mr. Deeb,Mr. Longacker, Mr. Traver NOES: Mr. Magowan,Mr. Stefanzick,Mrs. McDevitt MR. TRAVER-All right. You're off to the ZBA. MR. ZAPPER-We hope to be back to see you next week. MR. TRAVER-All right. The next item on our agenda, also for a recommendation to the ZBA,is Patten Property Development,LLC. This is Site Plan 11-2024. PLANNING BOARD RECOMMENDATIONS TO THE ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS: SITE PLAN NO. 11-2024 SEQR TYPE: TYPE 11. PATTEN PROPERTY DEVELOPMENT, LLC. AGENT(S): RUCINSKI HALL ARCHITECTURE. OWNER(S): SAME AS APPLICANT. ZONING: WR. LOCATION: 96 HALL ROAD. APPLICANT PROPOSES TO CONSTRUCT A NEW 2,537 SQ. FT. FOOTPRINT HOME WITH A 47 SQ. FT. PORCH/DECK AREA AND A 5,165 SQ. FT. FLOOR AREA. THE EXISTING HOME HAS BEEN DEMOLISHED. THE PROJECT INCLUDES A LOT LINE ADJUSTMENT WHICH WOULD INCREASE THE LOT SIZE FROM 12,690 SQ.FT.TO 18,200 SQ.FT. THE ADJUSTMENT ALLOWS FOR DIRECT ACCESS TO HALL ROAD. SITE WORK INCLUDES NEW SEPTIC SYSTEM, WELL, LANDSCAPING, STORMWATER AND OTHER ASSOCIATED SITE DISTURBANCE. THE PROJECT WILL ALSO INCLUDE ANEW DOCK ON GLEN LAKE. PURSUANT TO CHAPTER 179-3-040 &z 179-6-050, 10 (Queensbury Planning Board 04/16/2024) SITE PLAN FOR NEW FLOOR AREA AND HARD SURFACING WITHIN 50 FT. OF THE SHORELINE SHALL BE SUBJECT TO PLANNING BOARD REVIEW AND APPROVAL. VARIANCE: RELIEF IS SOUGHT FOR SETBACKS, PERMEABILITY, HEIGHT, FLOOR AREA, ROAD FRONTAGE AND NUMBER OF GARAGES. PLANNING BOARD SHALL PROVIDE A RECOMMENDATION TO THE ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS. CROSS REFERENCE: AV 9- 2010,SP 14-2010,AV 15-2024. WARREN CO. REFERRAL: N/A. SITE INFORMATION: CEA, GLEN LAKE. LOT SIZE: 0.3 ACRE. TAX MAP NO. 289.11-1-23. SECTION: 179-3-040,179-6- 050,179-6-065. ETHAN HALL, REPRESENTING APPLICANT,PRESENT;CHRIS PATTEN,PRESENT MR. TRAVER-Laura? MRS. MOORE-So this application is to construct a new home of 2,537 square feet. This is a footprint with a deck area of 47 square feet. The new floor area of 5,165 square feet. The existing home has been demolished. The project includes a lot line adjustment which would increase the lot size from 12,690 to IS,200 square feet. The adjustment allows for direct access to Hall Road. The site work includes a new septic system,well,landscaping,stormwater and other associated site disturbance. The project includes a new dock on Glen Lake,site plan review for new floor area,hard surfacing within 50 and relief is sought for setbacks,permeability,height,floor area,road frontage and the number of garages. In reference to the number of garages,they're all individually separated. That's why that occurred. If they were all one unit tied together they would be considered one garage because you're allowed three bays,but in this case,due to the house design. MR. TRAVER-Okay. Thank you,Laura. Good evening. MR. HALL-Good evening. For your records, my name is Ethan Hall, principle with Rucinski and Hall Architecture. With me tonight is Chris Patten,the owner of the property. This application and the one that follows it are a little bit unique. It's two existing properties currently. The one that we're looking at right now currently does not have any road frontage. It's accessed across by an easement across several other properties to get to it. The adjustment that, the boundary line adjustment that we're looking to make gives this property access directly to Hall Road so that we don't have to go through other people's property to get there. That's one of the reasons for doing this whole thing. The other thing that we looked at was getting the septic farther away from the lake,increasing the stormwater management,which there was zero for the old property. We are looking for the variances there were listed. The three garages,there is one that is at lake level which is for storage of lake things. The other two, it's just simply the way the design was. The entry comes into the middle of the house. It's separated the two garages. So that's the reason for the three garage separations. MR. TRAVER-So one of the concerns that I had initially is the fact that we need, in a CEA there's some removal of trees and there isn't a landscape plan,and I think my own feeling is concerns for a,some of the variances is I'd really like to know what the situation with the trees and landscaping will be. MR.HALL-So we've added,shown landscaping on the plan. I don't necessarily have a planting plan that shows each individual one,but the intent would be to put the ground plantings on the lakeside of which there's a tree there now. There was one that was removed that we're going to put back, and then there's landscape that runs between the dock and the house. MR. TRAVER-Okay. MR. HALL-We have moved the house back from the lake significantly from what it was. The old house that was there was set down in a hole really, and everything drained to that area. It really rotted out the old foundation. That's why everything,it didn't really have a foundation. It was piers and sitting on the ground basically. That's why the old house was taken down. It was in a hole. This house is actually lifted up a little bit. That's the reason for the height variance. Our actual height is under what's allowed, but because we have to take it from existing point of lowest grade,highest point. MR. TRAVER-Yes,we run into that a lot. Yes. MR. STEFANZIK-I was pretty surprised,when I went to visit the site,how much clearance was clearing out. I mean I looked at the pictures and I was kind of shocked when I went there and said, wow, this place, you guys really cleared it out and I was a little bit concerned with just the way the slope of the clearance and you know you have your silt,your temporary fence to protect the lake,that wasn't even up. That was flapping in the wind. I'm not sure what the runoff was the last couple of weeks,but I was really surprised with the condition of the whole site clearance. MR.PATTEN-I have to get the fence backup. That was just the winter that took it down. We put stone in there to bring it up. 11 (Queensbury Planning Board 04/16/2024) MR. STEFANZIK-Yes,that would be a good idea. MR.PATTEN-Yes,for sure. And just a comment on the trees,to comment on what you said,I can tell you that the neighbors are thanking me like no other because I think that I was highest trees left around the entire perimeter of the lake. It took a specialty tree company to come in and actually top each one of them. They were about 125 foot tall pine trees that would have killed, quite frankly, anybody within two properties each way. So the neighboring properties are very thankful for what I've done to the site. It's very positive. MR. STEFANZIK-I think I missed where the Chairman was coming from because a lot of times I'm the Critical Environmental zone one, building up when there's trees coming down. We spent a lot of time trying to inventory how many trees were on the lot, how many were coming down. So when you do develop your landscaping plan,you're compensating for all the trees that are coming down. I think that's a Site Plan discussion. Something that I think you want to be prepared for. MR. PATTEN-And I'd like to bring trees back as well. MR.STEFANZIK-The other thing,and this is a Site Plan question,but it kind of leads into these variances. In Item E here you're saying that the single family residence is in keeping with the surrounding area. When we get to site plan maybe you can expand on that a little bit, because when I stood at the shore of this property and I looked across the entire lake, and I looked at every house,I don't think I saw any house as large as this house, and then when I look at the floor area ratio,you're 29%over the requirements. That's huge, and I think that's driving all of these variances that are numerous and quite significant. MRS. MC DEVITT-I agree with what you said. MR. STEFANZIK-Right. Proposed floor area of 5,165 square feet, allowable is 4004. So that's 29%over. MR.HALL-We'll take a look at that for sure. MR. TRAVER-Yes,permeability,too,is. MRS. MC DEVITT-Permeability. MR. STEFANZIK-Well, I think once again the floor area ratio is driving all these setbacks, the permeability. MR. TRAVER-Yes. MR. LONGACKER-You're driveway,is it a pervious driveway,pavement? MR.HALL-It is not. MR. LONGACKER-It's not? MR. HALL-Because it's a maintenance issue. And our feeling is that we've put stone infiltration trench along the edge of the driveway to pick that up. My biggest issue with permeable pavement is that it is a maintenance issue, and when it's not maintained it doesn't work. I'd prefer to get the water into a stone trench that I know is going to work and I know it's going to be there, rather than have to have the homeowner or subsequent homeowners be there to vacuum that out every year. MR. TRAVER-Yes. MR.HALL-So that's my personal opinion. I just feel that that's abetter way to handle it. MR. TRAVER-Yes,we generally require a maintenance plan,but it is,it's. MR. HALL-And that's a note that came from the engineer's review. The Town Engineer said that there would have to be a maintenance agreement and so it's completely understandable. MR. TRAVER-All right. So, again,this is a case where we're looking at variances for this,and not yet Site Plan. This is a referral for the ZBA. Some of the questions that have been asked are Site Plan issues,but they impact on the variances. I think that's where they're coming from,but we have another case where we have floor area ratio significantly larger than what's allowed, setback likewise. The height variance I think it, I can understand that. I've seen a number of applications where the height is above what's allowed,simply because of the terrain,not because of the building size. Road frontage,I think what they're proposing deals with that,but I have concerns for the setbacks, especially floor area and permeability. I don't know,what do other Board members feel. 12 (Queensbury Planning Board 04/16/2024) MRS. MC DEVITT-Exactly the same. MR. TRAVER-The same. Warren? MR. LONGACKER-This is our first kind of go around here, so I would, again, it's 6.20/o higher for the permeability and was said 29%for the floor area ratio. Yes,I've got concerns on this one,too,on the first go around. MR. TRAVER-David? MR. DEEB-I would like to ask the applicants. Hopefully they could help us on this before they go to the Zoning Board. So,I don't know,it's quite large,but Ethan's always good at getting stuff done. MR. TRAVER-What do you think? MR. STEFANZIK-Yes,to me floor area that large to me is a showstopper. MR. TRAVER-Okay. I feel the same way. Ellen,I knowyou do. MRS. MC DEVITT-Yes. MR. TRAVER-How are you gentlemen? MR. STARK-Yes,same. MR.TRAVER-Okay. All right. So what I'm hearing,and I'm just polling the Board in general,is we don't have enough support,at this point,with the scope of these variances,for a referral to the ZBA. So we can have a vote or we can table and you can,you know,re-assess your project and perhaps come back. MR. PATTEN-Let's address each one of the variances that we're requesting, and so that way we can streamline our efforts,just like you'd prefer,I imagine. I don't want to be here 12 times just like you don't want to see me here. I would like to address the primary concerns. If there are ones that you could maybe comment on,whether or not you would give me a recommendation. MR. TRAVER-Well,I have to remind you that we cannot make this our project. So we can't tell you,for example. MR.HALL-From what I'm hearing,though,it's mainly floor area ratio,permeability. MR. TRAVER-Well it sounds as though that's what's driving a lot of these issues. Yes. We can't tell you, if you make it this size. MR.HALL-Understood,and we've made a significant effort to increase the size of this lot,by taking away from the other lot. And the next thing that's in front of you is the result of that. MR. TRAVER-Right. MR.HALL-And we've intentionally made that house with a 621 square foot footprint in order to make that fit,to be a viable fit for the property, and to be able to get two septic systems on a lot,on lots that are next door to each other and not ask for septic variances from the Board of Health or any of those things. We meet all the criteria that's required. As far as being in the Critical Environmental Area,in my opinion,the septic is, if we can get septic without having to ask for a variance for those, floor area and setbacks and things like that are all items that I can deal with. I'd prefer to do that rather than to ask for aseptic variance and put my septic system closer to the lake or closer to groundwater. We've got a very good,well-drained lot. This is all glacial till. It drains really,really well. So the permeability,yes,we are a little bit over on the permeability, but the way that this lot drains, it's been like this since last fall, and you can't make a puddle stay on this lot. So those are the items that we looked at when we came up with the house design. MR.TRAVER-Understood,yes,and it's an issue that we see frequently on a relatively small lot,you know, when you want a larger house. MR.HALL-Sure. It's all based on two acre lots,and I would almost defy-you to find a two acre lot on Glen Lake. They don't exist. So we're handcuffed by,you know, 22%of a two acre lot is a good size. Twenty- two percent of a half-acre lot is tiny. MR. TRAVER-So,let me ask you this. If we table this to give you an opportunity to look at your project, would we likewise table the following application as well? MR.HALL-I'm thinking we would have to,because one affects the other. 13 (Queensbury Planning Board 04/16/2024) MR. TRAVER-Yes,that's what I'm wondering. Okay. Do you have any comment,Laura? MRS. MOORE-So if you're planning on tabling,it would be potentially a June meeting if they could make submission by May 15`h MR. TRAVER-Okay. All right. Well we'll ask. Do you think that you could have updated data to the Staff by May 15`h. MR.HALL-That's going to be a challenge for us,just based on the total number of days. MR. TRAVER-So June 15`h. MR.HALL-That's a better date. MR. TRAVER-Okay. So we would be looking at maybe the first meeting in July. MRS. MOORE-That's fine. MR. TRAVER-The 16`h. All right. So it looks like we're going to be tabling this application and the one following. Are there any questions,comments,concerns regarding that proposed action from members of the Board? Okay. We have a resolution. RESOLUTION TABLING SP#11-2024 PATTEN PROPERTY DEVELOPMENT,LLC Applicant proposes to construct a new 2,537 sq. ft. footprint home with 47 sq. ft. porch/deck area and a 5,165 sq. ft. floor area. The existing home has been demolished. The project includes a lot line adjustment which would increase the lot size from 12,690 sq. ft. to 1S, 200 sq. ft.. The adjustment allows for direct access to Hall Road. Site work includes new septic system, well, landscaping, stormwater and other associated site disturbance. The project will also include a new dock on Glen Lake. Pursuant to chapter 179-3-040 &179-6-050, site plan for new floor area and hard surfacing within 50 ft. of the shoreline shall be subject to Planning Board review and approval. Variance: Relief is sought for setbacks, permeability, height,floor area,road frontage and number of garages.Planning Board shall provide a recommendation to the Zoning Board of Appeals. MOTION TO TABLE SITE PLAN 11-2024 PATTEN PROPERTY DEVELOPMENT,LLC. Introduced by Fritz Stefanzick who moved for its adoption,seconded by Ellen McDevitt. Tabled until the July 16,2024 Planning Board meeting with information due by June 17,2024. Duly adopted this 16`h day of April 2024 by the following vote: AYES: Mr. Magowan,Mr. Stefanzick,Mr. Deeb,Mrs. McDevitt,Mr. Longacker,Mr. Stark,Mr. Traver NOES: NONE MR. TRAVER-All right,and now the next project we will be,it's co-existing with this project. So this is Patten Property Development,LLC,Site Plan 12-2024. SITE PLAN NO. 12-2024 SEQR TYPE: TYPE 11. PATTEN PROPERTY DEVELOPMENT, LLC AGENT(S): RUCINSKI HALL ARCHITECTURE. OWNER(S): SAME AS APPLICANT. ZONING: WR. LOCATION: BARBER ROAD. APPLICANT PROPOSES A HOME WITH A FOOTPRINT OF 641 SQ.FT.,299 SQ.FT.PORCH/DECK AREA AND A 1,351 SQ.FT.FLOOR AREA. THE PROJECT INCLUDES LOT LINE ADJUSTMENT,DECREASING THE SIZE FROM 0.47 ACRE TO 0.35 ACRE. SITE WORK INCLUDES NEW SEPTIC, WELL, LANDSCAPING, STORMWATER AND OTHER ASSOCIATED SITE DISTURBANCE. PURSUANT TO CHAPTER 179-6-060, SITE PLAN FOR PROJECT WITHIN 50 FT. OF 15% SLOPES SHALL BE SUBJECT TO PLANNING BOARD REVIEW AND APPROVAL. VARIANCE: RELIEF IS SOUGHT FOR PERMEABILITY, LOT SIZE, SETBACKS. PLANNING BOARD SHALL PROVIDE A RECOMMENDATION TO THE ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS. CROSS REFERENCE: AV 14- 2024. WARREN CO. REFERRAL: N/A. SITE INFORMATION: CEA, GLEN LAKE, SLOPES. LOT SIZE: 0.47 ACRE. TAX MAP NO.289.11-1-59.312. SECTION: 179-3-040,179-6-065. MR. TRAVER-Should we table that to the same meeting,Laura? They're both jointly. MRS. MOORE-Yes. MR. TRAVER-Okay. So then do a July 16 for this one as well. 14 (Queensbury Planning Board 04/16/2024) RESOLUTION TABLING SP#12-2024 PATTEN PROPERTY DEVELOPMENT,LLC Applicant proposes a home with a footprint of 641 sq. ft.,299 sq. ft.porch/deck area and 1,351 sq. ft. floor area. The project includes a lot line adjustment, decreasing the size from 0.47 acre to 0.35 acre. Site work includes new septic, well, landscaping, stormwater and other associated site disturbance. Pursuant to chapter 179-6-060,site plan for proj ect within 50 ft.of 150/o slopes shall be subject to Planning Board review and approval.Variance: Relief is sought for permeability,lot size,setbacks.Planning Board shall provide a recommendation to the Zoning Board of Appeals. MOTION TO TABLE SITE PLAN 12-2024 PATTEN PROPERTY DEVELOPMENT,LLC. Introduced by Fritz Stefanzick who moved for its adoption,seconded by. Tabled until the July 16,2024 Planning Board meeting with information due by June 17,2024. Duly adopted this 16`h day of April 2024 by the following vote: AYES: Mr. Stefanzick,Mr. Deeb,Mrs. McDevitt,Mr. Longacker,Mr. Stark,Mr. Magowan, Mr. Traver NOES: NONE MR. TRAVER-All right. We'll see you in a few months. MR. DEEB-Good luck. MR. TRAVER-The next application before us is Paul Zemanek. This is Site Plan 16-2024. SITE PLAN NO.16-2024 SEQR TYPE: TYPE 11. PAUL ZEMANEK. AGENT(S): R U HOLMES ENGINEERS,PLLC. OWNER(S): SAME AS APPLICANT. ZONING: WR. LOCATION: GLEN LAKE ROAD. APPLICANT PROPOSES A NEW SINGLE FAMILY HOME WITH A 1,400 SQ. FT. FOOTPRINT AND A FLOOR AREA OF 4,200 SQ.FT. THE EXISTING PARCEL IS VACANT. SITE WORK INCLUDES NEW SEPTIC, WELL, DRIVEWAY ACCESS FROM THE ADJOINING LOT, SHORELINE PLANTING PLAN AND STORMWATER MANAGEMENT. THE PROJECT PARCEL IS ASSOCIATED WITH A LOT LINE ADJUSTMENT FOR THE ADJOINING LOT. PURSUANT TO CHAPTER 179-3-040 AND 179-6-065,SITE PLAN FOR NEW FLOOR AREA IN A CEA SHALL BE SUBJECT TO PLANNING BOARD REVIEW AND APPROVAL. VARIANCE: RELIEF IS SOUGHT FOR ROAD FRONTAGE,LOT WIDTH,WATER FRONTAGE,HEIGHT AND ACCESS. PLANNING BOARD SHALL PROVIDE A RECOMMENDATION TO THE ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS. CROSS REFERENCE: AV 19-2024. WARREN CO. REFERRAL: N/A. SITE INFORMATION: CEA, GLEN LAKE, SLOPES. LOT SIZE: .05. TAX MAP NO. 289.10-1- 52.2. SECTION: 179-3-040,179-6-065,179-6-050. TOM JARRETT&AARON ROBERTS, REPRESENTING APPLICANT,PRESENT MR. TRAVER-Laura? MRS. MOORE-So this application is construction of a new single family home with a 1400 square foot footprint, floor area of 4,200 on a vacant lot. Site work includes new septic, well, and driveway access from the adjoining lot,shoreline planting plan,stormwater management. The project parcel is associated with a lot line adjustment for the adjoining lot, and the setbacks,variance is in reference to road frontage, lot width,water frontage,height and access. MR. TRAVER-Okay. Thank you. Good evening. MR. ROBERTS-Good evening. Aaron Roberts with R U Holmes Engineers. With me is Tom Jarrett and Paul Zemanek at 10 Elm Drive on Glen Lake. The project before you proposes a lot line adjustment between two existing tax parcels owned by the Zemaneks. The total shoreline width of the both lots is 150 feet. Lot One is proposed to be reduced from 140 feet to 63 and a half feet. Lot Two is proposed to be increased from 10 feet to S6 and a half feet. The existing house on Lot One is proposed to remain and a new single family dwelling is proposed for Lot Two with a new wastewater system in the rear. Both Lot One and Lot Two are designed to be compliant with permeability and floor area ratio. Lot One does have existing, non-conforming setbacks to the shoreline as well as the property line to the south here. It will maintain compliant setbacks to the rear and to the north. Lot Two is designed to be compliant with setbacks to all property lines as well as the shoreline. With the reduction of Lot One, we're requesting relief from minimum lot size,lot width,road frontage and water frontage. With the increase in Lot Two, we are requesting relief from road frontage and access through the neighboring property,which is owned by the Zemaneks. Both lots have proposed stormwater management practices to manage the existing and proposed impervious cover on this site. Overall we believe the existing development on Lot One and the proposed development on Lot Two are in keeping with the character of the existing development around 15 (Queensbury Planning Board 04/16/2024) Glen Lake,and we believe that it would not have significant impacts to the surrounding community or the environment. With that,we open it up to any questions the Board may have. MR. TRAVER-Sure. Okay. So what is the lot width currently before subdivision? MR. ROBERTS-Lot One is 140 feet. Lot Two is 10 feet. MR. TRAVER-140. So we have a compliant lot that you're proposing to make non-compliant. Basically. MR. ROBERTS-And the one non-compliant,we're trying to increase the non-compliance,yes. MR. STEFANZIK-But in doing that,all the setbacks and permeability are still good. MR. ROBERTS-Yes. And floor area ratio. MR. TRAVER-Okay. MRS. MC DEVITT-And the easement of the road,that will always exist in some sort of? MR. ROBERTS-Perpetuity,yes. MR. STEFANZIK-What is the 4,200 square foot floor area? I'm a little bit confused. MR.JARRETT-Per the agenda you're reading? MR. STEFANZIK-Yes. MR. ROBERTS-That is the allowable floor area. So we're only proposing 2,56E square feet. If you have Sheet C-2,there's a lot of data on it,but the proposed floor area if 2,56E square feet. MR. STEFANZIK-Right. That's what I saw. MR.JARRETT-Laura,is that a misprint? MRS. MOORE-It's a misprint. When you set data separately,I need to go back and forth. MR.JARRETT-We get it. I just wanted to clarify. We understand how that can happen. MR. STEFANZIK-So the only floor area that we're talking about is the one over here,2,000. MR. TRAVER-The new one. MR.JARRETT-Both floor areas are compliant. MR. ROBERTS-Yes. MR.JARRETT-As are permeability's on both lots. MR. TRAVER-Can you talk about the height variance requirement? MR. ROBERTS-Sure. It was our understanding that we had revised the height issue variance. We had protruded the garage basically from the plane of the house to eliminate the single plane that was a required variance. So we separated the plane of the garage with the plane of the house. If you see,the architectural drawing A2.2. MR. TRAVER-I'm sorry,excuse me. When you talk about the plane of the house,what are you referring to,the height? MR.JARRETT-The rear projection of the house, the rear plane of the house, what he's describing. The way Queensbury measures building height it's directly under the highest point of the roof, as opposed to the lowest existing grade no matter where it is on the property. MR. TRAVER-Right. MR.JARRETT-It's a little different than APA does it and a lot of other towns. Laura,do you want to jump in? 16 (Queensbury Planning Board 04/16/2024) MRS.MOORE-Yes. I guess my understanding,I'll confirm with Craig,that it still requires a variance,only because it's, I guess what is that plane? If you've adjusted this, what is this, what is this plane? What happens with the space above the garage? MR. ROBERTS-That would be a flat roof,I believe,on the garage. MR.JARRETT-The grade is right there where that dimension arrow is,under the house. MR. ROBERTS-So the continuing grade would end right where the cursor is. Correct. MRS. MOORE-Right here. MR. ROBERTS-Correct. MRS. MOORE-So that's the. MR.JARRETT-At the house. MRS. MOORE-And that ends up being the existing. MR. DEEB-Is that where they're measuring the height from? MR. ROBERTS-Yes. MR. DEEB-Which makes it non-compliant. MR.JARRETT-Well he thought it was compliant. MR. ROBERTS-We're 27 feet 7 inches from the peak to the bottom of the upper retaining wall, a continuous plane. MRS. MOORE-This is graded,though? MR. JARRETT-There's a drop off on the site grade now, wherever this garage would go. So this is conducive to, it's working with the site, and the garage underneath works very,very well. If we project the garage a little bit further to the north from the main house, we thought technically it avoided the variance. MR. DEEB-So it's the contours that are causing this,the contours to the ground. MRS. MOORE-Yes. MR.JARRETT-Wants to build a house with a garage underneath to take advantage of that grade. MR. DEE&We've had that. MR. TRAVER-Yes. MRS. MOO RE-I mean it's not that we haven't seen that before. I just feel that it's still a variance. MR. LONGACKER-It won't affect the view of the guy behind you? MR.JARRETT-No, actually it won't. MR. TRAVER-Okay. MR. STEFANZIK-I do have a question on this shared driveway. When you come up with an agreement on the shared driveway, what goes in it? Responsibility of who maintains it, who cleans it? I mean sometime if your family splits up the property and goes to somebody else,what's in those agreements. PAUL ZEMANEK MR. ZEMANEK-So that's a valid question,and I'm not exactly thrilled with the fact that I have to use the driveway through the other property. If you look at the, I don't know, if you look at the back of the proposed property,you have that spot. I could put the driveway through there and not have to go through the other property that's existing now. The reason I want to do that is there's a bunch of beautiful trees in there, oak trees, pine trees. I'd have to cut them all down and knock a hill down and I'd change the whole scenery from Glen Lake Road and the other building behind me, and I'm just not one for cutting down 100 year old trees and I lost five trees to the gypsy moth last year and the pine trees just didn't come 17 (Queensbury Planning Board 04/16/2024) back, and, you know, they've become a hazard. Actually the neighbors' property has become a hazard because the branches are falling over. There's a right of way that's maintained by the Town and accessed by everybody on Elm Drive. We all share it. We all share the responsibility of keeping it clear. The Town does a great job,just like everybody else when it snows. MR. DEEB-Do you get along with your neighbor? MR. ZEMANEK-Yes,mostly. Some of them are new. MR. TRAVER-All right. So this evening, again, we're in another situation where we're considering the variances. Do any Board members have a problem with making a referral to the ZBA on these requested variances? MR. MAGOWAN-Mr. Chairman, I kind of got lost with all the talking here. Looking at the pictures. What we have is one big lot with a house on it now. Right? MR. TRAVER-Right. MR. MAGOWAN-And then there's an eight or a ten foot swath over on the west side. MR.JARRETT-It's actually a separate tax lot. It's been taxed that way for years. MR. MAGOWAN-Eight foot wide. MR. ROBERTS-Ten. MR. MAGOWAN-Ten. There's a few of them on the lake like that. So you're going to do a lot line and you're going to keep the house there. Right? MR. ZEMANEK-Yes. MR.JARRETT-On Lot One. Yes. MR. MAGOWAN-So this is Lot One. MR.JARRETT-To the east is Lot One. MR. MAGOWAN-The smaller one. MRS. MOORE-Yes. So I can just offer just a bit of information or history,is that Paul's been working on this for probably about two years,in regards to getting a project that's before the Board and adjusting that lot line so that he could place this proposed house,that driveway and a septic. There's an existing well on the site already. They're putting a new well in. So Lot One will have its own well. So this has been in the works. MR. MAGOWAN-All right. Well,I'm not,the big lot,is that Lot One or Two? MR.JARRETT-Lot One. MR.MAGOWAN-That's Lot One. All right. Before I got lost. So this is Lot One and the other one's Lot Two. MR. ROBERTS-After the lot line adjustment the large lot will be Lot Two. MR.JARRETT-Lot Two is being expanded. MR. MAGOWAN-So Lot One's turning into Lot Two. MR.JARRE TT-The original Lot One is still Lot One. It becomes the smaller one. MR. MAGOWAN-For the houses. So that's Lot One. MR.JARRETT-This narrow lot that's being expanded,that's Lot Two. MR. TRAVER-So they're swapping sizes. MR.JARRETT-Yes,exactly. 18 (Queensbury Planning Board 04/16/2024) MR.MAGOWAN-So I guess on Lot Two it says here.299 acres. Right? So what is the floor area ratio on that? Do we have numbers on Lot Two? MRS. MOORE-Yes. MR. JARRETT-The floor area ratio on Lot Two is proposed as 12.95, let's say 13. Compared to 22 allowable. Considerably below the required maximum. Lot One existing house,due to a lot of shrinking, the lot coverage will be 14.3,compared to 22,also considerably below the maximum allowable. What Paul has done, he's tried to minimize the footprint, which maximizes the permeability, maximizes the environmental viability of the lot, and use three stories to get living space, which is exactly the goal of all sustainability codes these days. MR. MAGOWAN-So you're creating two lots out of one,well,actually two lots out of three. MR.JARRETT-Actually,to make it really complicated,the deed has three lots,but we won't go there. MR. MAGOWAN-Okay,we won't go there. I'm just trying to get a grasp on this,because you're creating a lot with a very small floor ratio. So,you know,you just sat through one where we weren't happy with the floor area ratio,but you've created this one to make the other one. MR.JARRETT-They're both compliant, and we worked very hard to do that. Paul was about ready to wring our neck. MR. MAGOWAN-Well you said they're 13 and 14. MR.JARRE TT-Compared to 22. MR. TRAVER-There's no variance for floor area on this one,this application. MR. MAGOWAN-All right. This just confuses me. MR. TRAVER-Well,if you're asking if there's a request for a variance for floor area ratio for either of these lots,the answer is no. They're completely compliant in that respect,but there are variances for height. MR. MAGOWAN-That's on the proposed build on Lot Two. MR. TRAVER-Yes. Road frontage because they're using a shared driveway,the lot width because they're subdividing it essentially. MR. MAGOWAN-I guess what I'm trying to say is that there's no variances on the pre-existing house there now that you shrunk that lot down. MR. TRAVER-Correct. MRS.MOORE-No,there are variances,but it's not subject to Planning Board review. It's only,Lot One is only subject to Zoning Board review. MR. MAGOWAN-We're only approving the lot line adjustment? MRS. MOORE-You're only looking at Lot Two. MR. MAGOWAN-Are we approving a lot line adjustment tonight? MRS. MOORE-You're not approving a lot line adjustment. MR. TRAVER-Yes,we're only looking at variances tonight. We're not looking at Site Plan. MR. MAGOWAN-So you said this is three lots and you're creating two out of it. MR.JARRETT-Forget I said the three. MR. MAGOWAN-All right. So Lot One,the one with the house,is already an existing lot. MR.JARRE TT-Correct. MR. MAGOWAN-So really all we're doing is adding that eight foot on to Lot Two. 19 (Queensbury Planning Board 04/16/2024) MR.JARRE TT-There were two existing lots. One was 10 foot wide, and one was 140 foot wide. We're moving the line, we're adjusting the line to balance the dimensions of each lot, to make them closer together. Instead of 10 and 140 it's going to be 60 and SO. MR. MAGOWAN-Okay. Sorry,it was a little roundabout way,but I'm looking at the lines and I'm,you know,trying to follow. All right. I feel a little better. Thank you. MR. STEFANZIK-So just a question then. Where does the lot line adjustment get approved? MRS. MOORE-As part of this Board. MR.JARRETT-That'll happen next week I think. MRS. MOORE-Right. MR. STEFANZIK-That's at Site Plan. MRS. MOORE-In actuality it actually happens at the Zoning Board. When the Zoning Board looks at Area Variances for Lot One and Area Variances for Lot Two. Where Area Variance for Lot One is the lot size. That's not subject to this Board. MR.JARRETT-But the lot line adjustment is done by the Planning Board at Site Plan Review. MR. STEFANZIK-Okay. MR. TRAVER-All right. So are we comfortable making a referral on these variances to the ZBA? That's the question for us tonight? Okay. We have a resolution. RESOLUTION RE: ZBA RECOMMENDATION RE: AV#IS-2024 PAUL ZEMANEK The applicant has submitted an application for the following:Applicant proposes a new single family home with a 1,400 sq.ft..footprint and a floor area of 4,200 sq.ft.The existing parcel is vacant.Site work includes new septic, well, driveway access from the adjoining lot, shoreline planting plan and stormwater management. The project parcel is associated with a lot line adjustment for the adjoining lot. Pursuant to chapter 179-3-040 and 179-6-065, site plan for new floor area in a CEA shall be subject to Planning Board review and approval. Variance: Relief is sought for road frontage, lot width, water frontage, height and access.Planning Board shall provide a recommendation to the Zoning Board of Appeals. The Town of Queensbury Zoning Ordinance,per Section 179-9-070 J 2 b. requires the Planning Board to provide a written recommendation to the Zoning Board of Appeals for projects that require both Zoning Board of Appeals&Planning Board approval; The Planning Board has briefly reviewed and discussed this application,the relief request in the variance application as well as the potential impacts of this project on the neighborhood and surrounding community,and found that: MOTION TO MAKE A RECOMMENDATION ON BEHALF OF THE PLANNING BOARD TO THE ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS FOR AREA VARIANCE 18-2024 PAUL ZEMANEK Introduced by Fritz Stefanzick who moved for its adoption,and a) The Planning Board,based on a limited review,has not identified any significant adverse impacts that cannot be mitigated with current project proposal. Motion seconded by Ellen McDevitt. Duly adopted this 16`h day of April 2024 by the following vote: AYES: Mr. Deeb,Mrs. McDevitt,Mr. Longacker,Mr. Stark,Mr. Magowan,Mr. Stefanzick,Mr. Traver NOES: NONE MR. TRAVER-You're off to the ZBA. MR.JARRETT-Thank you very much. MR. DEEB-Good luck. MR. TRAVER-Next on our agenda, also as a referral to the ZBA,is Victor&Terry Celadon. This is Site Plan 17-2024. 20 (Queensbury Planning Board 04/16/2024) SITE PLAN NO. 17-2024 SEQR TYPE: TYPE IL VICTOR &z TERRY CELADON. AGENT(S): RUCINSKI HALL ARCHITECTURE. OWNER(S): VICTOR CELADON. ZONING: WR. LOCATION: 29 JAY ROAD. APPLICANT PROPOSES DEMOLITION OF AN EXISTING HOME TO CONSTRUCT A NEW 2,700 SQ. FT. FOOTPRINT HOME WITH A FLOOR AREA OF 3,889 SQ. FT. THE PROJECT WILL MAINTAIN CURRENT WELL POINT, 131 SQ. FT. SHED AND SHORELINE BUFFER. SITE WORK INCLUDES A NEW SEPTIC SYSTEM AND A TOTAL DISTURBANCE AREA OF 12,198 SQ.FT. PURSUANT TO CHAPTER 179-3-040&z 179-6-050.SITE PLAN FOR NEW FLOOR AREA IN A CEA AND HARD SURFACING WITHIN 50 FT. OF THE SHORELINE SHALL BE SUBJECT TO PLANNING BOARD REVIEW AND APPROVAL. VARIANCE: RELIEF IS SOUGHT FOR SETBACKS. PLANNING BOARD SHALL PROVIDE A RECOMMENDATION TO THE ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS. CROSS REFERENCE: AV 20- 2024. WARREN CO.REFERRAL: N/A. SITE INFORMATION: CEA,GLEN LAKE. LOT SIZE: 0.76 ACRES. TAX MAP NO. 289.10-1-15. SECTION: 179-3-040.179-6-050,179-6-065. ETHAN HALL, REPRESENTING APPLICANTS,PRESENT MR. TRAVER-Laura? MRS. MOORE-This application is for the demolition of an existing home to construct a new 2,700 square foot home with a floor area of 3,SS9. The project will maintain a current well point,131 square foot shed, and a shoreline buffer. Site work includes new septic system and a total disturbance area of 12,19E square foot. Relief is sought for setbacks. MR. TRAVER-Okay. Thank you. Good evening. MR. HALL-Good evening. Again,for your records,my name is Ethan Hall,principle with Rucinski Hall Architecture. With me tonight are Victor and Terry Celadon, owners of the property. A little bit more straightforward with this one. No variances required for permeability. We finally have a lot that's actually fairly decent size. Referring to lots that are not even two acres on the lot,you know, we're here. We're 32,659 for our total square footage. The existing lot coverage is 72.440/o permeability and we are increasing that to 77.270/o. So while this is a variance that we are looking for,the reason is because of the peninsula of the lot. If we take the setbacks for the peninsula, it puts us back well up into the lot, but what the intent is, is to re-build the house which is a stone foundation, which is deteriorating fairly significantly. The house is starting to tip. It's starting to drop. It has to be re-built. And re-building it,keeping it on the same footprint,leaving it where it is and going up. We've vaulted the ceiling in the upstairs so that we don't need to ask for a height variance. We've connected the garage with a breezeway so that the garage is a legal garage, and all of our setbacks are exactly what's there or better. In reference to the shed that Laura pointed out, it is that shed that's on the right hand side. That is the original ice house, the original Hovey Ice House for Glen Lake. It's where when they harvested the ice they stored it there before it got moved down to Glenwood Ave. So that is the original ice house, and the intent is to leave that. It actually has two sets of walls. There's an exterior and an interior wall so when they will fill it with ice, they would fill it with sawdust in between the interior and the exterior to protect the ice. MR. TRAVER-So basically you've got a pre-existing,non-conforming structure. MR.HALL-Correct. MR.TRAVER-And what you're proposing is to not make it conforming,but to keep the building footprint and re-build basically what was there. MR.HALL-On that,yes. MR. TRAVER-Okay, and thus the setback issue applies. MR.HALL-Yes. MR. TRAVER-So have you thought about moving it back and making it more compliant? MR. HALL-We looked at that. The problem with moving it back from the lake is that there would be zero view at that point. There would be no view from the house to the lake. Not anywhere near what is there now, and this is a house that's been in the family. VICTOR CELADON MR. CELADON-1946. MR. TRAVER-Okay. 21 (Queensbury Planning Board 04/16/2024) MR.STEFANZIK-I thought that the current house looks very nice. I knowit has to be changed,and when I looked at that I could just see a lot. So I commend you for wanting to improve that. Normally I would have probably a concern building it so close to the line and the lake,but basically you're putting it right on the same footprint. You're improving the septic system which is always great for the lake. So I commend you. I do have a couple of questions,though. Is the current house now, I couldn't tell. Is it on a slab or is it raised? Because it was all kind of. MR. CELADON-My understanding,my recollection from many years ago is underneath the side porches and the main house in the front are concrete blocks basically, and the kitchen in the back right up against the driveway,which the back wall is the kitchen sink,etc.,the foundation is gone and the kitchen floor is basically rotted away. So I'm not sure what was under there to begin with. It's below ground level. MR. STEFANZIK-So when you excavate it,are you going to be excavating concrete or is it just basically? MR. CELADON-Rubble. MR.HALL-For the most part. MR. STEFANZIK-And then you're going to put down a slab. MR.HALL-We're actually going to put down frost walls. MR. STEFANZIK-Frost walls. MR. TRAVER-All right. Other questions, comments from members of the Board regarding these variances? MR. STEFANZIK-I would just like to add, at the Site Plan,if you can kind of explain how you're going to protect the lake during construction,because you're going to be constructing very close to the lake,so how you're going to protect the lake, and also where you're putting your septic system,your drainage. It looks like,if I read it right on the map,you're going to be chopping down some trees,tearing out some trees. MR.HALL-It's up in the portion where the two pieces come together. So there will have to be some tree removal. It's up where the road. MR. STEFANZIK-Right. That's kind of what I thought. Maybe at Site Plan, an inventory of what you're going to be chopping down. MR.HALL-Sure. Those are probably 65,70 feet back from the lake,maybe more than that. MR. STEFANZIK-Is that right? MR.HALL-Yes. MR. CELADON-Yes. MR. TRAVER-We do try to replace a tree with a tree. So if you're say cutting five trees down up there,if you could think about,again,this is a Site Plan issue,if you could think about replacing the five with five new ones or more perhaps. MR.HALL-Yes. MR. TRAVER-That would be great. I'd appreciate that. Other questions, comments from members of the Board regarding the referral? Okay. Do we have a draft resolution? MR. STEFANZIK-Okay. RESOLUTION RE: ZBA RECOMMENDATION RE: AV# 20-2024 VICTOR&TERRY CELADON The applicant has submitted an application for the following: Applicant proposes demolition of an existing home to construct a new 2,700 sq. ft. footprint home with a floor area of 3,SS9 sq. ft. The project will maintain current well point, 131 sq. ft. shed and shoreline buffer. Site work includes a new septic system and a total disturbance area of 12,19E sq. ft. Pursuant to chapter 179-3-040 &179-6-050, site plan for new floor area in a CEA and hard surfacing within 50 ft. of the shoreline shall be subject to Planning Board review and approval. Variance: Relief is sought for setbacks. Planning Board shall provide a recommendation to the Zoning Board of Appeals. 22 (Queensbury Planning Board 04/16/2024) The Town of Queensbury Zoning Ordinance,per Section 179-9-070 J 2 b. requires the Planning Board to provide a written recommendation to the Zoning Board of Appeals for projects that require both Zoning Board of Appeals&Planning Board approval; The Planning Board has briefly reviewed and discussed this application,the relief request in the variance application as well as the potential impacts of this project on the neighborhood and surrounding community,and found that: MOTION TO MAKE A RECOMMENDATION ON BEHALF OF THE PLANNING BOARD TO THE ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS FOR AREA VARIANCE 17-2024 VICTOR&z TERRY CELADON. Introduced by Fritz Stefanzick who moved for its adoption,and a) The Planning Board,based on a limited review,has not identified any significant adverse impacts that cannot be mitigated with current project proposal. Motion seconded by Ellen McDevitt. Duly adopted this 16`h day of April 2024 by the following vote: AYES: Mrs. McDevitt,Mr. Longacker,Mr. Stark,Mr. Magowan, Mr. Stefanzick,Mr. Deeb, Mr. Traver NOES: NONE MR. TRAVER-You are off to the ZBA. MR.HALL-Thank you very much. See you next week. MR. TRAVER-The next item on our agenda, also as a referral to the ZBA, is Seeley Machine, Inc., Preliminary Stage 2-2024 and Final Stage 3-2024. This is an Unlisted SEQR action. SUBDIVISION PRELIMINARY STAGE 2-2024 SUBDIVISION FINAL STAGE 3-2024 SEQR TYPE: UNLISTED. SEELEY MACHINE,INC. AGENT(S): HUTCHINS ENGINEERING. OWNER(S): SEELEY BOOMWORKS, LLC. ZONING: CLI. LOCATION: 75 BIG BOOM ROAD. THIS PROJECT IS FOR A 2 LOT SUBDIVISION OF A 7.25 ACRE PARCEL. THE FIRST PARCEL WILL BE 3.04 ACRES AND MAINTAIN THE EXISTING SEELEY MACHINE, INC. BUILDING. THE SECOND PARCEL WILL BE 4.21 ACRES AND CONTAIN THE EXISTING 15,000 SQ. FT. BUILDING. THE PROPOSED LOT LINE WILL SEPARATE THE TWO BUILDINGS BETWEEN THE SHARED AND COVERED LOADING DOCK. NO SITE CHANGES ARE PROPOSED. A WAIVER FOR SUBDIVISION SKETCH PLAN IS BEING REQUESTED. VARIANCE: RELIEF IS SOUGHT FOR A 2 LOT SUBDIVISION LINE BETWEEN TWO BUILDINGS WITH A ZERO FT. SETBACK. PLANNING BOARD SHALL PROVIDE A RECOMMENDATION TO THE ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS. CROSS REFERENCE: SP 65-2005,SP 67-2014,AV 23-2024,AV 24-2024, SP 18-2024, SP 19-2024. WARREN CO. REFERRAL: N/A FOR SUBDIVISION. SITE INFORMATION: HUDSON RIVER SLOPES. LOT SIZE: 7.25 ACRES. TAX MAP NO. 309.18-1- 1. SECTION: 179-3-040. TOM HUTCHINS, REPRESENTING APPLICANT,PRESENT MR. TRAVER-Laura? MRS. MOORE-So this is definitely a different one. We usually don't see this type of application,but I'll try to explain it. This is a 7.25 acre parcel. They're proposing a two lot subdivision. The first parcel will be 3.04 acres and maintains the existing Seeley Machine,Inc.building. MR. TRAVER-So 3.04 acres and the other one is going to be. MRS. MOORE-Is going to be 4.21 acres and contains an existing 15,000 square foot building. It happens with the subdivision line that will actually create a zero lot line setback,and so in this case you're referring it to the Zoning Board. The Zoning Board gets to take a look at it,sort of almost like a reverse referral. It comes back to the Planning Board for an actual subdivision once the subdivision creates the actual variance itself. So,yes,don't ask. MR. TRAVER-Okay. So basically the only variance is because there's no distance between the parcels. MRS. MOORE-Correct. MR. TRAVER-Okay. All right. Good evening. MR. HUTCHINS-Good evening. My name's Tom Hutchins, Hutchins Engineers. I'm here with Ed Leonard,who is a co-owner of Seeley Machine,and we're talking about what is currently a seven and a half 23 (Queensbury Planning Board 04/16/2024) acre parcel at 75 Big Boom Road and what we're talking about doing is creating this line that splits this parcel into Parcel One and Parcel Two. You may recall,or some of you that were on the Board several years ago, in 2014 I was here with the owner at the time, which was Seeley Machine at that time it was Craig Seeley and Craig proposed to build this building on the one property. He came through Site Plan Review and he built that building and the building is there. Unfortunately in the interim Craig Seeley is deceased, and the company, Seeley Machine,Inc.is now owned by Ed Leonard and Scott Shepard and they operate Seeley Machine company at this site. It's been there since, I'm sorry, the company was founded in 1955. It's been in this location since 1995. They machine and manufacture custom parts for the power generation industry. They employee 16 well-paying jobs, and most importantly they have over 36 relatively permanently installed very large machine tools that are located within the Seeley Machine building. As I said Ed and Scott own the property. They don't own the building. It would be a tremendous undertaking to re-locate this machine shop and Ed and Scott have made an arrangement with the Estate of Craig Seeley to purchase this building and this property and this building would remain with Seeley Boomworks which is owned by the Estate of Craig Seeley. So to try to make this as simple as possible, although there's a whole lot of applications involved, what we are talking about is a no construction change. We want to create this parcel line to split the whole parcel into Parcel One and Parcel Two with the two separate buildings. Now the little bit of a complicating factor is there's this, this is an open canopy. It's not an enclosed building. It's an open canopy over the two loading doors at each building. It benefits both buildings. It benefits both owners when hopefully there are two separate owners, and there's also an access driveway right here that benefits both buildings and hopefully both owners. They will create a reciprocal access and maintenance easement to maintain the commonly used properties which consist of the driveway and the canopy over the loading doors. MR. TRAVER-So the subdivision is driven by the fact that it's two owners? MR. HUTCHINS-No. The subdivision is driven by the fact that Seeley Machine company, which is Ed and Scott and their employees,are now renting from Seeley Boomworks,and Seeley Boomworks wishes to divest in some of the properties,okay. So these guys own the machine company and they wish to keep it in this location in Queensbury and in order to do that,they need to acquire the property from the Estate of Craig Seeley which is Seeley Boomworks, and this allows for the machine shop and their staging areas to be transferred into their ownership,while Boomworks maintains the storage warehouse building. MR. TRAVER-Got it. MR. DEEB-Two separate buildings,two separate businesses. That makes sense. MR.HUTCHINS-It does make sense. Hopefully we explained that reasonably clearly. Ed,anything you want to add on that? ED LEONARD MR. LEONARD-No. We want to stay in Queensbury. I mean it would be devastating for us to try and move the whole business to Washington County. I'd rather stay in Queensbury. We've been in Queensbury. I'm sure Queensbury would like us, we pay taxes in Queensbury. It would be detrimental for us to try to move. We're lucky enough to be able to work out a deal, and if we can get this subdivision to go through and we can steam full steam ahead and keep on going for another,I've been here 32 years and hopefully for another 32. MR. TRAVER-All right. Questions,comments from members of the Board? MR. LONGACKER-No problem with access, you know, everything was horrible and you couldn't do anything in the lot to the south there, to the south of that? You have all the room in the world to turn around. MR.HUTCHINS-There is another access on the north side. MR. LONGACKER-That's what I was looking at. MR. TRAVER-So there's a zero setback because it's,well, as has been explained, and as Laura alerted us, it is an unusual situation. Does anybody have any issues with that variance request? Okay. We have a resolution. MR. MAGOWAN-Well the comment I would like to make is, Ed, I really appreciate your staying in Queensbury. I'm a little familiar with the shop and what goes on there. You also have the helmet, the Hirsch. You guys have come a long way since Glenwood. So I'm happy you're staying, and you're right, the size of those machines and what's in there,this is a great move that I'm happy with. MR. LEONARD-Thank you. 24 (Queensbury Planning Board 04/16/2024) MR. HUTCHINS-So I guess technically we're seeking your support for our requested variances for the zero lot setback from this little canopy and in addition each building, these buildings were built 50 feet apart. The side setback is 30 feet. So each building is 25 feet from that proposed line. MR. TRAVER-Yes. All right. So we have a resolution. MR. STEFANZIK-Okay, RESOLUTION RE: ZBA RECOMMENDATION RE: AV#24-2024 SEELEY MACHINE,INC. The applicant has submitted an application for the following:This project is for a 2 lot subdivision of a 7.25 acre parcel. The first parcel will be 3.04 acres and maintain the existing Seeley Machine,Inc.building. The second parcel will be 4.21 acres and contain the existing 15,000 sq.ft.building. The proposed lot line will separate the two buildings between the shared and covered loading dock.No site changes are proposed.A waiver for subdivision sketch plan is being requested.Variance: Relief is sought for a 2 lot subdivision line between two buildings with a zero ft. setback. Planning Board shall provide a recommendation to the Zoning Board of Appeals. The Town of Queensbury Zoning Ordinance,per Section 179-9-070 J 2 b. requires the Planning Board to provide a written recommendation to the Zoning Board of Appeals for projects that require both Zoning Board of Appeals&Planning Board approval; The Planning Board has briefly reviewed and discussed this application,the relief request in the variance application as well as the potential impacts of this project on the neighborhood and surrounding community,and found that: MOTION TO MAKE A RECOMMENDATION ON BEHALF OF THE PLANNING BOARD TO THE ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS FOR AREA VARIANCE 18-2024 &z AREA VARIANCE 19-2024 SEELEY MACHINE,INC.,Introduced by Fritz Stefanzick who moved for its adoption, and a) The Planning Board,based on a limited review,has not identified any significant adverse impacts that cannot be mitigated with current project proposal. Motion seconded by Brad Magowan. Duly adopted this 16`h day of April 2024 by the following vote: AYES: Mr. Longacker,Mr. Stark,Mr. Magowan,Mr. Stefanzick, Mr. Deeb,Mrs. McDevitt,Mr. Traver NOES: NONE MR. TRAVER-You're off to the ZBA. MR.HUTCHINS-Thankyou. MR. LEONARD-Thank you very much. MR. TRAVER-The next section of our agenda is New Business, and the next item is Hudson Headwaters Health Network. This is Site Plan 15-2024. NEW BUSINESS: SITE PLAN NO.15-2024 SEQR TYPE: TYPE II. HUDSON HEADWATERS HEALTH NETWORK. AGENT(S): ENGINEERING VENTURES,P.C. OWNER(S): SAME AS APPLICANT. ZONING: CLI. LOCATION: 44 CAREY ROAD. APPLICANT PROPOSES REDEVELOPMENT OF AN EXISTING SITE WITH A 7,132 SQ. FT. WAREHOUSE BUILDING THAT WOULD BE CONVERTED TO A ONE STORY OFFICE AND EQUIPMENT MEZZANINE. PROJECT INCLUDES CONSTRUCTION OF A 6,048 SQ. FT. POLE BARN FOR STORAGE OF VEHICLES AND EQUIPMENT. PROJECT SITE WORK WILL INCLUDE A NEW PARKING AREA, STORMWATER,UTILITY UPGRADE AND LANDSCAPING. PURSUANT TO CHAPTER 179-3- 040,SITE PLAN FOR BUILDING RENOVATIONS AND CONSTRUCTION OF ANEW BUILDING WITH ASSOCIATED SITE WORK SHALL BE SUBJECT TO PLANNING BOARD REVIEW AND APPROVAL. CROSS REFERENCE: SP 20-2020,SP 18-2023. WARREN CO. REFERRAL: N/A. SITE INFORMATION: HUDSON HEADWATERS HEALTH NETWORK CAMPUS. LOT SIZE: 2.62 ACRES. TAX MAP NO. 308.16-2-4.3. SECTION: 179-3-040. MARK DE CRESCENTE, REPRESENTING APPLICANT,PRESENT MR. TRAVER-Laura? 25 (Queensbury Planning Board 04/16/2024) MRS. MOORE-So this project is re-development of an existing site. The project is a 7,132 square foot existing warehouse building to be converted to a one story office with an equipment mezzanine area. The project includes the construction of a 6,04E square foot pole barn for storage of vehicles and equipment. Project site work includes new parking area,stormwater management,utility upgrade, and landscaping. MR. TRAVER-Okay. Thank you. Good evening. MR. DE CRESCENTE-Hi, I'm Mark DeCrescente with Engineering Ventures, with Tracy Mills from Hudson Headwaters. TRACY MILLS MS. MILLS-Hi. Thank you for having me. Just a brief overview of the project. So it is administrative office space for our IS Department, Information Services, so mainly IT staff, that we have in multiple locations throughout the community right now and pretty remote that we are consolidating in the location. So I'll turn it over to Mark for details on the site. MR. TRAVER-Okay. MR. DE CRESCENTE-So we were here last year with a site plan for this site that was approved, and I don't know if everyone recalls that,but it actually was converting this existing building to two stories,and we were actually going to have proposed stairwells as additions to the building. Over the past year Hudson Headwaters has revised that and just wants to do the one story like we had proposed. So there's really no exterior changes to that building other than moving some doors around and everything,but the building's in the Commercial Light Industrial zone. The main entrance for the building is going to kind of remain where it is. I think we're adding another door to the main entrance,but the same location. The pole barn that we're showing is going to be used,it's an open structure on all sides. It's mainly just used to store the different vehicles, over-sized vehicles, that Hudson Headwaters has. They have a few vans and some trucks I believe. We're showing 79 spaces total,13 within the pole barn,66 spaces outside. The dumpster enclosure we're showing on the southwest,just south of the pole barn area. This all should, I believe this was all how it was. We tried to keep the same design intent as we had on the previous application because that got approved. So we figured why change that. The water and the sewer are coming off the north side of the building. The water, we are connecting to a line on the eastern side of Carey Road,and the sewer,I believe there's an existing sewer lateral,they stubbed basically the end of the sewer pipe right off our property on the northeastern corner. So we're going to be coming gravity out of the building to an E-1 pump station, and then pumping to that sewer lateral, and again this was all, the water and sewer did not change. So just new locations around. MR. TRAVER-Yes,that was part of the original plan. MR.DE CRESCENTE-Yes. Stormwater,it's an interesting site. There's kind of a bowl. There's really no existing outfall. So we took care that we're infiltrating the 100 year storm for this site. So there's really no runoff off the site. It should match the existing conditions. We have two areas. Both are service infiltration basins. So they're relatively low maintenance. They're really just kind of lawn areas that allows, we have great infiltration rates in this area. It just allows runoff to drain to them, and like I said, we're holding that 100 year storm which was unchanged from the last project. We have some stormwater pre-treatment areas because the overall long-term functionality of these infiltration basins depends heavily on pre-treatment. So you'll see there's kind of areas where water's coming off the pavement. We kind of allow sediment to settle out of that there before going into the infiltration. This is all compliant with the New York State manual. So just to point those two areas out. We've done landscaping in accordance with the Town of Queensbury Code, tried to incorporate everything, kind of like we did on the last one, but we have the street trees, the interior parking lot requirements, the exterior plantings around the exterior parking areas, and also because we're two different uses, we are showing a tree zone buffer between the two uses that are required, and the lighting design is so that we don't have any spillover onto a neighboring property. I think one difference with this is we're showing one way traffic around the back of the building to access, basically what we want to do is we want to discourage people from using the pole barn that aren't,other than those vehicles that are Hudson Headwaters designated vehicles. So the idea is that they would pull in through the back and just go straight through the back of the site down through that pole barn. Everything else is two way except for that road there. Any questions? MR. STEFANZIK-Are you going to be hiring any more employees? MS. MILLS-Right now there's a little bit of room for growth, but it's really to consolidate existing employees that we have. MR.STEFANZIK-And the reason I was asking,I'm pleasantly amazed every time I go there,because I have doctors there, all the cars and all the people and it just seems it flows very nicely the way it's laid out. So I just get curious, as that whole area develops more and more, as we're getting more businesses in that area,how's the traffic going down that main road? I wouldn't expect this is going to cause any problems. 26 (Queensbury Planning Board 04/16/2024) That's why I asked about the employees,are you going to be hiring significantly more employees, are there going to be more cars. MS. MILLS-Right now we have a really nice balance of employees that are there and remote, but we do have a need to bring some employees back that have been remote,but we like to keep the flexibility. So far we haven't seen any major traffic concerns. MR. TRAVER-Other questions, comments from members of the Board? Do Board members feel comfortable moving forward on this application? Okay. We have a draft resolution. MR. STEFANZIK-Yes,first we have a. MR. TRAVER-That's right. We have a SEQR, and we also have public hearing. Is there anyone in the audience that wants to address the Planning Board on this application? No? Written comments,Laura? PUBLIC HEARING OPENED MRS. MOORE-There are no written comments. MR. TRAVER-All right. Then we'll close the public hearing. PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED MR. TRAVER-And this is Unlisted under the State Environmental Quality Review Act. So we need to think about environmental impacts. This is very similar to a previous application that was approved, although this does require a separate SEQR because it is a changed project. Do any Board members have any environmental impact concerns with this? Okay. Then we can go ahead with the SEQR resolution. RESOLUTION REAFFIRMING A NEGATIVE DECLARATION SP#15-2024 HHHN The applicant proposes redevelopment of an existing site with a 7,132 sq.ft.warehouse building that would be converted to a one story office and equipment mezzanine. Project includes construction of a 6,04E sq. ft. pole barn for storage of vehicles and equipment. Project site work will include a new parking area, stormwater, utility upgrade and landscaping. Pursuant to chapter 179-3-040, site plan for building renovations and construction of a new building with associated site work shall be subject to Planning Board review and approval. The Planning Board has determined that the proposed project and Planning Board action is subject to review under the State Environmental Quality Review Act; The proposed action considered by this Board is Unlisted in the Department of Environmental Conservation Regulations implementing the State Environmental Quality Review Act and the regulations of the Town of Queensbury; No Federal or other agencies are involved; Part 1 of the Short EAF has been completed by the applicant; Whereas, the Planning Board adopted a resolution on 3/30/2023 adopting SEQRA determination of non- significance, and Upon review of the information recorded on the EAF, it is the conclusion of the Town of Queensbury Planning Board as lead agency reaffirms 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 REAFFIRM NEGATIVE DECLARATION FOR THE PROPOSED SITE PLAN 15-2024 HUDSON HEADWATERS HEALTH NETWORK. Introduced by Fritz Stefanzick who moved for its adoption,seconded by Ellen McDevitt; Duly adopted this 16`h day of April2024 by the following vote: AYES: Mrs. McDevitt,Mr. Longacker,Mr. Stark,Mr. Magowan, Mr. Stefanzick,Mr. Deeb, Mr. Traver NOES: NONE MR. TRAVER-Okay, and next we can consider a Site Plan resolution. RESOLUTION APPROVING SP#15-2024 HUDSON HEADWATERS HEALTH NETWORK 27 (Queensbury Planning Board 04/16/2024) Applicant proposes redevelopment of an existing site with a 7,132 sq. ft. warehouse building that would be converted to a one story office and equipment mezzanine. Project includes construction of a 6,04E sq. ft. pole barn for storage of vehicles and equipment. Project site work will include a new parking area, stormwater, utility upgrade and landscaping. Pursuant to chapter 179-3-040, site plan for building renovations and construction of a new building with associated site work shall be subject to Planning Board review and approval. Pursuant to relevant sections of the Town of Queensbury Zoning Code-Chapter 179-9-OSO, the Planning Board has determined that this proposal satisfies the requirements as stated in the Zoning Code; The Planning Board has reviewed the potential environmental impacts of the project,pursuant to the State Environmental Quality Review Act (SEQRA) and adopted a SEQRA Negative Declaration Determination of Non-Significance; The Planning Board opened a public hearing on the Site plan application on 4/16/2024 and continued the public hearing to 4/16/2024 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 4/16/2024; 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 15-2024 HUDSON HEADWATERS HEALTH NETWORK,- Introduced by Fritz Stefanzick who moved for its adoption. According to the draft resolution prepared by Staff with the following: 1) Waivers requested granted:no waivers were requested; 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 expiration date of 4/16/2025-1 3) Adherence to the items outlined in the follow-up letter sent with this resolution. a) The limits of clearing will constitute a no-cut buffer zone, orange construction fencing shall be installed around these areas and field verified by Community Development staff, b) If applicable, the Sanitary Sewer connection plan must be submitted to the Wastewater Department for its review, approval,permitting and inspection; c) If curb cuts are being added or changed a driveway permit is required. A building permit will not be issued until the approved driveway permit has been provided to the Planning Office; d) If application was referred to engineering then Engineering sign-off required prior to signature of Zoning Administrator of the approved plans; e) Final approved plans should have dimensions and setbacks noted on the site plan/survey, floor plans and elevation for the existing rooms and proposed rooms in the building and site improvements;- f) If required,the applicant must submit a copy of the following to the Town: a. The project NOI (Notice of Intent) for coverage under the current "NYSDEC SPDES General Permit from Construction Activity"prior to the start of any site work. b. The project NOT(Notice of Termination)upon completion of the project; c. The applicant must maintain on their project site,for review by staff: i. The approved final plans that have been stamped by the Town Zoning Administrator. These plans must include the project SWPPP (Storm Water Pollution Prevention Plan)when such a plan was prepared and approved; ii. The project NOI and proof of coverage under the current NYSDEC SPDES General Permit,or an individual SPDES permit issued for the project if required. g) Final approved plans, in compliance with the Site Plan, must be submitted to the Community Development Department before any further review by the Zoning Administrator or Building and Codes personnel; h) The applicant must meet with Staff after approval and prior to issuance of Building Permit and/or the beginning of any site work; i) Subsequent issuance of further permits, including building permits is dependent on compliance with this and all other conditions of this resolution; j) As-built plans to certify that the site plan is developed according to the approved plans to be provided prior to issuance of the certificate of occupancy. k) This resolution is to be placed in its entirety on the final plans Motion seconded by Warren Longacker. Duly adopted this 16`h day of April 2024 by the following vote: AYES: Mr. Stark,Mr. Magowan,Mr. Stefanzick,Mr. Deeb,Mrs. McDevitt,Mr. Longacker,Mr. Traver 2S (Queensbury Planning Board 04/16/2024) NOES: NONE MR. TRAVER-You are all set. MR. DEEB-Good luck. MR. DE CRESCENTE-Thankyou. MR. TRAVER-Is there any other business before the Planning Board this evening? Laura, do you have anything for us? MRS. MOORE-I don't have anything else. MR. TRAVER-All right. Then I guess we're all set. I'll entertain a motion to adjourn. MOTION TO ADJOURN THE QUEENSBURY PLANNING BOARD MEETING OF APRIL 16Tx 2024,Introduced by Stephen Traver who moved for its adoption,seconded by Ellen McDevitt: Duly adopted this 16`h day of April,2024,by the following vote: AYES: Mrs. McDevitt,Mr. Longacker,Mr. Stark,Mr. Magowan, Mr. Stefanzick,Mr. Deeb, Mr. Traver NOES: NONE MR. TRAVER-We stand adjourned. Thank you,everybody, and we'll see you next week. On motion meeting was adjourned. RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED, Stephen Traver,Chairman 29