Loading...
04-23-2024 (Queensbury Planning Board 04/23/2024) QUEENSBURYPLANNINGBOARD MEETING SECOND REGULAR MEETING APRIL 23RD12024 INDEX Site Plan No. 31-2023 David Turner 1. REQUEST FOR ONE YR. EXT. Tax Map No.290.5-1-26 Site Plan No. S-2020 Thomas Heinzelman 1. REQUEST FOR ONE YR. EXT Tax Map No.2S9.7-1-19 Site Plan No.20-2024 Furniture House North,LLC 2. ZBA RECOMMENDATION Tax Map No.296.9-1-10.12 Site Plan No.5-2023 Geraldine Eberlein 4. Tax Map No.227.17-1-25;227.17-1-24 (septic) Site Plan No.11-2024 Patten Property Development,LLC 12. OPENED PUBLIC HEARING ONLY Tax Map No.2S9.11-1-23 Site Plan No.12-2024 Patten Property Development,LLC 12. OPENED PUBLIC HEARING ONLY Tax Map No.2S9.11-1-59.312 Site Plan No.17-2024 Victor&Terry Celadon 13. Tax Map No.2S9.10-1-15 Site Plan No.16-2024 Paul Zemanek 15. Tax Map No.2S9.10-1-52.2 Subdivision No.2-2024 Seeley Machine,Inc. 1S. PRELIMINARY STAGE Tax Map No. 309.1E-1-1 Subdivision No. 3-2024 FINAL STAGE 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 04/23/2024) QUEENSBURY PLANNING BOARD MEETING SECOND REGULAR MEETING APRIL 23RD,2024 7.00 P.M. MEMBERS PRESENT STEPHEN TRAVER,CHAIRMAN ELLEN MC DEVITT,VICE CHAIRMAN FRITZ STEFANZICK,SECRETARY WARREN LONGACKER BRAD MAGOWAN BRADY STARK DAVID DEEB 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 23rd, 2024. This is our second meeting for the month of April and our eighth meeting thus far for 2024. If we have an emergency event of some kind,please make note of the illuminated emergency exits and take advantage of those. If you have a cell phone or other electronic device, if you would either turn it off or turn the ringer off so as not to end up having that recorded for our meeting. We do record the meeting for our minutes, and also to that end, if you wish to have a conversation amongst yourselves, if you would move to the outer lobby to talk because that again could be picked up by the microphone and be confusing for the meeting minutes. With that,we do have a couple of Administrative Items. So we'll begin. The first is Site Plan 31-2023 for David Turner. ADMINISTRATIVE ITEMS SITE PLAN 31-2023 DAVID TURNER—REQUEST FOR A ONE YEAR EXTENSION This is a request for a one year extension. Laura? MRS.MOO RE-So they talked to a landscaping company,and they're notable to start work yet. So they've asked for a year extension. MR. TRAVER-Okay. Yes, they're plans expire this month. So does anyone have any questions or concerns regarding that extension request? Okay. We have a draft resolution. RESOLUTION GRANTING A ONE YEAR EXTENSION SP#31-2023 DAVID TURNER Applicant proposed a renovation of a shoreline area including land retaining walls,planting beds,vegetable garden area and patio areas.The rear deck is to be enlarged to 488 sq.ft.There will be a 210 sq.ft.permeable patio area within a section of the retaining wall. The existing 2,734 sq. ft. footprint home will remain unchanged. The Planning Board approved Site Plan 31-2023 on April 25,2023. MOTION TO APPROVE A ONE YEAR EXTENSION FOR SITE PLAN 31-2023 DAVID TURNER. Introduced by Fritz Stefanzick who moved for its adoption,seconded by Brad Magowan. Duly adopted this 23rd 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 Administrative Item is Site Plan 8-2020. This is Thomas Heinzelman,request for a one year extension. SITE PLAN 8-2020 THOMAS HEINZELMAN—REQUEST FOR A ONE YEAR EXTENSION MR. TRAVER-Laura? MRS. MOORE-So again they've asked for an extension. They have been able to demo and obtain their building permits. So they're in the process of actually developing a,I know it's a 2020 project,but they're getting there. 2 (Queensbury Planning Board 04/23/2024) MR. TRAVER-Okay, and you've been in communication with them I'm sure. MRS. MOORE-Yes. MR. TRAVER-I mean this was originally approved in 2020. So I hope they're not going to make a habit out of requesting these extensions. MRS. MOORE-No,they should be well on their way. MR. TRAVER-Okay. Any questions,concerns with that request? All right. We have a draft resolution. RESOLUTION GRANTING A ONE YEAR EXTENSION SP#5-2020 THOMAS HEINZELMAN Applicant proposed to remove an existing home 740 sq.ft.home and 715 sq.ft.porches for construction of a new home-1,510 sq. ft. footprint and 2,604 sq. ft. floor area. Site work includes grading, new well and new septic(septic on adjoining property). The Planning Board approved Site Plan 5-2020 on May 27, 2020. The Planning Board granted one year extensions on May S,2021,April 26,2022 and April 25,2023. The applicant is requesting another one year extension valid until May 27,2025. MOTION TO APPROVE A ONE YEAR EXTENSION FOR SITE PLAN 8-2020 THOMAS HEINZELMAN. Introduced by Fritz Stefanzick who moved for its adoption, seconded by Ellen McDevitt. Duly adopted this 23rd 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-All right, and now we move to our regular agenda. The first section is recommendations, and this is unapproved development. The Furniture House North,LLC,Site Plan 20-2024. RECOMMENDATION—UNAPPROVED DEVELOPMENT SITE PLAN NO.20-2024 SEQR TYPE: TYPE II. FURNITURE HOUSE NORTH,LLC. AGENT(S): RUCINSKI HALL ARCHITECTURE. OWNER(S): SAME AS APPLICANT. ZONING: CM. LOCATION: 1066 STATE ROUTE 9. APPLICANT HAS COMPLETED FACADE WORK THAT INCLUDES CHANGING BROWN PAINT TO WHITE,LOCATION OF WINDOWS,AUTO PART ART FIXTURES AND UPDATED LIGHTING. THE OUTDOOR PATIO ROOFLINE HAS BEEN EXTENDED AND THE PATIO AREA HAS BEEN UPDATED WITH CONCRETE. PLANTERS AND SEASONAL SEATING TO BE ADDED TO THE OUTDOOR PATIO BUT RESTAURANT SEATING WILL REMAIN THE SAME. THE EXISTING BUILDING WILL REMAIN A STORE AND RESTAURANT. PURSUANT TO CHAPTER 179-3-040, SITE PLAN FOR FACADE IMPROVEMENTS AND ADDITIONAL SEATING SHALL BE SUBJECT TO PLANNING BOARD REVIEW AND APPROVAL. VARIANCE: RELIEF IS SOUGHT FOR ROOF SETBACKS. PLANNING BOARD SHALL PROVIDE A RECOMMENDATION TO THE ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS. CROSS REFERENCE: AV 25-2024. WARREN CO.REFERRAL: APRIL 2024. SITE INFORMATION: TRAVEL CORRIDOR. LOT SIZE: 2.8 ACRES. TAX MAP NO. 2969-1-10.12. SECTION: 179-3-040. JON ZAPPER&ETHAN HALL,REPRESENTING APPLICANT,PRESENT MR. TRAVER-Laura? MRS. MOORE-So this applicant has completed some facade work that includes changing the facade from brown to white,location of windows, affixing some fixtures to the outside of the facade,updating some lighting,and an outdoor patio with a new roof line. So the variance that they're seeking is for the roofline setback for the front property line. MR. TRAVER-Okay. Good evening. MR.ZAPPER-Good evening,for the record,Jon Lapper with Ethan Hall. The short/long story here is that everyone knows how this property came about with the Suttons, and Mario DiSiena who has The Furniture House on Saratoga Lake came up here a number of years ago,first with the Furniture Store which was somewhat of a flea market at that point,not completely,but partially, and completely renovated it,it 3 (Queensbury Planning Board 04/23/2024) has been in disrepair, and built back and restored the beautiful building and also built back a really dynamic furniture business. So after that was going for a number of years, what we know as Suttons Marketplace went for sale as well,and he took it on himself as a project to do a dramatic renovation which Ethan put in the application has been about 20 months. So he's been working on it for almost two years, building permits,doing everything right,really exquisite on the inside,the woodwork that he's done. So this after the fact variance is that it just didn't dawn on him when, these won't show you the detail,but the portion of the roof that's a little bit extended is not the part of the building that faces the road. So a layman wouldn't think that this would be a setback because it's 20 feet in from the front of the building closest to the road, and all he did was when the building comes around the side,the way the Suttons had it,it kind of roofline went in,and now he has straightened it out,and it just never dawned on him that this would require an approval and it's a very minor thing on a beautiful building. So Ethan has a photograph of exactly what this part of the building looks like. MR. TRAVER-Okay. Thanks. MR.HALL-For the record,Ethan Hall,principle with Rucinski Hall Architecture. Laura,do you have the new photos that I had sent,the ones that have the white on the background? As you can see,in the photo that she has up now,the eaves line,the fascia line goes up,now if you go one more around those where it's looking at the front,I'm sorry,where it's looking at the side. That one right there. So you can see where the existing fascia line is still there. He just closed the front eaves line out, and when he did that, it extended that piece of the roof. I'll go up and point that out. It's this section right here that was added, and in plan view the 75 foot setback that was about midway through the front piece. MR. TRAVER-Okay. That triggers the variance. MR. HALL-And so,yes,this triggers the variance. The 75 feet setback is from Route 9 and it falls about midway through here,and Mario,you know,he had done all the front part and we had gotten the building permits to do all the interior work and to do the exterior facade windows,to move those,put new overhead doors and when he was doing this part, doing the repair of this,these posts are where the corners of the existing building were. They sit along the existing foundation and this is the existing roof. He just finished this piece around the front and when he did that,that triggered the variance. MR.TRAVER-Right. Okay. Thank you for that explanation. Questions,comments from members of the Planning Board? They're looking for a variance for this setback. MR. STEFANZIK-Is that going to be a new entrance or a secondary entrance? MR.HALL-No,that's going to be the outdoor serving space. It connects directly to the kitchen. So that's going to be the outdoor serving space. MR. STEFANZIK-So it's not for patrons to go in and out? MR. HALL-No,no,just for staff. The main entry is the entry there. There is an emergency exit that's on the corner. These doors that are in the front,they took,the three windows that are on the side used to be across the front. They just moved them over to the side and they put the two overhead doors in where those three windows were, and there is a door that goes out,it's an emergency exit right now,that's shut off. It's not a required exit. MR. STEFANZIK-Gotcha. MR. TRAVER-Okay. Any other questions,comments from members of the Board? This is a request from the ZBA for us to make a recommendation on the variance request. Does anyone have any issues? Typically it comes back to us as approved,but does anyone have any concerns? I'm not hearing any,so we have a draft resolution. RECOMMENDATION RE: ZBA RECOMMENDATION RE: AV#25-2024 FURNITURE HOUSE The applicant has submitted an application for the following:Applicant has completed facade work that includes changing brown paint to white,location of windows,auto part art fixtures and updated lighting. The outdoor patio roofline has been extended and the patio area has been updated with concrete.Planters and seasonal seating to be added to the outdoor patio but restaurant seating will remain the same. The existing building will remain a store and restaurant. Pursuant to chapter 179-3-040, site plan for facade improvements and additional seating shall be subject to Planning Board review and approval. Variance: Relief is sought for roof setbacks. Planning Board shall provide a recommendation to the Zoning Board of Appeals. The Town of Queensbury Zoning Ordinance,per Section 179-9-070 J 2 b. requires the Planning Board to provide a written recommendation to the Zoning Board of Appeals for projects that require both Zoning Board of Appeals&Planning Board approval; 4 (Queensbury Planning Board 04/23/2024) 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 25-2024 FURNITURE HOUSE NORTH, LLC.,Introduced by Frtiz 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 23ra 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.HALL-Thank you very much. MR. ZAPPER-Thank you. MR.TRAVER-The next section of our agenda is Old Business and the first item is Geraldine Eberlein. This is Site Plan 5-2023. OLD BUSINESS: 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&MATT HUNTINGTON,REPRESENTING APPLICANT,PRESENT MR. TRAVER-Laura? MRS.MOORE-So this application is for a newhome of 2,334 square feet with new floor area of 3,121 square feet. The application received variances the other evening from the Zoning Board in regards to front setback,shoreline setback,permeability and floor area. MR. TRAVER-Okay. Thank you. Good evening. Welcome back. MR. ZAPPER-Good evening. For the record, again,Jon Lapper with Matt Huntington from Studio A. So we had a full discussion about this at the last meeting with the Planning Board and when we went to the Zoning Board the next night,even though members of this Board were a little concerned about the floor area ratio variance,because it's such a small lot,13,000 square feet,two percent of that is 260 square feet. So the Zoning Board viewed it as pretty minor compared to everything that the applicant is doing to move the septic 200 feet back and so they liked it. So we're here now,the last stop after all of the septic variance and Zoning Board and now Site Plan Review. MR. TRAVER-Yes,thank you. Okay. So,and you received all the variances that you were asking. As far as Site Plan,the main concern that I have, and obviously we'll hear from other members of the Board,but my concern, again,is the proximity of some of the features to the lake,the fire pit up in the front. I mean that seems as though that's within even the shoreline buffer area. How far is that from the water? 5 (Queensbury Planning Board 04/23/2024) MR. ZAPPER-So we removed that, all that paving,before we went to the Zoning Board. So that would just be a portable fire pit somebody might put in. MR. TRAVER-So it's not a permanent feature. MR. ZAPPER-No. It was when we were here before you, the time before, and you expressed, could you make it a little bit less impermeable. So that's. MR. TRAVER-So those steps are gone as well? MR. HUNTINGTON-The steps we haven't removed at this point. I mean it's just access to get down there. They're stone steps. I mean they're not really a runoff generator. MR. TRAVER-Okay. Are they within 35 feet of the lake? MR. HUNTINGTON-Yes,but I would have to check, I don't think they qualify as a structure.,the stairs I don't believe so. MRS. MOORE-No. MR. TRAVER-Okay,but there's supposed to be plantings there,not stone. MR.HUNTINGTON-We have,I mean if you look at our,Sheet L4.0 we actually put together a little table about meeting Queensbury's buffering requirements and you'll see on that table that we do, in fact,meet the Town Code's requirements for plantings. MR. TRAVER-Okay. MR. ZAPPER-Do you have that,Laura? MR.HUNTINGTON-There it is. MR. ZAPPER-It's pretty extensively landscaped around the lake. MR. TRAVER-Questions,comments from members of the Board? MRS.MC DEVITT-There's three large trees on the east side that are going to be removed. Why? There's a maple and two apple trees. MR.HUNTINGTON-Off the top of my head,I'm not sure the condition of those trees. It may be a situation that,this project was started about a year or so ago,but they're right on the property line, and they may. I believe they're in diseased and dying condition. I would have to double check because again it's been a while since we've been out there. AUDIENCE MEMBER-They're going to fall on the house is what's going to happen. Honestly,go check it out. MRS. MC DEVITT-I guess I'd like to know that they really are diseased, because I think there's a lot of cutting down trees in fear of limbs and that sort of thing that maybe at times confound it. MR.HUNTINGTON-They are being replaced with two red maples. MR. TRAVER-The same number in the same location? MR.HUNTINGTON-Give or take a few feet but,yes,in the same location. MRS. MC DEVITT-There's three trees, and you said two maples. MR. HUNTINGTON-Okay. I see. The third tree is not quite on the property line. Yes,unfortunately I don't have the condition of those trees currently. MR. ZAPPER-Both of the applicants are here. MR.HUNTINGTON-Yes,certainly,they can reference. GERALDINE EBERLEIN 6 (Queensbury Planning Board 04/23/2024) MS. EBERLEIN-Gerry Eberlein. Yes,both of the trees are pretty, they're in rough shape. They're right between the properties, could fall, and then there's a third one in front of the cottage that's also in rough shape that needs to be removed. I believe Matt said we have replaced them with three or four maples I believe. MRS. MC DEVITT-It should be one for one. MS. EBERLEIN-Yes, I think that's what we had in there because I did this like a year or so ago, but whatever we needed to replace them with is what we're going to comply to do. MRS. MC DEVITT-Because you just said two red maples. MR. HUNTINGTON-Well there are two red maples, but there's also a Northern White Cedar. There's four of those that are going to be replaced,and an additional Dogwood. So again the landscaping plan here is pretty extensive and I would say substantially more than what's out there now. MR. TRAVER-So are those replacement trees,it sounds like they may not be fully reflected on the plan. MR. ZAPPER-No,they are. MR.HUNTINGTON-They're on the plan,on the,you can see the two in the lower right,those are two red maples there, and then on the other property line we have,you know, four, or five, six more. So not red maples, but those are all trees. Those are all trees. There's the Northern White Cedar there and the Dogwood as well. MR. TRAVER-Okay. Anything else on trees? MRS. MC DEVITT-No. It still looks like the fire pit's there,but that's going to be removed. MR.HUNTINGTON-Yes,that is removed. We re-submitted the layout sheet with it. The planting plan just wasn't fully updated with the fire pit. You can see it's kind of faded out. MR. TRAVER-Other questions,comments from members of the Board? MR. STEFANZIK-Yes,I have a couple. So,like I said last week,I think the house is beautiful. I'd love to have a house on that property. I do have a couple of comments and concerns,you know, off of the site plan. When you look at Item E,does the house fit in harmony with the rest of the neighborhood,and your response is it does because it's a single family house. Obviously I agree with that,but when I look at Seelye Road and you guys are at the beginning of Seelye Road, you take Seelye Road all the way to the end to Castaway's,I would argue that it's not. I've seen over the years a lot of those camps,a lot of those houses, have been knocked down and big, beautiful houses,just like the house you're looking to build here, the difference is they have the land to build these big houses and you don't. A lot of these houses,they have privacy to their neighbors,they have the screening,they have the buffer, and when you look at Item L on the site plan, where it requires, and I'll just paraphrase, landscaping, screening shall effectively provide visual and/or noise buffer between the applicants and adjoining lands. I would argue that you don't have that with your neighbor to the west. There's no buffer,and,you know,for me,that impact,that's a burden to the neighbor. They're going to see lighting. They're going to see the people in the house,noise and all of that stuff. MR. ZAPPER-So let me explain that, Fritz. The neighbor to the west sent a letter to the Zoning Board, because yours wasn't a public hearing, saying that they support the project, and what happened here is that they asked Gerry to move the house to the, I'm calling it the south, but it's actually to the north, because they wanted to have a better view than what they have now. So the house was moved in that direction. So they don't care about what's right next to them. They have a view of the lake from their deck that they didn't used to have. So that was really to address that,and in terms of the size of the house, I had mentioned that the septic system is on the neighbor's property 200 feet from the lake, and that, otherwise that would take up a lot of land and there would have been a lot of setbacks, but that really allowed,because the septic isn't on this lot. MR. STEFANZIK-And I think that's another difference. When you look at the harmony and in character with the rest of the houses on Seelye,they all have their own septic. This one doesn't. So my only comment here is that it is out of character with Seelye Road,I believe,and also subjectively maybe from an aesthetic standpoint. The house looks beautiful. You've got the landscape around it,but,you know,when you're looking from the lake or the road,you're going to see two stacked houses right on top of each other, and, Mr.Lapper,you had mentioned last week about two or three houses to the,I believe it's the south,that are there. MR. ZAPPER-Two to the south. 7 (Queensbury Planning Board 04/23/2024) MR. STEFANZIK-And,you know,I went back to the property to look at this house again, and I did look at those houses, and,you know,they're going to be looking to upgrade those houses in the future,that's,I think,on Water's Edge Road,and,you know,my concern here is the precedent being set. They're going to be able to come and say,we can build a house as big as we want. We can get the variances because they were given in this case, and then my longer term concern is if that slice of land,between Waters Edge and north Seelye, becomes very cluttered, it's going to look like Echo Bay. That's my concern. I would normally back off on this,but I really think that there's room to sharpen the pencil and still have a beautiful house. Those are my comments. MRS.MC DEVITT-I would agree. That's well said,and the Echo Bay thing is real and we know how much the water is a problem in Echo Bay,given invasive species. The other question I had is,can you explain to me again this curtain drain,where that water actually goes,especially after it rains three inches in 24 hours. MR.HUNTINGTON-The curtain drain is designed to actually intercept groundwater as in water coming up not necessarily infiltrating into the soil. So what happens is that curtain drain pulls it from the sides and around it,granted there's some ancillary rainfall or infiltration on top of it,but the main design intent is for the water that is below the surface. So if you picture almost a rectangle in the ground that's filled with crushed stone with a pipe in the bottom that's drawing water, groundwater, from all sides, and it's conveying it along the property line towards the lake,but it will outlet in the plant bed that's on the north side of the property. So it's groundwater out letting into a plant bed at this point. MRS. MC DEVITT-And if it overflows the plant bed,where does it go? MR. ZAPPER-Well, it would go to the lake, but it goes through the plant bed which helps filter it, but beyond that,the whole purpose was,even though we had the raised septic system which the Town Board approved, this increases the separation distance between groundwater and the septic system because it serves to lower the groundwater. So it's good for the neighborhood. It's good for the septic system to get the groundwater out of there. That was the purpose in putting it off with the septic variance, and the Town Engineer did approve that. MR. HUNTINGTON-And this is actually a prescriptive practice for high groundwater situations or on- site wastewater out of the Department of Health and Department of Environmental Conservation. It does help lower the groundwater table. Again, it's not a contaminant source that you're taking, it's not like you're taking stormwater and pumping it, or piping it directly into the lake. The idea is it's already subsurface water. I mean it's also,in fact,regulated in a similar manner to surface water on Lake George. There's certain separation distances you need to be away from it with septic, stormwater, etc. It's protected in a similar manner. So we're taking a similar protective water,conveying it to help lower it in the area of the septic, which, as Jon said,increases the separation. There's less likelihood of any bacteria from the septic getting into this,into the groundwater table itself,in that it's conveying it to the lake. MR. TRAVER-We do have a public hearing on this application as well. Is there anyone in the audience that wants to address the Planning Board on Site Plan 5-2023? I'm not seeing any. Laura,are there written comments? PUBLIC HEARING OPEN MRS.MOO RE-There are written comments. This is addressed to Mr.Traver. "The above referenced Site Plan/Freshwater Wetlands application was personally reviewed in my capacity as a licensed professional engineer and the Lake George Waterkeeper. It is recognized that the proposed project has received variances from the Town Board of Health for the septic system installed on wetland soils and from the Town Zoning Board of Appeals for shoreline setback,permeability and FAR. Despite claims of the benefits to Lake George from the project,the Lake George Waterkeeper cannot support these claims and feels the proposed project proposes too much development that will impact the lake with the attempted mitigation measures. The Waterkeeper offers the following comments for this project located in the Critical Environmental Area surrounding Lake George during your deliberations for the above referenced site plan review application. The proposed curtain drain will create a direct discharge where one does not exist to Lake George increasing nutrient loading. The application proposes the installation of a curtain drain to attempt to lower extremely high groundwater,where new septic systems are proposed. Although this has been approved by the Town Engineer,this will result in water quality impacts to Lake George for the following reasons. — The underdrain is proposed in an area where the subwatershed acts like a wetland and has hydric\wetlands soils present. The installation of the underdrain will create a conduit for the direct conveyance of groundwater from silty/clayey soils that absorb nutrients and provide a direct discharge to Lake George. This is substantiated with the extensive subsurface investigation of this area for the Rockhurst Treatment System. — The applicant's agent stated at the Zoning Board of Appeals meeting that the underdrain would"flow through a filter"before discharge to the lake. There is no filter provided on the plans and the gravel provided for conveyance that will be submerged will not provide any filter treatment. —The underdrain will increase the potential of effluent discharge with high nutrients to Lake George. It should be noted that the proposed enhanced treatment unit fails to provide any increased phosphorus treatment. —The claims of the benefits to Lake George from the relocated septic system would S (Queensbury Planning Board 04/23/2024) not outweigh benefits to Lake George from holding tanks where an underdrain would not need to be installed." Please note,the Board of Health has already approved the septic system. "It is the opinion of the Waterkeeper the installation of this underdrain will result in increased nutrient loading and algae growth on the proposed beach. The Planning Board should ask the Town Engineer's opinion whether this practice will negatively impact Lake George. The proposed excavation of the shoreline for a beach should be prohibited and will result in negative impacts to Lake George. The applicant proposes to excavate 250/o of the natural shoreline and import fill to create a beach. This practice contradicts the intent of the Town Code to protect the natural resources of the Town and Lake George. The impact from this activity is of greater concern in these areas of the lake that are experiencing Harmful Algae Blooms. The proposed hardscape exterior living space (kitchen and gathering) encroaching into the 50-foot shoreline protective zone should be eliminated. With the granting of the FAR variance,this additional living space(second kitchen)and hardscape is not necessary,and the increased hardscape in the shoreline protective zone will impact Lake George. The Planning Board should request the applicant to redesign the exterior gathering space to reduce the hardscape in the shoreline protective zone. The Planning Board should require a compliant shoreline buffer planting plan, especially in consideration of the numerous variances and activities including the underdrain and excavation of the shoreline. The Lake George Waterkeeper recommends that the Town of Queensbury Planning Board consider the negative impacts from the underdrain,excavation of the shoreline and excessive hardscape and require the applicant to reduce the impacts to Lake George. The Lake George Waterkeeper looks forward to working with the Town of Queensbury Planning Board to defend the natural resources of Lake George and its watershed. Thank you for your consideration. Sincerely, Christopher Navitsky, PE Lake George Waterkeeper" I just want to remind the Board,we do not regulate groundwater. That's not part of what we do. This is addressed to myself. This is David Ries. "We live next door to the Eberlein property at S Seelye Rd. We are in support of the Eberlein project and have no issues with the building project. If the Board has any questions, I would be happy to answer. Thank you! David Ries" This is from David Ries, next door neighbor. This is in regard to actually the septic variance,and it's from Bob and Trish End. "We are writing in strong opposition to the proposed variances requested in connection with the construction project application by Geraldine Eberlein." And they're at S Waters Edge. MR. TRAVER-I'm sorry,where do they live? MRS. MOORE-They live at S Water's Edge. MR. TRAVER-Okay. So that's proximity to the site,obviously. MRS. MOORE-Right. So then a similar letter was written on April5`h,2023 by the same individual. MR. TRAVER-The same concern? MRS.MOO RE-The same concern. And then a secondary letter. This was last year,April 51h of 2023,prior to the Board of Health septic variance. So they were against the Eberlein project because of the septic variance. And that was Steven LeFleche. And it doesn't tell me what their address is. MR. TRAVER-Okay. Is that all of the written comments? MRS. MOORE-Yes. MR. TRAVER-Okay. Then we'll close the public hearing. PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED MR. TRAVER-Other questions,comments from members of the Board? MR. ZAPPER-We can respond to that. MR. TRAVER-Sure. MR. ZAPPER-So all of those comments, including Chris's, were brought to the Town Board's attention because that's where we proposed the curtain drain and that went to the Town Engineer. The Town Board approved the septic variance,including the curtain drain, and so that's why that was all there and the neighbor's objections were before this was proposed and before it was approved by the Town Board. So those comments and Chris's comments speak to this project as well, but the majority of all that was about the septic and that's,Chris can have an opinion,but the septic is 200 feet from the lake,rather than right where it is now, and the Town Engineer, and Laura has that,looked at it at this time and approved it. So I don't think that's really an issue for Site Plan Review at this point because that was part of the septic variance. The neighbors have the exact same,the Ends have the same raised mound system adjacent to this property and no one had any complaints about the house variances. It was all about the septic and that was settled and most of this is from a year ago, and that was settled by the Town Board requiring a whole bunch of upgrades to the septic system before we got the variance. Which is why it took us a year 9 (Queensbury Planning Board 04/23/2024) to get here,but I don't hear anybody, any of the neighbors complaining about the house design,the house location, and the only one that really is affected are the Ries and this increases their view and they're in support of it,but on balance we're talking about,even though they are three variances,the percentages are so small, two percent, when you're talking about such a small parcel, we're talking about a few hundred square feet. It's just not a big deal compared to everything that's happening here to benefit the lake. There's an extensive landscaping plan and the septic system is so faraway. So I think it just has to be kept in perspective. MR. TRAVER-Laura,question. What is the date of Chris Navitsky's letter? MRS. MOORE-That is today. MR. TRAVER-Today? MRS. MOORE-Yes. MR. TRAVER-Okay. Other questions,comments from members of the Board? MRS. MC DEVITT-I mean I also have concern about the beach. I'm not really sure why that is necessary, and the size of the outdoor kitchen and that sort of thing also seems excessive for the land, and I really do, it resonates, Fritz,you,I think,articulated it very well,in terms of E.,in harmony with what it should be. I know there's no objection from the neighbors however, I think you're looking at it as people from the shoreline and as, or from the lake and also others who will want to do the same thing on very,very small pieces of land. I think it will turn into Echo Bay and I think that would be really sad. MR. ZAPPER-So the Zoning Board did approve the 200 square feet for the outdoor kitchen,which is just a lovely amenity that everybody on the lake wants,and I think you just have to put it in perspective,that's a couple of hundred square feet,and we think,you know,compared to what's there now,that old cottage, this will look lovely, and that is on permeable pavers, the outdoor kitchen as well. The Zoning Board's determination was that they had,the resolution was that the applicant had gone really far to make a lot of improvements here and that's why the variances were granted. MR. DEEB-Laura,there's nothing in the Code about trees removed having to be replaced. MRS. MOORE-One for one? No,that's not. MR. DEEB-I just want to make sure we understand that. Okay, and I think the other thing we've got to be careful of is I think Ries is the neighbor that,were you referring to,Fritz, about the,infringing on their sight? MR. TRAVER-Their view of the lake. MR. STEFANZIK-No,my comment was about the buffer,you have no buffer. Like the rest of the other houses that have been built that have the right amount of property, they have buffer. Clearly in the site plan it asks for a buffer to provide privacy,to protect from noise,from light,all of that stuff. So we have a current neighbor that has no problem, but in the future, that may not be the case, and to me that's something that adds burden to any other property owners. It could impact land value, and once again it sets a precedent for other houses on Warner Bay. Warner Bay is a beautiful bay. It's one of the last bays that haven't been really overly developed, and,you know,this could set a precedent for having clusters of homes. MR.ZAPPER-So there is a substantial buffer,but the whole buffer is along the lake. That was on purpose. Sothis is more than 50 feet from the lake. It's 54 feet. So the goal here was to maximize the distance from the lake to put all the planting along the lake,not in the back. MR. DEEB-My point here, what I'm getting to, I think we have to be careful that we don't project our feelings on what the neighbors want. I think we have to understand,let's hear it from the neighbors and not say that we think the neighbors are going to do this. We have to be careful on what we project for other people. We can't speak for other people. I think that's important, as a Board,that we realize this and that's all. MR. TRAVER-Warren,do you have any concerns with stormwater or the curtain drain? I know that's in an area of your expertise. MR. LONGACKER-No,not for this one. Coming up in a later application I do have a question,but this, just like the applicant said, this is for groundwater. We do the same thing,you know, I work for DEC. We have done the same thing many times in some campgrounds. We put a curtain drain in just to lower the groundwater so we can put in a system in campgrounds. Very common practice. 10 (Queensbury Planning Board 04/23/2024) MR. TRAVER-Other questions,comments? MR. LONGACKER-And I just want to say,too,I agree with the applicant here. I mean it's a small lot. I said this last week,too. The percentage increase they're asking for,for the area proposed for floor area is I.Solo,and the permeability is 1.40/o. I do think,I agree,I think it's small for the size of the small lot. It's not like they're paving the entire lot where you'd be asking for like S, 9%. It's a small percentage that they're requesting here. They've reduced the size of the house. They've reduced permeable pavers. They've reduced the paved area outside the house. I think it's a good balance. MR. STEFANZIK-Actually it's 1.S points of a percent. MR. LONGACKER-1.S%. MR.STEFANZIK-Points of a percent,when you look at the square footage over the allowable,it's S%,230 something square feet is S%. MR. TRAVER-You're talking about the size of the lot. MR. STEFANZIK-So 1.S versus over S%. I just wanted to clarify that. MRS. MOORE-I can add that in the Code there is a section in reference when someone cuts a certain percentage of, or a certain foot along the shoreline that there's a permission for making sure you have an open area along your shoreline, and whether that's a beach or just an open cut,that's a,it's written in the Code to allow that. MR. TRAVER-Okay. Well, let's poll the Board on how people feel moving forward on approving this application. Warren? MR. LONGACKER-Yes. MR. TRAVER-David? MR. DEEB-Yes. MR. TRAVER-Fritz? MR. STEFANZIK-I think there's room to improve. So I'm a no right now. MR. TRAVER-So you're a no. Ellen? MRS. MC DEVITT-No. MR. STARK-I'm ayes. MR. MAGOWAN-I'm going to go with a yes.. MR. TRAVER-All right. Well let's hear the resolution. RESOLUTION APPROVING SP#5-2023 GERALDINE EBERLEIN (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 newpermeable 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. Pursuant to relevant sections of the Town of Queensbury Zoning Code-Chapter 179-9-OSO, the Planning Board has determined that this proposal satisfies the requirements as stated in the Zoning Code; As required by General Municipal Law Section 239-m the site plan application was referred to the Warren County Planning Department for its recommendation; The Planning Board made a recommendation to the Zoning Board of Appeals on 4/16/2024-1 the ZBA approved the variance requests on 4/17/2024-1 The Planning Board opened a public hearing on the Site plan application on 4/23/2024 and continued the public hearing to 4/23/2024 when it was closed, 11 (Queensbury Planning Board 04/23/2024) 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 4/23/2024; 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 5-2023 GERALDINE EBERLEIN;Introduced by Fritz Stefanzick who moved for its adoption. According to the draft resolution prepared by Staff with the following: 1) Waivers requested granted:h. signage,n traffic,o. commercial alterations/construction details,r. construction/demolition disposal and s. snow removal; 2) The approval is valid for one (1) year from the date of approval. Applicant is responsible for requesting an extension of approval before the one year expiration date of 4/23/2025-1 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 1) All final plans be updated per the last drawing that was submitted April 5`h,2024,the layout plan. All remaining plan sets need to be revised to reflect that submission,which is to also include removal of the fire pit hardscape. Motion seconded by David Deeb. Duly adopted this 23rd day of April 2024 by the following vote: MRS. MOORE-I'm going to suggest that you add a condition that all final plans be updated per the last drawing that was submitted, which was 4/5 of 2024, which was simply the layout plan. So all the remaining plan sets need to be revised to reflect that submission. MR. TRAVER-And the fire pit's removed,right? MRS. MOORE-So that will be reflected in that,like you asked about the landscaping plan. That will be reflected in the landscaping plan. MR. STEFANZIK-Which is to also include removal of the fire pit. MRS. MOORE-Removal of the fire pit hardscape. MR. STEFANZIK-Removal of the fire pit and hardscape. 12 (Queensbury Planning Board 04/23/2024) MRS. MOORE-We want to make sure when our new Code Compliance Officer reads it he understands there's still a fire pit. AYES: Mr. Stark,Mr. Magowan,Mr. Deeb,Longacker NOES: Mr. Stefanzick,Mrs. McDevitt,Mr. Traver MR. TRAVER-You're all set. MR. ZAPPER-Thanks,everyone. MR.HUNTINGTON-Thank you. MR.TRAVER-The next item on the agenda,Patten Property Development,essentially the next two items, has already been tabled by this Board to July 16 of this year. However, we anticipate changes to their application. SITE PLAN NO. 11-2024 SEQR TYPE: TYPE II. 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, 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. MR. TRAVER-However,I will open the public hearing and leave it open until the applicant is heard again in July. PUBLIC HEARING OPENED MR. TRAVER-Continuing under Old Business, the next application is Victor& Terry Celadon. This is Site Plan 17-2024. Laura? MRS. MOO RE-I'm sorry. Did you open the public hearings for both of those applications? MR. TRAVER-Well, I will,yes, I'm pretty sure that I did,but I will reaffirm that again. Patten Property Development, Site Plan 11-2024 and Site Plan 12-2024. The public hearing is open and will remain open until the application is re-heard on July 16`h MRS. MOORE-Thank you. SITE PLAN NO. 12-2024 SEQR TYPE: TYPE II. 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. PUBLIC HEARING OPENED 13 (Queensbury Planning Board 04/23/2024) 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 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 APPLICANT,PRESENT MR. TRAVER-Good evening. MRS. MOORE-Do you want me to read through information? MR. TRAVER-Sure. MRS. MOORE-All right. So this project is a demolition of the existing home to construct a new home of 2,700 square feet footprint with a floor area of 3,SS9 square feet. The current well point remains and the 131 square foot shed remains as well as the existing shoreline buffer. The applicant did receive the variances the other evening. MR. TRAVER-Okay. Thank you. MR. HALL-Good evening. For the record,Ethan Hall,principle with Rucinski Hall Architecture. With me tonight are Victor&Terry Celadon,the owners of the property. As we were here last week,went over it briefly. We did receive the area variances that we were looking for from the Zoning Board of Appeals. Just to kind of summarize the project, again, it is an existing seasonal residence that's been in Victor's family since 1946. The foundation of the existing building is in pretty bad disrepair. So it's their intent to take the existing house down, rebuild on the same footprint and make it a year round residence that they can live in year round and enjoy it for the foreseeable future. We did get a comment letter from LaBella. I've been through it. There's nothing in there that's major. The biggest thing is the maintenance agreement for the stormwater management, which we can certainly pull together. There was, the applicant shall provide existing and proposed contours. We had requested a variance for that,from the neighbor for that,and in lieu of that,we are going to have the building pinned by the surveyors,so that we know exactly where it's supposed to be,so that those setbacks are met for our variance that we have. MR. TRAVER-Okay. Thank you. Questions,comments from members of the Board? MR.LONGACKER-This one right here,did you guys do any perc tests? Because this isn't like the previous applicant with the,to lower the groundwater. This is more for infiltration,for your stone filter strip and your typical eaves trench. Do you guys have perc tests or any sort of soil information,by any chance for that? MR.HALL-They were all done pretty much further back up the hill. We really didn't do them down there. We know that we're going to dig about four or five feet and hit groundwater,but it is all glacial till,that whole front point,basically everything around Glen Lake is glacial till. MR. LONGACKER-I've done these before on boat launches. I'm not a huge fan of them,only because of the long edge of a driveway. If you drive in,your tires might get stuck in them. So just be careful driving in there, something like that,your tires will drive in them, and they get stuck in the stone sometimes and kind of damage. MR.HALL-On the trenches on the side? Yes, and there's really,we've only really done that really on that downhill slope so that we can pick up everything that's coming off the asphalt,get it in the ground and not let it run towards Glen Lake. MR. LONGACKER-And I saw your calculation there,too,on the plan. I'm just curious,what year storm are you using for that? The calculation for the volume. MR.HALL-I used a gallon and a half per square foot. MR. LONGACKER-Per square foot. Okay. Gotcha. MR.HALL-New impervious surface. 14 (Queensbury Planning Board 04/23/2024) MR. TRAVER-Other questions,comments from members of the Board? MR. STEFANZIK-So last week I had a couple of comments for you. ,questions regarding removal of trees for the septic. MR. HALL-So they're on the Hutchins Engineering drawings. I went back and looked at those. There are five trees that are noted and they're not in the area where the actual septic system is going. So there shouldn't be anything that needs to be cut down,other than brush and small stuff that is right there in that area. None of the large trees should have to come out to do that. MR. STEFANZIK-Are these all trees that are going to be left? MR.HALL-You got it. Around the point? Yes, and as you can see from the pictures that are on Drawing C-2,from the lake there are a lot of trees that are around that area, and it's not our intention to take any of those out. They're all going to stay there. MR. STEFANZIK-And also, I mean,the house is right next to the water. You're going to be doing some excavation. So being so close to the water, really protecting that lake, minimizing the time that you're there,you dig,get out and fill it in. MR. HALL-Absolutely. They're probably,just due to the proximity of it,they're probably going to have to excavate,put it in a truck,and take it off site and bring fill back in. MR. STEFANZIK-What are you going to have around,just regular? MR.HALL-There'll be silt fence that's on the inside of the tree line,all the way around the peninsula. MR. STEFANZIK-And there's enough room for that? MR. HALL-Yes. We've got basically 20 feet all the way around the building to the shoreline and the tree line,obviously,is inside that. So we'll have enough room to do that. MR. STEFANZIK-Okay. Thank you. MR. TRAVER-There is a public hearing on this application as well. Is there anyone in the audience that wants to address the Planning Board on this application, Site Plan 17-2024? I'm not seeing any takers. Laura, are there written comments? PUBLIC HEARING OPENED MRS. MOORE-There's a written comment. This is "To Whom It May Concern: My property and year round residence(Tax ID 259.10-1-16)directly abuts the Celadon property. I'm familiar with the proposed plan and support the application made by Victor and Terry Celadon. I have no concerns. Sincerely,Dean Reali" And that was the only one. MR. TRAVER-That's the only one. Okay. Then we will close the public hearing. PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED MR. TRAVER-Are there any other questions or comments by members of the Board? Okay. We have a draft resolution. RESOLUTION APPROVING SP#17-2024 VICTOR&TERRY CELADON 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. 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 made a recommendation to the Zoning Board of Appeals on 4/16/2024-1 the ZBA approved the variance requests on 4/17/2024-1 The Planning Board opened a public hearing on the Site plan application on 4/23/2024 and continued the public hearing to 4/23/2024 when it was closed, 15 (Queensbury Planning Board 04/23/2024) 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 4/23/2024; 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 17-2024 VICTOR &z TERRY CELADON. Introduced by Fritz Stefanzick who moved for its adoption. According to the draft resolution prepared by Staff with the following: 1) Waivers requested granted: g. site lighting, h. signage, k. topography, n traffic, o. commercial alterations/construction details,q. soil logs,r. construction/demolition disposal s. snow removal; 2) The approval is valid for one (1) year from the date of approval. Applicant is responsible for requesting an extension of approval before the expiration date of 4/23/2025-1 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 23rd 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-You are all set. Good luck. MR.HALL-Thank you very much. MR. TRAVER-The next item on our agenda 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 2,568 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. CROSS 16 (Queensbury Planning Board 04/23/2024) 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. AARON ROBERTS&TOM JARRETT, REPRESENTING APPLICANT,PRESENT MR. TRAVER-Laura? MRS. MOORE-The applicant proposes a new single family home of 1400 square feet, a floor area of 256E square feet. Site work includes new septic,well,driveway and access from the adjoining lot,new shoreline planting plan and stormwater management. The applicant did receive variances last week from the Zoning Board of Appeals in reference to road frontage,lot width,water frontage,height as well as access through the adjoining lots. MR. TRAVER-Okay. Thank you. Good evening. Welcome back. MR. ROBERTS-Good evening. Aaron Roberts with R U Holmes Engineers. With me is Tom Jarrett as well as our client, Paul Zemanek, 10 Elm Drive on Glen Lake. To recap, the project proposes a lot line adjustment between two existing tax parcels owned by the Zemaneks. The total shoreline width of the two lots is 150 feet. Lot One,being here,is proposed to be reduced from 140 feet to 63 and a half feet,while Lot Two is proposed to be increased from the 10 feet to S6 and a half feet. The existing development on Lot One is proposed to remain,while the new single family dwelling on Lot Two is proposed with a well and a wastewater system at the rear. Both Lot One and Lot Two are designed to be compliant in permeability and floor area ratio. Lot One does have existing non-conforming setbacks to the shoreline and the property line to the south that will maintain compliant setbacks from the property to the north and to the rear. Lot Two is designed to be compliant with all property line setbacks as well as the shoreline setback. Both lots also have stormwater management proposed to manage all existing and proposed impermeable cover on the site. With that,we open it up to any questions the Board may have. MR. TRAVER-Were there any changes,as a result of your discussion with the ZBA,to your plan? MR. ROBERTS-No. MR. TRAVER-Questions,comments from members of the Board? MR. MAGOWAN-Did everybody kind of understand what I was talking about last Tuesday? MR. TRAVER-Which was Lot One and which was Lot Two and the size of both. MR. MAGOWAN-All right. The more I looked at and thought about it, but, I mean, it is a lot line adjustment,and I'm not looking at the 10 feet. MR. TRAVER-Not anymore. MR. MAGOWAN-So nobody else had any concern with what we're creating? MR.TRAVE R-That's what we're about to find out. Any questions,comments from members of the Board? MR. STEFANZIK-I'm good. MR. TRAVER-There is a public hearing on this application as well. Is there anyone in the audience that wants to address the Planning Board on Site Plan 16-2024? I'm not seeing anyone. Are there written comments,Laura? PUBLIC HEARING OPENED MRS. MOORE-There is a written comment. This is,"We have a summer camp at 14 Genista Lane,so we were sent a variance notice. I don't know the specifics about the actual project, so there could be some details about the project that I am unaware of. However, in general, I would hate to see another house built close to the lake,unless it was replacing an existing house. Glen Lake is already totally built out, with no undeveloped land left that I am aware of. To add more houses near the shoreline without municipal water and sewer seems like a bad idea. Also there was a bald eagle nest last year, that is very close to the proposed project. It successfully fledged 2 eaglets, and I assume they will be back for many years. It would be a shame to impact their survival and success. Stephen Mackey" MR. TRAVER-Okay. Thank you,and that was it,right? MRS. MOORE-That's it. 17 (Queensbury Planning Board 04/23/2024) MR. TRAVER-Okay. All right. Then we will close the public hearing. PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED MR. TRAVER-Any further questions or comments by members of the Board? MR. STEFANZIK-That eagle's nest isn't on your property,I assume. PAUL ZEMANEK MR. ZEMANEK-It's a good distance away. MR. TRAVER-Is it actually an eagle's nest? Because there's a. MRS. MOORE-It's an osprey. MR. ZEMANEK-It's an osprey. I have not seen it. I've heard of it in the last year or so. MR. TRAVER-Because I know when I kayak over there there's an osprey point,there's a big osprey nest. I got a little too close one time and she gave me a dirty look. All right. Well,if there's no other questions, we have a motion. RESOLUTION APPROVING SP#16-2024 PAUL ZEMANEK 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. 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 made a recommendation to the Zoning Board of Appeals on 4/16/2024-1 the ZBA approved the variance requests on 4/17/2024-1 The Planning Board opened a public hearing on the Site plan application on 4/23/2024 and continued the public hearing to 4/23/2024 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 4/23/2024; 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 16-2024 PAUL ZEMANEK;Introduced by Fritz Stefanzick who moved for its adoption. According to the draft resolution prepared by Staff with the following: 1) Waivers requested granted: g. site lighting, h. signage, k. topography, n traffic, o. commercial alterations/construction details,q. soil logs,r. construction/demolition disposal s. snow removal; 2) The approval is valid for one (1) year from the date of approval. Applicant is responsible for requesting an extension of approval before the expiration date of 4/23/2025-1 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. 1S (Queensbury Planning Board 04/23/2024) 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 Ellen McDevitt. Duly adopted this 23ra day of April 2024 by the following vote: AYES: Mr. Stefanzick,Mr. Deeb,Mrs. McDevitt,Mr. Longacker,Mr. Stark,Mr. Traver NOES: Mr. Magowan MR. TRAVER-You're all set. Good luck MR. ROBERTS-Thank you very much. MR. ZEMANEK-Thankyou. MR.TRAVER-So the next item before us is Seeley Machine Incorporated. This is Subdivision Preliminary Stage 2-2024 and Subdivision Final Stage 3-2024,and this is an Unlisted action under SEQR. 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&ED LEONARD, REPRESENTING APPLICANT,PRESENT MR. TRAVER-Laura? MRS. MOORE-So this is a two lot subdivision of a 7.25 acre parcel. The first parcel will be 3.04 acres to maintain the existing 21,300 square foot existing building. The second lot is to be 4.21 acres and contain the existing 15,000 square foot building. There are no changes overall on the sites. I will say that the Zoning Board took a look at this the other evening. They tabled it. Accordingly,you have to create the subdivision first to create the variance. MR. TRAVER-Right. MRS. MOORE-So that's why it's back before this Board and then you'll see it again on Thursday for the Site Plan. MR. TRAVER-Twice in one week. Okay. All right. So we are only here, although we do have to conduct SEQR on this. MRS. MOORE-Correct. 19 (Queensbury Planning Board 04/23/2024) MR.TRAVER-SEQR and then the proposed subdivision for the business purposes. Questions,comments from members of the Board? I know we did look at this last week. Are there any additional questions, comments? Okay. Are there any concerns regarding environmental impacts? This is a subdivision with no real change to the site, but we do need to consider, this is an Unlisted action. Are there any environmental impact concerns? Okay. MRS. MOORE-You will have to open the public hearing. MR. TRAVER-Yes. There is a public hearing on this application on this application for subdivision. Is there anyone in the audience that wants to, we lost our audience. So I guess I will ask if we have any written comments,Laura? PUBLIC HEARING OPENED MRS. MOORE-There are no written comments. MR. TRAVER-Okay. Then we will open and close the public hearing. PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED MR. TRAVER-And if there's no environmental concerns,we can consider the resolution under SEQR. RESOLUTION GRANTING A NEGATIVE SEQR DEC. SUB#2-2024 SEELEY MACHINE,INC. 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 21,300 sq. ft. 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. Pursuant to chapter IS3, two lot subdivision 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 Long EAF has been completed by the applicant; Part 2 of the Long EAF has been reviewed by the Planning Board; Upon review of the information recorded on this EAF, it is the conclusion of the Town of Queensbury Planning Board as lead agency that this project will result in no significant adverse impacts on the environment,and,therefore, an environmental impact statement need not be prepared. Accordingly,this negative declaration is issued. MOTION TO GRANT A NEGATIVE DECLARATION FOR SUBDIVISION PRELIMINARY STAGE 2-2024 SEELEY MACHINE,INC..Introduced by Fritz Stefanzick who moved for its adoption, As per the resolution prepared by staff. 1. Part II of the Long EAF has been reviewed and completed by the Planning Board. 2. Part III of the Long EAF is not necessary because the Planning Board did not identify potentially moderate to large impacts. Motion seconded by Brad Magowan. Duly adopted this 23rd 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-So next we consider the subdivision. Are we doing? MRS. MOORE-Final Stage. 20 (Queensbury Planning Board 04/23/2024) MR. TRAVER-Final Stage. Okay. MRS. MOORE-No,you need to do Preliminary. Sorry. MR. TRAVER-So first we do Preliminary. That's all right. I was wondering the same thing. So we have a motion first for Preliminary Stage. RESOLUTION APPROVING PRELIMINARY STAGE SUB#2-2024 SEELEY MACHINE,INC. A subdivision application has been made to the Queensbury Planning Board 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 21,300 sq. ft. 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. Pursuant to chapter IS3, two lot subdivision shall be subject to Planning Board review and approval. Pursuant to relevant sections of the Town of Queensbury Zoning Code-Chapter A-IS3,the Planning Board has determined that this proposal satisfies the requirements as stated in the Zoning Code; The requirements of the State Environmental Quality Review Act have been considered and the Planning Board has adopted a SEQRA Negative Declaration A public hearing was scheduled and held on 4/23/2024. This application is supported with all documentation,public comment,and application material in the file of record; MOTION TO APPROVE SUBDIVISION PRELIMINARY STAGE 2-2024 SEELEY MACHINE,INC. Introduced by Fritz Stefanzick who moved for its adoption. Motion seconded by Brad Magowan. Duly adopted this 23rd 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-So next we consider the Final Stage,which completes the Subdivision application. RESOLUTION APPROVING FINAL STAGE SUB#3-2024 SEELEY MACHINE,INC. A subdivision application has been made to the Queensbury Planning Board 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 21,300 sq. ft. 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. Pursuant to chapter IS3, two lot subdivision shall be subject to Planning Board review and approval. Pursuant to relevant sections of the Town of Queensbury Zoning Code-Chapter A-IS3,the Planning Board has determined that this proposal satisfies the requirements as stated in the Zoning Code; This application is supported with all documentation,public comment,and application material in the file of record; MOTION TO APPROVE SUBDIVISION FINAL STAGE 3-2024 SEELEY MACHINE, INC. Introduced by Fritz Stefanzick who moved for its adoption. 1. The requirements of the State Environmental Quality Review Act have been considered and the Planning Board has adopted a SEQRA Negative Declaration; and if the application is a modification, the requirements of the State Environmental Quality Review Act have been considered, and the proposed modification[s] do not result in any new or significantly different environmental impacts, and,therefore,no further SEQRA review is necessary; 2. Waiver requests granted:sketch plan stage, stormwater; 3. The approval is valid for one (1) year from the date of approval. Applicant is responsible for requesting an extension of approval before the expiration date of 4/23/2025 if you have not yet applied for a building permit or commenced significant site work. 21 (Queensbury Planning Board 04/23/2024) 4. The limits of clearing will constitute a no-cut buffer zone, orange construction fencing shall be installed around these areas and field verified by Community Development staff 5. Engineering sign-off required prior to signature of Planning Board Chairman. 6. The applicant must submit a copy of the following to the Town: a) The project NOI (Notice of Intent) for coverage under the current NYSDEC SPDES General Permit or for coverage under an individual SPDES prior to the start of aU site work. b) The project NOT(Notice of Termination)upon completion of the project; and 7. The applicant must maintain on their project site,for review by staff: a) The approved final that have been stamped by the Town Zoning Administrator. These plans must include the project SWPPP(Storm Water Pollution Prevention Plan)when such a plan was prepared and approved; and b) The project NOI and proof of coverage under the current NYSDEC SPDES General Permit,or an individual SPDES permit issued for the project. S. Final approved plans,in compliance with the Subdivision,must be submitted to the Community Development Department before any further review by the Zoning Administrator or Building and Codes personnel. 9. The applicant must meet with Staff after approval and prior to issuance of Building Permit and/or the beginning of any site work. 10. Subsequent issuance of further permits, including building permits is dependent on compliance with this and all other conditions of this resolution; It. As-built plans to certify that the subdivision is developed according to the approved plans to be provided prior to issuance of the certificate of occupancy; 12. Resolutions must be included on Final Subdivision Mylar. Motion seconded by Ellen McDevitt. Duly adopted this 23ra 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. ROBERTS-Thank you very much. We appreciate it. It's very important to their business. MR. TRAVER-All right. Well that concludes our regular agenda. Is there any other business before the Board this evening? Anything that we should know about Thursday night, Laura, that's any changes in the agenda that you're aware of? MRS.MOORE-No,it just got smaller. I did add one additional item as a Planning Board recommendation, which you all should have that application material, and I just want to make sure that Board members know that next month's meetings,there's still three meetings next month as well. MR. TRAVER-So far not a third one? MRS. MOORE-Yes,there is a third one. There'll be three meetings next month,and the third meeting is a Special Meeting,it'll be one topic. MR. TRAVER-Is that for West Mountain? MRS. MOORE-That'll be West Mountain,yes. MR. TRAVER-Okay. Good. I'm glad we planned it that way. MRS. MC DEVITT-The West Mountain thing,is it just one of the phases that we're discussing? MRS.MOO RE-There's room for discussion on how to proceed. So I'm in the process of talking with them to see, and then I'll develop Staff Notes as well. You have some Staff Notes from Stu who's done most of the work,preliminary,for the petition of zone change. So I'll give you follow up information. 22 (Queensbury Planning Board 04/23/2024) MRS. MC DEVITT-So the Planning Board meetings are the 14`h,the 16`h,and then which date? MRS. MOORE-The 23rd MRS. MC DEVITT-Okay. Yes,I got that. MR. TRAVER-All right,if there's nothing further,I'll entertain a motion to adjourn. MOTION TO ADJOURN THE QUEENSBURY PLANNING BOARD MEETING OF APRIL 23RD 2024,Introduced by Brad Magowan who moved for its adoption,seconded by David Deeb: Duly adopted this 23rd day of April,2024,by the following vote: AYES: Mr. Deeb,Mrs. McDevitt,Mr. Magowan,Mr. Stefanzick, Mr. Longacker,Mr. Stark,Mr. Traver NOES: NONE MR. TRAVER-We stand adjourned,everybody. Thank you very much,and we'll see you Thursday. On motion meeting was adjourned. RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED, Stephen Traver,Chairman 23