Loading...
05-14-2024 (Queensbury Planning Board 05/14/2024) QUEENSBURY PTA NNINGBOARD MEETING FIRSTREGUTAR MEETING MAYI4Tr;2024 INDEX Site Plan No.7S-2023 Mary Sicard 1. Petition of Zone Change Tax Map No. 297.20-1-2.1 Special Use Permit 5-2023 Site Plan No. 69-2023 Foothills Builders/Mead's S. Petition of Zone Change 1-2023 Tax Map No. 303.5-1-79 Freshwater Wetlands 12-2023 FURTHER TABLED Site Plan No.21-2024 Hilltop Construction 13. ZBA RECOMMENDATION Tax Map No. 226.16-1-40 Site Plan No.26-2024 Kevin Kelly 1S. ZBA RECOMMENDATION Tax Map No. 226.19-3-2 Site Plan No.25-2024 Kevin Kelly 20. ZBA RECOMMENDATION Tax Map No. 226.19-3-3 Site Plan No.23-2024 Kurt Koskinen 22. Tax Map No. 2SS.-1-S7, SS,90,91,92 Site Plan No.22-2024 Redeemer Reformed Presbyterian Church 26. Tax Map No. 30S.6-1-S4 Site Plan No.27-2024 Daniel Sutphin/Tidal Wave 27. Tax Map No. 303.15-1-12 THESE ARE NOT OFFICIALLY ADOPTED MINUTES AND ARE SUBJECT TO BOARD AND STAFF REVISIONS. REVISIONS WILL APPEAR ON THE FOLLOWING MONTH'S MINUTES(IF ANY)AND WILL STATE SUCH APPROVAL OF SAID MINUTES. 1 (Queensbury Planning Board 05/14/2024) QUEENSBURY PLANNING BOARD MEETING FIRST REGULAR MEETING MAY 14TK,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,May 14`h, 2024. This is our first meeting for the month of May and our tenth meeting thus far for the year. Please make note of the illuminated emergency exits. Those are the exits to be used in the event that we do have an emergency. 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 be accidentally recoded. We do record the minutes of the meeting,and also to that end,we would ask that if you wish to have a conversation amongst yourselves, other than public hearing,if you would move to the outer lobby for that conversation,we would appreciate that because,again,it can interfere with the note taking from the recording of the meeting. So thank you for that. We have one administrative item this evening, and that is approval of minutes from the March meetings of March 19`h and March 26th, 2024. Are there any Board members that have any additions, corrections to those minutes? I'm not hearing any. We have a resolution. APPROVAL OF MINUTES March 19`h,2024 March 26`h,2024 MOTION TO APPROVE THE QUEENSBURY PLANNING BOARD MEETING MINUTES OF MARCH 19TH &z MARCH 26h, 2024, Introduced by Fritz Stefanzick who moved for its adoption, seconded by Brad Magowan: Duly adopted this 14`h day of May,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 move to our regular agenda. The first section of the agenda is Tabled Items, and the first Table Item is Mary Sicard. This is Site Plan 78-2023,Petition of Zone Change 5-2023,and Special Use Permit application 5-2023. TABLED ITEMS: SITE PLAN NO.78-2023 PETITION OF ZONE CHANGE 5-2023 SPECIAL USE PERMIT 5-2023 SEQR TYPE: TYPE I(NEGATIVE DECLARATION 1/23/2024). MARY SICARD. AGENT(S): RU HOLMES ENGINEERING, PLLC. OWNER(S): SAME AS APPLICANT. ZONING: CLI. LOCATION: 340 AND 366 QUEENSBURY AVENUE. APPLICANT PROPOSES TO USE A PORTION OF AN 8.51 ACRE PARCEL TO CONTINUE USE FOR A STORAGE YARD (I.E.BOATS AND VEHICLES). THE TWO EXISTING BOAT STORAGE BUILDINGS AND RESIDENCE TO REMAIN UNCHANGED. THE PROJECT INCLUDES A PLANTING PLAN ALONG THE FRONT YARD AREA. THE PROJECT ALSO INCLUDES A ZONE CHANGE TO ADD STORAGE YARD AS AN ALLOWED USE IN THE CLI ZONE AS A SITE PLAN AND SPECIAL USE PERMIT TO INCLUDE PREPARING ITEMS FOR STORAGE. PURSUANT TO CHAPTER 179-3-040, 179-10- 040, &z 179-5-100, SITE PLAN AND SPECIAL USE PERMIT SHALL BE SUBJECT TO PLANNING BOARD REVIEW AND APPROVAL. CROSS REFERENCE: N/A. WARREN CO. REFERRAL: JANUARY 2024. SITE INFORMATION: AIRPORT AREA. LOT SIZE: 8.51 ACRES. TAX MAP NO.297.20-1-2.1. SECTION: 179-3-040,179-10-040,179-5-100. 2 (Queensbury Planning Board 05/14/2024) TOM JARRETT,REPRESENTING APPLICANT,PRESENT MR. TRAVER-Laura? MRS. MOORE-The applicant proposes to use a portion of the 5.51 acre parcel to continue use for a storage yard. This includes boats and vehicles. Two existing boat storage buildings and a residence to remain unchanged. The planting plan includes plantings along the front yard. The project included zone change to add storage yard as an allowed use in the CLI zone with some criteria to that. In reference to the Special Use Permit, the applicant is asking for a permanent usage, and then in regards to the landscape berm, I noted that there was only a landscaped berm along Queensbury Avenue versus the rear of the property. The Board may wish to discuss that since there is no actual tenant to the rear of the property. You may want to have further discussion about the landscape berm,whether it should be present or not, and then under Summary is whether there will be a time limit or installation of some sort of timeframe of a landscape berm before the year is out. MR. TRAVER-Okay. Thank you. Good evening. MR. JARRETT-Good evening. For the record, Tom Jarrett of R U Holmes Engineers. Here tonight representing the Estate of George Sicard,regarding the project that was listed on the agenda, and it's an S.5 acre parcel on Queensbury Avenue, the east side of Queensbury Avenue, near the south end of the airport. It's a longstanding use,but it was discovered to be non-compliant with then zoning. It's gone through the zoning amendment process that was just concluded last month. This Board reviewed environmental issues in relation to that re-zoning,or the zoning amendment. Now we're back before you for the Special Use Permit and the Site Plan Review for compliance with the zoning changes and essentially means screening of the site and our office deemed the front of the site the most critical,as Warren County owns all the way around,the other three sides,and there's vegetation,essentially,on all three other sides. So the front, on Queensbury Avenue, we deemed the most publicly accessible spot that would need screening. That's why we proposed it. The screening details are in your plan. We propose a shall berm with trees, shrubs on that berm, and the details are on the plans. So I'll open it up to any questions or thoughts or comments. MR. TRAVER-Okay. Just on that screening in the front, is there to be a fence as well, or just the vegetation? MR.JARRETT-We propose no fence,just the vegetation. Again,this site has been therefor many years, almost 20 years I believe,and I don't believe,I think the vegetative screening will do a good job. MR. TRAVER-Okay. Questions,comments from members of the Board? MR. MAGOWAN-Yes. The only thing I'd like to say, I know it's far enough away from the airport, so there's no problem with the Warren County Airport for any screening,but looking at the picture, I don't think the screening would hurt. MR.JARRETT-We have to comply with the easement requirements for the Airport. That's correct,but I don't believe there's a conflict. MR. STEFANZIK-Is there a maximum amount of vehicles that are being planned to be stored or used there? MR.JARRETT-The estate is in the process of selling the site,and I don't think any specific numbers have been discussed. The number that you see in the aerial photograph is roughly the number that's been there for years,and I don't know that I anticipate much in the way of major changes. MR. STEFANZIK-It's going to include cars,trailers,boats>? MR.JARRETT-Yes,the zoning amendments now open it up to RV's,vehicles,boats,including materials and equipment as appropriate. MR. STEFANZIK-And are they going to be spread around, spread about the property? I mean that's a good photo there,but is it going to be like that,where you have designated slots and they're going to use those designated slots for whatever you're going to store? MR. JARRETT-The areas where you see the vehicles and the boats right now are the most easily traversable,but as you move to the south,they would have to make improvements to the site to really store many more. So I don't think they're going to really extend that far south. They're going to concentrate near the existing pavement which is in front of the old barns. MR.TRAVER-One of the concerns,I think,too,is the timeframe to establish the screening. How long do you anticipate? It is quite an eyesore. 3 (Queensbury Planning Board 05/14/2024) MR.JARRETT-I would think this year would be appropriate to complete the screening,and then if there's some major reason why they can't complete the screening,we can come back to this Board and ask for an extension. MR. TRAVER-Okay. MR.JARRETT-Spring and fall planting is obviously the ideal. So depending on how fast they can get contracts for that screening, it may have to be done in the fall, but I would think this year would be reasonable. MR.TRAVER-Okay. 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 Site Plan or Special Use Permit? I'm not seeing any. Are there,Laura's checking for written comments. PUBLIC HEARING OPENED MR. TRAVER-Are there any other comments,questions from members of the Board? MR. LONGACKER-I've got one on the force main that runs along that area right there. It looks like it's on the property side of the property line. Do you anticipate any issues with the tree roots affecting that? I know how,that line is. MR.JARRETT-No,I do not,and that's one of the reasons we put a berm in,so the roots would be very fine at that depth I think and I don't think it will conflict at all. The force main should beat least five feet deep. In fact our office installed that line or designed that line. So it's at least five feet. MR. MAG OWAN-I'm not questioning the number of boats,but I will say that over the years I've seen an increase and encroaching more towards Queensbury Avenue. So the quicker I feel that you could get a berm up there,and I imagine a lot of the boats we're seeing now,you know, are just the winter boats and they're going to be gone shortly. MR.JARRETT-Historically that's the case,and you're right. There was an expansion over the years,over the last 20 years,there was an expansion of use. MR.MAG OWAN-I just want to say it has grown,so I would think I would like to put a number on storage use until after the berm,if that's possible. MR. TRAVER-Do you have a number in mind? MR. MAG OWAN-No. MR. TRAVER-Written comments,Laura? MRS. MOORE-There are no written comments, MR. TRAVER-Okay. Thank you. So we will close the public hearing. PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED MR. TRAVER-Let's see. We talked about the screening to be completed this year. MR. STEFANZIK-I just have one more kind of comment. And I'm not sure there's an answer,but do we know if there's a max limit for how long any vehicle can be stored there? And the reason I'm bringing this up,I'm not saying it's going to happen,but it turning into a junkyard,boats,if they don't see,or cars,they don't move and they just end up sitting there and sitting there and rusting away. MR.JARRETT-That concern was raised by the Town Board as well, and, frankly, several of the vehicles have been there for more than a season,but most of them are seasonal when they go in the lake and out of the lake seasonally, and the new zoning amendments require inspections, reports, which you may have seen in the notes. Beyond that there was no particular control imposed by the Town Board that I recall. Laura? MRS. MOORE-That's correct. So the only documentation, the way assessment works, or evaluation of the site would be,the storage yard owners conduct visual assessments of the property every four months and retain documentation of all such inspections on site. Such documentation shall be made available for review by any authorized Town employee upon request. I would just note,again,similarly,that however difficult to track,may occur by the applicant and the Town. So it is difficult to track,but they should be maintaining a documentation. You could include,we do something similar with The Great Escape with 4 (Queensbury Planning Board 05/14/2024) their noise. They send us a yearly information about the noise level and it's tracked that way and placed into a file. MR. TRAVER-We could condition registered vehicles,boats only. So that would tend to limit ones that would be very old or abandoned. They just maintain the registration. That would be a benefit to the applicant because they would also be insured. What do you think about that? MR. MAGOWAN-Mr. Chairman, there's about 130 boats there and cars, not what's counting what's underneath the barns. Those are exposed boats or trailers or containers,roughly,I mean. MR. TRAVER-What was that again? What was the number again? MR. MAGOWAN-130 is kind of what I came up with quickly. MR. TRAVER-Okay. MR.JARRETT-That photo is somewhat outdated,but I don't think there's been a major change since that photo. MRS. MOORE-You could add that detail to the inspection that's every four months. MR. STEFANZIK-The registered vehicles. MRS. MOORE-Those vehicles that are registered or the date of the registration,or expiration date of the registration or something to that effect. Again,it's difficult to track because we're not out there every day unless someone requests that. MR. MAGOWAN-So we can't ask for registered vehicles or campers or boats? MRS. MOORE-You can,but who's going to? The idea is that at some point someone is going to, either the Town employee is going to go out there and evaluate that,or that information is shared with the Town in some fashion. MR. TRAVER-Laura,I forget,what was the frequency of the inspections again? MRS. MOORE-I have every four months. MR. TRAVER-Every four months. MR. DEEB-Any sales taking place here? MR.JARRETT-No,no sales. No sales or service. MRS. MOORE-So again,we brought this up previously, that if there's a change in use, such as sales and service,that would come back before this Board for an addition Site Plan Review. MR. TRAVER-There are private sales of boats on that property. MR.JARRETT-That's bound to happen anywhere. MR. TRAVER-Yes,I've seen For Sale signs. MR.JARRETT-But it's not intended to be a boat sales yard. MR. TRAVER-It's not a dealership. MR. JARRETT-Now we had originally asked for a permanent Special Use Permit, but based on your concerns,you could limit it to a certain timeframe and then come back and review it again, see how it's being operated. MR. TRAVER-Sure. MR.JARRETT-I would propose that in lieu of a lot of specific conditions. MRS. MC DEVITT-And what about,you said there would also be materials? MR.JARRETT-That's the way the definition has been worded in the zoning amendment. MR. TRAVER-It would be a permanent use based on those zoning changes. 5 (Queensbury Planning Board 05/14/2024) MRS. MC DEVITT-But what would qualify as materials? MR. JARRETT-That would be up to the Zoning Administrator. It's a commercial site for materials, supplies,personal items,and/or registered cars,recreational vehicles and boats are stored. This definition shall not include sales,service or occupancy use. MR. TRAVER-So it already says registered vehicles and boats. MR.JARRETT-Yes,but you can have materials, supplies and personal items in addition,plus registered cars,recreational vehicles,and boats. MR. STEFANZIK-What's a personal item? MRS. MOORE-So a personal item,lumber. Say you want a place to stack some lumber. MRS. MC DEVITT-Well,so then to go back to the issue of things sitting there,what happens if lumber is just sitting there? There's no permit or,anything on lumber. MR. TRAVER-It's permitted as part of the zoning,but something like lumber that's a fragile commodity, it's not likely to be there for long. MRS. MC DEVITT-Unless somebody just doesn't need it and doesn't want to. MR.JARRETT-That's part of the impetus for the,too,because it can have an eclectic mix. MR. MAGOWAN-Mr. Chairman,I have a little problem with the openness of materials,since we have to be a little bit more decisive on our resolutions. So there's something we can enforce, can we get more specific on what these extra items are besides the boats and the cars and the registered RV's and all that? MR. TRAVER-Well,it's permitted by the zoning that we recommended approval. MR. MAG OWAN-But do you understand, if we don't have specifics in there, we just opened it up for material,I mean,I can bring in a,let's just say a big stone grinding machine that I bought at a salvage and store it over there. MR. TRAVER-If that was approved by the owner I suppose that's true. MR. MAGOWAN-Now that might be higher than the berm,you know,than the boat. MR. TRAVER-Well, I like the suggestion of Tom to perhaps have an initial shorter period of Special Use permitting activity, so that if that generates complaints or,you know, further deteriorates the visuals of the site,then we'll have an opportunity to look at that and talk about those types of issued. MR.MAGOWAN-Well the only reason I bring this up is because,you know,the Sicards have always been big into boats and as Tom mentioned,it's going to be for sale. So the next owner might,you know,turn it into a junkyard. MR. TRAVER-Well,a junkyard wouldn't be permitted. MR. MAGOWAN-Well,I'm not saying a junkyard,but it could be filled with materials and supplies and blah,blah,blah. MR.TRAVER-Well,and that's why the Special Use Permit process does have a time limit there so that we can proceed with the screening and the Special Use Permit and then re-evaluate it at a period in time to see,especially if it's changing hands. MR. MAGOWAN-Do you have a year in mind? MR. TRAVER-It's up for discussion by this Board. I don't have a particular year. MR. STEFANZIK-Do you have a recommendation? MR.JARRETT-Initially you may want to review it more often,but I would say at least two years I would think would be. MR. TRAVER-Two years? Yes,that sounds all right with me. Two years. MR. MAG OWAN-I'm happy with two. 6 (Queensbury Planning Board 05/14/2024) MR.JARRETT-One point of clarification. The zone change, the definitions in the zoning amendment, applies to all the CLI zones around the Town. So this could happen anywhere in the CLI zone. There's zones scattered throughout the Town. MR. TRAVER-Yes. All right. Is there anything else? MRS. MOORE-I just wanted to mention. There's no reason why you couldn't put a condition on there that materials or any item be no higher than the berm. MR.JARRETT-The trees. MRS. MOORE-Or the trees,yes,something to that effect. MR.JARRETT-The berm is shallow and there will be a vegetation buffer. MRS. MOORE-Right. So it's no higher than the trees upon the berm. MR.JARRETT-The screening,no higher than the screening. MR. TRAVER-No higher than the screening. Okay. That's a good suggestion. All right. So we have that. MR. STEFANZIK-The screening timeframe. MR. TRAVER-The screening timeframe to be completed in 2024. MR. STEFANZIK-Material no higher than the screening and two year renewable. MR. TRAVER-Yes, well the two year is not a condition. That's part of the approval of the Special Use Permit. MR. TRAVER-Yes,anything else from members of the Board? All right. We have a draft resolution. MRS. MOORE-Can I suggest something additional, in reference to the, at least starting with the documentation every four months, that that be provided to our office,in a format that's legible, as a PDF or e-mail it or dropped off. MR.JARRETT-It should go without saying,but,yes. MR. TRAVER-Yes. So let's put that in there as well. It's already part of the requirement,though,right, Laura? MRS. MOORE-Right now it just says to be available for inspection. So instead of us going there, the records are coming to us,and over a two year period,then we'll have an idea. MR. DEEB-It puts the onus on them,not us. MR. TRAVER-And then we say us,who is us? MR. TRAVER-The Planning Office. MR. TRAVER-So that would be a third condition. MR.JARRETT-Do you want to do it every four months or on an annual basis? The three inspections during the year? MR.TRAVER-I think,particularly with it changing hands,I think at least for this initial period,every four months as previously discussed. MR.JARRETT-At least during the first permit period? MR.TRAVER-Yes. We can always adjust that in two years when we comeback to renew the Special Use Permit. Anything else? All right. RESOLUTION APPROVING SP#75-2023 Petition of Zone Change 5-2023 SUP 5-2023 MARY SICARD Applicant proposes to use a portion of an 5.51 acre parcel to continue use for a storage yard(i.e.boats and vehicles). The two existing boat storage buildings and residence to remain unchanged. The project includes a planting plan along the front yard area. The project also includes a zone change to add storage 7 (Queensbury Planning Board 05/14/2024) yard as an allowed use in the CLI zone as a site plan and special use permit to include preparing items for storage. Pursuant to chapter 179-3-040, 179-10-040 &r 179-5-100, site plan and special use permit 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 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 1/23/2024 and continued the public hearing to 5/14/2024 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 5/14/2024-1 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 78-2023,PETITION OF ZONE CHANGE 5-2023&z SPECIAL USE PERMIT 5-2023 MARY SICARD;Introduced by Fritz Stefanzick who moved for its adoption. According to the draft resolution prepared by Staff with the following: 1) Waivers requested granted; 2) The approval is valid for one (1) year from the date of approval. Applicant is responsible for requesting an extension of approval before the one year expiration date of 5/14/2025-1 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,-- 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) Special Use Permit will be renewable every two years. m) Timeframe to complete screening to be prior to 12/31/24. n) Material or any other items that are placed on property shall not be any higher than the screening. o) Visual inspection results and documentation that is performed every four months shall be provided to the Planning Office. S (Queensbury Planning Board 05/14/2024) Motion seconded by Brad Magowan. Duly adopted this 14`h day of May 2024 by the following vote: MR.JARRETT-During this first permit period,the screening is probably not going to be very mature. So the screening of some of the boats might extend through this first permit period. MR. TRAVER-Well,we'll be evaluating the whole site during the first two years of that permit. MR.JARRETT-I'm just going on record that the screening won't be very high initially,including next year probably. MR.TRAVER-You might want to talk to the owner and plan screening that's high enough so that anything they plan on storing will be. MR.JARRETT-There's some boats out there right now that would be hard to screen with any kind of reasonable planting that would grow. MR. TRAVER-Well I'll leave it to the owner to do his best to comply. MR. MAGOWAN-Move some of those bigger boats to the back. I know what you're talking about because I'm up and down the road all the time. There are some big boats over there. AYES: Mrs. McDevitt,Mr. Longacker,Mr. Stark,Mr. Magowan,Mr. Stefanzick,Mr. Deeb,Mr. Traver NOES: NONE MR. TRAVER-You're all set. MR.JARRETT-Thank you. MR. TRAVER-The next item on our agenda is Foothills Builders/Meads, the Meads project, which we understand is to be tabled this evening. SITE PLAN NO. 69-2023 PETITION OF ZONE CHANGE 1-2023 FRESHWATER WETLANDS 12-2023 SEQR TYPE: TYPE I (NEGATIVE DECLARATION 3/19/2024) FOOTHILLS BUILDERS/MEAD'S. AGENT(S): STUDIO A. OWNER(S): MEAD'S NURSERY. ZONING: CI. LOCATION: 361 RIDGE ROAD. APPLICANT PROPOSES A ZONE CHANGE OF A 1099 ACRE PARCEL FROM COMMERCIAL INTENSIVE TO MODERATE DENSITY RESIDENTIAL. THE PROJECT INCLUDES CONSTRUCTION OF 16 BUILDINGS WITH 4 UNITS EACH AS WELL AS COMMUNITY BUILDING AND PATHS. SITE PLAN REVIEW PENDING TOWN BOARD AND PLANNING BOARD PETITION OF ZONE CHANGE REVIEW. PURSUANT TO CHAPTER 179- 3-040, 179-10-040 AND CHAPTER 94, SITE PLAN FOR CONSTRUCTION OF A NEW MULTIFAMILY BUILDING AND WORK WITHIN 100 FEET OF WETLANDS SHALL BE SUBJECT TO PLANNING BOARD REVIEW AND APPROVAL. CROSS REFERENCE: SP 26- 1990, DISC 8-2021. WARREN CO. REFERRAL: DECEMBER 2023. SITE INFORMATION: WETLANDS. LOT SIZE: 1099 ACRES. TAX MAP NO. 303.5-1-79. SECTION: 179-3-040,179- 10-040,CHAPTER 94. JEFF MEYER&MATT HUNTINGTON,REPRESENTING APPLICANT,PRESENT MR. TRAVER-So this Board will not be taking any action on that application,but we've also heard that there's someone here who wanted to say something to the Board,Laura? MRS. MOORE-Correct. The applicant is present and I don't know if you want me to do an introduction. MR. TRAVER-Sure. Go right ahead. MR. MAGOWAN-First of all, before you start, Laura. I'll be recusing myself from this application this evening. MR. TRAVER-Okay,and,Tom,you're going to sit in. Go ahead,Laura. MRS. MOORE-Okay. So this application is a proposal for a zone change of the 10.99 acres from Commercial Intensive to Moderate Density. The Town Board take a vote the other evening,three to one, to move this forward. The project includes 16 buildings with four units each, as well as a community building,and at this point the applicant is able to present some information about the project as a whole. 9 (Queensbury Planning Board 05/14/2024) MR. TRAVER-Okay. Thank you, Laura. We did hear and review this project. We're not able to take any action tonight. I'm sure you understand that it will be tabled,but if you have a few comments that you want to make. MR. MEYER-Absolutely, and again, for the record, my name is Jeff Meyer, an attorney representing Foothills Builders. I work with Meyer,Fuller and Stockwell,and with me is Matt Huntington from Studio A and Joseph Leuci who's a principle with Foothills. We certainly understand that the Board can't act, but being an agenda item on the Planning Board in the summer is a commodity and we didn't want to miss the opportunity. We've been before you and before the Town Board,we've essentially told you and told the public that we're hearing the comments and we're listening and we're happy to make modifications and adjustments as necessary once it gets to the Site Plan. So it was scheduled and noticed as a public hearing and,you know,my question to Laura earlier was,you know,can we stay on the agenda so that we can at least hear the design concerns,if any,that the Board may have,listen to the public,so that we don't kind of lose time and waste time, and I understand you don't want to get out at midnight either. So,you know,that was really just the request,to be able to continue the process,continue to hear comments,and concerns that this Board may have. MR. TRAVER-Yes, since we're tabling this, the public hearing will remain open until we do hear this application for Site Plan. I'm not expecting that the Board is going to comment further this evening because, again,it's being tabled and we'll have plenty of opportunity down the road to look at this, but you're welcome to stay,obviously. MR. STEFANZIK-Well,is there a reason for tabling? Is there a reason why we're not moving forward? MR.TRAVER-It's because of the review of the zoning,the vote on the zoning. That remains an open issue. So if that zoning is approved, then it will come to us and we'll have our conventional Site Plan Review process, but right now there's nothing for us to review because the zoning hasn't officially been acknowledged as changed. MR. STEFANZIK-Okay. MR. TRAVER-So that's why it's being tabled. MR. STEFANZIK-What was your objective? You wanted to? MR. MEYER-We just wanted to hear comments. I mean this Board has seen and heard the project and was really kind of looking at it from a zoning and amendment perspective,not necessarily,we think you should move the building over here or,you know,are you sure about the stormwater numbers,and to the extent that,you know,we have a concrete site plan that's been fully engineered,that we're ready to advance and that is in a condition to be approved,were the Board happy with it and all your questions satisfied. We really just wanted to continue the conversation, get any issues out on the table that, if it requires a design change,we can do the design change without wasting time. MR. TRAVER-I'm sure you're aware that there was very extensive public comment regarding traffic, stormwater, concerns about the impact on local schools, things like sidewalks, all of those issues are on the record both in audio format and in written format. I would urge you to continue to study those. The public hearing will remain open. So there'll be plenty,I'm sure there'll be additional,there may be other issues that the public will have comments on,but we've taken extensive comment on all of those, I think the major issues that people have. So there should be plenty of information for you out there. I don't know,have you been meeting with local residents,or doing anything of that type? MR. MEYER-We did actually meet with one of the residents yesterday that kind of continue to hear their concerns and see what options are available to alleviate or perhaps modify the plans. MR. TRAVER-Okay. That's good. So I guess with that. MR. DEEB-Was there any consideration t moving some of the buildings? I thought I read that. MR. MEYER-Yes,there is,and that's kind of what I was getting at without actually getting at. Like if the public continues,if,you know,the row of buildings to the west were to be moved,would that make people happy? We're at the design stage finally,and we just wanted to not miss an opportunity. MR.TRAVER-And if you want to amend the design that's fine. Right now what we have is what we have. I mean we can't make it our plan. It's your plan. MR. MEYER-No,no,but we're going to kind of respond to the comments as we can. MR. TRAVER-Good. 10 (Queensbury Planning Board 05/14/2024) MR. MEYER-We appreciate your time. MR. TRAVER-Okay. So,again,the public hearing on this is open and will remain open until this project is heard,pending a resolution of the zoning thing, and again, I went through the list of public comments that we have,pretty extensive on the record,but because the public hearing is open,is there anyone that has anything that we have not heard that they would like to communicate to the Planning Board.Tonight? Yes,ma'am. PUBLIC HEARING OPEN JACKIE CORDELL MRS. CORDELL-Hi, I'm Jackie Cordell on 349 Ridge. I wanted to just make a suggestion, since we're considering stuff. I didn't see anything with fences as far as screening goes. There in the plans was three shrubs or trees or something on the property which I don't think provides a sufficient visual barrier,nor does it provide a barrier,physical barrier,to keep people from walking across our backyards to get to the street,and I know there was discussions about maybe pulling some of the buildings in closer to the center away from the periphery, and I was just wondering if those documents, the revised plans, when they're ready would they be available online? How can we access that? MR.TRAVER-If they amend their application,their design,and you're speaking about site plan issues that we haven't addressed yet. So because of the barrier,if you will,of the zoning issue. Okay. So once that zoning issue is dealt with,then it becomes a site plan issue and screening and building location,all of those are site plan issues that we would be fully fleshing out. There would be additional public comment, at that time, to address site plan specific issues like the ones you speak of. The applicant is here and is apparently very interested in public comment and has taken note of the extensive comment that we've received and I'm sure your comments this evening. I think before you had brought up the issue of the schools. Am I right? MRS. CORDELL-Yes. MR.TRAVER-Okay. So now you have some additional comments about screening and building location. So I`m sure they're going to be taking those things into consideration,but to answer your question,should they revise their proposed site plan design, that will be submitted to the Town and will be submitted to us as a Board in time to evaluate prior to meeting with them on the agenda again, and it would also be available through the website as other site,Board meeting materials are made available. MRS. CORDELL-That would be in advance of the next. Do you know when the next meeting, do you have any idea? MR. TRAVER-It's going to depend on, I mean we'll be tabling the application tonight to a specific dare because that's what we have to do,but basically it's going to depend on the readiness of the application materials if they get changed and that needs to go through that process,through the Planning Office,and as we discussed being available on line and to us in plenty of time to study. It depends on availability on the agenda, all of those types of things, but really right now we're kind of in a holding pattern. I don't think it's going to last long,but it really is waiting on the issue of the zoning because we don't have a plan unless we have the zoning issue resolved. So I don't know if that answers your question. MRS. CORDELL-Yes, and then one more for future discussion on site plans,when we're allowed to talk about site plans,would be a suggestion of a crosswalk in regards to traffic. Looking at the traffic study,I question as to whether they were thinking maybe a school bus situation was implied from the amount of cars they suggested would be leaving during,between seven and nine. It didn't make sense,in a walking district,without school buses,that that would be accurate. Perhaps a crosswalk to funnel traffic to where the sidewalk exists across the street on Ridge, just for safety concerns, maybe with flashing lights or something, because you've got a lot of cars coming out of Cumberland Farms that I would be very concerned about. MR. TRAVER-Some of that might be a DOT responsibility and not the Town or the applicant. I'm not sure,but I'm sure the applicant will look into that. MRS. CORDELL-That's all. MR. TRAVER-Is there anyone else that has anything additional? Yes,ma'am. THERESA CHANDLER MS.CHANDLER-Good evening. My name is Theresa Chandler,and I am at 345. The back of my property buts up with the adjacent property that we are talking about. My concern is if they do move forward to re-zone this,these units are going to be sold as townhomes,or are they going to be rented? 11 (Queensbury Planning Board 05/14/2024) MR.TRAVER-Well,again,that's a site plan issue. My understanding,I believe,is that they're going to be sold. MRS. CHANDLER-Okay. MR. TRAVER-But that's something that we will clarify during the site plan process. MR. DEEB-Rented. They're going to be rented. MRS. CHANDLER-So if they're going to be rented,and you're trying to re-zone,please explain this to me because I don't understand. If it's going to be re-zoned as residential but not commercial, and it's being rented,isn't that a business? MRS. MOORE-No,it's considered residential. MRS. CHANDLER-Well I'm asking because I don't know. I've lived at that property for 25 years. The environmental impact is very important tome. We have,since Mead's closed,and I know that eventually somebody will buy this property. The property has become a wildlife refuge. We have deer. We have multiple types of birds. MR. TRAVER-Yes,and we've already taken public comment on that. MS. CHANDLER-Do we have an environmental impact study? MR. TRAVER-We did a State Environmental Impact review back in,we did that back in March. MS. CHANDLER-Okay,and what were the results of that study. MR.TRAVER-The result was that we did not feel that an environmental impact statement was necessary, that what they were proposing was within the constraints of what's allowed under the State Environmental Quality Review Act. MS. CHANDLER-Okay. MR.TRAVER-They're also monitored by DEC,and they have applications with DEC on how they manage things like pollution and that type of thing. MS. CHANDLER-And stormwater runoff? I know that,you're kind of putting the cart before the horse, because it's almost like a circle of we can't talk about the site,which is going to impact a lot of people,until we get the zoning re-zoned, but re-zoning it is going to affect whether or not this site plan will move forward. So they kind of go together. MR. TRAVER-Well that's not completely true. The re-zoning allows the application to move forward, but it doesn't mean that the project is automatically approved. MS. CHANDLER-And how many units, the application for the re-zoning, how many units per quarter acre? MR. TRAVER-Laura,do you have that? While she's looking that up,I would add,too,that the applicant is thinking about modifying the number of structures that they have. I don't know if that will happen,but if they have an amended plan,that will be available for you to review. All of that, all of those issues, the number of units and so on, are site plan issues that we'd be resolving at a later date and there'd be public hearing and information available on line for you to review prior to that. MRS. MOORE-So that value,and it's in the information on line,is six dwelling units per acre. MS. CHANDLER-Per acre, and in some of this material that I was reading over today through your website,it states that the buildings and the pavement only come out to like four acres is what they want to build on., So if you do that times six,it would be only 24 units. Let me find where it is. I feel that 66 or 64 is too many. It's too many. MR. TRAVER-Okay. Again, we've taken plenty of comment on that issue that people feel a variety of things about the project,that it shouldn't be there at all or it should be smaller,or different use,whatever. All of those things are part of the public record. We don't get into the specifics of that until we get into the actual site plan review. MS.CHANDLER-And I do understand that,and I will just go on the record to say I'm an adjacent neighbor. We don't know anything about what they're going to do. So we're just going to approve. 12 (Queensbury Planning Board 05/14/2024) MR. TRAVER-There is a proposal that's available. What you see on the screen there,that's available on the Town website. MS. CHANDLER-But that's the site plan. MR. TRAVER-Right. MS. CHANDLER-When we can't talk about that. MR. TRAVER-Well we're not doing site plan review this evening,but you can certainly, if you want to look at it, you can make public comment when we do the site plan review. You can also do written comments and submit the ahead of time. MS. CHANDLER-All right. So I will just go on the record stating that I am against the re-zoning. Thank you very much. MR. TRAVER-You're welcome. Is there anyone else that has new information? Yes,ma'am. MARILYN TALLON MRS. TALLON-No new information. Just a question, and my name is Marilyn Tallon and I live on Meadowbrook Road,on the same block, and my question is,we probably have just recently done it,but when was the last surveying of this done? I just can't believe there are 10 acres there. It just looks so small to me. MR.TRAVER-Well we know that's the case because those are the types of details of the planning process that are reviewed by the Town when the applicant submits their plan. So we know that those numbers are accurate. MRS. TALLON-Who was the surveyor for that? MR. TRAVER-You'd have to go on the Town website and look up the tax map for that parcel. There might be a record there. MRS.TALLON-Okay. All right,and is there any possibility that perhaps if they do come up with this and it gets passed,they could buy some other property on Quaker Road and make an entrance into it? Because it looks like some of that property is for sale right now. MR. TRAVER-That's a hypothetical that we can't address. They're not proposing that. If they were to propose that in the future,it would be subject to re-review by this Board. MRS. TALLON-Well I would like to say I'm not completely against having townhouses there, but I am completely against having so many of then-L So that is my thought. Thank you. MR. TRAVER-Okay. Thank you for your comment. Is there anyone else that wants to provide the Board with new information on this project? I'm not seeing any additional. Have we received new written comments, Laura? I know that there hasn't been any formal change to the application. So I wouldn't think it's likely. MRS. MOORE-No. MR. TRAVER-All right. So then we'll leave the public hearing,we'll end discussion of this application and move on with our agenda,but we will leave the public hearing open, and we have a motion to table. Laura,do we have a date yet for the tabling? You do. Okay. MR. STEFANZIK-Before I read this,I just want to confirm the information due by May 30`h,that's good, even with the comments we're hearing? MRS. MOORE-So the motion is a tabling motion with information due by May 30`h, of any updated information. MR. STEFANZIK-Okay. RESOLUTION TABLING SP#69-2023 PETITION OF ZONE CHANGE 1-2023 FWW 12-2023 Applicant proposes a zone change of a 10.99 acre parcel from Commercial Intensive to Moderate Density Residential. The project includes construction of 16 buildings with 4 units each as well as community building and paths. Site Plan review pending Town Board and Planning Board Petition of zone change 13 (Queensbury Planning Board 05/14/2024) review. Pursuant to chapter 179-3-040, 179-10-040 and chapter 94, site plan for construction of a new multifamily building and work within 100 ft. of wetlands shall be subject to Planning Board review and approval. MOTION TO TABLE SITE PLAN 69-2023, PETITION OF ZONE CHANGE 1-2023 &z FRESHWATER WETLANDS 12-2023 FOOTHILLS BUILDERS/MEAD'S. Introduced by Fritz Stefanzick who moved for its adoption,seconded by Warren Longacker. Tabled until the June 20,2024 Planning Board meeting with information due by May 30,2024. Duly adopted this 14`h day of May 2024 by the following vote: AYES: Mr. Longacker,Mr. Stark,Mr. Uncher,Mr. Stefanzick,Mr. Deeb,Mrs. McDevitt,Mr.Traver NOES: NONE ABSENT: Mr. Magowan MR. TRAVER-We will see you in June. JOE LEUCI MR. LEUCI-Thank you very much. MR. TRAVER-The next section of our agenda is Recommendations to the Zoning Board of Appeals for variances,and the first recommendation is for Hilltop Construction. This is Site Plan 21-2024. PLANNING BOARD RECOMMENDATIONS TO THE ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS: SITE PLAN NO. 21-2024 SEQR TYPE: TYPE II. HILLTOP CONSTRUCTION. AGENT(S): ENVIRONMENTAL DESIGN PARTNERSHIP, LLP. ZONING: WR. LOCATION: 282 CLEVERDALE ROAD. APPLICANT PROPOSES TO DEMOLISH EXISTING HOME AND DETACHED GARAGE IN ORDER TO CONSTRUCT A NEW HOME WITH A 1,990 SQ. FT. FOOTPRINT AND A DETACHED 400 SQ.FT.FOOTPRINT GARAGE THE NEW FLOOR AREA, INCLUDING THE GARAGE,WILL BE 3,725 SQ.FT. PROJECT WORK INCLUDES PERMEABLE PAVER DRIVEWAY,WALKWAYS AND NEW STORMWATER MANAGEMENT. PURSUANT TO CHAPTERS 179-3-040,179-6-065&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, FLOOR AREA, AND PERMEABILITY. PLANNING BOARD SHALL PROVIDE A RECOMMENDATION TO THE ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS. CROSS REFERENCE: SP 5- 2018,AV 6-2018,AV 26-2024. WARREN CO. REFERRAL: MAY 2024. SITE INFORMATION: CEA,LP C,APA. LOT SIZE: 0.3 ACRE. TAX MAP NO.226.16-1-40. SECTION: 179-3-040,179- 6-065,179-6-050. JON ZAPPER&r NICK ZEGLEN,REPRESENTING APPLICANT,PRESENT MR. TRAVER-Laura? MRS. MOORE-The application is to demolish an existing home and detached garage in order to construct a new home with a 1,990 square foot footprint and a detached garage of 400 square foot footprint. The new floor area will be 3,725 square feet. Variance relief is sought for setbacks,floor area,and permeability. MR. TRAVER-Okay. Thank you. Good evening. MR. ZAPPER-Good evening,everyone. For the record,Jon Lapper with Nick Zeglen from Environmental Design, and the actual applicants are the Romeo who are here behind us. Hilltop's the contractor,but the Romeos are the owners. So this is a lot, I'm sure you all saw it,that's two properties from George's, Boats by George,and the marina. It's an old,tired house that was built in the 40's that has no stormwater, although it does have a new septic system, and the major problem with this lot is that the stormwater comes from Cleverdale Road and goes directly into the lake like a river,when we get severe storms,which happen all the time. Laura,I sent you an e-mail. Were you able to open that? MRS. MOORE-I can if you wish me to. MR. ZAPPER-So this is indicative of what happens when it rains and,you know,it's a small lot. It's less than a third of an acre, about 13,000 square feet. They need area variance relief just to begin with. It's a 60 foot wide lot. So if you have 20 foot setbacks,you'd have a 20 foot wide house,which doesn't work, 14 (Queensbury Planning Board 05/14/2024) but what's proposed I think is very much in keeping with the character of Cleverdale Road with the garage on the road. What's proposed is smaller than what's there now,in terms of garage,but all of the garages are along the road the same way. What environmental design has proposed here,which is really important on this site,is the upper area where all the water is coming is now going to be a large infiltration area with permeable pavers. Right now it has concrete which does nothing. The Romeos bought it a few years ago. They didn't develop any of this. So permeable pavers with 12 inches of gravel and then a large infiltration structure underneath that area on the top by the road which will take the water into a six inch pipe and daylight it more than 100 feet from the lake. So it'll take all that water and then let it filter across the grass so it's not eroding the way it is now, and this is just a big problem for that whole neighborhood. This is the low spot. So everything is going through there. So that's part of the benefit to the applicant here. In terms of,the benefit to the neighborhood,excuse me. In terms of the neighborhood,because they've got commercial right next door and right across the street,even though this house,they're asking for a variance for floor area ratio of 2S%, they're not asking for a permeability variance. We're not asking for a height variance. The setback variances are pretty modest,being based upon the 60 foot lot,and they're not asking to build a mansion,3700 square feet on two floors. Just a nice home which is really in character with the other houses on that area of Cleverdale Road,but a big upgrade, architecturally, and certainly in terms of stormwater based upon what's there. So that's the general description. I'll just ask Nick to give you some more details. MR. ZEGLEN Jon did a good job explaining the stormwater,but essentially that whole concrete,stamped concrete area that has no infiltration now,it's about almost 2,000 square feet,will be all permeable pavers which will catch all the typical stormwater events,infiltrating into the ground, and then again there'll be a concrete structure in the low point that'll have 12 inches of sump in it. So when those big storms come, like you see in that picture,it'll go to that low point and the sediment and debris will filter to the bottom of that structure and then the cleaner water will flow down that six inch pipe with over 100 feet to go through vegetated and grassed area to clean it before it even enters the lake. So it'll be a great improvement to that,to the drainage in that area,and then we are proposing additional plantings along the lake. There are, I believe, 10 coniferous trees, the large trees and then we're proposing additional native shrubs and herbaceous plants along the lakeshore to supplement that. MR. TRAVER-Okay. All right. So this evening we're here to consider referral to the ZBA,and again it's another situation,unfortunately we've had a number of these lately,but that the floor area ratio is an issue. For me anyway, I can't speak for other members of the Board,but it's 2S% above the maximum limit. I realize that's a small lot. So that limits the size because of the floor area ratio,of the house you can have, but certainly the environmental improvements are a good thing. So with that I guess I'll open it up to other members of the Planning Board for discussion. MR. STEFANZIK-I think,bouncing off of what you just said, Mr. Chairman,when I look,you know,the footprint,the new house is adding 700 square feet of larger footprint over the existing 1290 footprint that's there. So that footprint is increasing by 500/o,which I think,in part,is driving the floor area ratio,but I think more importantly I think your permeability,if I read it correctly,is about 700/o. MR. ZAPPER-So it's improving the permeability from what's there now. So it doesn't require a variance. MR. STEFANZIK-But it's still at 700/o? MR. ZAPPER-Yes. MR. STEFANZIK-But it doesn't require a variance? MR. ZAPPER-It doesn't require a variance. MR.TRAVER-Yes,it's within the acceptable permeability. In the engineering comments,which we really just received recently,there are some concerns,some details. They don't seem to think that they are ones that cannot be resolved. MR. ZAPPER-Yes. We thought that was pretty positive that we already got pretty close to a signoff from the Town Engineer. MR.TRAVER-I know that,but one of the issues was the stormwater issue,but that's really not specifically for this Board,because you do have to have a signoff,but I'll just note those concerns. MR. LONGACKER-That catch basin you have out front there in your low spot,in your permeable paving, you have a six inch outlet that goes out, that photo you had up there, was that in that location, in the driveway? MR. ZEGLEN-That was down gradient of that location. 15 (Queensbury Planning Board 05/14/2024) MR. ZAPPER-See where the garage is,there's that point that flats out,so this is coming off of that plateau and down. MR. LONGACKER-Okay. It's a lot of water right there. I'm just thinking, six inch pipe right there,if you have that much volume of water coming off of Cleverdale Road shooting down there through a six inch pipe, your outlet protection looks kind of small right there. Are you concerned about eroding a nice channel right there all the way down to the lake? MR. ZEGLEN-So there's some pretty well established vegetation in that area,but we can certainly look at beefing up that,you know,the area down towards the lake right there. We can add some riprap. MR. ZAPPER-Unfortunately this lot is taking all the stormwater that, you know, that whole area of Cleverdale. It's not really fair. It needs to be addressed because it's not a good situation now. MR.LONGACKER-The next question,too,kind of related to that actually,you did mention that the sump inside that catch basing being 12 inch deep. You're going to have a lot of sediment, a lot of garbage just kind of falling into there. Any sort of agreement to have someone clean that out? MR. ZEGLEN-Yes,as part of,and I think that was a comment in the LaBella letter as well. A stormwater maintenance agreement will be in place to keep that cleaned out. Yes. MR. DEEB-A permeable paver agreement? MR. ZEG LEN-Perme able pavers as well,yes. MR. TRAVER-So you'll have a maintenance agreement as part of? MR. ZEGLEN-That's correct. MR.TRAVER-Other questions,comments from members of the Board? Again we're considering referring this to the ZBA,and again my concern is the floor area ratio. MR. STEFANZIK-I mean I agree with that,floor area ratio. I just look at the increase of the footprint and I'm just questioning,is there anything you guys could do to tighten that up a little bit? That,in turn,may improve the floor area ratio. MR. ZAPPER-We think,on balance,this is really positive for the neighborhood,that the size of the houses isn't so important to the neighborhood as the fact that they're meeting the setback from the lake, and it's really shielded from the front because the garage is like everybody else,you know,we recognize that it's an ask in terms of floor area ratio,but we think that it's really in an area that is very commercial. No one's impacted by the Zoning Board test of balancing the benefit to the applicant to the impact on the neighborhood. We think the impact's,you know,pretty dramatic of trying to deal with the stormwater issue, but, you know,we recognize that if the Zoning Board says that they think the house needs to be shaved a little bit we'll have to look at that. MR.TRAVER-Well,and of course we have to consider if we can do site plan review if that FAR is approved as well. MR. STARK-I think the stormwater thing's an issue right now, as is. So this improves the stormwater. So I really like that aspect. MR. TRAVER-So that's a fair trade for the FAR? MR. STARK-I'd like to hear what other members of the Board have to say,but that's my thoughts in terms of stormwater. MR. TRAVER-Okay. MR. MAGOWAN-Well, after doing a thorough review here, the floor area ratio is a concern, but the improvements to this site, I have a problem with the amount of permeable pavers,because they're not a drop and put in and forget about it. MR. TRAVER-They have to be maintained. MR. MAGOWAN-They have to be maintained, and, you know, I know we have this, but it's not like Queensbury's got a crew that goes around and makes sure that everybody does that, but out of all the pavements,I've seen one person that actually was out there with a pressure washer when I was going to a development. It's a messy job,but after it's done it looks beautiful and it looks renewed. So I like the fact that there are improvements in the stormwater and you're right, I can see the issues coming off the road, 16 (Queensbury Planning Board 05/14/2024) and if there was a possibility just to shave it down or make it a little skinnier and longer,I don't know,but I think we tax our properties a lot with these size homes,but really it's a good looking home. So I'm kind of. MR. ZAPPER-I just want to say on the record that this applicant,you'll never have to worry about them maintaining the stormwater because if it doesn't get vacuumed out,that's what's going to happen. So they have to make sure that it works. MR. TRAVER-Yes, and again,just to remind the Board, this is just a referral to the Zoning Board on the variances. We're not doing site plan tonight. So this is not an approval. This is a pass along to the ZBA regarding the variances that are requested. So I'm hearing some concern about floor area ratio that we might want to mention to the ZBA,but I'm not hearing,you know,polling the,I guess we could do a poll. Do Board members feel,Warren,can you support referring this as is to the ZBA? MR. LONGACKER-If the applicant's willing to maybe look at the floor area ratio,that would be nice. I have no issue with them taking a look at it. MR. TRAVER-Okay. David? MR. DEEB-Well,we're re-hashing a lot of the same issues that we've had in the last few months. MR. TRAVER-Right. MR. DEEB-And it's becoming concerning because we have to balance,this Board has to balance,how we handle matters of this nature, and I'm okay with sending this to the Zoning Board, but we've done that before,and I hate to re-hash old things,but it's come back from the Zoning Board with an approval and yet this Board still didn't approve the site plan. That issue is still out there. So I'm okay with sending it to the Zoning Board right now,but what happens after this? MR. TRAVER-They come back for Site Plan Review. MR. DEEB-Steve,I said that already. MR. TRAVER-Right. They're two separate things. MR. DEEB-Never mind. MR. MAGOWAN-Excuse me, Mr. Chairman. I understand what Dave's saying and this is why, in the past,a lot of times I have denied sending it to the variance. Once it goes to variance and they get approved for that,you know, they're going to say,well,gee,we got approved for the variance and now we're going to try to shrink it down. MR. TRAVER-Well,if they get approved in this case,and obviously every case is different,but if they get approved for the floor area ratio variance,they don't have to shrink it down. MR. MAGOWAN-But can the Zoning Board ask them to shrink it down if they think it's? MRS. MOORE-The Zoning Board may have that additional discussion. If this Board says to the Zoning Board of Appeals we're concerned with the extent of the floor area ratio,which is something you have done, the Zoning Board takes that information into account and whether they agree or disagree with you,it is evaluated. MR. TRAVER-Right. MRS. MOORE-But you, as a Board, would make that recommendation to the Zoning Board that you're concerned about the floor area ratio. That gets passed along to the Zoning Board of Appeals. And whether you,as a whole Board,make that decision,or part of the Board,that information does get carried on. MR. TRAVER-Yes. MR. DEEB-So we could pass it along to the Zoning Board and they could handle the issue of FAR. MR. TRAVER-Right. MR. DEEB-But if we're not happy here and they go ahead and approve it and it comes back here,we're still not happy, we could run into the same problem that we've run into with the last few issues we've had. Which is quite troubling. So then don't send it to the Zoning Board if you don't like it. 17 (Queensbury Planning Board 05/14/2024) MR. TRAVER-If we don't have support for the application as is to go to the Zoning Board,then it doesn't go to the Zoning Board. That's why I was starting to do a. MR. DEEB-I'm in favor of sending it. MR. TRAVER-Okay. MR. STEFANZIK-Let me ask. Mr. Lapper,you had mentioned you would consider looking at reducing or reducing that. MR. ZAPPER-So when we're at the Zoning Board, they're test is the balancing test of the benefit to the applicant versus the burden on the neighborhood. So we'll debate that with the Zoning Board and certainly they could tell us we would like you to take a percent off and make it 270/o or whatever. We think that on balance,on a small lot,with a lot of commercial right around us,and the improvement in the stormwater,that this is a good application,but,you know,we understand how it works,and if the Zoning Board tells us that they think it's too much relief,then we're going to have to find a way to make it work. MR.TRAVER-Right. Yes,the variance goes to the ZBA,but if we send it to them as is,we'd have to accept the fact that it may come back approved. MR. STEFANZIK-That's why I'm asking would they consider sharpening their pencils now,before they go to the next Board. MR. TRAVER-No,I don't think that they would because the whole purpose of going to the Zoning Board is trying to get the Zoning Board to approve the variance as it is. MR. STEFANZIK-I was just asking. MR. TRAVER-All right. So how about on this end? What's the feeling on referring it as is to the ZBA? MR. STARK-I mean if you want to refer it to the ZBA,that's fine. I mean it seems like people have issues with the floor area ratio,so if you want to throw that in as a concern,that's fine. MR. TRAVER-Yes,I mean we can include that in the referral. MR. STARK-Yes,but I'm fine with sending it over. MR. TRAVER-Okay. Mr. Magowan? MR. MAGOWAN-I have my concerns. I have stated them. So won't,I mean we're really talking pretty much like a half a foot from the old building to the new building,you know,six inches on either side. MR. TRAVER-I believe it was calculated to be something like 700 square feet. MR. MAGOWAN-But what I'm saying is, you know, from the existing site that's there now, with the magnifying glass you can see it. It looks like six inches on each side,so you really did a great job of trying to do the best you can on this size lot. So I feel comfortable sending it to variance. With the concerns that the Board has. MR. TRAVER-Okay. All right. Ellen? MRS. MC DEVITT-Yes, I'm struggling with this,but I guess I would send it with the reservations about the FAR,but I do see that they're trying in terms of the stormwater. MR. TRAVER-Right. MR. ZAPPER-We wouldn't mind if you mentioned that,too,in the resolution. MR. TRAVER-Okay. I'm hearing support for an as is referral to the ZBA for the variances. So we have a draft resolution. RECOMMENDATION RE: ZBA RECOMMENDATION RE :AV#26-2024 HILLTOP The applicant has submitted an application for the following: Applicant proposes to demolish existing home and detached garage in order to construct a new home with a 1,990 sq. ft. footprint and a detached 400 sq. ft. footprint garage. The new floor area, including the garage, will be 3,725 sq. ft. Project work includes permeable paver driveway, walkways and new stormwater management. Pursuant to chapters 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 18 (Queensbury Planning Board 05/14/2024) setbacks,floor area,and permeability.Planning Board shall provide a recommendation to the Zoning Board of Appeals. The Town of Queensbury Zoning Ordinance,per Section 179-9-070 J 2 b. requires the Planning Board to provide a written recommendation to the Zoning Board of Appeals for projects that require both Zoning Board of Appeals&Planning Board approval; The Planning Board has briefly reviewed and discussed this application,the relief request in the variance application as well as the potential impacts of this project on the neighborhood and surrounding community,and found that: MOTION TO MAKE A RECOMMENDATION ON BEHALF OF THE PLANNING BOARD TO THE ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS FOR AREA VARIANCE 26-2024 HILLTOP CONSTRUCTION. 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 the allowable by 2S%which the Planning Board considers to be significant. Motion seconded by Ellen McDevitt. Duly adopted this 14`h day of May 2024 by the following vote: MR. TRAVER-So do we have any discussion on the motion? MR. DEEB-You're saying that it exceeds by 2S%? It's going from 22.7 to 2S% MR. STEFANZIK-That's the floor area ratio, yes. Eight hundred thirty-eight square feet over the allowable. MR. DEEB-You're saying it's exceeding by 2S%. MR. TRAVER-Yes, it's an increase of 6.3 which works out to be the floor area ratio is 2S% above the maximum limit. MR. STEFANZIK-If you look at it a different way, S30 square feet is how many square feet over the allowable? That is 2S%. MRS. MOORE-So it sounded like you were saying it's 2S%greater, and I don't know how to explain it, other than 220/o,versus 6016 greater. MR. STEFANZIK-I'm using the same numbers that Mr. Lapper gave. MRS. MOORE-So it's six percent greater than the maximum allowable. MR. TRAVER-Yes,so I think 6.30/o works out to be 2S%above the maximum allowed. MR. STEFANZIK-By square footage. MR. TRAVER-Yes. So it must be 6.3 divided by 22 is 2S%. MR. DEEB-This is a math program. MR. TRAVER-Yes. AYES: Mr. Longacker,Stark,Mr. Magowan,Mr. Stefanzick,Mr. Deeb,Mrs. McDevitt,Mr. Traver NOES: NONE MR. TRAVER-You're off to the ZBA. MR. ZAPPER-Thanks,everybody. MR.TRAVER-The next item on our agenda,also under Recommendations to the ZBA,is Kevin Kelly. This is Site Plan 26-2024. SITE PLAN NO. 26-2024 SEQR TYPE: TYPE 11. KEVIN KELLY. AGENT(S): HUTCHINS ENGINEERING. OWNER(S): JOHN KELLY &z HELEN JO KELLY. ZONING: WR. LOCATION: 10 SERENITY LANE. APPLICANT PROPOSES TO DEMOLISH AN EXISTING 945 SQ. FT. CABIN TO CONSTRUCT A NEW HOME WITH A 1,725 SQ. FT. FOOTPRINT AND 275 SQ. FT. OF PORCH/DECK AREA. THE FLOOR AREA WILL BE 4,165 SQ. FT. SITE WORK 19 (Queensbury Planning Board 05/14/2024) INCLUDES A NEW SEPTIC SYSTEM, STORMWATER MANAGEMENT AND LANDSCAPING. THE DRIVEWAY BEGINS ON THE EXISTING PARCEL, CONTINUES THROUGH AN ADJOINING VACANT PARCEL, AND ENDS WITH THIS PARCEL AT THE NEW HOME. PURSUANT TO CHAPTER 179-3-040, 179-6-065 &z 179-6-050, SITE PLAN FOR NEW FLOOR AREA IN A CEA AND NEW HARD SURFACING WITHIN 50 FT. OF THE SHORELINE SHALL BE SUBJECT TO PLANNING BOARD REVIEW AND APPROVAL. VARIANCE: RELIEF IS SOUGHT FOR LOT ACCESS. CROSS REFERENCE: AV 29-2024. WARREN CO, REFERRAL: MAY 2024. SITE INFORMATION: CEA,APA,LGPC. LOT SIZE: 0.44 ACRE. TAX MAP NO. 226.19-3-2. CROSS REFERENCE: 179-3-040,179-6-065,179-6-050. LUCAS DOBIE&r TREVOR FLYNN,REPRESENTING APPLICANT,PRESENT MR. TRAVER-Laura? MRS. MOORE-Okay. So we're talking about 10 Serenity Lane. MR. TRAVER-Yes,this is the first of our projects. MRS.MOORE-So the applicant proposes to demolish an existing 945 square foot cabin to construct a new home of 1,725 square feet footprint and a 275 square foot porch/deck area. The new floor area to be 4,165 square feet. Site work includes new septic system, stormwater management and landscaping. The driveway begins on an existing parcel, continues through an adjoining vacant parcel, and ends with this parcel at the new home. The variance that's being sought is relief for lot access. MR. TRAVER-Okay. Thank you. Good evening. MR.DOBIE-Good evening,Board. For the record,Lucas Dobie with Hutchins Engineering. With us also, Trevor Flynn of Flynn Designs,the project architect,representing our clients the Kelly family and with us are Kevin and Grace Kelly who live at 10 Serenity Lane,which is Assembly Point,on the Harris Bay side of Assembly Point,approximately 20 properties south of the northerly point,if you will. The project history is a little complicated. I'll keep it as simple as we can, but the Kelly family bought the properties as originally a 13 lot subdivision from the early SO's. They bought it in 2010. All of the lots,except for the southerly neighbor lot, which is called Lot Four, which has a big old house on it, other than that they bought the three main lake parcels and there's also a beach lot,if you will,which has the shore frontage. So they own four parcels on the lakeside and then all of the inland parcels as well, which they've demolished some old structures there and it's gone back to a wooded condition of it and the tennis court, and this project is the middle lot of Lot Two from the subdivision,which we already took one of the cabins off and the Lot One,just while we're talking about it,those two cabins are gone as well from the Kelly's family,subsequent to them buying it. This project proposes tearing down the cabin on the,where Trevor's showing it,Lot Two,and proposing a new home that Trevor put a ton of effort into along with our clients, to make it conforming with respect to the FAR and the permeability. They've put a lot of thought into it. We believe we have a really nice project here and we're going to improve the site with the new Elgin wastewater system which is an enhanced treatment field and stormwater mitigation devices. So we're zoning compliant, as we see it. As this was an approved subdivision from the early SO's and we verified with Staff and the Zoning Administrator to use the setbacks from that subdivision. So that gives us a little more room to work. It allows us to have a 10 foot side setback and 20 on the other. So we're able to meet those setbacks, and again the floor area ratio's within the 220/o and regarding the shoreline plantings,the lakefront lot,ifyou will,or the access with the docks and everything,that's heavily vegetated,which Trevor put together a nice photo key for that showing a lot of the native species, shrubs, white pine, and we're proposing to leave that as it is. And subsequent to those photos, they've done some more plantings this spring to reinforce that area, and we believe that is certainly above and beyond a lot of our sites that we deal with for the shoreline buffering. So we're very comfortable with that, and in my opinion,this is the most straightforward variance we've ever done. So the driveway does originate on this lot,though,so the road cut to Bay Parkway for what's called Serenity Lane,but as it goes to the north,overly the northerly parcel,which is also owned by our clients,the determination was since the driveway is not entirely on this parcel,that's a variance item. So we feel this is a very straightforward request,and I'll be happy to answer any site questions and Trevor can talk about the building,anything the Board would like to hear. MR. TRAVER-So,again,for the Board,we're here just to discuss the variance for an access issue with this particular site, although the access is through the subject home parcel, and I think this is a part of the 12 Serenity project as well, right? So we'll consider this, although one at a time,in a way we really need to consider this in context. Questions,comments from members of the Board? MRS. MC DEVITT-It seems pretty straightforward to me. MR. TRAVER-Yes. MR. STEFANZIK-I agree. 20 (Queensbury Planning Board 05/14/2024) MR. TRAVER-Does anyone have any concerns with the recommendation to the ZBA for lot access? I'm not hearing any. We have a draft resolution. RESOLUTION RE: ZBA RECOMMENDATION RE: AV#29-2024 KEVIN KELLY The applicant has submitted an application for the following:Applicant proposes to demolish an existing 945 sq. ft. cabin to construct a new home with a 1,725 sq. ft. footprint and 275 sq. ft. of porch/deck area. The floor area will be 4,165 sq. ft.. Site work includes new a septic system, stormwater management and landscaping.The driveway begins on the existing parcel,continues through an adjoining vacant parcel and ends with this parcel at the new home.Pursuant to chapter 179-3-040,179-6-065&r 179-6-050,site plan for new floor area in a CEA and new hard surfacing within 50 ft. of the shoreline shall be subject to Planning Board review and approval. Variance: Relief is sought for lot 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 29-2024 KEVIN KELLY. 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 14`h day of May 2024 by the following vote: AYES: Mr. Stark,Mr. Magowan,Mr. Stefanzick,Mr.Deeb,Mrs. McDevitt,Mr. Longacker,Mr. Traver NOES: NONE MR. TRAVER-All right. Why don't we move right into the next one,which is Site Plan 25-2024 for 12 Serenity Lane for Kevin Kelly. SITE PLAN NO. 25-2024 SEQR TYPE: TYPE 11. KEVIN KELLY. AGENT(S): HUTCHINS ENGINEERING. OWNER(S): JOHN KELLY &z HELEN JO KELLY. ZONING: WR. LOCATION: 12 SERENITY LANE APPLICANT PROPOSES TO RELOCATE AN EXISTING 750 SQ. FT. FOOTPRINT CABIN AND CONSTRUCT A NEW 750 SQ. FT. WALK OUT BASEMENT UNDERNEATH IT. THE FLOOR AREA WILL BE 1,500 SQ.FT. SITE WORK INCLUDES A NEW SEPTIC SYSTEM, GRADING AND STORMWATER MANAGEMENT. PURSUANT TO CHAPTER 179-3-040,179-6-065&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 LOT ACCESS AND PARKING SPACES FOR RESIDENTIAL USE. PLANNING BOARD SHALL PROVIDE A RECOMMENDATION TO THE ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS. CROSS REFERENCE: AV 28- 2024. WARREN CO.REFERRAL: MAY 2024. SITE INFORMATION: CEA,LGPC,APA. LOT SIZE: 0.39 ACRE. TAX MAP NO.226.19-3-3. SECTION: 179=3-040,179-6-065,&z 179-6-050. LUCAS DOBIE&r TREVOR FLYNN,REPRESENTING APPLICANT,PRESENT MR. TRAVER-Laura? MRS. MOORE-This application is to re-locate an existing 750 square foot footprint cabin and construct a new 750 square foot walkout basement underneath it. The floor area will be 1500 square feet. Site work includes a new septic system,grading and stormwater management and relief is requested for lot access and parking spaces for residential use. MR. TRAVER-Okay. So here's Part B of more or less the same project. Do you want to give us some background? MR. DOBIE-Yes. Thank you, again. For the record, Lucas Dobie, Hutchins Engineering, with Trevor Flynn with Flynn Design Studio and our clients,Kevin and Grace Kelly, are with us. This is a southerly lot,12 Serenity Lane,which has an existing,non-conforming cabin on it. The cabin's in really nice shape, but it's set too low to the ground. It's in a little bit of a bowl on the site. So there's drainage issues with getting water under the cabin and concern with that. So since, the logic with this, since we're going to 21 (Queensbury Planning Board 05/14/2024) this much effort for the main home project,let's do this one at the same time. So jack the cabin up,pull it back and bring it to a zoning conforming location. So right now it's I think around 37 feet from the shore. We'll move it right back to just over 51,which we think is positive, and adjust it a little bit,the rotation, to make it fit the 1953 zoning setbacks, and again a new wastewater system, an Elgin system, and some stormwater mitigation. We believe it's very straightforward and again Trevor did a nice job on the renderings to see how it's going to be lifted the four feet and then a walkout basement. So we're here to ask for your referral to the Zoning Board again. MR. TRAVER-And can you talk about the issue for access and parking, or not access. We understand that,but what about the parking issue? MR. DOBIE-Sure. So since this one does not have its own road cut,we propose to,as it's being used now, properties to access through the existing Serenity Lane and there is relatively,it's almost dead flat area, lawn area,to the west of the cabin,is plenty sufficient for parking on the lawn when it needs to be,and we don't feel that this warrants cutting a new driveway in or dedicated hard surfacing. So they propose to keep it vegetated,and another point I'd like to make for the record is,I mean we know the Board is sensitive to the plantings. So they're proposing trees that will be removed, either to be, try to dig them with the root ball and transplant them or put new plantings, so we match the number removed will remain when the project's completed. MR. STEFANZIK-We'll talk about that at site plan. MR. DOBIE-Yes,sir. MR. TRAVER-Very good. All right. Thank you for the explanation. MR. FLYNN-And I'd just like to add,too,that the northern lot,which is where that main driveway comes in and turns around,that's primarily where most of the family parks now,too,so they kind of use it as that family compound and park in that area and walk over to this cabin. MR. TRAVER-Makes sense. MR. DEEB-It's really interesting,lifting it up and moving it back. MR. FLYNN-Yes,we were originally going to lift it up and keep it in the same spot, and then,you know, we came up with the suggestion, if you're lifting it up, you might as well rotate it and fit it within the existing setbacks. MR. TRAVER-And you're putting a basement in,too,right? MR. FLYNN-It was kind of like a puzzle piece fitting in. So we got it to work. MR. TRAVER-Yes. All right. Any concerns regarding the referral to the ZBA for this part of the project? I'm not hearing any. MR. MAGOWAN-No,but I'd like to make a comment to Lucas and the engineer and the Kellys. I really want to thank you. Lucas,you're up and coming aspiring engineer,and I stated that. You really have the heart of trying to do,you bring in some good clients. So I just want to reach out and say I love the idea of lifting it. So thank you. MR. DOBIE-Thankyou,sir. MR. FLYNN-Yes,thank you. MR. TRAVER-All right. We have a draft resolution. RESOLUTION RE: ZBA RECOMMENDATION RE: AV#25-2024 KEVIN KELLY The applicant has submitted an application for the following:Applicant proposes to relocate an existing 750 sq. ft. footprint cabin and construct a new 750 sq. ft.walk out basement underneath it. The floor area will be 1,500 sq. ft.. Site work includes a new septic system, grading, and stormwater management. 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 lot access and parking spaces for residential use. 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; 22 (Queensbury Planning Board 05/14/2024) 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 28-2024 KEVIN KELLY. 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 Brady Stark. Duly adopted this 14`h day of May 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're off to the ZBA. MR. FLYNN-Thank you. MR. DOBIE-Thank you so much,Board. MR.TRAVER-The next section of our agenda is New Business,and the first application is Kurt Koskinen, Site Plan 23-2024. NEW BUSINESS: SITE PLAN NO.23-2024 SEQR TYPE: UNLISTED. KURT KOSKINEN. AGENT(S): SAME AS APPLICANT. OWNER(S): PAUL F. POLITTE TRUST. ZONING: RR-5A. LOCATION: 109 BUCKBEE ROAD. APPLICANT PROPOSES A TIMBER HARVEST INVOLVING 5 PARCELS FOR A PORTION OF THE EXISTING 34.13 ACRES. THE EXISTING 768 SQ. FT. HOME AT 109 BUCKBEE ROAD,WITH A FLOOR AREA OF 1,176 SQ.FT.,WILL REMAIN UNCHANGED. THE PROJECT IS FOR TREE REMOVAL OF 12 INCHES DBH OR LARGER, LEAVING A MINIMUM OF 60 SQ. FT. PER ACRE OF BASAL AREA OF TREES AS ACCEPTABLE GROWING STOCK. THERE ARE THREE LANDINGS: ONE OFF BUCKBEE ROAD DIRECTLY (EAST OF 109 BUCKBEE ROAD) AND THE OTHER TWO LANDINGS WILL BE FROM THE DRIVEWAY OF 109 BUCKBEE ROAD. THE LANDINGS WILL BE STONED 50 FT. TO MINIMIZE ROAD TRACKING. THE HARVEST INCLUDES A MIXTURE OF WHITE PINES, HARDWOODS, HEMLOCK PULP AND HARDWOOD PULP. PURSUANT TO CHAPTER 179-6-010, SITE PLAN REVIEW FOR EXTENSIVE CLEARING SHALL BE SUBJECT TO PLANNING BOARD REVIEW AND APPROVAL. CROSS REFERENCE: N/A. WARREN CO. REFERRAL: N/A. SITE INFORMATION: SLOPES. LOT SIZE: 2.5 ACRES,10.75 ACRES,693 ACRES,7.42 ACRES,6.56 ACRES. TAX MAP NO.288.-1-87,88,90,91,92.1. SECTION: 179-6-010. KURT KOSKINEN,PRESENT MR. TRAVER-Laura? MRS. MOORE-So this project is a timber harvest involving 5 parcels,a portion of the existing 34.13 acres. There's an existing home that is to remain and the driveway that is existing to 109 Buckbee Road. The project is for tree removal of 12 inches dbh or larger,leaving a minimum of 60 square feet per acre basal area of trees as acceptable growing stock. The applicant has identified that trees to be harvested include white pine,hardwoods, some pulp,hemlock pulp as well as hardwood pulp. Their plan shows three landings, two of them are actually on the existing driveway and then one is off of Buckbee Road itself. I think that's the gist of it. MR. TRAVER-Okay. Thank you. Good evening. MR. KOSKINEN-Good evening. My name's Kurt Koskinen. I'm the owner and forester of Sustainable Forestry, Queensbury, and the owner of the Paul Politte Trust has contracted with Tyler Logging and Forestry to harvest the timber after a permit's granted,and essentially I'll be managing it. I'll go up there once every week at different,random times and the biggest concerns are stoning the access points off of Buckbee Road and any other stoning driveways to keep mud off the main cords, and then also we're working on,working to leave acceptable growing stock,so the trees that are left will be healthy and survive at least another 30 years and that's the usual standard of New York State Forestry,and more or less we had the Warren County Soil & Water District people in there, hiked the property with us, good 23 (Queensbury Planning Board 05/14/2024) recommendations. A good part of the property had been harvested many years ago, and there's existing trails, they go up the steep areas. Thirty, forty, fifty, a hundred years ago, the old-timers found the best way up the hill,and then beyond that it's a short-term harvest. It's a small piece,and essentially only when it's bone dry and frozen we go in there. Definitely no logging through any mud season times, spring and fall, and I'd be surprised if it went more than four or five months. There's probably some form of slight mud season in the fall, but they'll go through this quick, and then it's my job to maintain the basal area, and 60 is pretty good, and we're not cutting anything more than 500/o of the trees over six inches and diameter. You always have a little collateral damage where certain small trees are pulled out to make skid roads,but ones with 12 inch diameter or larger, and I think that should work well on the property. I'm open to any questions or thoughts. MR. TRAVER-Sure. Well, the first one I have is, what would be the hours of operation when the harvesting will take place? MR.KOSKINEN-That's what Tyler Logging wanted me to find out,what you would want us to do,seven, eight in the morning until five in the afternoon maybe? Whatever the Board wants. MR. TRAVER-Okay. All right. We'll talk about that, and then how long do you expect,would you start in the fall and be done by the spring? MR. KOSKINEN-They would start this late spring here,like June,when it's nice and dry. MR. TRAVER-Okay. MR. KOSKINEN-And they're working on a job right now, and when they get that done, I can let Laura know or the Board when they can start,but they usually sign for a year,but if they were there for a year, then there's a million times more wood than I thought. MR. TRAVER-So you would expect,if approved,this project would be completed by this time next year? MR. KOSKINEN-Yes. Definitely. MRS. MC DEVITT-So some of those paths going up seem very narrow. So those will have to be widened? Is that the idea? MR. KOSKINEN-It's the existing skid trailers. A normal skidder is nine,twelve feet wide, and it's good the old-timers were there, because they did the hard work. They pushed rocks out of the way and smoothed their way up the hillsides,and that's why we have three landings. We don't want to cross the road anywhere. We have an internal road,plus it's easy to finish one area,then shut it down. It could be inspected by one of your people if you like,and landing,landing,landing. Then done. MRS. MC DEVITT-Can I just ask? I'm just curious. Is this for the health of the forest that they're doing it or that they want to sell the timber? MR.KOSKINEN-The owner is looking to,the owners,the Trust,they're looking to have some money come in and help with their lives and the reason I'm doing it is because I want to improve the woods. Because I want to leave what they call acceptable growing stock, trees that won't die in five years. That kind of thing. MRS. MC DEVITT-Right. MR. KOSKINEN-And the New York State, the full forestry board, they like to see trees that will last at least 30 years. Because in 30 years,you can take a 10 inch tree and you could double it almost. You could go 10 to 15 to 1S inches in 30 years. Then you could have another harvest. I won't be here. MR. MAG OWAN-I mean you've been in this business a long time. MR. KOSKINEN-Fifty years. MR.MAGOWAN-It's a family. So Kurt and Igo way back,so I will go on the record that this is a reputable harvester,but really,over the years that I've known of the work that they have done,and family,it's really reputable work,and he's been in front of the Board before I believe with the harvesting. MR. KOSKINEN-Yes,going back 40 years. I do a lot of work with the Lake George board. Some boards to the south of Albany. Down in New York City you can't cut one tree within 30,40 miles of New York City without a permit, and then only thing you can do is cut a little opening for a house. That's why the trees down there are like this. 24 (Queensbury Planning Board 05/14/2024) MR. TRAVER-Okay. Well this is an Unlisted action under SEQR. So we do have a SEQR resolution to consider. I was glad to hear that you're working with the County Soil and Water and you are well known as an expert in this field. So I, myself, do not have any concerns under SEQR, but I'll just ask Board members how they feel about environmental review? MR. LONGACKER-What do you do with all the slash wood? MR. KOSKINEN-What we do is we try to cut it down like from the kneecap down,close to the ground, and within the first couple of winters the snow gets on it and pounds it down. MR. LONGACKER-You're not burning it? You're not moving it off site? MR. KOSKINEN-No. I don't want to have any forest fires up there. I know that,yes,and then the pine rots really quickly. Within two or three years it gets crumbly and falls apart, as you've probably seen in the woods. A hardwood,we try to get the hardwood as close to the ground as we can because you've seen in the woods,you get a hardwood tree 10, 12 feet off the ground, and be there forever. It has to get the enzymes and microbes to get into it. MR. TRAVER-Right. MR. KOSKINEN-It's a nice little project there. MR. TRAVER-Warren,do you have any specific concerns under SEQR? MR. LONGACKER-No,I just wanted to make sure it wasn't burned. MR. TRAVER-Sure. Okay. Anyone else have any questions regarding environmental impacts? MR. STEFANZIK-Not here. MR. TRAVER-All right. Well,let's do the SEQR review. RESOLUTION GRANTING A NEGATIVE SEQR DEC. SP#23-2024 KURT KOSKINEN The applicant proposes a timber harvest involving 5 parcels for a portion of the existing 34.13 acres. The existing 76S sq. ft.home at 109 Buckbee Road,with a floor area of 1,176 sq. ft.,will remain unchanged. The project is for tree removal of 12 inches DBH or larger,leaving a minimum of 60 sq. ft.per acre of basal area of trees as acceptable growing stock. There are three landings: One off Buckbee Road directly(east of 109 Buckbee Road) and the other two landings will be from the driveway of 109 Buckbee Road. The landings will be stoned 50 ft. to minimize road tracking. The harvest includes a mixture of white pine,hardwoods, hemlock pulp and hardwood pulp. Pursuant to chapter 179-6-010, site plan review for extensive clearing shall be subject to Planning Board review and approval. The proposed action considered by this Board is Unlisted in the Department of Environmental Conservation Regulations implementing the State Environmental Quality Review Act and the regulations of the Town of Queensbury; No Federal or other agencies are involved; Part 1 of the Short EAF has been completed by the applicant; Upon review of the information recorded on this EAF, it is the conclusion of the Town of Queensbury Planning Board as lead agency that this project will result in no significant adverse impacts on the environment,and,therefore,an environmental impact statement need not be prepared. Accordingly,this negative declaration is issued. MOTION TO GRANT A NEGATIVE DECLARATION FOR SITE PLAN 23-2024 KURT KOSKINEN.Introduced by Fritz Stefanzick who moved for its adoption. As per the resolution prepared by staff. 1. Part II of the Short EAF has been reviewed and completed by the Planning Board. 2. Part III of the Short EAF is not necessary because the Planning Board did not identify potentially moderate to large impacts. Motion seconded by Ellen McDevitt. Duly adopted this 14th day of May 2024 by the following vote: AYES: Mr. Stefanzick,Mr. Deeb,Mrs. McDevitt,Mr. Longacker,Mr. Stark,Mr. Magowan,Mr. Traver 25 (Queensbury Planning Board 05/14/2024) NOES: NONE MR.TRAVER-And next we consider the Site Plan for the timber harvest. Does anyone have any concerns approval? I'm not seeing any. So we have a draft resolution. MR. STEFANZIK-Yes,we do. Do we need to,or do we want to,add to the resolution about the timing of the harvest or the completion of the harvest? MR. DEEB-And the hours of operation. MR. STEFANZIK-Hours of operation. MR. TRAVER-Yes,we can talk. I think the mention was seven to five. MR. KOSKINEN-Good. MR.TRAVER-Seven a.m.to five p.m and avoid mud season. Weekdays only,and then completion within 12 months. RESOLUTION APPROVING SP#23-2024 KURT KOSKINEN The applicant has submitted an application to the Planning Board: Applicant proposes a timber harvest involving 5 parcels for a portion of the existing 34.13 acres. The existing 76S sq. ft. home at 109 Buckbee Road,with a floor area of 1,176 sq. ft.,will remain unchanged. The project is for tree removal of 12 inches DBH or larger,leaving a minimum of 60 sq. ft. per acre of basal area of trees as acceptable growing stock. There are three landings: One off Buckbee Road directly (east of 109 Buckbee Road) and the other two landings will be from the driveway of 109 Buckbee Road. The landings will be stoned 50 ft. to minimize road tracking.The harvest includes a mixture of white pine,hardwoods,hemlockpulp and hardwood pulp. Pursuant to chapter 179-6-010, site plan review for extensive clearing 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 5/14/2024 and continued the public hearing to 5/14/2024,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 5/14/2024-1 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 23-2024 KURT KOSKINEN.Introduced by Fritz Stefanzick who moved for its adoption. Per the draft provided by staff conditioned upon the following conditions: 1) Waivers request granted: g. site lighting, h. signage, 1. landscaping, o. commercial alterations/ construction details,p floor plans,q. soil logs,r.construction/demolition disposal s. snow removal as the applicant has indicate the Best management practices will be installed as related to timber harvest specific to stormwater, topography, traffic related to landings. , j. stormwater, k. topography,n traffic; 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 5/14/2025-1 3) Adherence to the items outlined in the follow-up letter sent with this resolution. a.) 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; b.)The applicant must meet with staff after approval and prior to issuance of Building Permit and/or the beginning of any site work; c.)This resolution is to be placed in its entirety on the final plans. d) Time of harvest should be contained within weekdays only between 7 a.m.and 5 p.m. e) Completion of harvest to be completed within 12 months of approval. 26 (Queensbury Planning Board 05/14/2024) Motion seconded by Brad Magowan. Duly adopted this 14th day of May 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 are all set. MR. KOSKINEN-Thank you. MR.TRAVER-The next item on our agenda,also under New Business,is Redeemer Reformed Presbyterian Church. This is Site Plan 22-2024. SITE PLAN NO. 22-2024 SEQR TYPE: TYPE II. REDEEMER REFORMED PRESBYTERIAN CHURCH. AGENT(S): SRA ENGINEERS. OWNER(S): SAME AS APPLICANT. ZONING: MDR. LOCATION: 548 LUZERNE ROAD APPLICANT PROPOSES TO CONSTRUCT AN ADDITION OF 1,310 SQ. FT. ON AN EXISTING 2,811 SQ. FT. BUILDING. ADDITIONALLY, A NEW WALKWAY,DRIVEWAY,POLE LIGHT AND SNOW REMOVAL AREAS ARE PLANNED TO BE INSTALLED. THE EXISTING 1,386 SQ. FT. BUILDING AND 224 SQ. FT. SHED TO REMAIN UNCHANGED. THE NEW SPACE WILL BE USED FOR OFFICE SPACES, CLASSROOMS, MEETING SPACE, RESTROOMS AND CLOSETS. PURSUANT TO CHAPTER 179-3-040,SITE PLAN FOR AN ADDITION TO AN EXISTING BUILDING SHALL BE SUBJECT TO PLANNING BOARD REVIEW AND APPROVAL. CROSS REFERENCE: SP 58-2002,SP 50-2015. WARREN CO.REFERRAL: N/A. LOT SIZE: 2.81 ACRES. TAX MAP NO.308.6-1-84. SECTION: 179-3-040. ERIK SANDBLOM,REPRESENTING APPLICANT,PRESENT MR. TRAVER-Laura? MRS. MOORE-This application is to construct an addition of 1,310 square feet on the existing 2,SII square foot building. Additionally,there will be a new walkway/driveway area,a pole light. Snow removal areas are also planned. The existing 1,356 square foot building and a 224 square foot shed is to remain unchanged. New space to be used for office,classrooms,meeting spaces,restrooms and closets,and that's it. MR. TRAVER-Okay. Thank you. Good evening. MR. SANDBLOM-Good evening. Erik Sandblom from SRA Engineers, agent for the applicant. Pretty much as Laura stated. The Church needs some more space. So there's a modest addition that's proposed on the backside of the building,and there's also some additional driveway that is proposed. It's the darker part of the plan there. This is a loop for drop off. There's new lighting that is proposed, it's just two fixtures, one on existing pole that is near the back of the parking lot, and then there'll be a wall pack on the addition itself,casting inward towards the site. Really none of this is going to be very visible from the road. It's all pretty much behind the Church. MR. TRAVER-Are the lights downcast? I know you said that. MR. SANDBLOM-Yes, they are all downcast. We've provided cut sheets with the application. The addition to the building does not constitute increase in capacity, at least not as far as parking regulations or septic regulations are concerned. They have well over 50 spaces, I think there's 39 required by Code. So they've got more than enough parking. We've met with John O'Brien on the septic and he agrees with us that there's no increase in design flows for the septic. So the existing septic system will remain as is. It's really a very,very simple project. I don't really have much more to add,and I'll answer any questions. MR. TRAVER-Okay. Thank you. Questions,comments from members of the Board? MR. MAG OWAN-The only thing I would like to say I'm just so happy to see a church that needs to grow. 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 Site Plan 22-2024? I'm not seeing any. Are there any written comments? PUBLIC HEARING OPENED MRS. MOORE-No,there's no written comments. MR. TRAVER-Okay. Then we will open and close the public hearing. 27 (Queensbury Planning Board 05/14/2024) PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED MR. TRAVER-This is SEQR Type II. So any concerns with moving forward on an approval resolution? Okay. We have a draft resolution. RESOLUTION APPROVING SP#22-2024 REDEEMER REFORMED PRESBYTERIAN CHURCH Applicant proposes to construct an addition of 1,310 sq.ft.on an existing 2,SII sq.ft.building.Additionally, a new walkway,driveway,pole light and snow removal areas are planned to be installed.The existing 1,356 sq. ft. building and 224 sq. ft. shed to remain unchanged. The new space will be used for office spaces, classrooms,meeting space,restrooms and closets. Pursuant to chapter 179-3-040,site plan for an addition to an existing building 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 opened a public hearing on the Site plan application on 5/14/2024 and continued the public hearing to 5/14/2024 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 5/14/2024, 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 22-2024 REDEEMER REFORMED PRESBYTERIAN CHURCH. Introduced by Fritz Stefanzick who moved for its adoption; Per the draft provided by staff conditioned upon the following conditions: 1) Waivers request granted:j. stormwater,k. topography,1.landscaping,q. soil logs,r. construction/demolition disposal as the site had a previous site plan review for the church construction; 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 5/14/2025; 3) Adherence to the items outlined in the follow-up letter sent with this resolution. a) If application was referred to engineering,then engineering sign-off required prior to signature of Zoning Administrator of the approved plans; b) Final approved plans should have dimensions and setbacks noted on the site plan/survey,floor plans and elevation for the existing rooms and proposed rooms in the building and site improvements, c) Final approved plans, in compliance with the Site Plan, must be submitted to the Community Development Department before any further review by the Zoning Administrator or Building and Codes personnel; d) The applicant must meet with Staff after approval and prior to issuance of Building Permit and/or the beginning of any site work; e) Subsequent issuance of further permits,including building permits is dependent on compliance with this and all other conditions of this resolution; f) As-built plans to certify that the site plan is developed according to the approved plans to be provided prior to issuance of the certificate of occupancy; g) Resolution to be placed on final plans in its entirety and legible. Motion seconded by Warren Longacker. Duly adopted this 14th day of May 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're all set. MR. SANDBLOM-Thank you very much. MR. TRAVER-Next under New Business we have an application which is Unapproved Development. This is David Sutphin/Tidal Wave,Site Plan 27-2024. SITE PLAN NO.27-2024 SEQR TYPE: TYPE II. DANIEL SUTPHIN/TIDAL WAVE. AGENT(S): EMC ENGINEERING SERVICES, INC. OWNER(S): SUDS LANDLORD (MULTI) LLC. ZONING: CI. LOCATION: 708 QUAKER ROAD. APPLICANT HAS COMPLETED A 2S (Queensbury Planning Board 05/14/2024) RENOVATION OF AN EXISTING CAR WASH AND REQUESTS APPROVAL OF SITE MODIFICATIONS FOR NEW POLE LIGHTS,PAVEMENT NOT STRIPED,INCREASE PARKING SPACES,AND UPDATED LANDSCAPING. THE EXISTING 6,815 SQ.FT.CAR WASH BUILDING AND 6,736 SQ. FT. VACUUM CANOPY ARE TO REMAIN UNCHANGED. THE 3,214 SQ. FT. SELF-WASH BAY IS PROPOSED TO BE REMOVED BUT THE SLAB WILL REMAIN. PURSUANT TO CHAPTER 179-9-120, SITE PLAN MODIFICATION FOR LIGHTING, PARKING, STRIPING AND LANDSCAPING SHALL BE SUBJECT TO PLANNING BOARD REVIEW AND APPROVAL. CROSS REFERENCE: SP 51-2015,SP 68-2021,SV 0238-2016,SV 1-2017,SV 4-2022. WARREN CO. REFERRAL: MAY 2024. LOT SIZE: 3.83 ACRES. TAX MAP NO. 303.15-1-12. SECTION: 179- 9-120. DANIEL SUTPHIN,PRESENT MR. TRAVER-Laura? MRS.MOORE-Okay. Sothis application was previously a renovation of the existing car wash and request approval of the site modifications for new pole lights,pavement that's not striped,increased parking spaces and updated landscaping. The applicant has provided an as-built and those items that have been modified are noted and highlighted. What happened was Bruce, our Code Compliance Officer,had compared the approved plans to what's on the site, and identified those things that were of concern. Other than that there was no issues with what has been installed,just noticing that it's been changed. MR. TRAVER-Okay. Thank you. Good evening. MR.SUTPHIN-Good evening. Daniel Sutphin with Tidal Wave Auto Spa. As Laura mentioned we're just looking for some minor site plan modifications to match what we have on site out there, as well as we're going to remove the old, I guess it was just like a swimming launch that's on the opposite side of the property. MR. TRAVER-And you were here not long ago for a site plan. Correct? MR. SUTPHIN-I haven't been. I believe it's been several years ago. MR. DEER-This is the one on Quaker Road. MR. SUTPHIN-Yes,sir. MR. MAG OWAN-This is the one between Quaker and Dix. MR. SUTPHIN-That's correct. Yes,sir. MR. MAG OWAN-And you were here. I thought it was New Potato or something. MR. SUTPHIN-New Potato properties,yes. That was probably, I think we were looking at another site here where the old. MR. STARK-That was the one up by Wal-Mart. MR. SUTPHIN-Yes,correct. MR. MAGOWAN-No,it was this one,too. Because this one was brought up for a re-model. MR. SUTPHIN-Yes,this is a re-model. MR. MAG OWAN-And you said you're going to get rid of? MR. SUTPHIN-The old wash bays. MR. MAG OWAN-All the way on Dix? MR. SUTPHIN-Yes. We made the property look great and it doesn't. MR. MAGOWAN-I've been waiting for the Grand Opening there. You really did a nice job. MR. SUTPHIN-Thank you. Yes,it's open now. MR. TRAVER-Part of the application included some additional signage and that needs to be handled separately, So you need to remove that from the final plans submitted, and there is a public hearing on 29 (Queensbury Planning Board 05/14/2024) this application as well,but since we don't have any public anymore, I'll just ask Laura if there's written comments? PUBLIC HEARING OPENED MRS. MOORE-There's no written comments. So this signage here,that wasn't part of the approval. MR. SUTPHIN-That's just marketing signage. So we just won't put it up. MRS. MOORE-I wouldn't put it up. You'll get a call from somebody that says you need Sign variances, you need sign permits and all of that. So I would get rid of it. Everyone knows it's a car wash. MR. SUTPHIN-No worries. MRS. MOORE-Okay. MR. TRAVER-Okay. So apparently back in May of 2022 we did a SEQR review for this site and made a determination of non-significance. So we do have to update that for these unapproved modifications that were made to the approved plan. Does anybody have any concerns about environmental impacts with the unapproved development that's taken place since we approved the original plan back in 2022? No? Okay. So we have a draft resolution for a re-affirmation. MS>GAGLIARDI-Excuse me,Mr. Chairman. Did you close the public hearing? MR. TRAVER-I thought I did,but I will,on the record,say that I have closed the public hearing. PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED MR. TRAVER-Thank you, Maria, for reminding me, and we have a draft resolution for a SEQR Reaffirmation. MR. STEFANZIK-Yes. RESOLUTION RE-AFFIRMING NEG. SEQR DEC SP#27-2024 DANIEL SUTPHIN/TIDAL WAVE The applicant has completed a renovation of an existing car wash and requests approval of site modifications for new pole lights,pavement not striped,increase parking spaces,and updated landscaping. The existing 6,SI5 sq. ft. car wash building and 6,736 sq. ft. vacuum canopy are to remain unchanged. The 3,214 sq. ft. self-wash bay is proposed to be removed but the slab will remain. Pursuant to chapter 179-9- 120,site plan modification for lighting,parking,striping and landscaping 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 May 17, 2022 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 27-2024 DANIEL SUTPHIN/TIDAL WAVE. Introduced by Fritz Stefanzick who moved for its adoption, seconded by Ellen McDevitt. Duly adopted this 14`h day of May 2024 by the following vote: AYES: Mr. Longacker,Mr. Stark,Mr. Magowan,Mr. Stefanzick,Mr. Deeb,Mrs. McDevitt,Mr. Traver 30 (Queensbury Planning Board 05/14/2024) NOES: NONE MR. TRAVER-So next we consider the updated Site Plan approval. I'm assuming there's no concerns with that since we discussed the changes that were made and Laura has displayed them for us. So I'll entertain that resolution. RESOLUTION APPROVING SP#27-2024 DANIEL SUTPHIN/TIDAL WAVE new pole lights, pavement not striped, increase parking spaces, and updated landscaping. The existing 6,SI5 sq. ft. car wash building and 6,736 sq. ft. vacuum canopy are to remain unchanged. The 3,214 sq. ft. self-wash bay is proposed to be removed but the slab will remain.Pursuant to chapter 179-9-120,site plan modification for lighting,parking,striping and landscaping shall be subject to Planning Board review and approval. Pursuant to relevant sections of the Town of Queensbury Zoning Code-Chapter 179-9-OSO, the Planning Board has determined that this proposal satisfies the requirements as stated in the Zoning Code; As required by General Municipal Law Section 239-m the site plan application was referred to the Warren County Planning Department for its recommendation; The Planning Board opened a public hearing on the Site plan application on 5/14/2024 and continued the public hearing to 5/14/2024 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 5/14/2024-1 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 27-2024 DANIEL SUTPHIN/TIDAL WAVE. Introduced by Fritz Stefanzick who moved for its adoption; Per the draft provided by staff conditioned upon the following conditions: 1) Waivers request granted: j. stormwater, k. topography, o. commercial alterations/construction details, p floor plans, q. soil logs, r. construction/demolition disposal s. snow removal as these where previously provided as part of the original approval applicant provided information for all updated site elements; 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 5/14/2025-1 3) Adherence to the items outlined in the follow-up letter sent with this resolution. a) If application was referred to engineering,then engineering sign-off required prior to signature of Zoning Administrator of the approved plans; b) Final approved plans should have dimensions and setbacks noted on the site plan/survey,floor plans and elevation for the existing rooms and proposed rooms in the building and site improvements, c) Final approved plans, in compliance with the Site Plan, must be submitted to the Community Development Department before any further review by the Zoning Administrator or Building and Codes personnel; d) The applicant must meet with Staff after approval and prior to issuance of Building Permit and/or the beginning of any site work; e) Subsequent issuance of further permits,including building permits is dependent on compliance with this and all other conditions of this resolution; f) As-built plans to certify that the site plan is developed according to the approved plans to be provided prior to issuance of the certificate of occupancy; g) Resolution to be placed on final plans in its entirety and legible. Motion seconded by Brady Stark. Duly adopted this 14`h day of May 2024 by the following vote: AYES: Mr. Stark,Mr. Magowan,Mr. Stefanzick,Mr.Deeb,Mrs. McDevitt,Mr. Longacker,Mr. Traver NOES: NONE MR. TRAVER-You are all set. MR. DEEB-Good luck. MR. TRAVER Just a reminder that we will be meeting again in two days on Thursday for our second meeting of three this month. Laura,do you have any updates for us on the Thursday night meeting? 31 (Queensbury Planning Board 05/14/2024) MRS. MOORE-I won't until tomorrow night after the Zoning Board of Appeals. MR. TRAVER-Right. That makes sense. MRS. MOORE-So I don't have anything new,and then I hope to have some Staff Note information to you for the Woods at West Mountain for Thursday,May 23ra MR. TRAVER-Okay. Very good. All right. Well,with that we're done for this evening. I will entertain a motion to adjourn. MOTION TO ADJOURN THE QUEENSBURY PLANNING BOARD MEETING OF MAY 14TK,2024, Introduced by Brad Magowan who moved for its adoption,seconded by Stephen Traver: Duly adopted this 14`h day of May,2024,by the following vote: AYES: Mr. Deeb,Mrs. McDevitt,Mr. Longacker,Mr.Stark,Mr. Magowan,Mr. Stefanzick,Mr. Traver NOES: NONE MR. TRAVER-We stand adjourned. Thank you,everybody. See you on Thursday. On motion meeting was adjourned. RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED, Stephen Traver,Chairman 32