Loading...
06-18-2024 (Queensbury Planning Board 06/1S/2024) Q UEENSBUR YPTANNING BOARD MEETING FIRSTREGUTAR MEETING JUNEI8Tr,2024 INDEX Site Plan No. 73-2023 Lauren&Christian Freyer 1. Freshwater Wetlands 13-2023 Tax Map No. 227.14-01-17 Site Plan No. 2S-2024 Robert&Heather Mulholland 7. Freshwater Wetlands 2-2024 Tax Map No. 239.12-2-65 ZBA RECOMMENDATION Site Plan No. 32-2024 Red Barn Contracting 10. ZBA RECOMMENDATION Tax Map No. 239.7-1-3 Site Plan No. 30-2024 Elizabeth Abkin 12. Tax Map No. 240.9-1-3 Site Plan No. 31-2024 T-Mobile 15. Special Use Permit 2-2024 Tax Map No. 302.5-1-96.1 Site Plan No. 34-2024 DKC Holdings,Inc. 19. Tax Map No. 296.13-1-59 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 06/18/2024) QUEENSBURY PLANNING BOARD MEETING FIRST REGULAR MEETING JUNE 18TK,2024 7:00 P.M. MEMBERS PRESENT STEPHEN TRAVER,CHAIRMAN ELLEN MC DEVITT,VICE CHAIRMAN FRITZ STEFANZICK,SECRETARY DAVID DEEB WARREN LONGACKER BRADY STARK KIMBERLY BULLARD,ALTERNATE MEMBERS ABSENT 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,June I8th, 2024. This is our first meeting for the month of June and our thirteenth meeting for the year thus far. Please take note of the illuminated exit signs. In the event that we have an emergency,that's the way out. If you have a cell phone or other electronic device,if you would either turn it off or turn the ringer off we would appreciate that, and we also ask that aside from the public hearings, I just wanted to point out that we do record the meetings and those recordings are used to create the formal minutes of the meeting. So we as please no discussions amongst yourselves in the audience. If you wish to do so,you may go out to the outer lobby and have that discussion. Thank you. And with that we'll begin. The first item is approval of minutes for the April meetings,and we actually had three meetings in April. Do the Board members have any corrections or changes to be made to those minutes? I'm not hearing any. We have a draft resolution. APPROVAL OF MINUTES April 16,2024 April23,2024 April25,2024 MOTION TO APPROVE THE QUEENSBURY PLANNING BOARD MEETING MINUTES OF APRIL 16th, APRIL 23rl, &z APRIL 25th, 2024, Introduced by Fritz Stefanzick who moved for its adoption,seconded by Ellen McDevitt: Duly adopted this 18th day of June,2024,by the following vote: AYES: Mr. Deeb,Mrs. McDevitt,Mr. Longacker,Mr.Stark,Mrs.Bullard,Mr. Stefanzick,Mr. Traver NOES: NONE ABSENT: Mr. Magowan MR. TRAVER-All right. Thank you,and next we move to our regular agenda. The first section is Tabled Items,and the first item is Lauren&Christian Freyer. This is Site Plan 73-2023 and Freshwater Wetlands Permit 13-2023. TABLED ITEM: SITE PLAN NO.73-2023 FRESHWATER WETLANDS 13-2023 SEQR TYPE: TYPE II. LAUREN &z CHRISTIAN FREYER. AGENT(S): RU HOLMES, PLLC. OWNER(S): SAME AS APPLICANT. ZONING: WR. LOCATION: PULVER ROAD. (REVISED) APPLICANT PROPOSES TO CONSTRUCT A 1,573 SQ. FT. FOOTPRINT HOME WITH A FLOOR AREA OF 2,874 SQ. FT. THE PROJECT INCLUDES ASSOCIATED SITE WORK FOR INCREASED PERMEABILITY, STORMWATER MANAGEMENT AND SHORELINE PLANTING PLAN. THE SEPTIC SYSTEM APPROVED BY LOCAL BOH IS PROPOSED FOR CONSTRUCTION ACROSS 2 (Queensbury Planning Board 06/1S/2024) PULVER ROAD AND CONNECTING TO ADJOINING PROPERTY BY THE SAME OWNER. PURSUANT TO CHAPTER 94, 179-3-040, 179-6-065, &z 179-6-050, SITE PLAN FOR A NEW FLOOR AREA IN A CEA,HARD SURFACING WITHIN 50 FT.OF THE SHORELINE AND WORK WITHIN 100 FT. OF WETLANDS SHALL BE SUBJECT TO PLANNING BOARD REVIEW AND APPROVAL. CROSS REFERENCE: AV 45-2023. WARREN CO. REFERRAL: NOVEMBER 2023. SITE INFORMATION: CEA,WETLANDS,APA,LGPC. LOT SIZE: .37 ACRES. TAX MAP NO.227.14-1-17. SECTION: 179-3-040,179-6-065,179-6-050,CHAPTER 94. TOM JARRETT,REPRESENTING APPLICANTS,PRESENT MR. TRAVER-Laura? MRS. MOORE-This application is a proposal for a 1,573 square foot footprint home with a floor area of 2,574 square feet. It did receive variances back in February of this year, and they received information from the Town Engineer that does not require a re-submission and the applicant is back before the Board because at the time of review in February there was not a full Board. MR. TRAVER-Right. Okay. Thank you. Good evening. Welcome back. MR. JARRETT-Good evening. Tom Jarrett with R U Holmes Engineers. I'm here to resurrect our discussion regarding the Wells Freyer project on Pulver Road just off Pilot Knob Road. If you recall,some of the Board members weren't privy to all these discussions so I'm going to re-hash a few of the points,but the lot is a little more than a third of an acre in size,which in perspective is quite a bit larger than a lot of lots that have been developed and re-developed around the lake,including a number in Queensbury. The lot was established long before Queensbury zoning and the available building envelope under current zoning is like 12 square feet, because of the side setbacks, especially it's a narrow lot, and the shoreline setback. The project was subject to a number of variances of which this Board expressed some concern regarding permeability, especially during the discussion last fall. We went back and re-designed it, eliminated the permeability variance, including we meet permeability despite the fact that Pulver Road crosses the lot and encumbers the lot from a permeability perspective. We also met FAR requirements originally. Didn't need a variance for that, and when we went back to re-design the site to better the permeability and eliminate the permeability variance,we made the FAR even better. It's well below the current standard. As Laura mentioned, the Town Engineers reviewed the project, signed off on it. Stormwater is to be managed through wet swales,dry swales and wet swales around the perimeter of the lot. We're virtually managing and treating all stormwater from the lot. Some of you heard the neighbors speak. They were concerned about the current lot,the existing conditions,which shed runoff to their lot directly to the west. Our design incorporates collection of that runoff and treating it so the neighbor will see an improvement if the lot is developed. Wastewater management is to be managed on Pilot Knob Road,not on this property,well more than 100 feet from the lake,and essentially we feel that the impacts to the lake will be lessened over what's occurring right now. So we'd throw it up for reconsideration by this Board. MR.TRAVER-Okay. Have there been any changes to the project since the last discussion with the Board? MR.JARRETT-No. MR. TRAVER-Okay. Questions,comments from the Board? MR. STEFANZIK-How are you improving the land so the neighbor is not getting flooded? MR.JARRETT-Right now the lot is somewhat crowned, and the neighbor is noticing runoff from that crown going to their lot to the west. MR. STEFANZIK-And I've seen that after rainy conditions. MR.JARRETT-So what we're doing is we've got collection swales around the perimeter of the lot,routing it to the east side where we have a treatment device. So all the runoff will go to that treatment device and not to the neighbor and not directly to the wetland. MRS. MC DEVITT-When you say a treatment device,what is that? MR.JARRETT-It's a wet swale with wetland plants. It will be wet all the time, which is an approved device with Queensbury and the Lake George Park. MR. TRAVER-Other questions? MR. STEFANZIK-The neighbor also,I think his name is Mr.Andretti,also claimed that that land used to be wetlands with swamp lands,maybe an extension of the wetland to the east? 3 (Queensbury Planning Board 06/1S/2024) MR.JARRETT-I think some of it was. It was filled many,many years ago,before my time and long before Queensbury zoning,current zoning,wetland regulations,but I think part of it was. MR. STEFANZIK-Do you know if there was a permit? But he claims there were no permits. MR.JARRETT-There were no permits in those days. There were no permits required. It pre-dated DEC. It pre-dated the Corps of Engineers involvement on a local level. It pre-dated the APA. MR. TRAVER-Wow, that is awhile ago. Okay. Well there is a public hearing on this application. Is there anyone in the audience that wishes to address the Planning Board on Site Plan 73-2023? Yes,sir. PUBLIC HEARING OPENED CHRIS NAVITSKY MR. NAVITSKY-Thank you,Mr. Chairman. Chris Navitsky, Lake George Waterkeeper. We recognize the changes that the applicant has made to reduce the impervious cover of the project and that the project was granted the requested variances from the ZBA. The Waterkeeper remains concerned regarding the extent of the proposed development and encroachment into the adjacent area of the wetlands,which the Town of Queensbury Code cite as being beneficial natural resource to protect water quality and the Critical Environmental Area surrounding Lake George. Obviously the best situation for the protection of the wetlands would be to have no development on the property due to the constraints on the property that require any development to extend into the shoreline protection area adjacent to the wetlands. However, there could be a reasonable alternative available that would significantly reduce the total disturbance within the adjacent wetland area. To increase mitigation of impacts from site disturbance within the adjacent wetland area, the disturbance could be significantly reduced by moving the disturbance in the area adjacent to that wetlands back towards the road,back towards Pulver Road,which would increase the undisturbed setback to Lake George. This would result in greater natural protection buffer for Lake George as well as the amount of runoff needed to be managed, which also would be reduced, reducing the size of the stormwater management area. We understand it's a difficult site. I'm trying to balance the desire of the applicant as well as the protection of the wetlands. So,thank you. MR. TRAVER-Question for you, Mr. Navitsky. The applicant has represented that with the design,the stormwater and other design of the project,it's actually going to reduce the impact from what's currently there. Do you have any comment on that? MR. NAVITSKY-Well,I feel,you know, as good as engineers can be,that they'/re not,we don't engineer as good as what's existing out there now. Granted it was filled. It probably was altered,as almost every wetland around Lake George has been, but it's my feeling that when we move in and we disturb those areas,you know,we're taking away what is there now,what is naturally thereto protect the wetlands. So I feel if we can push this back,clearly it's a compromise,and that's the benefit to the applicant to build on that property,as well as trying to gain as much as we can to protect the wetland. I mean along the wetland, you know, wherever they build it is going to encroach into it because it's that entire length. I'm right, right,Tom? MR.JARRETT-I'll clarify in a second when the Board is done. MR. NAVITSKY-So that's our feeling,to try to minimize. MRS. MC DEVITT-How far back would you propose? MR. NAVITSKY-I would like to get as much as we could. I mean granted there's front setbacks are off of the road. I don't know if there's a right of way there,but whatever could be gained. MR. TRAVER-Thank you. MR. NAVITSKY-Thanks. MR. TRAVER-Is there anyone else that wants to address the Planning Board? MR.JARRETT-So let me clarify. The jurisdictional wetlands are not on the property. The jurisdictional wetlands are here, off the property. So we're not encroaching into any jurisdictional wetlands. In fact there are no wetland conditions on the property here. It's all been previously filled or was naturally high ground. So there are no wetlands on the property. So I'm not sure exactly what Chris is referring to. I was going to ask him how far back he would suggest we move it, but frankly I'm not sure that would change any impacts to wetlands. Our wet swale for treatment is right here. We have a dry swale on the west side which routes runoff under the driveway and around the front of the house and collects everything right here in the wet swale and only during emergency storms,roughly 100 years or more,we did size it, 4 (Queensbury Planning Board 06/IS/2024) we oversized it,would it overflow as treated effluent into the lake. Not directly into the lake,but into the wetland. MR. TRAVER-Understood. I think the concern is that, and you did receive the variance,but you're only 24 feet from the wetland. MR. JARRETT-Yes, our setbacks right here are tight. This is where the, this entryway is where the setbacks are. So we have a sideline setback up there,sideline setbacks here, and front we are compliant. To the main lake we are compliant. MR. TRAVER-Okay. Thank you. Is there anyone else in the audience that wants to comment on this application to the Planning Board? This is Site Plan 73-2023? MR. STEFANZIK-Excuse me,sir. You were saying you're compliant to the shore,but you're 32 feet away from the shore versus 50 feet. Did I misunderstand you? MR.JARRETT-From here,this shoreline to the wetland,we're not compliant. The front,the main lake on the front we're compliant. MR. STEFANZIK-You should be 50 feet. I thought you were 32 feet. MR.JARRETT-No. The 32 is over here. MR. STEFANZIK-I thought that was 24 feet to the wetlands. MR.JARRETT-There's two. MR. TRAVER-It could be our Staff Notes are in error, Laura? Because they do reflect, the applicant proposes a new home that is to be 32 feet 6 inches from the shoreline where 50 feet is required,24 feet from the wetland where 50 feet is required,9 feet to the west property line where 20 feet is required. Is there a correction to those Notes? MR.JARRETT-If there's an error,I didn't notice it. We are compliant to the front. MRS. MOORE-I don't know which one. So my Staff Notes in the application? MR. TRAVER-Page Two of Staff Notes, yes. In the meantime, I don't believe there was anyone in the audience,in addition,that wanted to comment. Are there written comments,Laura? MRS. MOORE-Chris'comment that he read into the record. MR. TRAVER-Okay. All right. Then we will close the public hearing. PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED MR. TRAVER-If you could just clarify that setback for us,we'd appreciate that. MRS. MOORE-So if you look up on the screen,so that 32,there's two. I understand what he was saying. So the shoreline setback to the actually shoreline versus the wetland is 50 feet from the proposed patio and 54 feet from the actual dwelling. MR. TRAVER-Okay. MRS. MOORE-Yes,and then the variance one was a setback to the wetland of 32'6"and then that was the entryway,and then the wetland to the patio area is 24 feet. MR. TRAVER-Okay. MRS. MOORE-So both of them are on the side. MR.JARRETT-On the side,east side. MR. TRAVER-Okay. All right. Thank you for that clarification. That's just a typo in Staff Notes. I'm sorry,did you get a chance to check,or are you checking now,for written comments? MRS. MOORE-The only written comment was from Chris Navitsky. MR.TRAVER-That's right. Okay. All right. So we'll close the public hearing. Are there other questions, comments from members of the Board? 5 (Queensbury Planning Board 06/1S/2024) MR. STEFANZIK-So we're still,based on the current design,we're still saying that there's going to be over S0010 of land disturbance with this project. 13,200 square feet versus,of disturbance,versus a site of 16,069. MR. JARRETT-I wouldn't have used SO%. I don't know what the percentage is, but it's a significant percentage. MR. STEFANZIK-It's S20/o. So I'm kind of bouncing off a little bit off of the public comment about if you move that down further to the road,would you minimize the land disturbance? MR.JARRETT-Well,part of our disturbance is installing the buffer on the lakeshore,which we included in the service limits. Part of it is installing this wet swale along the boundary here. So that's all included in disturbance. So I don't know if that's misleading or not,but it's not. MR. STEFANZIK-It's more than just the house and the driveway. MR. TRAVER-It's not just the structure. MR.JARRETT-It's not hard surface. MR. STEFANZIK-And as you're running your septic line,your piping,along Pulver Road and then across Pulver Road, aren't you going to be digging down along Pulver Road into the wetlands? Isn't that wetlands? MR.JARRETT-No, I think the current plan is to directionally drill diagonally under to get to the other property. We still have to talk with the Highway Superintendent more about this,but right now we're thinking of directionally drilling. MR. STEFANZIK-Okay, and then as you go to the next property, I know there's a lot of ledge and rock there. Are you going to have to do blasting? MR.JARRETT-We certainly hope not. There's some soil along the western edge of that property and we hope to bury it there and then there's a gap in the ridgeline of rock that we want to use where the existing septic lines were installed before. We want to use that to get to the new system. We're hoping no blasting. MR.STEFANZIK-But it's that also pretty close to the wetlands of that property? Because there's wetlands on both sides of Pulver Road. MR.JARRETT-That's correct. We're more than 100 feet from that stream corridor with the associated wetlands. Yes. There is a technical non-surface water wetland that we had the APA delineate and we were less than 100 feet from that,but it's groundwater that's within 12 inches of ground surface for two weeks of the year as opposed to an open water, and the Town Board reviewed that carefully when they deliberated on this. MR. TRAVER-Other questions from members of the Board? All right. Are we ready to move on a resolution? MR.JARRETT-Mr. Chairman,are you going to poll the Board? MR. TRAVER-I can poll the Board. MR.JARRETT-Would you poll the Board,please. MR. TRAVER-Yes,I would. We'll start with Warren. MR. LONGACKER-I'm okay with it. I'm good with this. MR. TRAVER-David? MR. DEEB-Yes. MR. STEFANZIK-No. MR. TRAVER-Ellen? MRS. MC DEVITT-No. MR. STARK-I'm fine with it. 6 (Queensbury Planning Board 06/1S/2024) MR. TRAVER-Kimberly? MRS. BULLARD-No. MR. TRAVER-All right. MR. DEEB-It's up to you,Steve. MR.TRAVER-Yes. I think with the effort that's been put into this,you know,I was moved by some of the comments that David made previously that there is a certain degree of justification in the ability to do something, and I do think that they have done a great deal to try to address the issue. They have represented, I think, good effort on stormwater and represented that it's actually an improvement over current conditions. I know the Waterkeeper has concerns and things left alone in nature is always the better solution,which I also agree with,but on the face of it I think I have to vote yes. So with that,let's, if we could,hear that resolution. MR. STEFANZIK-Okay. RESOLUTION APPROVING SP#73-2023 FWW 13-2023 LAUREN&r CHRISTIAN FREYER (Revised)Applicant proposes to construct a 1,573 sq ft footprint home with a floor area of 2,574 sq ft.The project includes associated site work for increased permeability, stormwater management and shoreline planting plan. The septic system approved by local BOH is proposed for construction across Pulver Road and connecting to adjoining property by the same owner.Pursuant to Chapter 94,179-3-040,179-6-065& 179-6-050, site plan for new floor area in a CEA, hard surfacing within 50 ft of the shoreline and work within 100 ft of wetlands shall be subject to Planning Board review and approval. Pursuant to relevant sections of the Town of Queensbury Zoning Code-Chapter 179-9-OSO,the Planning Board has determined that this proposal satisfies the requirements as stated in the Zoning Code; As required by General Municipal Law Section 239-m the site plan application was referred to the Warren County Planning Department for its recommendation; The Planning Board made a recommendation to the Zoning Board of Appeals on 11/14/2023-1 the ZBA approved the variance requests on 2/21/2024-1 The Planning Board opened a public hearing on the Site plan application on 11/2S/2023 and continued the public hearing to 6/1S/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 6/1S/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 73-2023&z FRESHWATER WETLANDS 13-2023 LAUREN&z CHRISTIAN FREYER. 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 on June 1S,2025; 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. 7 (Queensbury Planning Board 06/18/2024) b. The project NOT(Notice of Termination)upon completion of the project; c. The applicant must maintain on their project site,for review by staff: i. The approved final plans that have been stamped by the Town Zoning Administrator. These plans must include the project SWPPP (Storm Water Pollution Prevention Plan)when such a plan was prepared and approved; ii. The project NOI and proof of coverage under the current NYSDEC SPDES General Permit,or an individual SPDES permit issued for the project if required. g) Final approved plans, in compliance with the Site Plan, must be submitted to the Community Development Department before any further review by the Zoning Administrator or Building and Codes personnel; h) The applicant must meet with Staff after approval and prior to issuance of Building Permit and/or the beginning of any site work; i) Subsequent issuance of further permits, including building permits is dependent on compliance with this and all other conditions of this resolution; j) As-built plans to certify that the site plan is developed according to the approved plans to be provided prior to issuance of the certificate of occupancy. k) This resolution is to be placed in its entirety on the final plans. Motion seconded by David Deeb. Duly adopted this IS'day of June 2024 by the following vote: AYES: Mr. Longacker,Mr. Stark,Mr. Deeb,Mr. Traver NOES: Mrs. McDevitt,Mrs. Bullard,Mr. Stefanzick ABSENT: Mr. Magowan MR.JARRETT-Thank you very much. MR. DEEB-Good luck on that. MR. TRAVER-The next section of our agenda is recommendations to the Zoning Board of Appeals, and the first application is Robert and Heather Mulholland. This is Site Plan 28-2024 and Freshwater Wetlands Permit 2-2024. PLANNING BOARD RECOMMENDATIONS TO THE ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS: SITE PLAN NO.28-2024 FRESHWATER WETLANDS 2-2024 SEQR TYPE: TYPE 11. ROBERT &z HEATHER MULHOLLAND. AGENT(S): RUCINSKI HALL ARCHITECTURE. OWNER(S): SAME AS APPLICANT. ZONING: WR. LOCATION: 23 BRAYTON LANE. APPLICANT PROPOSES TO DEMOLISH AN EXISTING HOME TO CONSTRUCT A NEW HOME WITH A 3,054 SQ. FT. FOOTPRINT AND 695 SQ. FT. OF PORCH/DECK. THE TOTAL FLOOR AREA WILL BE 4,069 SQ. FT. THE NEW HOME WILL BE ONE AND A HALF STORIES WITH A CRAWL SPACE. PROJECT WORK INCLUDES STORMWATER MANAGEMENT AND ASSOCIATED SITE WORK. 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 SHORE 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: AV 31-2024. WARREN CO. REFERRAL: JUNE 2024. SITE INFORMATION: CEA,LGPC,APA,WETLANDS. LOT SIZE: 0.33 ACRE. TAX MAP NO.239.12-2-65. SECTION: 179-3-040,179-6-065,179-6-050. ETHAN HALL,REPRESENTING APPLICANTS,PRESENT MR. TRAVER-Laura? MRS. MOORE-This applicant proposes to demolish an existing home to construct a new home of 3,054 square foot footprint and 695 square foot of porch or deck area. The total floor area will be 4,069. The new home will be one and a half stories with a crawl space. The project includes stormwater associated site work. Variance relief is sought for setbacks,floor area,and permeability. MR. TRAVER-Okay. Thank you. Good evening. MR. HALL-Good evening. For the record, Ethan Hall. I'm a principle with Rucinski Hall Architecture. With me tonight are Rob and Heather Mulholland,the owner of the property. The property is located on Brayton Lane. It's on the corner of Brayton and Holly,right in the Assembly Point bay right there. It is an existing home that is,it was a log home that was built in the 1940's. So it's pushing the end of its life. It has no, there's no foundation really under it right now. It's dirt floor underneath, and that has really 8 (Queensbury Planning Board 06/1S/2024) rotted away the bottom of the logs, and there's a stone casing pretty much around most of the building. That's really all that's holding it up right now is the facade that's on the building. So what we're looking to do is replace the building on the same footprint. We've actually cut away some of the pieces that are closer to the property lines on the south and we've eliminated along the blacktop that's on the edge out here between that and the wetlands. So we know we've got a Freshwater Wetlands permit that we need to get and we've got the area variances that we're looking for for that. The increase in the floor area ratio, this is simply because what they're looking to do is that deck that's out towards the water right now,they would like to extend the roof out over the top of that so that they're,they have no place to store any outdoor furniture or any of the stuff that's on the deck in the wintertime and there won't be any opportunity to do that once we get done. MR. TRAVER-Excuse me, but this deck would be with a new home. They're not rehabilitating the existing deck? MR. HALL-No,no. What's there is going to come down and we're building new. MR. TRAVER-That's what I wanted to clarify. MR. HALL-So that we can actually put a real foundation underneath the building and put a crawl space underneath it so we can dry that out so that they don't have the problem they've got now where it rots. MR. TRAVER-Right. Okay. One of the things with removing the existing house and replacing it, one obvious concern is the five foot setback from the lake. You can imagine that that raises some eyebrows. MR. HALL-1000/o, and if we could move the house back at all we would. The location of the sewage disposal system that had a variance from the Town Board of Health granted in 2017,if we move it back,we violate that. MR. TRAVER-Well you'll replace that,right,with a new septic? MR. HALL-They're actually going to keep this one that's here. MR. TRAVER-I know that's the intent, assuming this is approved. What I'm saying is obviously they would have to make changes to the overall plan and that would include the septic. MR. HALL-It would include having to re-do that that was done in 2017. MR. TRAVER-Right. MR. STEFANZIK-How many bedrooms are in the house? ROBERT MULHOLLAND MR. MULHOLLAND-Four. MR. STEFANZIK-So four to four. MR. HALL-Yes,four to four. The exact same number that they've got. MR. STEFANZIK-So are you constraining yourself for increasing the setback? Are you constraining yourself because of the,you want to stay on the existing foundation? It's not a foundation. MR. HALL-No, there is no foundation. We want to stay on the same footprint, and it would still allow them to have a little bit of driveway between Brayton Lane. MR. STEFANZIK-But the footprint is just dirt. It's not concrete. MR. TRAVER-Right. MR. HALL-No. MR. STEFANZIK-So you're really not constrained from making the house smaller to increase your setbacks? MR. HALL-No,I mean the existing,what's there underneath the house now is dirt. It's a dirt foundation with stones where the logs sit. MR. MULHOLLAND-There's a partition that's on concrete blocks. 9 (Queensbury Planning Board 06/1S/2024) MR. DEEB-The setbacks aren't changing. MR. HALL-No. MR. DEEB-I mean actually you're increasing by three inches. MR. HALL-We increased the one on the south. MR. DEEB-And the rest of them are exactly the same as they are now. MR. HALL-Correct. MR. DEEB-On a non-conforming lot. MR. HALL-Yes. MR. TRAVER-Other questions,comments from members of the Board? They're here this evening for the recommendation to the ZBA. So we are to make a recommendation and then,if no changes are made,this project will come back as designed, back to us for site plan review. So I guess the question is what recommendations do we make? Do we forward this to the ZBA with the project as,let's see,the wording in our referral is there anything that can't be mitigated with the current project proposal. So that is our discussion for this evening. There's no public hearing at this point. Any other discussion from the Board? Does anyone have any concerns? MR. STEFANZIK-My only concern is that,given the opportunity that we have now,I know we have non- conforming setbacks, and even the FAR,right now you're over the,with the current design there, I think you're exceeding the allowables already,but you're still adding another 500,600 square feet to what you've got. My only concern, and I know this has to go to the Zoning Board, is if we could try to look at minimizing how big the house is. MR.HALL-Right,and ultimately we stay on the,you know,the size of it really doesn't get any larger. Like I said, what's changing is that roof that goes out over that deck. That's what's really driving our FAR, because any time you have a roof over a deck you have to count that. If we pull that away,then we're right back to where we are now. MR. STEFANZIK-I just learned that. MR. HALL-If I didn't have to count that,I'd be fine. MR. LONGACKER-Are you going to remove any trees, do you think, especially on the north end,when you install that foundation? MR. HALL-I don't think we're going to have to,Warren. Because I think that that's an arborvitae hedge that's along there,and they're fairly hardy and we're only going to dig down four feet to get down into frost, to get us under frost level. So we should be able to salvage all of that,and there's no large trees that we're going to have to pull out. There's a couple of hedges or a couple of smaller ones,there's a rhododendron up front that's going to have to come down. So I think there's a couple of them there out by that front deck that are probably going to come out, but those will get replaced with ones in kind, The buffer to the shoreline,there's no,we're only five feet away,but it's all planted. It's all pachysandra. It's not movable lawn. So it's not like it's getting fertilized. MR. STEFANZIK-And that stone wall that you have there now. MR. HALL-That sea wall was re-built,in 201E that was re-built. MR. TRAVER-Anything else from the Board before we consider a resolution on sending this to the ZBA. MR. STEFANZIK-So the Freshwater Wetland permit, will you have that before you come to us for the Site Plan? MR. HALL-That's part of the variance. MR. STEFANZIK-Will you have that permit before the site plan? MRS. MOORE-The Freshwater Wetlands permit is our local permit. MR. HALL-Yes,because we're within 50 feet of that. The wetlands across the street, there's that little bump. Right down at the bottom there's a little bump. You can see the points. They're on the opposite side of Brayton Lane. It's not on our property,but because we're within 50 feet of it,that triggered. 10 (Queensbury Planning Board 06/1S/2024) MR. STEFANZIK-I did have one more question. The distance between the septic and the well,what is that? MR. MULHOLLAND-It's over 100 feet. MR. HALL Just barely. MR. STEFANZIK-Because when I scaled it,but you're saying it's over. MR. HALL-That was,yes,that was looked at when the septic variance went through the Town Board of Health. Yes,it's like 101 feet S inches or something like that. It's right on. MR. TRAVER-All right. We have a draft resolution. MR. STEFANZIK-Yes. RESOLUTION RE: ZBA RECOMMENDATION RE: AV#31-2024 MULHOLLAND The applicant has submitted an application for the following:Applicant proposes to demolish an existing home to construct a new home with a 3,054 sq ft footprint and 695 sq ft of porch/deck.The total floor area will be 4,069 sq ft. The new home will be one and a half stories with a crawl space. Project work includes stormwater management and associated site work. 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 shore 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. 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 31-2024 ROBERT &z HEATHER MULHOLLAND. 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 1S`h day of June 2024 by the following vote: AYES: Mr. Longacker,Mr. Stark,Mrs.Bullard,Mr. Stefanzick,Mr. Deeb,Mrs. McDevitt,Mr.Traver NOES: NONE ABSENT: Mr. Magowan MR. TRAVER-You're off to the ZBA. MR. HALL-Thank you very much. We'll see you Thursday. MR. MULHOLLAND-Thank you,all. MR.TRAVER-The next item on our agenda,also under Recommendations to the Zoning Board of Appeals, is Red Barn Contracting. This is Site Plan 32-2024. SITE PLAN NO.32-2024 SEQR TYPE: TYPE 11. RED BARN CONTRACTING. AGENT(S): EDP. OWNER(S): THOMAS KENNEDY&z LAUREN KENNEDY. ZONING: WR. LOCATION: 113 ASSEMBLY POINT ROAD. APPLICANT PROPOSES TO REMOVE AN EXISTING HOME AND GARAGE TO CONSTRUCT A NEW HOME AND ATTACHED GARAGE. THE NEW HOME WILL HAVE 6 BEDROOMS ANDA FLOOR AREA OF 6,732 SQ. FT. THE FOOTPRINT WILL BE 3,675 SQ. FT. WITH 250 SQ. FT. OF PORCH/DECK AREA. SITE IMPROVEMENTS INCLUDE PERMEABLE PAVERS, STONE WALKWAY TO SHORELINE,AND SITE GRADING. THE SITE WORK WILL INCLUDE IMPROVEMENT TO SITE WASTEWATER AND UPDATED 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. 11 (Queensbury Planning Board 06/1S/2024) OF THE SHORELINE SHALL BE SUBJECT TO PLANNING BOARD REVIEW AND APPROVAL. VARIANCE: RELIEF IS SOUGHT FOR SETBACKS. PLANNING BOARD SHALL PROVIDE A RECOMMENDATION TO THE ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS. CROSS REFERENCE: AV 35- 2024. WARREN CO.REFERRAL: JUNE 2024. CEA,L G P C,APA. LOT SIZE: 0.75 ACRE. TAX MAP NO.239.7-1-3. SECTION: 179-3-040,179-6-065,179-6-050. STEFANIE BITTER&CONNOR DEMEYER,REPRESENTING APPLICANT,PRESENT MR. TRAVER-Laura? MRS. MOORE-This applicant proposes to remove an existing home and garage to construct a new home and attached garage. The new home will have six bedrooms and a floor area of 6,732 square feet. The footprint will be 3,675 square feet with 250 square feet of porch/deck area. Site improvements include permeable paver, stone walkway to the shoreline and site grading. Site work includes improvement to site wastewater system and updated stormwater management. Relief is sought for setbacks. MR. TRAVER-Okay. Thank you. Good evening. MS. BITTER-Good evening. Stefanie Bitter,for the record,together with Connor from EDP. We're here seeking a recommendation this evening for just the shoreline setback. The property is.75 acres in size,but the shoreline is established by looking at the adjacent properties and what their setback is. So because of the depth of this southern lot,our setback is determined to be 77 feet. MR. TRAVER-77.5 MS. BITTER-77.5, although the existing structure is only 50 foot setback,which is what we're seeking to maintain with the new structure that we are proposing to create. We're tearing down both the cottage as well as the detached garage to create one single family home with an attached garage. The home itself would be six bedrooms, but the new development would provide for a new wastewater system, new stormwater devices, permeable pavers and a stone walkway. So overall an improvement to the site development. We feel that when you look at the balancing test and what we're asking,which is just to maintain the setback to the shoreline as is, the benefit to the applicant would outweigh any detriments that could be deemed to exist to the community. In evaluating that balancing test,because that's what we're here tonight just to talk about that variance, there would be no undesirable change to the neighborhood character. Like we said,the current home is at 50 foot setback. That's what we want the proposed home to be. We'd obviously be improving the site conditions and improving the existing structure, and there would be no removal of additional vegetation, no additional site disturbance if we moved it back any farther, and no negative impacts to that southern lot. That southern lot,I don't know if she's showing it on there, is really part of the reason we're in this predicament. That house is tucked back into the corner. It snugs that back southern property line. So if we were to actually move the house back,we wouldn't be impinging on their privacy that they're currently enjoying. So it would be negatively impacting, it would be worse to actually be within those setbacks than to average those two. So that would be a feasible alternative,but it would obviously be a negative feasible alternative to the character, as well as would provide for insufficient room for the septic and the stormwater. So again it would be a negative feasible alternative. We do not believe what we're asking for is substantial since we're maintaining that setback at this time. So it would be a minimal impact to maintain the status quo and no adverse effects because we meet all other bulk standards for this project. MR.TRAVER-One question is regarding the,it's stated that the basement area is going to be a crawl space. What is the ceiling height going to be of that crawl space? MR. DEMEYER-Connor Demeyer,Environmental Design Partnership. The majority of the basement will be under four and a half feet area, and then there's some crawl space,you know, an eight foot ceiling for storage of outdoor equipment. On the architectural plans you can see it. There's not much room. I think it's about 314 square foot total. The basement is considered usable area for the floor area ratio. MR. TRAVER-Is that included in the FAR? MR. DEMEYER-Yes. MR. TRAVER-And the source of the water is from a well or from the lake? MR. DEMEYER-In this case lake water supply. MR. STEFANZIK-How do you access the basement? Is it from the outside? MR. DEMEYER-Yes. So along the north side there's a bilco door that opens up. MR. STEFANZIK-That's the only access? 12 (Queensbury Planning Board 06/18/2024) MR. DEMEYER-There's actually two parts of the basement that are available. The north side of it is for like utilities,the water pump would be in there,outlets for sewer and stuff,all drains that way. The south side of it is I guess normal doors,it's kind of walk out over there. The south side will have like a physical door to get through and to the bottom. MR. STEFANZICK-From the outside. MR. DEMEYER-Correct,and that would be for their kayaks and paddle boards,stuff like that. MR.TRAVER-Other questions,comments from the Board? Again,this is for a referral from us to the ZBA regarding the variance which is the shoreline setback of 50 feet versus two adjoining homes at an average of 77.5. I'm not hearing any. So we have a draft resolution. MR. STEFANZIK-Yes. RESOLUTION RE: ZBA RECOMMENDATION RE: AV#35-2024 RED BARN CONTRACTING The applicant has submitted an application for the following: Applicant proposes to remove an existing home and garage to construct a new home and attached garage. The new home will have 6 bedrooms and a floor area of 6,732 sq ft. The footprint will be 3,675 sq ft with 250 sq ft of porch/deck area. Site improvements include permeable pavers,stone walkway to shoreline,and site grading. The site work will include improvement to site wastewater and updated 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 setbacks. Planning Board shall provide a recommendation to the Zoning Board of Appeals. The Town of Queensbury Zoning Ordinance,per Section 179-9-070 J 2 b. requires the Planning Board to provide a written recommendation to the Zoning Board of Appeals for projects that require both Zoning Board of Appeals&Planning Board approval; The Planning Board has briefly reviewed and discussed this application,the relief request in the variance application as well as the potential impacts of this project on the neighborhood and surrounding community,and found that: MOTION TO MAKE A RECOMMENDATION ON BEHALF OF THE PLANNING BOARD TO THE ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS FOR AREA VARIANCE 35-2024 RED BARN CONTRACTING. 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 IS'day of June 2024 by the following vote: AYES: Mr. Stark,Mrs. Bullard,Mr. Stefanzick,Mr. Deeb,Mrs. McDevitt,Mr. Longacker,Mr. Traver NOES: NONE ABSENT: Mr. Magowan MR. TRAVER-You are off to the ZBA. MR. DEMEYER-Thank you. MR. TRAVER-The next section of our agenda is New Business, and the first item under New Business is Elizabeth Abkin. This is Site Plan 30-2024. NEW BUSINESS: SITE PLAN NO. 30-2024 SEQR TYPE: TYPE 11. ELIZABETH ABKIN. AGENT(S): FLYNN DESIGN STUDIO. OWNER(S): ELIZABETH ABKIN QPRT. ZONING: WR. LOCATION: 6 ANTLER ROAD. APPLICANT PROPOSES A 58 SQ,.FT.DORMER ADDITION TO AN EXISTING HOME AND ADDING A SECOND STORY 170.38 SQ.FT.OPEN DECK OVER THE EXISTING SUN ROOM ON THE NORTH SIDE OF THE HOME. THE EXISTING 2,953 SQ. FT. HOME WILL REMAIN UNCHANGED BUT THE CURRENT FLOOR AREA WILL INCREASE FROM 4,899 SQ. FT.TO 4,957 SQ.FT. THERE ARE NO SITE CHANGES PROPOSED. PURSUANT TO CHAPTER 179-3-040&z 179-6-065,SITE PLAN FOR NEW FLOOR AREA IN A CRITICAL ENVIRONMENTAL AREA SHALL BE SUBJECT TO PLANNING BOARD REVIEW AND APPROVAL. CROSS REFERENCE: AV 1346-19952,AV 72-2003,SP 62-2004, SP 15-2023. WARREN CO. REFERRAL: 13 (Queensbury Planning Board 06/1S/2024) JUNE 2024. SITE INFORMATION: CEA,LGPC,APA. LOT SIZE: 0.63 ACRE. TAX MAP NO. 2409-1-3. SECTION: 179-3-040,179-6-065. TREVOR FLYNN,REPRESENTING APPLICANT,PRESENT MR. TRAVER-Laura? MRS.MOORE-So this applicant proposes a 5S square foot dormer addition to an existing home and adding a second story,170.35 square foot open deck over the existing sunroom on the north side of the home. The existing home of 2,953 square feet will remain unchanged, and the current floor area will increase from 4,599 square feet to 4,957 square feet. MR. TRAVER-Okay. MR. FLYNN-Good evening. Trevor Flynn,principle of Flynn Design Studio here representing Elizabeth Abkins, 6 Antler Road. So just to jump in to the project overall, apologies for the later information. I wanted to share some additional images of the shoreline buffer as we realized that our original images that we had during the winter were not really accurate of the vegetation along the shoreline. So we took a couple this past week and we wanted to submit that to the Board for the record. This application was in front of the Board recently, I believe last year, as noted in the applications. That was another change to the floor area on the first floor. They did a small laundry room addition I believe it was less than 10 square feet or so. MRS. MOORE-It was small. MR. FLYNN-Yes. They filled in an area between the mudroom and the garage. So in general just to note the project and the existing conditions,it is an undersized lot,at.63 acres,and the existing home is within all the setbacks,within all the bulk requirements. We did want to note that the reason for the addition is that,you know, the clients are retiring and they have their two daughters and one son that are growing. So they have grandchildren now. So the main purpose of this dormer addition on the second floor was to create a secondary master bedroom suite with a suite,you know,due to some of the new grandchildren on the way. So within that, in regards to it, the addition is all within the existing footprint. We started with a dormer addition,which you'll see right here as the roof plan. This small addition is 5S square feet, and due to the roof lines and trying to get a door or window that faces out towards the lake,we actually had to create a small balcony, and it was the clients request,just to cover the entire existing screen porch below. So that is an open deck on the second floor and does not count towards the FAR. We also wanted to note that there is no changes to the bedrooms on the site. So it's existing,the bedrooms. It's staying the same count. We're just adding that bathroom and the dormer portion on the second floor. The septic is staying as is,and we requested the variance,the waivers,in regards to the site due to the no disturbance within existing area,and as you'll also note,in regards to the vegetative buffer,and you can see from those images that were passed out that,you know,there is a substantial amount of rock,rubble,retaining walls, you know,mulched areas. It's not grassed all the way down to the lake. So it's actually a really nice site and they plan to keep it that way. They're just here tonight to request the dormer addition which changes the FAR in the Critical Environmental Area. MR. TRAVER-Okay. Actually my question was regarding the shoreline buffer. There weren't any,you didn't really provide much in the way of information about the existing buffer, other than these pictures on your application,and the rocks are certainly nice,but the buffer does call for some vegetative buffering, and we would like to see that. Can you commit your clients in regards to the regulations on shoreline buffering? MR. FLYNN-We could provide a count. I know there was more,I think it did fall within the category. I'd have to do the exact count to provide additional information if that's needed. MR. TRAVER-I'm not personally interested in a count. I'm just interested in a conditional, if hypothetically we were to approve this, as a condition of approval, that the shoreline buffering be Code compliant,could you do that? MR. FLYNN-I believe so,yes. MR. TRAVER-Okay. Other questions,comments from members of the Board? MR. STEFANZIK-I think it's a nice project. I like the addition,but I am questioning,this picture here,is it meant to show what the buffering looks like now? MR FLYNN-Yes, that's what stands on site now. MR. STEFANZIK-Yes,I'm looking at this and it looks like there's rocks and walls all knocked down. 14 (Queensbury Planning Board 06/1S/2024) MR. FLYNN-It's all existing ledge rock in a lot of that area,and some of the retaining walls that exist,but there's a lot of mulch beds and other bushes,too,I don't know the exact variety and number count. MR. STEFANZIK-And this is the area where we're considering a vegetative buffer. MR. TRAVER-I mean the rocks don't do much in terms of. MR. DEEB-It's not buffering. Rocks aren't buffering. So we have a plan,buffering plan and it's suggested what we'd like to see,and every time we get a project on the lake,this is what we look for,and it requires so many trees per so many square feet, etc.,etc., and it's not that hard to comply with. We'd like to see that done. MR. FLYNN-Okay. If we can make it contingent upon approval and final CO or walk through to prove that we have that. I know that the client's been working with Gould's Landscaping,and I think her exact comment was not too happy with how some of the plants have been upkept. So they're trying to resurrect that. MR. TRAVER-Well,this would be their opportunity to make improvements overall. It would help us a great deal with additional protection of the lake because rock doesn't do much in the way of stormwater mitigation. Where plants do. So thank you for that. MR. FLYNN-And if I could just add,too. We didn't have additional setbacks,but also as far as setbacks from the lake,that whole dormer addition from the tie line,not the lake. So it's actually further,but from the tie line is S5 feet forward,and the new upper proposed open deck area is 73 feet away from that tie line as well. MR. TRAVER-Okay. Thank you for that. There is a public hearing on this application. Is there anyone in the audience that wishes to address the Planning Board on Site Plan 30-2024? I'm not seeing any. We have Laura checking for written comments for us. In the meantime, are there other questions,concerns from members of the Board? PUBLIC HEARING OPENED MRS. MOORE-There were no written comments. MR. TRAVER-Okay. Thankyou,Laura. So we will close the public hearing. PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED MR. TRAVER-I think the only condition added to the draft resolution provided by Staff that I've heard thus far is the condition of compliance with shoreline buffering. Anything else? Okay. Are we ready to hear that resolution? MR. STEFANZIK-Sure. RESOLUTION APPROVING SP#30-2024 ELIZABETH ABKIN Applicant proposes a 5S sq ft dormer addition to an existing home and adding a second story 170.3E sq ft open deck over the existing sun room on the North side of the home. The existing 2,953 sq ft home will remain unchanged but the current floor area will increase from 4,599 sq ft to 4,957 sq ft. There are no site changes proposed. Pursuant to chapter 179-3-040 & 179-6-065, site plan for new floor area in a critical environment area 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 6/1S/2024 and continued the public hearing to 6/1S/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 6/1S/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, 15 (Queensbury Planning Board 06/1S/2024) MOTION TO APPROVE SITE PLAN 30-2024 ELIZABETH ABKIN; Introduced by Fritz Stefanzick who moved for its adoption. According to the draft resolution prepared by Staff with the following: 1) Waivers requested granted:g.site lighting,h. signage,j.stormwater,k.topography,1.landscaping, n traffic, o. commercial alterations/ construction details, p floor plans, q. soil logs, r. construction/demolition disposal s. snow removal as these items are typically associated with commercial projects and the project is not changing the footprint of the existing home only going upward within setbacks: 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 6/1S/2025; 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 c) If curb cuts are being added or changed a driveway permit is required. A building permit will not be issued until the approved driveway permit has been provided to the Planning Office; d) If application was referred to engineering then Engineering sign-off required prior to signature of Zoning Administrator of the approved plans; e) Final approved plans should have dimensions and setbacks noted on the site plan/survey, floor plans and elevation for the existing rooms and proposed rooms in the building and site improvements; f) If required,the applicant must submit a copy of the following to the Town: a. The project NOI (Notice of Intent) for coverage under the current 'NYSDEC SPDES General Permit from Construction Activity"prior to the start of any site work. b. The project NOT(Notice of Termination)upon completion of the project; c. The applicant must maintain on their project site,for review by staff: i. The approved final plans that have been stamped by the Town Zoning Administrator. These plans must include the project SWPPP (Storm Water Pollution Prevention Plan)when such a plan was prepared and approved; ii. The project NOI and proof of coverage under the current NYSDEC SPDES General Permit,or an individual SPDES permit issued for the project if required. g) Final approved plans, in compliance with the Site Plan, must be submitted to the Community Development Department before any further review by the Zoning Administrator or Building and Codes personnel; h) The applicant must meet with Staff after approval and prior to issuance of Building Permit and/or the beginning of any site work; i) Subsequent issuance of further permits, including building permits is dependent on compliance with this and all other conditions of this resolution; j) As-built plans to certify that the site plan is developed according to the approved plans to be provided prior to issuance of the certificate of occupancy. k) This resolution is to be placed in its entirety on the final plans. 1) Shoreline vegetative buffering shall be Code compliant. Motion seconded by Ellen McDevitt. Duly adopted this 1S`h day of June 2024 by the following vote: AYES: Mrs.Bullard,Mr. Stefanzick,Mr. Deeb,Mrs. McDevitt,Mr. Longacker,Mr. Stark,Mr. Traver NOES: NONE ABSENT: Mr. Magowan MR. TRAVER-You are all set. Good luck. MR. FLYNN-Thank you for your time. MR.TRAVER-The next item on the agenda is T-Mobile. This is Site Plan 31-2024 and Special Use Permit 2-2024. SITE PLAN NO.31-2024 SPECIAL USE PERMIT 2-2024 SEQR TYPE: UNLISTED. T-MOBILE. AGENT(S): PYRAMID NETWORK SERVICES (LOGAN PARKER). OWNER(S): AVIATION HOSPITALITY, LLC. ZONING: ESC. LOCATION: 524 AVIATION ROAD. APPLICANT PROPOSES TO INSTALL ROOFTOP TELECOMMUNICATIONS OF 9 ANTENNAS ON 3 SECTOR MOUNTS ON THE TOP OF AN EXISTING 4 STORY HOTEL. THE PROJECT INCLUDES INSTALLATION OF 90 SQ.FT.EQUIPMENT AREA CONTAINED BEHIND A FENCED IN AREA BEHIND THE EXISTING TRASH ENCLOSURE. THE EQUIPMENT AREA WILL CONSIST OF A CABINET ON A CONCRETE PAD OF TX5.5% EQUIPMENT HOUSING FRAME, AND CABLE 16 (Queensbury Planning Board 06/1S/2024) CONNECTOR EQUIPMENT. THE ENCLOSURE FENCE WILL BE 6 FT. HIGH. THE EQUIPMENT TO BE MOUNTED ON THE ROOF ARE SECTOR MOUNTS FOR THE ANTENNAS LOCATED ON BOTH REAR ROOFTOP CORNERS AND ONE FRONT ROOFTOP CORNER. PURSUANT TO CHAPTER 179-5-130 AND 179-10-060, SITE PLAN AND SPECIAL USE PERMIT FOR PLACEMENT OF TELECOMMUNICATIONS ANTENNAS ON AN EXISTING TALL STRUCTURE SHALL BE SUBJECT TO PLANNING BOARD REVIEW AND APPROVAL. CROSS REFERENCE: DIS 6-2017,AV 42-2017,SP 45-2017,SUP 10-2017,SV 6-2017,SV 3-2018. WARREN CO. REFERRAL: JUNE 2024. SITE INFORMATION: TRAVEL CORRIDOR. LOT SIZE: 2.5 ACRES. TAX MAP NO. 302.5-1-96.1. SECTION: 179-5-130,179-10-060. LOGAN PARKER,REPRESENTING APPLICANT,PRESENT MR. TRAVER-Laura? MRS. MOORE-The applicant proposes to install rooftop telecommunications of 9 antennas on 3 sector mounts on top of an existing four story hotel. The project includes installation of a 90 square foot equipment area contained behind a fence in the aera behind the existing trash enclosure. The equipment area will consist of a cabinet on a concrete pad and cable connector equipment. The floater fence will be six foot high. The equipment to be mounted on the roof are sector mounts for the antennas located on both the rear rooftop corners and one front rooftop corner. The project is subject to Site Plan and Special Use Permit. The applicant has requested a permanent Special Use Permit and to follow up, this project has been in the works for a little bit. Originally it was tied into the actual,near the fire connection. So once we realized the fire connection was there,the applicant went back,re-designed it so that their equipment would be away from that fire connection,and the only information I think that the Fire Marshal has asked for is how those lines that are going to go to the rooftop interconnect or in what area near the existing connector. So that's all. MR. TRAVER-Right. Okay. Thank you. Good evening. MS. PARKER-Good evening. I'm Logan Parker. I'm a site acquisition specialist for Pyramid Network Services and I'll be representing T-Mobile this evening. So,as a re-cap,we are requesting Site Plan review and approval as well as Special Use Permit approval to install an unmanned,wireless telecommunications facility on the existing four-story Hilton Hotel that's located on 524 Aviation Road. The goal is to provide to Routes 254,Interstate S7, and all of the commercial restaurants,businesses, and shopping areas in the area. At this time I will invite the Board to ask me questions about the project. MR. TRAVER-Okay. One of the things I wondered about is,I know this is a T-Mobile project,but will the tower be shared with other cell networks like Verizon and AT&T and so on? MS. PARKER-Absolutely. So we are required, as well as we always encourage,our carriers to share the use of the space. This is also one of the requests of our landlord who we've entered into a partial ground lease with and so that is an option to be able to meet their coverage needs the space is very shareable. MR. TRAVER-Sure. Okay, and the only other question I had at this stage was can you submit the requested information from the Deputy Fire Marshal so we can get a signoff from them? MS. PARKER-Yes, absolutely. And I also, I am able to clarify some confusion about the existing fire department connections. So the fire department connections are going to be on the far left,they are on the far left section of the building. There's almost like, I don't know how to describe it,but it's like a small hub with the fire department connections. So our plan is to underground bore from our compound area that's behind the trash enclosure. We will go underground. We will go under the water lines. We use Dig Safe as well as we work with all the public utility representatives in the area and we'll go underneath the fire department waterline connection. We will be five feet to the right on the wall of the building,flush to the building. The width of the lines is roughly a foot. There's three lines and it'll come out from the wall about a foot as well,and once we complete construction,there's really no purpose for us to be in that area at all. Our techs visit the site during regular business hours and again,we're five feet away from the waterline. We'll be under the waterline when we install our lines, and it's about a foot of space on the wall. MR. TRAVER-Okay. Good. MS. PARKER-And we can submit updated plans that will clarify all of this. MR. TRAVER-That's good. Thank you. MR. TRAVER-Other questions,comments from members of the Board? MR. STEFANZIK-The one engineering comment regarding stamped professional engineering. Is that what you're talking about,the updated drawings? 17 (Queensbury Planning Board 06/1S/2024) MS. PARKER-Yes. So typically when we provide our drawings to the Planning Board we anticipate that there might be changes. So we will submit our final drawings, but we won't stamp them until we've satisfied all of the requirements of the Board as well as answered any questions. Because in the event that there are requests or questions or changes,once we cure everything we can stamp the plans and you will have stamped drawings,structural,etc. MR.TRAVER-This application is requiring a review under SEQR,and there's also a question that we need to think about regarding the duration of the Special Use Permit, but in the meantime, we have a public hearing. Is there anyone in the audience that wishes to address the Planning Board on this T-Mobile project,Site Plan 31-2024? I'm not seeing any takers. PUBLIC HEARING OPENED MRS. MOORE-There's no written comments. MR. TRAVER-All right. So we will close the public hearing. PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED MR. TRAVER-So in terms of SEQR review, do members of the Board have any environmental impact concerns regarding this that raise any issues with SEQR? All right. We have a draft resolution. MR. STEFANZIK-Yes. RESOLUTION GRANTING A NEGATIVE SEQR DEC. SP#31-2024 T-MOBILE The applicant proposes to install rooftop telecommunications of 9 antennas on 3 sector mounts on the top of an existing 4 story hotel.The project includes installation of a 90 sq It equipment area contained behind a fenced in area behind the existing trash enclosure. The equipment area will consist of a cabinet on a concrete pad of 3'x5.5',an equipment housing frame,and cable connector equipment. The enclosure fence will be 6 ft high. The equipment to be mounted on the roof are sector mounts for the antennas located on both rear rooftop corners and one front rooftop corner.Pursuant to chapter 179-5-130 and 179-10-060,site plan and special use permit for placement of telecommunications antennas on an existing tall structure 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 31-2024 &z SPECIAL USE PERMIT 2-2024 T-MOBILE.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 IS'day of June 2024 by the following vote: AYES: Mr. Stefanzick,Mr. Deeb,Mrs. McDevitt,Mr. Longacker,Mr. Stark,Mrs. Bullard,Mr.Traver NOES: NONE ABSENT: Mr. Magowan 1S (Queensbury Planning Board 06/1S/2024) MR. TRAVER-All right. Special Use Permit, how long do you anticipate keeping this tower in place? Would you like an unlimited Special Use Permit, or is there a duration that you plan on utilizing this facility? MS.PARKER-So the idea is that it will be a permanent facility,but our ground lease is a 25 year lease with renewals,with extensions. After 25 years we will do an amendment to a lease. So the goal is for it to be a permanent structure. MR. TRAVER-Okay. All right. So for members of the Board,this is a,they're also requesting,obviously, a Special Use Permit and it sounds as though permanent would be the best solution. Does anyone have any concerns about granting a permanent Special Use Permit? Okay. Does the Board feel comfortable moving forward on Site Plan Review at this point? MR. STEFANZIK-Do we have the one item for submitting the Deputy Fire Marshal approval? MR. TRAVER-Yes,that would be a condition. MR. STEFANZIK-That's a condition. MR. TRAVER-Yes. Other than that,I think we're ready to go. MRS. MOORE-So as part of final plans, the applicant will provide updated plans including a detail that shows the location for the Fire Marshal. MR. TRAVER-So final submitted plans to include compliance with Fire Marshal. RESOLUTION APPROVING SP#31-2024 T-MOBILE Applicant proposes to install rooftop telecommunications of 9 antennas on 3 sector mounts on the top of an existing 4 story hotel. The project includes installation of a 90 sq It equipment area contained behind a fenced in area behind the existing trash enclosure. The equipment area will consist of a cabinet on a concrete pad of 3'x5.5',an equipment housing frame,and cable connector equipment. The enclosure fence will be 6 ft high. The equipment to be mounted on the roof are sector mounts for the antennas located on both rear rooftop corners and one front rooftop corner.Pursuant to chapter 179-5-130 and 179-10-060,site plan and special use permit for placement of telecommunications antennas on an existing tall structure 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 6/1S/2024 and continued the public hearing to 6/1S/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 6/1S/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 31-2024 &z SPECIAL USE PERMIT 2-2024 T-MOBILE; Introduced by Fritz Stefanzick who moved for its adoption. According to the draft resolution prepared by Staff with the following: 1) Waivers requested granted:g.site lighting,h. signage,j.stormwater,k.topography,1.landscaping, n traffic, o. commercial alterations/ construction details, p floor plans, q. soil logs, r. construction/demolition disposal s.snow removal as the site change is minor to install an enclosed equipment cage and three antenna units on top of the existing hotel with no other site changes; 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 6/1S/2025; 3) Adherence to the items outlined in the follow-up letter sent with this resolution. 19 (Queensbury Planning Board 06/I8/2024) a) The limits of clearing will constitute a no-cut buffer zone, orange construction fencing shall be installed around these areas and field verified by Community Development staff, b) If applicable, the Sanitary Sewer connection plan must be submitted to the Wastewater Department for its review,approval,permitting and inspection; c) If curb cuts are being added or changed a driveway permit is required. A building permit will not be issued until the approved driveway permit has been provided to the Planning Office; d) If application was referred to engineering then Engineering sign-off required prior to signature of Zoning Administrator of the approved plans; e) Final approved plans should have dimensions and setbacks noted on the site plan/survey, floor plans and elevation for the existing rooms and proposed rooms in the building and site improvements; f) If required,the applicant must submit a copy of the following to the Town: a. The project NOI (Notice of Intent) for coverage under the current 'NYSDEC SPDES General Permit from Construction Activity"prior to the start of any site work. b. The project NOT(Notice of Termination)upon completion of the project; c. The applicant must maintain on their project site,for review by staff: i. The approved final plans that have been stamped by the Town Zoning Administrator. These plans must include the project SWPPP (Storm Water Pollution Prevention Plan)when such a plan was prepared and approved; ii. The project NOI and proof of coverage under the current NYSDEC SPDES General Permit,or an individual SPDES permit issued for the project if required. g) Final approved plans, in compliance with the Site Plan, must be submitted to the Community Development Department before any further review by the Zoning Administrator or Building and Codes personnel; h) The applicant must meet with Staff after approval and prior to issuance of Building Permit and/or the beginning of any site work; i) Subsequent issuance of further permits, including building permits is dependent on compliance with this and all other conditions of this resolution; j) As-built plans to certify that the site plan is developed according to the approved plans to be provided prior to issuance of the certificate of occupancy. k) This resolution is to be placed in its entirety on the final plans. 1) Special use permit to be temporary/renewable/permanent. m) As part of final plans,the applicant will provide updated plans,including a detail that shows the location for compliance with the Fire Marshal. Motion seconded by Ellen McDevitt. Duly adopted this IS'day of June 2024 by the following vote: AYES: Mr. Deeb,Mrs. McDevitt,Mr. Longacker,Mr. Stark,Mrs.Bullard,Mr. Stefanzick,Mr. Traver NOES: NONE ABSENT: Mr. Magowan MR. TRAVER-You are all set. MS. PARKER-Thank you very much. MR. DEEB-Good luck. MR. TRAVER-The next section of the agenda is Unapproved Development and the only item we have under that,fortunately this month,is DKC Holdings,Inc. This is Site Plan 34-2024. NEW BUSINESS (UNAPPROVED DEVELOPMENT SITE PLAN NO. 34-2024 SEQR TYPE: TYPE 11. DKC HOLDINGS, INC. AGENT(S): VAN DUSEN&z STEVES. OWNER(S): SAME AS APPLICANT. ZONING: MDR. LOCATION: 179 MONTRAY ROAD. APPLICANT REQUESTS APPROVAL FOR CLEARED AREA ON PROPERTY FOR CONSTRUCTION OF A SINGLE FAMILY DWELLING. THE PROJECT INCLUDES INSTALLING/MAINTAINING A BUFFER LESS THAN 50 FT. BETWEEN ZONES (CM AND MDR). PLAN PROPOSES A NO CUT BUFFER OF 15 FT. WIDE FOR 200 FT. AND A 50 FT. NO CUT BUFFER FOR 135 FT. PLANTING PLAN INCLUDES 4 SIX FT.TALL SPRUCE TREES IN AN ALREADY CLEARED BUFFER AREA AND INSTALLATION OF 90 FT.OF STOCKADE FENCING ALONG THE PROPERTY LINE NEAR THE BUFFER CLEARING. PURSUANT TO CHAPTER 179-3-040 &z 179-8-070,SITE PLAN FOR BUFFER PLAN BETWEEN ZONES SHALL BE SUBJECT TO PLANNING BOARD REVIEW AND APPROVAL. CROS REFERENCE: SP 53-2013, SP 70- 2014. WARREN CO. REFERRAL: JUNE 2024. SITE INFORMATION: TRAVEL CORRIDOR. LOT SIZE: .83 ACRE. TAX MAP NO.296.13-1-59. SECTION: 179-3-040,179-8-070. 20 (Queensbury Planning Board 06/1S/2024) MATTHEW WEBSTER,REPRESENTING APPLICANT,PRESENT;LARRY CLUTE,PRESENT MR. TRAVER-Laura? MRS. MOORE-So this application requests approval for cleared area on property for construction of a single family dwelling. The project includes installation and maintaining a buffer of less than 50 feet between zones, the Commercial Moderate zone and the Moderate Density Residential zone. The plan proposes a no cut buffer of 15 feet wide for a 200 foot length of the property,and a 50 foot no cut buffer for the other 135 feet. The planning plan includes four, six foot tall spruces trees in an already cleared buffer area and installation of 90 feet of stockade fencing along the property line near the buffer cleared area. MR. TRAVER-Okay. Thank you. Good evening. MR.WEB STER-Good evening. My name is Matthew Webster with VanDusen&Steves Land Surveyors, here on behalf of our client,DKC Holdings. MR.TRAVER-I just have a quick question. I know you folks have had applications before us before. How in the world could you do unapproved development at this stage? MR. WEBSTER-So in this case our client was unaware of the 50 foot buffer when he began clearing,but of course as soon as notification came from the Town,he stopped. He came to us and said,hey,I need a plan if we're going to go ahead with this. So we put together what we believe is the most feasible plan on behalf of our client and are happy to answer for that this evening. MR. TRAVER-Okay. Questions,comments from members of the Board? MR. STEFANZIK-Can you increase the buffer back to where it's supposed to be? MR.WEBSTER-So if you look at the map,the dashed line going through the proposed house,right by the center of the driveway, or at the center of the lot is the 50 foot buffer. In this case, you know, not to minimize the lot or anything,but given that it's relief for the residential side,rather than in a commercial encroaching onto the residential zone,we feel that this buffer would be sufficient to shield the residence, of course,and as you can see on the other side,we also offset that line. So you can seethe required 50 foot no cut buffer onto the commercial properties to the west. That,of course,hadn't been maintained,which is why nobody in this neighborhood really thought of this sort of thing. So that's why we're proposing this stockade fence as well as these plantings in order to facilitate the ability to build on this parcel. MR. STEFANZIK-Has the house been approved? Do you have a permit for the house building already? MR. CLUTE-It's been submitted,yes. MR. STEFANZIK-It's been submitted. MRS. MOORE-It's on hold because of this. MR. STEFANZIK-Because of this. MR. TRAVER-So could you extend those trees down the dotted line where the 50 foot buffer is supposed to be between the front and back of the property for the residential side? MRS. MOORE-The 15 foot buffer and the 50? This one's 15 and this one's. MR. TRAVER-That's 15. MR.WEBSTER-The only clearing that's been done,that's the actual tree line represented as it sits today. So that's why we've kind of filled that area with some new plantings. MR. TRAVER-I see. Gotcha. Okay. Other questions,comments from members of the Board? MRS. MC DEVITT-To go off of what you were saying,were you thinking of extending the trees instead of the stockade fence? Is that what your thought was? MR. TRAVER-Well,I think,maybe I misunderstood. I thought the stockade was on the other side. MR. WEBSTER-So the stockade fence is proposed right along the property line, in what is currently wooded. So that would be just kind of a buffer within the vegetated area already,but like I said,the kind of clouded line,that is the existing clearing. The only additional clearing that would be proposed in this case would actually be clear of the 50 foot buffer,just going back a little bit to facilitate the installation of the septic system. 21 (Queensbury Planning Board 06/1S/2024) MR. TRAVER-Yes,I see that. MRS. MOORE-Are there trees being removed for the installation of the fence? MR.WEBSTER-They would do their best to not cut any trees. If the fence has to be moved further onto this property,that wouldn't be a problem. MRS. MC DEVITT-I'm not a big fan of stockade fences. The stockade fence thing bothers me,to tell you the truth. MR. STEFANZIK-Especially if you have to remove trees. MR. WEBSTER-So that's why there would be every best effort to not remove any trees, and of course if any of you have been to this site, the commercial lot to the south has been operated as a restaurant. I'm not sure if it currently is. So that's really for the privacy of the residential factor, and to make sure that there isn't anything that spills over from the parking lot onto this property. MR. LONGACKER-Also buffer the neighbors to,I guess it would be the east,too. You could plant some trees on the east side of the house as well,more spruce on that side as well. MR. WEBSTER-So on that side no new clearing has been done. That's just kind of how it already was and of course this is just atypical residential zone. There's usually some vegetation between the properties, but of course anyone who purchases the house would be welcome to landscape as they saw necessary. MR. TRAVER-Does the Board have any, and I should say that there is also a public hearing on this application. We don't have anymore public. Are there written comments,Laura? PUBLIC HEARING OPENED MRS. MOORE-There are no written comments. MR. TRAVER-So let's open and close the public hearing. PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED MR.TRAVER-And I'd just like to ask the Board,are there concerns other than the buffering regarding this potential site plan approval? I'm hearing different things regarding additional buffering,perhaps trees on the residential side. Where are we at with that? Does anyone have concerns for buffering beyond what's proposed? MR. LONGACKER-I agree with Ellen. I don't really care for stockade fences, either. I'd rather see a couple of more trees than a stockade fence. MR. WEBSTER Just with regard to planting more trees, I mean we could show all the proposed trees in the world,but especially when planting more than just saplings,if you will,we've spaced them out so that they don't choke each other out if you will, and just die over time anyway. And of course, as I said everything is still well vegetated there, just not the entire 50 foot buffer. That's why we're proposing the 15 foot no cut buffer. MR. STEFANZIK-It is pretty dense back there. MR.WEBSTER-Yes. MR. STEFANZIK-And I think that buts up against the back of Stewart's? MRS. MOORE-No. MR.WEBSTER-Sweet Basil's. MR. STEFANZIK-Sweet Basil's. Doesn't it also have like a hill that goes down to Sweet Basil's? MR.WEBSTER-I mean there may be a little bit of a grade change,but not significant. MR. TRAVER-Okay. Well if there's nothing specific further, then I guess we're ready to entertain a motion. MR. DEEB-Well,where do we stand on the fence? 22 (Queensbury Planning Board 06/1S/2024) MR. STEFANZIK-Yes. MR. TRAVER-Well,that's what I was asking before. MR. DEEB-I mean I think we should clarify some of this Board we take a vote. MR. TRAVER-Right. That's what I was trying to get at before,but I didn't hear anything. MR. STEFANZIK-Well, if you're going to put up a stockade fence, I'd want to make sure you weren't disturbing any trees. MR. DEEB-You could make that a condition. The scrub pine has to go. MR.WEBSTER-No significant trees,12 inch and up would be fair. MR. STEFANZIK-I would say any type of trees. I mean 12 foot,that's a big tree. MR. TRAVER-It's pretty dense back there. They're going to have to remove something for the fence. MR. DEEB-Okay. Well I'm just saying. MR.WEBSTER-That's what I'm saying all the scrub brush and everything. MR. DEEB-So we're talking about as minimal disturbance as you can do to get the fence in there. MR. TRAVER-So do we want to say nothing above a certain caliper size tree? MR. DEEB-You're going to make it tough now. It's hard, but we have to come up with some kind of verbiage. MR. STEFANZIK-I mean what is that stockade fence going to be? I mean in the wintertime are those deciduous trees? MR.WEBSTER-Yes,I mean it's a good mix of woods,but the stockade fence will be a noise and of course physical buffer. MR. DEEB-I'm okay with the stockade fence. I think it helps,but as long as the trees stay. MRS. MOORE-An alternative may be if there's any trees removed,that they be replaced on the site. MR.TRAVER-Okay. All right. So why don't we say that? Any trees of significance to be removed during the installation of the stockade fence, a replacement tree should be planted, tree for tree. That's what we've tried to do. Right,Laura? Anything else? MRS. MOORE-So the only other item I would think of is to, that buffer needs to be in this plan,but I'm trying to perceive the next person that purchases this property maybe this is information that should be placed in the deed,and I don't know if that's an acceptable means to do that or definitely on the plan,but some way to make sure that the next person that purchases it doesn't know the rules either. MR. TRAVER-Yes. Why don't we do this. Why doesn't the Planning Department check maybe with counsel to see what the best way to codify that is and then we'll make a condition that the applicant,on final plans,comply with that in some fashion. I believe that's about the best we can do. MR.WEBSTER-Yes,we can define it with metes and bounds in a deed description. MRS. MOORE-I know what's going to happen. MR. TRAVER-So how do we condition this? So, Laura, do we need to condition that? Okay. So how would you suggest that we state that as a condition? MRS. MOORE-That a deed restriction be placed on,or the copy of the deed restriction be supplied as part of final plans,and that's,the deed description is a draft on final plans,and then prior to the CO we would get an updated deed or something to that effect. MR. TRAVER-Good. Thank you. MRS. MOORE-Do you need more information,Fritz? MR. STEFANZIK-So copy of deed restriction to be submitted with final plans. 23 (Queensbury Planning Board 06/1S/2024) MR. TRAVER-Good. MR. STEFANZIK-Okay. RESOLUTION APPROVING SP#24-2024 DKC HOLDINGS,INC. Applicant requests approval for cleared area on property for construction of a single-family dwelling. The project includes installing/maintaining a buffer less than 50 ft between zones (CM and MDR). Plan proposes a no cut buffer of 15 ft wide for 200 ft and a 50 ft no cut buffer for 135 ft. Planting plan includes 4 six ft tall spruce trees in an already cleared buffer area and installation of 90 ft of stockade fencing along the property line near the buffer clearing. Pursuant to chapter 179-3-040 &179-5-070, site plan for buffer plan between zones 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 6/1S/2024 and continued the public hearing to 6/1S/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 6/1S/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 34-2024 DKC HOLDINGS,INC.Introduced by Frtiz Stefanzick who moved for its adoption. According to the draft resolution prepared by Staff with the following: 1) Waivers requested granted: g. site lighting, h. signage,j. stormwater, k. topography, n traffic, o. commercial alterations/construction details,p floor plans, q. soil logs,r. construction/demolition disposal s. snow removal as these items are typically associated with commercial projects; 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 6/1S/2025; 3) Adherence to the items outlined in the follow-up letter sent with this resolution. a) The limits of clearing will constitute a no-cut buffer zone, orange construction fencing shall be installed around these areas and field verified by Community Development staff, b) If applicable, the Sanitary Sewer connection plan must be submitted to the Wastewater Department for its review,approval,permitting and inspection; c) If curb cuts are being added or changed a driveway permit is required. A building permit will not be issued until the approved driveway permit has been provided to the Planning Office; d) If application was referred to engineering then Engineering sign-off required prior to signature of Zoning Administrator of the approved plans; e) Final approved plans should have dimensions and setbacks noted on the site plan/survey, floor plans and elevation for the existing rooms and proposed rooms in the building and site improvements; f) If required,the applicant must submit a copy of the following to the Town: a. The project NOI (Notice of Intent) for coverage under the current "NYSDEC SPDES General Permit from Construction Activity"prior to the start of any site work. b. The project NOT(Notice of Termination)upon completion of the project; c. The applicant must maintain on their project site,for review by staff: i. The approved final plans that have been stamped by the Town Zoning Administrator. These plans must include the project SWPPP (Storm Water Pollution Prevention Plan)when such a plan was prepared and approved; ii. The project NOI and proof of coverage under the current NYSDEC SPDES General Permit,or an individual SPDES permit issued for the project if required. g) Final approved plans, in compliance with the Site Plan, must be submitted to the Community Development Department before any further review by the Zoning Administrator or Building and Codes personnel; h) The applicant must meet with Staff after approval and prior to issuance of Building Permit and/or the beginning of any site work; i) Subsequent issuance of further permits, including building permits is dependent on compliance with this and all other conditions of this resolution; 24 (Queensbury Planning Board 06/1S/2024) 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) No trees of significant size are to be removed to install the stockade fence. If trees are required to be removed,those trees are required to be replaced. m) A copy of the deed restriction be supplied as part of the final plans. Motion seconded by Ellen McDevitt. Duly adopted this 1S`h day of June 2024 by the following vote: AYES: Mrs. McDevitt,Mr. Longacker,Mr. Stark,Mrs.Bullard,Mr. Stefanzick,Mr. Deeb,Mr. Traver NOES: NONE ABSENT: Mr. Magowan MR. TRAVER-You are all set. MR.WEBSTER-Thank you very much. MR. DEEB-Okay,Larry,we don't want to see you again,now,for that. MR.TRAVER-Let's see. A reminder that we will be meeting again Thursday night instead of next Tuesday because of,what is it,Laura,tax day or something? MRS. MOORE-No,there's an election,primary,next week MR. TRAVER-Primary. That's right. MRS. MOORE-So also please note that your application for this coming Thursday includes a cannabis retail or cannabis project. In that sense Stu Baker our Senior Planner is the one that will be here,and that's why that project is first. He will handle that project for the Board. I'll be here but if you have additional questions for him,you'll have to ask him. MR. TRAVER-Good. Thank you. If there's nothing further,I'll entertain a motion to adjourn. MOTION TO ADJOURN THE QUEENSBURY PLANNING BOARD MEETING OF TUNE IWH 2024,Introduced by Stephen Traver who moved for its adoption,seconded by Ellen McDevitt: Duly adopted this 1S`h day of June,2024,by the following vote: AYES: Mrs. McDevitt,Mr. Longacker,Mr. Stark,Mrs.Bullard,Mr. Stefanzick,Mr. Deeb,Mr. Traver NOES: NONE ABSENT: Mr. Magowan. MR. TRAVER-We stand adjourned,everyone. Thank you very much. We'll see you day after tomorrow. On motion meeting was adjourned. RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED, Stephen Traver,Chairman 25