Loading...
06-20-2024 (Queensbury Planning Board 06/20/2024) Q UEENSBUR Y PTA NNING BOARD MEETING SECOND REGULAR MEETING THURSDAY,JUNE20TH 2O24 INDEX Site Plan No. 45-2023 Bay Road Self Storage 1. REQUEST FOR ONE YR. EXTENSION Tax Map No. 302.E-2-17,21,20&24 Site Plan No. 33-2024 Nick Chiaravalle 2. Special Use Permit 3-2024 Tax Map No. 303.12-1-9.3 Subdivision No. 1-2024 David Howard 11. PRELIMINARY STAGE Tax Map No. 30S.7-1-4S.1 Site Plan No. 69-2023 Foothills Builders/Mead's 19. Freshwater Wetlands 12-2023 Tax Map No. 303.5-1-79 Site Plan No. 35-2024 Boguslaw&Anna Bielecki 2S. Tax Map No. 309.10-1-51;309.10-1-52 309.10-1-53 Site Plan No. 2S-2024 Robert&Heather Mulholland 30. Freshwater Wetlands 2-2024 Tax Map No. 239.12-2-65 Site Plan No. 32-2024 Red Barn Contracting 33. Tax Map No. 239.7-1-3 THESE ARE NOT OFFICIALLY ADOPTED MINUTES AND ARE SUBJECT TO BOARD AND STAFF REVISIONS. REVISIONS WILL APPEAR ON THE FOLLOWING MONTH'S MINUTES(IF ANY)AND WILL STATE SUCH APPROVAL OF SAID MINUTES. 1 (Queensbury Planning Board 06/20/2024) QUEENSBURY PLANNING BOARD MEETING SECOND REGULAR MEETING JUNE 20TH 2024 7:00 P.M. MEMBERS PRESENT STEPHEN TRAVER,CHAIRMAN ELLEN MC DEVITT,VICE CHAIRMAN FRITZ STEFANZICK,SECRETARY WARREN LONGACKER BRADY STARK DAVID DEEB TOM UNCHER,ALTERNATE MEMBERS ABSENT BRAD MAGOWAN LAND USE PLANNER-LAURA MOORE SENIOR PLANNER-STUART BAKER STENOGRAPHER-MARIA GAGLIARDI MR.TRAVER-Good evening,ladies and gentlemen. Welcome to the Town of Queensbury Planning Board meeting for Thursday,June 20`h,2024. This is our second meeting for the month of June and our fourteenth meeting thus far for the year. In the event of an emergency,we have illuminated emergency exit lights for the emergency exit doors. Please use those.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 so as not to interrupt our meeting, we'd appreciate it, and also, if during the meeting, other than public hearing, if you wish to have your conversation amongst yourselves, if you would move to the outer lobby to have that conversation,we'd appreciate that because we do record the meeting minutes, audio, and then the minutes are actually translated into written words. So thank you for that. With that we will begin. We have one Administrative Item,which is Site Plan 45-2023,Bay Road Self-Storage,a request for a one year extension. ADMINISTRATIVE ITEM SITE PLAN 45-2023 BAY ROAD SELF STORAGE—REQUEST FOR A ONE YEAR EXTENSION MR. TRAVER-:Laura? MRS. MOORE-So this project,they anticipate to start site work in the fall and so they thought that they would ask for this extension because they haven't started construction yet. MR.TRAVER-Right. Understood,and they have not,this is their first request for an extension. Correct? MRS. MOORE-Correct. MR. TRAVER-Yes. Any questions,comments,concerns from Board members about this request? Okay. I think we have a draft resolution. MR. STEFANZIK-We do. RESOLUTION GRANTING A ONE YEAR EXTENSION SP#45-2023 BAY ROAD SELF-STORAGE Applicant proposed to redevelop an existing industrial site with It new self-storage buildings for a total of 47S units. The building footprint is 61,500 sq ft. Site work includes access from Bay Road and connection to the existing access for the adjacent self-storage facility. The Planning Board approved this project on June 22,2023. The applicant is requesting a one year extension,valid until June 22,2025. MOTION TO APPROVE A ONE YEAR EXTENSION FOR SITE PLAN 45-2023 &z FRESHWATER WETLANDS 9-2023 BAY ROAD SELF STORAGE. Introduced by Fritz Stefanzick who moved for its adoption,seconded by Brady Stark. Duly adopted this 20`h day of June 2024 by the following vote: AYES: Mr. Deeb,Mrs. McDevitt,Mr. Longacker,Mr. Stark,Mr. Uncher,Mr. Stefanzick,Mr.Traver 2 (Queensbury Planning Board 06/20/2024) NOES: NONE ABSENT: Mr. Magowan MR.TRAVER-All right. Next we move to our regular agenda. The first section being New Business,and the first item is Nick Chiaravalle. This is Site Plan 33-2024 and Special Use Permit application 3-2024. NEW BUSINESS: SITE PLAN NO.33-2024 SPECIAL USE PERMIT 3-2024 SEQR TYPE: TYPE UNLISTED. NICK CHIARAVALLE. AGENT(S): STUDIO A. OWNER(S): PRIME ARROW,LLC. ZONING: CLI. LOCATION: STONE QUARRY ROAD. APPLICANT PROPOSES TO CONSTRUCT A 30,084 SQ. FT. SINGLE STORY COMMERCIAL BUILDING FOR CANNABIS GROWING, PROCESSING AND DISTRIBUTION. PROJECT WORK INCLUDES CONSTRUCTION OF A PARKING LOT AND LOADING DOCK, STORMWATER MANAGEMENT, LANDSCAPING, LIGHTING AND WILL BE CONNECTED TO MUNICIPAL SEWER AND WATER. PURSUANT TO CHAPTERS 179-2-010,179-3-040&z 179-10-040,SITE PLAN AND FOR NEW CONSTRUCTION AND SPECIAL USE PERMIT FOR COMMERCIAL NURSERY AND AGRICULTURAL SERVICES IN A CLI ZONE SHALL BE SUBJECT TO PLANNING BOARD REVIEW AND APPROVAL. CROSS REFERENCE: N/A. WARREN CO. REFERRAL: JUNE 2024 &z ADJACENT TOWN OF KINGSBURY. SITE INFORMATION: WETLANDS LOT SIZE: 9.05 ACRES. TAX MAP NO.303.12-1-9.3. SECTION: 179-2-010,179-3-040,179-10-040. MATT HUNTINGTON,REPRESENTING APPLICANT,PRESENT MR. TRAVER-Laura? MRS. MOORE-I'm going to turn it over to Stu. MR. TRAVER-Hi,Stu. Thank you for coming. MR. BAKER-You're very welcome. Good evening. For Board members and members of the public that may not know me,I'm Stu Baker. I'm the Senior Planner on Staff with the Town,and I did the Staff Notes on this project. A little bit of background that's relevant here. As we all know, the New York State legislature and the Governor,of course,signed it,legalizing cannabis in multiple forms in New York State. In response to that,in early 2023,the Queensbury Town Board actually amended our zoning to address a number of cannabis uses including grow operations,which is the project before us tonight. Under those zoning revisions, the project tonight is subject to Special Use Permit and Site Plan for two specific uses, one as a commercial nursery,two as an agricultural service use,which addresses any product processing on site, and thirdly it's being reviewed just for site plan review as a distribution site. The applicant proposes to construct a 30,OS4 sq It single story commercial building to be used for cannabis growing, processing and distribution. Project work includes construction of a parking lot and loading dock, stormwater management, landscaping, lighting, and will be connected to municipal sewer and water. Pursuant to chapters 179-2-010, 179-3-040 &r 179-10-040, site plan and for new construction and special use permit for commercial nursery and agricultural services in a Commercial Light Industrial zoning district shall be subject to Planning Board review and approval. In my Staff comments to the Planning Board which the applicant has received as well I believe I noted a few things. Perhaps the most significant for the Planning Board to consider this evening is the adequacy of the lighting on the site. The average foot candles for multiple areas on the site,as shown on the lighting plan,are below our standards,but Section 179-6-020C of the Zoning Code actually gives the Planning Board the option to amend those standards as it deems appropriate. For SEQR purposes,this is an Unlisted Action,and the applicant did submit a Short EAF. They have also,with the application,included an other control air quality comprehensive security and community relations nuisance abatement plans, and as you've seen, the Board has seen in the draft resolution,Staff is recommending some additional conditions,primarily all related to compliance with the Code,especially the specific criteria for cannabis uses prescribed in the Code. MR.TRAVER-Thank you. Yes,and I noted,too,that under the Special Use Permit,179-10-070,relocation clause,would apply as well. MR. BAKER-Yes,it would. MR. TRAVER-Okay. MR. BAKER-And that clause,just for the public's information, simply states that should the project be approved by the Town, if at any point the project sponsor loses his State license for cannabis growing, processing and distribution,then the Town approvals become null and void. MR. TRAVER-And the Special Use Permit is also subject to the Planning Board determination as to the duration. Correct? 3 (Queensbury Planning Board 06/20/2024) MR. BAKER-That's correct,and in that regard,I recommend the Board consider a permanent Special Use Permit. It would still be subject to that relocation clause. MR. TRAVER-Right. Okay. Thank you,Stu. MR. BAKER-You're welcome. MR. TRAVER-Good evening. Welcome to the Planning Board meeting. Can you tell us about your project? MR. HUNTINGTON-Good evening. Matt Huntington with Studio A here on behalf of the applicant, Nick Chiaravalle. Stu really did a pretty comprehensive job of the operation in and of itself there. What we have is a vacant parcel in the existing industrial park on Quarry Road. Building size approximately 30,000 square feet. There's already utilities there on site that we'll be tying in to for gas, sewer,electric, water,etc. The main component of the site design,other than obviously the parking area and the building, the access circular around the building, is really stormwater management design on that. Laura, if you don't mind going to the grading plan, I can just briefly talk about how we're handling that for the new impervious surfaces. So generally the site slopes downward from the cul de sac at the end of Quarry Road down to the building itself. So what we've done is taken advantage of that and we've provided a conveyance system of swales, catch basins, storm pipes, to convey everything towards the back to a bio retention area and gravel wetland that'll be constructed behind it. The reason we chose that is due to the site constraints that there's some bedrock there and relatively wet soils in the first place. So the building itself will be brought in on fill we've brought up,and everything will be conveyed with gravity towards the back of the site. We have received an engineering partial signoff,maybe signoff. They said there was no need to re-submit as long as we just address the few comments they have, that's the first time that's happened on these projects. So that's great. So, I mean, that's generally the site layout in general. You pull in,parking right away and then circulation around it. The main loading and offloading area is in the lower left hand corner of the building. The majority of the building is going to be used for the growing and cultivation. There'll be some small office space and a loading dock to distribute for deliveries and sending things out in that lower left hand corner of the site. As Stu said, lighting wise, I don't think anybody's opposed to adding any,if need be. Essentially what we have are wall packs on the building that will generally spill over a little bit into the parking lot and two main,you know,overhead lights as you pull into the main access drive there. So I'll leave that up for discussion with the Planning Board., and that's generally the project in a nutshell. I'll leave it up for questions that the Board may have. MR. TRAVER-I was going to say,this is our first project regarding a cannabis growing for this Board,and I'm wondering if you could talk to us a little bit about the process. You're doing agricultural cultivation of the cannabis. Can you walk us through a little bit of that whole process from beginning to end in terms of what happens on site and you mentioned distribution. Distribution to where and soon. MR. CHIARAVELLE-Absolutely. Thank you. So the facility is an indoor grow facility. So we would be growing the cannabis from clone or germinating them into a clone state, and then they'll grow to a vegetable state which is about,you know,it takes about six to eight weeks we would grow them,and then we manage the plants to clean them up from the bottom up. So that there's a clear canopy on top. The plant will be transferred into a different room, separated, and it also has to be tracked by the State. Everything has to be labeled and coded where that plant travels throughout the life of the plant. When the plant is in the vegetable state,it's IS hours of light and six hours of dark, and it simulates spring. So the plant continues to grow and as it grows we manage it, and when it reaches about a certain height, about two and a half feet, we transfer the plant to a fall state, 12 hours light, 12 hours sleep. So that simulates the flowering stage of what the cannabis plant does. So that flowering stage takes about nine to ten weeks, and we manage it and also feed it, grow it, and then at the end of the cycle of the 10 weeks we harvest the plant,and then it goes into a room that we harvest the plant. We also hang the plant upside down for about seven to ten days in a dry room,and then after it's dry the plant comes out into a trimming room,and then we trim the plant and cut off the flowers and then we cure the flowers into a separate room, into a cure room,and then the flowers are cured for about two weeks and then at that point,when there's orders,we would start packaging them into containers or bags,which is the shipping and labeling. That's the processing part. There's three licenses. Indoor cultivating,distribution so that we can deliver it,and also deliver to any other cultivators that don't have a distribution license so we'd be able to deliver their product for them. The processing is the shipping and labeling license, which is not extracting the oil. We're not doing any extracting or making gummies or hearts or anything of the sort of that. The processing we're getting is the Tier Three processing which is for labeling it, shipping it, not shipping it,labeling it and packaging it for distributors. After the orders are fulfilled,we would ship those to whatever location that they are. That's kind of like a quick summary of the lifecycle of the plant. MR. TRAVER-This product,is this for medical use,recreational use,both? MR. CHIARAVELLE-This license is for recreational,yes. 4 (Queensbury Planning Board 06/20/2024) MR. TRAVER-Okay. And you mentioned that for cultivators that don't have a. MR. CHIARAVELLE-Distribution license. MR. TRAVER-Distribution license,you would be distributing on their behalf? MR. CHIARAVELLE-If we take them on,yes . We would be able to distribute their product, having a distribution license. MR. TRAVER-So that would mean that cannabis products would be distributed from the site hypothetically, not just what you process, but other product to be delivered to your site and then distributed again out again? MR. CHIARAVELLE-We would be able to, yes, take in other cultivators if they don't have that distribution license and we would store it for them in kind of like a food service company,like a Sysco or US Foods. We'd be able to ship it out for them,along with our product as well. MR. TRAVER-Okay. All right. Thank you for that overview. Questions, comments from members of the Board? MR. STEFANZIK-You mentioned as you go through your process everything is tracked. MR. CHIARAVELLE-Yes. MR. STEFANZIK-How about like the waste, the residue from the harvesting, the seeds and roots and whatever else? MR.CHIARAVELLE-Yes. We have to weigh everything for the State and any waste materials,that waste, that we weigh it and record it for the State. They're going to be constantly checking up on our records to make sure removal of that waste and how much weight there is in the waste,how much weight there is in the roots,how much weight is the actual flower of the plant,where it's going. The stand,lifecycle of that plant gets all the way tracked to the harvest,the bins, and then it's,we're linked to the BioTech from the State. It's called BioTech software. MR. STEFANZIK-And does that process get audited on a? MR. CHIARAVELLE-Always,yes. And they freely can come any time they want. MR. STEFANZIK-Who would do that auditing? MR. CHIARAVELLE-OCM. MR. STEFANZIK-Is there any testing on the product? MR. CHIARAVELLE-Yes. Before anything gets shipped,we would be sending,I think it's about 20 grams of the flower,strain,whatever one is completed,to a testing facility that's licensed with the State and they would get back to us about making sure that everything is cleared of pesticides, any pathogens,nothing on that flower. MR. DEEB-How does your product eventually get to retailers? MR. CHIARAVELLE-So the dispensary/retailers, when we make relationships with dispensaries as a customer,they would place an order with us,and then we would ship whatever product that they want to fulfill in their dispensary. So when we have the final product,we can't sell anything that's not completed, but when it's completed,they would either come to see the product at the facility or we would be able to transport some,they could go on line to check out what we have and basically take an order with our sales force and then we would ship it to them directly. MR. DEEB-Why is,it's not medical it's recreational. Is there a reason MR. CHIARAVELLE-Well,there's a whole separate medical license for cannabis that we didn't apply for. I mean that would be another avenue down the road like if we need to go to that aspect of medical marijuana. I mean it's very limited how many licenses are out therefor medical. MR. BAKER-And just in terms of how New York State rolled out licenses, they rolled out licenses for medical grow operations a year and a half ago I believe,and they just started taking applications for adult use or recreational cannabis cultivation within the past,what,six months? 5 (Queensbury Planning Board 06/20/2024) MR. CHIARAVELLE-Yes,it was,I think there were two dates November and December. They broke up the two dates of the applicants. So,yes,like six,seven months ago. MR. STEFANZIK-Mr. Baker, are there any other facilities like this that have, that are operating in the Capital District? MR. BAKER-There may be,but I'm not particularly,specifically aware of them MR. DEER-I think there's one in Chestertown. MR. CHIARAVELLE-I think that's a medical one that's in Chestertown. MR. DEEB-Yes. MR.BAKER-Chestertown is medical. In terms of adult use or recreational cannabis grow operations,I'm certain there are others out there that are licensed or are in the process of getting licensed,but. MR. STEFANZIK-So this could be the first? MR. CHIARAVELLE-This would be the first in this area, an indoor cultivating facility. There are some, in the first phase of the licenses they have these conditional licenses which for outdoor growers of hemp or greenhouse growers, they had to be in business for two years, and these people that applied for the conditional licenses kind of got handed a quick license to start the market for New York. So there was a lot of outdoor, not indoor, but greenhouse growers, that were starting the market,but at the same time there was issues where the market wasn't available for dispensaries yet. So there was two years of bad news out there saying like a lot of product was sitting on the shelf. So I believe there is, in Saratoga, a conditional license,either outdoor or greenhouse grower. MR. STEFANZIK-So growing processing and distribution, I mean that's huge. That's a lot of activity there. The reason I was asking this question is, lessons learned, who else has done this, who's operated this that you can get lessons learned and make sure that you're not repeating the same issues. That's kind of why I was going down that path of asking who else has done this. MR. CHIARAVELLE-Absolutely. That's a great question. I mean,it is a huge market that is brand new to New York. There are medical facilities out there of cultivators like Chestertown,the Etans. There are some in Saratoga that are, I've already visited, I went through a course with OCM called the CCTM Compliance Training Mentorship program and we visited other sites in Morrisville College,other colleges and there were some outdoor growers that already have the conditional license, and at that time, about a year and a half ago,again,the market wasn't that,there wasn't that many dispensaries out there. So there was that bad press about a lot of these cultivators are sitting on product or freezing it,but now there's 136 dispensaries compared to maybe 20 back then. MR. STEFANZIK-In New York? MR. CHIARAVELLE-In New York there's 136. MR. STEFANZICK-All of New York. MR. CHIARAVELLE-Open,running dispensaries, about 5, 600 probably approved dispensaries. I don't believe they are,it depends on what state they are as far as financing and getting their facilities. MR. STEFANZIK-And when you say dispensaries,that includes growing,processing and distribution? MR. CHIARAVELLE-No,dispensaries is just retail,just a retail. MRS. MC DEVITT-So will you be dispensing out of state also? MR. CHIARAVELLE-=No,just in New York alone. Just distributing in New York. MR. DEEB-Don't dispensaries in New York have to sell New York product? MR. CHIARAVELLE-Only New York. Only New York. MR. DEEB-The same thing in Vermont. The same thing in Massachusetts. MR. CHIARAVELLE-Absolutely. 6 (Queensbury Planning Board 06/20/2024) MR. DEEB-There is one dispensary in Clifton Park called Rise. I don't know if you're familiar with that one, and I was told that they are going to go to recreational the end of this month, the beginning of next month. For medical,but they're going to be able to do. MR. CHIARAVELLE-It was a big fee for them I believe it was close to a million dollars I think for that license to have both. Medical and Recreational I think is a huge fee. MR. DEEB-We're around the State,too. There's 120 or 30 out west,the western part of the State,and you said there's 500 licenses now. MR. CHIARAVELLE-Well I think there's 500. There was quite a bit of applicants that applied for the licenses,but I think they issued a lot of licenses that were card members,people with past convictions or certain criteria that fit to this card member membership, and they got, a lot of people got these licenses, but nothing, they're having trouble for their locations or finding zoning locations. So a lot of them have licenses but they're notable to construct buildings. It was a mess. MR. DEEB-They made a mess out of it. MR. TRAVER-Well,it's one thing to get a license. It's another thing to get a 30,000 square foot building and actually start a business. MR. DEEB-Yes. You're certainly groundbreaking here. MR. CHIARAVELLE-Getting the license is big. There's two parts,the local and the State, and the State was a big hurdle and,you know,bringing to the market for the locals was a big hurdle as well. They'/re both. The State took a long time. I've been patient and pre-planning and we already have our distribution license. The indoor cultivating is expected by July. MR. TRAVER-I had one other question, and I think I know the answer. I just wanted to get it in the minutes. You mentioned that,I guess a distributor could review the product that you have available and essentially place an order and then come and receive the product. That wouldn't apply to individuals, correct? MR. CHIARAVELLE-No. MR. TRAVER-You'd have to have a license as a distributor in order to interact with your business. MR. CHIARAVELLE-It's business to business. We only,our clients are dispensaries or processors Tier One and Two,which are the ones that are extracting the oil out of the cannabis plant for medical or for, you know, making gummies, candies or whatever the cards,vapes. That processing license is Tier One, Tier Two. That would be another client,they usually buy your byproduct,some either trimming or smaller little flowers that are not usable to sell to dispensaries. The processor would buy that byproduct for you and we would distribute to them. Basically we would deliver that byproduct to them. It's just that business. Processors usually make their product for dispensaries as well. The bottom end is the dispensaries to sell to their consumer. MR. DEEB-To go along with that, I was looking at your maintenance and security. That was pretty interesting reading. Obviously no public can go in there. There are no windows in the building. MR. CHIARAVELLE-The windows,there's an administration section in the front left corner. Any of the windows that are on the facility are not like open windows. No one can enter through a window. There's not going to be doors. It's very tight knit. MR. DEEB-I was also wondering about the odor control and air quality. It's quite interesting,the positive and negative pressure to keep,because the odor is going to be a huge,huge problem. MR. CHIARAVELLE-Absolutely. MR. DEEB-It sounds like,according to this plan,that you've got it pretty well under control with exhaust and the intake. MR. CHIARAVELLE-Keeping a negative pressure within each of those flower rooms helps also as well with having a carbon filter filtration and the HVAC system all gets scrubbed throughout the inside of the building and stays within the building. MR. STEFANZIK-And that was part of the question about lessons learned, understanding other equipment that other people have used,the success rate of that equipment. That's kind of the other reason I was going down that road. 7 (Queensbury Planning Board 06/20/2024) MR. CHIARAVELLE-Absolutely. That's a great question. MR. TRAVER-And you participated in some training and preparation for managing this operation. MR. CHIARAVELLE-Yes. Through the State. MR. TRAVER-Okay. Well,for the Board this evening we have an Unlisted Action under SEQR. So we do have a SEQR review. We also have a public hearing scheduled. Do any of the Board members have any additional questions or comments before we go to public hearing? There'll be another opportunity afterwards of course. MR. LONGACKER-I've just got one on the odor. I went through that, too, since Dave brought it up. How is the odor quantified? I see in there your facility manager is responsible for monitoring the odor. What sort of level that you'd gauge that against? I mean one person could say it stinks. Another person could say it can't,and later in the report there's text in here regarding when a complaint is generated,and it says by the recordkeeping manager I believe it is. Does the same procedure apply to the public? Kingsbury next door, there is some residential area there. So again,what's used to quantify the level of odor and does the same process hold responding to complaints from the public? MR. DEEB-I wanted to add to that, too. If you read it, it says so that a reasonable person of normal sensitivities cannot detect odors outside the building. Who determines who's a reasonable person or normal sensitivities That's a pretty vague,vague description. MR. TRAVER-Well it is subjective, but it's difficult to have like a parts per million type standard on something like that. MR. DEEB-I understand that,but somebody could have a real sensitive nose and someone may not smell anything. MR. HUNTINGTON-That is unfortunately the case with odors. We've gone through this on various industrial applications before. I'm sure,Mr. Longacker,you're familiar with the DEC. I don't think that, there are no quantitative values for odors. It is a subjective,subjective measure. MR. TRAVER-This is not a residential area. MR. CHIARAVELLE-Yes. Exactly. It's really just based on complaints. MR. DEEB-Well, if those mitigation plans that you put in effect with fans and everything, hopefully it would keep the odor at a minimum. So it wouldn't permeate outside. MR. TRAVER-Right. MR. CHIARAVELLE-Yes. It's not just one device that's kind of controlling the odor. We are implementing the negative pressure,the charcoal scrubbing of the air flow through the,inside each flower room as well, and the HVAC system also has a third device inside there to scrub that air as well. I mean it's not 1000/o,I can't say 1000/o. Obviously everyone understands that cannabis has a certain smell,but,no, we are putting in all kinds of limitations on making sure that we're on top of that,because I know that's a big concern. MR. DEEB-Hopefully you get a reasonable person,too. MR. CHIARAVELLE-Absolutely. MR. STARK-I'm looking over their odor control plan. It seems pretty extensive, so I don't think it's going to be a huge issue. MR. DEEB-No,I'm not worried about it. I just question the normal person. MR. TRAVER-Anything else before we open the public hearing? We do have a public hearing on this application. Is there anyone in the audience that wants to address the Planning Board on Site Plan 33- 2024 or Special Use Permit 3-2024? Yes,sir. PUBLIC HEARING OPENED JIM SIPLON MR. SIPLON-Good evening,everybody. It's been along time since I've been here. I'm Jim Siplon. I spent a lot of time in this room in another chapter in my life. I lead the Economic Development Corporation of Warren County. I'm also the Economic Development leader for the Town of Queensbury. I come to you S (Queensbury Planning Board 06/20/2024) because I want you to understand the process by which we engage. It's nearly two years old from the first contact that we had with Mr.Chiaravalle. I have to tell you I was a little skeptical at the time. The State's program was in disarray, and I wasn't sure whether or not it made sense for us to try to engage actively when there was no clear line of sight to when the licenses would be issued and even whether all of that was going to come to pass. In that time, Nick has come to see us over, and over and over, constantly looking for information. All the things you asked for,best practices,wanting to know about how other industries beside the cannabis industry address certain concerns,talk to me about how we built buildings for Just Water in terms of flow. Really at the time didn't even know what site he wanted,but he definitely knew that he wanted a site that was going to be,as he said,appropriate for this use,which I think was one that was both properly zoned and not in contention with very close held neighbors. All of this was pretty remarkable to me. Perhaps the most remarkable thing tome was the way that he procured property. We showed him a number of potential spots,some of which might have been maybe easier,and he bought a lot from the County at the back of the Queensbury Industrial Park which we'd been marketing for more than 20 years unsuccessfully. He did this because he felt like that was a good place,not only for this operation, but he thought that would be a good signal for our community to try to develop that Park. I can tell you in all the people that I deal with, and we probably deal with 20 people a month that are making inquiries about developing businesses here,I've never had anybody sit down and say,one of the objectives I have is to figure out how to make this a better step for the community, and if I could help catalyze development at that Queensbury Park, that would be a good thing. I was pretty impressed. Just the same, all the concerns about whether or not this is going to be done well,what are the mitigating factors, also from a business standpoint,how confident was I that this business would be properly funded,whether it would be properly lead. Every resource he's every brought. You see his engineering and design resources tonight, but a year and a half ago they had pretty extensive plans that they were reviewing not only with investors, but with people like me that they had not yet committed to and they were looking for feedback to make sure that they cemented their plan before they made a commitment on property and before they made a commitment on capital. It's a pretty well-thought out plan. We have an active cannabis operation. As you say it's medical in Chestertown, but we have some experience in Warren County. It's been a very productive part of that particular community for as long as it's been there, been not only a positive employer,but a positive community member. I can't find any reason not to support this,and I can tell you that if every entity that we dealt with was as thorough and as concerned about how to make this work as he was,my job would be a lot easier. That said,the full endorsement of the Town's Economic Development community that this is a solid,well-thought out business plan lead by people who are committed to this, have gone through the right training,have asked the right questions,and have engaged the right suppliers, and as the spokesperson for the regional economy,we have, I believe,no choice but to participate in this and I think we need to choose wisely when we do participate in this, finding people who we can believe would be positive attributes to our community. It might be hard,but I think we have one here. MR. DEEB Jim,can I ask you,how long has Etan been up there in Chestertown? MR. SIPLON-Well I've been talking to them for more than eight years. I think the business is even older than that. It was sold. It's now held by a larger, multi-national corporation, but Etan went through a process of potentially re-locating to what's known as Veteran's Park or Tech Meadows, wasn't able to actually secure that,but that was about four or five years ago. Their facilities are much larger than the one that he's proposing here, and in a community that I think might have had some question about that business,but with little or no community concern since they've been in operation. I visited a number of large scale cannabis operations as part of the State's efforts to help expose economic development resources to the emerging business. This is one of the smallest facilities compared to some of the ones that I've already been to. This would be a fraction of the size that most of them are built out at. I think it's another attribute to his application. MR. DEEB-And just as an aside,this is a little easier than Just Water,the process that we went through a lot of years ago. MR. SIPLON-I met all of you through that process. So it turned out wonderful. MR. TRAVER-Thank you very much. MR. DEEB-Thanks,Jim_ MR. TRAVER-Is there anyone else in the audience that wants to address the Planning Board on Site Plan 33-2024 or Special Use Permit application 3-2024? I'mnot seeing any. Laura,are there written comments? MRS. MOORE-No written comments. MR. TRAVER-Okay. Well with that then we will close the public hearing. PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED 9 (Queensbury Planning Board 06/20/2024) MR. TRAVER-As I mentioned as a Board we need to consider SEQR review under SEQR, and an application material was provided to us, a Short Form. Do any Planning Board members have any questions or concerns regarding environmental impacts? Okay. We have a draft resolution. RESOLUTION GRANTING A NEGATIVE SEQR DEC. SP#33-2024&SUP 3-2024 CHIARAVELLE The applicant proposes to construct a 30,OS4 sq ft single story commercial building to be used for cannabis growing, processing and distribution. Project work includes construction of a parking lot and loading dock, stormwater management, landscaping, lighting, and will be connected to municipal sewer and water. Pursuant to chapters 179-2-010, 179-3-040 &r 179-10-040, site plan and for new construction and special use permit for commercial nursery and agricultural services in a CLI zone 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 33-2024 &z SPECIAL USE PERMIT 3-2024 NICK CHIARVALLE.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 20`h day of June 2024 by the following vote: AYES: Mrs. McDevitt,Mr. Longacker,Mr. Stark,Mr. Uncher,Mr. Stefanzick,Mr. Deeb,Mr.Traver NOES: NONE ABSENT: Mr. Magowan MR. TRAVER-All right. Let's talk about the Special Use Permit. A permanent has been requested. As mentioned,it can be revoked under certain circumstances. I think for an investment and operation of this type, permanent is appropriate. Does anyone have any concerns or other suggestions such a duration? Okay. All right. Well are there any follow-up questions before we consider the Site Plan motion? MR. BAKER-It's a resolution for both the Site Plan and the Special Use Permit. MR. TRAVER-Yes. Okay. I guess we're ready. MRS. MOORE-So are you going to adopt the additional conditions? Okay. RESOLUTION APPROVING SP#33-2024&SUP 3-2024 NICK CHIARAVELLE Applicant proposes to construct a 30,OS4 sq ft single story commercial building to be used for cannabis growing, processing and distribution. Project work includes construction of a parking lot and loading dock, stormwater management, landscaping, lighting, and will be connected to municipal sewer and water. Pursuant to chapters 179-2-010, 179-3-040 &r 179-10-040, site plan and for new construction and special use permit for commercial nursery and agricultural services in a CLI zone 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; 10 (Queensbury Planning Board 06/20/2024) As required by General Municipal Law Section 239-m the site plan application was referred to the Warren County Planning Department for its recommendation, and on 6/13/24 the County Planning Department issued a recommendation on No County Impact; 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 6/20/2024 and continued the public hearing to 6/20/2024 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 6/20/2024-1 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 33-2024 &z SPECIAL USE PERMIT 3-2024 NICK CHIARAVALLE;Introduced by Fritz Stefanzick who moved for its adoption. According to the draft resolution prepared by Staff with the following conditions: 1) Waivers requested granted-lighting level; 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 6/20/2025-1 3) Adherence to the items outlined in the follow-up letter sent with this resolution. a) The limits of clearing will constitute a no-cut buffer zone, orange construction fencing shall be installed around these areas and field verified by Community Development staff, b) If applicable, the Sanitary Sewer connection plan must be submitted to the Wastewater Department for its review,approval,permitting and inspection; c) If curb cuts are being added or changed a driveway permit is required. A building permit will not be issued until the approved driveway permit has been provided to the Planning Office; d) If application was referred to engineering then Engineering sign-off required prior to signature of Zoning Administrator of the approved plans; e) Final approved plans should have dimensions and setbacks noted on the site plan/survey, floor plans and elevation for the existing rooms and proposed rooms in the building and site improvements; f) If required,the applicant must submit a copy of the following to the Town: a. The project NOI (Notice of Intent) for coverage under the current 'NYSDEC SPDES General Permit from Construction Activity"prior to the start of any site work. b. The project NOT(Notice of Termination)upon completion of the project; c. The applicant must maintain on their project site,for review by staff: i. The approved final plans that have been stamped by the Town Zoning Administrator. These plans must include the project SWPPP (Storm Water Pollution Prevention Plan)when such a plan was prepared and approved; ii. The project NOI and proof of coverage under the current NYSDEC SPDES General Permit,or an individual SPDES permit issued for the project if required. g) Final approved plans, in compliance with the Site Plan, must be submitted to the Community Development Department before any further review by the Zoning Administrator or Building and Codes personnel; h) The applicant must meet with Staff after approval and prior to issuance of Building Permit and/or the beginning of any site work; i) Subsequent issuance of further permits, including building permits is dependent on compliance with this and all other conditions of this resolution; j) As-built plans to certify that the site plan is developed according to the approved plans to be provided prior to issuance of the certificate of occupancy. k) This resolution is to be placed in its entirety on the final plans. 1) The special use permit will be permanent. m) §179-10-070(FF) (1): The use shall not operate,and the special use permit shall not be valid,until the applicant has obtained any licenses and permits required by the State of New York and any of its agencies for such use. n) §179-10-070(FF)(2):Revocation of special use permit. (a)Any violation of this subsection shall be grounds for revocation of a special use permit issued under this subsection. (b) Revocation or expiration of any license that may be required by New York State for the agricultural service use shall be grounds for revocation of the special use permit. o) §179-10-070(FF) (3):A special use permit granted under this subsection shall have a term limited to the duration of the applicant's ownership and use of the premises as an agricultural services use. A special use permit may be transferred only with the approval of the Planning Board in the form of an amendment to the special use permit. 11 (Queensbury Planning Board 06/20/2024) p) All signage must comply with the applicable requirements of Chapter 140 (Signs) of the Code of the Town of Queensbury. Motion seconded by Ellen McDevitt. Duly adopted this 20`h day of June 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-You're all set. MR. DEEB-Good luck. MR. CHIARAVELLE-Thank you very much. MR. TRAVER-Stu, I wanted to express our appreciation to you. I know you put in an extra effort in addition to the bundle of work that the Planning Office does in support of this application. We appreciate it very much. MR. BAKER-Thank you very much. And I suspect you'll be seeing me again in the near future on others. MR.TRAVER-That's certainly possible. The next section of our agenda is Tabled Items,and the first item is David Howard. This is Preliminary Subdivision Stage 1-2024. TABLED ITEMS SUBDIVISION NO. 1-2024 PRELIMINARY STAGE. SEQR TYPE: UNLISTED. DAVID HOWARD. AGENT(S): HUTCHINS ENGINEERING. OWNER(S): SAME AS APPLICANT. ZONING: MDR. LOCATION: SHERMAN AVE. APPLICANT PROPOSES A TWO LOT SUBDIVISION OF A 25.78 ACRE PARCEL. THE PARCEL WOULD BE DIVIDED INTO 24.70 ACRES AND 1.08 ACRES. THE PROJECT IS LOCATED IN THE MDR ZONE WHICH REQUIRES 2 ACRES FOR LOTS WITHOUT SEWER AND WATER TOGETHER. THE PROJECT SITE IS THE BARRINGER HEIGHTS SUBDIVISION PREVIOUSLY APPROVED FOR SR1A CLUSTER OF 32 LOTS. PER SUBDIVISION 4-2003,LOT NUMBER NOT TO EXCEED 40. UNDER SUB 19-2018, THE PROJECT AREA WAS PREVIOUSLY APPROVED FOR A 4 LOT SUBDIVISION. THE PROPOSED SUBDIVISION WOULD BE 36 LOTS IN TOTAL. LOT lE WOULD BE 24.70 ACRES AND TO BE DEEDED TO PARCEL 308.6-2-18. LOT 1D WOULD BE 1.08 ACRES AND DEVELOPED FOR A SINGLE FAMILY HOME. CROSS REFERENCE: SUB 4-2003, SUB 19-2018, AV 3-2024. WARREN CO. REFERRAL: N/A FOR SUBDIVISION. SITE INFORMATION: WETLANDS. LOT SIZE: 25.78 ACRES. TAX MAP NO. 308.7-1-48.1. SECTION: 179-3-040,183. STEFANIE BITTER&TOM CENTER,REPRESENTING APPLICANT,PRESENT MR. TRAVER-Laura? MRS. MOORE-So yesterday evening the Zoning Board met and they further tabled this application in reference to the subdivision proposal of a one acre lot. The applicant's going to discuss with the Board an alternative subdivision proposal in regards to one that may not need a variance. MR. TRAVER-Okay. Good evening. Welcome back. MS.BITTER-Good evening. Stefanie Bitter with Tom Center. After our visit to the Zoning Board,we are modifying our request to look for a two lot subdivision in which we create a two acre lot. We realize that we will have to return to you,but there are things that we were just hoping to discuss with you briefly that were discussed at last night's meeting and obviously is going to be pertinent to you. In doing such, our lots will be divided as two acres and the remaining lot being 22.7 acres. The lot that will be developed will be on the corner. I was hoping she had a picture up„on the corner of Sherman Avenue and Richmond Hill Drive. So it'll be the furthest distance from the existing homes in the subdivision. The subdivision would allow for the applicant to construct a home on that location, and then retain the 22.7 acres for his own use. It will be hooked to his residential lot which is located at 500 Luzern Road. The last time that you folks heard this matter was in January,and the reason that it was delayed is because there was a letter that was received from a neighbor in the subdivision that was in opposition which alerted us that there was a problem with the existing stormwater system of the subdivision. So Tom Center took it upon himself to then delay this project to investigate what was actually happening and why there were drainage issues,why there were stormwater issues and why it was flooding. Tom will talk to you about what his investigation revealed. He can tell you his efforts and discussions with the Highway Department, but 12 (Queensbury Planning Board 06/20/2024) most of all he can tell you that as the project engineer of this proposal that the two acres we're asking to subdivide off from this 25 acre lot will not exacerbate the problems that the subdivision is experiencing. MR. TRAVER-Well that wouldn't be permitted in any case. MS.BITTER-Absolutely,but just because that was something that wasn't clear and I just want to reiterate not only for your ears but everyone else's. The Town Designated Engineer also reviewed this. He had minor comments,but obviously we're going to be able to handle the runoff stormwater with our proposal in and of itself. As you know with the history of the subdivision, their subdivision was created in 2006. That subdivision had been further modified in 2015,and then the lot that we purchased,or I should say my client purchased, was considered the remaining acreage, and that was part of the 2006 approval. That being said,even though the acreage was remaining,there was no homeowners association that was created. The lot was lost to a tax foreclosure,which is how my client purchased it. There was no proper mechanism in place to keep that in the concept that it had,and now some of you have been on the Planning Board for a while. So you've seen how the concepts have evolved and that protections have to be put in place. The opposition pointed out in their letter that in 2006 there was a condition that was placed on this lot that there should be no further subdivision, and it's also on the map. That condition was obviously lifted and modified with the 201E modification that allowed for further lots,but we're here tonight to try and lift that condition again and ask for you to evaluate what we're suggesting. We know you can't obviously make a determination tonight because we've made a modification, but we want to have this discussion because we appreciate that what we're proposing is not going to have any negative impacts on the problems that they have or are having,however,it may obviously help them,too. This was a cluster subdivision. I think Laura can identify or has identified in her Staff Notes,that part of the cluster subdivision had in mind that it would not exceed 40 lots,and it only has only 35 lots,which obviously this proposal will not exceed this as well. So there was always an anticipation that there maybe further asks,at least that was the concept with the calculation when it was originally discovered. Again,this subdivision has a history. It's evolved. It's our position that it was anticipated that there would be more lots since that 40 lot cap has not yet been reached, and we're doing something that's consistent with what the original intent was to have a conversation about the remaining acreage. That being said,we feel that the applicant in doing this project, can actually assist in kind of tying up this development because there's remaining items that have to be addressed. Number One, we can place a deed restriction on these remaining acres so it doesn't get lost again in a tax foreclosure. Our client wants to land hook it to his residential lot,in doing so would do a covenant that restricts development in the future. Our client's willing to do that, and he's only going to have it for his own enjoyment. The other thing is we have an engineer,all right. They're going to identify the problems that they're experiencing, and they are experiencing stormwater problems, but that stormwater has already been dedicated to the Town, and the evaluations that can correct it are usually done by an engineer, and I think that we can help solve those problems,or at least assist in getting those problems solved in a faster way than they are currently being solved. The remaining lot, or the lot that we're proposing,is upland. It's not in the wetland,and like I said,it's not going to have a negative impact on the stormwater issues. No runoff, no negative impact, and we do understand we're asking for you to lift this condition,but like I said,I feel like this will help button up some of the items and that we can work as a team to move forward. So we're asking for this condition to be lifted which is not inconsistent with this subdivision's history. MR. TRAVER-So a question. You mentioned that there was a condition, no further subdivision at one point,and then you indicated that in the 201E modification that restriction was lifted. Correct? MS. BITTER-It was modified because it was re-instated,the same concept. MR.TRAVER-It was modified,and that as part of the modification was re-instated. So as we sit here there is no further subdivision. MS. BITTER-There's still the same condition that we're asking to be modified. MR.TRAVER-Okay,and the stormwater issues,I understand,Laura,you had mentioned that some of this is part of the Town stormwater system? MRS. MOORE-Correct. It belongs to the Town. That infrastructure is owned and is to be maintained by the Town. MR. TRAVER-Okay. So the Town obviously is aware of the concerns? MRS. MOORE-They are aware. I'm going to let Tom. MR. CENTER-To give you a little history, for those of you who weren't on the Board at the time the subdivision was developed, my former employer, Mr. Nace, was the engineer of record for this. The subdivision has a series of drywells for the subdivision road. They're all interconnected with eight inch perforated pipe and an infiltration trench that connects all of the drywells all the way through the subdivision,around the cul de sac and then it discharges to an outlet pipe out here to another manhole and 13 (Queensbury Planning Board 06/20/2024) then out to Luzern Road and discharges to Luzern Road. During those discussions I've researched a little bit of the file folder,the Town Highway asked to lower the infiltration trench connecting the drywells an additional two feet. So that was installed as per the directive from the Town Highway Superintendent at the time,which was Mr. Travis. Also as part of this project,right in this area right here by the cul de sac, there's a catch basin that accepts overland flow from the wetland and puts it into the stormwater system,which flows out to Luzerne Road. So that's all part of the deed watering that was designed in the original subdivision. What we found,you know, as the neighborhood comments came in,we'd asked to table it so we could look at a little bit further,knowing that it's distal,it's away from where we're asking to develop,but knowing there's a problem in the subdivision,try to be a good neighbor and look at it. It took us a while to actually camera the outlet pipe that goes out through here. We got permission from Highway Department. They had some theories on this. I asked them if they had camerad it,if they had looked at the pipe. They said no. I got permission from them to camera it. We had to wait for the groundwater table to drop down below the inlet pipe. We put the camera in four directions,one from the cul de sac here,one in this direction from this manhole out the other way, and in from Luzern Road, all four directions, at about 40 to 60 feet we found an obstruction in the pipe. We were under water about 20 feet in. We really couldn't get a determination about what was going on there because there were obstructions in the pipe. We couldn't push it any further. So I've been in discussions with the Highway Superintendent about using their truck to water jet the pipe out,because water's still flowing through the pipe. We don't think it's a complete obstruction that would require a cutter or anything like that. One of the interesting things is when we camerad up from Luzerne Road,towards the pipe, as we kept pushing the camera, we had no water flow when we started, we were able to start to get some water flowing towards us, so we know we have an obstruction in the pipe. I gave all this information, showed the locations and the distances,to the Highway Superintendent and said,hey,could we please water jet this out,and then Mr.Howard said if we move forward with this project,we'll camera it again for the Town so we can determine what's going on there. MR. TRAVER-So with the obstruction,obviously the system is backed up. MR. CENTER-The system is backing up. This system has been installed since 2005. I did the perc test inmost of this subdivision from 200E to 2015 or so. We were never apprised of an issue,didn't see an issue at the time, you know, weren't brought into this. I know, you know, 2020, maybe late '1S, '19, 2020, definitely in 2022,which I believe that's where the photos were from was'20,'21 or'22 was when it backed up,you can start to see it. That's about the time when maybe there's a maintenance issue,you know,we have to,before we can say the pipe is too small,we have to look and see the pipe and see if it's working properly. We've found these obstructions. Mr. Howard is willing to,you know,if we go forward and are able to move forward a little bit with this project,he's offered to camera it again for them,because we really couldn't get a determination because we found the obstructions. Also one of the thoughts are maybe with the catch basin that's in the wetlands,there's brush,there's grass around it. It's off in a lawn area or slightly wooded area that we'd be talking with the Highway Department that,you know,if we moved forward, that they would be willing to put maybe a 10 foot apron of stone,take all the brush,take all the debris away from it and try to put a debris catcher in to let the water flow into that structure, and maybe,you know, help out and keep the debris from flowing in. They do maintain,have been out there,you know,sucking out the drywells, cleaning them, but they haven't run anything down the pipe, and it looks like the infiltration trench is working,the pipe. You can see in the pipe between catch basins when we went to camera it. So that really wasn't a problem,but we think because of the dropping of the infiltration trench the two feet,we have a half a percent slope going out to Luzern Road,and there's a possibility that when, during high flow and then low flow,that sediment,things can drop out,and then it becomes a maintenance issue that maybe we need, you know, every three years, four years, water jet it out and keep it from becoming a bigger issue. If that isn't done,then you have this backup that they're seeing now. MR. TRAVER-So are there current plans to perform that water jetting of the pipe? MR. CENTER-The Highway Department was trying to get them. They had several projects. They've had spring cleanup. They've had several emergencies that they've had to fix. They had a problem with the truck being down,but the Highway Superintendent is planning on doing it. I talked with Mark Demers yesterday. He said it's on their schedule to get to. They're trying to get out there to do that. MR. TRAVER-So that would take place regardless of what happens? MR. CENTER-Regardless of whether the project moves forward or not, but they don't have the ability. They don't have a camera out. They don't have that ability to do that, but since we do have some knowledge of the project and understanding how,you know,working for Mr. Nace for so long,you know, the theory of when in doubt make it stout. We feet that it worked for 10 years, maybe we have a maintenance issue,or maybe there could be a problem in the pipe if during construction somebody crushed it. It's only three feet to the top of the pipe. We see that as a problem,and trying to solve it is MR. TRAVER-But you won't know until an attempt is made to clear it out. 14 (Queensbury Planning Board 06/20/2024) MR. CENTER-Those are the things that we can offer in mitigation,plus,you know,having someone like Mr. Howard who has the means to keep the lot open,he doesn't want to see his property flooded either, and keeping it,he's out there. There was an issue,and Laura can attest to this,where he had created some trails after he owned it. It dammed up some water. The water backed up into the neighbor's backyards. The Town was made aware of it. The Town got a hold of Mr. Howard. Mr. Howard came out,fixed that problem,and the water drained away. There was no violation. DEC was involved. There was no problem, but it was addressed as soon as it became an issue from that,and he's aware of that now,but we think we can solve some things,you know, do some things to help solve this problem as part of this project with that,but it's further away from the area that we're actually asking to develop. MR. TRAVER-Right. MR.CENTER-The area that we're asking to develop is the highest point of this lot. It's in the front corner, and we're trying to, you know, like Sherman Avenue when we went and created the park area, the homeowners association, an important thing that Laura and I discussed,we had to make sure that was a nexus that the land couldn't be developed further and to maintain it and keep it on the tax rolls because not only this parcel went for taxes,but also the lupine mitigation on Westberry,there was no mechanism, there was no homeowners association,and that parcel ended up going for taxes,too. So moving forward, we know that when we do these conservation pieces, we have to make sure that we either have a homeowners association or something to tie them in,so that they don't go off the tax rolls. MR. TRAVER-Okay. All right. So for the Board's information this evening, it sounds as though,we're not going to be looking at your original application. You're going to re-design it and come back, I understand perhaps August with an updated plan which would be a two acre as opposed to a. MR. CENTER-The house and the disturbance will stay in the same location. We're just going to change the lot lines and adjust it and make it a two acre parcel that's compliant and not need an area variance. MR. DEEB-I'm just curious,why didn't you start with that? MR. CENTER-Well, the though process,in talking with Staff,was to keep as much in the conservation area as possible, and not have like,I'm going to add,you know,going to the bigger lot,I'm going to add a no cut buffer,probably a larger no cut buffer,in a certain area, so the folks that buy it know they have to keep their development to that higher land. Keeping it one acre,it keeps it to the higher land. When I go to the two acre,now I should give a mechanism,if we're going to move forward,to ensure that,you know, they don't clear the whole thing because we don't want to get into that low line,the other areas. MR. DEEB-Free labor for the Town. I love it. MR. CENTER-Well,we have the attitude,be a good neighbor. That's how I explained it to Dave. MR.TRAVER-We spoke about getting back on the agenda for this project in August. Laura,did you have any preference whether first or second meeting? The draft I have for the tabling motion is for the 27`h MRS. MOORE-So I'd actually keep the 27`h, because the Zoning Board told them that they could have information in by August I". So it's a little bit later than I usually ask for. MR. CENTER-I will try to get it in sooner,but if we could have until August I". I'll make every attempt to get it in sooner. MRS. MOORE-We'll keep that second Planning Board meeting. MR. TRAVER-All right. MRS. MOORE-You also have a public hearing. I don't know if you wish to open that up. MR. TRAVER-Yes. So we're not going to be considering this specific application because they'll be coming back with a modified application. There has been a public hearing notified for tonight. So we will open the public hearing,and we will keep it open,pending your updated information you'll be submitting to us. Are there people in the audience that are part of the public hearing? Okay. Are you,you're aware that the application that we have is not going to be reviewed, that they're going to be coming back in August with updated information. Did you want to comment in any case tonight on some aspect of the application we're not hearing? Okay. All right. So we're going to take some public comment? All right. So the public hearing is open. Yes,sir. PUBLIC HEARING OPEN BRIAN BORIE 15 (Queensbury Planning Board 06/20/2024) MR. BORIE-Good evening. My name is Brian Boric. Last name B-o-r-i-c. I am here today as a residence on Richmond Hill Drive,but I am also a real estate attorney and title attorney. So a lot of this stuff is in my wheelhouse. I want to make two points, and then the rest of my neighbors are going to make more comments about the water and the other conditions in the neighborhood,because that's very important, but some of the things I think we're glossing over, and I know you're not voting today,but I wanted this to be for consideration. Two points that we're glossing over. The first is the history. I'd like to go back a little bit and explain some of the history of this neighborhood,because I read through the 100 some odd pages of minutes on this, and I've seen how it's played out, and this lot, from the beginning,was always intended to be forever wild. Language used by attorney for the applicant at the time,same attorney's office that's representing them this time. MR. TRAVER-Excuse me. Is that part of the deed or some documentation? MR. BORIE-Yes. So that forever wild language, and I'll read some specific language, but that's a quote from an attorney for the applicant on this matter. MR. TRAVER-Would it be possible for you to provide that to Staff so that it's part of the written record? MR.BORIE-It's in the subdivision map. There's three subdivision maps that have been filed. Subdivision maps are binding on all parties. MR. TRAVER-That would be something that would be significant for the Board members to be able to. MR.BORIE-They were submitted with my correspondence,too. So they are part of the record They are three maps,2003 Map B353,2010 Map C164,2019 Map D23. Each one of those maps states the portion of Lot One west of the subdivision road. So that is that. That is to be left deed restricted from any further subdivision. So that's a binding covenant and restriction bled in a map. The applicant is on notice of that. The applicant was on notice of that when he bought the property. MR. TRAVER-Now was that impacted in 20IS? MR. BORIE-No,it was not. So the history is a little bit different. So if you go back to 2003,the minutes always state that the land west of this road. So if you turn the map, this is the west side, this is the east side. Going back to the 2006 approval, that was always stated to be left undeveloped. They left this as one big lot at that time. At that time,there was conversation about,we might re-visit,you know,further subdivision of this portion,at a later date,if the conditions allow. They did do that. They did that in 2019. They came back and they did. They sought a modification to the subdivision,but they did not change the original condition. The original condition that came to this Board and the Zoning Board was that this was always to be left deed restricted from further subdivision. Further subdivision was the language that's filed in the deed. MR. TRAVER-So currently there exists a deed restriction on that property? There currently is a deed restriction prohibiting this project on that property that you reference? MR.BORIE-It's a condition of bled map which in title law is the equivalent of a deed restriction. Correct. MR. TRAVER-So it is not a deed restriction. MR. BORIE-It is a conditioned restriction on a bled map. MR. TRAVER-Okay. All right. MR.BORIE-Which in title law has the same effect. If I had a client who was buying this property,I would tell them it's not marketable, and I have done that with clients before. The other point I want to make is that Mr.Howard bought this property at a foreclosure sale. So at a foreclosure sale,you're buying it quick effects. When you do that, when my client's going to buy at a foreclosure sale, I warn them that buyer beware. You're stuck with what's in the title. Things such as conditions in deeds filed maps,just like we have in these filed maps here. Mr. Howard's essentially asking for forgiveness,not permission. If I had a client that came to me and said I want to buy this property, I'd say, well you should probably get a condition in your contract that you get this approved prior to you spending that money. So Mr. Howard spends the money,and now he's trying to get some money back by subdividing it here. Now he could have just attached this to the property he has,have some vacant land,use it for whatever conservation purposes he wants, but he wants to sell the lot now,but the problem is, deed restriction, map restriction says he can't. MR. TRAVER-So it sounds as though we are headed for a civil dispute. MR. BORIE-Correct Correct. 16 (Queensbury Planning Board 06/20/2024) MR. TRAVER-I'm sure you're aware that this Board does not get involved in civil actions. That's something that the courts resolve. It could impact on it when we might hear his project, but if this is engaged,has been any filings or any civil action take to date to prevent this from occurring? MR. BORIE-No,there has not. MR. TRAVER-Are there plans to do so? MR. BORIE=Depending upon how this goes,potentially. MR. TRAVER-Okay. I guess I'm a bit confused because if it can't go forward because it's not possible, how can it go, I guess you're going to have to explain to me how could something be approved if it's forbidden by the law that's on this map or whatever? MR. BORIE-That's my question. I'm of the position that this Board cannot approve this subdivision because of it's prior determinations, because of the history that this Board has gone through on this subdivision,the conditions that it's placed. Now these are conditions that this Board placed,and then 34 lot owners bought into this subdivision based upon those conditions. So you have both the private restriction between us and Mr.Howard and you also have essentially the contract that this Town has made with the owners of this subdivision when they approved it on those conditions and we bought into it,you know,with that understanding that it was going to be forever wild. MR. TRAVER-Okay. Question for Staff obviously. Do we need to talk with counsel to get an opinion on this? MRS. MOORE-You can talk with counsel,but this is no different than any other subdivision or any other condition. If you, the Board, issued, a condition, you, the Board, can change the condition. So the applicant's coming to you, wishes to change the condition. That's the same with every other condition that's been before this Board. MR. TRAVER-I see. Okay. Thank you. MR. BORIE-And I would respectfully disagree with that on a legal point with the Court of Appeals case that I've included in my paperwork, basically states that there is no point to imposing conditions on property and filed maps and approvals if they cannot be enforced in the future,then,you know,what's the point? Why would you do that if you could just change them at a later date. So,like I said,is more of a legal point,but I'm going to let,you know,my neighbors talk a little bit more about the other things that they have concerns about,including the water,but also the proposed location of that lot. That lot is right on the corner of Upper Sherman,which as you can tell from the pictures is a very blind corner. In this neighborhood we have about 30 children that go to the bus stop there. We've requested that the Town of Queensbury move the bus stop to cross street right there,which they have refused to do. So we now have children up here and potentially a new driveway coming out right there. So you've got essentially three directions where cars could be coming from. So you're creating a dangerous situation as well. MR. TRAVER-Well that would be a site plan review issue that's quite a ways away from us tonight. MR. BORIE-Sure. Yes. Exactly. MR. TRAVER-But that would certainly be something that would be brought up at Site Plan. MR. BORIE-So I'll let my neighbors speak. MR. TRAVER-Okay, and I would just add, for the Board and for the audience, with the number of individuals that are seeking to speak this evening, we typically have a three minute limit on public comment, and with the number of folks that are going to be speaking tonight, I am going to implement that for this evening. So who wants to come first ASHLEY SCHWARTZ MRS. SCHWARTZ-I'm Ashley Schwartz. I live at 12S Richmond Hill. Miss Bullard was actually our realtor when we bought the property in 2015. She can attest to the realtor that we bought from. He did tell us numerous times that that lot would be forever wild. MR.TRAVER-Before you begin,I would add,too,that also,in fairness to other applicants and other public speakers, as well as the Board, I'd ask that when members of the public that want to comment on this project come up, not repeat information that we've already received. So we've already received lengthy comment regarding the questions around deeds and the maps and so on which are going to be investigated. So if you have other concerns,please feel free to comment, and that would go for other public speakers as well. So go ahead. 17 (Queensbury Planning Board 06/20/2024) MRS.SCHWARTZ-Yes. So I know that Mr.Howard has done work on the pipes over here and this whole side of the road does flood. However,this is where I am. The problem is all of this is wet. It's very,very wet. In the spring this whole thing is water, all back here, all inhere. There's like a lake back here. So our basement right now, our pump is running 24 hours a day because there's so much water. We have two dehumidifiers in our basement because that's how bad it is. I know that they say that it's on a high spot,but it's all cumulative. I mean the water is running down that way. So you start pushing dirt and where's the water going to go? It's going to go down towards us. So we're very concerned about what's going to happen to our foundations. So even though there might be a blockage in the pipe over here,this really is the issue,the wetlands over here. MR. TRAVER-As designed,it's an integrated,just so you know,and I'm not an engineer. MRS. SCHWARTZ-Right,neither am I. MR. TRAVER-But I can tell you that the system is designed to be somewhat integrated. So if there's blockage in that opposite corner,even though it's some distance away from where your home is,it's going to have an impact. MRS. SCHWARTZ-Yes. MR.TRAVER-And that's going to be addressed,as already has been mentioned,regardless of whether this project goes forward. MRS. SCHWARTZ-One other thing I just want to mention is when Howard bought the property, he moved some dirt inhere. These three houses, their whole backyards are flooded,with just a little bit of movement of dirt. So what's going to happen when he starts bringing in equipment and moving a bunch of dirt,what's going to happen to all these houses right here? MR. TRAVER-Well, stormwater is a very important part of site plan review. So any development obviously would have to take that into account. That would be an important part of any review, and it sounds like it's going to be,at least the existing system maintenance,is going to be going ahead in any case. So you should see some relief with the stormwater. Someone else? So again,we've had comment on the deed restriction,and now stormwater. Do you have something else? JUSTINE AMEDEN MRS. AMEDEN-I'm at 9S Richmond Hill. Justine Ameden. I just wanted to point out that,you know,I think the flooding has been happening,I've been living at this residence for three years. So flooding's been happening for about,I'd say five,six,longer than that,but notably,I know for at least five to six years we've called the Town of Queensbury to have the flooding situation rectified. So it's kind of hypocritical,from MY standpoint4 that now,because Mr. Howard is deciding to put cameras in,that suddenly all this stuff is going to be addressed. So I just want to point out that,you know, as everybody's pointed out,Town of Queensbury should rectify the stormwater issue,regardless. We've had water up to waist in front of our house,which is at the lowest point of the neighborhood over here,and,you know,it's been five years since they,they come and pump it out when we call,but no long term plan has been addressed. MR. TRAVER-Okay. Thank you. MRS.AMEDEN-Yes. MR. TRAVER-Someone else? Okay. Thank you. Are there written comments at this point,Laura? MRS. MOORE-There are written comments,but they've all identified similar items,but what I'll do, I'll just identify that there's nine letters. They're all in opposition, and they go through the same details that Mr.Boric had gone through. MR. TRAVER-Okay. Thank you. So the audience, again,is aware. I think I mentioned this before,but the public hearing,this project is going to be tabled this evening,but the public hearing is going to remain open on this. Okay. So when they come back,it sounds as though we're going to be looking at an August date for them to go back and modify their application. They'll be back in August,and we will,again,have an opportunity for public comment and in the meantime I'm sure there'll be some more research done. So with that,go ahead,anything that you want to add? MR. CENTER-Do you have anything additional that you want us to include in our re-submission? MR. TRAVER-Well I'm not sure. I'd throw that out to members of the Board. They're going to be modifying the size of the lot they're seeking,obviously. They will not need to go to the Zoning Board if they're above two acres. 1S (Queensbury Planning Board 06/20/2024) MR.DEEB Just a comment. I've been on the Board along time,and I've seen several projects come through our Board and a lot of them do become very adversarial, and I potentially see this one becoming very adversarial also,and it seems to me that we get put in the middle several times as a Board when something like this happens. MR. TRAVER-That's what we get the big bucks for. MR. DEEB-Well, I like to think outside the box a little bit here and if this is going to go to the courts,it would be much better for us if it got solved first and then came back. MS. BITTER-We're problem solvers. We try. MR. DEEB-Stef,I've known you a lot of years. I understand that. MR. TRAVER-Yes,obviously if this becomes a civil matter. MS. BITTER-We've already reached out to Mr. Boric. We've discussed what we've expressed to this Board,that we feel like this could be a great working relationship,but we obviously have no only Mr.Boric to talk to. MR. DEEB-Okay. MS. BITTER-About the notation,we differ on our opinions,like I said,I feel that it would be best to have Mark Schachner weigh in on Mr.Boric's arguments. MR. TRAVER-Okay. MR. DEEB-I like that. MS. BITTER-Because we agree with Laura. MR. TRAVER-All right. Well right now let's concentrate on the motion to table,and decide on the date. Laura,I'm sorry,where were we on the date" MS. BITTER-August 27`h MR. TRAVER-The 27`h was all right? Okay,and you have a copy of that draft? MR. STEFANZIK-Yes,I do. MR. TRAVER-Is the Board ready to hear that draft tabling resolution? Okay. Go ahead. RESOLUTION TABLING SUB#1-2024 PRELIMINARY STAGE DAVID HOWARD WHEREAS,Applicant proposes a two-lot subdivision of a 25.7E acre parcel. The parcel would be divided into 24.70 acres and LOS acres. The project is located in the MDR zone which requires 2 acres for lots without sewer and water together. The project site is the Barringer Heights subdivision previously approved for SR1A cluster of 32 lots. Per subdivision 4-2003,lot number not to exceed 40. Under SUB 19- 2015,the project area was previously approved for a 4 lot subdivision. The proposed subdivision would be 36 lots in total. Lot lE would be 24.70 acres and to be deeded to parcel 30S.6-2-IS. Lot 1D would be 1.OS acres and developed for a single-family home. MOTION TO TABLE SUBDIVISION PRELIMINARY 1-2024 DAVID HOWARD.Introduced by Fritz Stefanzick who moved for its adoption, Tabled to the August 27,2024 Planning Board meeting with information due by August 1,2024. Motion seconded by Ellen McDevitt. Duly adopted this 20`h day of June 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-See you in August. MR. DEEB-To be continued. 19 (Queensbury Planning Board 06/20/2024) MS. BITTER-Thank you. MR. TRAVER-The next item on our agenda, also under Tabled Items,is Foothills Builders/Meads. This is Site Plan 69-2023, Petition of Zone Change 1-2023, which actually is not any longer, Freshwater Wetlands Permit 12-2023. 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-Laura? MRS. MOORE-So this application,again,the Petition of Zone Change has been granted and we're now at the site planning stage. The applicant has provided an updated site plan for you to review and take a look at. They are still subject to responding to Town Engineer, but they really wanted to come back to this Board to see what your thoughts are on this proposal versus the original proposal. MR. TRAVER-Okay. Thank you. Good evening. Welcome back. MR. MEYER-Mr. Chairman, again, for the record, my name is Jeff Meyer. I'm an attorney with Meyer, Fuller and Stockwell, and with me is Matt Huntington of Studio A Engineering. So what we have is a revised proposal that essentially pulls the buildings into the center. Hearing the comments that we're receiving from the public about resecting the property lines and building in as many buffers as humanly possible and we did just that, and I think there were some Staff comments that reference, you know, reduced parking, the removal of,you know, a community building, and those were done intentionally to try and maximize green space and try and provide essentially as large a setback as possible to the folks that were most concerned with the proximity of the building. It is a less intensive development. The stormwater hasn't been updated. We absolutely will do all the required engineering and respond to all the details and the particulars of the engineering comments and questions if the Board and the public essentially are receptive to the revised plans. We've been before you,before the Town Board essentially promising to be responsive to the public once we get to that stage,but,you know,this is us putting forth that effort in hopes to have a better project that's more acceptable to the community. MR.TRAVER-Sure. Well,for my part,I can say that I think that your updated plans are an improvement. The impact is somewhat lessened. There's fewer buildings. The arrangement I think is better. So how far along are you in terms of the engineering comments and so on? MR. HUNTINGTON-Well, really we are kind of pivoting on this meeting to get the feedback from the Board and the public on this, and essentially what we will do is, if we go forward with this, we'll be responding to the engineer in the letter with this new design which makes a lot of their comments moot and part of the previous design. We'll describe that in the letter, obviously. However, our stormwater management was adequate for a more intensive development. So I mean I see zero concerns about the ability to make this work from a stormwater perspective. MR.TRAVER-Okay. So,theoretically,what if we were to hear comment,obviously Board,looking at your updated project,have you tabled and come back with engineering signoff. That way the engineering,in terms of stormwater and soon,especially stormwater. I know that's one of the concerns. If you have TDE signoff,you'd becoming back to us with a clean engineering report. Would that work? It's a hypothetical. MR. HUNTINGTON-Yes,I mean hypothetically that seems reasonable. MR. TRAVER-All right. Very good. Questions,comments from members of the Board? MR. LONGACKER-I like the new layout a lot better,too. The concern I have regarding stormwater, I haven't seen the engineer's comments,but I'm kind of referencing your newer plan versus your older plan. 20 (Queensbury Planning Board 06/20/2024) So again maybe the engineer had come up with this, too, but I'm looking at your stormwater ponds, especially the one like in the, I guess it would be the northwest corner,the existing pond,you don't have an aquatic bench or a safety bench in there. I mean that could really extend the width of your ponds out, both benches and,I'd have to take a look in the stormwater manual,but I think they may be 15 feet to 10 feet,so that's like 25 feet in each direction. You're really pinned. Obviously you can't go to Meadowbrook Road, nor can you go to the north towards the existing property. So you have to go either,you know, towards the development. Beforehand you didn't have that one unit there, and I think you have the adequate room to do that. You can't go to the south because you have your access road there. So that's something I think you have to take a look at,the layout of your buildings,because I think your ponds would have to get considerably larger and may limit locations in that area. Again, the engineer may have commented on that before. So I apologize if they already have,but you may want to take a look at your benches. You also need an access road to your outfall structure,which would actually make it even a little bit awfully larger,too,so just take a look at those. MR. HUNTINGTON-Yes,we're actually kind of at a little bit of a gray area here because this was done in the old manual. They released a 2022 update that the Town Engineer has adopted for us to review on,but during the old manual these were actually pocket ponds,which pocket ponds didn't have the same aquatic bench. MR. LONGACKER-I think the pocket ponds still actually have those requirements. MR. HUNTINGTON-I don't believe they have the aquatic benching,but either way,what we'll probably do when we revise this is we're going to be probably looking at something similar to what we did in the wetland anyway,because the pocket pond has been phased out with the new manual. MR.LONGACKER-They're relatively deep,too. So you're going to lose a volume of water. That's another question,too. Did you do any test pits out thereby chance? MR. HUNTINGTON-We have not yet. MR. LONGACKER-Okay. I'd really recommend that,too,just kind of looking at the plan there. Again,I don't have the new one printed out. So I'm looking at the old one here. It looks like Test Pits One and Two are in areas where you had the garage finished floor previously. That was actually in the water elevation. So I think more of those would be very,very helpful. MR. HUNTINGTON-Certainly. MR. TRAVER-Other questions,comments? MR. DEEB-I don't know if I can follow that. What is the buffering system,the northern side of the back buildings on the line,the property line,is there any buffer in there? MR. HUNTINGTON-On the commercial one? I believe our original one had some plantings in there and we'll upgrade that as part of this,provide a buffer between that commercial zone and here. MRS. MOORE-So they need to, the requirement or the guidance is 50 feet on either side. So that is a planted buffer. The Board would be evaluating if it's less than 50 and determining whether to grant that as a waiver. MR. TRAVER-Do you anticipate that has less than 50 feet for a buffer? MR. HUNTINGTON-Yes,it would be around the 25 yard setback on the commercial side that's there. I think those are commercial buildings on that end. So the native buffer is really from the property owner from a commercial,not flip around maybe. MR. STEFANZIK-I think this is a nice improvement, especially since I know the public had significant concerns about the screening and the buffering and stuff. Question, though, on this larger buffer here, basically on all the buffers. When I took a walk back here around December,what I surprised to see,that back area has got Siberian Spruces. They've got dogwoods. They've got maple trees. These were all planted many years ago, and these are beautiful trees. Right. They've grown very nicely. Can you use any of those? Can you transplant any of these or is some of this buffer where those trees are now? MR. HUNTINGTON-Yes, a little of both. Just based on preliminary conversations I've had with the applicant. They'd like to utilize as much of that nurtured side as they can,because,one,it's already there. MR. STEFANZIK-But will all of this buffering area have large trees and evergreens so that the neighbors can't see through there? 21 (Queensbury Planning Board 06/20/2024) MR.HUNT INGTON-So that has yet to be designed. Right now,you know,we're herewith a conceptual plan. MR. STEFANZIK-Okay. MR. HUNTINGTON-We haven't proceeded with the full detailed site plan yet. MR. STEFANZIK-Okay. MR. TRAVER-You're aware,however, that that screening from the residential side is a critical aspect of this. So that's something that you're really going to want to pay attention to when you comeback. MR. HUNTINGTON-Sure. MR. STEFANZIK-And just following up on that,and I don't know if Mr. Longacker's comment about test pits was heading in this direction. There was also comment from the public regarding the wetland that's there right now. What's the condition of that wetland? If all of these trees and shrubs and evergreens were planted,could there have been fertilizer used to enhance the growth? Could some of that fertilizer have gone into the wetlands? So the question is,you know,coming back,what is in those wetlands? Are there, is there fertilizer or contamination or anything in the wetlands? I think that was one of the comments that came back from the public and I think there may be a good chance that there has been fertilizer used thereto grow these trees that were back there. Mr. Longacker,I'm not sure if your test pit question was heading in that direction, but it would be good if that could be addressed also when you come back. MR. HUNTINGTON-I don't know we would address any,I mean there's lots of wetlands, and we're not proposing any disturbance to these wetlands,and there are lots of areas,you know, State and Town,that there could be wetlands that have fertilizer in them. Here we're not planning on disturbing anything because we're staying right away from them. So whatever is in there will remain. MR. STEFANZIK-But I would think you'd want to make sure they're not contaminated. People,children running around there,whatever. I'm just throwing that out there. That would be one of my concerns or questions. MR. TRAVER-So you'd be asking them to test the water? MR. STEFANZIK-Well,has anybody,has the DEC,has anyone looked at that and determined that there's nothing wrong with that section of the property? MR. MEYER-There haven't been any soil tests or sampling,no. It's my understanding the DEC's policy is to avoid wetlands and don't disturb. Our stormwater design is intended to essentially keep water out of the wetlands,aside from what they naturally flow into it,essentially avoid at all costs. Any disturbance of the wetlands will be a DEC violation. So we're trying to avoid it. We're fairly certain there were fertilizers used on the property,but there is nothing to point to contamination of a piece of real estate that would be unsuitable for residential development. MR. HUNT INGTON-There was a,I think it was an IA,1B environmental assessment report prepared for this property,and it didn't identify any hazardous material. MR. STEFANZIK-Okay,and when was that done? That was part of the original? MR. HUNTINGTON-Two years ago,three years ago. MR. STEFANZIK-And that wetlands was part of that inspection? MR. HUNTINGTON-It was part of the property,yes. It was a pretty comprehensive inspection. There was no specific sampling on the wetland. MR. STEFANZIK-Okay,and the other question, and it's probably part of the stormwater report that you guys are doing. The neighbors had complained, and I did see this back in December, that we had some very heavy rain. A lot of Meadowbrook,right past the pond,was flooded. A lot of flooding on the outskirts of the property. Is the stormwater report going to be addressing that? MR. HUNT INGTON-Yes,it has to actually. I mean Stormwater 101 is your post construction conditions have to be releasing less flow and volume than the pre-development conditions. So at a very minimum there'll be less runoff leaving the site. MR. STEFANZIK-Okay. So that'll be part of the report that we'll get. 22 (Queensbury Planning Board 06/20/2024) MR. TRAVER-And they'll come back with an engineering signoff,and that will include stormwater. MR. STEFANZIK-Okay, and then the final one. Then I'll hand over the floor. The question about the crosswalk,safety,the whole thing with the school. How is that being addressed? My understanding is t that the kids that are going to be there, they're going to have to walk to the school. Has there been any arrangements or anything done from a safety standpoint how those kids are going to get there? I don't know if buses are going to come. My understanding is buses won't come. Just any feedback on that. MR. HUNTINGTON-I mean the applicant's kind of hamstrung in that situation because Ridge Road is a State DOT owned road. So we can't propose a crosswalk or,you know, I mean it has to go through the DOT. MR. MEYER-And Glens Falls is absolutely walking district. There's not going to be buses. MR. STEFANZICK-There's not going to be sidewalks either,unless you cross that road,it's Ridge Road. MR. MEYER-We do know that the school district can handle children. We do know from similarly sized developments that there are large numbers of children that generally accompany these types of developments. Just kind of looking across the street at the numbers in Fowlers Square,similar places. So we don't think there's going to be a major impact or a large influx of necessarily families with kids that are going to need to be walking to school. MR.TRAVER-Other questions,comments from members of the Board? We do have a public hearing this evening. Is there anyone in the audience that wants to address the Planning Board? Yes,ma'am. I think you were first. Excuse me. Before you begin, a couple of things. One is we do not have a completed application yet because they have to do the engineering and so on. The other point I want to make is that in previous public hearings we received a lot of comment regarding traffic and sidewalks and all that kind of thing. So we would appreciate it,in fairness,if you had new information to offer,we would like to hear that. Okay. Go ahead. PUBLIC HEARING OPEN JACKIE CORDELL MRS. CORDELL-Well I do have a letter from my next door neighbor who could not make it. My name is Jackie Cordell for the record, 349 Ridge Road. Is it okay forme to read her letter? Should I give it over there? MR.TRAVER-Well,actually it would be best if you gave it to Staff so it could be part of the written record. MRS. CORDELL-Okay. MRS. MOORE-Are you reading it into the record yourself? MRS. CORDELL-That's what I'm asking. Am I reading her letter into the record myself,or am I giving it to you to read? MRS. MOORE-If you would read it,then that would be fine. MRS. CORDELL-All right. It says Dear Planning Board Members: I am writing to express my deep concerns regarding the proposed development of 64 units adjacent to my private property residence. As a homeowner in the vicinity I'm particularly apprehensive about several key aspects, namely, lighting, fencing,privacy and noise. Given the proximity of the proposed development to my residence, adequate screening measures are crucial to maintaining the quality of life for myself and my family. One,lighting. I am concerned about the potential impact of excessive lighting from the development on the ambience of our neighborhood as well as the potential intrusion of light pollution into my property. Fencing. A sturdy and aesthetically pleasing fence is essential to delineate boundaries and preserve privacy and security of my property. I urge careful consideration of fencing options to mitigate any visual or special encroachments. Privacy. Preserving the privacy of my home is paramount. I request robust screening measures to safeguard against any undue visibility into my property from the proposed development, and noise. Given the increase in population density with the addition of 64 units I am concerned about potential noise disturbances that disrupt the tranquility of my residence. Adequate noise mitigation measures must be implemented to address this concern. I kindly urge the Board to prioritize these concerns during the planning and development stages of your project. Your attention to these matters is crucial in ensuring the harmonious coexistence of existing and future residents in our community. Thank you for considering my concerns. Sincerely, Tanya Sommers, 353 Ridge Road. As for my points, I agree with what she said, and then regarding the community space, it's a requirement when you have greater than 50 units for there to be a community space, and that was removed from the plans, and I'm just kind of curious as to what the plan for a community space,if it is not a building,would be. Is that some,is there 23 (Queensbury Planning Board 06/20/2024) going to be like a basketball court there or something,or is it kind of going to push the flow of community gatherings further into back where my yard is and around those areas, or towards the pond, which has questionable environmental impacts. Just a suggestion,maybe swapping out to kind of tackle the density concerns that we have, maybe swapping out one of the home units, the four units for the community building that was removed. Maybe replacing,and that would reduce some density,make the neighborhood a little happier and yet fulfill that need. A question about parking being removed. I'm just curious as to where overflow car,say a residence would have a gathering at their home,and they only have two parking spaces,where would the additional cars park? Would they be allowed to park within that access road, throughout their lot,or is this going to be something that starts creeping out onto Ridge Road in front of our houses? I was curious about the timeline of what the project would take, as far as how long construction is going to last, and then I believe they answered my question, but you had mentioned the engineering report seems kind of unresolved,and the stormwater report. So just to clarify,like there's no decision that's going to be made tonight? Because there seems to be some missing. MR. TRAVER-No. MRS. CORDELL-I just wanted to clarify that you didn't need these to actually make your decision. That's it. MR. TRAVER-Thank you. Who's next? Yes,sir. VINCE MORIARTY MR. MORIARTY-Good evening. My name is Vince Moriarty. Just a quick note on traffic. I have some issues. I will not address them, other than just to remind people that there's an extremely dangerous intersection between Meadowbrook and Ridge, which is right where I live. On a monthly basis I see accidents because there's an ambiguous yield situation that's right where the school,there's a lot of school traffic coming through. So I just want to remind you,there was a traffic study. They didn't address that, so I just wanted to,just keep it in your mind. MR. TRAVER-We've taken comment on that. MR. MORIARTY-All right. Thank you. I will spend,I'll keep this brief,talking about the pond and the wetland in general. MR. TRAVER-We've received comment on the pond and the wetlands. MR. MORIARTY-I do have new information. MR. TRAVER-Okay. Go ahead. MR. MORIARTY-In particular there was a question about water testing being done. I think Mr. Meyer, in the last meeting that we had,the Town Board,he made a comment that there were 100's of ponds like this one. I mean no one really knows what's in there. No one's had any testing done. MR. TRAVER-Actually there has been testing done. DEC did a review of the property. MR. MORIARTY-Te sting of the water. We actually went out and had our own testing done of the water. It was sent out to a certified lab. We collected a sample from there,and I'll highlight some new information I want to bring here. I want to highlight two things that were found in the tests. The first is the levels of aluminum in the sample. EPA has very specific toxic exposure levels at 4,500 micrograms per liter of aluminum. Aluminum is highly toxic to fish. It suffocates them, collects in their gills. This is a contaminant of concern. Our sample found 9,940 micrograms per liter. So that's more than two times the one hour toxic exposure. So if you can think a fish exposed to half the level that we found in therefor one hour is going to. MR.TRAVER-Do you have a written copy of that report that can be submitted to the Town for the record so it's part of the written record of the project? MR. MORIARTY-I do. I have removed my personal information on here,redacted it out,but I can submit this. MR. TRAVER-That's fine. Please do. And that can be provided to the Town Engineer for review. MR. MORIARTY-Please,yes. I think it's important information to distribute. Okay. So aluminum,big problem. To the point that there area lot of ponds that have this. I went through the DEC database. They have, pardon me here, 49 different water bodies where they tested for aluminum. The highest, second highest was 225 micrograms per liter. The highest was 1,000. So again we're looking at 9,000 micrograms per liter in this pond. So this is not unlike any other pond found in the DEC database. The USGS has a 24 (Queensbury Planning Board 06/20/2024) similar database. Out of 421 measurements,only eight were higher than what we found in the pond,and those were all water treatment backwash effluent. Sothis is majorly disturbed pond. The other thing I'll point out in the report,phosphorus, 3,OSO micrograms per liter of phosphorus. Again, DEC,water,there are 20,000 plus measurements of total phosphorus. Of all those measurements,only one was higher than what we found in the pond. Sothis pond is what is known as hypertrophic. Not surprising given the history of land use,like decades of fertilizer runoff. MR. TRAVER-Excuse me, sir. Do you have documentation of the,who took the sample and where the sample was taken,all the documentation in terms of what is the term for the possession of the. MR. LONGACKER-Chain of custody? MRS. MOORE-Chain of custody. MR. TRAVER-Yes,chain of custody. Yes,that would be critical to determine if this is a valid sample. MR. MORIARTY-I took the sample. This is what I would call an exploratory sample. I'm putting this out here. My final recommendation would be that someone needs to go in there and test it. I can't test the pond as it should be because I would be trespassing. MR. TRAVER-That's what I wondered. Thank you very much. MR. MORIARTY-But I will point out I am a water scientist. I am trained in this. So I do know how to take a sample. I do know how to preserve a sample,and I'm familiar with this lab. MR. DEEB-You took the sample and gave it to the company? MR. MORIARTY-I took the sample and sent it to the company. They analyzed it. It's a certified lab in Massachusetts. MR. TRAVER-Anything else? MR. MORIARTY-Yes,one last point. I do want to point out that,the amount of phosphorus there,if you drive by there you can see that there's a severe algae bloom This is, algae blooms are known to be toxic. So this is a concern for people who are living there,not only in terms of exposure,but also alga blooms have been known to have air toxins. So people living within that area are prone to issues such as asthma but also longer term chronic issues,and just one last point on stormwater since this has come up. I know that there's still being changes to the stormwater plan,but all the stormwater plan has bioretention ponds that eventually feed into this pond. If you look here,everything eventually feeds into this pond. The concern here is the bioretention ponds or whatever they choose are going to clean up the storm runoff, but that runoff all ends up into this pond and then that's increasing the flow into the wetland across the street. So I mean I do have,not so much concerns about stormwater in the traditional sense,but any excess water. There's a lot more impermeable surface that's going to end up in that pond which is going to flush out and potentially contaminate the wetlands next door. MR. DEEB-When did you take the sample? MR. MORIARTY=It's on the,I just gave her what I had to date. MR. DEEB-Okay. MR. MORIARTY-It was some time in March. MR. TRAVER-Thank you,sir. Someone else? Yes,sir. BRIAN STRAUB MR. STRAUB-My name is Brian Straub,and I do want to talk about the pond. Twice before,I tried to talk to you about the pond, Twice you said it was the wrong time to talk to you about the pond. So I want to repeat a couple of things he said to reinforce them. The aluminum,which is very dangerous to fish and amphibians. It's toxic. The amount of aluminum in that pond is fatal,but children. MR. TRAVER-We don't know that the aluminum that was spoken about before is a valid sample. We don't have a report from our engineer supporting. MR.STRAUB-Which if you'll let me continue you'll see where I get to on that. At that level,the aluminum in there is toxic to fish and to amphibians. MR. TRAVER-But you're talking about a hypothetical,sir. 25 (Queensbury Planning Board 06/20/2024) MR. STRAUB-It's a certified test done by a certified laboratory. MR. TRAVER-We don't have that information. MR. STRAUB-Okay. If you don't want to listen to this information,all I can say. MR. TRAVER-I'm just saying it's hypothetical. We don't even have the completed plans for the project. MR. STRAUB-Okay. So you're telling us to come back again later? MR. TRAVER-Well we certainly will leave the public hearing open throughout this process. MR. STRAUB-Okay. So then I guess. MR. DEEB-Well,Brian,do you have anything different to add? MR. STRAUB-Yes,I have information that has not been reported,yes. MR. DEEB-We've been told about the aluminum. We've been told about the phosphorus. MR. STRAUB-Are you aware of the danger of aluminum to children who would be living there? MR. DEEB-He made us aware of that. MR. STRAUB-Are you aware that dogs die regularly from licking their coats or from getting wet in water that has algae blooms,and if you consider a 50 pound dog dying from this,a 50 pound child who lives right next to it and goes into it. You're talking about risks to people,children, and the environment out there. I'll just summarize this,because this is the most serious concern of the neighborhood. This is a toxic pond. You can dismiss this thing,that test,but right now that test shows,from a certified laboratory,shows that we don't know the extent of the problems. We know there's ridiculously high amounts of aluminum and phosphorus,both of which are dangerous to humans because of the algae blooms. The algae blooms can go,they're aerosolized. They can go 13 miles,but you're putting residents 50 feet,75 feet away from algae blooms. You want to go up and look at it,you'll seethe blooms. They are dangerous to people. If the Board,if you folks,don't take this seriously,we're not anti-development in the neighborhood. We're not anti this development. We are concerned about a lot of things, but the pond is the biggest danger. If you're not going to get an independent agency to go out and do a test of this pond, and make something public, so people can see exactly what's in that pond. There's probably a lot more bad stuff in there that we didn't test for. If you're not going to do this, if you don't take this seriously, the neighborhood will probably have to take you to court to make this happen,because it's a danger to people and to the wetlands, to the people who are going to be living there. All we're trying to do is to say,look,get this pond properly tested by an independent agency. Not by the developer,not by the neighbors. Get an independent source to go out and test it,see what's there and then figure out what you have to do to mitigate the risks to people who are going to be living right around there. That's the point we're trying to make. MR. DEEB-Brian,we take our job seriously. MR. STRAUB-I understand that. MR. DEEB We look at this and we're very careful about it,and we try to be very serious about everything that comes before us, no matter what it is. Those algae blooms have been there for a while and nothing has been there. So the neighbors have been exposed to that? MR. STRAUB-Most likely but if you have more water going through there,which you will,because right now if you look at the plan, all the water that's been flowing over, that's been flowing in various ways. Some of it has ended up in the pond,but not all of it. The new stormwater collection is going to collect all of it and fill,all of that will go through two collection ponds,but cleaned,but then go through two culverts right into whatever is in that water in the pond. It's going to increase the flow into the pond. That's going to increase the flow ofwhatever's in that pond,across the street,into the wetlands and it's going to increase the velocity of that,which itself can increase the aerosolization of the toxins from the algae bloom MR. DEEB-But the danger is high right now. MR. STRAUB-There is danger that is not recognized right now,yes. MR. DEEB-Again,all the neighbors are exposed to it. MR. STRAUB-We all are technically. If you go,when I was talking to the gentleman from the County last September about that pond,he was looking up on the maps,he said,oh my God,he said,you can see this 26 (Queensbury Planning Board 06/20/2024) pond from satellites. He said it's neon green. That's the algae bloom. Wind picks that up,and there's all sorts of dangers to people, from nervous systems to, you know, kidneys and livers. It's a dangerous situation in that pond that has not been recognized because nobody has really been thinking of it,but,yes, there's a danger right now. MR. DEEB-Okay. Thank you. MR. TRAVER-Thank you. Is there anyone else that wants to address the Planning Board on this application tonight? We will be leaving the public hearing open. Does the applicant want to return to the table. So more public comment. You've heard additional concerns. Let's see,there was traffic. There were questions about,a lot of concern with clarification of the stormwater plan,stormwater management plan, and obviously concerns that a hypothetical test showed, on that test at least, that there was some contamination of some kind, that there's algae in the pond. I think most ponds have algae. It was suggested that it was a HAB,Hazardous Algae Bloom. We don't have anyway of knowing that specifically but that was a concern. Do you have any comments,response for any of that? MR. HUNT INGTON-The pond not so much. Again,we're not disturbing it as part of this. From what I understand algae blooms actually have to be exposed to it. MR. TRAVER-Well an algae bloom isn't hazardous. There are specific species of algae that can create cyanobacteria and all of that kind of thing. It's called a HAB. I'm sure you've heard of that. We're very familiar with that. So I understand that you're not planning,you're certainly not planning on disturbing that as part of your plan, but you can understand that should there be some contamination or specific hazards to humans in this pond, that having a residential facility in proximity to that pond would be a concern. MR.HUNTINGTON-Yes,certainly,and I mean most hazards to humans in water sources have to do with drinking water sources. That's where most of the EPA's guidance and regulations come from. Again, I mean,no one should be in the pond. No one should be drinking out of the pond. We're not intending on disturbing it. Yes, I could quiet concerns about stormwater because, again,in order, stormwater design 101 is in order for me to get this approved,there ahs to be less flow entering and leaving the site than there is currently. Right now actually all of the stormwater on the site leaves through that culvert. It's the lowest point on the site. It slopes down. It all goes to the pond. It all leads to a culvert,to the wetland on the other side. So what we'll be doing is it will be actually reduced flow rates leaving the site and reduced volume. So there will actually be less water going to the pond by putting stormwater practices on there. MR. TRAVER-Than there is now. MR. HUNTINGTON-Than there us now. MR. DEEB-So you're saying there's more water going into the wetlands now and there'll be less water going in once you use stormwater mitigation. MR. HUNTINGTON-Yes. MR. MEYER-This property itself is essentially the low point on Meadowbrook. So you'd have,you know, a lot of Meadowbrook is carried along Meadowbrook into this pond through that culvert. MRS. MC DEVITT-However,I'm sensitive to the fact that,yes,there are children there and animals,that sort of thing. That's not been a condition that's been there before that could pose danger because you now have residents there. MR. MEYER-If it warrants like putting a split rail fence or something around the pond to keep people out, that's certainly something that's within reason that could be installed as a condition,or whatever condition you wanted to keep people out. MR.HUNT INGTON-As well as signage. I mean you routinely create ponds as a stormwater management practice in the first place on a lot of development projects. Typically there's signage associated with it that says not for swimming,not for drinking. MR.TRAVER-Well I think what's different in this case is,and again,we don't have valid information,but hypothetically because of a prior use of the property there maybe some contamination there. I don't know, Laura,if that's something that we would share with the engineer. MRS. MOORE-You typically haven't,but if this Board wishes them to take a look at public comment. MR. TRAVER-Yes, I think that's something that I would like to see the Town Engineer be aware of and look at that comment. 27 (Queensbury Planning Board 06/20/2024) MR. DEER-I think we should clarify whether those blooms are HAB or not I think that wouldn't be too hard. MR.TRAVER-Well that's simple. You can tell those by looking at that,but,yes,let's make sure the Town Engineer is aware of those discussions,because potentially,even though right now it's purely hypothetical, but there is certainly a potential there for an issue and that could affect site plan review as we go forward because there may be some need to separate the pond in a more dramatic way than what's proposed from residents of the area. MRS. MOORE-You typically don't,but I don't mind. MR. TRAVER-Understood, but that's why I'm saying how, and that makes it more important that we clarify if there's an issue there. MRS. MOORE-Okay. MR.TRAVER-So we'd like to have that information. All right. So,and as we began our discussion this evening,we talked about coming back with a signoff from the engineer. So how long do you think that process might take? MR. HUNTINGTON-A few months in order to re-design this whole thing and then go back and forth between them,you know,on various iterations of the comments. MR. TRAVER-Okay. So July,August. So do you think you could have all that together by August 15 for a September meeting? MR. HUNTINGTON-I think it would be tight. We could certainly try. MR. TRAVER-Do you want to try for an October meeting? MR.HUNTINGTON-We can try for a September meeting I guess. Worst case scenario we'll have to table again. MRS. MOORE-Okay. MR. TRAVER-Okay. Do you have any preference for the first or second meeting? I know that's a ways off. MRS. MOORE-I would do it as the first meeting. MR. TRAVER-That would be the 17`h,you said. Okay. So then let's table to September 17`h. We'll leave the public hearing open. MRS. MOORE-I apologize. We're going to move it to the second meeting. MR. STEFANZIK-The 24`h MR.TRAVER-Okay. Tabled to September 24`h. So information would need to be to Staff by August 15`h Okay. So a couple of things for the public and the audience,we would next,unless it's tabled again,for some reason,we would next hear this application on September 24`h. The public hearing is open and would be open at that meeting and will remain open. The applicant, as part of this tabling motion that we'll be making in a minute, will have until August 15`h to submit the updated information to the Town. So it should be available on the website at some point after that and before the September 24`h meeting. Let's see,anything else,Laura? MRS. MOORE-I don't have anything else. MR. TRAVER-All right. Can we get a tabling motion? MR. STEFANZIK-Yes. RESOLUTION TABLING SP#69-2023 FWW 12-2023 FOOTHILLS BUILDERS/MEAD'S Applicant proposes a zone change of a 10.99 acre parcel from Commercial Intensive to Moderate Density Residential. The project includes construction of 16 buildings with 4 units each as well as community building and paths. Site Plan review pending Town Board and Planning Board Petition of zone change review. Pursuant to chapter 179-3-040, 179-10-040 and chapter 94, site plan for construction of a new 2S (Queensbury Planning Board 06/20/2024) multifamily building and work within 100 ft of wetlands shall be subject to Planning Board review and approval. MOTION TO TABLE SITE PLAN 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, Tabled until the September 24,2024 Planning Board meeting with information due by August 15,2024. Motion seconded by Ellen McDevitt. Duly adopted this 20`h day of June 2024 by the following vote: AYES: Mr. Stark,Mr. Uncher,Mr. Stefanzick,Mr. Deeb,Mrs. McDevitt,Mr. Longacker,Mr. Traver NOES: NONE ABSENT: Mr. Magowan MR. TRAVER-Good luck. MR. DEEB-Good luck. MR.TRAVER-The next section of our agenda is New Business,and the first item is New Business and also Unapproved Development. This is Boguslaw&Anna Bielecki. NEW BUSINESS—UNAPPROVED DEVELOPMENT: SITE PLAN NO.35-2024 SEQR TYPE: TYPE 11. BOGULSAW&z ANNA BIELECKI. OWNER(S): SAME AS APPLICANT. ZONING: MS. LOCATION: 71,69&z 67 MAIN STREET. APPLICANT REQUESTS APPROVAL OF PROPERTY MAINTENANCE REMOVAL OF SCRUB BRUSH AND TREES IN ORDER TO MARKET PROPERTY AND ELIMINATE TRESPASSERS. HEALTHY TREES WERE PRESERVED AND GRASS/MEADOW AREA IS MAINTAINED. PURSUANT TO CHAPTER 179-3-040, SITE PLAN FOR TREE AND BRUSH REMOVAL IN THE MAIN STREET ZONE IS SUBJECT TO PLANNING BOARD REVIEW AND APPROVAL. WARREN CO. REFERRAL: JUNE 2024. SITE INFORMATION: MAIN STREET. LOT SIZE: 0.54 ACRE,0.47 ACRE,0.62 ACRE. TAX MAP NO. 309.10-1-51,309.10-1-52,309.10-1-53. SECTION: 179-3-040. BOGUSLAW BIELECKI,PRESENT MRS. MOORE-This applicant requests approval for the property maintenance rule of scrub brush and trees in order to market the property and eliminate trespassers. Healthy trees have been preserved,grassy meadow area is maintained currently. The applicant proceeded with this clearing without approvals as they were notified that they were notified that there were transients,vagrants on the property,living on the property. So that's what prompted it without approval,simply to clean it up and to get it marketable and then they were notified by Bruce that that sort of development,that sort of clearing actually triggers Site Plan Review. MR. TRAVER-All right. Thank you,Laura. Good evening. MR. BIELECKI-Good evening,Board members. MR. TRAVER-So can you,I'm just curious,can you talk a bit about the trespassers living there? MR. BIELECKI-Yes. My neighbors called me,this was about a year and a half ago. MR. DEEB-Sir,could you identify yourself? MR. BIELECKI-Yes. My name is Boguslaw Bielecki. I'm the owner of that particular property. About a year and a half ago my neighbor called me that there is someone living in the woods. So went in. I investigated,then I didn't find anyone,but there were sleeping bags and blankets and clothing and a lot of trash. MR. TRAVER Just out in the open,no shelter at all? MR. BIELECKI-No,this was like in the back of the property surrounded by overgrown trees such as the invasives, the sumacs and vines and you couldn't even see it from the street,but the neighbor spotted it and I went in and I cleaned up a little bit and then about a month later it happened again,and that's when I came to the conclusion that the best thing would be to clean up,to open it up a little bit so you can see right through the property. 29 (Queensbury Planning Board 06/20/2024) MR. TRAVER-I see. Okay,and the property is for sale? MR. BIELECKI-At this moment,yes,it is for sale,yes. MR. TRAVER-Okay. So basically the only reason you're here this evening is because that you did this removal of the scrub brush without prior approval. MR. BIELECKI-Without prior permission. MR. TRAVER-So what you're asking of us tonight is simply to approve basically what you have done. MR. BIELECKI-Basically,yes,ask for forgiveness if I may. MRS.MOORE-I believe,is there still some brush that still needs to betaken off the site? I can't remember. MR. BIELECKI-Yes,the stuff that I cleared. MRS. MOORE-So there's still some items on the site that will need to be removed,and they were waiting until they get through this process before they removed that. MR. STEFANZIK-But no more tree cutting. MR. BIELECKI-No more tree cutting. MR. DEEB-Did you call the police? MR. BIELECKI-No,I didn't call the police. No,sir. MR. DEEB-That might have been the first step. MR. BIELECKI-Probably,but like I said,no one was there at the time and I've seen this before. This isn't the first time,not on my property,but I've seen on others. MR. DEEB-Your pictures are a little hard to see in the dark. MR. TRAVER-There is a public hearing on this application. Is there anyone in the audience that would like to address the Planning Board on this application,Site Plan 35-2024? MRS. MOORE-There are no written comments. MR. TRAVER-All right. Any other questions,comments from the Board? Anyone have any issues with granting this unapproved development? Okay. We have a draft resolution. And I'm going to close the public hearing. PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED RESOLUTION APPROVING SP#35-2024 BOGUSLAW&ANNA BIELECKI Applicant requests approval of property maintenance removal of scrub brush and trees in order to market property and eliminate trespassers. Healthy trees were preserved and grass/meadow area is maintained. Pursuant to chapter 179-3-040,site plan for tree and brush removal in the Main Street zone 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 6/20/2024 and continued the public hearing to 6/20/2024 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 6/20/2024-1 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, 30 (Queensbury Planning Board 06/20/2024) MOTION TO APPROVE SITE PLAN 35-2024 BOGUSLAW&z ANNA BIELECKI;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,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; 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 6/20/2025-1 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 Ellen McDevitt. Duly adopted this 20`h day of June 2024 by the following vote: AYES: Mr. Uncher,Mr. Stefanzick,Mr. Deeb,Mrs. McDevitt,Mr. Longacker,Mr. Stark,Mr.Traver NOES: NONE ABSENT: Mr. Magowan MR. TRAVER-You are all set,sir. MR. BIELECKI-Thank you so much. MR. DEEB-Good luck. MR. TRAVER-The next section of our agenda is Old Business, and the first item is Robert &r Heather Mulholland. This is Site Plan 25-2024 and Freshwater Wetlands permit 2-2024,which we last heard on Tuesday. OLD BUSINESS: 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. 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 APPLICANT,PRESENT MRS. MOORE-So nothing has changed with this project. The applicant received the variances that they requested. MR. TRAVER-Okay. All right. Thank you. Good evening. Welcome back. 31 (Queensbury Planning Board 06/20/2024) MR. HALL-Good evening. For the record,Ethan Hall,principle with Rucinski Hall Architecture. With me tonight are Robert and Heather Mulholland,the owners of the property. I would make one update to what Laura said. At the Zoning Board last night, we did agree to change the driveway to permeable pavement to further increase the permeability of the site. That was one of the things that they suggested. We're fine with that. It increases our permeability from,we were at,originally the existing lot is 56.54. We were increasing it to 67.250/o. With the permeable pavement it increases it to 69.130/o. MR. TRAVER-Okay. The location and dimensions of the driveway aren't changing? Only the materials you use? MR. HALL-Only the materials. MR. TRAVER-So maybe on your final plans for Staff you can update that detail. MR.HALL-We will. We'll have to update that and clarify those numbers,but I went through the numbers this morning just to make sure that we were there. Otherwise,we spoke last night, and we spoke at the Tuesday night meeting. We're pretty much set with where the building is. We are reducing,pulling away from a couple of things we talked about with the Board last night. We're trying, there's a stream that runs along,it runs kind of north/south. It's coming,it's the drainage that comes out of the wetland into Lake George. We're pulling our stuff away from that and we're grabbing the water coming off of the roof and getting it into the ground where right now it just comes off the roof and runs across the water. It runs toward the land and into the water. We do have a very small amount of shoreline on this. MR. TRAVER-Right. So that's an improvement to stormwater as well. MR. HALL-Correct. That's what we're looking at. We're trying to take up all the hard surfaces that we can. In front of the building now there are two patios that are hard surfaces. Those are coming out and being replaced with impervious material so we can get that into the ground. We're making the deck that's out there right now,we're actually making the deck smaller,but our FAR goes up because we'd like to put the roof over the top of the deck so that it can be protected. That way we can also capture the rainwater that comes off of that, get it into the ground,whereas now it's, the deck actually kind of slopes towards the lake. So it runs off of that deck and into the pachysandra that's in front of it. MR. TRAVER-Okay. MR. HALL-Those are really the issues that we went through last night and we'll open it up for your questions. MR. TRAVER-Very good. Questions, comments from members of the Board? There is a public hearing on this application this evening. Is there anyone that wants to address the Planning Board on Site Plan 25-2024 or Freshwater Wetlands permit 2-2024? Yes,ma'am. PUBLIC HEARING OPENED FLORENCE CONNOR MRS. CONNOR-I'm Florence Connor and I'm a neighbor,not a friend but a neighbor,and I am completely in agreement with this project. I know I've been to the Board many,many times,and I've always been very critical,and I'm very,very protective of Lake George. I've been therefor,I won't tell you how many years, but in this little bay, and I'm very aware of that little area where the stream comes in. It's not really a stream. It just empties the wetlands, and I see that this family is very aware of everything we've been aware of in this small bay. When you see what they're going to do to the,well,first of all the house, I've known that house since I was 10 years old,and that house needs to come down. It is very poorly built. I watched it being built. I know who built it. They were not construction people. It's a dangerous house. So,you know,the fact that they will be able to take it down,it will only be an improvement. The fact that they are putting in areas that will protect the water,because there'll be grasslands and there'll be plantings. It's just,this is such an improvement of what is there,or was therein the past. These people have,without a doubt they're very careful. Everything they've done has been something that's been appreciated by the neighborhood and I did go through my neighbors and I did ask them if they had a problem_ No one had a problem that I approached. So unless you have a question for me,I would just say that the house needs to be taken down. The fact that it's just about the same footprint. It's been there. It fits there. It's a very odd lot. It needs to be, and I think it's sort of adjusted to itself as a footprint, and the fact that they're taking off the glass house on the side, again, going to replace it with grass or whatever they,you know, some kind of plantings. Again,that's a very good thing to do because that is an area where the water does come down, the water would go into an area that would maybe go into the lake in a bad rainstorm. The fact that they're removing so much blacktop is incredible. So I think,you know,no matter what I can say, I would say as a neighbor who has been very critical, even critical of this family before they bought the house,I'm in absolute favor. Thank you. 32 (Queensbury Planning Board 06/20/2024) MR. TRAVER-Thank you,ma'am. MR. DEER-Do we need to vote now? MRS. CONNOR-If you have a question,because,seriously,I've been in the area for a number of years and have seen a lot happen. Thanks. MR. DEEB-Thank you. MR. TRAVER-Yes,thank you,ma'am. MRS. MOORE-So I do have some public comment letters. MR. TRAVER-Okay. MRS. MOORE-So this is addressed to Chairman Steve Traver. "I am writing to you on behalf of the Mulholland Family and their pending rebuild. Heather, Rob and their girls are great neighbors. They were wonderful to my mother, who has since passed away. They continue to be amazing neighbors. Heather and Rob have sent a detailed outline of their construction plans and will plan to keep us updated as the construction moves along. They have been nothing but transparent with their plans. I am in total agreement for them to build. I am confident they will do everything correctly and follow the guidelines set forth by the Town of Lake George. I recommend this construction without hesitation. Please feel free to contact me with any questions. Sincerely,Jessica Halse Kneer" "Please let this letter serve to confirm our full-fledged support of our direct neighbors located at 23 Brayton Lane, Lake George, NY in their upcoming process of reconstructing what will be their permanent home at this location. I personally have been on Lake George for the past 35 years at 25 Brayton Lane with my family. It would be wonderful to see Rob &Heather Mulholland enjoy the lake year-round! We were given a fully detailed and written explanation of the upcoming build and both my wife and I hold no grievances towards this improvement. In fact,we encourage the project. It is refreshing to see that local residents want to live on the lake for the entire year not just seasonally. We have seen the over-development of homes from `out of the area' residents flourish over the years and we feel it is just as important to support and encourage our local residents to make Lake George their year-round domain. Having permanent residents be located on Assembly Point year-round would certainly be an asset to our community. Thank you. Joshua Mackenzie Halse" And then"My husband and I are neighbors of Heather and Rob Mulholland. We have reviewed the plans they have for their new home on Brayton Lane. We think they should be given approval.. Thank you. William P. Roberts Pamela S. Roberts" MR. DEEB-Wow,you just broke all the records. We've always had negative and not positive like that. MR. TRAVER-Is that all of the written comment,Laura? MRS. MOORE-It is. MR. TRAVER-Okay. Then we'll go ahead and close the public hearing. PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED MR. TRAVER-Other questions,comments from members of the Board? All right. I guess we're ready to move into a resolution. RESOLUTION APPROVING SP#25-2024 FWW 2-2024 ROBERT&HEATHER MULHOLLAND 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. 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 6/1S/2024; the ZBA approved the variance requests on 6/19/2024-1 33 (Queensbury Planning Board 06/20/2024) The Planning Board opened a public hearing on the Site plan application on 6/20/2024 and continued the public hearing to 6/20/2024 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 6/20/2024-1 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 28-2024&z FRESHWATER WETLANDS 2-2024 ROBERT&z HEATHER MULHOLLANDI-Introduced by Fritz Stefanzick who moved for its adoption. According to the draft resolution prepared by Staff with the following: 1) Waivers requested granted: g. site lighting, h. signage, k. topography, n traffic, o. commercial alterations/construction details, q. soil logs,r. construction/demolition disposal s. snow removal as the proposed project is in a similar location as the existing home; 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 6/20/2025-1 3) Adherence to the items outlined in the follow-up letter sent with this resolution. a) The limits of clearing will constitute a no-cut buffer zone, orange construction fencing shall be installed around these areas and field verified by Community Development staff, b) If applicable, the Sanitary Sewer connection plan must be submitted to the Wastewater Department for its review,approval,permitting and inspection; c) If curb cuts are being added or changed a driveway permit is required. A building permit will not be issued until the approved driveway permit has been provided to the Planning Office; d) If application was referred to engineering then Engineering sign-off required prior to signature of Zoning Administrator of the approved plans; e) Final approved plans should have dimensions and setbacks noted on the site plan/survey, floor plans and elevation for the existing rooms and proposed rooms in the building and site improvements; f) If required,the applicant must submit a copy of the following to the Town: a. The project NOI (Notice of Intent) for coverage under the current 'NYSDEC SPDES General Permit from Construction Activity"prior to the start of any site work. b. The project NOT(Notice of Termination)upon completion of the project; c. The applicant must maintain on their project site,for review by staff: i. The approved final plans that have been stamped by the Town Zoning Administrator. These plans must include the project SWPPP (Storm Water Pollution Prevention Plan)when such a plan was prepared and approved; ii. The project NOI and proof of coverage under the current NYSDEC SPDES General Permit,or an individual SPDES permit issued for the project if required. g) Final approved plans, in compliance with the Site Plan, must be submitted to the Community Development Department before any further review by the Zoning Administrator or Building and Codes personnel; h) The applicant must meet with Staff after approval and prior to issuance of Building Permit and/or the beginning of any site work; i) Subsequent issuance of further permits, including building permits is dependent on compliance with this and all other conditions of this resolution; j) As-built plans to certify that the site plan is developed according to the approved plans to be provided prior to issuance of the certificate of occupancy. k) This resolution is to be placed in its entirety on the final plans Motion seconded by Ellen McDevitt. Duly adopted this 20`h day of June 2024 by the following vote: AYES: Mr. Stefanzick,Mr. Deeb,Mrs. McDevitt,Mr. Longacker,Mr. Stark,Mr. Uncher,Mr. Traver NOES: NONE ABSENT: Mr. Magowan MR. TRAVER-You are all set. MR. HALL-Thank you very much. Thank you for your time. MR. TRAVER-The next item on the agenda, also under Old Business, 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 34 (Queensbury Planning Board 06/20/2024) 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. OF THE SHORELINE SHALL BE SUBJECT TO PLANNING BOARD REVIEW AND APPROVAL. 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&r CONNOR DE MEYER,REPRESENTING APPLICANT,PRESENT MR. TRAVER-Laura? MRS. MOORE-Okay. So again this is a project to remove the existing home and garage and to construct a new home and attached garage. Last evening at the Zoning Board of Appeals they were granted their variance,and there's been no changes to this project. MR. TRAVER-Okay. Thank you. Good evening. Welcome back. MS. BITTER-Good evening. Stefanie Bitter, together with Connor DeMeyer. As was discussed here before you on Tuesday night, this is a .75 acre lot which our client is re-building. They're removing the house that's currently there with the garage and they're creating a six bedroom house with an attached garage. With that they're also going to be installing a new wastewater system,new stormwater devices, permeable pavers, as well as a stone walkway to the shoreline. We obviously obtained the variance last night or I wouldn't be here,and other than that we have met all the bulk requirements. We're maintaining as much vegetation as possible. The whole point of that setback variance was to keep the new building envelope where the building is now,and we did talk about it the last time that the water source is the lake, and the four and a half ceiling height in the basement. I'll turn it over to Connor,if you have any questions. MR. DE MEYER-Yes,Connor DeMeyer,Environmental Design Partnership. As Stefanie explained,we're doing a new wastewater system for the property,and new stormwater as well where currently none exists. We're actually moving a lot of the hard surfacing out of that 50 foot setback. On the existing conditions plan we have a pretty good sized concrete patio with stairs that go down towards the lake, pushing everything back and,you know, doing permeable pavers for a patio there,really decreasing permeability on site and I think it's just a great overall improvement. MR.TRAVER-Okay,and as I understand it,and Laura reported,the project as it stands tonight is identical to the one we reviewed Tuesday night? MS. BITTER-Correct. MR. TRAVER-Okay. Questions,comments from the Board. MRS. MC DEVITT-So the flooding that occurs on the roadside in front of that house is significant with any kind of rain,is that being at all considered in the design? MR. DE MEYER-On Assembly Point Road? So that's actually not this property. There's one in between Assembly Point Road and our property. The flooding there is a totally different property. We're actually back and a little bit lower. We're like the same elevation,roughly,as Assembly Point Road there,and we don't, ours does not drain off that way. Ours all drains towards the lake, but, yes, that is a separate property. MR. TRAVER-There is a public hearing on this application as well. Is there anyone in the audience that wants to address the Planning Board on Site Plan 32-2024? I'm not seeing any. Are there written comments,Laura? PUBLIC HEARING OPENED MRS. MOORE-There are no written comments. MR. TRAVER-Okay. Then we will close the public hearing. PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED MR. TRAVER-Is the Board comfortable moving forward? Okay. We have a draft resolution. 35 (Queensbury Planning Board 06/20/2024) RESOLUTION APPROVING SP#32-2024 RED BARN CONTRACTING 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. 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 6/1S/2024; the ZBA approved the variance requests on 6/19/2024-1 The Planning Board opened a public hearing on the Site plan application on 6/20/2024 and continued the public hearing to 6/20/2024 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 6/20/2024-1 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 32-2024 RED BARN CONTRACTING; Introduced by Fritz Stefanzick who moved for its adoption. According to the draft resolution prepared by Staff with the following: 1) Waivers requested granted: h. signage, j. stormwater, n traffic, o. commercial alterations/ construction details, q. soil logs,r. construction/demolition disposal s. snow removal as they are related to commercial requirements; 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 6/20/2025-1 3) Adherence to the items outlined in the follow-up letter sent with this resolution. a) The limits of clearing will constitute a no-cut buffer zone, orange construction fencing shall be installed around these areas and field verified by Community Development staff, b) If applicable, the Sanitary Sewer connection plan must be submitted to the Wastewater Department for its review,approval,permitting and inspection; c) If curb cuts are being added or changed a driveway permit is required. A building permit will not be issued until the approved driveway permit has been provided to the Planning Office; d) If application was referred to engineering then Engineering sign-off required prior to signature of Zoning Administrator of the approved plans; e) Final approved plans should have dimensions and setbacks noted on the site plan/survey, floor plans and elevation for the existing rooms and proposed rooms in the building and site improvements; f) If required,the applicant must submit a copy of the following to the Town: a. The project NOI (Notice of Intent) for coverage under the current "NYSDEC SPDES General Permit from Construction Activity"prior to the start of any site work. b. The project NOT(Notice of Termination)upon completion of the project; c. The applicant must maintain on their project site,for review by staff: i. The approved final plans that have been stamped by the Town Zoning Administrator. These plans must include the project SWPPP (Storm Water Pollution Prevention Plan)when such a plan was prepared and approved; ii. The project NOI and proof of coverage under the current NYSDEC SPDES General Permit,or an individual SPDES permit issued for the project if required. g) Final approved plans, in compliance with the Site Plan, must be submitted to the Community Development Department before any further review by the Zoning Administrator or Building and Codes personnel; h) The applicant must meet with Staff after approval and prior to issuance of Building Permit and/or the beginning of any site work; i) Subsequent issuance of further permits, including building permits is dependent on compliance with this and all other conditions of this resolution; j) As-built plans to certify that the site plan is developed according to the approved plans to be provided prior to issuance of the certificate of occupancy. k) This resolution is to be placed in its entirety on the final plans 36 (Queensbury Planning Board 06/20/2024) Motion seconded by Brady Stark. Duly adopted this 20`h day of June 2024 by the following vote: AYES: Mr. Stefanzick,Mr. Deeb,Mrs. McDevitt,Mr. Longacker,Mr. Stark,Mr. Uncher,Mr. Traver NOES: NONE ABSENT: Mr. Magowan MR. TRAVER-You're all set. MR. DE MEYER-Thank you. MS. BITTER-Thank you. MR. TRAVER-Is there any other business before the Planning Board this evening? MRS. MOORE-So just to make sure people understand for next month's July agendas that we will have two full meetings. I'm assuming it will go a little past nine again. MR. TRAVER-Were we also going to have another Special Meeting? MRS.MOORE-We are going to have another Special Meeting with West Mountain. I have not scheduled that yet. MR. TRAVER-Okay. Because I think we talked about July possibly. MRS. MOORE-We did,but they are not available towards the end of July which is when this room would be available. So I'm going to get them into August or early September. We will see. MR. TRAVER-Okay. If there's nothing further,then,for this evening,I'll entertain a motion to adjourn. AUDIENCE MEMBER-I had one quick clarification. MR. TRAVER-The public. AUDIENCE MEMBER-I'm aware this is not,I just want to clarify something legally that was said up here. MRS. MOORE-Is that something you'd want to discuss with Staff? MR. TRAVER-Yes,it sounds like something you might want to discuss with the Department. AUDIENCE MEMBER-It was something that was said on the record. It's just a point of clarification,not from public comment. MR. DEEB-Have we adjourned? MRS. MOORE-We're not adjourned, but, I mean, you do have any other further business. So it's not unheard of to have a communication from the public. MR. TRAVER-Let's first adjourn. Let's entertain a motion to adjourn. MOTION TO ADJOURN THE QUEENSBURY PLANNING BOARD MEETING OF TUNE 20TK 2024,Introduced by Ellen McDevitt who moved for its adoption,seconded by David Deeb: Duly adopted this 20`h day of June,2024,by the following vote: AYES: Mr. Deeb,Mrs. McDevitt,Mr. Longacker,Mr. Uncher,Mr.. Stark,Mr. Stefanzick,Mr. Traver NOES: NONE ABSENT: Mr. Magowan MR. TRAVER-We stand adjourned. Thank you,everyone. On motion meeting was adjourned. RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED, 37 (Queensbury Planning Board 06/20/2024) Stephen Traver,Chairman 3S