Loading...
08-27-2024 (Queensbury Planning Board OS/27/2024) Q UEENSBUR YPTANNING BOARD MEETING SECOND REGULAR MEETING A UGUST 27Tr,2024 INDEX Subdivision No. 1-2024 David Howard 1. PRELIMINARY STAGE Tax Map No. 30S.7-1-4S.1 Subdivision No. 7-2024 Native Partners,LLC 21. PRELIMINARY STAGE Tax Map No. 30S.16-2-14 Subdivision No. S-2024 FINAL STAGE Site Plan No.52-2024 Native Partners,LLC 30. Tax Map No. 30S.16-2-14 Site Plan No. 43-2024 True North Cannabis,LLC 39. Tax Map No. 2SS.-1-5S Site Plan No. 46-2024 Ann&Jay Dixon 41. Tax Map No. 239.17-1-12 Site Plan No. 47-2024 Gregg Nolte 43. Tax Map No. 239.12-2-10 Site Plan No. 4S-2024 Mountain Vista Properties/Chris Racicot 45. FURTHER TABLING Tax Map No. 315.6-2-12,315.6-2-15 Site Plan No.51-2024 Glens Falls Country Club,Inc. 46. Tax Map No. 296.E-1-12,2S9.1S-1-37 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 OS/27/2024) QUEENSBURY PLANNING BOARD MEETING SECOND REGULAR MEETING AUGUST 27TK,2024 7:00 P.M. MEMBERS PRESENT STEPHEN TRAVER,CHAIRMAN FRITZ STEFANZICK,SECRETARY WARREN LONGACKER DAVID DEEB BRAD MAGOWAN BRADY STARK KIMBERLY BULLARD,ALTERNATE MEMBERS ABSENT ELLEN MC DEVITT LAND USE PLANNER-LAURA MOORE STENOGRAPHER-MARIA GAGLIARDI MR.TRAVER-Good evening,ladies and gentlemen. Welcome to the Town of Queensbury Planning Board meeting for Tuesday,August 27`h,2024. This is our second meeting for the month of August and our ISth meeting thus far for the year. In the event that we have an emergency,we do have emergency exits that are illuminated in red,so please make note of those locations in case that were to happen. If you have a cell phone or other electronic device,if you would either turn it off or turn the ringer so as not to interrupt the recording of our meeting for the minutes. We also ask that if you wish to have a conversation amongst yourselves, aside from the public hearings that we will hold on some of the applications,please go to the outer lobby for that because, again,we do record the meeting and when there's conversations going on it can be difficult to transcribe the meeting minutes. With that,we have one administrative item to discuss, and that is next month there is a desire to accommodate some planning to have a third meeting in the month of September, and we're wondering Board members that are available on Thursday, September 19. Everybody. Okay. Laura,it looks as though the full Board is available for the 19`h. So in that case what we will then do next is we will pass a resolution creating that meeting for September 19, and we have a draft resolution to that effect. RESOLUTION TO HOLD A THIRD MEETING IN THE MONTH OF SEPTEMBER 2024 It has been proposed to add a third Planning Board meeting for the month of September 2024; Available possible dates have been confirmed with the Activity Center; A meeting for Thursday,September 19,2024 is requested to be added to the calendar; MOTION TO APPROVE A SEPTEMBER 19, 2024, PLANNING BOARD MEETING DATE. Introduced by Fritz Stefanzick who moved for its adoption,seconded by Warren Longacker. Duly adopted this 27`h day of August 2024,by the following vote: AYES: Mr. Deeb,Mrs.Bullard,Mr. Longacker,Mr. Stark,Mr. Magowan,Mr. Stefanzick,Mr. Traver NOES: NONE ABSENT: Mrs. McDevitt MR.TRAVER-All right. Thank you,everybody. Now we move to our regular agenda. The first section is Tabled Items,and the first item is David Howard. This is Subdivision Preliminary Stage 1-2024. 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. (REVISED)APPLICANT PROPOSES A TWO LOT SUBDIVISION OF A 25.78 ACRE PARCEL. THE PARCEL WOULD BE DIVIDED INTO 23.62 ACRES AND 2.16 ACRES. THE 23.62 acre parcel will remain vacant and the 2.16 acre parcel will be developed for a single family home. THE NEW RESIDENTIAL LOT WILL HAVE A NEW HOME WITH ASSOCIATED SITE WORK. PURSUANT TO CHAPTER 183,A TWO-LOT SUBDIVISION SHALL BE SUBJECT TO PLANNING BOARD REVIEW AND APPROVAL. CROSS REFERENCE: 2 (Queensbury Planning Board OS/27/2024) 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 this application has been revised. It no longer needs an Area Variance. It's a two lot subdivision of a 25.7 acre parcel. The parcel would be divided into 23.62 acres and a 2.16 acre. The 2.16 acre parcel would be developed with a single family home and the remaining property would be associated with the adjoining parcel,not so much adjoining but near to this parcel. MR. TRAVER-Okay. Thank you. Good evening. MS.BITTER-Good evening. Stefanie Bitter,for the record. We started this discussion a few months ago. We're just asking for a two lot subdivision,but the wrinkle is the notation that was on the map. When we were before you last month we started with a one acre. Now we've increased it to the two acre lot so it is compliant for the zoning it's in. The remaining acreage will remain with the applicant. He will land hook it to his personal residence and use it for permitted recreational purposes. That being said,the two acre increase will also incorporate a restrictive buffer. The development area will be that one acre in size that we had discussed at the last meeting we were at. Also at the last meeting there were neighbors that came forth with items of concern that incorporated stormwater issues that they were experiencing as well as drainage issues. There was also the notation on the map that was brought up. We disagree that this notation would prevent any further review by this Board since it's a condition that the Planning Board placed that we're asking you to lift, and kind of trying to identify the means in which we would mitigate dome of the problems that the neighborhood is experiencing. In doing so, that being said this 25 acres was not specifically referenced in the neighbors'declaration. We're hoping to correct that going forward. The neighborhood's not a homeowners association which is part of the problem why this acreage was left for tax foreclosure,which is the way our applicant picked it up, and in tax foreclosure the assessor was never not taxing it because there was an understanding that it was developable land,at least for the Town of Queensbury's taxing purposes,but we are willing to work with the neighbors in an amicable approach as long as that amicable approach is reciprocated. That being said,I'll have Tom give you some updates as to the modifications we made. MR. CENTER-Tom Center with Hutchins Engineering. As both Laura and Stefanie have said, we've increased the lot size to 2.16 acres. We added a 150 foot no cut buffer to the rear portion and a 75 foot no cut buffer to the south portion of the lot in order to keep the disturbance into that area that we had previously proposed on the smaller one acre lot. I did get a call from the Highway Superintendent on Thursday afternoon, Friday morning saying that they did water jet the line, the stormwater within the subdivision, out to Luzern Road. They did not have debris come out, but they did notice at certain portions of the pipe they had water gushes, which after speaking with them, we both think that the problem that we're seeing is either a crushed,partially crushed pipe,or settled pipe. I did not have enough time to get a camera out there to camera it, seeing as it was just at the end of last week and we're in the middle of construction season. We do plan on getting a camera out there and reporting back to the Highway Department what we think we have, but we'd like to try to locate those issues, at least the locations and the depth and do we have a crushed pipe or do we have a settled pipe,but it's one of those two issues more than likely,based on what they reported back to him when they water jetted it out. Along with that,we discussed again about the catch basin that's by the cul de sac that drains the wetlands into this stormwater system. We talked about providing a 15 foot ring of stone around that to keep debris, even though we're not seeing debris, to keep debris away, to keep the lawn away that allow free flowing into that catch basin. With this proposal we've also offered, when we talked with Mr. Boric, to the neighbors at 123 Richmond Hill Drive if they so desire to put a French drain and cross into Mr. Howard's property and connect into that catch basin that they could do that with an easement,with a stormwater easement,and the Highway Department had no concerns with that. He's already allowed them to connect their sump pumps to the catch basin in the road,but this is an avenue that they could possibly get some relief for the stormwater issue and come across Mr. Howard's property and tie into that catch basin that straddles the right of way on Mr. Howard's property. Also with the we proposed a 25 foot stormwater maintenance agreement, or maintenance area so that the Town,because the actual catch basin is on the property line and in Mr. Howard's property, but with this ring of stone,we would increase the Town's stormwater maintenance easement into the lot by 25 feet. We would provide metes and bounds, you know,if this project moved forward,we would provide metes and bounds on that so it could be described and listed in the deed so that the Town would have that,the Highway Department would have it. MR. TRAVER-So in the event when you camera the drain line, the pipe, and you do find that there is crushed sections of pipe,who is responsible for replacement? MR. CENTER-It's been turned over, since, construction in 2006, it's been turned over to the Town Highway Department for stormwater maintenance. It would be on them to further look into,A,why was 3 (Queensbury Planning Board OS/27/2024) it crushed. Did it just settle due to,you know,over time,was there an issue or did something happen along the line,along the property line. MR. TRAVER-Okay, and in your discussion with them, did they indicate that should this issue be identified that they would take care of it or? MR. CENTER-It's the Town system. We're offering the services to look at it and try to identify and help them out,but it's not part of this project. It's distal to this parcel. It's not connected. It's something that came up by the neighbors that were trying to say, hey, is it our property or is it the system? Highway Department said they thought there was an issue with the flow rate going through it. We said we can't really tell until we camera it,would you like to camera it,and that's how we're trying to help them out and lend a hand. MR. TRAVER-So there's no, again,hypothetically, if you camera it,you find that, that is, in fact, what's going on,there's no time for a resolution. MR. CENTER-Well that resolution would be on the Highway Superintendent. If he finds that someone built something over the top of it and there's an issue that crushed the pipe,they would take action along the property line because they have some pretty strict guidelines on that easement that they own that. Nothing is to be built in there,and I believe the property owners along there,you know,had notice that it was there on their deed. MR. TRAVER-Okay. Can we talk about the notation on that? Can you explain what that is and what the history of that is? MS. BITTER-In their declarations, it references I believe it was 2006 that on the larger lot that was not being specifically subdivided in the cluster, a portion of Lot Number One west of the proposed road is to be deed restricted from any further subdivision. On that same page,it also says that the subdivision would be 40 lots,which it is not. It's only 32. Subsequent to this time in which this map was recorded,what was the year? MR. CENTER-200S I believe. MS. BITTER-200S, the lots to the respective lower,below the road,were subdivided into three lots, I'm sorry,2015. I was not involved in that,but that obviously was a four lot subdivision because as you know they were landlocked. So it was further subdivided at that time. So there is inconsistencies with that notation,and I'm sure there's minutes,but the deed and the map itself is just being discussed which is why part of my solution or response to the neighbors is that the declaration itself is what needs to be amended and that we would be willing to work with them on. MR. TRAVER-Okay, and what was the original reason behind the notation being created and placed on the map? MR. CENTER-In 2006,in the original 2006,it had that the east side of the lot may be further subdivided and the west side of the lot they were holding it not to be subdivided because of the wetlands,because of the area and the soils on that side. So in essence someone still could have built one lot on there. That's what we're requesting is to build one house,and the only reason for the subdivision is the current applicant is requesting to keep the remaining lands for recreation purposes,not for building any other houses, not for anything further,and land hooking it to his property. MR. TRAVER-So it's your interpretation that even though this notation is on the chart,you can go ahead and subdivide one lot? MS. BITTER-Correct. MR. CENTER-It was a Planning Board condition that was previously modified with the three lots across the road and they talked about the other side. We also talked,prior to even submitting this project,when Dave came to me,I talked with Staff about this,what we were trying to do,because of the issue that we're finding, technically back when we did this we should have been more specific about what could have occurred on this lot so that we didn't have it go up for taxes as quote unquote an unbuildable lot as Stefanie said. It was being taxed as if it could be built on. I guess we're looking,wit this project,to make it clear as day with these restrictions with this land hook,with the deeds being filed as a condition and this one lot to clarify it and close the door on it,so to speak,so it's hooked to a parcel with value,so that it doesn't end up going up for taxes like the Blue Lupine parcel in the other subdivision that ended up going for taxes. Someone bought it,then realized they could do nothing with it. and a couple of other parcels in the Town. This is going to solidify that,and going forward with subdivisions that have had conservation land,we've talked Laura, on Sherman Avenue, we made sure there was a homeowner's association. If there was a homeowner's association with this,we wouldn't be here. Then it would be clear as day and the neighbors would have a just cause in their homeowner's association to not allow further development of this parcel. 4 (Queensbury Planning Board OS/27/2024) What you put on there,you know,what was on there was a Planning Board restriction at the time. We also have engineers signoff to the extent that the only thing further they're looking for is just a cross slope on the driveway. So they've looked at the stormwater. We're not,this is the right location for this. It's not inhibiting any of the stormwater in the wetlands that expands out and comes back in. We're not filling in any low areas. That's why this location is the best location for the design that we've provided. MR. TRAVER-Okay. So again I'm trying to follow the notation on the map. So that was placed on there in 2006, and then subsequently even though the original notation said no subdivision, it was subdivided in,what,20IS? MR. CENTER-201S by Mr. Farone. MR. TRAVER-Okay. So it would seem to me that if that was, if that occurred in 2015, would that not remove that language? MS.BITTER-It would demonstrate that the proper authority to modify that language would be the Board. That's why we're back here,saying that the Board has the authority to modify that. MRS. MOORE-I'm just going to add to that. I did talk to Town Counsel today specific to that,and that's a correct statement. MR. TRAVER-Okay. MRS. MOORE-The condition was placed on the property by the Board. The Board could then modify that. MR. TRAVER-And the Board evidently did modify that in 2015. MRS. MOORE-Right. So it can be modified,because it's a condition that this Board placed on it. MR. TRAVER-Okay. Anything else? MS. BITTER-I didn't know if you wanted me to respond to the comments that were submitted to me by the then representative, Brian Boric, the items, or if you wanted to open public comment, and then I can respond. MR. TRAVER-Yes, that's, I guess that's part of public, I haven't seen that, so that must be part of public hearing. MS. BITTER-It was something that he had provided to me,but I can respond after because I know there is representative. MR. TRAVER-Yes,let's do that as part of the public hearing and you will have an opportunity to respond once we take public comment. MS. BITTER-All right. Thank you. MR. TRAVER-One second. Before we do that, I want to make sure that Board members have an opportunity to ask questions. Questions,comments from the Board? MR. DEEB-So on one,the big lot,the 23 acres,that's not going to be subdivided. MR. CENTER-Correct. That 23 acres, the 2 acre lot in the northwest corner is the one we're asking to subdivide. The remainder of the 23 acres is being land hooked to Mr. Howard's parcel. MR. DEEB-And Lot 1 D? MR. CENTER-Yes, Lot 1 D is the newly created lot. Lot 1 E is the conservation land. Yes,we build on Lot 1 D. MR. DEEB-But you're not going to build on Lot 1 E? MR. CENTER-Lot 1 E would become recreation conservation land owned by the applicant. MR. STEFANZIK-Is that the same thing as forever wild? MS. BITTER-It's not,because I don't like that word,because in this it's personally owned. To me when you reference conservation in that manner,it's owned by an entity,that's conservation or the Town, and 5 (Queensbury Planning Board OS/27/2024) in this respect it's personal property. So if he's doing permitted recreational uses, that's completely allowed. MR. TRAVER-Other questions,comments? MR. DEEB-What kind of recreational uses? MS. BITTER-Like ATV riding,things of that nature. MR. CENTER-Whatever is permitted on 23 acres in lawful regulations. MR. TRAVER-Okay. Well, if there's no other questions from members of the Board at this stage, then let's go to public hearing. I know there's written comment. I've seen that already. I'll ask if there are members in the audience that want to address the Planning Board on Subdivision Preliminary Stage I- 2024? Yes,sir. PUBLIC HEARING OPEN DENNIS PHILLIPS MR. PHILLIPS-Good evening. My name is Dennis Phillips. I'm a lawyer with McPhillips, Fitzgerald& Cullum. I'm representing many people in the subdivision who have appeared before and have expressed opposition to any development on this particular lot. I was very interested in the questions asked of the applicant,in terms of this property and some of the whys and the wherefores,but back in 2006 when this was approved,the zoning for this entire property was one acre zoning,and this property nevertheless had some environmental issues,wetlands,i.e.water tables,and that as a result of that,this development turned into a cluster development with the idea that the lot size would be reduced to less than one acre,and they would be reduced to like.4 acres to.9 acres and they would be placed on the property that was more prone to development whereas the property that was not prone to development would remain as open space and undeveloped, and so as a result of that,this subdivision was approved in 2006, and prior to the approval, there was an issue as to what would happen with this open space parcel, and the parcel, the subdivision was approved on June 16`h,actually October 1S`h,2005. MR. TRAVER-Can I interrupt you for just one second. When you speak about the open space parcel, does that include the project that's proposed to be subdivided? MR. PHILLIPS-That includes Lot 1, which is, and Lot 1 is divided by the subdivision road. There's an eastern section of Lot 1 and a western section of Lot 1. MR. TRAVER-So my question is, what we're looking at, the application that we have before us this evening,proposes a subdivision on part of this property. MR. PHILLIPS-Yes. MR. TRAVER-Okay. The part of the property that includes the proposed subdivision, is that the quote unquote open space parcel that you're referring to in your comments from the 2006 time:? MR. PHILLIPS-Yes,it is. MR. TRAVER-Okay. I just wanted to make sure I understood you. Sorry to interrupt. MR. PHILLIPS-So as part of the planning process back in 2005, a letter was written to Mr. Christopher Hunsinger, Chair of the Planning Board, because there was a question about what to do with the open space parcel, and in the letter,it was proposed,it was a lawyer's letter, and I'd like to enter that into the record so that we have it. MR. TRAVER-Please do. MR. PHILLIPS-And that was a letter dated August 15,2005,received by the Planning Board on August 15, 2005, from Jonathan C. Lapper to Christopher Hunsinger, and in the letter it is stated the deed for the property Lot 1,which is the open space parcel,will contain the following restrictive covenant, and then I quote, the entire portion of Lot 1,which is located west of the subdivision roadway, shall be perpetually held and maintained as a non-buildable open space site without any structures or improvements whatsoever. This restriction shall be perpetual and shall run with the land and shall be for the benefit of the remaining lands within the subdivision. So that benefit would run to the people who ultimately bought into the subdivision. That language was never incorporated in any document. It was part of the record,but somewhere there was a disconnect between that representation and the mapping that went along wit the approval of this subdivision. 6 (Queensbury Planning Board OS/27/2024) MR. TRAVER-So it was a proposal. MR. PHILLIPS-It was a proposal,yes. MR. TRAVER-That was not formally adopted at some point. MR. PHILLIPS=It was not incorporated into any documents. MR. TRAVER-Which is the same thing. MR. PHILLIPS-Well,it was part of the record, and I suppose that I would be of the opinion that the ball was dropped somewhere because that was a very powerful statement and there was a lot of controversy relative to what this lot would be. MR. TRAVER-Understood. MR. PHILLIPS-Nevertheless,in the Planning Board approval, dated October 1S,2005,the first condition for the approval of the whole subdivision was,Number One,and I quote,a deed restriction to be included with Lot 1,which is the open space parcel,that no future subdivision or development of that property take place,to limit that to the land that is west of the proposed road. So Lot 1 straddled the proposed road east and west,but the only limitation on development was to the west of the road and not to the east of the road,and then in the year 2019 the land east of the road was developed into three new subdivision lots,but the land west of the road was held to be non-subdividable and non-developable and the records of the minutes of this Planning Board follow through with the fact that that was already restricted by the previous subdivision approval of the Planning Board. So in the mapping that took place in 2019,there is, there are three maps that I'd like to bring to the Board's attention. There was what I call the Van Dusen Steves map,Sheet Two of Seven,and the note on that map says the portion of Lot 1 west of the proposed subdivision road is to be deed restricted from any further subdivision. It doesn't say that it is deed restricted. It says it is to be. And then in the same submission,which was filed in the Clerk's Office,on Sheet Three of Seven of the VanDusen&Steves maps,it says this portion of Lot 1 west of the subdivision road is deed restricted from any further subdivision, and I read that to mean that the Planning Board had deed restricted that by the various approvals that have taken place, and then the Hutchins Engineering map, Sheet Four of Seven, also bled as Plat D-23 in the Clerk's Office, said this portion of Lot Number 1 west of the subdivision road is deed restricted from any further subdivision. So as recently as 2019 it was clear that the land west of the road was restricted from development,and that's on all of the mapping,and of course that's one of the reasons we're here because of that language. So we have a number of neighbors here who will speak after I'm finished,and they talk about how they relied on this property being an open space property before they bought in the subdivision,and they relied on it because they were told by their real estate brokers who were selling lots that this was going to be forever wild. I agree with Stefanie that maybe forever wild is the wrong term,but in any event,it was not going to be developed as a subdivision. So the record is quite clear, in all of the mapping that's taken place. On every map that has been bled relative to this overall subdivision, it is clear that that area west of the subdivision road is not to be subdivided. So then the question is can that be changed by the Planning Board, and this is a real good question,but this question's gone to the Court of Appeals of New York,which is the highest court in New York, and there is a case called O'Mara vs. the Town of Wappinger, and that case is at 9 NY 3rd 303, and the Court of Appeals had to make a decision as to whether these notations on a subdivision map had reliability,and when people bought into these subdivisions,were they basically buying into a contractual obligation where they had expectations that things would hold true. So the legal question presented at the Court of Appeals was, is an open space restriction imposed by a subdivision plat under New York Town Law Section 276 enforceable against a subsequent purchaser? And the Court held,yes,it is. An open space restriction placed on a final plat,pursuant to Town Law Section 276,when bled in the County Clerk's Office,pursuant to Real Property Law Section 334 is enforceable against a subsequent purchaser, and the rationale is that when people buy property,they do tax searches,they do title searches,they look at the record to see if there are covenants,restrictions, conditions, and then before they buy they know what they're buying and so the Court said the rationale is the corporation that bought the property in this case should have searched the County Clerk's records until it found the subdivision plat that created the parcel. The ability to impose conditions on the use of land is meaningless without the ability to enforce those conditions,even against a subsequent purchaser. So now we go to the deed that Mr. Howard got from Warren County. So Mr.Howard got a quitclaim deed from the Warren County because the property that was the open space property had been lost to the County for non-payment of taxes,which only makes sense from the previous developer. If you can't develop a property and you pay taxes on it,why would you want to own it? Well you're better off to dump it on the County. And so that's what the previous developer did,but then on November 1S`h,2022,when Mr.Howard bought the property,he bought it with some language and the language,and I'd like to put his deed into the record,and the language is,subject to all existing tenancy, easements, rights, licenses, privileges and agreements as well as any covenants, conditions,restrictions,reservations and so on and so forth. So clearly with a map that has a restriction against development on it, Mr. Howard bought the property, subject to those restrictions, and he could not,you can't launder these descriptions by doing it through a tax sale,by doing it through the County, when he could not do that if it were a direct conveyance from the previous developer to himself. So I 7 (Queensbury Planning Board OS/27/2024) believe that Mr. Howard is bound by the record here and bound by his own deed, and I think he's bound by the Court of Appeals, and so we think that the property owners who have purchased into this subdivision have a viable claim to prevent this property from being developed. So I believe that Mr.Boric has submitted to the Board a number of affidavits frompeople in the neighborhood,and I don't know what the procedure is on those,whether those are just introduced without reading them or whether they're read into the record,but there probably are some parts that I'd want to read into the record if the Board is not going to read them into the record. MR. TRAVER-Well they're part of the record, whether or not they're read into the record. They are included as, all of them would be included in the record. So if they've been submitted, they are in the record. MR.PHILLIPS-Okay. All right. So I will not read anything. They'll speak for themselves. So,with that, I think that you understand the position,the legal position,of the neighbors,and unless you have questions of me, I will turn it over to some of the neighbors who'd like to speak personally about their individual situations. MR. TRAVER-Well, since you're the legal representative of the folks,it's a bit unusual,but I will offer to members of the Board to ask you questions. MR. MAGOWAN-Well, thank you, Mr. Chairman,I have a question,because I heard you read the three different deeds,but nowhere did you mention until the end about who pays the taxes and how long you were going to pay the taxes on these properties. So, to give the Board, and the homeowners of the neighborhood, a little background of how the taxes are handled with Warren County and why Warren County puts it over, all right, is that the Town is made hold on their taxes, on their Town tax and the school tax. The County takes it out of their coffers to pay that. So that's why the County takes over the foreclosure proceedings,okay,and I have brought this up before,is what when someone buys a big lot and subdivides it and some of it is not buildable,all right,and they lopt it out and for,you know,five,ten,eight, you know,fifteen years they pay a little tax on it until they decide to hand it over to the County. Is that fair for all the other people that live in the County that have to pay for that land,right,because the builder just made his money and decides to walk away? Okay. I don't think it's fair. I've actually brought it up, you know,with Laura and this Board and I believe we're trying to draw up some language that this cannot happen anymore because it's happened multiple times in the past,all right. So someone comes along and buys this up in a foreclosure,all right,and spends,you know,a lot of money,and I don't have any problem with the people who live in the neighborhood. I understand their concerns,but knowing the area and the water lands and everything and being in the building trades and working for myself for so many years I know a lot of the ins and outs of things that go on in the Town of Queensbury and the wetlands,and what Tom Center's brought up is really great news on why this particular area has, you know, a stormwater issue and if it's possible for collapse or a low pipe,that would be really great,but if I look at the wetlands and how it goes through, and,you know,you have all the setback,but Mr. Howard was able to lop out two acres,it was actually smaller,but he tried to conform to the rules that we have for the two acres, to build a buildable lot to put it back onto the tax roll for a large amount of money that it was not,I have a little problem because the way you presented it,you know,is who was paying the taxes? Why did Tom Farone walk away from paying the taxes on it,if he told everybody and the relators that this was going to be forever wild because I've heard that more than once up here,it's going to be forever wild and won't get developed. So I'm just asking you,do you,representing them,and add to the residences of that community, do you think that is fair that the rest of the people in the County take this property,stop paying on it and have to pay all the taxes and the County has an opportunity to sell it and a builder sees that he can put a decent sized home on the lot and get a two acre what the Code is and get the buffers and not really affect the wetlands and do,and go above and beyond with the stormwater to help the neighborhood. MR.PHILLIPS-So if I could respond to that. I look at this subdivision as a subdivision of broken promises, and the first promise that was broken,in my opinion,is the promise by the developer not to take affirmative action to clearly restrict this property,knowing that he's going to sell lots to a number of other people,32 other people, and those 32 other people are going to pay a lot of taxes over a period of time as they have done. So that's one promise that I think is a broken promise. I am hoping,and the reason I'm here tonight, is there won't be a broken promise running from the Planning Board to the people who relied on this property being a non-developable property for a period over 20 years where they expected the subdivision to be kind of a special subdivision because it would have green space as well as a neighborhood where they had a combination of two things,which was,in my opinion,the who purpose of the cluster,and it was the cluster that allowed this property to be developed the way it was developed in the first place. So there were tradeoffs at the very beginning of this, at the beginning of this, and then relative to the developer wanting to monetize his investment,I understand that. I mean I understand why people want to do that, but I think that there is a rule of law issue here that is being overlooked by the developer in terms of what he's trying to do,because this developer actually developed the other side of the road. So it's not as if he didn't know that the west side of the road was kind of like the not to touch area,and throughout the record of the development of the east side of the-road,it is mentioned countless times in the record that the west side of the road is restricted by a previous subdivision approval. So that was untouchable for the longest period of time until now, and so there's been no change of circumstance in this whole subdivision that S (Queensbury Planning Board OS/27/2024) would justify an abandonment of that restriction imposed by this Board as a condition of the subdivision that began in 2006,ran through 2019,you know,there's no reason to change that now,and then when you get into tax policy. MR. TRAVER-Well let's not get into tax policy. MR. PHILLIPS-I don't want to get into tax policy. MR. MAGOWAN-Well make people aware of the system and how it works. So at that particular time that those lots across the street were developed,why didn't the neighborhood come forward then? MR. PHILLIPS-So my answer is,I don't know,but I'll let them answer that question when they come up. MR. MAGOWAN-All right. Okay. MR. TRAVER-All right. So from your information there are neighbors who want to speak about the fact that they purchased their lots with the understanding that this part of the property was not to be developed. Is that the rest of the public hearing? MR. PHILLIPS-That is correct. MR. TRAVER-All right. MR. LONGACKER-I'm sorry. I have two questions myself. MR. TRAVER-Sure. Go ahead. MR. LONGACKER-You referenced three maps before,and I believe two of them said that this property is to be deed restricted and the VanDusen&Steves you indicated it said it shall be deed restricted? MR. PHILLIPS-So there is an inconsistency in the VanDusen & Steves maps, and I'll see if I've got that right here. I think I have those maps right here. So I was surprised to see that actually. MR. TRAVER-And is that the most recent map? Is the VanDusen&Steves the most recent map? MR.PHILLIPS-The VanDusen&Steves map for the 2019 subdivision is the most recent map. So the 2019 subdivision was a subdivision that allowed three lots on the east side of Richmond Hill Drive,which is the subdivision road, and the map three of seven,which is the most recent VanDusen& Steves map,filed in the Clerk's Office, says this portion of Lot Number One,west of the subdivision road, is deed restricted from any further subdivision, and then the Hutchins Engineer map,which is also dated in 2019,reflects, mirrors that. It's the same thing. So the two most recent maps that were done by the surveyor and the engineer,both say,this portion of Lot Number One,west of the subdivision road, is deed restricted from any further subdivision. MR. LONGACKER-What was the date of the one map that said shall? I thought there was a third map that you indicated that said shall. MR. PHILLIPS-Well the maps were all filed at the same time. MR. LONGACKER-In 2019. MR.PHILLIPS-And they all were filed,I've got the filing information here. They all were filed on February 15`h,2019. MR. LONGACKER-And what was the title of the VanDusen&Steves map? MR. PHILLIPS-So the VanDusen&Steves map is Map of a Survey made for Tra-Tom Development,Inc., and that's filed in Plat D-23 in the Clerk's Office. MR. LONGACKER-So that was filed as the survey map? MR. PHILLIPS-Filed as the survey map,yes. MR. LONGACKER-All right. And the second question I had for you was you read a document that indicated that that lot was for the enjoyment of everybody in the subdivision. Is that correct? MR. PHILLIPS-Nothing was said about that lot being for the enjoyment of everybody in the subdivision. MR. LONGACKER-Okay. I apologize. 9 (Queensbury Planning Board OS/27/2024) MR. PHILLIPS-But the thought, the intent at the time of Mr. Zapper's letter was where he said that no entity is going to hold it, the Town's not going to hold it as a conservation parcel, and so he was talking about all that would be necessary is the submission of a Short Form CPS 7 which we filed with the New York State Department of Law, and this can't be done until final subdivision approval,but of course that was never. MR. LONGACKER-That was not done. Okay. MR. MAGOWAN-What is the CPS-7? MR. PHILLIPS-A homeowner's association type document. Yes. MR. MAGOWAN-Well that was my next question is why didn't they create a homeowner's association and buy that property as a,or why didn't all the neighbors come together and buy that property? MR. PHILLIPS-Well I guess two answers to that. It was,I believe it was the intent and the responsibility of the developer back in 2006 to do that and he didn't do it,and then as far as the homeowners wanting to buy this property, they're not versed in tax sales and tax proceedings, but I believe they probably have offered to purchase the property now. MR. MAGOWAN-Did anybody approach Mr.Howard to buy it and was there any numbers? MR. PHILLIPS-I'll ask. MR. MAGOWAN-It's a very difficult situation here,and I just need some more answers. MR. TRAVER-Well the issue before us this evening is the application that we have, and you're talking about something hypothetically that could happen down the road,but our responsibility is to process this application for this subdivision. So let's that, and then if something develops beyond that,that's another matter. Well I think that you've provided us some valuable information,and I appreciate that very much. So why don't we next hear,unless you have something further,why don't we next hear from someone who wants to talk about their understanding. MR. PHILLIPS-If I could submit these two documents. MR. TRAVER-Certainly. By all means. MR. PHILLIPS-So I am submitting to the Board, as part of the record, what I will call the letter to Mr. Hunsinger, dated August 15, 2005, where an intent is expressed relative to how this lot should be protected, and then also the quit claim deed dated November 1S`h, 2002 from the County of Warren to David Howard which indicates that he is purchasing the property subject to conditions and restrictions. MR. TRAVER-And you said 2002,but I think it was 2022. Correct? MR. PHILLIPS-I'm sorry,2022. Yes. MR. TRAVER-I just wanted to make sure that was on the record. MRS. MOORE-Dennis,can I have those two papers that you're submitting? Thank you. MR. PHILLIPS-Thank you very much. MR. TRAVER-Thank you. Okay. So I understand that there's some neighbors that want to address the Planning Board with regard to their understanding and expectations as far as this parcel is concerned. I would ask that we not hear,I don't know how many people are in the room,but I would ask that someone who can speak to that, and then if there are other speakers that have additional information,that would be great,but we do not need to hear, over and over again, basically the same thing. So we'd appreciate that,in fairness to everybody that's here,and,ma'am,you'll be the first speaker. If you'd state your name for the record,please. CANDY VAN BUREN MRS. VAN BUREN-It's Candy VanBuren. My husband and I own 123 Richmond Hill Drive. So we're right next door to what I consider the green space. We bought our house in 2016,our sump pump never went off. They put a basement across the street on the week of Thanksgiving 2015. It was the first time that the sump pump started. It never stopped. It goes 24/7. March, middle of March, our basement flooded and probably about a foot of water or more. I called a plumber who called another plumber and then they called the Fire Department the water was coming in our basement so fast they couldn't keep up 10 (Queensbury Planning Board OS/27/2024) with it. The Town was involved. They didn't know what to do. The Town brought somebody for us to pay to put in a second sump pump,which we run 10 months out of the year,four sump pumps. The other two months we have two sump pumps that go 24/7 and never stops. Our fear is that we're going to get more water and it's not going to go anywhere. I have extended to so many people,including Dave Howard, as to any ideas as to what we can do. The water just doesn't stop. Dave and we said let's fill in the basement. He said that would work. We had talked about raising the house. That's not going to work. MR. TRAVER-Well it does sound as though they've identified an issue with the Town's stormwater system that is under review by the Highway Department and subject to repair. It sounds as though there is a problem with a section of pipe that would divert that water away and that's not functioning. MR. VAN BUREN-Even though the drain is at the lowest point, the water still comes in our basement. We see it overflowing and we see it where it's bare,and the water never stops coming into our home. MR.TRAVER-Well,there's really two,as far as stormwater's concerned,there are really two sort of issues here,if you will. One is a pre-existing stormwater drainage system that's not functioning,okay, and the Town Highway Department is now aware of that, and there are some experts who have gone in, they're going to be photographing the underground portion to determine where the breakdown in the mechanics of that system are and that will be repaired. So that's one issue that will be dealt with that sort of affects the whole area really. And then with regard to this application and a hypothetical new house going in, that is subject to an engineering review for stormwater specifically for a hypothetical new construction that would go there,and they cannot get a building permit until the Town Designated Engineer determines that the stormwater management practices on that hypothetical lot, which is has not been approved at this point, but should it go in, that needs to be approved by the Town Engineer to establish that stormwater management is in place so that it's not going to contribute to an existing issue,but the existing issue is apparently, at least to some extent driven by a malfunctioning drainage system, which has now been brought to the attention of the Highway Department. I don't have any information as to specifically when it's going to be repaired,but they are aware that there's a problem and they are investigating it. So that should alleviate your issue. MRS. VAN BUREN-But what if it doesn't? I mean there was an engineer that would have done, no disrespect,but that development,and for nothing to happen to our home until they started building. MR. TRAVER-You're talking about the existing development that's on the east side of the road? MR.VAN BUREN-No,I'm at 123. I'm right next to where the drains are,right next to the woods. When we bought our home there was nobody next door to us. There was nobody across the street. So when we had all of that problem with that first basement coming in, a lot of the people that were buying the properties asked to have their houses put on mountains,basically. We're the lowest house,but that first basement caused the water to start. The brown water coming into the house, and when they put two more houses,that's when we flooded and that's when the four pumps came into play. I would assume that an engineer would have made sure that that didn't happen. Wouldn't they? MR. TRAVER-Well,it sounds as though,during that period is when the system broke down and started malfunctioning. As far as what could happen in the future,I think once the Highway Department repairs that culvert,that drainage system,that system was,back when that was designed,the expectation and the engineering analysis that was done was that that would handle the stormwater and you should not have a problem. Now should they do those repairs and you continue to have an issue,then that would be a new issue and another matter that is a hypothetical for us tonight. We have to look at what we actually have and we certainly hope that when that system is brought back up to operating standards and a pipe is repaired, it sounds like there's a broken pipe or something, but whatever it is, once that's functioning correctly, that should alleviate the problem. If it doesn't, then that's another issue, but that's not something that we can address tonight because we don't know what's going to happen. The expectation is that when that's repaired, things will go back to where they were before you had to start using your sump pump. That's our expectation. MR. MAGOWAN-Mr. Chairman,I have a quick question. MR. TRAVER-Yes. MR. MAGOWAN-Mrs.VanBuren,we just have lots on our map. Are you Lot 21? MRS.VAN BUREN-19. MR. MAGOWAN-You're Number 19. MRS.VAN BUREN-We're next to the storm drain. MR. MAGOWAN-All right. So you're west. So you said your house number was what? 11 (Queensbury Planning Board OS/27/2024) MRS.VAN BUREN-123. MR. MAGOWAN-123,right. Thankyou. MR. CENTER-So,just to be clear,you're saying when what house was built that you started having the problem? This house? MRS.VAN BUREN-No,across the street,Lot 30. That's when it first started,and then when they put 32 and 31 in is when all of that water started. MR. DEER-I need to ask what does this have to do with the project before us? MRS.VAN BUREN-I'm concerned that it's going to push more groundwater to us. MR. TRAVER-It's not directly involved,but she's. MR. DEEB-You do have a problem, we understand that, but the project before us hasn't caused this problem,nor is it going to alleviate this problem. I know you're trying to do something with it,but it really doesn't tie into this project tonight. MR. TRAVER-Yes,I think that her concern is. MR. DEEB-And I empathize with your problem. MR. TRAVER-Yes, she doesn't really know what is causing the problem. She just has a problem,but the information that we have is that the stormwater system that is the municipality's stormwater is not functioning correctly and it's going to be repaired. MR. DEEB-We're not sure it's going to correct the problem. MRS.VAN BUREN-But the lot,if it's changed any more than it is,what it is right now,it could push more water to me. MR. TRAVER-Okay. Are there other folks that have the same issue? Okay, and do you have different information than, or do you have the same problem that she has in terms of water coming into your basement? ASHLEY SCHWARTZ MRS. SCHWARTZ-So we have two different water issues. The one water issue where the pipe is broken, the other side of this. Ashley Schwartz. MR. MAG OWAN-What lot number and house number? MRS. SCHWARTZ-125. I don't know which lot,32 I think. The corner across from the open. I was one of her problems,yes. Well we also have the same problem. MR. MAG OWAN-And your name is? MRS. SCHWARTZ-Ashley Schwartz. So the development has two separate water problems. The one with the broken pipe is on the other side of the loop. That whole side of the road floods. That's where the issue of backup. But this side where we are,it's the wetlands that is the problem. So when Mr. Howard purchased the property in 2022 he started moving some trails and then all the houses on the west side of that street, all the backyards flooded,just from him moving a little bit of dirt. So what's going to happen when he starts building is our issue. So the wetlands is really the problen-L There's so much water in there all the time, all the time. The drain right there always has running water in it. On the other side there's no water. It's only when it storms. MR. TRAVER-And our information is that part of the issue is that the stormwater system that drains the wetland is the part that's not working currently. MRS. SCHWARTZ-It is,though. It's just overwhelmed that there's so much water there. So where's the water going to go when he starts pushing? The water's going to go to the lowest point, which is their house. Our pump is constantly going,too,but we only have one. MR. TRAVER-Yes,well,as I mentioned,any hypothetical new construction going in would be subject to an engineer review. They have to prove that the stormwater will be managed properly. 12 (Queensbury Planning Board OS/27/2024) MRS. SCHWARTZ-It just,I hope that the Town is ready to be responsible when we get water damage in all of our basements. Do you know what I mean? Now you guys are aware of what the problem is,you know. MR. TRAVER-Hopefully the Town is as well. MRS. SCHWARTZ-Yes. Thank you. MR. TRAVER-Is there anyone that has different information regarding stormwater? Yes,sir. State your name for the record. JUSTIN GATES MR. GATES Justin Gates,99 Richmond Hill. I don't know what my lot number is. MR. MAG OWAN-Could you point it out? MR. GATES-Right there. Are we good? MR. TRAVER-All right. Go ahead,sir. MR. GATES-So I live on the end where we have a supposed crushed pipe. George Ferone used to be our ward person. He came over. He said that the reason we're flooding is because the pavement was lower than the drains. So they had atop coat put on. Then they had David Duell and Mark Benware came over and they said what had happened is they put the wrong size pipe to evacuate the neighbor. They knew that. They don't want to fix it. So when you say that everything's going to be engineered and approved, it sounds like this was engineered and approved and done not properly. MR. TRAVER-We can't speak to what was done previously. We just know. MR. GATES-No,I'm just saying,you know,I mean. MR. TRAVER-We can say that the Town is now aware that there is an issue with the drainage and they say they're going to address it. That's beyond the purview of this Board. MR. GATES-Right, and I mean that's what we've been hearing, I mean the e-mails I have are from 2015. We've been there since 2013. MR. TRAVER-Well this is more recent than that, because it has been an ongoing issue and apparently they're continuing to look at it and now they think that apparently part of the pipe is damaged. MR. GATES-Well I think they're looking at it now because somebody wants to build and it's kind of getting pushed by him,not by. MR. TRAVER-In any case,if it's repaired,that's a good thing. Right? MR. GATES-Yes,absolutely. MR. DEEB-And that's a Town Board issue. That would be a Town Board issue. MR. GATES-I'm just here to speak on behalf of the neighborhood. MR. TRAVER-All right. Thank you,sir. MR. GATES-You're welcome. MR. TRAVER-Is there anyone else with a separate stormwater issue? Yes. HILARY HASKELL MS.HASKELL-My lot is right here,23. So I reside at 62 Richmond Hill Drive. My name's Hilary Haskell. RICK RODRIGUEZ MR. RODRIGUEZ-And I'm Rick Rodriguez. MS. HASKELL-He resides with me. I think you brought up a lot of amazing questions a few minutes ago, and I appreciate the questions you asked, and one of them was did we offer to buy the land. And I love that question, because when that land went for auction, there were signs for about 24 hours. The very 13 (Queensbury Planning Board OS/27/2024) next day,probably within 12 hours,those signs were ripped out. By whom, assumption,we don't know. We contacted the Town, two different neighbors contacted,because we did want to buy the land. We were like,we can do a homeowner's association. We can own this land,make it safe for our kids. We all walk our dogs. We can have trails. Somehow we were told that land was going for sale at auction and it went before the auction. So we were never given the opportunity to buy the land. It was sold. MR. MAG OWAN-It couldn't go before the auction. MS. HASKELL-You need to look that up because it was sold before the auction. MR. RODRIGUEZ-Yes,100%. MS.HASKELL-So that's the biggest problem is we wanted that land. It was sold out from under us before we got to the auction. We had two neighbors call, ask for the date, and the land was gone. So that's a great question. We would have paid taxes on it. We said,you know what,there's 15 neighbors that want to purchase this land. There's 32 homeowners. So let's say,you know what,we'll each chip in the $500 a year,whatever, and we were all fine with that. We weren't given that opportunity. I think that's fair to say. MR. TRAVER-Well,it may come up for sale again. MS.HASKELL-And we've offered to buy it again. So I think that's important. We've said,you know what, we were proactive. We didn't get it. Now we've actually reached out to them again and said,you know what,we'll buy the land back from you because it's unbuildable. You can't do anything. So let's buy it back from you. We were not given the opportunity. MR. TRAVER-I understand. I hope you can appreciate that that's not what we're really addressing this evening. MS.HASKELL-Well it kind of is because he asked it and we're answering that question for you. I thought that was one of your biggest concerns, and I appreciate that question because I thought it was a phenomenal one. I don't want to be burdened with someone else's taxes in the Town of Queensbury either. Our other issue is we purchased in 2017 with the though that both sides were going to be forever wild and wetlands. The left side got purchased and built by Mr.Howard and that's a whole other issue and I know another neighbor's going to talk about the destruction there. 2022 we have spent about$100,000 in our backyard, $70,000 of it doing it by hand, he and I building a patio and a pool, which we came and got approval. We want a storage shed. We want a pool, and we came to the Town and we did it the right way. We had to get permission from all of our neighbors. We did all this work. He comes in with his ATV, moves land. Within an hour we have water coming all the way up to our storage shed, almost to the point of our pool which is going to be lifted up out of the ground according to our gentleman from Pools Plus. I didn't put $100,000 into a backyard to have it destroyed by water. Dave came, the DEC came,the Town of Queensbury came. Dave came,he moved the land back from his ATV and fixed it,but that was just shifting land from here to that table to run an ATV course. I can't imagine building a home and not seeing that water damage. Those three houses, one I can't see because I need glasses,but mine and the next two over the left and the one behind that,all were within ten feet of water within two hours. We have never had a drop of water in our backyard. One small trail flooded. Luckily our neighbor who had just moved in was out back and she's like,is our land supposed to be flooding and we're like,what's happening,but thank God we came home to see that our water was coming up to our storage shed towards our pool. I can appreciate Mr. Howard. He's introduced himself tome. I'm just going to leave this land forever wild. I just want your kids to be able to do this. I might put an ice skating rink out there. All these ideas,but it was never to be built upon,and I think that's fair to say that we are concerned. A lot of blood,sweat and tears,we're in our late 50's. We've put a lot of time out there and we want to see it stay as is. MR. RODRIGUEZ-All right. You say that that land that he has is buildable,but how much fill does he have to bring in to build on that lot? Because that's going to change the wetlands as well,because he did when he built that first one. MR. TRAVER-Yes, that's an engineering issue, and any hypothetical construction would have to get approval from the Town. All right. Thank you very much. MS. HASKELL-Yes,thank you for your questions as well. MR. TRAVER-Anybody else that wants to talk about stormwater? Yes.,sir. NICK AMEDEN MR. AMEDEN-My name's Nick Ameden. I live on Lot 2S, 9S Richmond Hill Drive. So a lot of points have been brought up. Yes, I have photos I have submitted, I believe,of knee deep water which is highly 14 (Queensbury Planning Board OS/27/2024) concerning,right? You wake up one morning and your driveway's half flooded. I live on the lowest point. So the kids have to ride up the hill and just coast all the way back down,which is cool,but that means all the water obviously comes towards us. Asa homeowner,I'm sure if you guys ever wake up in the morning like,I have water halfway up my driveway,what's causing this. Obviously there's a stormwater issue. We know that. Again, I'm not going to reiterate everything everyone's already said,but there's an issue that needs to be addressed. So we all were told it was going to be forever wild. If you like that term or you don't like that term,that's what we were told. We bought into it,both sides were. We bought it in 202O, nothing was built,and then without us knowing,no message in the mail saying,hey,someone bought this land, they're going to be building on it. It happened on the east side, and now we're afraid it's going to happen on the west side, and what I'm also afraid of is if you approve one, Mr. Howard might say,well, past precedence,let's do two,let's do three,let's do ten. Right? Because he's got the property,and if you allow one,it becomes a slippery,wet slope,and that's what we're afraid of. Not only that,on the map here, so Richmond Hill Drive goes all the way out to the main road,and there are 32 plus and growing children in that neighborhood that access a bus stop right there. We've contacted Queensbury. We've asked if they could have the bus come into the neighborhood,pick up and drop off at a cross street. They said,no, that's a really busy,dangerous corner as is. So if you've ever driven it,you know,it's just,I'm not going to have my kid ever learn to drive out of that exit. Right? I'm going to have him go down across street and a straightaway. We've asked them if they could pickup,they said,no,if we do it for your neighborhood, every neighborhood's going to want us to drive buses there. Okay. The proposed driveway is also going to be right there,making an already dangerous intersection and corner more dangerous. So that's another big concern. We line up vehicles all the way down to some of the first houses as is,both sides,snow. We have to just line them up. We try and park on both sides. That's a big concern of mine also is where the driveway gets put. As a Planning Board I think you guys can appreciate that. So that's one thing I really wanted to address. We have at least 30 kids currently in there. Like I say,they denied that. Again,the deep flooding. Pictures were submitted so you guys can look at those. It happens every spring. I don't know exactly how this Board operates and works. I would appreciate if you would think about maybe not letting any groundbreaking happen until you get a dry spring. If you guys do it that way,I would love every issue that's been promised to be fixed to be fixed before we let more water come towards us,because my thought is,well,if more water comes in in the spring,their excuse is,well you always have water in the spring. You've always had 36 inches of water in the spring. It's not that I built a house there. So let's make sure that gets fixed before we build a house there to push more water. MR. TRAVER-Understood. Thank you very much. MR.AMEDEN-Thank you. MR. TRAVER-Anyone else wants to talk about stormwater? Yes,sir. DAN NEAL MR. NEAL-Hi. I'm Dan Neal. We live at Lot 20, which is right next to the property in question for development. We moved in in October 2022. That was, October 31"was when a bulldozer came into that property that there again, prior to purchasing, I actually called the Town of Queensbury to see the status of the property and it was explained to me that,yes, it was a non-buildable, forever wild lot. So that was one of our decisions in purchasing the property. MR. TRAVER-Who did you speak to? MR. NEAL-Unfortunately I don't have that name. It was just in passing. MR. TRAVER-Do you know where you called? Did you calla specific Department? MR. NEAL-There again,I can't remember which Department I spoke to,but prior to purchasing that was one of the questions we asked,because it was being marketed as a forever wild green space. So on,like I said,we purchased in October. On October 31",a bulldozer was over there,which is interesting because now I'm hearing tonight that the property wasn't sold until November 1S`h. So there again,that leads me to question the proposal, and what all is actually going to happen when the land is altered. Are we going to follow all the rules set forth? And how it's going to push additional water down towards us,because as Hilary and Rick stated,after that did occur there was significant water that did build up within a matter of weeks,and flooding,and obviously a home is your largest purchase and it's,you know,probably for most of us,our largest investment that we don't want to have it affected by the additional water. Then where are we? MR. TRAVER-Okay. Thank you. MR. MAGOWAN-Now have you had any water issues in your basement? MR. NEAL-We have not had any in our basement. We were very fortunate,but it was encroaching upon our property. Thankfully it looks as though they brought in plenty of fill. So we were very fortunate in 15 (Queensbury Planning Board OS/27/2024) that matter,but the water from the wetland after it was altered was rapidly rising and coming toward us. So if it would not have been altered at that point perhaps we could have gotten water in the basement. MR. TRAVER-Thank you very much. Is there anyone else in the audience that wants to address the Planning Board on this issue? Yes,sir. KYLE WAGNER MR.WAGNER-My name's Kyle Wagner. I recently purchased in Richmond Hill,Lot 16. I don't have to talk about stormwater,but I really just am more concerned as a new resident of Queensbury about the,I went through and I obviously got the notice and I read the letters, and I went through, I'm a little bit of a nerd in that I'll read the minutes of prior meetings because I want to know about an issue, and the main things that stood out tome is,yes,we've heard about the tax map. We've heard a lot about the water,and that's concerning tome. I've been there a year. I don't know if there's a history of an issue in the basement, and that scares me because I came from a house with one, so water displacement is a concern, and I hear some of the horror stories I'll say about neighbors that have encountered things just because of land disturbance. So that concerns me, but the main thing that I came to is that there's a history here that I think was highlighted well,but I wanted to put my two cents in,just the precedent that would be set for this Board to basically dismiss its prior recommendations, and that is what concerns me. Back in 2003 when this was proposed,it was a condition of the original subdivision,which is the brunt of the right had side of the screen,that this lot would not be developed, and then when the further subdivision of that lot occurred,that condition was upheld further. MR. TRAVER-Yes,we're aware of that. MR. WAGNER-Yes, absolutely, I'm aware, and I just feel like my two cents as a new resident of Queensbury, I came from Glens Falls, not far,just across the bridge, but I was instructed once when I applied for a project and shut down because of the precedent, and it was a great case that was presented tome. You can't have this project because it would open the door for other concerning issues,and that's, I think, what you're hearing here today is there's a lot of residents that are concerned. There's a whole neighborhood of families that are concerned. I'm concerned as anew resident,and I'm also concerned that this Board,the Staff Notes recommended that there be no development here. The further subdivision was, a condition of approval was no further development. So I feel,and,you know,basically plead to the Board to uphold the original standing. MR. TRAVER-Thank you very much. Is there anyone else that wants to address the Planning Board on this? Yes,sir. RICH MC CABE MR. MC CABE-My name is Rich McCabe. I'm in Lot Two,which is on the corner of Richmond Hill Drive and Cross Court. My wife Nancy and I purchased our home in December 2019. One of the reasons we wanted to purchase the home was when we came in to check out the area,coming in off Upper Sherman Ave,both sides of Richmond Hill Drive were wooded area,and that was particularly interesting to us,and so that's why we decided to purchase that. Construction was started on our home in,I think like July of 2019,and it was about a month and a half later I received a phone call from a neighbor and the lot directly next door to me was being cleared,and we were told by our relator that both sides of the road were going to be forever wild and non-developable, and so obviously that was very disturbing for us to have that lot cleared directly,which I don't know what the number is on that. I'm Lot 2. It's the one immediately to the left on the map,but the issue we had is during Mr.Howard's,those are the three lots that Mr.Howard built on,but he was clearing the two next to me,and one evening,after Mr.Howard cleared the property, with a windstorm one of his trees fell on the National Grid powerlines,directly behind the lot next to me, which obviously caused a major issue, and within a week National Grid came into our neighborhood and totally clear cut every tree down and all those lots,including mine, all the way back down to the, almost Upper Sherman Avenue. Obviously that's not what our intent was when we bought that property. We thought it was going to be a wooded property for the remainder of the time we owned the property. And I live kind of diagonal across from the lot that's in question, and I have seen firsthand,and I was there the day a couple of the neighbors and a representative from the Town of Queensbury, I was there when Mr. Bruce Frank came and it was a couple of days after Mr.Howard pushed some dirt around out back for his ATV's and it definitely was creating issues for those three or four lots that are on the opposite side of the road from me. MR. TRAVER-We've heard about that. MR. MC CABE-So I just thought I'd reiterate that to you,and I understand you heard that. MR. TRAVER-Do you have any new information for us? 16 (Queensbury Planning Board OS/27/2024) MR. MC CAB E-Do I have any new information? That's just basically all I have,but I would like to say this one thing,though. The affidavits that were presented to the Board,I'm hoping that somebody would read them so we could all hear that,because one of the affidavits is from my son who lives directly across the street from us,and I know Mr.Boric's affidavit is also. So I'm worried,before you make any decisions,you please hear everybody's concerns. Thankyou. MR. TRAVER-Thank you very much. Is there anybody else in the audience that wants to address the Planning Board? I'm not seeing any. Written comments,Laura? MRS. MOORE-So I have four affidavits. MR. TRAVER-Are they all the same? MRS. MOORE-They're all identical from what I understand. MR. TRAVER-Can you read one so we have an idea? MRS. MOORE- There may be some difference from, but I'm going to start with their names and their address,and then I'll read one through. MR. TRAVER-Sure. MRS.MOORE-So I have one from Michael Litwak of 115 Richmond Hill Drive;Brian Boric of 110 Richmond Hill Drive;Nicole Boric also of 110 Richmond Hill Drive;and then Scott McCabe of54 Richmond Hill Drive. So I've read through most of them. Some of them have pictures attached to them that you've seen before. So the gist of it is all in the first one that I read. "I request the Planning Board deny the Application, and any subsequent applications for subdivision or development of the subject parcel(Sherman Avenue, Tax Map#305.7-1-45.1(herein after"Subject Parcel"),as a matter of law,and also upon the facts. 3. One of the primary reasons I purchased this property in 2019 was the aesthetic and natural beauty of the neighborhood, most notably at the entrance. When entering this neighborhood, the road is wooded on both sides, with one side being National Grid land, and the other the Subject Parcel. 4. It was communicated to me by representatives of my builder that this land would remain "forever wild", and I relied upon those representations. As public records showed, the Subject Parcel was,in fact,restricted against any further subdivision or development,thus confirming the representations made to me. 5. I have personally observed the water conditions of this neighborhood and the Subject Parcel since 2020. A substantial portion of Subject Parcel often floods in the springtime and after heavy rains (including all along Richmond Hill Drive and well beyond the designated wetlands and the wetlands buffer). 6. Not only does the Subject Parcel often flood (often to the edge of the paved road),the roads themselves flood, in particular around the southernmost portion of the development. Portions of the road in front of my house often flood heavily in the springtime,sometimes in excess of a foot deep(or more at the lowest parts). 7. I am also concerned about the Town making an exception for the Applicant in this case,and what that means for the Town's promises in similar instances.Here,the Town Planning Board required that this this property be "forever wild"when it initially approved the subdivision in 2006.This condition was consented to by the prior owner of this property, and the Applicant should be bound to that consent. Then,in 2015, the Planning Board (and Applicant) again reaffirmed and agreed to the same condition. 30 or more homeowners bought into this neighborhood in reliance upon the Town's promise to uphold this condition. Not only did my neighbors and I rely upon this promise for the aesthetics of the neighborhood,many of the homes in the neighborhood would potentially be flooded or damaged if the Town were to reverse its prior conditions, so this decision has real,tangible financial consequences to many people. S. The prior owner of the Subject Parcel couldn't develop this property,which is presumably why it stopped paying its taxes. The fact that Applicant bought this property at a tax sale shouldn't exempt him from being bound by these conditions.Further,if the Town can set conditions like this,which are relied upon by many residents,and later reverse such conditions,then what is the point of imposing conditions in the first place?What does that mean for any approval of the Planning Board?9. Finally,I am also concerned as a parent of three school age children in the Queensbury School District. The bus stop that my children use is located on the comer of Upper Sherman and Richmond Hill Drive, exactly where the proposed new home will be built. There are additionally over thirty school age children who use this bus stop on a daily basis during the school year.This intersection is already dangerous and has been the result of some close calls due to the nature of the comer and the speed at which traffic travels on Upper Sherman. Adding another driveway will result in additional traffic around an already difficult comer.10. For the reasons above,I request that the Planning Board deny the Application,and any subsequent applications for subdivision or development of the subject parcel (Sherman Avenue, Tax Map#305.7-1-45. 1)(hereinafter "Subject Parcel") , as a matter of law, and also upon the facts." And this is the one from Michael Litwak. MR. TRAVER-Okay. Thankyou,Laura. All right. Well,with that we'll close the public hearing. PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED 17 (Queensbury Planning Board OS/27/2024) MR. TRAVER-Ask the applicant to come back. I must tell you, and I know other members of the Board will have questions and comments as well,but my impression,my initial thoughts after the public hearing and various statements and information,as in your place I think my concern would be SEQR. I think that we might find a situation where the Board might feel that a Positive Declaration would be in order,which would be a complication that I don't think you want. MS. BITTER-Well,if I could. MR. TRAVER-Sure,go ahead. MS.BITTER Just to summarize,these were not things that we were not prepared for. A lot of these things were articulated at the prior meeting. MR. TRAVER-Sure. MS. BITTER-But I think we can all in this room collectively agree that this subdivision has problems, all right. What we had said at the last meeting was that we are trying to solve those problems. All right. If there's basements that are flooding,that's a subdivision problem,obviously, and I'm not an engineer,but Tom Center is, and we can identify how they're separate. That being said, before we even go down the SEQR road. That would be my response to that. Second, the condition that we talk about, we keep blurring the words subdivision and development, and I realize from a laymen's perspective they get kind of confusing,but from all of us we understand they're two separate things. Whether or not we divide a parcel is one thing. Whether or not we construct upon it or develop it is another. All right. So we're trying to subdivide this,which we know is an ask,and that's why we're here trying to lift that condition. In response,we're trying to right a wrong of prior developers, all right,because what's happening in that corner over there is not going to be further negatively impacted if we develop all the way by Sherman Avenue. That's just science, all right. That being said, we have an engineer who is pushing this to the forefront of the Town Highway Department,and they're not wrong in saying it was something that should have been corrected before,but it's not,it hasn't been,but Tom is trying to push it forward. That being said also,whatever these notations were,it wasn't completed,and what I had mentioned to you earlier is I had responses to Brian Boric's suggestions, all right, and my response to that is, the manner in which notification is made to homeowners or purchasers,and we have a couple ofrealtors on the Board,is through declarations,all right. Declarations are what you understand are the restrictive covenants of your parcel. Those are the rules. Those are what the attorney shows you at the table, all right. Notations on a subdivision map are not necessarily seen by landowners or homeowners, but declarations are. What I would suggest is that if they have one attorney who appears to be Dennis Phillips,that is where we should collectively start in amending those declarations. So there's a clear understanding of what's going to happen to the remainder of this lot. MR. TRAVER-So are you suggesting that you ask for a tabling so that you can resolve those issues? MS. BITTER-Right,and those were my,I'll just rattle through them and Tom can identify them,but what Brian Boric had suggested to me, I really think it's important that they seriously consider amending their declarations,because what notations are on a map,say subdivision,what comments were had at a Planning Board meeting in 2005, as we all know, are not conditions. Those were proposals, all right, or representations. So I'll go quick,Chairman,because I know that you have a long agenda. The one question they asked is relative to access on Sherman Avenue. This lot,it would be difficult for the Town to approve access on Sherman Avenue, and we appreciate that the School District doesn't want to go down their neighborhood. We could orchestrate a reconfiguration of that lot so that the driveway is as far down the road as possible. MR. CENTER-We did look at that after, we met with Mr. Boric at Stefanie's office. I did look at that. Moving the driveway further to the south gets into the lower part of the lands and would potentially cause a problem with where the wetland expands and contracts. I did not feel it was,you know, a good move to move that driveway further to the south. I did look at the site distance that they brought up. We're 195 feet from the corner. In regards to bringing the, as they asked about bringing the driveway off of Sherman Avenue,it's a collector road. MR. TRAVER-I understand what you're saying, and I understand there are a variety of options to handle different things with regard to this proposed development, but we're on Step Number One, and you're talking about Step Number Four Hundred and Twenty-Two here,right? So what I'm hearing is that a lot of this sounds like it may be a civil matter,which is beyond the purview of this Board. MS. BITTER-Correct. MR. TRAVER-So my concern for you would be if we move forward with this,one of the first things we're going to need to address for subdivision is SEQR, and I have some real concerns about the ability, the comfort level, I haven't polled the Board yet,we may do that if we need to,but it sounds as though you're 1S (Queensbury Planning Board OS/27/2024) suggesting perhaps that this be tabled,pending some discussion among attorneys to see if some of these issues can be resolved. MS. BITTER-And I'll read those very quickly,only for the purposes of allowing everybody in the audience to hear those,all right. MR. TRAVER-Go ahead. MS.BITTER-Because the next one was due diligence based on stormwater. Obviously Tom is involved in that. Stormwater relative to this development has already, I believe, been signed off by the Town Designated Engineer. So that has already been incorporated as to what we're suggesting we're doing,but obviously we'll work towards that. They asked about the deed restriction,which was my response about amending the declaration. That should be something that's collectively done with the entire homeowners, all of them. The other one was regular maintenance of trees that we,the developer,should take on,which Tom had already suggested we would grant an easement to the Town of Queensbury for that. So that maintenance is being done and is directed by the Town to do it. MR. TRAVER-You would ask the Town of Queensbury to do the tree trimming? MS. BITTER-No,no,not tree. MR. CENTER-The catch basin where the stormwater enters from the wetland. MS. BITTER-For 123. MR. CENTER-Well, 123 would be allowed, if they desire to put a device across the parcel, across each parcel,into an existing wetland catch basin,that they would be granted that easement off of that,put it in the deed,whatever language needed to be there legally so they could,whatever device. MR. TRAVER-If you could work that out,that would be great. MS. BITTER-Which,to me,that's really their solution. MR. TRAVER-So how long do you think,in other words,we're going to want a date to table this,to give you an opportunity to try to address some of these issue civilly. How long do you think you need to do that? MS. BITTER-I think we're either going to address them or not. So I would ask for the next available meeting,end of September. MR. TRAVER-Well, Laura's going to have,let's see,you're going to have data submitted for an October meeting by the 15`h. Right,Laura? MRS. MOORE-Correct. MR. CENTER-It would be language. It wouldn't be drawing drawings. It would be just language on the agreement. I think we've exhausted the,we have a Town Engineer signoff, except for a crossover and a driveway, with regard to stormwater management. We're not changing the configuration of the lot. I think what we're talking about is the deed language and the covenants and restrictions and whatnot,and working with the neighbor's attorney to see if we can come to some agreement. That would also give me time to get a contractor out there to camera that and work with the Highway Department and see to get further information. MR. TRAVER-Okay. I would,if you have the legal issues resolved,I would have a follow-up question for the Town Engineer,in terms of context. I know he has given you a signoff for this hypothetical project, but I would ask a question of the Town Engineer, is that signoff in the context of a non-functional surrounding stormwater system? MR.CENTER-We're not discharging anything off the parcel. As part of that stormwater design that we've provided,all of our devices are maintaining the stormwater back in the ground. MR. TRAVER-So it's isolated and not relevant to the other issue. MR. CENTER-The issues that we're trying to help the neighborhood with , that I brought up, are the extraneous issues with the wetland,with the catch basin,and this is something that even prior to this the Highway Department had asked a couple of questions and we'd been working on, I've made some suggestions to them, that they'd thrown out some thoughts out there. This project pushed it to the forefront and,you know, I kind of used the two to bring together with David and what his request was and we work with the Highway Department all the time, and knowing that this was a project that Mr. 19 (Queensbury Planning Board OS/27/2024) Nace was involved with I have the files at hand so I can kind of do a little bit of research and actually come up with something,because remember,like I said at the last meeting,I believe it was at the Zoning Board meeting, too,this system was installed in 2006/2007. So for almost 10 years plus it functioned properly, and something happened towards the end of that 10 years. MR. DEEB-I have a question,if I may. MR. TRAVER-Yes,go ahead. MR. DEEB-A lot of this, and I spoke up at the last meeting about litigation,how we're here and actually put in the middle of this. Talks with Mr. Howard for selling the property to the homeowners, is that a viable solution or is there a problem? What's going on with that? What's the obstacle to that? The question is what is the obstacle to Mr. Howard selling the land to the homeowners? All this would be alleviated,every bit of it,one little swipe of the pen. Is there a problem? We're in the middle of this now, again. MR. TRAVER-Well,no we're not. We're outside of it until it's resolved. We can't address the issues of the site plan. MR. DEEB-Can you answer that,Stefanie? MS. BITTER-I could say he wasn't interested in entertaining it,no. MR. DEEB-So,you would rather go through all this, and there's going to be litigation. There's no doubt in my mind there's going to be litigation. MS. BITTER-I'm a problem solver,Dave. I'm hopeful. MR. DEEB-I know your reputation. MS.BITTER-Because honestly I see,I'm sympathetic,and these folks have a problem,and I'm hopeful that they can understand that we're trying to be part of the solution. MR. DEEB Well,let's let it go. MR. TRAVER-Can you understand this SEQR problem that this Board is going to have? MS.BITTER-I would be happy to explain why I don't think it's a problem because I think that's a separate subdivision,and as Tom had identified we're maintaining our stormwater. So that's what I would state. MR. TRAVER-All right. So,Laura, a question. Is there any room at all on the September agenda,if they are simply supplying language to resolve the civil issues,so that we can move on to the actual proposal? MRS. MOORE-It's potentially possible. I just don't know,is that information coming to our office for us to look at or that sounds more like an exterior. MR. TRAVER-Would you want Counsel to review any hypothetical language that came through? MRS. MOORE-I would if there's information coming to our office. I'm just not certain what information's being gathered that's being presented back to the Board,in the sense that it sounds more like it's an issue beyond the Planning Board,that we're not talking about. MR.TRAVER-And that's why we're talking about tabling,to give them an opportunity to try to eliminate at least that part of the issue,so we can continue on the engineering and other issues,SEQR and so on. MR. MAGOWAN-Not that I want to put my two cents in,but I have to here,because I think between, you know,like I mentioned having Stefanie here tonight. I knew something was up. We have a major issue here where it's going to involve three parties and it could get pretty large, and I wouldn't put a rush on trying to get this through the Board until we all have a good agreement and a comfortable situation is just my thought. MR. TRAVER-Well,yes. MS. BITTER-We're okay with going to October, and then that way we can make the September 15`h's submission. MR. TRAVER-Okay. That would get you on the October schedule. MS. BITTER-Yes. 20 (Queensbury Planning Board OS/27/2024) MR. TRAVER-Okay. So do you have a meeting preference for October? MRS. MOORE-I would do the first October meeting. MR. TRAVER-The first October meeting,which would be. MR. MAGOWAN-While they're looking at that, Tom, I have one quick question. The no cut buffer, all right. MR. CENTER-On the newly created lot? MR. MAGOWAN-On the newly created lot. That whole no cut buffer,what does that equal out in square footage/acreage? MR. CENTER-I don't know,I'd have to come back with an answer on that. MR. MAGOWAN-Could you do that? Because it seems much larger than what it was the first time we saw this project. MR. CENTER-Well it was a two acre lot,or the first time it was a one acre lot with just clearing limits on it,no no cut buffers at all. This is a 2.16 acre with a huge no cut buffer around it. So I just,again,knowing that everybody's trying to keep the conservation space,that's why we offered the one acre lot. We went to two acres,again,trying to make sure that somebody purchasing it is very clear what the usable land was and to keep that buffer,so that nobody did disturb trees going backwards,back into,towards the back of the wetlands area or towards the parcel. MR. MAG OWAN-And I saw you did that and it made a lot of sense to me seeing it from what we started with before. So thank you. MR. TRAVER-All right. For the Board's information what we're talking about doing is tabling this application and I'll address the public in a minute. We're going to table this application to the October 15 to give the applicant an opportunity to consult with the neighbors and counsel and so on. So with that, can you do a draft resolution? RESOLUTION TABLING SUB#1-2024 PRELIMINARY STAGE DAVID HOWARD (Revised) Applicant proposes a two-lot subdivision of a 25.7E acre parcel. The parcel would be divided into 23.62 acres and 2.16acres. The 23.62 acre parcel will remain vacant and the 2.16 acre parcel will be developed for a single family home.The new residential lot will have a new home with associated site work. Pursuant to chapter IS3, a two-lot subdivision shall be subject to Planning Board review and approval. Tabled to the October 15,2024 Planning Board meeting with information due by September 15,2024. MOTION TO TABLE SUBDIVISION PRELIMINARY 1-2024 DAVID HOWARD.Introduced by Fritz Stefanzick who moved for its adoption. Motion seconded by Brad Magowan. Duly adopted this 27`h day of August 2024 by the following vote: MR.TRAVER-So,for folks in the audience,I want to keep you in the loop in terms of what's going on here. The applicant has suggested that we stop looking at the application for this evening,give them a time to kind of step back and see if some of these underlying issues that are really beyond the purview of the Planning Board can be clarified,resolved,and they will be back before this Board on October 15,and there will be,certainly you'll be welcome to attend that meeting as well and we'll see where things stand. The hope is that some of these issues will be clarified so that we can then, and I think I heard someone ask about, when I talked about SEQR, that's the State Environmental Quality Review Act. This Board is required to look at potential environmental impacts from a hypothetical development. So that would be before we even consider subdivision or a house or anything else we have to look at what could be the potential for environmental impacts. So that's where we stand,and we have a motion. AYES: Mrs.Bullard,Mr. Longacker,Mr. Stark,Mr. Magowan,Mr. Stefanzick,Mr. Deeb,Mr.Traver NOES: NONE ABSENT: Mrs. McDevitt MR. TRAVER-All right. We'll see you in October. MR. MAGOWAN-And anybody in the audience,really,Google SEQR. It's quite interesting. 21 (Queensbury Planning Board OS/27/2024) MR. TRAVER-Yes,it is. MS. GAGLIARDI-Excuse me,Mr. Chairman,did you want to re-open the public hearing? MR. TRAVER-Yes. PUBLIC HEARING RE-OPENED MR. TRAVER-So the next item on our agenda,also under Tabled Items,is Native Partners, LLC. This is Subdivision Preliminary Stage 7-2024 and Final Stage 5-2024. SUBDIVISION NO. 7-2024 PRELIMINARY STAGE SUBDIVISION NO. 8-2024 FINAL STAGE SEQR TYPE: UNLISTED. NATIVE PARTNERS, LLC. AGENT(S): ABD ENGINEERS. OWNER(S): HALCYON PROPERTIES, INC. ZONING: MDR, CLI. LOCATION: 377 CORINTH ROAD. APPLICANT PROPOSES A 3 LOT SUBDIVISION. LOT 1 WILL BE 1.15 ACRES AND MAINTAIN AN EXISTING HOME. LOT 2 WILL BE 10.29 ACRES AND BE DEVELOPED FOR A WAREHOUSE FACILITY. LOT 3 WILL BE A VACANT PARCEL OF 10.73 ACRES. THE ZONING IS SPLIT WITH LOT 1 BEING IN THE MODERATE DENSITY RESIDENTIAL ZONE AND THE OTHER TWO LOTS BEING ZONED COMMERCIAL LIGHT INDUSTRIAL. PURSUANT TO CHAPTER 183,SUBDIVISION OF A PARCEL INTO 3 LOTS SHALL BE SUBJECT TO PLANNING BOARD REVIEW AND APPROVAL. WARREN CO. REFERRAL: N/A FOR SUBDIVISION. SITE INFORMATION: TRAVEL CORRIDOR. LOT SIZE: 22.2 ACRES. TAX MAP NO 308.16-2-14. SECTION: 183. JON ZAPPER&LUIGI PALLESCHI,REPRESENTING APPLICANT,PRESENT MR. TRAVER-Laura? MRS. MOORE-So this application is a proposed three lot subdivision. Lot One is to be 1.15 acres and maintain an existing home. Lot Two will be 10.29 acres and to be developed for a warehouse facility. Lot Three will be a vacant parcel of 10.73 acres. The zoning is split, with Lot One being in the Moderate Density Residential zone,and the other two lots being zoned Commercial Light Industrial. MR. TRAVER-Okay. Thank you. Good evening. MR. ZAPPER-Good evening, everyone. For the record, Jon Lapper with Luigi Palleschi from ABD Engineering, and the applicants,Tim Barber and Steve Springer,members of Native Partners,behind me. So by way of quick background,we all know what happened with F.W.Webb when they had a proposal to go onto Quaker Road, and that was not well received by the neighbors, and they were looking to move out of town because they couldn't find a suitable location, sizeable lot, and Tim was able to get this lot under contract,and of course they've been before you a lot doing the industrial subdivision,light industrial behind this property. That's an extension of the Carey Industrial Park which is now full, and then they did their five lots behind that,which they're doing very nicely with building warehouses and renting them. So they were able to get this property under contract and offer it to F.W.Webb,one of the lots. It's really a better location in the Town for that company because it's close to Exit 1S. It's in the Commercial Light Industrial district. It's good access and good sight distance on a straight road,on Corinth Road. So the first application is a very straightforward three lot subdivision. There's a small house parcel which is in a residential zone. So that would be separate, and then approximately two 10 acre parcels, one for F.W. Webb which is the Site Plan that's next,and one that they will develop probably for warehouse but they'll figure that out in the future. So we wanted to have separate driveways on these two and the traffic count enables that under the Code just because this is a pretty good size facility that'll have trucks and also retail so the end user felt it was important to have their own driveway and submitted a traffic report which covered that. Beyond that,we had a stormwater analysis from the Town Designated Engineer analysis and very simple issues which Luigi already responded to. So we think this is a pretty vanilla application. There's both a fence and spruce trees which is a lot nicer than putting pine trees in, so 15 foot on center, we think that because there's residents which are,of course,next to the Commercial Light Industrial zone, but it's kind of a double buffer with an eight foot fence plus a lot of spruce trees. That should cover it. So that's the general story,and I'll let Luigi walk you through the site plan. MR. TRAVER-Okay. MR. PALLES CHI-Luigi Palle schi with AB Engineers. I don't know if we're going to talk about like both subdivision and site plan? I don't know if you want to separate it or if you want me to just roll right into the site plan. MR.TRAVER-Well,we're talking about the subdivision first. So why don't we do that. We can process that application and then we'll move right into,we'll do them one after another,not simultaneously,but just to clarify for the record,we'll do them one at a time. 22 (Queensbury Planning Board OS/27/2024) MR. PALLESCHI-So just a couple of points that I'll just touch on,on the subdivision application. As Jon had mentioned,you have residential on the westerly side as well as on the easterly side,we're proposing an eight foot high black chain link coated fencing with slats, as well as spruce trees staggered, 15 feet on center. The reason for that is because of the residential uses to commercial uses,and we're also proposing that on the easterly side. Even though this is the zoning line here where it's residential over on this side, this line, and to the east,is all commercial. So these residential uses are in a commercial zoning district, but because of the uses we are still proposing a black chain link,black coated fence with slats as well as the staggered spruce trees to provide that buffer. Again,as Jon mentioned,we're proposing the two curb cuts. This curb cut here for Lot Two, as well as a proposed curb cut for Lot Three, and the reason we're showing that on here is because of the Code providing the traffic assessment and the number of traffic trips. There's a certain distance between these two driveways that need to be maintained, and we can certainly do that. Over here to the south,that's Native Development,which,you know,we were in front of this Board, and is very successful and underway, and again,you know,the commercial development to the south would have no impact,and,you know,when we get into the site plan for Lot Two,you'll notice that in the back areas here we'll be proposing the stormwater infiltration because of all the nice sandy soils in this Town. Other than that,I don't think there's any additional information,unless the Board obviously has questions in regards to the subdivision application. MR. TRAVER-What are you going to do with Lot Three? MR. ZAPPER-Either a tenant will come along and they'll build a warehouse for them or they'll do something for themselves,but they have the deal with F.W.Webb. So that got figured out first. MR. TRAVER-So any time line for Lot Three in terms of development? AUDIENCE MEMBER-A couple of months. MR. ZAPPER-They haven't figured it out yet,but when they do,they'll be back with a site plan. MR. TRAVER-Short term it sounds like. MR. ZAPPER-Hopefully. MR. TRAVER-Okay. All right. Questions, comments from members of the Board? This is on the subdivision. MR. MAGOWAN-That's a County road. Have you talked to Kevin Hajos about your curb cuts? MR. PALLESCHI-We have not yet. I believe the plans have been submitted for review,but,you know,as you can see from this plan as well as the site plan, we are offering a wider curb cut for tractor trailer maneuverability on Corinth Road. As you know Corinth Road is a straightaway. It's straight for good sight distance. So we don't see any concerns with sight distance,and again,you know,providing the ample maneuvering for tractor trailers for Lot Two. We have provided that. MR. MAGOWAN-The only reason I bring that up is because I know the County is looking into doing a little bit of a road study,you know,really it's more down near Carey Park,the development,you know,it sat empty for so long and now it's just filled right up,which is wonderful,but the traffic and the accidents and being a County road I just know they're looking into it. So I would look for approvals there first. To make sure the County knows that being a County road. Also I'm happy that you've found a location for F.W.Webb that they'd be interested in,all right. What I'm not particularly fond of is pretty much clearing everything out right up to the property owners over there that have been there for,I would imagine,a long, long time,even though, and sometimes I get a little frustrated with this zoning, and how we zone things where you have houses on both sides,but yet they'll put a Light Industrial,and I don't,wouldn't really have a problem with anything if F.W.Webb took up Lot Two and Three and you put it right in the middle,but being in the real estate end, and understanding this, I mean,you're all out to make money and to future build,but. MR. ZAPPER-I really want to take exception to those comments, Brad,because we don't need a 20 acre lot for this use,and there's not enough Commercial Light Industrial in Queensbury. It's important for jobs and for taxes and we're not overtaxing this lot. So this is,it fits nicely and this is where it's supposed to go in a Commercial Light Industrial zone. MR. MAGOWAN-All right. So what do you think about all the neighbors there on the east side? Do you think it's fair for them? How about you live over there and then all of a sudden. MR. ZAPPER-So there are adjacent uses that are different all over Town,and that's why an eight foot fence with black slats and very generous spruce trees is a nice buffer. 23 (Queensbury Planning Board OS/27/2024) MR. MAGOWAN-And what side are those spruce trees going to be on? MR. ZAPPER-On the inside of the fence. MR. MAGOWAN-So I have to look out my backdoor and see a black fence,spruce trees on the other side. I mean I just, that's all I'm saying. I don't think it's fair and I'm sure people have to talk,you know, are here to talk about it,but I don't know,it's just. MR. ZAPPER-I hope you're only talking for yourself and not for the Board because what's proposed is totally appropriate in the Commercial Light Industrial zone,to have a vinyl,black vinyl fence with black slats, and trees. I mean the Town provides for that, because there's plenty of places where you have different uses next door to each other. MR. MAGOWAN-I am speaking for myself. understood. MR. ZAPPER-And Commercial Light Industrial zone is an important zone for the Town. MR. MAGOWAN-And I respect that. MR. STEFANZIK-Lot Two currently is partial MDR and CLI? MR. PALLESCHI-Yes. MR. STEFANZIK-So how much, like when you look at that, the property line of the houses on Stevens Road,right now,you know,the back of their house,it's all. MR. PALLESCHI-So this is re-zoning line right here. So this little portion would be MDR,too,of the Lot Two. MR. STEFANZIK-Okay,and if you keep on going down? MR. PALLESCHI-Westerly,and then this is the line,right along here,that splits the zoning. MR. STEFANZIK-So everything to the left of that is MDR. MR. PALLESCHI-MDR. MR. STEFANZIK-And to the right? MR. PALLESCHI-Is commercial,CLI. MR. STEFANZIK-So there's no buffer right there? MR. PALLESCHI-No. MR. STEFANZIK-Because I share Brad's concern about that. Right now they have a nice tree line,thick woods,and then all of a sudden it's just going to be,you know,a fence,and there's no way that you can get a buffer in there,a wider buffer? Given that you have 10 acres of land,two properties of 10 acres,you can't find more of a buffer? MR. TRAVER-For example,if you put two rows of trees and a fence in the middle? MR. MAGOWAN-Well they have to fence it in. MR. TRAVER-Yes,but they could put the fence in the middle. MR. PALLESCHI-We can certainly look into that. MR. ZAPPER-We can do that. We could put trees on the neighbor's side and move the fence. MR. TRAVER-Move the fence a little bit,put a row of trees,a fence,and then another row of trees. MR. ZAPPER-Yes,that's a good suggestion. MR. STEFANZIK-Decent sized trees. MR. TRAVER-Okay. Other questions before we go to public hearing? MR. STEFANZIK-That would be part of the site plan to incorporate that? 24 (Queensbury Planning Board OS/27/2024) MR. TRAVER-Well,it would be part of the subdivision. Yes,it would be a condition of the subdivision. There is a public hearing on this application for a subdivision. Is there anybody in the audience that wants to address the Planning Board on this application? Yes,ma'am. PUBLIC HEARING OPENED JUDY BROWN MS. BROWN-My name is Judy Brown. I live at 12 Pinewood. I bought five years ago. Since then they've put in a development of Burnt Hills, which has created traffic coming over from Upper Sherman onto Kylian Lane and they come across Burnt Hills,come down Pinewood like it's a thoroughfare. The gridlock during the week for school buses and everything to go down Corinth Road starts at seven o'clock in the morning until nine o'clock in the morning. It is non-stop traffic,and I can't foresee tractor trailers. I mean I was at Exit 1S, and the wide turns that they have to make off there. Last winter I almost had a tractor trailer,I had the green light,going towards Glens Falls. Tractor trailer coming off the Northway,failed to stop,and almost wiped my car out. The traffic is extremely heavy in that area. I mean it's all wooded area. I bought it because there's wooded area behind me. Wooded area out off of Corinth Road, and now it's just building up constant traffic, and I don't want to be sitting out by my pool on a Sunday afternoon listening to tractor trailers come out of that property,because you know that front property,the 10 acres, they're going to put a roadway in there,and it's going to be non-stop listening to tractor trailers. We came up Carey Road and went down in that development,two weeks ago,we sat on a Sunday afternoon,three minutes trying to exit that road because of the traffic. MR. TRAVER-We can discuss traffic with the applicant. MS. BROWN-That's a huge issue. I mean, I can sit in my office,in my house, and watch the traffic at a dead stop, every single morning, and the log trucks that come over the mountain,you add that into the equation,now more tractor trailers. It's horrible. MR. TRAVER-Understood. MS.BROWN-And the environment. I mean there's been fox that have been hit up there. They come and take refuge in my backyard and lay there. I mean there's deer all over the place,and it's getting demolished. They put storage units up back of Papa's. I mean they're just creating a mess in that area,and I think the homeowners should be considered. MR. TRAVER-I understand your concern. MS. BROWN-Thank you. MR. TRAVER-Is there anyone else in the audience that wants to address the Planning Board on this application? I'm not seeing any other takers. Are there written comments,Laura? MRS. MOORE-There are no written comments. MR. TRAVER-Okay. We will close the public hearing on this subdivision. PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED MR. TRAVER-So traffic is a concern. You did submit a report. Can you summarize what you expect the additional impact to be? MR. ZAPPER-So Corinth Road is an arterial in the Town,you know,County road as Brad said,near Exit 1S. This is where the tractor trailers are supposed to be. That's why we have Commercial Light Industrial zoning. So obviously if you choose to buy a house where you have a lot of commercial traffic you expect that. This is not going to exacerbate it. The traffic report shows that this is not a major traffic generator. The use is already in Town on the other side of Town. There aren't any traffic problems,but it's convenient to Exit 1S. So people that are coming here from out of the area to visit F.W.Webb aren't going to be on a lot of Queensbury roads. It's about a mile. So it's really the right location for traffic. MR. TRAVER-What about the hours for the large trucks making deliveries and so on? MR. ZAPPER-I don't know that on behalf of the developer,because that's an F.W.Webb issue. I'm told 7 a.m. to 4 p.m.,Monday through Friday is what they're proposing. MR. TRAVER-For the large trucks? Okay. Questions,comments from members of the Board? MR. DEEB-Do you know how many tractor trailers will be coming in a day? 25 (Queensbury Planning Board OS/27/2024) MR. ZAPPER-Two deliveries a day by tractor trailer. MR. STEFANZIK-So nothing in the evening. MR. ZAPPER-Right. MR. STEFANZIK-So the facility closes work at 4 o'clock? MR. ZAPPER-Five o'clock. MR. STEFANZIK-Okay. So it's not something that goes on all night long. MR. DEEB-What about weekends? MR. ZAPPER-No deliveries on weekends. MR. TRAVER-Okay. So we have,under SEQR we have to do a SEQR resolution on this application. Do members of the Board have environmental impact concerns? I'm not hearing any. Are members comfortable moving ahead with a SEQR resolution? Okay. All right. Let's propose that resolution. RESOLUTION GRANTING A NEGATIVE SEQR DEC. SUB#7-2024 PRELIM. STG. NATIVE The Applicant proposes a 3 lot subdivision. Lot 1 will be 1.15 acres and maintain an existing home. Lot 2 will be 10.29 acres and be developed for a warehouse facility. Lot 3 will be a vacant parcel of 10.73 acres. The zoning is split with Lot I being in the moderate density residential zone and the other two lots being zoned Commercial Light Industrial. Pursuant to chapter IS3, subdivision of a parcel into 3 lots 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 Long 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 SUBDIVISION PRELIMINARY 7-2024 NATIVE PARTNERS,LLC.Introduced by Fritz Stefanzick who moved for its adoption. As per the resolution prepared by staff. 1. Part II of the Long EAF has been reviewed and completed by the Planning Board. 2. Part III of the Long EAF is not necessary because the Planning Board did not identify potentially moderate to large impacts. Motion seconded by Warren Longacker. Duly adopted this 27`h day of August 2024 by the following vote: MR. TRAVER-Any discussion? MR. MAGOWAN-Yes, I do. I'm going to go back to traffic. Corinth Road is already busy. I believe there's a study going on on Corinth Road,and then on top of that we have possibly a future development of West Mountain which is going to create more. One of the things that has been brought up before is something that we didn't see on planning for Carey Road, as the development slowly fills out, the commercial park over there, the traffic got worse and worse and worse and the accidents increased. So now we're going to be pushing just not tractor trailers. F.W.Webb is a phenomenal plumbing warehouse and I might have to go on record that I do have an account there,but I am happy for that,but I am sticking to I would really like to see that building moved over and a larger buffer around that building. MR. TRAVER-Well we're going to be discussing that at site plan which will be next. Right now we're just talking about the subdivision. We're talking about the environmental impacts. MR. DEEB-What's that got to do with traffic,though? 26 (Queensbury Planning Board OS/27/2024) MR. MAGOWAN-I've got two issues,the traffic and the building. MR. DEER-I'm sorry,I thought you were combining. I misunderstood you. MR. MAGOWAN-No,their two separate things,but the traffic on the SEQR there,I mean,I just can't see it,as it is now,what happens in the future,and that's what we missed at Carey park is what I'm trying to say. MR.TRAVER-That will be our responsibility to adjudicate when we have applicants come in in the future. That is not this applicant's issue. We have to consider this application and not some hypothetical application that's down the road. MR. MAGOWAN-We already have a situation up on Carey park and now we're adding more traffic on Corinth Road. That's what I'm saying. MR. TRAVER-Did you see the traffic study that was submitted? MR. MAGOWAN-I didn't go into depth. It's a lot of jibber jabber to me. I'm more a visual and what I feel. MR.TRAVER-Okay. Well,first things first. We have a SEQR resolution that's been made and seconded. So let's vote on that. AYES: Mr. Longacker,Mr. Stark,Mr. Stefanzick,Mr.Deeb,Mrs.Bullard,Mr. Traver NOES: Mr. Magowan ABSENT: Mrs. McDevitt MR.TRAVER-All right. So next we can consider the subdivision application itself. I know one condition that we want to add is the fence to be moved back and a second row of trees to be added to the plan so that there is a row of trees on the residential side,and then the fence and then a layer of trees on the applicant's side. That should help with sound and light and other issues. Were there any other conditions that we wanted? MR. STEFANZIK-Did we want to specify the height of the spruces? MR. TRAVER-Well the fence is eight feet. What caliper are you talking about? MR.ZAPPER-So first of all I guess we're thinking leaving eight feet from the property line on the neighbor's side,if that's okay,we'll move the fence over eight feet. MR. TRAVER-Yes. That's fine. MR. ZAPPER-Okay. MR. TRAVER-Then what about,the fence is eight feet. What's the caliper of the trees to be planted? MR. PALLESCHI-So they're spruces. They would be like seven to eight feet in height. MR. TRAVER-Seven to eight feet? Okay. All right. So that would be. MR. MAG OWAN-Is that planted or in the bucket? MR. PALLESCHI-Planted. MR. MAGOWAN-Okay. Thank you. Those are nice trees. Thank you. MR. TRAVER-Were there any other,I don't think there were any other conditions that we discussed on the subdivision part of the project. MR. LONGACKER-I have some comments on just the Site Plan itself. MR. TRAVER-The Site Plan? Yes,we'll be doing that one next. MR. LONGACKER-Yes. MR. TRAVER-Okay. All right. Then once you're ready with that resolution we can hear that, for the subdivision. 27 (Queensbury Planning Board OS/27/2024) MRS. MOORE-So I just want to clarify the buffer requirement. So that's at any point where a buffer is required on this project. So there's two lots,there's two different buffers that are setup. So I just want to make sure that we're clear that it applies to both lots. MR. TRAVER-Right. Thank you for that. So, yes, that condition is clarified as to where there is the buffer,where there is to be buffering,there is to be two layers of trees with a fence in the middle,eight feet from the line. MR. STEFANZIK-By the residential homes. MR. MAGOWAN-What are we voting on. MR. TRAVER-The buffer. It's going to have,not a fence and aline of trees. It's going to be aline of trees, a fence and a line of trees. MR. MAG OWAN-Okay. That's what we're voting on? MR. TRAVER-No,well,yes,that's part of the subdivision approval. MR. MAGOWAN-All right. I just said I have a problem with the subdivision, and you're saying we're going to do site plan review. So once we approve the subdivision as what it's been laid out with, right? Then we can't do any lot line adjustments,right? Then we go onto site plan and what they're going to do. MR. TRAVER-We won't be doing lot line adjustments after, if we approve the subdivision as proposed, then that's approved. Right? And then when we get to the location of the building and all that,that's site plan,which we'll be doing next. MR. MAGOWAN-So I brought up the question,and I would like to see the building moved over. MR. TRAVER-That's a Site Plan issue. We haven't discussed that yet. That will be next. MR. MAG OWAN-But they can't move it over if we approve the lot line. MR.TRAVER-I don't believe that that's true because the building is within Lot Two of the subdivision,of the proposed subdivision. MR. MAGOWAN-Well I would like to see Lot Two larger. MR. TRAVER-Okay. Well then you would vote against approval of the subdivision. Anything else? MR. STARK Just to be clear,you want to see? MR. MAGOWAN-I thought a larger buffer between the neighbors,all right,and the commercial building. I appreciate the added fence and trees,that's nice,but you're talking,you know,a huge building right down the line. What is it 3S feet off,is that what it says? MR. TRAVER-All right. Well let's do this. Let me poll the Board. How do Board members feel about the subdivision? Warren,are you in favor? MR. LONGACKER-I'm okay with the subdivision,but I had a couple of comments when we get to Site Plan that might address some of Brad's comments,too. MR. TRAVER-David? MR. DEEB-I'm fine with it. MR. TRAVER-Okay. What do you think? MR. STEFANZIK-Well,what Brad has brought up is what I brought up about increasing the buffer, and that's why I mentioned if you have two lots that are 10 plus acres,you would think there's a way you could, you know,move the building,change the lot sizes a little bit to create more of a buffer. I like the buffer that we're adding with the two rows,but can we do more? MR. TRAVER-We can ask them to do more. What would you want to see? MR. STEFANZIK-Well, I mean, I would like to see at least something like a 20 foot buffer of trees or something. Maybe even the trees that are there now,maintain them. However to do that I think you'd have to maybe adjust the lot lines. 2S (Queensbury Planning Board OS/27/2024) MR. TRAVER-Well,let's ask the applicant. MR. PALLESCHI-Yes, so if I may,you know,we're in agreement with providing the trees and the fence then the trees. This building is actually 119 feet away from that property line, and the zoning allows the building to be within 30 feet of like that's the side setback here,30 feet. We're 119 feet from the building. So I like the idea that the Board had asked for with the fence,with the trees,fence and the trees,but if you look at the Site Plan,look ahead here,we actually have a buffer of stormwater,green space,and,you know, we're not building parking or building up to that 30 feet. So,you know,having the trees, the fence, and the trees as well as,you know,that landscaping buffer,I think we are providing more of a buffer. MR. TRAVER-How wide is the landscape buffer to the property line? MR. PALLESCHI-So from the parking lot itself it's 3 S feet. So from the property line to where you seethe first row of parking is 3S feet. MR. STEFANZIK-And that's a buffer of? MR. PALLESCHI-Grass,green space. MR. MAGOWAN-I would like to apologize. For some reason I looked at that, as,I don't know why,but it was light, but my eyes looked at it as the building, and now I just realized, so I redact some of my statements and Mr. Lapper. MR. ZAPPER-We accept your apology. Thank you. MR. TRAVER-All right. So does that help with your buffering? MR. STEFANZIK-Yes. MR. TRAVER-All right,and I'm okay with it. Are you okay with the subdivision? MRS. BULLARD-Yes. MR. TRAVER-Are you? MR. STARK-Yes. MR. TRAVER-Are you now okay with the subdivision? MR. MAGOWAN-I'm all right with the subdivision,Mr. Chairman. MR. TRAVER-All right. I'm sorry,did you read the resolution? MR. STEFANZIK-No. MR. TRAVER-Go ahead with that resolution. RESOLUTION APPROVING SUB#7-2024 PRELIMINARY STAGE NATIVE PARTNERS,LLC A subdivision application has been made to the Queensbury Planning Board for the following:Applicant proposes a 3 lot subdivision. Lot 1 will be 1.15 acres and maintain an existing home.Lot 2 will be 10.29 acres and be developed for a warehouse facility. Lot 3 will be a vacant parcel of 10.73 acres. The zoning is split with Lot 1 being in the moderate density residential zone and the other two lots being zoned Commercial Light Industrial. Pursuant to chapter IS3, subdivision of a parcel into 3 lots shall be subject to Planning Board review and approval. Pursuant to relevant sections of the Town of Queensbury Zoning Code-Chapter A-1S3,the Planning Board has determined that this proposal satisfies the requirements as stated in the Zoning Code; The requirements of the State Environmental Quality Review Act have been considered and the Planning Board has adopted a SEQRA Negative Declaration; A public hearing was opened on S/20/2027 and continued through S/27/2024 when it closed; This application is supported with all documentation,public comment,and application material in the file of record; 29 (Queensbury Planning Board OS/27/2024) MOTION TO APPROVE SUBDIVISION PRELIMINARY STAGE 7-2024 NATIVE PARTNERS, LLC.Introduced by Fritz Stefanzick who moved for its adoption. Subject to creating a buffer consisting of two rows of 7 to S foot planted height evergreen type trees with an S foot fence in between,with the fence S feet off of the property line. Motion seconded by Kimberly Bullard. Duly adopted this 27`h day of August 2024 by the following vote: MR. ZAPPER-Do you want to say eight feet off the property line with that fence? MR. TRAVER-Does that work? MRS. MOORE-I'd further edit it,instead of spruces,an evergreen type. AYES: Mr. Magowan,Mr. Stefanzick,Mr. Deeb,Mrs.Bullard,Mr. Longacker,Mr. Stark,Mr. Traver NOES: NONE ABSENT: Mrs. McDevitt MR. ZAPPER-Thank you. MR. TRAVER-All right. That's Preliminary Stage. So now we need to do Final Stage. So we need the second resolution for Final Stage. RESOLUTION APPROVING SUB#5-2024 FINAL STAGE NATIVE PARTNERS,LLC A subdivision application has been made to the Queensbury Planning Board for the following:Applicant proposes a 3 lot subdivision. Lot 1 will be 1.15 acres and maintain an existing home.Lot 2 will be 10.29 acres and be developed for a warehouse facility. Lot 3 will be a vacant parcel of 10.73 acres. The zoning is split with Lot I being in the moderate density residential zone and the other two lots being zoned Commercial Light Industrial. Pursuant to chapter IS3, subdivision of a parcel into 3 lots shall be subject to Planning Board review and approval. Pursuant to relevant sections of the Town of Queensbury Zoning Code-Chapter A-1S3,the Planning Board has determined that this proposal satisfies the requirements as stated in the Zoning Code; This application is supported with all documentation,public comment,and application material in the file of record; MOTION TO APPROVE SUBDIVISION FINAL STAGE 8-2024 NATIVE PARTNERS, LLC. Introduced by Fritz Stefanzick who moved for its adoption. 1. The requirements of the State Environmental Quality Review Act have been considered and the Planning Board has adopted a SEQRA Negative Declaration; and if the application is a modification, the requirements of the State Environmental Quality Review Act have been considered, and the proposed modification[s] do not result in any new or significantly different environmental impacts,and,therefore,no further SEQRA review is necessary; 2) Waiver requests granted:buffer is to be along the residential uses and to include a row of evergreen trees an S ft fence and a row of evergreen trees; 3) The approval is valid for one (1) year from the date of approval. Applicant is responsible for requesting an extension of approval before the expiration date of S/27/2025 if you have not yet applied for a building permit or commenced significant site work. 4) The limits of clearing will constitute a no-cut buffer zone, orange construction fencing shall be installed around these areas and field verified by Community Development staff 5) Engineering sign-off required prior to signature of Planning Board Chairman. 6) The applicant must submit a copy of the following to the Town: a) The project NOI (Notice of Intent) for coverage under the current NYSDEC SPDES General Permit or for coverage under an individual SPDES prior to the start of aU site work. b) The project NOT(Notice of Termination)upon completion of the project;and 7) The applicant must maintain on their project site,for review by staff: 30 (Queensbury Planning Board OS/27/2024) a) The approved final that have been stamped by the Town Zoning Administrator. These plans must include the project SWPPP(Storm Water Pollution Prevention Plan)when such a plan was prepared and approved;and b) The project NOI and proof of coverage under the current NYSDEC SPDES General Permit,or an individual SPDES permit issued for the project. S) Final approved plans,in compliance with the Subdivision,must be submitted to the Community Development Department before any further review by the Zoning Administrator or Building and Codes personnel. 9) The applicant must meet with Staff after approval and prior to issuance of Building Permit and/or the beginning of any site work. 10) Subsequent issuance of further permits, including building permits is dependent on compliance with this and all other conditions of this resolution; 11) As-built plans to certify that the subdivision is developed according to the approved plans to be provided prior to issuance of the certificate of occupancy; 12) Resolutions must be included on Final Subdivision mylar; Motion seconded by David Deeb. Duly adopted this 27`h day of August 2024 by the following vote: AYES: Mr. Stefanzick,Mr. Deeb,Mrs.Bullard,Mr. Longacker,Mr. Stark,Mr. Magowan,Mr. Traver NOES: NONE ABSENT: Mrs. McDevitt MR. TRAVER-All right. We're all set with that. So now we move onto Native Partners, LLC, Site Plan 52-2024. SITE PLAN NO. 52-2024 SEQR TYPE: UNLISTED. NATIVE PARTNERS, LLC. AGENT(S): ABD ENGINEERS. OWNER(S): HALCYON PROPERTIES, INC. ZONING: MDR. CLI. LOCATION: 377 CORINTH ROAD. APPLICANT PROPOSES CONSTRUCTION OF A 76,200 S. FT. ONE STORY STRUCTURE WITH A MEZZANINE FOR WHOLE SALE AND BUILDING SUPPLY FACILITY. PROJECT INCLUDES ASSOCIATED SITEWORK, STORMWATER MANAGEMENT, LANDSCAPING AND LIGHTING. THE PROJET IS PART OFA 3 LOT SUBDIVISION. LOT 1 IS AN EXISTING 1.15 ACRE RESIDENTIAL LOT, LOT 2 IS 10.29 ACRES AND WILL BE DEVELOPED FOR THE WAREHOUSE FACILITY,AND LOT 3 IS A VACANT 10.73 ACRE PARCEL. THE ZONING IS SPLIT WITH LOT 1 BEING IN THE MODERATE DENSITY RESIDENTIAL ZONE AND THE OTHER TWO LOTS BEING ZONED COMMERCIAL LIGHT INDUSTRIAL. PURSUANT TO CHAPTER 179-3-040,SITE PLAN FOR NEW CONSTRUCTION IN A CLI ZONE SHALL BE SUBJECT TO PLANNING BOARD REVIEW AND APPROVAL. CROSS REFERENCE: WARREN CO. REFERRAL: AUGUST 2024. SITE INFORMATION: TRAVEL CORRIDOR. LOT SIZE: 22.2 ACRES. TAX MAP NO. 308.16-2-14. SECTION: 179-3-040. JON ZAPPER&LUIGI PALLESCHI,REPRESENTING APPLICANT,PRESENT MR. TRAVER-Laura? MRS. MOORE-So this application is construction of a 76,200 square foot one story structure with a mezzanine for wholesale and building supply facility. Project includes associated site work, stormwater management,landscaping and lighting. And as mentioned before,it's part of a three lot subdivision where this is considered to be placed on Lot Two. MR.TRAVER-Okay. Thank you. Okay. So now we're talking about the actual site plan for the building. I know you've described it to some degree, but do you want to go into, perhaps, more detail about the actual site plan. MR. PALLESCHI-Absolutely. So this is the proposed curb cut off of Corinth Road that was outlined in the subdivision. So the curb cut would be wide enough. It would require a curb cut, highway work permit from the County. So this would be the main entrance,one entrance in and out of the facility. You'd have parking in the front for customers. You'd have parking on the west side here for employees,and then this route allows the tractor trailers to come straight through, maneuver in this area and back up to the loading docks. As Laura mentioned,the square footage of the building is 76,200 square foot of a footprint, but there is a mezzanine within this structure with a total gross floor area of 95,579. You can sort of see the interior layout here. As part of the tractor trailer maneuvering area,there will be an outdoor storage yard. So everything from this line to the south would be storage, and the storage would tend to wrap 31 (Queensbury Planning Board OS/27/2024) around the sides as well, but leaving this area for maneuverability of tractor trailers and when your plumbers come in and they need some side exit doors here to load vehicles this would also serve as a loading area for the customers. So that's the layout here. As far as that goes. A little bit about utilities on Corinth Road. There is a two inch force mainline that's sort of in this area here. That will be extended along Corinth Road and terminated over in this area here,and a new lateral to serve this building would,there's a grinder pump that would be needed for this building and tie into the extended two inch force main. There's a 24 inch water main on the opposite side, the north side of Corinth Road. Plenty of water pressures and flow from that 24 inch main and, again,to serve this building because it is going to be fire sprinkled,an eight inch line would come off of the main and into the site,and feed this building,and then in talk with the fire department,we're proposing a fire hydrant right at this location as they preferred that location. So we've already been in contact with them. As far as fire needs and circulation,obviously we have plenty of circulation around the entire building. Lighting has been provided to us by F.W. Webb, and you can see those are situated all around. We did a photometrics and no light shed shown on the photometrics will go beyond the property lines. That's all been provided as well. So around the perimeter you will have the pole lights,and obviously building mounted lights at the building,and then stormwater we worked through that. What we tried to do here is instead of concentrating it into just one big stormwater practice, we tried to spread it out throughout the site. So you'll see three or four different stormwater management areas,all beautiful sand,infiltration. So we have one up front in this area. We have another one along the west, and then there's a larger one down on the south side, and just keep in mind that,you know,there are overflow measures in these upper basins that would,you know,if need be would overflow to the south and,you know, all of that would be in conformance to New York State DEC requirements, and then on top of that, to be conservative, we also like to put dry wells within these infiltration basins because in the winter months when the ground is frozen those drywells allow water to at least get beneath some of the frozen ground. So we've thought this out pretty good. Obviously F.W. Webb has reviewed this as well and provided their comments,and their comments have been incorporated into this. So what you see here is what we'd have on the final plans,but if there is any additional questions or comments that the Board has we'll certainly discuss them and make any final changes. MR. TRAVER-Okay. Thank you. Just to clarify,then,the business would close at five p.m. and operates only Monday through Friday,not on the weekends. Correct? MR. PALLESCHI-Eight to noon on Saturdays. MR. TRAVER-Eight to non on Saturdays. Okay. All right. And no deliveries on the weekends,but up to two deliveries per day during the week. Tractor trailers. Okay. MR. MAGOWAN-You said that there's a sewer district up there? MR. PALLESCHI-There is,yes. MR. MAGOWAN-Really? MR. MAGOWAN-What is it,up? MR. PALLESCHI-It's right here. So that's where it ends right now. MR. ZAPPER-It's in the sewer district. MR. PALLESCHI-It's in the sewer district. We would have to extend. MR. MAGOWAN-Does it come over from Luzerne or something? MR. ZAPPER-The west end. MR. MAGOWAN-I know they put one over there. I just didn't know it was way up the road. So thank you. MR. STEFANZIK-On the south side of the property where the trucks come,that's all asphalt? MR. PALLESCHI-Yes. So this darker shaded area here is the heavy duty pavement to support the tractor trailers,and then you'll have your light duty pavement. MR. STEFANZIK-Okay. MR. STEFANZIK-And the setback to those last four houses on Stevens,what was that like 22 feet? Is that what I saw on the drawings? MR. PALLESCHI-The setback from right here? 32 (Queensbury Planning Board OS/27/2024) MR. STEFANZIK-Yes,from the asphalt to the property line. Is that like 22? MR. PALLESCHI-Yes,that would be 22 feet,yes. It's noted right there. MR. STEFANZIK-So in that 22 feet,that's where all you're going to see is the two rows? MR. PALLESCHI-Yes,trees,fence and trees. MR. STEFANZIK-And you said there's going to be storage in the back? MR. PALLESCHI-That's correct,back in this area here. MR. STEFANZIK-What kind of storage is that? MR. PALLESCHI-Pipe materials,plumbing materials. They do this at all of their facilities. MR. STEFANZIK-Will that stay below eight feet? MR. PALLESCHI-Yes. Eight feet is the fence height,and it will have an eight foot surrounding the entire backyard. MR. STEFANZIK-I understand the fence, but the storage. Would it exceed eight feet so that the neighbors are going to see pipes and things? MR. MAGOWAN-Septic tanks,propane tanks,pipe racks. MR. STEFANZIK-Could you keep it below eight feet? For the neighbors. MR. PALLESCHI-Sounds reasonable. MR. STEFANZIK-And how about the lights. You had mentioned the lights. I didn't fully understand the lighting. Are those lights going to be on all night long? MR. PALLESCHI-I don't believe so, no. We definitely would want some lights on all the time, right, because you've got,for security purposes. MR. STEFANZIK-And how's that going to reflect on the neighbors? Are they going to see it? MR. PALLESCHI-They can be dimmers. There's no spillage over the property line,but these are all LED, down type kind of lights. They can be put on dimmers at night. MR. MAGOWAN-What about the parking lot light poles? MR. PALLESCHI-Yes,we're going to need some of those to remain on for security purposes. MR. MAGOWAN-I was wondering if we could turn off the parking lot. Don't you have down lighting on the building itself? MR. PALLESCHI-Yes. MR. MAGOWAN-I know we've come a long way with our lighting and down lighting, and now, you know,the different wattages. I'm sure we can dim them at a certain time. MR. PALLESCHI=Correct. MR. LONGACKER-I've got a couple of questions/comments here,just a couple of thoughts. One is it's just a sea of parking. The first comment I have is the proposed driveway. Could you maybe explain why you want to do two separate ones? I'd love the opportunity here to maybe put a driveway in the middle so there's just one access point so you don't have two. MR. ZAPPER-I mean, that's a valid question, Warren, but F.W. Webb specifically said that they don't want to have whatever the next use is going to be on the site with their tractor trailers,whether they're plumbers,that they don't want to have to worry about somebody else using their driveway. So that's why we were careful to put them both at the ends of each of those, so they're as far away as possible,but it's about conflict, that nobody knows what the next use is going to be. So F.W. Webb was concerned that they didn't want to have somebody else using their site as access. MR. LONGACKER-Okay. I just like a shared drive,that's all. The next one I have is the pavement. Brad had a good point is the neighbors on the west side, the traffic study indicates there's gong to be 30 33 (Queensbury Planning Board OS/27/2024) employees working,yet you have 59 parking spots for employees on the west side. Any way you could maybe shave off half of those,eliminate that parking right there,and it gives you another 20 feet buffer area on that side? MR. ZAPPER-The gentleman from F.W.Webb said there are going to be 45 employees. MR. LONGACKER-So would the traffic study be adjusted or? MR. PALLESCHI-Future growth. MR. LONGACKER-Plus the parking requirements require 104 spaces in the overall lot. You have 112 all together. I just thought if you don't need those, you could get some sort of variance for that. Other comment, the same size, 30 foot width in between the parking lots on that side. It's light duty and the tractor trailers aren't going through there,would you mind cutting that down to 24 feet and at least save 6 feet? There's 30 feet between the parking. MR. PALLESCHI-Yes, 30 foot is standard, because, you know, the larger vehicles that are being used, trucks today,it just provides better maneuverability in and out. Twenty-four feet is still tight for a large truck. MR. LONGACKER-Again, that's light duty, that's just for employees. You have employees with large trucks coming in and out? MR. PALLESCHI-I think so,yes. MR. LONGACKER-The other one I had was,you addressed the other one. You're not going to move the parking. MR. MAG OWAN-Yes,it's a big difference in what you guys have now over there on your pie. MR. TRAVER-There is a public hearing on this part of the application as well. Are there any additional comments from members of the audience for the Planning Board? Yes,ma'am. If you would come up to the table please. PUBLIC HEARING OPENED JUDY BROWN MS. BROWN Judy Brown,again,from 12 Pinewood. My water has been turning yellow and brown,and I called Susan Sheehan. She tested Stewart's and she said the first time she tested last month it was brown. There's a water pressure issue with West Mountain during the winter when they're making snow. So we have low water pressure. We have to suck that up. Now they're going to get a sewer system and I still have to maintain my own septic. I mean it's just ridiculous. MR. TRAVER-I'm sorry,what is? MS. BROWN-The issue is the water. We have no pressure up there. In the wintertime when West Mountain's drawing water to make snow for the Mountain there's low water pressure, and now we're going to add something more on to it. MR. TRAVER-Okay. We will ask them about the water pressure. Anything else? MS. BROWN-Yes. I'm concerned about the lighting. It's going to be illuminated, and as soon as fall comes all the leaves are off the tree. Now we've got a great big lit parking lot. MR. TRAVER-They are proposing evergreens for the buffering. So there won't be leaves coming off of those trees. MS. BROWN-And what's the average grow time for that? MR. TRAVER-I'm sorry? MS. BROWN-The average grow time. MR. TRAVER-Well they're going to be seven to eight feet high when they're planted. So they're going to be the size of the fence to start with. MS. BROWN-And how tall are the light poles? 34 (Queensbury Planning Board OS/27/2024) MR. TRAVER-I believe they're 20 feet. MS. BROWN-Okay, So these eight feet trees are not going to block a 20 foot pole with lights on it. MR. TRAVER-No,they're not. MR.DEER-They're going to be Code compliant,and they did mention they're going to put dimmers,if need be,on them also. MS. BROWN-Okay. MR. TRAVER-Is there anyone else that wants to address the Planning Board on this application? Yes, ma'am. GAYLE GREENO MS. GREENO-Gayle Greeno, 376 Corinth Road, corner of Corinth Road and Pinewood. What I am concerned with is the way,the driveway out. I mean that is very close with where the school buses stop, both morning and night, and you're going to have a lot of fun when the County comes to plow and they plow that nice long driveway. I'll just warn you on that one,you're going to have a lot of snow there,and if it gets moved into my yard,I'm going to come after you. I'm too old. MR. TRAVER-All right. Thank you,ma'am. MR. TRAVER-Is there anyone else in the audience that wants to address the Planning Board? Yes,sir. PETER ARCHAMBAULT MR.ARCHAMBAULT-Peter Archambault,12 Pinewood Road. I just have a question about the existing industrial park. There's roads that lead into this park already. We know it's there. It seems like every other business that exists use the existing roads, and I notice you had your,you did your traffic study in the middle of summer,before school was open, and I'm telling you right now Corinth Road is a disaster, and you're going to put another curb stop right there because you need your own access. I mean why can't we approve this and maybe cut that whole thing out? MR. TRAVER-I'm sorry,cut what out? MR. ARCHAMBAULT-The access from Corinth Road. Because Native Drive comes down around to the property we're talking about. If you drive into that. It doesn't? AUDIENCE MEMBER-That's private property on that side. MR. TRAVER-If you'd address your comments to the Planning Board and then we'll have the applicant come back up. MR. ARCHAMBAULT-I've been corrected, then. I just, when I read what I was reading, the mailer, I thought this was going to hop off the existing part that's already there and the roads that already existed there. So you're putting this,that's a pretty good road,and I know Webb. They're a good company. They may only have two deliveries per day during the week,but there's a whole bunch of plumbers that work there and go in and out. I mean I missed the part where you talked about traffic,bur you're wrong about the traffic. MR. TRAVER-There is a traffic study submitted as part of the application. It's available on line. MR.ARCHAMBAULT-Okay. We just did it. I saw them out there doing it. It's the summer. We did it this summer,like a week or two ago,before,and that's why you postponed this last week I believe because that traffic study wasn't in,but I'm just letting you know,in my opinion the traffic doesn't match, it just doesn't match what's happening here. You're going to find out that it's not going to work. It's going to be a disaster through that corridor. There's, the shoulders are small. That's one road. Everyone from Corinth,Luzerne goes through. They go to work. They get on the Northway. MR. TRAVER-I understand your concern. MR.ARCHAMBAULT-Okay. MR.TRAVER-Is there anyone else that wants to address the Planning Board on this application? Written comments,Laura? MRS. MOORE-There are no written comments. 35 (Queensbury Planning Board OS/27/2024) MR. TRAVER-Okay. Well we will close the public hearing then. PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED MR. TRAVER-I'd ask the applicant to come up. So you heard the question about an alternate entrance. I guess it sounds as though you addressed that. Concern about traffic. I know you submitted a study,but I assume you acknowledge that Corinth Road has already got a lot of traffic and whatever this is it will contribute to that. MR. ZAPPER-This is not a major traffic generator compared to the traffic on Corinth Road. MR. TRAVER-Right. Okay. Do you have anything with response to, there was a concern about the lighting. I guess we're going to try to dim or reduce the lighting at night. MR. ZAPPER-We'll put that in as a condition that the light will be dimmed in the evening. MR. TRAVER-Okay. MR. MAGOWAN-The wall packs? MR. TRAVER-The pole lights. MR. MAGOWAN-Dim them. Or keep the wall packs down light on the building. MR. ZAPPER-There have to be some parking lot lights because there's materials stored in the back,just in terms of security. MR. MAGOWAN-Well that I understand,yes. On the curb cut. If the County comes back and sees that you're going to be looking for a future curb cut,for the other 10 acre lot,would F.W.Webb and engineering be able to bring the entrance in on the line with a wider curb cut and a wider body where it could be shared by both lots? MR. ZAPPER-F.W.Webb,in the negotiations with them,the one thing they were specific about was that they don't want to have the neighbor's traffic interfering with their traffic. MR. MAG OWAN-In negotiations with who? MR. ZAPPER-With Tim,with Native. So we don't have authority. MR. MAG OWAN-No,but Tim has to go to the County to get the approval. MR. ZAPPER-We don't anticipate any problem with the County because of the distance between the two curb cuts. MR. TRAVER-We will also have an opportunity to take a look at what's proposed for Lot Three when it comes in. MRS. BULLARD-The signage,does that get addressed tonight? MR. TRAVER-That would be addressed now,yes. You have questions on signage? MRS. BULLARD-I'm curious,do you have plans for signage? MRS. PALLESCHI-Yes. So right in this area here there's a proposed pylon sign that would be proposed to meet F.W.Webb's requirements and the Town's. I believe that did get submitted. MRS. MOORE-It did. MR. TRAVER-That's a compliant sign I believe. MRS. MOORE-So the signing for a road side sign,15 foot setback up to 40 square feet,and if it's a 25 foot setback,then it can go up to 60. I don't know what it is off the top of my head what they propose. MRS. BULLARD-Thank you. MR. TRAVER-Anything else? We have a draft resolution,actually not draft anymore. MR. STEFANZIK-Well,we have to do a SEQR. 36 (Queensbury Planning Board OS/27/2024) MR. TRAVER-We did SEQR already. MR. STEFANZIK-That was for the subdivision. MRS. MOORE-I would reaffirm it in a sense,because this is a Site Plan. I would do a second one. MR. TRAVER-Okay. All right. So we're doing a reaffirmation of SEQR. MRS. MOORE-I think you submitted a Short Form for. Yes. So there's a Short Form SEQR for the actual building. MR. TRAVER-Okay. Do we have a draft resolution for that? RESOLUTION GRANTING A NEGATIVE SEQR DEC. SP#52-2024 NATIVE PARTNERS,LLC The applicant proposes construction of a 76,200 sq It one story structure with a mezzanine for wholesale and building supply facility. Project includes associated sitework, stormwater management,landscaping, and lighting. The project is part of a 3 lot subdivision. Lot 1 is an existing 1.15 acre residential lot, Lot 2 is 10.29 acres and will be developed for the warehouse facility, and lot 3 is a vacant 10.73 acre parcel. The zoning is split with Lot I being in the moderate density residential zone and the other two lots being zoned Commercial Light Industrial. Pursuant to chapter 179-3-040,site plan for new construction 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 Long 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 52-2025 NATIVE PARTNERS,LLC.Introduced by Fritz Stefanzick who moved for its adoption. As per the resolution prepared by staff. 1. Part II of the Long EAF has been reviewed and completed by the Planning Board. 2. Part III of the Long EAF is not necessary because the Planning Board did not identify potentially moderate to large impacts. Motion seconded by Brady Stark. Duly adopted this 27`h day of August 2024 by the following vote: AYES: Mr. Deeb,Mrs.Bullard,Mr. Longacker,Mr. Stark,Mr. Magowan,Mr. Stefanzick,Mr. Traver NOES: NONE ABSENT: Mrs. McDevitt MR. TRAVER-All right. Now we can consider a Site Plan resolution. MRS. MOORE-So I have a comment in regards to lighting, and I just have dimmers on, suggestion is to have dimmers on all lights that are possible to place dimmers on,and then if it's possible,the applicant can, any lights that can be turned off,those lights be turned off. MR. STEFANZIK-We're talking about the pole lights and the wall packs. MRS. MOORE-Wall packs,but I'm not saying that,I don't know which lights can and cannot be turned off at this point. MR. STEFANZIK-Either off or dimmed. MR. ZAPPER-I think that they'd want them dimmed rather than turned off. 37 (Queensbury Planning Board OS/27/2024) MRS. MOORE-Okay, but if there's an opportunity to find out which those are and then submit that as part of final plans. That would be, that way we've made an effort to find out which ones if we can dim them that would be great. If you can turn them off,I'm sure that would be beneficial at some point,but. MR. TRAVER-And that detail to be included on the final plans. MR. ZAPPER-That's absolutely fine. MR. TRAVER-Okay. MR. DEEB-While we're doing that, I do have a comment, probably pontificating a little bit here, but as you know F.W.Webb came before us a little while ago,over on Quaker Road and there was a snafu with that, the neighbors, etc., and the comment I have basically is the driveway coming out of F.W. Webb to Quaker Road,is actually a lot worse than what this is because of the curve that came up on the other side. So I really think that this site is more appropriate than what would be over there,and I'd like to say we're happy to have you back, have you in Queensbury after that, because I'm sure there were probably some thoughts about going to another community. So that's all. MR. STEFANZIK-Did we also want to include the hours of operation? Is that necessary? MR. TRAVER-No,they offered the hours. MR. STEFANZIK-And how about the storage,not exceeding eight feet in the back. MR. TRAVER-Yes,that would be good to include that. MR. ZAPPER-That was just along the fence on the west side. MRS. MOORE-On the west side. MR. STEFANZIK-So I have two items then. MR. TRAVER-Yes. MR. STEFANZIK-Okay. Are we ready? MR. TRAVER-We're ready. MR. STEFANZIK-Okay. RESOLUTION APPROVING SP#52-2024 NATIVE PARTNERS,LLC Applicant proposes construction of a 76,200 sq It one story structure with a mezzanine for wholesale and building supply facility. Project includes associated sitework, stormwater management,landscaping, and lighting. The project is part of a 3 lot subdivision. Lot 1 is an existing 1.15 acre residential lot,Lot 2 is 10.29 acres and will be developed for the warehouse facility,and lot 3 is a vacant 10.73 acre parcel. The zoning is split with Lot I being in the moderate density residential zone and the other two lots being zoned Commercial Light Industrial. Pursuant to chapter 179-3-040,site plan for new construction 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; As required by General Municipal Law Section 239-m the site plan application was referred to the Warren County Planning Department for its recommendation; The Planning Board has reviewed the potential environmental impacts of the project,pursuant to the State Environmental Quality Review Act (SEQRA) and adopted a SEQRA Negative Declaration Determination of Non-Significance; The Planning Board opened a public hearing on the Site plan application on S/20/2024 and continued the public hearing to S/27/2024 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 S/27/2024; The Planning Board determines that the application complies with the review considerations and standards set forth in Article 9 of the Zoning Ordinance for Site Plan approval, 3S (Queensbury Planning Board OS/27/2024) MOTION TO APPROVE SITE PLAN 52-2024 NATIVE PARTNERS, LLC. Introduced by Fritz Stefanzick who moved for its adoption. According to the draft resolution prepared by Staff with the following: 1) Waivers requested granted: buffer is to be along the residential uses and to include a row of evergreen trees an S ft fence and a row of evergreen trees; 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 S/27/2025; 3) Adherence to the items outlined in the follow-up letter sent with this resolution. a) The limits of clearing will constitute a no-cut buffer zone, orange construction fencing shall be installed around these areas and field verified by Community Development staff, b) If applicable, the Sanitary Sewer connection plan must be submitted to the Wastewater Department for its review,approval,permitting and inspection; c) If curb cuts are being added or changed a driveway permit is required. A building permit will not be issued until the approved driveway permit has been provided to the Planning Office; d) If application was referred to engineering then Engineering sign-off required prior to signature of Zoning Administrator of the approved plans; e) Final approved plans should have dimensions and setbacks noted on the site plan/survey, floor plans and elevation for the existing rooms and proposed rooms in the building and site improvements; f) If required,the applicant must submit a copy of the following to the Town: a. The project NOI (Notice of Intent) for coverage under the current 'NYSDEC SPDES General Permit from Construction Activity"prior to the start of any site work. b. The project NOT(Notice of Termination)upon completion of the project; c. The applicant must maintain on their project site,for review by staff: i. The approved final plans that have been stamped by the Town Zoning Administrator. These plans must include the project SWPPP (Storm Water Pollution Prevention Plan)when such a plan was prepared and approved; ii. The project NOI and proof of coverage under the current NYSDEC SPDES General Permit,or an individual SPDES permit issued for the project if required. g) Final approved plans, in compliance with the Site Plan, must be submitted to the Community Development Department before any further review by the Zoning Administrator or Building and Codes personnel; h) The applicant must meet with Staff after approval and prior to issuance of Building Permit and/or the beginning of any site work; i) Subsequent issuance of further permits, including building permits is dependent on compliance with this and all other conditions of this resolution; 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) Storage facility not to exceed eight feet on the west side of the fence. m) Pole lights and wall packs are to be either dimmed or turned off at night. n) Final plan to identify which lights are to be turned off or dimmed. Motion seconded by Kimberly Bullard. Duly adopted this 27`h day of August 2024 by the following vote: MRS. MOORE-I just want to note that it was a Long Form that was submitted for Site Plan, and your SEQR was fine. You don't have to change anything. I just want to note that. AYES: Mr. Longacker,Mr. Stark,Mr. Magowan,Mr. Stefanzick,Mr. Deeb,Mrs.Bullard,Mr. Traver NOES: NONE ABSENT: Mrs. McDevitt MR. TRAVER-You are all set. MR. PALLESCHI=Thankyou. MR. ZAPPER-Thanks,everybody. MR. MAGOWAN-Can I make a comment before you go? I already apologized to Mr. Lapper,but I want to thank Tim and your partner. You have always stood true to your word in the projects you've done, especially with Tim. I appreciate it. This was pretty cut and dried and I apologize but I'm waiting for my new glasses. 39 (Queensbury Planning Board OS/27/2024) MR.TRAVER-The next section of our agenda is under Recommendations to the Zoning Board of Appeals, and the first item we have is True North Cannabis LLC. This is Site Plan 43-2024 and Special Use 4-2024, and they're before us this evening to discuss the variance for separation distances from an amusement center and park. PLANNING BOARD RECOMMENDATION TO THE ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS: SITE PLAN NO.43-2024 SEQR TYPE: UNLISTED. TRUE NORTH CANNABIS,LLC. AGENT(S): BARTLETT,PONTIFF,STEWART&z RHODES OON LAPPER). OWNER(S): 1471 ST.RT.9 LLC. ZONING: CI. LOCATION: 1471 STATE ROUTE 9. APPLICANT PROPOSES TO USE AN EXISTING 2,000 SQ. FT. UNIT IN AN 11,835 SQ. FT. BUILDING WITHIN A NEWLY CONSTRUCTED SHOPPING PLAZA FOR USE AS A RETAIL CANNABIS BUSINESS. PURSUANT TO SECTIONS 179-2-010, 179-3-040, 179-10-040 &z 179-10-070(EE), SITE PLAN AND SPECIAL USE PERMIT FOR NEW USE IN A CI ZONE SHALL BE SUBJECT TO PLANNING BOARD REVIEW AND APPROVAL. VARIANCE: RELIEF IS SOUGHT FOR SEPARATION DISTANCES FROM AN AMUSEMENT CENTER AND PARK. PLANNING BOARD SHALL PROVIDE A RECOMMENDATION TO THE ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS. CROSS REFERENCE: SP 68-2022,SUP 6-2022,FWW 13-2022,AV 49-2022,AV 41-2024. WARREN CO. REFERRAL: AUGUST 2024. SITE INFORMATION: OUTLETS PLAZA. LOT SIZE: 199 ACRES. TAX MAP NO.288.-1-58. SECTION: 179-2-010,179-3-040,179-10-040,.179-10-070 (EE). JON ZAPPER,REPRESENTING APPLICANT,PRESENT MR. TRAVER-Laura? MRS. MOORE-So this application is to use an existing 2,000 square foot unit pretty much under construction at this point, of an 5,355 square foot building. This is a newly constructed shopping plaza and this space would be used for a retail cannabis dispensary and the relief is sought between an amusement center and a park and I will say the park is actually across the Northway. So that would be Gurney Lane,and then the amusement center is the miniature golf place going north. MR. TRAVER-All right,and both are within 1,000 feet,which is the minimum distance? MRS. MOORE-Yes,less than 1,000 feet. MR. TRAVER-All right. Thank you,Laura. Good evening. MR. ZAPPER-Good evening, everyone. For the record, again,Jon Lapper with Josh Silver. Josh is a resident of Saratoga Springs, local guy who is operating five retail cannabis distributors in Maine, Massachusetts and New York. So he's experienced. This is the first retail application in Queensbury,in the Commercial Intensive zone where it's allowed in the Town, and you guys recommended approval of the Code changes for this. So as Laura mentioned,the reason why we're here tonight,we'll be back after the Zoning Board. We'll be back for a Special Use Permit and to look at the Site Plan again, and I guess I'll just digress for a second. This is a fully approved site plan that you guys just did for Russ Faden when he did the Subway building with four retail tenancies and this is one of them, the second from the right. So the site plan was recently approved and appropriate for retail,but in the Special Use Permit conditions for this use, there's a requirement, there are a whole bunch of 1,000 foot requirements, and there are two that we have to talk about. So one is 1,00 feet from a park,and that's completely a non-issue here,as Laura mentioned,because that's across the Northway. So if you were going to travel by car to Gurney Lane it's about a mile and a half going over the bridge at the Municipal Center and going up Gurney Lane. So technically it is located on the other side of the Northway within 1,000 feet,but it's not accessible. So the other issue is the Lumberjack Pass Mini Golf,which is on the north side of the intersection of 149. So it is 1,000 feet door to door because they're both set back and Lumberjack Pass is setback a bit from Route 149, but the way the Code reads,you measure property line to property line,and that's approximately 700 feet, but we don't see that there'd be any conflict. This is not a consumption. This is just a retail distribution application and they're not visible from each other, and we think that that 700 feet is plenty of distance because they're set back from the road and really 1,000 feet is just to be true to what the Code says,but we don't see that there'd be any conflict here. MR.TRAVER-Okay. So although the,let's see,the Gurney Lane thing is across the Northway. So,as the crow travels it might be less than 1,000 feet, but the drive there would be considerably more than that. Right? MR. ZAPPER-Right. MR. TRAVER-So then to the mini golf place it's less than 1,000 from property line to property line,but from door to door it is 1,000. 40 (Queensbury Planning Board OS/27/2024) MR. ZAPPER-Yes. MR. TRAVER-Okay. All right. Questions,comments from members of the Board? MRS. BULLARD-Is this recreational or medical as well? JOSH SILVER MR. SILVER-It's recreational,only recreational. MR. MAGOWAN-Do you run any medical stores? MR. SILVER-No,all of our stores are recreational. MR. TRAVER-So we're here to review the request for the variances for the distances involved. Does anyone have any issues that we want to communicate to the Zoning Board of Appeals on those variance requests? They would be back for Site Plan Review at another time. MR. DEEB-The State is 500 feet? MR. SILVER-The State's 500 feet from churches,daycare. MR. TRAVER-It's 1,000 feet in the Town of Queensbury. MR. SILVER-And I think 1,000 feet between retailers. So we meet all the State requirements. MR. DEEB-So if another retailer came in,they couldn't go in within 1,000 feet of you? MR. ZAPPER-Right,another retail cannabis,right. MR. SILVER-And that's actually enforced by the State. So if you went onto the State's website right now, you could see where they, what they call proximity protection to the provisionally licensed applicants. We were awarded proximity protection for this site. Obviously we still have to go through the municipal process. MR. DEEB-Is there any reason you're not going medical? MR. SILVER-You can't really in New York under the State rules. So there's only a handful of medical operators that have been licensed by the State,and the State froze those. So that class of application isn't available to me at the State level. MR. TRAVER-So do any Board members have any concerns that we want to express to the Zoning Board of Appeals on our referral to them for this variance request? Okay. We have a draft resolution. RESOLUTION RE: ZBA RECOMMENDATION RE: AV#41-2024 TRUE NORTH CANNABIS,LLC The applicant has submitted an application for the following:Applicant proposes to use an existing 2,000 sq It unit in an 11,535 sq ft building within a newly constructed shopping plaza for use as a retail cannabis business. Pursuant to sections 179-2-010, 179-3-040, 179-10-040 &179-10-070 (EE), site plan and special use permit for new use in a CI zone shall be subject to Planning Board review and approval.Variance:Relief is sought for separation distances from an amusement center and park. Planning Board shall provide a recommendation to the Zoning Board of Appeals. The Town of Queensbury Zoning Ordinance,per Section 179-9-070 J 2 b. requires the Planning Board to provide a written recommendation to the Zoning Board of Appeals for projects that require both Zoning Board of Appeals&Planning Board approval; The Planning Board has briefly reviewed and discussed this application,the relief request in the variance application as well as the potential impacts of this project on the neighborhood and surrounding community,and found that: MOTION TO MAKE A RECOMMENDATION ON BEHALF OF THE PLANNING BOARD TO THE ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS FOR AREA VARIANCE 41-2024 TRUE NORTH CANNABIS,LLC. Introduced by Fritz Stefanzick who moved for its adoption,and a) The Planning Board,based on a limited review,has not identified any significant adverse impacts that cannot be mitigated with current project proposal. Motion seconded by Brady Stark. Duly adopted this 27`h day of August 2024 by the following vote: 41 (Queensbury Planning Board OS/27/2024) AYES: Mr. Stark,Mr. Magowan,Mr. Stefanzick,Mr. Deeb,Mrs.Bullard,Mr. Longacker,Mr.Traver NOES: NONE ABSENT: Mrs. McDevitt MR. TRAVER-You're off to the ZBA. MR. ZAPPER-Thanks,everybody. MR. SILVER-Thank you. MR. TRAVER-The next section of our agenda is Old Business, and the first item is Ann and Jay Dixon. This is Site Plan 46-2024. OLD BUSINESS: SITE PLAN NO. 46-2024 SEQR TYPE: TYPE 11. ANN &z JAY DIXON. AGENT(S): EDP. OWNER(S): J. WILLIAM MAYNARD &z MARGARET MAYNARD. ZONING: WR. LOCATION: 41 ANTIGUA ROAD. APPLICANT PROPOSES TO DEMOLISH AN EXISTING HOME TO CONSTRUCT A NEW HOME WITH A 2,235 SQ. FT. FOOTPRINT AND 405 SQ. FT. OF PORCH/DECK AREA. THE TOTAL FLOOR AREA OF NEW HOME IS 3,963 SQ. FT. THE EXISTING SHED AND DRIVEWAY WILL REMAIN UNCHANGED. NEW SEPTIC AND STORMWATER MANAGEMENT TO BE DEVELOPED. SITE WORK INCLUDES NEW WALKING PATH RETAINING WALLS. PURSUANT TO CHAPTERS 179-3-040, 179-6-050 &z 179-6-065, SITE PLAN FOR NEW FLOOR AREA IN A CEA SHALL BE SUBJECT TO PLANNING BOARD REVIEW AND APPROVAL. CROSS REFERENCE: AV 44-2024. WARREN CO. REFERRAL: AUGUST 2024. SITE INFORMATION: CEA,LGPC,APA. LOT SIZE: 1.05 ACRES. TAX MAP NO.239.17-1-12. SECTION: 179-3-040,179-6-050,19-6-065. CONNOR DE MYER,REPRESENTING APPLICANTS,PRESENT MR. TRAVER-Laura? MRS. MOORE-So this application is to demolish an existing home to construct a new home with a 2,235 square foot footprint,includes a 405 square foot porch/deck area. The new home is to be 3,963 square feet of total floor area. The existing shed and driveway are to remain, and in regards to the relief was granted from the Zoning Board of Appeals for height and setback relief from the shoreline as well as the stream. MR. TRAVER-Okay. Thank you. Good evening. Welcome back. MR. DE MYER-Good evening, everyone. Connor DeMyer, Environmental Design Partnership, representing Jay and Ann Dixon of 41 Antigua Road. Tonight we're looking for Site Plan approval for the teardown and re-build of their existing cottage. With that we'll be doing new stormwater where none currently exists, a new septic system, which is a major improvement, and some shoreline buffer enhancements. Last week we received the variances that we were asking for, and tonight we're looking for approval. MR. TRAVER-Okay. So, as a result of your discussion with the Zoning Board,were there any changes from your application from what we reviewed last week? MR. DE MYER-No,they were pretty good with everything. MR.TRAVER-Okay. Questions,comments from members of the Board? There is a public hearing on this application. Is there anyone in the audience that wants to address the Planning Board on this application? Laura,are there written comments? PUBLIC HEARING OPENED MRS. MOORE-There are no written comments. MR. TRAVER-All right. Then we will close the public hearing. PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED MR. TRAVER-If there's nothing further,we'll entertain a motion. 42 (Queensbury Planning Board OS/27/2024) RESOLUTION APPROVING SP#46-2024 ANN&r JAY DIXON Applicant proposes to demolish an existing home to construct new home with a 2,235 sq ft footprint and 405 sq ft of porch/deck area.The total floor area of new home is 3,963 sq ft.The existing shed and driveway will remain unchanged. New septic and stormwater management to be developed. Site work includes new walking path retaining walls. Pursuant to chapters 179-3-040, 179-6-050 &179-6-065, site plan for new floor area in a CEA shall be subject to Planning Board review and approval. Pursuant to relevant sections of the Town of Queensbury Zoning Code-Chapter 179-9-OSO,the Planning Board has determined that this proposal satisfies the requirements as stated in the Zoning Code; 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 S/20/2024; the ZBA approved the variance requests on S/21/2024; The Planning Board opened a public hearing on the Site plan application on S/27/2024 and continued the public hearing to S/27/2024 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 S/27/2024; The Planning Board determines that the application complies with the review considerations and standards set forth in Article 9 of the Zoning Ordinance for Site Plan approval, MOTION TO APPROVE SITE PLAN 46-2024 ANN &z JAY DIXON,- Introduced by Fritz Stefanzick who moved for its adoption. According to the draft resolution prepared by Staff with the following: 1) Waivers requested granted:h. signage,n traffic,o. commercial alterations/construction details,r. construction/demolition disposal 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 S/27/2025; 3) Adherence to the items outlined in the follow-up letter sent with this resolution. a) The limits of clearing will constitute a no-cut buffer zone, orange construction fencing shall be installed around these areas and field verified by Community Development staff, b) If applicable, the Sanitary Sewer connection plan must be submitted to the Wastewater Department for its review,approval,permitting and inspection; c) If curb cuts are being added or changed a driveway permit is required. A building permit will not be issued until the approved driveway permit has been provided to the Planning Office; d) If application was referred to engineering then Engineering sign-off required prior to signature of Zoning Administrator of the approved plans; e) Final approved plans should have dimensions and setbacks noted on the site plan/survey, floor plans and elevation for the existing rooms and proposed rooms in the building and site improvements; f) If required,the applicant must submit a copy of the following to the Town: a. The project NOI (Notice of Intent) for coverage under the current "NYSDEC SPDES General Permit from Construction Activity"prior to the start of any site work. b. The project NOT(Notice of Termination)upon completion of the project; c. The applicant must maintain on their project site,for review by staff: i. The approved final plans that have been stamped by the Town Zoning Administrator. These plans must include the project SWPPP (Storm Water Pollution Prevention Plan)when such a plan was prepared and approved; ii. The project NOI and proof of coverage under the current NYSDEC SPDES General Permit,or an individual SPDES permit issued for the project if required. g) Final approved plans, in compliance with the Site Plan, must be submitted to the Community Development Department before any further review by the Zoning Administrator or Building and Codes personnel; h) The applicant must meet with Staff after approval and prior to issuance of Building Permit and/or the beginning of any site work; i) Subsequent issuance of further permits, including building permits is dependent on compliance with this and all other conditions of this resolution; 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. 43 (Queensbury Planning Board OS/27/2024) Motion seconded by Brad Magowan. Duly adopted this 27`h day of August 2024 by the following vote: AYES: Mr. Deeb,Mrs.Bullard,Mr. Longacker,Mr. Stark,Mr. Magowan,Mr. Stefanzick,Mr. Traver NOES: NONE ABSENT: Mrs. McDevitt MR. TRAVER-You're all set. MR. DE MYER-Thank you. MR. TRAVER-The next item on our agenda is Gregg Nolte. This is Site Plan 47-2024. SITE PLAN NO.47-2024 SEQR TYPE: TYPE II. GREGG NOLTE. AGENT(S): EDP. OWNER(S): DONALD NOLTE&z ANNE NOLTE. ZONING: WR. LOCATION: 35 ASSEMBLY POINT ROAD. APPLICANT PROPOSES A 384 SQ.FT.ADDITION AND A 35 SQ.FT. COVERED LANDING FOR AN EXISTING 1,250 SQ. FT. HOME. THE PORCH WILL REMAIN BUT THE 144 SQ. FT. DECK WILL BE REMOVED, ALONG WITH SOME OTHER ANCILLARY SITE ITEMS. THE NEW FLOOR AREA WILL BE 1,729 SQ. FT. SITE WORK INCLUDES NEW SEPTIC SYSTEM AND STORMWATER MANAGEMENT. PURSUANT TO CHAPTERS 179-3-040 &z 179-6-065, SITE PLAN FOR NEW FLOOR AREA IN A CEA SHALL BE SUBJECT TO PLANNING BOARD REVIEW AND APPROVAL. CROSS REFERENCE: AV 1357-21565, AV 45-2024. WARREN CO. REFERRAL: AUGUST 2024. SITE INFORMATION: CEA,LGPC,APA. LOT SIZE: 0.25 ACRE. TAX MAP NO.239.12-2-10. SECTION: 179-3-040,179-6-065. CONNOR DE MYER,REPRESENTING APPLICANT,PRESENT MR. TRAVER-Laura? MRS. MOORE-Okay. So this applicant is an addition to an existing home, includes a 3S4 square foot addition,residential,and then 35 square foot covered landing,and other than that,the variances that they requested they received from the Zoning Board of Appeals for setbacks. MR. TRAVER-Okay. Thank you. So introduce yourself again if you would,please. MR. DE MYER-Connor DeMyer,Environmental Design Partnership,representing Gregg and Bruce Nolte of 35 Assembly Point Road. Like Laura said,last week we received the variances for the side yard to the north. The Randles,they wrote a positive letter of recommendation for the project. So it was very nice and helpful for us. We're just doing some minor interior renovations and a small exterior expansion of the dwelling and we've received Board of Health approval for holding tanks back in May. Doing some additional plantings,which aren't required,but we want to kind of buffer that Assembly Point Road there. New well,stormwater,some pretty good site improvements on the existing property. MR. TRAVER-Okay, and you did receive the variances you requested. Were there any changes to your project as a result of your discussion with the ZBA? MR. DE MYER-No changes. MR. TRAVER-Questions,comments from members of the Board? MR. MAGOWAN-Yes,Mr.Chairman,I just want to see what we can do to get something on the books to get that cess pool filled somehow,even if you've got to carry sand over your shoulder. MR. DE MYER-Yes. We're definitely open to figuring it out with a contractor. They've already talked with a couple. MR. MAGOWAN-It can't be that big. MR. DE MYER-No,we've talked to a couple of contractors already,Crandall,Ellsworth and Lou DeRitter of Morningstar about the project. So we can figure something out to fill it in or,we'd prefer to pump it clean and fill it prior instead of digging out,but that's okay. I think we can add that in if that is required. MR.MAGOWAN-I just know that when I've replaced septics and I've had drywells,that,you know,when you dug into them and they looked like a cess pool. That's why they failed,but I know Queensbury has asked me to make sure that they were filled in because once they go dry things start to break down. 44 (Queensbury Planning Board OS/27/2024) MR. DE MYER-Yes,we can add language maybe contractor to pump clean and fill with granular sands, something along those lines. MRS. MOORE-So that note can be added to the plans. MR. DE MYER-We can do that. MR. MAGOWAN-Thank you. MR. TRAVER-There is a public hearing on this application as well. Is there anyone n there anyone in the audience that wants to address the Planning Board on this application? I'm not seeing any. Written comments,Laura? PUBLIC HEARING OPENED MRS. MOORE-There is a written comment. This is, again, from Jeff Randles. It's addressed to myself. My wife and I reside on Old Assembly Point Road,immediately adjacent and north of the Nolte property located at 35 Assembly Point Road. I am writing in acceptance of the proposed improvements that are being considered by the Town,specifically the site improvements and the 16 by 24 foot addition that will be two and a half feet from my property line." And again,it's Jeff Randles. MR. TRAVER-Okay. Thank you. So with that we'll close the public hearing. PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED MR. TRAVER-Any additional comments from members of the Board? We have a draft resolution. RESOLUTION APPROVING SP#47-2024 GREGG NOLTE Applicant proposes a 3S4 sq ft addition and a 35 sq ft covered landing for an existing 1,250 sq ft home. The porch will remain but the 144 sq ft deck will be removed, along with some other ancillary site items. The new floor area will be 1,729 sq ft. Site work includes new septic system and stormwater management. Pursuant to chapters 179-3-040 & 179-6-065, site plan for new floor area in a CEA shall be subject to Planning Board review and approval. Pursuant to relevant sections of the Town of Queensbury Zoning Code-Chapter 179-9-OSO,the Planning Board has determined that this proposal satisfies the requirements as stated in the Zoning Code; 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 S/20/2024; the ZBA approved the variance requests on S/21/2024; The Planning Board opened a public hearing on the Site plan application on S/27/2024 and continued the public hearing to S/27/2024 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 S/27/2024; The Planning Board determines that the application complies with the review considerations and standards set forth in Article 9 of the Zoning Ordinance for Site Plan approval, MOTION TO APPROVE SITE PLAN 47-2024 GREGG NOLTE,- Introduced by Fritz Stefanzick who moved for its adoption. According to the draft resolution prepared by Staff with the following: 1) Waivers requested granted: h. signage, n traffic, o. commercial alterations/ construction details, and 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 S/27/202 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; 45 (Queensbury Planning Board 08/27/2024) 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) Add to final plans how the existing cess pool on site will be addressed. Motion seconded by Brady Stark. Duly adopted this 27`h day of August 2024 by the following vote: AYES: Mr. Longacker,Mr. Stark,Mr. Magowan,Mr. Stefanzick,Mr. Deeb,Mrs. Bullard,Mr. Traver NOES: NONE ABSENT: Mrs. McDevitt MR. TRAVER-You're all set. MR. DE MYER-Thank you,everyone. MR.TRAVER-The next item on our agenda,Mountain Vista Properties(Chris Racicot),Site Plan 48-2024 was tabled by the Zoning Board of Appeals. SITE PLAN NO 48-2024 SEQR TYPE: UNLISTED. MOUNTAIN VISTA PROPERTIES/CHRIS RACICOT. AGENT(S): EDP. OWNER(S): SAME AS APPLICANT. ZONING: MDR. LOCATION: 3-21 FOOTHILLS ROAD/CORINTH ROAD. APPLICANT PROPOSES CONSTRUCTION OF 3 APARTMENT BUILDINGS,EACH WITH 4 UNITS„FOR A TOTAL OF 12 UNITS. SITE WORK WILL INCLUDE SEPTIC SYSTEMS, STORMWATER MANAGEMENT, AND CONNECTION TO MUNICIPAL WATER. THE PROJECT WILL ALSO MAINTAIN THE EXISTING 8 UNITS, MAKING20 TOTAL UNITS FOR THE SITE. THE PROJECT ALSO INCLUDES THE MERGER OF TWO LOTS, TOTALING 9.17 ACRES. MULTI-FAMILY BUILDINGS REQUIRE 2 ACRES PER LOT WITHOUT SEWER AND WATER. PURSUANT TO CHAPTERS 179-3-40, 179-5-100 &z 179-8-050, SITE PLAN FOR A MULTI-FAMILY PROJECT SHALL BE SUBJECT TO PLANNING BOARD REVIEW AND APPROVAL. CROSS REFERENCE: SP 64-88, AV 15-1989, DISC 1-2024, AV 46-2024. WARREN CO. REFERRAL: AUGUST 2024. SITE INFORMATION: TRAVEL CORRIDOR OVERLAY. LOT SIZE: 5.5 ACRES, 3.53 ACRES. TAX MAP NO. 315.6-2-12,315.6-2-15. SECTION: 179-3-040,179-5-100,179-8-050. MR. TRAVER-So we will table this until the October 22 d 2024 meeting where we assume we'll get a revised application. So what we will do is we will open a public hearing. PUBLIC HEARING OPENED MR. TRAVER-We will leave the public hearing open until we re-hear this application in October. Any questions on that from members of the Board? Okay. We have a draft tabling resolution. RESOLUTION TABLING SP#48-2024 MOUNTAIN VISTA PROPERTIES (CHRIS RACICOT) 46 (Queensbury Planning Board OS/27/2024) Applicant proposes construction of 3 apartment buildings, each with 4 units, for a total of 12 units. Site work will include septic systems, stormwater management, and connection to municipal water. The project will also maintain the existing S units,making 20 total units for the site. The project also includes the merger of two lots,totaling 9.17 acres. Multi-family buildings require 2 acres per lot without sewer and water. Pursuant to chapters 179-3-040,179-5-100&179-5-050,site plan for a multi-family project shall be subject to Planning Board review and approval. Tabled until the October 22,2024 Planning Board meeting with information due by September 15,2024. MOTION TO TABLE SITE PLAN 48-2024 MOUNTAIN VISTA PROPERTIES/CHRIS RACICOT. Introduced by Fritz Stefanzick who moved for its adoption,seconded by Warren Longacker. Duly adopted this 27`h day of August 2024 by the following vote: AYES: Mr. Stark,Mr. Magowan,Mr. Stefanzick,Mr. Deeb,Mrs.Bullard,Mr. Longacker,Mr.Traver NOES: NONE ABSENT: Mrs. McDevitt MR. TRAVER-All right. Thank you. The next item on our agenda is under New Business. This is Glens Falls Country Club,Site Plan 51-2024. NEW BUSINESS: SITE PLAN NO. 51-2024 SEQR TYPE: TYPE II: GLENS FALLS COUNTRY CLUB, INC. AGENT(S): HUTCHINS ENGINEERING. OWNER(S): SAME AS APPLICANT. ZONING: WR. LOCATION: 211 ROUND POND ROAD/MANNIS ROAD. APPLICANT PROPOSES TO INSTALL TWO PADDLE BALL COURTS OF 1,800 SQ. FT. EACH WITH A 655 SQ, FT, ALUMINUM DECKING AREA BETWEEN THEM. THE SITE HAS THREE EXISTING PADDLE BALL COURTS IN A SIMILAR AREA THAT WILL REMAIN UNCHANGED. THE PROJECT ALSO INCLUDES AN INFILTRATION AREA PLANTING 5 NEW BUSHES. PURSUANT TO CHAPTER 179-3-040, SITE PLAN FOR NEW ACCESSORY STRUCTURES ON AN EXISTING COMMERCIAL RECREATIONAL FACILITY SHALL BE SUBJECT TO PLANNING BOARD REVIEW AND APPROVAL. CROSS REFERENCE: RZ 2-2023, SP 62-2023, SP 10-2024. WARREN CO. REFERRAL: AUGUST 2024. SITE INFORMATION: LOCAL ARTERIAL ROAD. LOT SIZE: 111.18 ACRES,24.66 ACRES. TAX MAP NO.296.6-1-12,289.18-1-37. SECTION: 179-3-040. TOM CENTER&JAMIE HAYES,REPRESENTING APPLICANT,PRESENT MR. TRAVER-Laura? MRS. MOORE-So this application is to install two paddle ball courts, approximately ISOO square foot each. It also includes a 655 square foot aluminum decking area between them. The site has three existing paddle ball courts in a similar area that will remain unchanged. The project includes an infiltration area and planting of five new bushes,and site plan review for recreational use facility. MR. TRAVER-Okay. Thank you. Good evening. MR. CENTER-Good evening. Tom Center with Hutchins Engineering,Jamie Hayes, President of the Country Club. Pretty straightforward project. Two paddle ball courts. We've got infiltration underneath the paddle ball courts to handle them as if they were hard surface. They're open courts with slats similar to decking so all the water goes into the ground. We did bushes around the front end, similar to what's in front of the other paddle ball courts. It's in a flat area. We have engineering signoff. It's pretty straightforward,if you have any questions. MR. TRAVER-Okay. You're going to end up with more pickle ball players than golfers there. MR. CENTER-Pickle ball,paddle ball. MR. HAYES-That's the way it's going. MR. MAGOWAN-I'm happy it was a huge success there. MR. HAYES-The pickle ball courts. It's been phenomenal. MR. MAGOWAN-That's great because I've seen more traffic going into the Glens Falls Country Club. 47 (Queensbury Planning Board OS/27/2024) MR. TRAVER-Are there other questions, comments from members of the Planning Board regarding this addition of another pickle ball court? There is a public hearing on this application as well,but there's no public. So I'll just ask Laura if we have any written comments. MR.MAGOWAN-While we're waiting,I saw the pictures. Did you put slats down before or is this anew design? MR. HAYES-As far as the courts themselves? MR. MAGOWAN-Yes. MR. HAYES-No,they're regulation courts,regulation size. MR. MAG OWAN-But they're not as solid. From the picture that I saw,they look like decking boards. MR. HAYES-Well they are. I mean Tom's right. I mean they're heated underneath so they're designed to have the weather just rip right down below. MR. MAGOWAN-They're square, so what happens? The ball doesn't hit an edge and kind of fly out of the way. MR. HAYES-They're close enough together that that shouldn't happen. PUBLIC HEARING OPENED MRS. MOORE-There are no written comments. MR. TRAVER-So there are no written comments either. So with that we will close the public hearing. PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED MR. TRAVER-Is there any further discussion on this application? We have a draft resolution. MR. STEFANZIK-Yes,we do. RESOLUTION APPROVING SP#51-2024 GLENS FALLS COUNTRY CLUB,INC. Applicant proposes to install two paddle ball courts of 1,500 sq ft, each with an a 655 sq It aluminum decking area between them.The site has three existing paddle ball courts in a similar area that will remain unchanged.The project includes an infiltration area planting 5 new bushes.Pursuant to chapter 179-3-040, site plan for new accessory structures on an existing commercial recreational facility 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 S/27/2024 and continued the public hearing to S/27/2024 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 S/27/2024; The Planning Board determines that the application complies with the review considerations and standards set forth in Article 9 of the Zoning Ordinance for Site Plan approval, MOTION TO APPROVE SITE PLAN 51-2024 GLENS FALLS COUNTRY CLUB,INC. 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, n traffic, o. commercial alterations/ construction details,p floor plans,r.construction/demolition disposal s. snow removal as the only site changes is two new paddle ball courts no other site changes proposed; 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 S/27/2025; 4S (Queensbury Planning Board OS/27/2024) 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 Kimberly Bullard. Duly adopted this 27`h day of August 2024 by the following vote: AYES: Mr. Magowan,Mr. Stefanzick,Mr. Deeb,Mrs.Bullard,Mr. Longacker,Mr. Stark,Mr. Traver NOES: NONE ABSENT: Mrs. McDevitt MR. TRAVER-You're all set. MR. CENTER-Thank you. MR. HAYES-Thank you. MR. TRAVER-Laura,is there any other business before the Board this evening? All right. Hearing none, the only thing I would add is be sure and add that September 19 meeting to your calendars, and with that we'll entertain a motion to adjourn. MOTION TO ADJOURN THE QUEENSBURY PLANNING BOARD MEETING OF AUGUST 27Tx 2024,Introduced by Brad Magowan who moved for its adoption,seconded by Fritz Stefanzick: Duly adopted this 27`h day of August,2024,by the following vote: AYES: Mr. Magowan,Mr. Stark,Mrs.Bullard,Mr. Stefanzick,Mr. Deeb,Mr. Longacker,Mr. Traver NOES: NONE ABSENT: Mrs. McDevitt MR. TRAVER-We stand adjourned. Thank you,everyone. On motion meeting was adjourned. RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED, Stephen Traver,Chairman 49