Loading...
03-27-2018 (Queensbury Planning Board 03/27/2018) QUEENSBURY PLANNING BOARD MEETING SECOND REGULAR MEETING MARCH 27, 2018 INDEX Site Plan No. 20-2018 William Miner 1. Tax Map No. 302.7-1-24 Subdivision No. 3-2018 Richard & Sharon Bapp 2. PRELIMINARY STAGE Tax Map No. 308.19-1-29.1 Site Plan No. 67-2017 Gregory Teresi 2. Tax Map No. 239.18-1-27.2 Site Plan No. 11-2018 Michael Serini 11. Tax Map No. 239.20-1-18 Site Plan No. 21-2018 Michael Badera 14. Tax Map No. 226.16-1-20 THESE ARE NOT OFFICIALLY ADOPTED MINUTES AND ARE SUBJECT TO BOARD AND STAFF REVISIONS. REVISIONS WILL APPEAR ON THE FOLLOWING MONTHS MINUTES (IF ANY) AND WILL STATE SUCH APPROVAL OF SAID MINUTES. QUEENSBURY PLANNING BOARD MEETING SECOND REGULAR MEETING 1 (Queensbury Planning Board 03/27/2018) MARCH 27, 2018 7:00 P.M. MEMBERS PRESENT STEPHEN TRAVER, CHAIRMAN CHRIS HUNSINGER, VICE CHAIRMAN DAVID DEEB, SECRETARY BRAD MAGOWAN JAMIE WHITE JOHN SHAFER MICHAEL VALENTINE LAND USE PLANNER-LAURA MOORE TOWN COUNSEL-MILLER, MANNIX, SCHACHNER & HAFNER-MARK SCHACHNER STENOGRAPHER-MARIA GAGLIARDI MR. TRAVER-Good evening, ladies and gentlemen. Welcome to the Town of Queensbury Planning Board meeting for Tuesday, March 27th. This is actually the third meeting in the month of March and the eighth meeting for 2018 thus far. We have a couple of, we're going to change the agenda a little bit and there should be some agendas on the table at the rear of the room. If you have a cellphone or other electronic device, if you could turn off the ringer or turn the device off itself I would appreciate that. All of the applications that we have before us this evening have a public hearing component. So we'll deal with that as they arise, and we have two applications that are being tabled this evening. So if there's anyone here for the William Miner Site Plan 20-2018, that application is to be tabled, and likewise Richard and Sharon Bapp, Subdivision Preliminary Stage 3-2018, both of those items are going to be tabled and we will do that first on our agenda this evening. Laura is there any additional information on the tablings? MRS. MOORE-They were tabled by the Zoning Board of Appeals so it tables the application for Site Plan Review. MR. TRAVER-Okay. Very good. Thank you. Both of these applications to be tabled do have a public hearing component to them, and although we won't be hearing the application tonight, we are going to open the public hearing and we'll keep it open through the tabling process. SITE PLAN NO. 20-2018 SEAR TYPE: UNLISTED. WILLIAM MINER. OWNER(S): CKT ENTERPRISES, LLC — STARR MOWERY. ZONING: CI. LOCATION: 2 GLENDALE DRIVE. APPLICANT PROPOSES TO MAINTAIN TWO EXISTING APARTMENTS AND CREATE TWO NEW APARTMENTS ON THE SECOND FLOOR. PROJECT LOCATED IN COMMERCIAL INTENSIVE ZONE DOES NOT ALLOW APARTMENTS. APPLICANT IS APPLYING FOR A USE VARIANCE — PROJECT WILL BE SUBJECT TO SITE PLAN IF USE VARIANCE IS GRANTED. PURSUANT TO CHAPTER 179-13-010 OF THE ZONING ORDINANCE, EXPANSION OF A NON-CONFORMING USE OR STRUCTURE SHALL BE SUBJECT TO PLANNING BOARD REVIEW AND APPROVAL. VARIANCE: RELIEF IS REQUESTED FOR APARTMENTS IN A CI ZONE. CROSS REFERENCE: 2003-372 SIGN; DEMO 498-2017 INTERIOR ONLY; RC 500-2017 RES. CONSTRUCTION; UV 1-2018. WARREN CO. REFERRAL: MARCH 2018. LOT SIZE: .33 ACRE. TAX MAP NO. 302.7-1-24. SECTION: 179-13-010. MR. TRAVER-So is there anyone in the room tonight that wanted to address the Planning Board on either of these applications? We'll start with William Miner, Site Plan 20-2018? PUBLIC HEARING OPENED RESOLUTION TABLING SP #20-2018 WILLIAM MINER MOTION TO TABLE SITE PLAN 20-2018 WILLIAM MINER, Introduced by David Deeb who moved for its adoption, seconded by John Shafer. Tabled until the June 26, 2018 Planning Board meeting with information due by May 15, 2018. Duly adopted this 27th day of March, 2018 by the following vote: 2 (Queensbury Planning Board 03/27/2013) AYES: Mr. Deeb, Ms. White, Mr. Shafer, Mr. Hunsinger, Mr. Magowan, Mr. Valentine, Mr. Traver NOES: NONE SUBDIVISION PRELIMINARY STAGE 3-2018 SEAR TYPE: UNLISTED: RICHARD & SHARON BAPP. AGENT(S): STEPHEN PERKINS. OWNER(S): SAME AS APPLICANTS. ZONING: AGRICULTURAL MDR. LOCATION: 45 OGDEN ROAD. APPLICANT PROPOSES TO SUBDIVIDE A 1.37 ACRE LOT INTO TWO LOTS OF .92 ACRE AND .46 ACRE. THE EXISTING HOME IS TO REMAIN ON LARGER LOT (LOT 1) AND SMALLER LOT (LOT 2) TO BE SOLD WITH FUTURE BUYER TO COMPLETE CONSTRUCTION DETAILS FOR HOUSE SIZE, LOCATION OF DRIVEWAY, CLEARING, GRADING AND EROSION CONTROL. PURSUANT TO CHAPTER 183 OF THE ZONING ORDINANCE, SUBDIVISION OF LAND SHALL BE SUBJECT TO PLANNING BOARD REVIEW AND APPROVAL VARIANCE: RELIEF IS SOUGHT FOR CREATION OF TWO LOTS LESS THAN 2 ACRES AND SETBACKS ON LOT 1 EXISTING HOME. CROSS REFERENCE: 2016 SEPTIC ALT.; AV 21-2018. WARREN CO. REFERRAL: N/A. LOT SIZE: 1.37 ACRES. TAX MAP NO. 308.19-1-29.1. SECTION: CHAPTER 183. MR. TRAVER-All right, and the next item to be tabled is Richard & Sharon Bapp, Subdivision Preliminary Stage 3-2018. This also is scheduled to have a public hearing. So we will open the public hearing on this application and ask is there anyone here this evening that is here to comment to the Planning Board on the Richard & Sharon Bapp application? I'm not seeing anyone. PUBLIC HEARING OPENED MR. TRAVER-Okay. Then we'll keep the public hearing open and go ahead and table the motion. RESOLUTION TABLING SUB PRELIMINARY STG. # 3-2018 WILLIAM & SHARON BAPP MOTION TO TABLE SUBDIVISION PRELIMINARY STAGE 3-2018 RICHARD & SHARON BAPP. Introduced by David Deeb who moved for its adoption, Tabled to the May 17, 2018 Planning Board meeting. Motion seconded by Chris Hunsinger. Duly adopted this 27th day of March, 2018 by the following vote: AYES: Ms. White, Mr. Shafer, Mr. Hunsinger, Mr. Magowan, Mr. Valentine, Mr. Deeb, Mr. Traver NOES: NONE MR. TRAVER-Very good. Allright. Then with those out of the way we'll move to our regular agenda. The first item being Gregory Teresi, Site Plan 67-2017. TABLEDITEMS SITE PLAN NO. 67-2017 SEAR TYPE: TYPE II. GREGORY TERESI. AGENT(S): HUTCHINS ENGINEERING; BARTLETT, PONTIFF, STEWART & RHODES. OWNER(S): LAWRENCE DAVIS. ZONING: WR. LOCATION: STATE ROUTE 9L. APPLICANT PROPOSES TO CONSTRUCT AN, 1,812 SQ. FT., 3 BEDROOM HOME AND ASSOCIATED SITE WORK. PROJECT OCCURS ON 15% SLOPE AND INCLUDES STORMWATER MANAGEMENT, PERMEABLE PAVERS, WITH SEPTIC SYSTEM ON ADJOINING LOT. PURSUANT TO CHAPTER 179-6-060 OF THE ZONING ORDINANCE, NEW CONSTRUCTION OCCURRING WITHIN 50' OF 15% SLOPES SHALL BE SUBJECT TO PLANNING BOARD REVIEW AND APPROVAL. CROSS REFERENCE: AV 31-2017, SP 33-2017. WARREN CO. REFERRAL: NOVEMBER 2017. SITE INFORMATION: APA, LGPC. LOT SIZE: .215 ACRE. TAX MAP NO. 239.18-1-27.2. SECTION: 179-6-060. JON LAPPER & TOM HUTCHINS, REPRESENTING APPLICANT, PRESENT MR. TRAVER-Laura? 3 (Queensbury Planning Board 03/27/2018) MRS. MOORE-Okay. This applicant proposes a 1,812 square foot 3 bedroom home and associated site work. The project occurs within 15% slopes and includes a stormwater management plan. Site work includes permeable pavers with a septic system on the adjoining lot. The project's before the Planning Board for construction occurring within 50 of 15% slopes. MR. TRAVER-Good evening. MR. LAPPER-Good evening, everyone. For the record, Jon Lapper with Greg Teresi and Tom Hutchins. I just want to start out with a little bit of history. This has been tabled for a while. So we started this about a year ago, and at that point Greg went to speak to his neighbor Mr. Freihofer to the north to talk about the project and see if he could get his support, and at that point the neighbor, Mr. Freihofer, indicated that if the house could be pushed a little to the south, he would be supportive of it. So he applied for a series of variances because in order to do that project, it would have been a boundary adjustment which would have made lots more nonconforming, but it would have pushed the house farther to the south away from the neighbor, and we thought that we were doing what the neighbor wanted. Right before we got to the Planning Board meeting for recommendation to the Zoning Board, we got a letter from Attorney Caffry on behalf of Mr. Freihofer that he was not in support of it. So at that point we figured we didn't need to go ask for a bunch of variances that we thought we were doing to make the neighbor happy. So tabled it and re-submitted the present application which is as of right without any variances is a modest house on a small pre-existing lot. Took some engineering design to be able to work it out because of the slope. Ordinarily an existing house wouldn't need site plan except for areas of 15% slope or greater. So Craig determined that we needed Site Plan and that's why we're here and Tom will show you what we did with the driveway, but to try and not have a steep driveway we came up with this plan of the driveway right off the road and the house beneath the driveway. So we also tabled it so we could settle the engineering issues and we did just get engineering signoff. Because we figured if we came in without that you'd table us anyway. So we might as well try and settle that and Tom made a few final changes to the stormwater plan to satisfy Chazen. MR. TRAVER-Okay. So, we each have received, as part of our prep packet, the original letter dated February 28th from Chazen. So you have successfully addressed all of their concerns based on that letter? MR. LAPPER-We're working on it. MR. HUTCHINS-Yes. MRS. MOORE-So there's two items that are remaining which are pretty standard, it's test pits prior to construction and the engineering of the Redi wall. MR. TRAVER-Okay. Good. All right. That is very helpful. Thank you. MR. LAPPER-So with that I'd like to turn it over to Tom to walk you through the Site Plan. MR. HUTCHINS-Good evening, Board. For the record I'm Tom Hutchins. We've done the best we think we can here with a somewhat difficult site. It's small. That's the main issue. The house is located at the, or just beyond the 75 foot shoreline setback, and as you know stormwater controls have to be 100 feet from the lake. So that represents a little bit of a challenge when you can build it 75 feet but your stormwater has to be 100 feet, and of course it's uphill. We have come up with a design that we're comfortable with and I did work with Sean back and forth a couple of times, and we've got a series of infiltration areas and eaves trenches and we're reasonably comfortable and he's been through it. Wastewater is handled by easement on the adjoining lot. There would be an enhanced wastewater treatment system, a Presby sand filter system, and there's also area available to allow for the replacement of the systems that currently serve the residents on the adjoining lot. So there's room there allocated for all the wastewater systems. As far as access to the site, there's a pretty good change in slope from the highway to the site and we've used the pre-cast concrete segmental retaining wall in that area to provide a parking area for three cars that would get in and out. It would be nice if it could be a little bigger, but again we're limited by compliance. We believe it to be compliant. We believe it to be a good functional solution for what we're trying to accomplish with a very small house. With that I guess I'd turn it over to the Board for questions. Anything you folks want to add. MR. TRAVER-One thing. With regard to the easement for the septic, there's a suggestion in the Staff Notes. I don't know if you saw that, that that be added to the final Site Plan. MR. LAPPER-That's no problem. 4 (Queensbury Planning Board 03/27/2018) MR. TRAVER-1 had a couple of questions on engineering but you're ahead of me on that. And I'll open it up for members of the Planning Board for questions and comments before we go to public hearing. If you don't have any questions right now, then why don't we move to the public hearing segment. So having a public hearing on this application, are there any members of the audience that are here to address the Planning Board on this application this evening? Yes, sir. I see two. Okay. I think you were first. So why don't you go ahead. Go ahead and introduce yourself. PUBLIC HEARING OPENED JOHN CAFFRY MR. CAFFRY-I'm John Caffry from Caffry & Flower, representing Chris Freihofer, the next door neighbor on the north. First of all I do recall when I first met with him about a year ago he said he had a discussion with Mr. Teresi. I don't recall him saying that he had agreed to anything, but be that as it may, he is not in agreement with the plan. We believe the application should be denied first because the alleged lot that is proposed to be built on is not a legal separate building lot. MR. TRAVER-Well, excuse me, sir, if I could just interrupt and by way of explanation, we are in receipt of your, I think 81 page submission that you gave us. That has been added to the record. All the members of the Planning Board have a copy of this. We have all looked at it, and just to clarify our position visa vie this lot concern, as a Planning Board we are reliant upon Town Planning Department and the Town Staff to interpret these issues. So your issue is really with the Town, possibly the County, and not the Planning Board with regard to whether or not this is a buildable lot, and in preparation for hearing this application this evening, and I've had discussions with Planning Staff, the information that we've received. MR. SCHACHNER-Go ahead. When you're done I have a comment. MR. TRAVER-Okay. The information that we've received from the Town is that, for our purposes, we should consider this a buildable lot. So your information, though it's interesting, and I understand the comments you've made, but for our purposes this evening it really doesn't apply to our consideration, and with that I'll turn it over to Town Counsel. MR. SCHACHNER-1 just want to add a little bit to that comment from the Chairman, which is a very appropriate comment, but I don't want to give the neighbor's attorney, the applicant or the public or the Board members the perception that Mr. Freihofer and his counsel's gripe, if they have a gripe on the buildability of the lot, would be with the Town Planning Staff or the Town per se. It might be a civil matter among private parties. I think Mr. Caffry's done an excellent job of preserving his point on this issue, and if, you know there's a lot of if's here, but if there is an approval and if Mr. Freihofer asked Mr. Caffry to challenge that approval, he has staked out a number of legal claims that if correct might in fact yield the result that the Site Plan, even if it's approved, won't be exercisable if you will, but the only clarification comment I'm making to what the Chairman said is that the gripe might not be so much with the Town and with the Town's Planning and Zoning Staff as a private property dispute among private property owners, but I do agree 100% that it's not for the Planning Board to decide the real property rights involved. It's for the Planning Board to look at an application so long as the application's been submitted and on its face seems to comply with our application requirements. My understanding is that there is a deed for this property. If the deed is a forgery, I'm not suggesting anyone's alleging the deed is a forgery, but if the deed is a forgery, it's not incumbent upon the Planning Board or even the Planning Staff to figure out that the deed is a forgery. So I think your comment is very appropriate. I just wanted to add a clarification point to it, but I think proceeding is perfectly appropriate. MR. TRAVER-Yes, and thank you very much for that clarification. So with that. MR. CAFFRY-I would like to say, with all due respect, I completely disagree, because if somebody comes to you with an undersized lot, you can't approve a house or whatever on it without variances. So it is a Planning Board issue, and we'll have to address it how we address it, but I do believe. MR. TRAVER-Again, the determination has been made, for our purposes, that this is not an undersized lot. MR. CAFFRY-There's never been any determination made. I asked Craig Brown, more than once, if he'd ever made a determination and he told me no. So if there had been I'd have 5 (Queensbury Planning Board 03/27/2013) appealed it, but there was never a determination made by the Staff, nothing formal, nothing in writing. I asked repeatedly. I FOIL'd. There's been no determination made. In addition to that, so I won't go into the detail on that. MR. TRAVER-I appreciate that, but bear in mind, we did receive and did read what you submitted, and it is part of the record. So I don't mean to imply that in any way we're discounting or not paying attention to the information you submitted. We did look at it. I'm just putting it in a perspective of where we sit as Planning Board this evening as we move forward. MR. CAFFRY-So I won't go into the details on that. In addition to that, the project doesn't comply with the 15 foot side yard setback by under the Code you're supposed to look at the average lot width. The lot width on the lake is 40 feet. On the road it's 66 feet, and so the average lot width is 53.2 feet. When the lot width is 50 feet or more you need a 15 foot setback. They only have 12.1 foot setback. I think they've looked at the lot width along the Iakeshore rather than taking the average as required by the Code. Likewise the Code also says that even if it's an existing undersized lot it still has to meet the minimum lot width. The minimum lot width here is 150 feet. So that's another reason why this application does not meet the requirements for Site Plan Review, and finally,just as a general matter, this is a quarter acre site in a two acre zone with very steep slopes. There's already three houses on the other part of the property. There would be a total of four houses on less than two acres. It's just not an appropriate site for yet another house. Thank you. MR. TRAVER-Thank you. Okay. Next? CHRIS NAVITSKY MR. NAVITSKY-Good evening, Board. My name is Chris Navitsky, the Lake George Water Keeper, and we have concerns regarding the extensive disturbance and construction on steep slopes within the Critical Environmental Area surrounding Lake George. We feel that critical water quality protection measures such as onsite wastewater treatment are not compliant with the Town Code and it is questionable whether the stormwater management system will reduce stormwater as proposed. The application is not compliant with § 136 for the onsite wastewater treatment system and requires variances from the Town Board of Health for the placement of a fill system within 200 feet of Lake George and on slopes greater than 10%. The wastewater treatment system proposed is a fill system as defined by the Town Code, which is defined as any sewage disposal system involving earth fill above existing grade. This definition should not be confused with the New York State Department of Health's residential wastewater treatment standards. The Town Code definition for a fill system has no reference to the absorption trench being located within the existing grade, and only refers to fill being brought in and details that fill system can be used where a depth of natural soil is inadequate as is this condition. Therefore the Town Code is more restrictive to provide addition design standards to maximize water quality protection within the Critical Environmental Area surrounding Lake George. To interpret this otherwise is to minimize the intended protection measures, and additionally that Code requires, states that these systems cannot be placed on slopes greater than 10%, and this slope in that area is 16%, 16 and 17%. So clearly Town Code refers to any system that involves fill being placed. Regarding the stormwater management system, within the proposed retaining wall and porous pavement driveway will not reduce stormwater management. This is a Redi Rock, or as Tom Hutchins referred to as segmented wall. So basically they're building this up. They're going to be holding stormwater within. It will not function as proposed because the fill within that block will be compacted to 95% density. That's the specifications for the Redi Rock. So therefore they're taking out all the porosity that they want to use for infiltration. According to the DEC porous pavement should not be installed on slopes greater than 5%. This is a 9% grade. Look at the grade. It's a three foot drop across 36 feet of silt. That exceeds what the grade is, and that grade is so that when the water enters it doesn't shift the subbase and cause settling. Additionally, these retaining walls, as most retaining walls, have weep holes in them. So you put the stormwater in there, but it has weep holes and an underdrain. So whatever water gets put in there will be surfaced out on the side and not infiltrated. So we think that there's more information that should be required. We have concern about the rain garden. Again the DEC Design Manual for Stormwater says these areas should be protected from construction traffic. Where that rain garden is, there's 10 feet between the house and that seven to eight foot retaining wall. I don't see how that can be protected during construction. Also I think this requires a permit from the New York State DOT to bring in four to five feet of fill within that right of way, and I think that that's an issue that should be addressed by the DOT. So with that, I think this should be tabled to check on the wastewater treatment system, whether that needs a variance and if there's been a decision made by the Town I'm not aware, and more information on the stormwater system. Thank you. 6 (Queensbury Planning Board 03/27/2018) MR. TRAVER-Thank you, and in response, we did receive information this evening that the Town Engineer has reviewed most if not all of the elements that you've spoken about and has approved the design. Now there was a question about the wastewater system whether or not, I'll ask the Town Staff if they have any clarification, and obviously the applicant will have an opportunity to comment on your remarks, but thank you. MR. NAVITSKY-Thank you. MR. TRAVER-Yes, sir. MICHAEL BORGOS MR. BORGOS-May I approach? MR. TRAVER-Yes. MR. BORGOS-Good evening. For the record Michael Borgos on behalf of other neighbors in Dark Bay, Mr. Crasto and his LLC ownership of Magical Shore Acres, Lionel Barthold and his wife, the Boomers and the Denooyers. All these properties are to the west of the subject property. I'm not going to repeat the comments made by Mr. Caffry and Mr. Navitsky, but these neighbors are also in opposition and adopt those comments as if they were their own. One observation I wanted to share with you is I believe that, Laura Moore has told us that the engineering signoff is subject to conditions that the test pits prior to construction and also the engineering details on that wall. MR. TRAVER-Yes. You raise a good point and I should clarify the remarks that I made to the Water Keeper. When I said engineering signoff, that's incorrect. Actually the information that we did receive was not that the engineer had signed off on the application but rather that they appear to have agreement on the issues that were raised in the original letter that we had in our packet prior to this evening and that the remaining issues were anticipated to be resolved, and it should be noted that before formal approval of the application the Town Engineer does have to sign off on, and at that point there will remain no issues. So I apologize for that. MR. BORGOS-Thank you for that clarification. I just want to go on record as seeking to have a tabling to allow the public to have an opportunity to review those engineering details of the wall in particular, so the Water Keeper and other engineers, other professionals, can evaluate it and offer their comments. The neighbors are particularly concerned about the stormwater runoff on this particularly slope steep. As it is 2018 now and there has never been development on this particular parcel, it's rather telling and I think the explanation is very understandable. This is a very difficult lot to build on, very small and undersized by today's standards, and we want to have additional scrutiny placed on it for all those reasons. Thank you. MR. TRAVER-Thank you for that suggestion. MRS. MOORE-Before you get up, I have letters from Lionel and also from, should I read those into the record? MR. BORGOS-Please do. MR. TRAVER-Sure. So we do have written comment. MRS. MOORE-We do have written comment. MR. TRAVER-And we've been asked to read those into the record. So if you would please. MRS. MOORE-The first one, "Dear Mr. Traver: As a property owner in Dark Bay, site of this proposed lot subdivision, I have previously expressed an objection to this subdivision on behalf of ourselves, the deNooyer family, the Crasto family, and the Boomer family, all of whom enjoy homes on this bay. We feel it unfair to view this project as an incremental issue when its actual effect is so closely tied to past development and use of the existing narrow lot proposed for subdivision. That lot already hosts three buildings, past use of which by its present owner has disturbed bay residents by unusual intensity of entertainment, by very large numbers of guests, and unusual late-night noise levels. A fourth building on this property, subdivided or not, represents far too high a usage intensity." And this is from Deborah and Lionel Barthold, dated March 27th. The next one is also addressed to the Chairman, "Dear Chairman Traver: I am a property owner in Dark Bay and as such am familiar with the subject property and the history of development proposals made by the Applicant. Your file will reflect that I had written to you in April 2017 regarding the variances being sought by the Applicant to move the boundary lines 7 (Queensbury Planning Board 03/27/2013) between their two lots and to add a fourth house onto this severely non-conforming property. This application has been discussed amongst several of the neighbors and we understand that there may be some technical issues with regard to storm water controls and septic systems and we will leave those to be commented upon by the professional engineers. I would like to state my objections to this application on a more humanistic level, as a person seeking to enjoy and protect the lake and its environment, for the following reasons: • There already are 3 dwellings on a combined property size of less than 2 acres. This, in an area where the current zoning allows 1 primary structure for single family occupancy, per 2 acres of land. The addition of a fourth house intensifies the density of land usage, will be excessively burdensome to the environment and is definitely out of character with the neighborhood. • Whether the boundary line gets moved (as previously proposed) or not, the intensity of use is still staggeringly high for a very narrow and very steep parcel with minimal soil depth over bedrock. Since this single parcel cannot support a wastewater system on its own, I submit to you that it is appropriate to consider the totality of development on both parcels and conclude that it is excessive. How many other lots around the lake might be more intensely developed if the basic lot requirements are allowed to be shifted to other parcels? • We recently acquired a lake-side property in the vicinity of the Applicant's property. The East side of the lake was attractive to us because it offered more privacy and limited lake shore development. We are gravely concerned about the detriment to the water quality of the lake from the proposed over- development of the said properties. Storm water runoff is already a problem and removal of any existing vegetation will certainly have a negative effect. • The Applicant(s) purchased their property in the last couple of years with full knowledge of the development parameters and the challenges presented by the lot -which most certainly factored into the acquisition cost. The inability to construct a fourth house is not a destruction of value for them. I submit to you that the parcel continues to be value added to their adjoining parcel (with the 3 houses), as it provides a small buffer and natural beauty. Conversely, it is hard to understand how the addition of a fourth house on this severely non-conforming property will not have an adverse impact on the physical and environmental conditions, and property values in the neighborhood. Thank you for your service to the people of Queensbury and I urge you to utilize your considerable knowledge and experience to scrutinize this application so that all of the requirements and regulations are met before ay approval is granted." This is Anil Crasto. MR. TRAVER-Thank you, Laura, and did I hear, in the letter they were references to variances and yet I understand there are no variances being sought. MRS. MOORE-That's correct, and both applicants are also referring to the project previous. So they're trying to focus on this particular project but they also referenced the previous one. MR. SCHACHNER-You don't mean both applicants. You mean both commenters. MRS. MOORE-Both commenters. MR. TRAVER-Yes. All right. Then before we call the applicant back, do you, either Counsel or Laura as Staff have any comments on any of the public commenters? MR. SCHACHNER-Do you? MRS. MOORE-No. MR. SCHACHNER-1 do have one. It sounds like, I don't know the nitty gritty details of this application, but it sounds like there's considerable concern about the stormwater management wall for lack of a better way to put it, and it was interesting to me, I heard, although Mr. Caffry brought the engineer Mr. Navitsky with him, Mr. Borgos, on behalf of similarly situated clients, but different clients, made the request that the matter be tabled so that the public and/or the engineers retained by some of the public had the opportunity to review the design for the wall. My job is to minimize legal exposure by the Planning Board. I think that's not an unreasonable request. And the reason I think that is because it sounds like this is an important element of this project, if I'm understanding correctly, and the gist of Mr. Borgos' comments, not my words, I mean not his words, my words, I'm characterizing it, but the gist of it is that if the Planning Board were to reach a decision with a condition that that engineering detail be subsequently 8 (Queensbury Planning Board 03/27/2018) reviewed only by Staff and the Town Engineer and possibly the applicant's engineer, that would not afford the public the opportunity to do so. So I do have a concern in that regard and in that regard I think that the request is not unreasonable. Did that make sense, my comment? MR. TRAVER-Yes, it does. Thank you for that. MR. VALENTINE-What about a continuation of the public hearing? MR. SCHACHNER-Well, that's an excellent question, Mr. Valentine. It would be appropriate to do that because that's in furtherance of my concern if the engineering design of the wall is subject to review and those who review it wish to comment on it to the Board, it would be very appropriate to allow that commenting to occur. So that's a very appropriate question and I think the answer is it would be appropriate to keep the public hearing open, at least for that purpose. MR. TRAVER-Sure. Good. Well, thank you. All right. MR. LAPPER-A comment was made that the lake is in need of protection from stormwater and septic, and I just want to point out that the stormwater is being infiltrated 100 feet back from the lake and it's completely appropriate to put the septic system on the lot next door because it's a compliant septic system. So that was good engineering design when you're building on a slope. The issue that Mark just discussed about the structure of the block wall, the purpose of that wall is so that the parking lot will be level, and the reason why Chazen said it's appropriate as a design element to look at later is it's a building code issue. It's a structural issue. So I'm not saying that's something the Planning Board can't look at, but it's really a technical issue about the sufficiency of holding back the soil and that will function because that's permeable paver as an area of the gravel so that the drainage from the parking lot will go in that area. MR. TRAVER-And I understand this is a commercially available wall basically. In other words, this is not something that's just being put together. MR. HUTCH INS-Correct. It's a manufactured product. They are large pre-cast concrete blocks. Generally how the detail design is handled is at the time of order, the manufacturer, who has professional engineers on staff, this is all they do is they put together a design drawing, a shop drawing. MR. TRAVER-Specific to this site. MR. HUTCH INS-Specific to this site that provides all the necessary details for their particular wall. MR. TRAVER-Okay. And we have yet to see that. Correct? MR. HUTCH INS-Typically you don't get that until you order the wall. MR. TRAVER-No, understood. MR. HUTCHINS-So we don't have that. We've specified that. MR. TRAVER-Okay. So that's certainly readily available, then, is what you're saying. MR. HUTCHINS-The design details, yes, they're readily available if you buy wall. MR. TRAVER-Right. All right. Anything else? You heard the concerns of the Water Keeper, again, that related mainly to stormwater, but there were some concerns about the wastewater system as well, whether it constituted a fill system. MR. HUTCHINS-With regard to the wastewater, Chris and I and Chris and other engineers before this Board have had this debate whether a fill system. It's, by DOH standards, it's a shallow system, a shallow trench system. This one's a little bit different than a standard shallow trench in that they're enhanced treatment devices. We don't consider it. It's not a fill system by DOH criteria which is essentially what we're designing to with these enhanced treatment systems. MR. TRAVER-And I know it's not directly related to the application we have before us this evening, but I have heard, as you pointed out, these discussions back and forth and different points of view about the different systems and how they protect or don't protect and how they're classified and so on. Would it be a project worthy of 2018 to try and get everybody in a room and try to figure that all out and try to come to some consensus for design and engineering, get 9 (Queensbury Planning Board 03/27/2013) the Town Engineer involved perhaps and come to some agreement on that? That's just a suggestion. MR. HUTCHINS-It sounds like you're talking about some kind of updated Town standards? MR. TRAVER-Well I don't know about that. It sounds as though the standards, it's not so much the standards but what I've been hearing in applications we've had before us is whether or not a particular system meets this or that standard, and you've been discussing yourself how you and Chris and Chazen have gone back and forth on this issue and it seems as though it would be helpful if there could be some consensus. MR. HUTCHINS-That could be helpful and I'd certainly be willing to do that. MR. TRAVER-All right. Well maybe that can happen. All right. Anything else in response to public comment? Okay. Does the Planning Board have comments or further questions for the applicant? MR. VALENTINE-Just two simple ones really. The force main going across involved in the septic, is there an easement required on those? It's not pictured on this plan. MR. HUTCHINS-Yes, there would be an easement around the entire area, where the force main crosses the line, too. MR. LAPPER-A deeded easement. MR. TRAVER-And you've already agreed to add that to the final site plan. MR. HUTCHINS-Yes. MR. VALENTINE-There was a comment about fill within the DOT right of way. That would be a simple work permit? MR. HUTCHINS-A DOT highway work permit is required. MR. VALENTINE-And that's something that you've already got. MR. HUTCHINS-We're aware that it's required, yes. MR. TRAVER-Thank you. Anyone else? Okay. Well, so we do have the one engineering element, specifically the wall design, which is on a steep slope. It is a small site. We've had a suggestion from Counsel and the public, the neighbors and so on have an opportunity to look at those plans and not just our Staff and Town Engineer. How do Board members feel about that? It doesn't sound like it would be a lengthy process to get that together, and it sounds as though the other elements are essentially in place, unless something happens with the wall design that requires a change in the other elements of the design. MR. DEEB-I think it's a good idea to follow through with that. MR. TRAVER-Yes. I mean I'm certainly I think more comfortable doing that, particularly if Counsel's in favor of that. It doesn't seem as though it would significantly delay, from what I'm hearing, in terms of how long it would take to prepare those plans and make them available. So that would be my sense, but I'd like to poll the Board to see how the Board feels? MR. SHAFER-What is it that you want to do? MR. TRAVER-It would be a tabling of the project pending some engineering detail on the wall element. MR. SHAFER-I'm not ready to approve it tonight. I think that makes sense. MR. TRAVER-Okay. MR. MAGOWAN-It's very complicated and very dense, and like I said, I would feel comfortable reviewing it a little bit further with the engineers I guess. MR. TRAVER-Okay. How about you guys, how do you feel? 10 (Queensbury Planning Board 03/27/2013) MR. VALENTINE-I'm set. When I first started reading it, looking at the soil test hadn't been taken yet, but you realize what time of the year it is, but they are critical to the stormwater and slope here. MR. TRAVER-They are, and they will have to be observed. MR. HUNSINGER-It seems like it should be tabled. MR. TRAVER-Okay. All right. Then I think what we're looking at, gentlemen, is a tabling pending the wall detail be made available to our engineer, the Town Staff and available to the public on the website, on the Town website. Town Staff can certainly make that available. Do you have any idea how long that might take? MR. HUTCHINS-No, sir. I can find out. MR. LAPPER-We'll try and get it ordered and I guess just in terms of if you give us a date for submission. It's not going to be a big deal to review I'm sure. MR. TRAVER-Okay. No, I would hope not. I mean, hopefully it would be compliant and be satisfactory. MR. LAPPER-Perhaps if you could put us on next month's agenda and let us submit a week before the meeting. It's just going to be pretty simple. MR. TRAVER-Well, how's are, what's our elbow room like? MRS. MOORE-So next month's meeting, there's six items on each agenda, so if you would like a seventh item on either one, the first ones are typically including our Planning Board recommendations, and a couple of applications. So they tend to go, they're a little shorter. MR. TRAVER-Well, I guess I would be amenable to that. The only concern I have, I guess, is that I'm not hearing that you're confident on how long it would take to get, I mean we're already at the 27tH MS. WHITE-So what's the cut off? MR. TRAVER-Normally it would be the 15tH MRS. MOORE-Of March. So we've already missed the deadline. So it would be the Board setting a timeframe when that information is due. MR. TRAVER-Then we have the additional complication of leaving some time for people to be aware that it's available and to study and be prepared to comment on it when it comes back. So quite honestly I think we're looking at May. MR. LAPPER-Okay. MR. TRAVER-So April 15 then would be their deadline for re-submission? MR. LAPPER-1 guess if you could give us an extra week. It's only one item just to submit the detail. MS. WHITE-That's up to Laura. MR. TRAVER-April 15. MR. LAPPER-That's only like two weeks from now. MR. DEEB-April 22nd MRS. MOORE-1 can work with that. The 16th and 23 d are weekdays. Those two dates that you just mentioned are weekends, but. MR. TRAVER-All right. Well, give us a date, Laura, that you're comfortable with. He's asking for some elbow room beyond the 15th. What can you do for us? rd MRS. MOORE-The 23 11 (Queensbury Planning Board 03/27/2018) MR. TRAVER-We'll give you until the 23,a MR. LAPPER-Okay. Thank you. MR. TRAVER-All right. So then, let's see, so we're looking at the May meetings which are, and we have another odd schedule because of the tax, property tax day. MR. HUNSINGER-Grievance Day. MR. TRAVER-Yes, Grievance Day. Okay. Thank you. So the 15th and the 17th are our days. If we can, Laura, why don't we try for the 15th. Will that work? MRS. MOORE-Yes. MR. TRAVER-That's the first meeting. I know I'm not going to be able to be here for the second one. So then we would table to May 15th with a submission deadline of April 23a. It's not the standard, so let's put that in the motion. And we need to be clear on the condition. So the tabling motion is for the submission of detailed plans on the wall. Okay. So I think that was all we were waiting on. RESOLUTION TABLING SP # 67-2017 GREGORY TERESI The applicant has submitted an application to the Planning Board: Applicant proposes to construct a 1,812 sq. ft., 3 bedroom home and associated site work. Project occurs on 15% slope and includes stormwater management, permeable pavers, with septic system on adjoining lot. Pursuant to Chapter 179-6-060 of the Zoning Ordinance, new construction occurring within 50' of 15% slopes shall be subject to Planning Board review and approval. MOTION TO TABLE SITE PLAN NO. 67-2017 GREGORY TERESI, Introduced by David Deeb who moved for its adoption: Tabled to the May 15, 2018 Planning Board meeting with a submission date of April 23, 2018. For submission of details of the wall. Motion seconded by Michael Valentine. Duly adopted this 27th day of March, by the following vote: MR. DEEB-For the public, Town, and applicant's engineer to consult on the wall segment of the Site Plan. MR. SCHACHNER-I'm going to suggest you not have the motion require consultation among the three parties. I'm going to suggest the motion simply require submission of the wall detail engineering by April 23a so that it's available for whomever. MR. DEEB-Okay. So motion to table Site Plan No. 67-2017 to May 15, 2018 with a submission date of April 23, 2018 for clarification of? MR. SCHACHNER-My suggestion was that the condition merely require submission of that information by April 23a. Anybody who wants can confer to the extent they wish to, but I don't think it's appropriate to require them to confer. MR. DEEB-Okay. For submission of the wall details of the Site Plan. MR. SCHACHNER-And I think you're proposing to leave the public hearing open until then for the purpose of, to allow comments on that issue should the public wish to comment. MR. TRAVER-Yes. So if you don't mind reading the motion again. AYES: Mr. Valentine, Mr. Magowan, Mr. Hunsinger, Mr. Shafer, Ms. White, Mr. Deeb, Mr. Traver NOES: NONE MR. TRAVER-All right. MR. LAPPER-Thanks, everyone. 12 (Queensbury Planning Board 03/27/2018) MR. TRAVER-All right. So the next application we have before us is Michael Serini, Site Plan 11-2018. OLD BUSINESS: SITE PLAN NO. 11-2018 SEAR TYPE: TYPE II. MICHAEL SERINI. AGENT(S): DENNIS MAC ELROY. OWNER(S): SAME AS APPLICANT. ZONING: WR. LOCATION: 2934 STATE ROUTE 9L. APPLICANT PROPOSES REMOVAL OF EXISTING CAMP TO CONSTRUCT 1,008 SQ. FT. HOME AT 2,284 SQ. FT. FLOOR AREA. PROJECT INCLUDES NEW SEPTIC, SITE WORK FOR HOUSE AND DRIVEWAY. PURSUANT TO CHAPTER 179- 3-040 & 179-6-060 OF THE ZONING ORDINANCE, CONSTRUCTION WITHIN 50 FT. OF 15% SLOPES SHALL BE SUBJECT TO PLANNING BOARD REVIEW AND APPROVAL. CROSS REFERENCE: RC 717-2017 ALTERATIONS; SEP 567-2017 SEPTIC ALT., AV. WARREN CO. REFERRAL: MARCH 2018. SITE INFORMATION: LGPC, CEA. LOT SIZE: .32 ACRE. TAX MAP NO. 239.20-1-18. SECTION: 179-3-040; 179-6-060. DENNIS MAC ELROY, REPRESENTING APPLICANT, PRESENT; MICHAEL SERINI, PRESENT MRS. MOORE-This applicant proposes the removal of the existing camp to construct a new home. The project is reviewable by the Planning Board for construction within 50 feet of 15% slopes. The applicant did receive the variance from the Zoning Board of Appeals involving setbacks and permeability. MR. TRAVER-Good evening. MR. SERINI-Good evening. MR. MAC ELROY-Good evening. Dennis MacElroy with Environmental Design here with Michael Serini the owner and applicant of property at 2934 Route 9L. That's located on the east shore of Dunham's Bay. As Laura indicated we did receive the necessary variances from the Zoning Board last week. So we're here to discuss Site Plan issues. This proposal is for the removal and replacement of a single family residence on this lot which is approximately a third of an acre. One of the first things, the Serini's are relatively new owners since last summer. The first thing that they did was to apply and receive approval for a replacement wastewater system for that site, using an enhanced treatment technology, Clarus system. Mike has constructed some of that, constructed the field area, as you may have seen if you visited the site during construction activity. That was all proper and permitted to do, but now having lived in the cottage for a couple of months this summer, they decided it wasn't really suitable to maintain, to put renovation money into, what not. There were structural issues. There were fire code issues related to the fireplace. So they made the decision that they wanted to remove the structure and build and that did require some side setback variances but the house was more centered now to the lot. Previously there'd be a five foot setback on one side. So now the house is better located and also set back a ways from the shoreline. In fact it's 79 feet. So it's well beyond the prescribed setback for this zone. Again, the wastewater system is part of the improvements that are being made and stormwater system which heretofore is really non- existent in any formal way on that site. So we've provided some shallow depressions that would serve as storage and necessary infiltration devices for some stormwater management on site. The other improvements, the driveway, the parking will be improved and is shown on the plans. Now that we're in this process the tank locations would be slightly different. The Clarus treatment tank and the pump tank will be slightly different than what was originally approved, but they're all within the appropriate standards, and as I indicated the bed area, dispersal area, has already been constructed. So we're in good shape in that regard. So we'd be glad to answer any questions you might have. MR. TRAVER-And I see that the Area Variance was granted. As a result of your discussion with the Zoning Board, were there any changes to the project since we last discussed it? MR. MAC ELROY-No. MR. TRAVER-Okay. Questions from members of the Planning Board? MS. WHITE-We talked about this. I just remember that cottage being over the property line, but it seems like you're okay with that. MR. TRAVER-Yes. MR. HUNSINGER-Yes, the negative setback. 13 (Queensbury Planning Board 03/27/2018) MR. TRAVER-Yes. All right. Well, we do have a public hearing on this application. Are there folks in the audience that want to address the Planning Board on this application? Seeing none, Laura, is there any written comment? PUBLIC HEARING OPENED MRS. MOORE-There's one written comment. This is "Dear Mr. Brown: We live two properties to the South of Mr. and Mrs. Serini. We met our new neighbors last summer and believe they will do the right thing in anything they undertake. The proposed project appears to improve the site and be beneficial to the Lake with the new septic system. Based on the information we have seen, we support the proposed project. If you have any questions please feel free to contact us. Thank you, Henry and Carol Butkiewicz 2938 State Route 9L Queensbury, NY" MR. TRAVER-Okay. Thank you. MR. HUNSINGER-I'm sorry, I did have a question and it was in the Staff Notes. I don't remember if you clarified this last meeting or not, whether it was going to be a slab or a crawl space. MR. SERINI-A slab. MR. HUNSINGER-A slab. MR. SERINI-Due to the rock. MR. HUNSINGER-Yes. MR. TRAVER-Okay. Well, we did review this once before in preparation for the ZBA, so if there are no further questions, are people comfortable moving forward on this application? MRS. MOORE-You need to close your public hearing. MR. TRAVER-My apologies. We'll close the public hearing. PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED MR. TRAVER-And now we're ready for the motion. RESOLUTION APPROVING SP # 11-2018 MICHAEL SERINI The applicant has submitted an application to the Planning Board: Applicant proposes removal of existing camp to construct 1,008 sq. ft. home at 2,284 sq. ft. floor area. Project includes new septic, site work for house and driveway. Pursuant to Chapter 179-3-040 & 179-6-060 of the Zoning Ordinance, construction within 50 ft. of 15% slopes shall be subject to Planning Board review and approval. Pursuant to relevant sections of the Town of Queensbury Zoning Code-Chapter 179-9-080, 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 03/27/2018 and continued the public hearing to 03/27/2018, 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 03/27/2018; 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 11-2018 MICHAEL SERINI; Introduced by David Deeb who moved for its adoption. According to the draft resolution prepared by Staff with the following: 14 (Queensbury Planning Board 03/27/2018) 1) Waivers requested granted; 2. 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 Jamie White. Duly adopted this 27th day of March, 2018 by the following vote: AYES: Ms. White, Mr. Shafer, Mr. Hunsinger, Mr. Magowan, Mr. Valentine, Mr. Deeb, Mr. Traver NOES: NONE MR. TRAVER-You're all set. MR. MAC ELROY-Thank you very much. MR. TRAVER-Okay. Good luck. All right. So the next application we have before us is Michael Badera, Site Plan 21-2018. SITE PLAN NO. 21-2018 SEAR TYPE: TYPE II. MICHAEL BADERA. OWNER(S): SAME AS APPLICANT. ZONING: WR. LOCATION: 55 MASON ROAD. APPLICANT PROPOSES A 198 SQ. FT. ENCLOSED SUNROOM ADDITION ON SOUTHWEST SIDE OF THE NEW PROPOSED DECK AREA. EXISTING HOME FLOOR AREA IS 6,611 SQ. FT. AND WILL INCREASE TO 6,809 SQ. FT. PURSUANT TO CHAPTER 179-3-040 & 179-13- 010 OF THE ZONING ORDINANCE, EXPANSION OF A NON-CONFORMING STRUCTURE SHALL BE SUBJECT TO PLANNING BOARD REVIEW AND APPROVAL. CROSS REFERENCE: SP 46-95, SP 59-96, AV 83-96, AV 55-96, AV 41-95, SP 50-2017, AV 74- 2017, SP 66-2017, AV 15-2018. WARREN CO. REFERRAL: MARCH 2018. SITE INFORMATION: LGPC, CEA. LOT SIZE: .45 ACRE. TAX MAP NO. 226.16-1-20. SECTION: 179-3-040, 179-13-010 MICHAEL BADERA, PRESENT 15 (Queensbury Planning Board 03/27/2018) MR. TRAVER-Laura? MRS. MOORE-Okay. This applicant proposes a 175 square foot enclosed sunroom addition on the southwest side of the new deck area. The applicant did receive the variance for setbacks and floor area with the Zoning Board the other night. MR. TRAVER-Thank you. Good evening. Welcome back. MR. BADERA-Hello. Mike Badera again. It seems like I was just here two weeks ago. As Laura said, I went to the Zoning Board. We had a discussion there about a few things. Bottom line, everything was approved. There were no changes made. MR. TRAVER-No changes to your plan as we looked at previously. MR. BADERA-Correct. I'm just looking to close the roof for final approval. MR. TRAVER-Very good. All right, and I see from Staff Notes we did have some discussion last time about the numbers and those have been updated in our Staff Notes for this evening. So those are accurate. Comments, questions from members of the Planning Board? I know we discussed this on the 13th, and we have a draft resolution. I don't recall the need for any conditions that we talked about. There is a public hearing on this application. Is there anyone here who would like to address the Planning Board on this application? I'm not seeing anyone. Are there any written comments? PUBLIC HEARING OPENED MRS. MOORE-There are no written comments. MR. TRAVER-Then we'll close the public hearing. PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED MR. TRAVER-And we're ready to proceed to a motion. RESOLUTION APPROVING SP #21-2018 MICHAEL BADERA The applicant has submitted an application to the Planning Board for Site Plan approval pursuant to Article 9 of the Town zoning Ordinance for: Applicant proposes a 198 sq. ft. enclosed sunroom addition on southwest side of the new proposed deck area. Existing home floor area is 6,611 sq. ft. and will increase to 6,809 sq. ft. Pursuant to Chapter 179-3-040 & 179-13-010 of the Zoning Ordinance, expansion of a non-conforming structure shall be subject to Planning Board review and approval. Pursuant to relevant sections of the Town of Queensbury Zoning Code-Chapter 179-9-080, 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 03/27/2018 and continued the public hearing to 03/27/2018, 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 03/27/2018; 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 66-2017 MICHAEL BADERA; Introduced by David Deeb who moved for its adoption; Per the draft provided by staff conditioned upon the following conditions: 1) Waivers requestrg anted: 2) Adherence to the items outlined in the follow-up letter sent with this resolution. 16 (Queensbury Planning Board 03/27/2018) a) If application was referred to engineering, then engineering sign-off required prior to signature of Zoning Administrator of the approved plans; b) Final approved plans should have dimensions and setbacks noted on the site plan/survey, floor plans and elevation for the existing rooms and proposed rooms in the building and site improvements, c) Final approved plans, in compliance with the Site Plan, must be submitted to the Community Development Department before any further review by the Zoning Administrator or Building and Codes personnel; d) The applicant must meet with Staff after approval and prior to issuance of Building Permit and/or the beginning of any site work; e) Subsequent issuance of further permits, including building permits is dependent on compliance with this and all other conditions of this resolution; f) As-built plans to certify that the site plan is developed according to the approved plans to be provided prior to issuance of the certificate of occupancy; g) Resolution to be placed on final plans in its entirety and legible. Motion seconded by Chris Hunsinger. Duly adopted this 27th day of March, 2018 by the following vote: AYES: Mr. Shafer, Mr. Hunsinger, Mr. Magowan, Mr. Valentine, Mr. Deeb, Ms. White, Mr. Traver NOES: NONE MR. TRAVER-You are all set. Good luck. MR. BADERA-Thank you. MR. TRAVER-That completes our agenda for this evening. Is there any other business before the Planning Board this evening? There being no further business before the Planning Board, I'll entertain a motion to adjourn. MR. HUNSINGER-So moved. MOTION TO ADJOURN THE QUEENSBURY PLANNING BOARD MEETING OF MARCH 27th, 2018, Introduced by Chris Hunsinger who moved for its adoption, seconded by Brad Magowan: Duly adopted this 27th day of March, 2018, by the following vote: AYES: Mr. Magowan, Mr. Valentine, Ms. White, Mr. Deeb, Mr. Shafer, Mr. Hunsinger, Mr. Traver NOES: NONE MR. TRAVER-We stand adjourned. Thank you, ladies and gentlemen. On motion meeting was adjourned. RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED, Stephen Traver, Chairman 17