Loading...
06-19-2018 [Queensbury Planning Board 06/19/18] QUEENSBURY PLANNING BOARD MEETING FIRST REGULAR MEETING JUNE 19, 2018 INDEX Site Plan No. 36-2018 Faden Enterprises, Inc. 1. ZBA RECOMMENDATION Tax Map No. 296.17-1-49 Site Plan No. 37-2018 Faden Enterprises, Inc. 5. ZBA RECOMMENDATION Tax Map No. 296.17-1-47 Site Plan No. 10-2018 Joseph & Cynthia Didio 7. ZBA RECOMMENDATION Tax Map No. 239.20-1-7 Subdivision No. 7-2018 Marcia Parker IL PRELIMINARY STAGE Tax Map No. 316.5-1-8 ZBA RECOMMENDATION Subdivision No. 8-2018 Monsour Enterprises, LLC 14. PRELIMINARY STAGE Tax Map No. 308.12-2-77 Subdivision No. 9-2018 FINAL STAGE ZBA RECOMMENDATION Site Plan No. 40-2018 Thingvellir, LLC 16. ZBA RECOMMENDATION Tax Map No. 227.6-144 Site Plan No. 38-2018 Marvin Dobert 18. Tax Map No. 309.10-140 Site Plan No. 39-2018 Joe Caricari, CR BARD 23. Tax Map No. 302.84-7 Site Plan No. 41-2018 Jennifer Ball 28. Freshwater Wetlands Permit 3-2018 Tax Map No. 266.1-1-10 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. 1 [Queensbury Planning Board 06/19/18] QUEENSBURY PLANNING BOARD MEETING FIRST REGULAR MEETING JUNE 19, 2018 7:00 P.M. MEMBERS PRESENT STEPHEN TRAVER, CHAIRMAN CHRIS HUNSINGER, VICE CHAIRMAN DAVID DEEB, SECRETARY JOHN SHAFER BRAD MAGOWAN MICHAEL VALENTINE MICHAEL DIXON, ALTERNATE LAND USE PLANNER-LAURA MOORE STENOGRAPHER-MARIA GAGLIARDI MR. TRAVER-Good evening ladies and gentlemen. Welcome to the Queensbury Planning Board meeting Tuesday June 19t", 2018. This is the first meeting for the month of June and the 13" meeting, believe it or not, so far this for this year. I want to draw your attention to the emergency exits. There are illuminated signs in case we have a disaster or other emergency please exit the building safely. If you have a cellphone or other electronic device, if you would turn your ringer off we would appreciate that. There should be, on the table at the rear of the room, some agendas for handout, and one other clerical note before we begin. We would normally be meeting again next Tuesday. Some of the applications that we'll be hearing tonight possibly could be on that agenda, and you should be aware that because of the Federal election next Tuesday the 26t", our meeting was bumped one day earlier. So we're actually going to be meeting next Monday instead of next Tuesday. So if that's of interest to you, you should make a note of that. That's been updated on the Town website and the agenda's been updated as well, but just for informational purposes. MR. MAGOWAN-That would be the 25t", right? MR. TRAVER-Correct, Monday the 25t". All right, and with that we have approval of minutes first from April, April 17" and April 24tn APPROVAL OF MINUTES April 17t", 2018 April 24t", 2018 MOTION TO APPROVE THE QUEENSBURY PLANNING BOARD MEETING MINUTES OF APRIL 17" AND APRIL 24t", 2018, Introduced by David Deeb who moved for its adoption, seconded by Michael Valentine: Duly adopted this 19t" day of June, 2018, by the following vote: AYES: Mr. Deeb, Mr. Dixon, Mr. Shafer, Mr. Hunsinger, Mr. Valentine, Mr. Traver NOES: NONE ABSTAINED: Mr. Magowan MR. TRAVER-We have an Administrative Item as well, Site Plan 20-2018 for William Miner. It was actually on the agenda for this evening. That application has been withdrawn. So if you're here to hear that application again that application, William Miner, Site Plan 20-2018, has been withdrawn, and then we go to the first section of our regular agenda, which are recommendations to the ZBA, the first one being Site Plan 36-2018 for Faden Enterprises. PLANNING BOARD RECOMMENDATIONS TO THE ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS: SITE PLAN NO. 36-2018 SEQR TYPE: UNLISTED. FADEN ENTERPRISES, INC. AGENT(SJ: LANSING ENGINEERING. OWNER(SJ: 894 REALTY, LLC. ZONING: CM. LOCATION: 894 NYS ROUTE 9. APPLICANT PROPOSES TO DEMOLISH AN EXISTING BUILDING TO 2 [Queensbury Planning Board 06/19/18] CONSTRUCT AN 11,400 SQ. FT. SINGLE STORY BUILDING MULTI-TENANT COMMERCIAL BUILDING. PROJECT SITE WORK INCLUDES MAJOR GRADING AND FILLING, NEW ACCESS RIGHT-IN/RIGHT OUT, AND INTERCONNECT TO ADJOINING RESTAURANT. PURSUANT TO CHAPTERS 179-3-040, 179-4-090 OF THE ZONING ORDINANCE, NEW COMMERCIAL BUILDINGS IN THE COMMERCIAL MODERATE ZONE SHALL BE SUBJECT TO PLANNING BOARD REVIEW AND APPROVAL. VARIANCE: RLIEF IS SOUGHT FOR SETBACK ON MONTRAY ROAD AND PARKING REQUIREMENTS. PLANNING BOARD SHALL PROVIDE A RECOMMENDATION TO THE ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS. CROSS REFERENCE: SP 37- 2018; AV 34-2018. WARREN CO. REFERRAL: MAY 2018. SITE INFORMATION: TRAVEL CORRIDOR OVERLAY ZONE. LOT SIZE: 1.22 +/- ACRES. TAX MAP NO. 296.174-49. SECTION: 179-3-040. 179-4-090. MIKE BIANCHINO, REPRESENTING APPLICANT, PRESENT; RUSS FADEN, PRESENT MR. TRAVER-Laura? MRS. MOORE-Okay. So this applicant was moved to this month in June because we found out that this particular parcel is not within the sewer district. The applicant did come up with an agreement with the Department of Sewer and Wastewater and so that was granted last night by the Town Board. So there's an agreement for an out of district user. So the applicant is back before this Board for a Planning Board recommendation and again the project is to demolish an existing building to construct an 11,400 square foot single-story building. It's a multi-tenant project. The project includes some grading and filling and new access right in and right out areas and an interconnect to the adjoining restaurant. MR. TRAVER-Thank you, Laura,and welcome back. I remember you were here before us once before. We had quite a bit of discussion on this application. We did run into sort of a bump in the road regarding the sewer which I understand has now been resolved. So just as a reminder for members of the Planning Board, what we're dealing with tonight is the variance and presumably they'll be returning for site plan. The issue is the setback on Montray Road and parking requirements. So we can view, like I said, I know we discussed this at quite a bit of length when they were here before. Do you have anything you wanted to add to our previous discussion or as a result of your discussion with the Town? MR. BIANCHINO-My name is Mike Bianchino with Lansing Engineering. I'm here in place of Scott tonight. And with me obviously is Mr. Faden the applicant. Laura did mention the sewer district, out of district agreement which was approved last night. I know at the last meeting there was a discussion or question about SHPO. We do have a SHPO no effect letter for the archeological on the site. MR. TRAVER-That's for the Blind Rock issue? MR. BIANCHINO-Yes. MR. TRAVER-Okay. Good. MR. BIANCHINO-And we did receive not only Staff but comments from the Town's TDE. We are working through those. We were on the phone with Chazen this morning and we will have those items addressed. We also met with New York State DOT actually this morning first thing regarding the access curb cut. They are in the process of their review. We did want to discuss with them the comments that were raised by emergency services regarding the width of the limited access driveway with the island in the middle because they had a concern about that. So we did bring that up with DOT, made them aware of the comment. They will take that into consideration in their review and we hope to have their comments and review back shortly. MR. TRAVER-Right. Okay. Very good. Other questions and comments from members of the Board? MR. VALENTINE-I have one for Mike, as you brought up DOT. I mentioned it to Scott last time. It's a Site Plan issue. It has nothing to do with tonight, but it is with that center turn lane. All right. The center turn lane is designated for left turn movements, northbound left turn movements and now it's going to wind up being, you're going to use it as a center left, right suicide lane, right? MR. BIANCHINO-That's what's originally proposed and that was one of the things we were looking for DOT's input on. 3 [ ueensbury Planning Board 06/19/18] MR. VALENTINE-But that was my question. Have you talked to them about that? MR. BIANCHINO-They'll make it part of their review. We brought to their attention what we were proposing as a right in, left in, right in, right out only. They said they'd look at that as part of their review. MR. VALENTINE-The reason I'm bringing it up because I talked to Scott a little bit about it before, with Board members, what that does with that left turn, you have a signalized intersection there, and that's designated for left turn lanes into the Wal-Mart site, but with this becoming a double turn lane for entrance into this site also, it'll conflict with that. MR. TRAVER-Well, DOT will give us their opinion on that. MR. VALENTINE-I just wanted to say that before John brought it up. That's all. MR. SHAFER-They may conclude left turns. MR. TRAVER-Yes, we'll have to deal with that. Any other concerns with regards to the variance request for the setback on Montray Road and the parking? I know the parking is relatively complicated. It's sort of two parcels and that type of thing. I know one of my concerns was the historical, the Blind Rock issue. You sound like you took care of that. There were some comments in the Staff Notes, I didn't know if you saw those, just regarding detail. The application, the plan should show the number of parking spaces on each site. Admonishment to us, we should consider some additional plantings. We should have the, for lighting we should have the average foot candles and so on on the site plan side. They've not requested any waivers. Does anyone have any specific concerns or additional questions? Anything that we might want to pass along to the ZBA as part of the application? MR. HUNSINGER-So one of the questions I have because of the graphic that's up on the screen right there, jumps right out at me, was the pitch between the building and Montray Road, the slope of how that, the road goes down as you travel east. I mean it's not related to the variance directly but it is indirectly because of the location of the building. MR. BIANCHINO-The plan proposed is a retaining wall along Montray, along the property line. We are going to bring in a significant amount of fill I think as was discussed at the last meeting, in order to raise that building up, and then slope this back at a reasonable slope so that we can come back to existing grade before we get to that, the wooded area at the rear of the property, but again the Montray Road side of the site will have a retaining wall. The retaining wall will vary in height from just basically at the Route 9 end it'll be at grade and then as the road goes down the retaining wall will be up and then follow the grade of the site. So there will be a section of exposed wall. MR. HUNSINGER-What would the maximum height of the wall be? MR. BIANCHINO-I believe the maximum height is about 13 feet. MR. MAGOWAN-And how far back off the road is that? MR. FADEN-Off Route 9? MR. BIANCHINO-Montray? It's on the proposed property. So off the edge of pavement it's probably 10 or 15 feet. MR. MAGOWAN-All right. So there's enough for snow removal and that so you don't have it curling behind the truck as the truck goes by. MR. BIANCHINO-Yes. Correct. The wall will be totally on the parcel. MR. MAGOWAN-I mean, I know that there's a certain amount of right of way. I just wanted to make sure that it was just, I'm trying to see the road here. I see the fine line. MR. SHAFER-I have a question. Back to Mike's point. I noticed that the map shows double left turns about 50 feet south of the proposed driveway. Then right in front of the driveway you see a left turn arrow into the Wal-Mart. How flexible are you on the location of the driveway in the event DOT wants it moved just slightly to the south? It looks like grade wise it would work. MR. BIANCHINO-I think it would work. I don't see them moving it closer to Montray, closer to that intersection, because there are left turns in at that location as well. Right? Southbound Route 4 [Queensbury Planning Board 06/19/18] 9 left turns into Montray. So it's, we tried to put it in what we thought was the best location, but certainly we'll consider whatever DOT asks us to do, and honestly we understand and wouldn't be surprised if DOT comes back and says rights in, rights out only. MR. SHAFER-You could live with that? MR. BIANCHINO-Well, obviously the full access at the signal at the UNO site is a benefit. MR. SHAFER-Sure. MR. MAGOWAN-Huge. MR. BIANCHINO-So I mean the interconnection makes perfect sense. It's consistent with the Town's Comprehensive Plan and the design standards. It helps us out. We've just got to understand how to sign it appropriately and make that work, but we tried the left in, you know, the three of the four, the three-quarter access if you will driveway but there is an expectation DOT could come back and say rights in, rights out. MR. SHAFER-Okay. MR. VALENTINE-The other thing, from us going to the ZBA, somewhere along the line I think it just should be noted favorably what has been done with the interconnection between two different properties and looking at what is wanted on Route 9. MR. TRAVER-Yes. I'd just note again for the residents in the audience, if you did get an agenda from the table in the back of the room, it does say there's a public hearing tonight and actually that's not accurate. This is a recommendation to the ZBA. So there will not be a public hearing tonight, although at a later date during Site Plan there will be, and obviously that applies to the second part of this or the second item on the agenda as well. No public hearing this evening. Any other comments from members of the Planning Board? Then I guess we're ready for a recommendation. MR. DEEB-Motion to make a recommendation on behalf of the Planning Board to the Zoning Board of Appeals for Area Variance No. 35-2018, Faden Enterprises, Inc.. The Planning Board, based on limited review, has not identified any significant adverse impacts that cannot be mitigated with the current project. MR. MAGOWAN-I'll second it. MRS. MOORE-Excuse me. So I noticed that one of the Staff Notes, the recommendation was switched. So it really should be recommendation for Area Variance No. 34-2018. MR. DEEB-34-2018. The other one is 35-2018. Got it. MRS. MOORE-Right. MR. DEEB-Okay. I'm going to amend that. RESOLUTION RE: ZBA RECOMMENDATION RE: AV # 34-2018 FADEN ENTERPRISES, INC. The applicant has submitted an application for the following: Applicant proposes to demolish an existing building to construct an 11,400 sq. ft. single story building multi-tenant commercial building. Project site work includes major grading and filling, new access right-in/right-out, and interconnect to adjoining restaurant. Pursuant to Chapters 179-3-040, 179-4-090 of the Zoning Ordinance, new commercial buildings in the commercial moderate zone shall be subject to Planning Board review and approval. Variance: Relief is sought for setback on Montray Road and parking requirements. 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: 5 [Queensbury Planning Board 06/19/18] MOTION TO MAKE A RECOMMENDATION ON BEHALF OF THE PLANNING BOARD TO THE ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS FOR AREA VARIANCE NO. 34-2018 FADEN ENTERPRISES, INC. Introduced by David Deeb who moved 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 Brad Magowan. Duly adopted this 19" day of June, 2018 by the following vote: AYES: Mr. Dixon, Mr. Shafer, Mr. Hunsinger, Mr. Valentine, Mr. Magowan, Mr. Deeb, Mr. Traver NOES: NONE MR. TRAVER-All right, and next we continue looking at this project with the next item on the agenda which is Site Plan 37-2018. This also is consideration of a variance and the ZBA has asked us for a recommendation. In this case the variance sought is relief for permeability. Permeability less than 30%. And there is a report attached. Again we did discuss this once before, and it is to this part of the project that Mr. Palmer has expressed concerns about the concrete traffic deterrent device and the driveway width being addressed by the applicant. SITE PLAN NO. 37-2018 SEQR TYPE: UNLISTED. FADEN ENTERPRISES, INC. AGENT(SJ: LANSING ENGINEERING. OWNER(SJ: EVEREST ENTERPRISES, LLC. ZONING: CM. LOCATION: 900 STATE ROUTE 9. APPLICANT PROPOSES NEW PARKING IMPROVEMENTS & INTER-CONNECT TO NEIGHBORING PARCEL. ADDITIONAL HARD SURFACING AND ADJUSTMENT TO THE PARKING AREA FOR DRIVE AISLE AND NEW PARKING SPACES. PURSUANT TO CHAPTER 179-3-040, 179-4-090, 179-9-020 OF THE ZONING ORDINANCE SITE WORK ON AN EXISTING COMMERCIAL PROPERTY WITH NO SITE PLAN REVIEW WITHIN 7 YEARS SHALL BE SUBJECT TO PLANNING BOARD REVIEW AND APPROVAL. VARIANCE: RELIEF IS SOUGHT FOR PERMEABILITY LESS THAN 30 PERCENT. PLANNING BOARD SHALL PROVIDE A RECOMMENDATION TO THE ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS. CROSS REFERENCE: SP 36-2017; AV 35-2018. WARREN CO. REFERRAL: MAY 2018. SITE INFORMATION: TRAVEL CORRIDOR OVERLAY ZONE. LOT SIZE: 1.72 ACRES. TAX MAP NO. 296.174-47. SECTION: 179-3-040, 179-4-090, 179-9-020. MIKE BIANCHINO, REPRESENTING APPLICANT, PRESENT; RUSS FADEN, PRESENT MR. TRAVER-Do you have any additional information for us on this particular part of the variance for permeability? MR. BIANCHINO-The existing site is approximately, well, the minimum requirement is 30%. The Site Plan itself, the existing is 26.2 and the provided is 17.3, and that's based on the additional pavement that's installed to provide the interconnection between the two sites, and then to provide the additional parking and replace the parking that's eliminated as part of the interconnection. So we eliminate three spaces as part of that driveway interconnection and then we've added spaces here which were the subject of the other variance and that's the additional impermeable area. One thing we've done is we've taken the runoff that's contributed to this portion of the existing UNO site and we've taken it through our site so that we can provide stormwater management for the runoff that right now goes basically off the parcel down into the grass area. We're going to run that through our system which is providing an improvement to the stormwater. MR. TRAVER-Yes, that UNO site, I've been there for various functions, and that can be quite, when it's raining there tends to be a lot of water in the parking lot. Good. Questions, comments from members of the Planning Board? MR. BIANCHINO-If I can add one other thing. If you look at the two sites together, the proposed building site and the existing, when you look at both together we're at 32.6% green space. So when you take both into account and when you're trying to combine you know, share parking and interconnect parking lots, I think it's fair and reasonable to look at both sites together when you don't have any green space. So overall I think we're meeting the intent of the Code. MR. DEEB-The Fire Marshal's comment? MR. TRAVER-Yes, they actually addressed that on the first part. MR. BIANCHINO-Yes. The piece he's talking about is the island that's in the middle of the new driveway which basically is to limit access, and I would imagine, I wouldn't be surprised if it comes back 6 [Queensbury Planning Board 06/19/18] as even a bigger T bone if you will that will allow only rights in, rights out. In this case we'll still have that same issue, but we're trying to get DOT's opinion on that because this has come to our attention in other municipalities as well, in a Route 9 situation where we've got to get DOT approval. So we're trying to see if we can get DOT to talk with the EMS people and come to a conclusion of what's reasonable. MR. TRAVER-Well we'll need that when we get to Site Plan. MR. BIANCHINO-Yes. MR. MAGOWAN-Well, one of the things I think we had was when we put in the Roadhouse and Hobby Lobby that we have a pork chop there, too, and what it ended up being was a rolling curb, slanted curb, so I mean, so you can actually, the trucks could drive over it, the lower cars could drive over it, too, but you don't want to go too fast. MR. BIANCHINO-And again in this case the situation for emergency services is, you know, we've got a full access here that enters the site. We can design this in such a way as with fire access driveways. This can be the T to allow them, if they come in this way, not to go out that way, but to use that as a turnaround to get back out to the full intersection. That's one of the things we looked at to try to address that, because there's a, fire access driveways have a minimum T dimension that allows their emergency vehicles to turn around. We're going to modify that pork chop if you will to make sure that complies with that requirement. MR. TRAVER-Okay. Anything else from members of the Board, or are we ready for the referral motion? MR. HUNSINGER-I'm good. MR. TRAVER-All right. RESOLUTION RE: ZBA RECOMMENDATION RE: AV # 35-2018 FADEN ENTERPRISES, INC. The applicant has submitted an application for the following: Applicant proposes new parking improvements & inter-connect to neighboring parcel. Additional hard surfacing and adjustment to the parking area for drive aisle and new parking spaces. Pursuant to Chapters 179-3-040, 179-4-090, 179-9-020 of the Zoning Ordinance Site work on an existing commercial property with no site plan review within 7 years shall be subject to Planning Board review and approval. Variance: Relief is sought for permeability less than 30 percent. 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 NO. 35-2018 FADEN ENTERPRISES, INC. Introduced by David Deeb who moved 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 Michael Valentine. Duly adopted this 19" day of June, 2018 by the following vote: MR. VALENTINE-Just a question on that. Is that Area Variance 35 or 37? Because in the notes it refers to it as 37. MRS. MOORE-So that's Site Plan, Site Plan 37. MR. VALENTINE-Okay. AYES: Mr. Shafer, Mr. Hunsinger, Mr. Magowan, Mr. Valentine, Mr. Deeb, Mr. Dixon, Mr. Traver ,I [Queensbury Planning Board 06/19/18] NOES: NONE MR. TRAVER-All right. Good luck with the ZBA. MR. FADEN-Thanks very much. MR. BIANCHINO-Thank you. MR. TRAVER-The next item, continuing under Planning Board Recommendations, the next item on our agenda is Joseph & Cynthia Didio, Site Plan 10-2018. SITE PLAN NO. 10-2018 SEQR TYPE: TYPE 11. JOSEPH & CYNTHIA DIDIO. OWNER[S]: SAME AS APPLICANT ZONING: WR. LOCATION: 2966 STATE ROUTE 9L. APPLICANT PROPOSES A 525 SQ. FT. SECOND STORY ADDITION TO AN EXISTING 1,096 SQ. FT. (FOOTPRINT) HOME. HOME IS 2,056 SQ. FT. FAR PROPOSED IS 2,581 SQ. FT. PURSUANT TO CHAPTER 17943-010 OF THE ZONING ORDINANCE, EXPANSION OF A NON-CONFORMING STRUCTURE SHALL BE SUBJECT TO PLANNING BOARD REVIEW AND APPROVAL. VARIANCE: RELIEF IS REQUESTED FROM SETBACK, HEIGHT,AND FLOOR AREA. PLANNING BOARD SHALL PROVIDE A RECOMMENDATION TO THE ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS. CROSS REFERENCE: 2003412 DOCK, 2003-347 DECKS, 2007-537 WOODEN WALKWAY, AV 26-2007, AV 34-2003 DOCK, AV 14-2018. WARREN CO. REFERRAL: FEBRUARY 2018. SIT INFORMATION: CEA,APA, LGPC LOT SIZE: .17 ACRE. TAX MAP NO.239.204-7. SECTION: 17943-010. ANDY DIDIO, REPRESENTING APPLICANTS, PRESENT; JOSEPH DIDIO, PRESENT MR. TRAVER-Laura? MRS. MOORE-Okay. So the applicant proposes a 525 square foot second story addition to an existing 1,096 square foot home which is the footprint. This goes above the second, I guess the main floor. I know there's multiple levels to this, and the variance is for the setback. Project requires relief from the property line setbacks of 6.37 on the north side and 11 feet on the south side where a 12 foot setback is required. Relief is also requested for the height. The proposed elevation is at 41 feet 11 inches, and the maximum height allowed in this area is 28 feet. Floor area also is proposed at 2,581. The maximum allowed is 1,613. MR. TRAVER-Okay. Thank you. Good evening. MR. DIDIO-Good evening. Andy Didio here on behalf of Joseph & Cynthia Didio for the aforementioned variances. Basically they're looking to put an addition on their second story, a second story addition on an existing single story portion of their house, the at grade portion. The house has multiple levels as you go down the hillside, so it's an existing flat roof. So they're looking to, it's an existing three bedroom home. They're looking to put all three bedrooms in the same story. So given that's an existing non-conforming structure, they're required to have the necessary variances. We're not proposing to increase the side yard setback, the nonconforming side yard setback. The only, also with the gross floor area, again, impervious surface, it's basically building above the existing structure. The only additional variance would be the height due to the existing height of the at grade level of the living room is higher than actually the floor elevation in the existing second story on the roadside. So there'll be two steps up to get to the proposed addition second story, so to have, to accommodate the necessary minimum height to walk into the second story addition, the ridgeline, the roof line has to be higher. MR. TRAVER-Okay. Questions from members of the Planning Board? MR. MAGOWAN-It's awfully high. I mean it's a steep slope, but it's also, I mean, that's quite a variance. MR. DIDIO-Well it's quite a variance if you're looking at the 28. The existing structure on the roadside, when you're looking at it from the lowest point of grade on the exterior on the lakeside it's currently 37 feet. So the differential is about five feet, and again that's to accommodate the step up into the second story addition basically where the existing begins. MR. VALENTINE-How does the house, how will this sit in relation to both sides of this? I'm just saying the lakeside of it you're going to get that full 41 feet. 8 [ ueensbury Planning Board 06/19/18] MR. DIDIO-Correct. MR. VALENTINE-Does this sit back from the other houses, from the other adjoining sides? As far as, what are they going to be looking at? MR. DIDIO-Well the closest point of variance if you will is to the northern property, which that neighbor's house actually the entire home is actually closer to the lake. The closest portion of her house that's closest to the roadside is actually closer to the lake than their entire structure. So she wouldn't have any visual impact at all. The neighboring property to the south is actually a vacant lot. And then the neighbor to the south of the vacant lot the same thing. Their house is actually closer to the lake than their entire house. So the addition is roadside more. MR. VALENTINE-So you're saying this is vacant? MR. DIDIO-That is vacant lot. MR. VALENTINE-He surrounds. MR. DIDIO-Yes, he's got across from the road, yes. MR. VALENTINE-There is a house here. MR. DIDIO-There's a house there lakeside. They're forward. MR. VALENTINE-The only thing is, they're forward and what they're looking at, though, is the whole frontage of 41 feet. I get your point what you're saying, from the road the differential is not that much, but looking at it from the front, from the lakeside front, they're going to see 41 foot of house. MR. DIDIO-Yes, and there's actually, just from a visual perspective, there aren't any really windows that face this portion of the house, but also there is a row of cedar trees almost the full extent of the height of this addition currently. So there's very, you know, it would be modest, if any, visual impact to the neighbor, and they're friends. MR. HUNSINGER-So when you go to the Comprehensive Land Use Plan and they show how to build houses on slopes, they show, you know, the recommended way and the not recommended way. This falls into the not recommended way, and I've got some issues with the height also. Is there any way to bring the house, because you have plenty of room towards the lake. Is there any way to move the house more towards the lake and not have this 41 foot? MR. DIDIO-Yes. The issue there becomes, given the fact that it's a tiered residence the way it is now, you know, built in the early 70's, the way that it is now tiered, there really isn't a great way to expand the house lakeside. There's an existing deck on the lakeside of the property at the lowest level as well as at the at grade level. So there isn't really, you'd be kind of trading guest height. The deck on the existing at grade level if you will breaks up the height as far as the visual perspective. So when you're looking at the house right now, you see kind of a half a story, if you will. This is basically going to look like a two story structure from that upper deck. To put an addition beyond the existing square footage, which the deck right now is obviously a pervious, you're increasing the impervious on an already small lot. So this provides not only functional use, they're putting all three bedrooms in the upper story of the house and reclaiming essentially a basement that they don't currently have. So it's functional as well as considering that you're in the watershed you don't want to increase impervious surface. So this is kind of utilizing the existing square footage, footprint of the building and gaining square footage. MR. MAGOWAN-What about the neighbors across the lake? MR. J. DIDIO-I don't think they can actually, it's kind of an open field. If you think of Jacob's Point, kind of an open field with homes to the north kind of off, behind trees pretty much, and there's nothing south side. MR. DIDIO-And also right now the gable end runs north and south on the roadside. Again, the difference between that existing ridge of that and the proposed ridge is five feet, and the gable end runs east and west, so shoreline to roadway. So if you look at Drawing One of Three that shows the roadside front elevation, there's very little visual impact from the neighbor, you know, from across the road. There's existing tree line that faces, that blocks their view from the lake currently. MR. HUNSINGER-So is there any way that you can bring down the height of the roof? 9 [ ueensbury Planning Board 06/19/18] MR. DIDIO-Well that was part of the design consideration in working with the architect. Again, if you look at Drawing Three of Three, it shows the cut through which shows the existing kitchen and the living room, Section CC on the bottom lot. If you see the existing second story finished floor elevation and then the existing living room ceiling elevation. So the EBDM is actually above the existing second story. So in order to maintain building code required ceiling elevation in the addition they've got to bring the ridgeline up and the house is currently asphalt shingled roof. The neighboring properties are asphalt shingled roof. In keeping the architecture, the minimum pitch for an asphalt shingle is six on twelve. MR. SHAFER-So the new structure will have three bedrooms. Does the existing house have three as well? MR. DIDIO-Yes. MR. SHAFER-Okay. Did somebody look at the structurability of the first floor to support the additional weight on the second floor? MR. DIDIO-Yes, that's part of this architectural stamped set. MR. SHAFER-Okay. MR. DIDIO-That carries through, there's a structural beam that carries down through the middle of the living room which actually falls on a foundation wall and again because it's crawl space under the kitchen portion, so kind of halfway in the living room there there's a structural foundation wall that everything there. MR. SHAFER-What is the wastewater system and how recent is it? MR. DIDIO-That was part of the conversation early on in actually getting the application as complete. The onsite septic was a nonconforming as far as side yard, where the absorption field is. So they went ahead and got approval for a Clare system to be installed and so that's been submitted,design submitted and approved to upgrade the system to be able to bring it more into conformance. MR. SHAFER-But it's not installed yet. MR. DIDIO-It's not installed yet. MR. SHAFER-I noticed the survey has a Jacuzzi on it. MR. J. DIDIO-Yes. MR. SHAFER-Do you drain the Jacuzzi? Is that drained in the fall, and where does the water go? MR. J. DIDIO-I really don't drain it. I mean we don't actually use it that much. I just add water to it oftentimes and shock it, etc. MR. SHAFER-So it will not be hooked up or will be hooked up to the new septic system? MR. DIDIO-It is not hooked up to anything. MR. J. DIDIO-No, and will not be. MR. MAGOWAN-In case it has to be emptied, what is your proposed plan? MR.J. DIDIO-I would guess, I mean I can run a hose from it, obviously, to, you know, up to 9L. We're set back pretty far and there's a lot of, I built a lot of retaining walls and planted a ton of plants and I constantly just am building that up to reduce the flow off 9L and anywhere to the lake. So that would probably be what I would do. It's water pretty much. I shock it every now and again, but again, it's not used much. MR. MAGOWAN-Yes, but there's still a lot of harmful chemicals, because we had the same situation up the lake further years ago that someone wanted a Jacuzzi. Yours is actually there. MR. J. DIDIO-And it's got really nothing to do with this. 10 [ ueensbury Planning Board 06/19/18] MR. DIDIO-That was going to be my question, what's the relevance here. MR. J. DIDIO-It's been there 10, 12 years and in fact I moved it at one point in time because the neighbor had said that it was too close to his property but the Town said, no, you're fine, but I said, no, I'll move it so I moved it up closer to my house. MR. MAGOWAN-Yes, you know, even though it isn't part of the application, but it is seen and we just want to make sure that, you know, being stewards of the lake ourselves, that everybody stays compliant. MR. J. DIDIO-Yes, I've lived there all my life, and again I think my neighbors will tell you aesthetically that this will be an improvement as far as to the property. I know each neighbor to each side will write a letter if needed, but they will have no problem with it. Again, they're set forward. It will actually, you know, the way it looks now with that kind of, with the existing roof on that living area, it's just, it's double-widish looking. This will actually I think enhance the aesthetics of the home overall. MR. VALENTINE-When you come back for Site Plan, can you show, can you pick up the outlines of the structure on the northern property to show that in relation to? It is there. I'm sorry. MR. DIDIO-Okay. MR. TRAVER-Any other questions or concerns regarding the variance before we go to the recommendation? MR. DIXON-On that roofline itself, is there going to be a gutter system for drainage as well? MR. DIDIO-Yes. We have one existing and it'll just be a little higher. Right now it comes off the flat roof. So it'll just pick up and drop down. MR. TRAVER-Anything else? I guess we're ready for a motion. MR. DEEB-Motion to make a recommendation on behalf of the Planning Board to the Zoning Board of Appeals for Area Variance No. 14-2018, Joseph & Cynthia Didio. The Planning Board, based on limited review, has not identified any significant adverse impacts that cannot be mitigated with the current proposal. MR. TRAVER-We have a motion. Do we have a second? MR. SHAFER-I'll second it. MR. HUNSINGER-Discussion? MR. TRAVER-Yes. MR. HUNSINGER-Well we heard several members express concern about the height. MR. TRAVER-So do we want to add that concern to the recommendation? I mean, it's all part of the. MR. HUNSINGER-Yes, well, six of one, half dozen of the other. MR. VALENTINE-Well, if you don't say something then the Zoning Board's never going to know that there was a concern. MR. TRAVER-Well, they'll have all the information that we reviewed, plus they'll have the minutes and the discussion, but why don't we add that. That the Planning Board notes the significant increase in the overall building height. MR. DIDIO-And I would just caveat that you're considering a five foot increase from existing a significant increase. MR. VALENTINE-Well, it takes your floor area ratio from 22% to 35%. MR. DIDIO-I'm sorry. I thought we were talking height. MR. VALENTINE-That's, the height does it. 11 [Queensbury Planning Board 06/19/18] MR. DIDIO-The gross floor area? MR. VALENTINE-Yes. That bucks that number right up for your total footage. By getting that extra height, that's what the addition is. It gives you floor area in there. MR. DIDIO-Gotcha. MR. TRAVER-And your explanation for the height, you know, as Chris pointed out, it's not the recommended way to construct on steep slopes, but that will be something that you'll want to review with the ZBA. They're the ones that are actually considering the variance. Our concern later will be the actual Site Plan Review, the implementation of it, such as it is. Any other discussion? MR. DEEB-I'm going to amend the recommendation. RESOLUTION RE: ZBA RECOMMENDATION RE: AV # 14-2018 JOSEPH & CYNTHIA DIDIO The applicant has submitted an application for the following: Applicant proposes a 525 sq. ft. second story addition to an existing 1,096 sq. ft. (footprint) home. Home is 2,056 sq. ft. FAR proposed is 2,581 sq. ft. Pursuant to Chapter 179-13-010 of the Zoning Ordinance, expansion of a non-conforming structure shall be subject to Planning Board review and approval. Variance: Relief is requested from setback, height and floor area. 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 NO. 14-2018 JOSEPH &CYNTHIA DIDIO. Introduced by David Deeb who moved its adoption, and bJ The Planning Board, based on a limited review, has identified the following area of concern: 1] The height variance which is increased significantly. Motion seconded by Brad Magowan. Duly adopted this 19"day of June, 2018 by the following vote: AYES: Mr. Hunsinger, Mr. Magowan, Mr. Valentine, Mr. Deeb, Mr. Dixon, Mr. Shafer, Mr. Traver NOES: NONE MR. TRAVER-All right. You're off to the ZBA. MR. DIDIO-Thank you. MR. J. DIDIO-Thank you. MR. TRAVER-And continuing with recommendations, the next application we have before us is a Subdivision, Preliminary Stage, 7-2018 for Marcia Parker. SUBDIVISION PRELIMINARY STAGE 7-2018 SEQR TYPE: UNLISTED. MARCIA PARKER. AGENT(SJ: VANDUSEN & STEVES. OWNER(SJ: SAME AS APPLICANT. ZONING: WR. LOCATION: 11 SPERRY ROAD. APPLICANT PROPOSES TO SUBDIVIDE AN EXISTING 2.07 ACRE PARCEL INTO TWO LOTS — ONE LOT 0.58 ACRES (LOT A) AND SECOND LOT 1.48 ACRES (LOT BJ. EACH LOT HAS AN EXISTING HOUSE AND GARAGE AND BOTH HOMES HAVE A DRIVEWAY TO SPERRY ROAD. NO SITE CHANGES ARE PROPOSED. PURSUANT TO CHAPTER 183 OF THE ZONING ORDINANCE, SUBDIVISION OF LAND SHALL BE SUBJECT TO PLANNING BOARD REVIEW AND APPROVAL. VARIANCE: REQUESTED RELIEF FROM LOT SIZE, DENSITY, ROAD FRONTAGE, LOT WIDTH, SETBACKS, SHORELINE FRONTAGE. PLANNING BOARD SHALL PROVIDE A RECOMMENDATION TO THE ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS. CROSS REFERENCE: 2004-106 DEMO SF. HOME; 2014-310 SEPTIC ALT.; SP 77-2012 12 [ ueensbury Planning Board 06/19/18] CONST. GRAVEL PATH 300' X 6' WITH SHORELINE TURNAROUND AREA. WARREN CO. REFERRAL: N/A SITE INFORMATION: HUDSON RIVER. LOT SIZE: 2.06 ACRE(S). TAX MAP NO. 316.54-8. SECTION: CHAPTER 183. MATT STEVES, REPRESENTING APPLICANT, PRESENT MR. TRAVER-Laura? MRS. MOORE-Okay. This applicant proposes a two lot subdivision. One lot is Lot A, 0.5 acres. The second lot, Lot B, is 1.48 acres. Relief requested is granting a subdivision having less than two acres in a Waterfront Residential zone, having no road frontage on a public roadway. Both Sperry Road and Lansburg Lane are private drives. Relief is requested for side setback on the 0.58 acre parcel for the existing home that is 18.4 feet setback and a 15 foot setback is required. Relief is also requested for the 1.48 acre parcel, side setback where the existing house is 15 foot setback and a 25 foot setback is required. Relief is also requested for the 120 square foot shed that existed. It's located 15.27 feet from the property line where a 25 foot setback is required. Relief is requested for the road frontage. 150 feet is required. This also goes along with lot width and shoreline and those specific relief requested are identified in that paragraph. MR. TRAVER-Okay. Thank you. Good evening. MR. STEVES-Good evening. Matt Steves with VanDusen and Steves representing Marcia Parker on this application. Again as Staff has stated, it's a parcel of property along the Hudson River in a Waterfront Residential district north of Lansburg Lane which is a private road and south of Sperry Road, a private road. This has had two houses, two garages on it. If you look at the survey through Lot A there's a dashed line that says deed 40 feet and deed line 160. This was years ago back in the 70's,60's, I think through the early 80's it was two parcels which got merged together, and the current owner now owns it and had to buy it as one parcel, but that's why there were two houses on two garages. Back 30 some odd years ago it was two parcels. So if you look at what we're doing, and we know there's a lot of variances associated with it, but the hardship here is she bought it with two houses, two garages, but it was years ago two separate tax parcels. That's irrelevant when it comes to the fact that it is one tax parcel now. So we're going through this process. There is no physical change to the site with this proposal. The garages exist. The houses exist. Municipal water. The septic system actually on the lot, which would be Lot A and the northerly lot, lies on the easterly side of the garage up near the power poles would be not on the current deed line anyways. So we're trying to accommodate the location of the septic and then what we did with the location of the proposed lot line is, as Laura stated with the required variances, is exactly try to split the difference between the two structures so that as you can see on the map, we try to maintain basically 15 foot to the southerly lot and then 18 feet to the northerly, but if you go out there the usage of the two parcels is right down the usage line. Again there's no proposed activity on the lot other than maintaining the houses as they exist. MR. TRAVER-Okay. So it's basically just the property lines. MR. STEVES-Creating a new property line, and like I said it doesn't exist now by Code. It did exist years ago by two deeds. MR. VALENTINE-So that's why the property line has iron rods found? MR. STEVES-Correct. MR. VALENTINE-They're pre-existing, they're from before, except for the front two? MR. STEVES-A little wider, we're showing 25 feet of frontage on Sperry Road and the original lot I believe had 50 for the frontage on Sperry Road, but again we're utilizing for the location of the septic system on Lot A the existing driveway on both lots. MR. VALENTINE-So that line, that rod exists from before. I'm sorry, this one does, this one does, this one does. All right. So this is new, this is new. That's where you're saying you're just dong a split between those? MR. STEVES-Yes. MR. TRAVER-So no physical change on the site. It's basically a lot line. MR. STEVES-Correct. Creating two lots where there is one. 13 [Queensbury Planning Board 06/19/18] MR. TRAVER-But because of the conditions, that generates all of the variances. MR. STEVES-Correct. I mean it's kind of unique in the fact that you have a lot on the riverfront down here with two complete homes, two complete garages. Again if you look at the old deed line there was originally two parcels,and I think it was 1972 or somewhere in that range they got merged together and then it just carried forward, but now because it got merged it has to get re-subdivided. You used to be able to do, in parcels with two lots if you could prove the deed had two different distinct parcels, but in this case it's so old it's just easier to come through and have it corrected by a subdivision and variances. Otherwise if I go into Craig and say, Craig, that's, in my opinion, asking a little too much of your Zoning Administrator. MR. DEEB-Both houses lived in? MR. STEVES-Yes. And it gives the person that owns it an opportunity to sell one of those houses and still live in the other home. It's been rented or leased for the last 15 or 18 years. MR. TRAVER-Interesting. All right. Any questions or comments? MR. VALENTINE-Is it needed or does it already exist variances for access onto a private road? MRS. MOORE-That's what they're asking. MR. STEVES-Yes. MR. DIXON-The homeowner you said may reside in one of the houses long term? MR. STEVES-Yes. MR. DIXON-Which one will it be? MR. STEVES-1 believe the Lot B which is the larger lot. MR. TRAVER-Any other questions? I guess we're ready for a motion. MR. HUNSINGER-Interesting project. MR. STEVES-1 get nothing but the best. RESOLUTION RE: ZBA RECOMMENDATION RE: Z-AV-29-2018 MARCIA PARKER The applicant has submitted an application for the following: Applicant proposes to subdivide an existing 2.07 acre parcel into two lots — one lot 0.58 acres (Lot A) and second lot 1.48 acres (Lot B]. Each lot has an existing house and garage and both homes have a driveway to Sperry Road. No site changes are proposed. Pursuant to Chapter 183 of the Zoning Ordinance, subdivision of land shall be subject to Planning Board review and approval. Variance: Requested relief from lot size, density, road frontage, lot width, setbacks, shore line frontage. 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 NO. 29-2018 MARCIA PARKER, Introduced by David Deeb who moved 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 Michael Valentine. Duly adopted this 19"day of June, 2018 by the following vote: 14 [Queensbury Planning Board 06/19/18] AYES: Mr. Magowan, Mr. Valentine, Mr. Deeb, Mr. Dixon, Mr. Shafer, Mr. Hunsinger, Mr. Traver NOES: NONE MR. TRAVER-You're off to the ZBA. MR. STEVES-Thank you. All right. Next under Recommendations we have Monsour Enterprises, LLC. Subdivision Preliminary Stage 8-2018 and Final Stage, 9-2018. SUBDIVISION PREL.STAGE 8-2018 SUBDIVISION FINAL STAGE 9-2018 SEQR TYPE: UNLISTED. MONSOUR ENTERPRISES, LLC. AGENT(SJ: MICHAEL J. O'CONNOR. OWNER(SJ: HAROLD D. NASH III. ZONING: MDR. LOCATION: LUZERNE ROAD. APPLICANT PROPOSES SUBDIVIDING A 4.71 ACRE PARCEL INTO 3 LOTS OF 1.57 ACRE EACH, FOR THREE SINGLE FAMILY DWELLINGS. LOTS 2 & 3 TO HAVE SHARED DRIVEWAYS. LOTS ARE TO BE MARKETED FOR SALE. WAIVER REQUESTED FOR STORMWATER,SITE DETAILS AND SKETCH PLAN STAGE. PURSUANT TO CHAPTER 183 AND 17949-020 OF THE ZONING ORDINANCE, SUBDIVISION OF LAND SHALL BE SUBJECT TO PLANNING BOARD REVIEW AND APPROVAL. VARIANCE: RELIEF IS SOUGHT FOR LOT WIDTH AND LOT SIZE. THE PLANNING BOARD SHALL PROVIDE A RECOMMENDATION TO THE ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS. CROSS REFERENCE: N/A. WARREN CO. REFERRAL: N/A. SITE INFORMATION: LUZERNE ROAD — COLLECTOR. LOT SIZE: 4.71 ACRE. TAX MAP NO. 308.12-2-77. SECTION: CHAPTER 183, 17949-020. MICHAEL O'CONNOR, REPRESENTING APPLICANT, PRESENT; DAVID MONSOUR, PRESENT MR. TRAVER-Laura? MRS. MOORE-So this applicant proposes subdividing a 4.71 acre parcel into three lots of 1.57 acres each for three single family homes. Lots Two and Three are to have shared driveways and the lots are to be marketed for sale. I'd just note that the applicant is requesting several waivers in reference to stormwater and site development, such as location of house and septic and water connection. So the nature of the variance is to subdivide the 4.71 acres into three lots of 1.57 where this is creating lots of less than two acres in an MDR zone. In addition relief is requested from the average lot width for Lot One where 200 feet is required and 100 feet is requested. MR. TRAVER-Thank you. Good evening. MR. O'CONNOR-Good evening. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Michael O'Connor for the applicant and with me is David Monsour, principal with Monsour Enterprises. They are builders. They have built houses throughout Queensbury. Some in Moreau, and basically they want to create three building lots on this 4.68 acre parcel. The lots that they create will be similar to lots that surround this parcel. For that reason there is in the packet that was submitted a smaller copy of this map. The one side is Stephanie Lane. These lots are 105 by 196, and here, to the other side of it, you've got 99, 65, that's 165, and across the street you've got 85, 52, 138. So we're not creating something different than what's in the neighborhood. The lots that we have have approximately 114 feet of frontage on Luzerne Road and what we are going to do, Lot One is not necessarily related. Lot One is closest to Stephanie. That we're going to ask for a variance for and the driveway on this would be some 250 feet from Stephanie Lane. So there shouldn't be a problem with separation of driveways. Lots Two and Three will be here and they will have a shared driveway and with a shared driveway they don't need a variance for the lot width. All three lots need a variance for the lot size. The lot size of each one of them is 1.57. So we don't think the variance will have any impact. I think since I submitted the application I did get a letter from DEC. I submitted it by e-mail to Laura saying that there's a letter of No Jurisdiction for endangered species on the Endangered Species Act. The first response I got from them talked about the Karner blue butterfly and the Elfin. MR. TRAVER-This is up in that area, isn't it, where we're starting to get close to some of that. MR. O'CONNOR-Right, but this fellow Jed Hayden went out, he's a Wildlife Biologist from Warrensburg, he actually went out to the site, and that's in his letter. MR. HUNSINGER-Well, it's all woods. You're not going to find any. MR. O'CONNOR-Well they also had a concern about pine scrub brush, and it is wooded. So you wouldn't find Karner blue butterfly. It's got to be like an open power line or something like that. 15 [Queensbury Planning Board 06/19/18] MR. TRAVER-Yes. MR. O'CONNOR-So we don't have that problem. I don't think we change the character of the neighborhood. It's good soils. When we come back, I have submitted the Preliminary Subdivision plan application and the Final application, and when we do come back I will have mapping that will show clearing limits. We think that basically we will have probably a 40 foot setback, I think it's required to have a 30 foot setback on a highway. On each side we probably have 25 feet. A typical house that David builds is going to be 35 feet wide. So you have enough room to very nicely place the house on the lot. MR. TRAVER-Now you mentioned when you come back you will have clearing. Will you have, also have septic and well locations, things like that? MR. O'CONNOR-It's Town water. MR. TRAVER-It is Town water. MR. O'CONNOR-It's Town water. So it will be within the clearing area for septic. MR. SHAFER-Mike, could you repeat the driveway thing? I missed that. MR. O'CONNOR-Okay. Lot Two and Three will have a shared driveway. MR. SHAFER-Shared or paired? MR. O'CONNOR-Shared. MR. SHAFER-Why? MR. O'CONNOR-Because that means that we don't actually have to have a variance for that lot width, by the regulations. MRS. MOORE-So Luzerne Road and some other collector roads require that, for residential development, that you have double the lot width for developing a residential lot. MR. SHAFER-Say again? MRS. MOORE-You will need double the lot width for residential development on certain roads in Queensbury, typically collector roads. So Luzerne Road falls into that category of requiring double the lot width. That's why Lot One requires an Area Variance. Lot Two and Three are shared driveways which is what is the guidance in the Code is that there be shared driveways on collector roads. MR. O'CONNOR-Typical lot width in this zone is 100 square feet, if you weren't in a collector or arterial zone or road. MR. SHAFER-You mean 100 feet? MR. O'CONNOR-Yes, 100 feet. According to the regulation, because if you're on an arterial, collector road, you need twice that width, I think to cut back on driveways, so that you don't have driveway upon driveway upon driveway. In this instance if you look at the lot that's on the corner of Stephanie, there's 200 feet, 200 plus feet, I forget exactly what it is, and that driveway doesn't come off of Luzerne Road. That driveway actually comes off Stephanie Lane. So there's no driveway for the first 200 feet. The 100 foot lot, which is Lot Number One, will have a driveway, and then there's one driveway between Lot Two and Three. So we accomplished what was the intent of the Ordinance by chance because the driveway for the corner lot comes off of Stephanie and by using a shared driveway on the other. MR. VALENTINE-They share at the common property line? MR. O'CONNOR-They share at the common property line. Probably be shared for 15 to 30 feet going back, and then they will branch off to their own driveway. The curb cut will be shared. We shouldn't necessarily say the driveway will be shared. MR. VALENTINE-So you'll come in at a single, then. 16 [Queensbury Planning Board 06/19/18] MR. O'CONNOR-Yes. We've got good soils, Town water. We don't think there's any environmental issues. MR. TRAVER-Any other questions, comments from members of the Board? MR. DEEB-To play Devil's advocate you could have done two lots and not needed. MR. O'CONNOR-Yes, but the fellow who's selling it wouldn't have been happy. MR. DEEB-That I understand. MR. O'CONNOR-And the fellow buying it probably wouldn't have been happy either. I'm trying to give everybody their due. RESOLUTION RE: ZBA RECOMMENDATION RE: Z-AV-41-2018 MONSOUR ENTERPRISES The applicant has submitted an application for the following: Applicant proposes subdividing a 4.71 acre parcel into 3 lots of 1.57 acre each, for three single family dwellings. Lots 2 & 3 to have shared driveways. Lots are to be marketed for sale. Waiver requested for stormwater, site details and sketch plan stage. Pursuant to Chapter 183 and 179-19-020 of the Zoning Ordinance, subdivision of land shall be subject to Planning Board review and approval. Variance: Relief is sought for lot width and lot size. The 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 NO. 41-2018 MONSOUR ENTERPRISES, LLC. Introduced by David Deeb who moved 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 Chris Hunsinger. Duly adopted this 19"day of June, 2018 by the following vote: AYES: Mr. Valentine, Mr. Deeb, Mr. Dixon, Mr. Shafer, Mr. Hunsinger, Mr. Magowan, Mr. Traver NOES: NONE MR. TRAVER-You're off to the ZBA. MR. O'CONNOR-Thank you. MR. DEEB-Good luck. MR. TRAVER-All right. Next and last on our part of the agenda that covers recommendations we have Site Plan 40-2018, Thingvellir, LLC. SITE PLAN NO. 40-2018 SEQR TYPE: TYPE II. THINGVELLIR, LLC. AGENT[S]: HUTCHINS ENGINEERING; BARTLETT, PONTIFF,STEWART& RHODES, PC. ZONING: WR. LOCATION: 15 ALLEN ROAD. APPLICANT PROPOSES CONSTRUCTION OF 24 X 26 SQ. FT. GARAGE ADDITION, A 12 X 21 SQ. FT. RESIDENTIAL ADDITION TO AN EXISTING 1,375 SQ. FT. (FOOTPRINT) HOME AND TO CONVERT THE EXISTING GARAGE TO LIVING SPACE. EXISTING HOME FLOOR AREA IS 2,440 SQ. FT. AND THE ADDITIONS TOTAL 995 SQ. FT. APPLICANT PROPOSES ADDITIONAL SHORELINE PLANTINGS. PURSUANT TO CHAPTER 179- 3-040 OF THE ZONING ORDINANCE, NEW SHORELINE CONSTRUCTION SHALL BE SUBJECT TO PLANNING BOARD REVIEW AND APPROVAL. VARIANCE: RELIEF IS SOUGHT FOR SETBACK AND EXPANSION OF NONCONFORMING STRUCTURE. PLANNING BOARD SHALL PROVIDE A RECOMMENDATION TO THE ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS. BOTH 452-2016 17 [Queensbury Planning Board 06/19/18] REPLACE DOCK; WARREN CO. REFERRAL: LOT SIZE: .58 ACRE. TAX MAP NO. 227.64- 14. SECTION: 179-3-040. LUCAS DOBIE, REPRESENTING APPLICANT, PRESENT MR. TRAVER-Laura? MRS. MOORE-The applicant proposes construction of a 24 by 26 square foot garage addition, a 12 by 21 square foot residential addition to an existing 1,375 square foot, that's the footprint of the home, and to convert the existing garage to living space. The total additions to be constructed are 995. This also includes a covered porch area between the existing garage area to the west side of the property, and the relief requested is expansion of a pre-existing nonconforming structure and for front setback where 15.3 feet is proposed and a 30 foot is required,and a rear setback of 15.4 feet is proposed and again 30 feet is required. MR. TRAVER-Okay. Thank you. Good evening. MR. DOBIE-Good evening, and thank you, Mr. Chairman and Board. For the record Lucas Dobie with Hutchins Engineering and with me are the property owners and members of Thingvellir, LLC,Joan and Joel Matthews. I'm pleased to be here tonight. It's a pretty unique project. We're the last lakefront parcel in Queensbury, Warren County in Kattskill Bay. It's not only the centerline of Allen Road and I looked it up earlier. The County line chops across Allen Road just past this parcel. So it's a pretty unique project and as you know, you can see it's a modest home set back quite far from the lake. The home itself was built in the early 80's. It received an Area Variance to be situated where it is at 18 feet off of the front property line on Allen Road. We propose to renovate the home. It needs to be re-wired, re-insulated, that sort of deal, and they'd like to convert the garage to living space add a kitchen addition off the back, and then construct a new garage off the back as well. While we're here we're trying to do something positive for the environment with the addition and to help out. So we're proposing some stormwater management, which the property currently has none. It runs across the front lawn to the lake. So we're proposing a little bit of vegetative berms with some infiltration trench and then a small area of shoreline buffering at an area that we feel is appropriate down by the shore, and the wastewater system, we have the design from the original permit of'82 and it's up to the current standards. It shows no signs of failure and Sheet S-2 essentially our demo plan tells the story where we're constructing over essentially all existing impervious areas. So it's very little loss of green space and we'll actually take out some of the driveway to the south when we're doing it so it'll line up even with the new garage and then extend the curb cut slightly. It's a pretty straightforward project. The home's appearance from the lake will not change other than being freshened out. There's no change in raising the roof or anything. We're compliant with our building height, and with that we'd be happy to answer any questions the Board may have. Thank you. MR. TRAVER-Good. Thank you. Questions from members of the Board? MR. HUNSINGER-To me you're expanding the most logical place. JOEL MATTHEWS MR. MATTHEWS-We thought so. MR. HUNSINGER-And you're also adding some shoreline plantings. MR. TRAVER-Yes, that's something we're always looking for. All right. MR. SHAFER-My usual question. The number of bedrooms, does that stay the same? MR. DOBIE-That stays the same, yes, sir, Mr. Shafer. It stays the same. MR. DIXON-How old is the septic system that's currently there? MR. TRAVER282 you said? MR. DOBIE-The design, the original design, Mr. Dixon, was '82. MR. MATTHEWS-It was built in '83. 18 [Queensbury Planning Board 06/19/18] MR. DOBIE-In '83, yes, and it's a stone bed with the pressure distribution and the pump station. Joel poked around with a post hole digger, found the corners and we measured it and it's right per plan and it meets the standards. MR. DIXON-Are you looking to upgrade it at any time? MR. DOBIE-Hopefully we won't see any signs of failure, which, if we do, then certainly we'll have to re-do something. Yes. MR. TRAVER-All right. I think we're ready for a motion. RESOLUTION RE: ZBA RECOMMENDATION RE: Z-AV-43-2018 THINGVELLIR, LLC The applicant has submitted an application for the following: Applicant proposes construction of 24 x 26 sq. ft. garage addition, a 12 x 21 sq. ft. residential addition to an existing 1,375 sq. ft. (footprint) home and to convert the existing garage to living space. Existing home floor area is 2,440 sq. ft. and the additions total 995 sq. ft. Applicant proposes additional shoreline plantings. Pursuant to Chapter 179-3-040 of the Zoning Ordinance, new shoreline construction shall be subject to Planning Board review and approval. Variance: Relief is sought for setback and expansion of nonconforming structure. 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 NO. 43-2018 THINGVELLIR, LLC. Introduced by David Deeb who moved 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 Chris Hunsinger. Duly adopted this 19"day of June, 2018 by the following vote: AYES: Mr. Deeb, Mr. Dixon, Mr. Shafer, Mr. Hunsinger, Mr. Magowan, Mr. Valentine, Mr. Traver NOES: NONE MR. TRAVER-Good luck. JOAN MATTHEWS MRS. MATTHEWS-Thank you very much. MR. TRAVER-All right, and next we move into New Business. The first item being Marvin Dobert, Site Plan 38-2018. NEW BUSINESS: SITE PLAN NO. 38-2018 SEQR TYPE: UNLISTED. MARVIN DOBERT. OWNER(SJ: APEX DEMARSE, LLC. ZONING: MS. LOCATION: 64 MAIN STREET. APPLICANT PROPOSES A 221 SQ. FT. CARPORT — TWO PARKING SPACES STRUCTURE TO BE PLACED OVER TWO EXISTING PARKING SPACES. THE CARPORT IS TO BE ANGLED AND TO BE 12 FT. AT THE FRONT AND 9 FT. +/- AT THE REAR. PURSUANT TO CHAPTER 179-3-040 OF THE ZONING ORDINANCE, NEW COMMERCIAL CONSTRUCTION SHALL BE SUBJECT TO PLANNING BOARD REVIEW AND APPROVAL. CROSS REFERENCE: SP 64-2015; SUP 64-2015,SP PZ 81-2016, SUP PZ 99-2016; SP 23-2017, SP 6-2017. WARREN CO. REFERRAL: JUNE 2018. LOT SIZE: 1.73 ACRES. TAX MAP NO. 309.10440. SECTION: 179-3-040. JUDY MENHOLTZ, REPRESENTING APPLICANT, PRESENT; MARVIN DOBERT, PRESENT 19 [Queensbury Planning Board 06/19/18] MR. TRAVER-Laura? MRS. MOORE-Okay. This applicant proposes a 221 square foot carport. This is a two parking space structure to be placed over existing parking spaces. The carport is to be angled with a height of 12 feet at the front of it and 9 feet at the rear. The applicant has explained that there will be two security light fixtures underneath it and potentially 28 solar panels on top of it. MR. TRAVER-Okay. Thank you. Good evening. MS. MENHOLTZ-Good evening. So we propose to install a cantilevered carport out in front of the building. It's to the east side of the main entrance over the two front customer parking spots. We propose to put 28 solar panels on top of the structure. It doesn't impact any of our wastewater, any of our stormwater. It's not going to affect the footprint of the building or the setbacks. MR. TRAVER-Nor will it affect the impervious of course because you're putting it right over the parking spaces. MS. MENHOLTZ-Correct. It's going to go right over the paved parking spaces. MR. TRAVER-And there's some lighting underneath this new cover. Correct? MS. MENHOLTZ-Yes, and is that downcast, shielded, all that type of thing? So that it doesn't contribute to dark sky issues? MS. MENHOLTZ-Correct. Yes, they'll be placed under the underside of the structure, as safety lights, guide lights on the outer corners toward the front of the carport. MR. TRAVER-Okay, and are they shielded so that they don't reflect out into the driving lane and so on? Are they just used for lighting underneath? MS. MENHOLTZ-Yes, that's correct. They're just used for lighting directly underneath. MR. MAGOWAN-1 just have one question. You came with a beautiful plan, and I keep driving up and down Main Street. I want to see that office on the second floor. MR. DOBERT-And we are working on this. We're like the duck on the pond. The feet are going hard but you can't see anything going on. So we're building it from the inside out. And in fact we had a lot of steel come into the building today. So we want to save the outside, the best for last. MR. MAGOWAN-I'm looking forward to it, because that was really a beautiful design. MR. DOBERT-We're still working on it. MR. MAGOWAN-And I know you're busy. I know you're piecing it together inside because there's a constant flow of employee trucks in and out. So I'm happy you're busy, but that building, when that's finished I think it's going to really compliment Main Street. MR. DOBERT-Yes. MR. HUNSINGER-So I mentioned to Mike, you know, in my mind this is where solar panels should be is over parking lots because it keeps your car clean when the weather's bad. It keeps it cooler in the summertime, plus you're generating electricity over essentially wasted space. To me it's a no- brainer. I'm sure you would agree and want to see a whole bunch more. MR. TRAVER-I'd note, too, that Apex is one of two vendors that's working with the Southern Adirondack for Solar project which includes Queensbury. MR. VALENTINE-Well, see when you get your second floor in there, then you've got more rooftop to cover. MR. MAGOWAN-Actually I read it and I said I bet he's setting himself up for a sales presentation of what we can do with parking lots. That's the first thing that came to my mind. MRS. MOORE-For the purpose of the record, names, so that they're in the minutes. MS. MENHOLTZ Judy Menholtz. 20 [Queensbury Planning Board 06/19/18] MR. DOBERT-Marvin Dobert. MR. TRAVER-Thank you, Laura. Any other questions from the Board before we go to a public hearing? We do have a public hearing on this application this evening. Is there anyone in the audience that wanted to address the Planning Board about the project? I don't see any. Laura, are there any written comments? PUBLIC HEARING OPENED MRS. MOORE-No. No public comment. MR. TRAVER-Okay. All right. Then we will close the public hearing. PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED MR. TRAVER-This is a SEQR Unlisted and we should have a SEQR review resolution in our packet. MRS. MOORE-And it's a re-affirmation. MR. TRAVER-So even though they're adding to the structure, we can just re-affirm? MRS. MOORE-Yes. RESOLUTION RE-AFFIRMING NEGATIVE SEQR DEC. SP # 38-2018 MARVIN DOBERT The applicant proposes a 221 sq. ft. carport — structure to be placed over front door area parking spaces. The carport is to be angled and to be 12 ft. at the front and 9 ft. +/- at the rear. Pursuant to Chapter 179-3-040 of the Zoning Ordinance, new commercial construction shall be subject to Planning Board review and approval. The Planning Board has determined that the proposed project and Planning Board action is subject to review under the State Environmental Quality Review Act; The proposed action considered by this Board is Unlisted in the Department of Environmental Conservation Regulations implementing the State Environmental Quality Review Act and the regulations of the Town of Queensbury; No Federal or other agencies are involved; Part 1 of the Short EAF has been completed by the applicant; Whereas, the Planning Board adopted Resolution SP 64-2015 & SUP 64-2015 on 11/17/2015, adopting SEQRA determination of non-significance, and then reaffirmed this SEQRA determination of non- significance on 03/21/2017 in regards to SP Modification 23-2017 and SUP Modification 6-2017, and Upon review of the information recorded on the EAF, it is the conclusion of the Town of Queensbury Planning Board as lead agency reaffirms that this project will result in no significant adverse impacts on the environment, and, therefore, an environmental impact statement need not be prepared. Accordingly, this negative declaration is issued. MOTION TO REAFFIRM NEGATIVE DECLARATION FOR THE PROPOSED SITE PLAN 38-2018 MARVIN DOBERT. Introduced by David Deeb who moved for its adoption, seconded by Brad Magowan; Duly adopted this 19" day of June, 2018 by the following vote: MRS. MOORE-So I guess what you should note is that because of this addition, does that change your SEQR review? And as discussed amongst the Board members before you make the motion, you may want to consider that, does it change the existing SEQR review? As Staff I don't see that, but the Board members should make that clear in their discussion. MR. TRAVER-Yes. Well we did note that there's, with the addition of additional structure, we did consider any potential changes in SEQR and agreed that there was none so we did the re-affirmation resolution as just read by the Secretary. AYES: Mr. Dixon, Mr. Shafer, Mr. Hunsinger, Mr. Magowan, Mr. Valentine, Mr. Deeb, Mr. Traver 21 [ ueensbury Planning Board 06/19/18] NOES: NONE MR. TRAVER-All right, and then we can go to the Site Plan resolution. MR. HUNSINGER-So I just had to ask a quick question. I mean we're calling this a carport but really all it is is a frame to hold up the solar panels. I mean it's not a temporary structure but it's also, you know, it's not like a building structure. MR. TRAVER-Maybe that's the closest definition in the Code. MR. HUNSINGER-Yes. MS. MENHOLTZ-So it is a structure. It doubles as a solar panel and also to provide parking, two parking spaces. MR. VALENTINE-But they were there already? MS. MENHOLTZ-The parking spaces were already there, yes, that's correct. MR. HUNSINGER-So how big are the poles that hold up the roof? MS. MENHOLTZ-We have the drawings. MR. HUNSINGER-Yes, I saw the drawings. MR. DOBERTS-Anchors go down into the ground and then this is, we've put up quite a few of these structures, but never put one up cantilevered like this where a carport sits. This is a new area. One of the things that is prohibitive is just the cost of the carport. It makes a lot of sense, but it's very expensive. Any carport. So this is one where it's more of an erector set and it's more affordable. So it makes more sense for a lot of people, and so it's, typically we're using round stock three to four inches, but in this we're using an eye beam configuration. MR. MAGOWAN-It's quite the cantilever. It meets all the snow loads and wind shear and that. I can't wait to see it. It's very interesting. MR. VALENTINE-With the snow on there, what do you do for the removal off of there once you? MS. MENHOLTZ-Just let it sit, let the snow slide right off. It's angled back toward the building. MR. VALENTINE-All right. So it's got enough slope and pitch to just take the snow right off. MS. MENHOLTZ-The snow will slide right off into the green space behind the parking lot so it won't dump into our driveway. MR. DEEB-The charging stating is there, too? MR. DOBERT-The charging station, it's right on there. MR. DEEB-They'll be protected. MR. DOBERT-Yes. MR. MAGOWAN-I always wondered about the panels and that. Did they ever think about melting the snow off if they had like a reverse thing that gives it a little warmth there to get it sliding? I mean, how long does the average take to slide off a panel? MR. DOBERT-So the solar cells are black, blue black, and when the sun comes out, well, you know, you've got them on your house, too, Chris. MR. HUNSINGER-Yes. MR. DOBERT-So the sun hits them and it starts to warm up and it's glass so it radiates and then it goes down into the whole panel, but you have to have sun on it in order for the snow to melt off, but there's no resistance heating really. It makes commonsense but it hasn't come out yet, the technology. 22 [Queensbury Planning Board 06/19/18] MR. DIXON-As you're installing these, do you take into account, as far as where the sun is and the reflection on the neighbors, things of that nature? I think this is a small enough project. I don't see any issues. MR. TRAVER-You mean glare or reflections? MR. DIXON-The glare and the reflection. You hear the horror stories of skyscrapers melting concrete. I don't expect to see that. MS. MENHOLTZ-So this is angled back toward the building so any reflection would be away from the road so it wouldn't reflect into any drivers. MR. DOBERTS-In other jurisdictions there are those concerns and we address them, especially when we build on an airport. There's an FAA regulation for glare. So we've had to deal with that and that's a long process, but in the long run they push it through, and we put them up on some airports. MR. DIXON-Thank you. MR. TRAVER-All right. RESOLUTION APPROVING SP # 38-2018 MARVIN DOBERT 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 221 sq. ft. carport — structure to be placed over front door area parking spaces. The carport is to be angled and to be 12 ft. at the front and 9 ft. +/- at the rear. Pursuant to Chapter 179-3-040 of the Zoning Ordinance, new commercial construction 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 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 06/19/2018 and continued the public hearing to 06/19/2018, 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 06/19/2018; 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 38-2018 MARVIN DOBERT; Introduced by David Deeb who moved for its adoption; Per the draft provided by staff conditioned upon the following conditions: 11 Waivers re nest 9FaRted/der�ied, ccrracrrrccr. 2) Adherence to the items outlined in the follow-up letter sent with this resolution. a) If application was referred to engineering,then engineering sign-off required prior to signature of Zoning Administrator of the approved plans; b) Final approved plans should have dimensions and setbacks noted on the site plan/survey, floor plans and elevation for the existing rooms and proposed rooms in the building and site improvements, c) Final approved plans, in compliance with the Site Plan, must be submitted to the Community Development Department before any further review by the Zoning Administrator or Building and Codes personnel; d) The applicant must meet with Staff after approval and prior to issuance of Building Permit and/or the beginning of any site work; 23 [Queensbury Planning Board 06/19/18] eJ Subsequent issuance of further permits, including building permits is dependent on compliance with this and all other conditions of this resolution; fJ 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; gJ Resolution to be placed on final plans in its entirety and legible. Motion seconded by Brad Magowan. Duly adopted this 19" day of June 2018 by the following vote: MR. DEEB-Were any waivers requested? MRS. MOORE-There were no waivers requested because they were all associated with the previous Site Plan. AYES: Mr. Shafer, Mr. Hunsinger, Mr. Magowan, Mr. Valentine, Mr. Deeb, Mr. Dixon, Mr. Traver NOES: NONE MR. TRAVER-You're all set. MR. DEEB-Good luck. MR. DOBERT-Thank you. MR. TRAVER-Next on our agenda is Joe CariCari, CR Bard, Site Plan 39-2018. SITE PLAN NO. 39-2018 SEQR TYPE: UNLISTED. JOE CARICARI, CR BARD. AGENT(SJ: DAN BRUNO, HIGHLANDER ENG. OWNER(SJ: FRANCES T. COLLINS. ZONING: CLI. LOCATION: 30 COLLINS DRIVE. APPLICANT PROPOSES EXTERIOR WORK ON AN EXISTING 35,400 SQ. FT. WAREHOUSE BUILDING — PAINTING, SIDING AND OTHER. ALSO INCLUDED IS NEW PAVED AREAS OVER EXISTING GRAVEL DESIGNATED PARKING FOR EMPLOYEES OF CR BARD FACILITIES. PURSUANT TO CHAPTER 179-3-040 OF THE ZONING ORDINANCE, SITE AND BUILDING ALTERATIONS SHALL BE SUBJECT TO PLANNING BOARD REVIEW AND APPROVAL. CROSS REFERENCE: SP 54-2014 CROSSFIT. WARREN CO. REFERRAL: JUNE 2018. LOT SIZE: 6.72 ACRES. TAX MAP NO. 302.84-7. SECTION" 179-3-040. ETHAN HALL & DAN BRUNO, REPRESENTING APPLICANT, PRESENT;JOE CARICARI, PRESENT MR. TRAVER-Laura? MRS. MOORE-So the applicant proposes exterior work on the existing 35,400 sq. ft. warehouse building. This includes painting, siding and other details. The project also includes working the existing paved area. So there'll be new paved areas over existing gravel, designated parking for employees of the C.R. Bard facility. MR. TRAVER-All right. Thank you. Good evening. MR. BRUNO-Good evening. I'm Dan Bruno. I'm with Highlander Engineering, representing C.R. Bard. MR. CARICARI-I'm Joe Caricari from C.R. Bard. MR. HALL-And Ethan Hall, principal with Rucinski Hall Architecture. MR. TRAVER-Good evening. Tell us about your project. MR. BRUNO-Okay. This is Phase II of this project. The project consists of the refurbishment, if you will, of the existing warehouse that C.R. Bard has used for many years, primarily for warehousing, and incoming quality control and they have previously had 50 or 60% for the warehouse and are now leasing the entire warehouse. So the other tenants have moved out and C.R. Bard wants to, as I said, refurbish, retrofit to suit their needs. So Phase I did not involve any exterior work, no site work, nothing of that nature. So a building permit was issued for that. We consulted with Building and Codes. Phase II, there is exterior work. There's some site work for paving, striping of the parking areas. A lot of interior work. The IQC lab which is currently on the north side interior of the building is moving to the south side and some new offices and new racks for storage, that sort of thing, and I'll let Ethan address the exterior improvements. For the site work there is an existing parking area on the south side of the building and an existing parking area on the west side of the 24 [ ueensbury Planning Board 06/19/18] building that are graveled currently and on the west side of the building, that Phase I area, there's an existing entrance which is being refurbished, new storefront if you will, new canopy and that sort of thing. We'll get into that, but that parking lot on the west side will serve that area, which I'll let Joe talk about that. It's more some marketing. MR. CARICARI-Yes, the Phase I area is in the northwest corner. It's about 5,000 square feet and we've got about 24, 25 people that'll be sitting in that area along with some storage that'll support the warehouse function, and then as Dan said, the southern half of the building is about 10,000 square feet that we've recently leased that we'll be converting that into warehouse space for our needs and we'll be moving our quality lab that's in the north side down into the south side as well. MR. BRUNO-So, additionally on the east side you can see that that dark corridor, if you will, that is a striped, delineated crosswalk for safety reasons, and parking, striping up there to try to control and contain and organize the parking because currently there is parking there. A good portion of it is on the north side, and then there's quite a bit down here on the south side where that new pavement is. So this crosswalk, there's a lot of people from the existing facility that are just in campus, if you will, park there and then walk over to those buildings, One, Two, Three, Four, Five. So there's a crosswalk there. Those heavy cross hatched lines, the widest one is to provide and maintain access to Building Number Eight I believe it is, and then to the right of that or the east of that is a narrower cross hatched area which is a drive through, driveway if you will. There's a gate there. So again the south and the west parking areas are currently gravel. C.R. Bard wishes to pave them, and pave, there is some pavement there. We're extending it and then that connection between the two, that driveway if you will, that graveled area, pave that as well because that's currently graveled. We have, as you're well aware, comments from Chazen regarding stormwater management, which is an integral part of this, and we are re-evaluating and reconsidering that scheme there. There is existing, there are existing catch basins, a closed system, if you will, in there. We tried not to utilize that. It's there. It's what it was designed for. We wanted to try to infiltrate water because that's the desired approach now days is to try to infiltrate the water rather than to just shed it somewhere, but this area, if you know, any of the history of it, it was all pretty much lime, going back many years. So to try to infiltrate the water and using standard infiltration practices is very difficult because we're required by the State, the State Stormwater Design Manual, to maintain the separation of three feet from the bottom of your infiltration practice to the elevation of seasonal high groundwater and we're having difficulty with that. So anyway, we will address that. We'll address it with Chazen. We'd actually like to meet with them and discuss it. I don't know if that's possible or not, but anyway. So we are going to address that. So I think that's it as far as the civil site work is concerned. The rest of the work, if you want to call it site work, concerns cleaning up the building. It's C.R. Bard's desire to make it look more professional. MR. HALL-For the most part this is the old Collins Block plant. It's been used for manufacturing masonry block, and it's been converted mostly into warehouse space. There is some additional cold storage area that is the high bay in the back. It's Bard's desire to make this look like it's part of their campus. They're renting it. They're paying for the renovations. They'd like it to look like it's part of their campus. So we've done some work on the outside to replace some of the metal siding, put new overhead doors, new truck docks, new dock seals, new lighting that's downcast, fixtures that are mounted to the side of the building that wash the side of the building , re-paint most of the exterior siding that's been damaged and then replace with new siding that's going to match the rest of the campus that's the darker brown, kind of a chocolate brown that they've got on most of their buildings now. As well as around the back of the building where they're making that new entrance to that small office space. The whole back of the building, which is now pretty much covered with graffiti is all going to be re-painted and re-lit to make it so that it is a more functioning part of their campus and better reflects what they have on the rest of the campus. MR. TRAVER-It sounds like a huge improvement. MR. MAGOWAN-They wouldn't sell it to you, huh? MR. BRUNO-No, they would not. We would like to have bought it, but. MR. CARICARI-If you knew the deal, you wouldn't sell it. MR. BRUNO-So we missed that boat to be able to buy that from them and we tried again and they don't want to sell. MR. MAGOWAN-Because they knew you were interested. MR. BRUNO-Yes, and then as Ethan said, Bard is paying for these improvements, in addition to paying the lease. 25 [Queensbury Planning Board 06/19/18] MR. HALL-For the function that this serves for Bard it's really the only spot that they have. I mean they have no more room really on their campus. So this makes the most sense. MR. VALENTINE-Is this back building, Ethan, is this the one that's closest to Hannaford parking lot? MR. HALL-Yes. MR. MAGOWAN-It's where Adirondack Cross Fit. MR. HALL-Yes, the interior work that took place as part of Phase I was basically the old Adirondack Cross Fit. They've basically re-done everything inside there. They've extended the sprinkler system from the rest of the warehouse into that space. They've also extended the sprinkler system into the dry storage, cold storage area in the back. So the entire building now is covered by sprinkler system which really helps out them and helped them get some additional office space, laboratory space. It really works better for their needs to take some of the people from the main campus and bring them over here and have them function to do what they need to do as far as. MR. CARICARI-Basically we're out of space on our main campus. We don't have warehouse space. So we need additional warehouse space because we're growing and we need additional space for employees. So as Ethan said we're moving some people over into that warehouse that perform the function of quality incoming receiving and that sort of thing. It's a good story in that we're expanding and we need additional space. MR. MAGOWAN-Well on behalf of Queensbury I just want to thank you for staying and keeping everybody in Queensbury. MR. CARICARI-Yes, we're happy to be here. MR. MAGOWAN-Even though it's only a lease. MR. VALENTINE-It's going to be a heck of a term on the lease, though, as far as length, though, if you're putting that much into it on your own. MR. BRUNO-Yes, it's a significant capital investment on Bard's behalf, but this works for us and this is why we're in front of you seeking approval. MR. TRAVER-Okay. MR. BRUNO-If you go to Drawing A-4, Drawing A-4, the exterior elevations gives you a little, gives you an idea, gives you a good idea of what they're doing. Again, I probably should let Ethan talk about that. MR. HALL-Yes. For the most part all of the existing block surfaces, all of the existing metal surfaces, the parts that are damaged and in need of repair are being repaired or replaced and then the entire building will be painted the same color because it's a mishmash of different colors right now. MR. BRUNO-There's graffiti on the west side. MR. HUNSINGER-So a few other times when Bard was here, you know, the comment was you won't see it from any public right of way. This one you actually see from Hannaford. MR. VALENTINE-Also from the bike path. MR. HALL-From the bike path not quite as much, which is hence the graffiti because you can't really see it from there. I mean that's, you know, people came off the bike trail and went down there. MR. VALENTINE-But the bike path gives you an indication of what you're talking about with the groundwater. MR. HALL-Yes. That's exactly what they found when they were doing all that work back there. MR. MAGOWAN-I'm going to kind of miss our local artwork there. When I go to Hannaford that's where I park on that side. 26 [Queensbury Planning Board 06/19/18] MR. CARICARI-We haven't quite figured out how they get up there to do that. So, you know, as Ethan said we will put additional down lighting on the back side of the building. We will put security cameras over there. So we're hoping that once they know that we're on that back side continually and it's part of our property, once we complete the renovations we'll have our guard for that night late. We're hoping that a combination of those things will help prevent or at least deter some of that graffiti. MR. MAGOWAN-Well I think it will. Like I said right now it's so dark back there, and with the commotion and everybody coming in and out. MR. HALL-Basically zero security on the back of the building the way it was before. MR. BRUNO-We've added parking lot lighting so it'll be lit now. MR. TRAVER-All right. Any other comments or questions before we open up the public hearing? We do have a public hearing on this application. Is there anyone in the audience that wanted to address the Planning Board on this tonight? I'm not seeing anyone. Laura, are there any? PUBLIC HEARING OPENED MRS. MOORE-There's no written comments. MR. TRAVER-All right. Then we will close the public hearing. PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED MR. TRAVER-We also have a, this is a SEQR Unlisted action. In terms of environmental impact it seems like this is a great improvement more than anything, but do any of the Board members have any environmental concerns that we need to address? MR. HUNSINGER-No, it's an existing building. Although they are paving some green space, but still MR. HALL-Yes, most of the paving that's being done is over the top of gravel parking now. Not really taking away any real green space so to speak. It's green because the weeds have grown up through a lot of it, but it was all, when it was the block plant it was all hard surface. From border to border it was completely impervious. MR. BRUNO-The areas where the weeds were growing, we're not even touching that really. All the areas that we are proposing to pave are currently gravel parking. MR. HALL-Yes, hard surface. MR. DEEB-You mentioned Chazen. Obviously you'll have to get a signoff from Chazen. MR. HALL-Yes, and we'll work together with them to get all those things squared away. MR. HUNSINGER-And you asked if it was possible to meet with them, just work through Laura. MR. BRUNO-Okay. MR. TRAVER-All right. I guess we're ready for a SEQR motion. RESOLUTION GRANTING A NEGATIVE SEQR DEC. SP # 39-2018 CARICARI/C.R. BARD The applicant proposes exterior work on an existing 35,400 sq. ft. warehouse building — painting, siding and other. Also included is new paved areas over existing gravel designating parking for employees of CR Bard facilities. Pursuant to Chapter 179-3-040 of the Zoning Ordinance, site and building alterations shall be subject to Planning Board review and approval. The Planning Board has determined that the proposed project and Planning Board action is subject to review under the State Environmental Quality Review Act; The proposed action considered by this Board is Unlisted in the Department of Environmental Conservation Regulations implementing the State Environmental Quality Review Act and the regulations of the Town of Queensbury; 27 [Queensbury Planning Board 06/19/18] No Federal or other agencies are involved; Part 1 of the Short EAF has been completed by the applicant; Upon review of the information recorded on this EAF, it is the conclusion of the Town of Queensbury Planning Board as lead agency that this project will result in no significant adverse impacts on the environment, and, therefore, an environmental impact statement need not be prepared. Accordingly, this negative declaration is issued. MOTION TO GRANT A NEGATIVE DECLARATION FOR SITE PLAN 39-2018 )OE CARICARI, CR BARD, Introduced by David Deeb who moved for its adoption. As per the resolution prepared by staff. 1. Part II of the Short EAF has been reviewed and completed by the Planning Board. 2. Part III of the Short EAF is not necessary because the Planning Board did not identify potentially moderate to large impacts. Motion seconded by Brad Magowan. Duly adopted this 19" day of June, 2018 by the following vote: AYES: Mr. Deeb, Mr. Shafer, Mr. Dixon, Mr. Hunsinger, Mr. Magowan, Mr. Valentine, Mr. Traver NOES: NONE MR. TRAVER-Next we move on to Site Plan. RESOLUTION APPROVING SP # 39-2018 CARICARI/C.R. BARD The applicant has submitted an application to the Planning Board: Applicant proposes exterior work on an existing 35,400 sq. ft. warehouse building — painting, siding and other. Also included is new paved areas over existing gravel designating parking for employees of CR Bard facilities. Pursuant to Chapter 179-3-040 of the Zoning Ordinance, site and building alterations 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 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 06/19/2018 and continued the public hearing to 06/19/2018, 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 06/19/2018; 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 39-2018 )OE CARICARI, CR BARD; Introduced by David Deeb who moved for its adoption. According to the draft resolution prepared by Staff with the following: 1] Waivers requested granted/denied; 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; bJ If applicable, the Sanitary Sewer connection plan must be submitted to the Wastewater Department for its review, approval, permitting and inspection; 28 [Queensbury Planning Board 06/19/18] cJ 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; dJ If application was referred to engineering then Engineering sign-off required prior to signature of Zoning Administrator of the approved plans; eJ Final approved plans should have dimensions and setbacks noted on the site plan/survey, floor plans and elevation for the existing rooms and proposed rooms in the building and site improvements;- If required, the applicant must submit a copy of the following to the Town: a. The project NOI (Notice of Intent) for coverage under the current "NYSDEC SPDES General Permit from Construction Activity" prior to the start of any site work. b. The project NOT (Notice of Termination) upon completion of the project; c. The applicant must maintain on their project site, for review by staff: i. The approved final plans that have been stamped by the Town Zoning Administrator. These plans must include the project SWPPP (Storm Water Pollution Prevention Plan) when such a plan was prepared and approved; ii. The project NOI and proof of coverage under the current NYSDEC SPDES General Permit, or an individual SPDES permit issued for the project if required. gJ 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; hJ The applicant must meet with Staff after approval and prior to issuance of Building Permit and/or the beginning of any site work; iJ Subsequent issuance of further permits, including building permits is dependent on compliance with this and all other conditions of this resolution; jJ 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. kJ This resolution is to be placed in its entirety on the final plans Motion seconded by Brad Magowan. Duly adopted this 19" day of June, 2018 by the following vote: AYES: Mr. Dixon, Mr. Shafer, Mr. Hunsinger, Mr. Magowan, Mr. Valentine, Mr. Deeb, Mr. Traver NOES: NONE MR. TRAVER-You are all set. MR. HALL-Thank you very much. MR. DEEB-Good luck. MR. HUNSINGER-Good luck. It's a nice project. MR. TRAVER-The last item on our agenda this evening is Jennifer Ball, Site Plan 41-2018 and Freshwater Wetlands Permit 3-2018, and we note this is a SEQR Type II. SITE PLAN NO. 41-2018 FRESHWATER WETLANDS PERMIT 3-2018 SEQR TYPE: TYPE 11. JENNIFER BALL. APPLICANT PROPOSES A 2,540 SQ. FT. (FOOTPRINT) THREE BEDROOM HOME. PROJECT OCCURS IN THE LGP WITH MORE THAN 15,000 SQ. FT. OF DISTURBANCE AND WORK WITHIN 100 FT. OF A WETLAND BOUNDARY. PURSUANT TO CHAPTER 147 (STORMWATERJ & CHAPTER 94 (WETLANDS) OF THE ZONING ORDINANCE, MAJOR STORMWATER SITE WORK SHALL BE SUBJECT TO PLANNING BOARD REVIEW AND APPROVAL. CROSS REFERENCE: N/A. WARREN CO. REFERRAL: JUNE 2018. SITE INFORMATION: TRAVEL CORRIDOR, LGPC, APA. LOT SIZE: 3.03 ACRES. TAX MAP NO. 266.1440. SECTION: CHAPTER 147, CHAPTER 94. LUCAS DOBIE, REPRESENTING APPLICANT, PRESENT MR. TRAVER-Laura? MRS. MOORE-So the applicant proposes a 2,540 square foot home. This is a three bedroom home. The project occurs in the Lake George Park area. So the project involves disturbance of 15,000 square feet or more so it's subject to a Major Stormwater permit. The project is also within 100 feet of a wetland boundary and so the applicant has identified the possible location, the site work to occur and the driveway location. MR. TRAVER-Great. Thank you. Hello again. 29 [Queensbury Planning Board 06/19/18] MR. DOBIE-Thank you, and good evening again, Board. For the record, Lucas Dobie with Hutchins Engineering and the project sponsor, Jen Ball's, not able to be with us tonight and so we're taking the reins and give it our best shot here. This is just north of Pickle Hill Road on Route 9L,vacant farmland. I believe it used to be owned by the Harris family once upon a time and Jennifer purchased two parcels, as shown on the survey, last September, a flag lot and then the subject parcel, and she's proposing a boundary line adjustment which will convey just over three acres to her personal home on Pickle Hill Road and then re-configure the subject parcel to be totally compliant with the zoning and just over three acres, thus it will remain the flag lot to Ridge Road. So it'll be just the one curb cut for the two parcels, essentially. The subject parcel will only encompass the farm road that's there now which we'll re-develop for our driveway and approximately 250 feet of driveway to get up to the buildable, nice part of the lot and that's six to seven percent. So it's a manageable slope and it's as far south as we can possibly go to maintain the maximum distance from the wetland area which is over the northeast corner of the property, which is pretty apparent. It's the toe of the slope, and there was some question from Staff and engineering about the delineation of the wetland and the surveyor, from this topo at the bottom of the slope, it's shown as that line, which we believe to be a touch conservative and upon my field investigations that's what I would call the wetlands, and actually tomorrow the biologist from the Park Agency is in the area so she's going to run out there for a half an hour and look at it with us. I believe it's a jurisdictional wetland and we didn't want to get called out by not asking for the Freshwater Wetlands permit. So let's include it in the application and show all of our grading, and the site work is fairly extensive, no doubt about it. The parcel rolls down to the wetland at about 12%. So we're cutting that back to get to a walk out over a portion of the north side of the home and make the basement nice and functional and then due to the heavy soils we have to have a raised wastewater system which is on a flat portion of the site, which would have four feet of fill, typical of a Washington County, if you will, system in the farm country with the heavy soils and provide our stormwater out front, holding 100 feet to the wet area, and I'm very happy with the home design. It's attractive, 2500 square feet with the garage ranch, nine foot basement with a walk out on the north side. It's a pretty straightforward project. It's a vacant parcel. It's been there for some time and it's just heavy soils in the Lake George Park so we had to shape the lot to make our stormwater work and septic and we looked at the layout two or three different ways and we believe this provides the most efficient layout, site work wise, and still meet the needs of the applicant. With that I'd be happy to answer any questions that you may have. Thank you for having us. MR. TRAVER-Questions, comments from members of the Board? MR. MAGOWAN-Lucas, I know there's an old foundation on that. What parcel is that on, is that on Metivier's? MR. DOBIE-That is on Parcel 12 to the south. Metivier I believe, they've had a big fifth wheel there for some time. The foundation is still there. It's not on the subject parcel. MR. SHAFER-Lucas I notice there's a hook here. Is she going to retain this back here? MR. DOBIE-Yes, she is. That will be 3.1 acres added to her parcel off of Pickle Hill Road. MR. SHAFER-Somewhere I noticed you used 21 to 30 for the perc rate. Is that from a field test? MR. DOBIE-That is from the, yes, because I got a perc test of 16 minutes and then 20 minutes. So it kicked it up to the next grouping for the wastewater design. MR. MAGOWAN-Yes, because I remember her coming in here for the lot line when she bought the place. Didn't she? Wasn't she here a couple of years ago when she bought the place? MR. DOBIE-Possibly for her own house off of Pickle Hill, but/ MR. MAGOWAN-1 think so, because it says the old property line. I remember. MR. TRAVER-We dealt with that several times. Anything else before we open up the public hearing? We do have a public hearing on this application this evening. Is there anyone that wanted to address the Planning Board on this application? Yes, sir. If you would come up to the table, please, just to get on the record because we do record the meetings and the minutes are kept. PUBLIC HEARING OPENED DONALD MANAHER 30 [ ueensbury Planning Board 06/19/18] MR. MANAHER-My name is Donald Manaher and I live on Pickle Hill Road. I'm the second house in from Ridge Road on Pickle Hill Road on the south side of the road and there is an existing stormwater issue on that end of the road that the Town Highway Department is aware of and looking at to see what they can do to address that issue. If you will, the grade of the land starts at the Harrisena Church way up on the hill and runs a mile at least to this wetland, and all of that ground, if you will, slopes in that general direction. I built my home in 1989. In the early 90's the Town came in and tore out Pickle Hill Road and raised it about a foot and a half. When they did that all of that groundwater coming from the top of Boulderwood if you will came down and basically hit that new road that they put in and it pretty much acted as a dam and backed everything up to the point where it flooded the lots on the south side of the road to the point where the water actually crested the road and it rolled over Pickle Hill Road into the cornfields that is currently downhill towards these wetlands. They came in and they took a drain, piece of pipe, and ran it the opposite direction of Ridge Road towards Bay Road, the entire length of my property, my neighbor's property, which there was not a home there at that point. It goes to a piece of pipe that's in front of the log home on Pickle Hill Road, if you're familiar with that, that then crosses the road and goes into Pam Harris' cornfield, and as these lot lines are becoming readjusted and these lots are being developed. I just wanted to make the Board aware that there is currently a stormwater issue there. What the answer is I'm not quite sure. That's not my forte. I just wanted to make you aware. I have no problem with the aesthetics. Everything is wonderful. It looks wonderful, but there is an existing groundwater issue, stormwater I should say, that I'm not quite sure what they're going to do. MR. TRAVER-Well, we can assure you that, with regard to this application we're seeing tonight, it will get reviewed by the Town Engineer and they are required to manage wastewater on site. MR. MANAHER-Right. MR. TRAVER-So it should not contribute, and it may help the neighborhood situation to some degree. MR. MAGOWAN-What I think he's saying is that he's not worried about what's going to be produced on this lot. It's a mile up the road that all the water is. MR. TRAVER-Well, I would be. MR. MANAHER-That's exactly correct, and what that water does currently is it comes down the road, in my yard and my neighbor's yard. It then runs to the east, to the Town's drain which is in the right corner of my home as you face the home facing south. It goes into the drain. It articulates, if you will, towards that, on the top of the ground, gets into the drain, then goes the other direction about 900 feet to a trench that's a drain to nowhere. MR. MAGOWAN-Isn't there a dry pump that's on Pickle Hill, too? MR. MANAHER-No. MR. MAGOWAN-There's not a dry fire, what do they call it? Dry hydrant. MR. MANAHER-A dry hydrant does exist, and the majority of Pickle Hill Road, from the old Harris homestead, the blue ranch, if you will, that's the top of the crest of the hill on that, and that runs towards the dry hydrant, as well as towards Bay Road. Sunset Trail is the crest of the hill, and that runs back towards, and all that goes into the dry hydrant. From the top of the hill towards Ridge Road, that runs down towards that trench that goes to the pipe that goes onto Pam Harris' property. When I applied for my driveway permit the Town required me to place a culvert underneath my driveway, of which it went bad last year, and I contacted the Town, and they informed me it was my problem and at my expense to be repaired and replaced, which I did do. MR. HUNSINGER-How big is your culvert, 12, 16, 18? MR. MANAHER-The culvert under my driveway is not the issue. MR. HUNSINGER-How many feet long? I'm just curious. MR. MANAHER-I think it's 18. The piece of pipe that is, if you will, where Mr. Naylor did the road what they did is they removed all of the clay, I believe down about four feet, and brought in some kind of material that would absorb water and allow them to keep the blacktop on the road from buckling from the amount of clay that's there. So what he did was he went to the edge of the right of way, if you will,the Town's right of way at 25 feet from the center of the road. He also undermined all of that material out and filled that with that porous material. He put a piece of six inch plastic 31 [ ueensbury Planning Board 06/19/18] pipe, flexible pipe, it's 29 years old that runs the length of two lots to the log cabin to reach that culvert to go to the cornfield. That's pretty much deteriorated to nothing. Dave actually was out there today looking at it. It so happens that I'm speaking, the reason I'm here isn't because of her application. It's brought it to light, but I mean I've been working with the Town Highway Department with this since last fall. The piece of pipe that goes across Pickle Hill Road is compromised because now the road's caving in in the middle of Pickle Hill Road. They're trying to see what they're going to do to that. So he's looking at that saying that he thinks he might have to increase the diameter of that pipe or he's talking about ditches to possibly make it go towards Ridge Road. If it went towards Ridge Road it's going to end up in that wetland. I just wanted to make the Board aware. I'm certainly not objecting to anything aside from. MR. DEEB-You need to keep in communication with the Town. MR. MANAHER-Yes. I've actually spoken to Mr. Metivier. MR. DEEB-You've got to keep doing it. MR. MANAHER-And he asked me to come to this meeting and share with you what I just did. There's a lot of activity going there currently. There's a lot of lot lines being, all those properties are all being developed which was all downhill and the new property naturally when you go in there you want to raise your home up to make it look all beautiful and run it back towards the road again which is the wrong direction. It should be going towards the north towards the wetland. MR. MAGOWAN-Isn't that kind of like almost the beginning of like the Dunham's Bay creek in that wetland area? MR. MANAHER-That goes right into Dunham's Bay. Everything comes from, like I say, it's over a mile grade downhill from Harrisena Church and if we have a significant thaw or a nice rainstorm the spot in front of the log cabin is known as Pickle Hill pond. It fills up pretty good. MR. TRAVER-Thank you. MR. MANAHER-Can I ask the engineer a question? MRS. MOORE-You can direct the question to the Board. MR. MANAHER-The work that you're doing on this site, will that have any effect on the stormwater on Pickle Hill Road? MR. TRAVER-No. That's what I was leading from is that the requirements of the process are such that the applicant has to work with the Town Engineer to ensure that there is, no stormwater is going to leave this site. MR. DEEB-It has to stay on the property, the stormwater has to stay on the property. MR. MANAHER-The stormwater that's from the property. MR. TRAVER-That's correct. MR. MANAHER-But if you're at the bottom of the hill and all of this water is coming at you, it's got to go somewhere. MR. TRAVER-Yes. It won't detract from stormwater that isn't coming from this property, but there may have been,what I was thinking you were concerned about was that there may have been stormwater coming from this property that is no longer coming. MR. MANAHER-Not at all. They're downhill from me. It would have to really fill up significantly, but what I'm saying is these properties, and if I'm not mistaken this is part of a bigger project that's going on on Pickle Hill Road where some lot lines are being, you spoke of the Metivier property. I know that that's going to currently be developed, and as these properties are being developed, I just wanted to make the Highway Department and the Board here aware that there is a potential stormwater issue there that needs to be addressed. MR. TRAVER-Well thank you for that. MR. MAGOWAN-Thank you for your due diligence in making us aware of these situations. 32 [Queensbury Planning Board 06/19/18] MR. MANAHER-Self-preservation. MR. MAGOWAN-But like they said, stay right on them. I hear it a lot, yes, we have this thing. Just following through. Our Highway Department really does the best they can. MR. MANAHER-Absolutely. I couldn't agree with you more. MR. MAGOWAN-1 mean being in government now myself unfortunately it just doesn't move sometimes as quick as we want, but you know, there's so many layers. MR. MANAHER-I'm not really sure what the answer is. I just thought that while all these, because I think that you'll see more applicants for more properties being developed, and I wanted to make you all aware that there is a problem that exists already and as these properties are being developed, I don't think it's going to make it any better unless the Highway Department evaluates what they're going to do with this. MR. TRAVER-Yes. MR. MAGOWAN-Well thank you. MR. MANAHER-Thank you so much. I appreciate it. MR. TRAVER-Is there any written comment, Laura? MRS. MOORE-There is no written comment. MR. TRAVER-Okay. Thank you. Is there anyone else that wanted to address the Board on this project? I'm not seeing anyone. All right. So we'll close the public hearing. PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED MR. TRAVER-Did you have anything to add with the general comments about stormwater? MR. DOBIE-No. I appreciate Mr. Manaher's comments. I think we did your septic about 10 years ago. MR. MANAHER-You did, and when my front lawn fills in, it fills in right up to the ends of my leach fields. MR. DOBIE-Wonderful. But to Mr. Manaher's point, just philosophically if you will, the wetlands we protect them all we can. Ultimately they're our buffer from these surge storms. So ultimately where the Highway Department works out, it's going to have to convey down through across through our culvert, which I'm going to upsize more now. Thank you for this information. I would imagine to make the problem go away is to make it flow, keep it going down the side of 9L and then to the wetlands and the through the back waters to Dunham's Bay. So we'll upsize our culvert to anticipate that a little more. MR. DIXON-On the south side of the property there's a detention area. Is there anything that needs to be improved or thought about there that may help with that? It sounds like they've already done a nice job keeping the water on the property, but hearing that the soil is more clay, I know parts over there it's heavy clay. MR. DOBIE-It is, yes, and we'll re-evaluate that a little more to get a little more mitigation for the lower parts of the driveway. MR. TRAVER-Any other questions for the applicant? This is a SEQR Type 11. So we don't need to do SEAR. We mentioned this is going to APA. Are we ready to move forward? Okay. We have a draft resolution. RESOLUTION APPROVING SP # 41-2018 FWW # 3-2018 JENNIFER BALL The applicant has submitted an application to the Planning Board: Applicant proposes a 2,540 sq. ft. (footprint) three bedroom home. Project occurs in the LGP with more than 15,000 sq. ft. of disturbance and work within 100 ft. of a wetland boundary. Pursuant to Chapter 147 (stormwater) 8T 33 [Queensbury Planning Board 06/19/18] Chapter 94(wetlands) of the Zoning Ordinance, major stormwater site work 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 06/19/2018 and continued the public hearing to 06/19/2018, 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 06/19/2018; 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 41-2018 & FRESHWATER WETLANDS PERMIT 3-2018 JENNIFER BALL; Introduced by David Deeb who moved for its adoption. According to the draft resolution prepared by Staff with the following: 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; bJ If applicable, the Sanitary Sewer connection plan must be submitted to the Wastewater Department for its review, approval, permitting and inspection; cJ 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; dJ If application was referred to engineering then Engineering sign-off required prior to signature of Zoning Administrator of the approved plans; eJ 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; fJ 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. gJ 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; hJ The applicant must meet with Staff after approval and prior to issuance of Building Permit and/or the beginning of any site work; iJ Subsequent issuance of further permits, including building permits is dependent on compliance with this and all other conditions of this resolution; jJ 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. kJ This resolution is to be placed in its entirety on the final plans Motion seconded by Brad Magowan. Duly adopted this 19" day of June, 2018 by the following vote: MR. DEEB-Do we have waivers? MRS. MOORE-Yes, there are some. In Site Plan we have items such as lighting and signage. AYES: Mr. Shafer, Mr. Hunsinger, Mr. Magowan, Mr. Valentine, Mr. Deeb, Mr. Dixon, Mr. Traver 34 [ ueensbury Planning Board 06/19/18] NOES: NONE MR. TRAVER-You're all set. MR. DOBIE-Very good. Thank you so much, Board. MR. TRAVER-Do we have any other business before the Board this evening? MR. VALENTINE-So on our first agenda Fort Miller was. MR. TRAVER-That I don't think is going to be on our agenda until July, but we will have, Cumbies will be back Monday for the discussion item, the last item on the agenda. MR. MAGOWAN-You want us here Monday? MR. TRAVER-Yes. So just to remind members of the Board, again it's going to be a little bit of an unconventional Monday night meeting instead of a Tuesday night meeting and the agenda has been updated. So if you don't have the most recent one or you're not sure, you can get that. MR. MAGOWAN-Now what happened to Fort Miller tonight? MR. TRAVER-Again, the agenda was updated. That project is going to be, I believe that's next month. Right, Laura? MRS. MOORE-That should be on in July, yes. MR. DEEB-Do we have any updated agendas for next week? MRS. MOORE-No, but I'll send another one out, yes. MR. DEEB-Thank you. MR. SHAFER-Staff Notes will be when? MRS. MOORE-They should be out on Thursday or Friday of this week. MR. SHAFER-So mail may be Monday? MRS. MOORE-Actually if I get them out, they should be out I would say Thursday. So you should be able to get them in the mail on Saturday. MR. TRAVER-They'll be available as a PDF through e-mail before you get them in the mail, too. At least I like to at least look at them. MRS. MOORE-1 guess, John, do you want to stop in and pick them up and I'll just, I'll send you a note? Do you want to stop in and pick them up? Because that's what you did last week. MR. SHAFER-It sounds like they'd get to the post office by Saturday. MRS. MOORE-All right. I wasn't sure. MR. MAGOWAN-One other thing. Laura, I have a hard time hearing you. MR. SHAFER-I do, too. MR. MAGOWAN-When you're reading. When your heads up I can hear you. MR. TRAVER-I don't know if it's possible to tweak that mic individually. I wondered if it could be done with the system. Could the gain on that mic be turned up or? MRS. MOORE-It's as far as it can go. MR. MAGOWAN-When you're speaking into the paper. Especially when Chris and Mike are down there gabbing away, and Maria doesn't yell at them. 35 [ ueensbury Planning Board 06/19/18] MR. TRAVER-All right. Do we have anything else before the Board this evening? If not, we'll entertain motion to adjourn. MR. HUNSINGER-Motion to adjourn. MR. SHAFER-Second. MOTION TO ADJOURN THE QUEENSBURY PLANNING BOARD MEETING OF JUNE 19", 2018, Introduced by Chris Hunsinger who moved for its adoption, seconded by Michael Valentine: Duly adopted this 19t" day of June, 2018, by the following vote: AYES: Mr. Deeb, Mr. Shafer, Mr. Dixon, Mr. Hunsinger, Mr. Magowan, Mr. Valentine, Mr. Traver NOES: NONE MR. TRAVER-We stand adjourned. Thanks, everybody. On motion meeting was adjourned. RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED, Stephen Traver, Chairman 36