The URL can be used to link to this page

04-16-2019 (Queensbury Planning Board 04/16/2019) QUEENSBURY PLANNING BOARD MEETING FIRST REGULAR MEETING APRIL 16, 2019 INDEX Site Plan No. 26-2018 Dennis MacElroy 2. Freshwater Wetlands 1-2018 Tax Map No. 239.7-1-17 EXTENSION REQUEST Site Plan No. 29-2018 Mission & Montcalm RE, LLC 3. EXTENSION REQUEST Tax Map No. 289.11-1-12.1 Subdivision No. 13-2018 Clear Brook, LLC 5. PRELIMINARY STAGE Tax Map No. 316.14-1-6 TABLING REQUEST Site Plan No. 16-2019 Alex & Michelle Wilcox 5. ZBA RECOMMENDATION Tax Map No. 278.20-1-3 Site Plan No. 22-2019 Robert Spath 8. ZBA RECOMMENDATION Tax Map No. 240.5-1-10 Site Plan No. 23-2019 Schermerhorn Residential Holdings 11. ZBA RECOMMENDATION Tax Map No. 288.-1-64 Site Plan No. 9-2019 Leticia Martinez/HFA Architects 13. ZBA RECOMMENDATION Tax Map No. 303.15-1-25.1 Site Plan No. 14-2019 JAG/Sheet Labels, Inc. 18. Tax Map No. 308.20-1-9.2 Site Plan No. 25-2019 Giovanone Real Estate Partners 25. Tax Map No. 309.17-1-23.23 Site Plan No. 24-2019 Brian Connolly 30. Tax Map No. 315.8-1-7 THESE ARE NOT OFFICIALLY ADOPTED MINUTES AND ARE SUBJECT TO BOARD AND STAFF REVISIONS. REVISIONS WILL APPEAR ON THE FOLLOWING MONTH’S MINUTES (IF ANY) AND WILL STATE SUCH APPROVAL OF SAID MINUTES. 1 (Queensbury Planning Board 04/16/2019) QUEENSBURY PLANNING BOARD MEETING FIRST REGULAR MEETING APRIL 16, 2019 7:00 P.M. MEMBERS PRESENT STEPHEN TRAVER, CHAIRMAN CHRIS HUNSINGER, VICE CHAIRMAN DAVID DEEB, SECRETARY JAMIE WHITE JOHN SHAFER MICHAEL VALENTINE MICHAEL DIXON, ALTERNATE MEMBERS ABSENT BRAD MAGOWAN LAND USE PLANNER-LAURA MOORE STENOGRAPHER-MARIA GAGLIARDI MR. TRAVER-Welcome ladies and gentlemen to the Planning Board meeting for Tuesday, th April 16 at the Town of Queensbury. Please take note of the illuminated exit signs and in case of an emergency that is your way out. If you have an electronic device or a cell phone if you would silence the ringer please so that it’s not disturbing or turn it off. If you wish them there are agendas on the table at the rear of the room and also guidelines on public hearings of which we have a few this evening. And with that I guess we will get started. We first have a couple of administrative items, first being approval of minutes from February. APPROVAL OF MINUTES th February 19, 2019 th February 26, 2019 MOTION TO APPROVE THE QUEENSBURY PLANNING BOARD MEETING MINUTES OF THTH FEBRUARY 19 AND FEBRUARY 26, 2019, Introduced by David Deeb who moved for its adoption, seconded by Jamie White: th Duly adopted this 16 day of April, 2019, by the following vote: AYES: NOES: MR. TRAVER-Any discussion or corrections to the minutes? Maria, can we have the vote please? MS. GAGLIARDI-Mr. Deeb? MR. DEEB-Abstained. MS. GAGLIARDI-Ms. White? 2 (Queensbury Planning Board 04/16/2019) MS. WHITE-Yes. MS. GAGLIARDI-Mr. Shafer? thth MR. SHAFER-Yes on 19, abstain on 26. th MS. WHITE-I guess mine should be the same. I apologize. I was not here for the 26. MS. GAGLIARDI-Maybe it would be easier in this case to just approve them separately, MR. DEEB-Okay. I’ll amend the motion. MOTION TO APPROVE THE QUEENSBURY PLANNING BOARD MEETING MINUTES OF TH FEBRUARY 19, 2019, Introduced by David Deeb who moved for its adoption, seconded by Chris Hunsinger: th Duly adopted this 16 day of April, 2019, by the following vote: AYES: Ms. White, Mr. Shafer, Mr. Hunsinger, Mr. Dixon, Mr. Valentine, Mr. Traver NOES: NONE ABSTAINED: Mr. Deeb ABSENT: Mr. Magowan MOTION TO APPROVE THE QUEENSBURY PLANNING BOARD MEETING MINUTES OF TH FEBRUARY 26, 2019, Introduced by David Deeb who moved for its adoption, seconded by Chris Hunsinger: th Duly adopted this 16 day of April, 2019, by the following vote: AYES: Mr. Hunsinger, Mr. Dixon, Mr. Valentine, Mr. Traver NOES: NONE ABSTAINED: Ms. White, Mr. Shafer, Mr. Deeb ABSENT: Mr. Magowan MR. TRAVER-Next we have the next Administrative Item Site Plan 26-2018 for Dennis MacElroy. ADMINISTRATIVE ITEMS SP 26-2018 & FWW 1-2018 DENNIS MAC ELROY REQUEST TO EXTEND APPROVAL FOR ONE YEAR MR. TRAVER-Laura? MRS. MOORE-Mr. MacElroy has asked for an extension because his project hasn’t started yet. So Dennis is in the audience if you have additional questions for him. 3 (Queensbury Planning Board 04/16/2019) MR. TRAVER-Okay. Does anyone have any questions for the applicant? It’s a standard extension. If it hasn’t been done yet I guess that’s a reasonable request. If there are no questions or comments, we’ll take a motion on that. RESOLUTION EXTENDING SP #26-2018 DENNIS MAC ELROY FOR ONE YEAR 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 to install an approved septic system that occurs within 100 ft. of a designated wetland area. Septic system was approved by local Board of Health in April 2017. Pursuant to Chapter 179-3-040 & Chapter 95 of the Zoning Ordinance, work within 100 ft. of wetlands shall be subject to Planning Board review and approval. The Planning Board approved Site Plan 26-2018 on April 17, 2018 MOTION TO APPROVE A ONE YEAR EXTENSION FOR SITE PLAN 26-2018 & FRESHWATER WETLANDS PERMIT 1-2018 DENNIS MACELROY. Introduced by David Deeb who moved for its adoption, seconded by John Shafer: th Duly adopted this 16day of April, 2019 by the following vote: AYES: Mr. Shafer, Mr. Hunsinger, Mr. Dixon, Mr. Valentine, Mr. Deeb, Ms. White, Mr. Traver NOES: NONE ABSENT: Mr. Magowan MR. TRAVER-Next we have Site Plan 29-2018, Mission & Montcalm RE, LLC, also request for an extension. SP 29-2018 MISSION & MONTCALM RE, LLC REQUEST TO EXTEND APPROVAL FOR ONE YEAR MR. TRAVER-Laura, do you have anything to add? MRS. MOORE-Correct. The letter indicates that the applicant was unable to begin construction this year so they’re looking for that extension. MR. TRAVER-Okay. Any questions or concerns regarding that extension by members of this Board? MS. WHITE-Do we have an anticipated start date on that project? MR. TRAVER-A start date? MS. WHITE-Yes. She said it hasn’t started yet either. I was just wondering if they had an anticipated start date. MR. TRAVER-Right. No they’re not proposing a start date. They’re just asking for an extension. MRS. MOORE-Right, and this applicant hasn’t indicated when they’re able to start. MS. WHITE-Okay. 4 (Queensbury Planning Board 04/16/2019) MR. TRAVER-So they have potentially a one year extension and then we’d have to chat with them again. Any other questions or comments? Maria, can we have the vote, please. MS. GAGLIARDI-Mr. Hunsinger? MR. HUNSINGER-Yes. MS. GAGLIARDI-Mr. Dixon? MR. DIXON-Yes. MS. GAGLIARDI-Mr. Valentine? MR. VALENTINE-Yes. MS. GAGLIARDI-Mr. Deeb? MR. DEEB-I’m a little confused. I don’t think we made a motion on this one. MS. GAGLIARDI-You know, I don’t think you did. MRS. MOORE-You did not make a motion. MR. TRAVER-Go ahead and read your motion if you would, please. Sorry about that. MR. DEEB-Okay. RESOLUTION TO EXTEND APPROVAL SP # 29-2018 MISSION & MONTCALM RE. LLC The applicant has submitted an application to the Planning Board: Applicant proposes to construct a 1,865 sq. ft. home at a 3,290 sq. ft. floor area on an existing 1.56 acre parcel. Site work includes grading and stormwater management. Pursuant to Chapter 179-6-060 of the Zoning Ordinance, construction within 50 ft. of 15% slopes shall be subject to Planning Board review and approval. The Planning Board approved Site Plan 29-2018 on April 17, 2018 MOTION TO APPROVE A ONE YEAR EXTENSION FOR SITE PLAN 29-2018 MISSION & MONTCALM RE, LLC. Introduced by David Deeb who moved for its adoption, seconded by Michael Dixon: th Duly adopted this 16 of April, 2019 by the following vote: AYES: Mr. Deeb, Ms. White, Mr. Shafer, Mr. Hunsinger, Mr. Dixon, Mr. Valentine, Mr. Traver NOES: NONE ABSENT: Mr. Magowan MR. TRAVER-All right, and the last Administrative Item is a subdivision Preliminary 13-2018. This is Clear Brook, LLC, a project familiar to us all, and, Laura, they’re asking to be tabled th to the 30? th MRS. MOORE-The 30. Correct. We knew that this evening had a long agenda and they have proposed some changes to the subdivision itself reducing it to 12 lots. They’ve already 5 (Queensbury Planning Board 04/16/2019) communicated with the Water/Wastewater Superintendent. So we felt that it would give them enough time to present information. I do have packets for the Board members this evening to take with them so they have that information to review. MR. TRAVER-Very good. Any comment before we have a motion on that? Okay. Go ahead. RESOLUTION TABLING SUB # 13-2018 PRELIM. STAGE FWW 6-2018 CLEAR BROOK, LLC Applicant proposes a 12 lot residential subdivision of a 145.30 acre parcel. Project is within I-87 overlay zone. Currently in review process with Planning Board. Pursuant to Chapter 183 and Chapter 94 of the Zoning Ordinance, subdivision of land and work within 100 ft. of a wetland shall be subject to Planning Board review and approval. Project was tabled on 8/28/18 to 10/16/18. Tabled on 10/16/18 to 12/18/18. Tabled on 1/15/19 to 2/12/19. Table to 3/19/19 to resolve SEQR items. Tabled on 3/26/19. Request to further table to 4/30/19 MOTION TO TABLE SUBDIVISION PRELIMINARY STAGE 13-2018 & FRESHWATER WETLANDS PERMIT 6-2018 CLEAR BROOK, LLC. Introduced by David Deeb who moved for its adoption. th Tabled until the April 30, 2019 Planning Board meeting. th Seconded by Michael Valentine. Duly adopted this 16 day of April, 2019 by the following vote: AYES: Mr. Shafer, Mr. Hunsinger, Mr. Dixon, Mr. Valentine, Mr. Deeb, Ms. White, Mr. Traver NOES: NONE ABSENT: Mr. Magowan MR. TRAVER-All right. So next we move to our regular agenda, and the first group of items we’ll be looking at is Planning Board Recommendations to the Zoning Board of Appeals and the first one is Alex and Michelle Wilcox, Site Plan 16-2019. PLANNING BOARD RECOMMENDATIONS TO THE ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS SITE PLAN NO. 16-2019 SEQR TYPE: TYPE II. ALEX & MICHELLE WILCOX. OWNER(S): THOMAS DU BOIS. ZONING: RR-3A. LOCATION: CORNER WALKUP RD. & MOON HILL RD. APPLICANT PROPOSES CONSTRUCTION OF A 3,320 SQ. FT. SINGLE FAMILY HOME WITH ASSOCIATED SITE WORK. THE HOUSE TO BE CONSTRUCTED IS LOCATED WITHIN 50 FT. OF 15% SLOPES. THE SITE INCLUDES GRADING, LOT CLEARING FOR HOUSE, SEPTIC AND WELL. THE APPLICANT HAS INDICATED FOR LOT CLEARING ACCESS MAY COME FROM WALKUP RD. WITH A TEMPORARY CONSTRUCTION ENTRANCE. PURSUANT TO CHAPTER 179-6-060 OF THE ZONING ORDINANCE, CONSTRUCTION OCCURRING WITHIN 50 FT. OF 15% SLOPES SHALL BE SUBJECT TO PLANNING BOARD REVIEW AND APPROVAL. VARIANCE: RELIEF IS SOUGHT FOR SETBACKS IN AN RR-3A ZONE. PLANNING BOARD SHALL PROVIDE A RECOMMENDATION TO THE ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS. CROSS REFERENCE: AV 32-2018 (VOIDED), DISC 1-2019; WARREN CO. REFERRAL: APRIL 2019. SITE INFORMATION: STEEP SLOPES. LOT SIZE: 1.93 ACRES. TAX MAP NO. 278.20-1-3. SECTION: 179-6-060. ALEX & MICHELLE WILCOX, PRESENT 6 (Queensbury Planning Board 04/16/2019) MR. TRAVER-Laura? MRS. MOORE-Right. So the Board did review this information as a discussion item last month. The applicant is back before you with a 3,320 square foot single family home. The project is triggers a Site Plan Review because it’s within 50 feet of 15% slopes. The project is located in an RR-3A zone which requires 100 foot setbacks from front setbacks, and strangely enough they are bordering Walkup Road and Moon Hill Road. So they require 100 feet from basically every property line except for the one to the east. So they’re stuck up against some setback issues with a lot that’s less than three acres. MR. TRAVER-Correct. Understood. I remember the discussion we had. MR. WILCOX-Good evening. So my name is Alex Wilcox and this is my wife Michelle Wilcox. I’m a contractor and carpenter. We are intending to build our personal home on this site. We’re in the midst of purchasing the property from the current landowners Tom and Ellen Dubois. As you can see, like Laura just stated, it’s zoned Rural Residential Three acre. Just shy of a two acre lot, and again as she stated 100 foot setbacks from all sides. So we’re seeking an Area Variance which we’ll be attending the Zoning Board meeting tomorrow night and so we also got triggered on this piece of property there’s some slopes that are greater than 15%. So we have a stormwater management plan and survey, topographical survey and a grading plan from C.T. Male to accommodate the erosion and things like that on the site, and pretty much that’s our story. MR. TRAVER-Okay. Thank you. MR. TRAVER-As Laura reminded us, we did look at this as a discussion item previously. I remember we talked about it quite a bit because of the unusual location and the various setbacks and access issues. Does anyone have any questions, comments, now that we have a formal application? The variance that we’re dealing with this evening is the setbacks as Laura pointed out. So they’d conceivably be coming back for Site Plan Review. I’ll open it up to questions or comments from members of the Board. MR. SHAFER-Mr. Chairman I noted that the Warren County Planning Board raised a question about the two access, ingress/egress for Moon Hill Road. Is it appropriate to discuss that tonight or at Site Plan? MR. TRAVER-Well certainly if you have, yes, I mean we can discuss it. Our purpose tonight is to make a recommendation specifically on the variance, but presumably the applicant, if they can get the variance that they are seeking, they will be before us for Site Plan, and that would be addressed then. So if you have information that you want them to consider, they would probably be grateful for that. MR. SHAFER-Just to consider the Planning Board’s informal staff comment that there be only one ingress and egress from Moon Hill Road. MR. WILCOX-Yes, and I just spoke with Dennis, the engineer that was here earlier then left, and he said that contacting the County Highway Department, again, to see just basically their view on that with the line of sight and I think last time we talked about using that as an in and out MR. TRAVER-Right. MR. WILCOX-Because of the characteristics of that hill. And me being a contractor, sometimes I might bring like a trailer home just for the night and nothing that would ever stay there permanently. Just kind of come in and kind of be able to pull out so I don’t have to back out onto Moon Hill Road is the big concern that I have on that. 7 (Queensbury Planning Board 04/16/2019) MR. TRAVER-I remember we did discuss that when you were here before. MR. WILCOX-Yes. MR. VALENTINE-Would you look at a hammerhead in your driveway then so you’d have a place to back up within your driveway to come back out onto the road? MR. WILCOX-If that’s what the end all result would be we could definitely design something in that lane. MR. VALENTINE-I’m just thinking usually when somebody gets a driveway that’s restricted like that, that’s one way, particularly on an incline and a grade that allows you to do that back up so that you’re driving out on the one side that you want to exit from. I could see the rationale in that wanting to do one as an ingress and one as an egress but if you only do that one horseshoe without having a way, like you say you’re going to bring a contractor’s trailer up there, attached to a truck or something, you’re going to need some room to make that movement to back up so that you are driving out rather than maneuver out and drive by self route in that roadway there. MR. WILCOX-Yes, and that’s aesthetically kind of what we were trying to avoid is kind of like a parking lot in front of the house and more impermeable surface. Again the flow of that, just trying to maintain that swale that driveway to be just in and out. I mean I just feel like at least on the lower section being as far west as possible so then I have more line of sight exiting the driveway. MR. TRAVER-And as I recall we discussed this at some length when you were here before. MR. WILCOX-Yes, we did. MR. TRAVER-I mean understand the County not having attended that meeting maybe they weren’t privy to all that discussion, but I don’t recall leaving that discussion feeling as though this plan as presented was, that that was a serious issue. I mean it’s an issue, but of the different ways to address it my recollection was that we discussed it and your rationale for it at some length. MR. HUNSINGER-Here’s a question I didn’t think of until just now. Did you give any consideration to moving the house further to the west so that you would only need one side variance instead of two? MR. WILCOX-We did, but then we encounter the really steep slope of that one side and we’re trying to stay 50 feet off of that because then we’re going to have to extensively probably shore up that hillside and other things like that. So as far as cost and aesthetics of centering the house on the site where the general typical house would be centered on an average piece of property kind of more centralized is kind of why we picked that location and also C.T. Male helped us come up with that location as far as the ingress and egress of that driveway, the height difference. So then everything can be drained and accommodated on the property itself. So there’s very minimal water shed off of that driveway. That’s actually going down Moon Hill and there’s also a stone catch in place in that culvert area. MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. Thank you. MR. TRAVER-Any questions or concerns regarding the specifics of the variance they’re looking at? If you look at the materials, I mean it is, they do not meet the setbacks. There’s no question about that, although it’s basically the nature of the building site and they seem to have put quite a bit of effort into placing the house and addressing that issue. 8 (Queensbury Planning Board 04/16/2019) Does anybody feel strongly that that variance request is not warranted? I think we’re ready for a resolution then. MR. DEEB-Okay. RESOLUTION RE: ZBA RECOMMENDATION RE: Z-AV-14-2019 WILCOX The applicant has submitted an application for the following: Applicant proposes construction of a 3,320 sq. ft. single family home with associated site work. The house to be constructed is located within 50 ft. of 15% slopes. The site includes grading, lot clearing for house, septic and well. The applicant has indicated for lot clearing access may come from Walkup Rd. with a temporary construction entrance. Pursuant to Chapter 179-6-060 of the Zoning Ordinance, construction occurring within 50 ft. of 15% slopes shall be subject to Planning Board review and approval. Variance: Relief is sought for setbacks in a RR 3A zone. 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. 14-2019 ALEX & MICHELLE WILCOX. 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. th Motion seconded by Chris Hunsinger. Duly adopted this 16day of April, 2019 by the following vote: AYES: Mr. Hunsinger, Mr. Dixon, Mr. Deeb, Ms. White, Mr. Shafer, Mr. Valentine, Mr. Traver NOES: NONE ABSENT: Mr. Magowan MR. TRAVER-You’re off to the ZBA. MR. WILCOX-Thank you very much. MRS. WILCOX-All right. Thank you very much. MR. TRAVER-The next item also under Planning Board recommendations is Robert Spath, application Site Plan 22-2019. SITE PLAN NO. 22-2019 SEQR TYPE: TYPE II. ROBERT SPATH. OWNER(S): SAME AS APPLICANT. ZONING: .22 ACRE. LOCATION: CORNER WALKUP RD. & MOON HILL RD. APPLICANT PROPOSES TWO RESIDENTIAL ADDITIONS TO EITHER SIDE OF AN EXISTING HOME. ADDITION ONE ON THE SHORELINE SIDE IS TO RAISE THE EXISTING ROOF OF THE 240 SQ. FT. AREA, STILL TO REMAIN ONE STORY OPEN CEILING. THE SECOND ADDITION ON THE ROAD SIDE IS TO REMOVE 98 SQ. FT. 9 (Queensbury Planning Board 04/16/2019) AND REBUILD SAME LIVING AREA. PROJECT INCLUDES NEW 33 SQ. FT. ENTRY WITH COVER ON NORTH SIDE AND A 32 SQ. FT. AWNING ROOF ON THE SHORELINE SIDE OF THE HOME. PURSUANT TO CHAPTER 19-13-010 OF THE ZONING ORDINANCE, EXPANSION OF A NONCONFORMING STRUCTURE SHALL BE SUBJECT TO PLANNING BOARD REVIEW AND APPROVAL. VARIANCE: RELIEF IS SOUGHT FOR SETBACKS AND FAR. PLANNING BOARD SHALL PROVIDE A RECOMMENDATION TO THE ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS. CROSS REFERENCE: AV 57-2008 DORMER; 2006- 599 ALT., 2007-232 DOCK & BOATHOUSE REPAIRS, 2011-042 DOCK REPAIRS. WARREN CO. REFERRAL: APRIL 2019. LOT SIZE: .22 ACRE. TAX MAP NO. 240.5-1- 10. SECTION: 179-13-010. ROBERT SPATH, PRESENT MR. TRAVER-Laura, can you give us the overview on that? MRS. MOORE-So this applicant proposes two residential additions to an existing home. The addition one on the shoreline side is to raise the roof, existing roof area of 240 square feet is to remain one story open ceiling. A second addition is the roadside 98 square feet, re- building the same living area. So on that side he’s tearing down a portion of the building and re-building that in kind. In addition there is an area that is on the shoreline side just above the garage that a new awning roof would be in place, a two foot wide awning 32 square feet in total. Also part of this project is to re-locate the entry way. Because of raising the roof he needs to move that closer to the roadside and so that information is on the drawing. The variance relief is some setback issues due to the configuration of the lot and then permeability as well. MR. TRAVER-Okay. Thank you. Good evening. MR. SPATH-Good evening. MRS. MOORE-Sorry, it’s Floor Area, not permeability. Sorry. MR. SPATH-I’m Robert Spath the applicant. MR. TRAVER-Tell us about your project. MR. SPATH-I’m primarily doing it to increase the energy efficiency of the home. The existing two additions are two by four construction, single pane windows, not the best construction, and for the sake of increasing the efficiency it would be just better for me to raise the grade a little bit. MR. TRAVER-Okay, and you’re not increasing the footprint of the one addition but you’re raising the roof? MR. SPATH-Yes, I’m raising the roof. MR. TRAVER-So that’s what’s triggering the Floor Area Ratio. MRS. MOORE-Correct. MR. TRAVER-Okay. So tonight you’re here in preparation for a chat with the ZBA to seek a recommendation on relief for setbacks, permeability, and floor area ratio. Questions, comments from members of the Board? 10 (Queensbury Planning Board 04/16/2019) MR. TRAVER-Just my usual engineering question. Has somebody looked at, or have you looked at the issue of putting weight up on the second floor, whether or not the framing and so on for the first floor can handle that extra weight? MR. SPATH-As far as an engineer goes? No, but it’s pretty stout. I mean I’m not an engineer, but my father and grandfather constructed the basement in 1969. Pretty high standards. MR. SHAFER-But you’re adding weight up on the second floor and you’re in an area that has 85 pounds per square foot for snow load. So that’s a lot of weight. MR. SPATH-Well, I won’t technically be having floor. The ceiling, when the roof pitch changes, that’s going to be vaulted. I’ll be going from two by four construction to two by six construction. So that’ll add a little weight, but it shouldn’t be substantial. MR. TRAVER-Any other questions, concerns regarding the relief? Hearing none, we’re ready for a resolution. RESOLUTION RE: ZBA RESOLUTION RE: Z-AV-16-2019 ROBERT SPATH The applicant has submitted an application for the following: Applicant proposes two residential additions to either side of an existing home. Addition one on the shoreline side is to raise the existing roof of the 240 sq. ft. area, still to remain one story open ceiling. The second addition on the road side is to remove 98 sq. ft. and rebuild same living area. Project includes new 33 sq. ft. entry with cover on North side and a 32 sq. ft. awning roof on the shoreline side of home. Pursuant to Chapter 179-13-010 of the Zoning Ordinance, expansion of a nonconforming structure shall be subject to Planning Board review and approval. Variance: Relief is sought for setbacks, permeability and FAR. 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. 16-2019 ROBERT SPATH. 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. th Motion seconded by Chris Hunsinger. Duly adopted this 16 day of April, 2019 by the following vote: AYES: Mr. Valentine, Mr. Dixon, Mr. Hunsinger, Mr. Shafer, Ms. White, Mr. Deeb, Mr. Traver NOES: NONE ABSENT: Mr. Magowan MR. TRAVER-Good luck at the ZBA. 11 (Queensbury Planning Board 04/16/2019) MR. SPATH-Thank you. MR. TRAVER-The next agenda item also under Planning Board Recommendations is Schermerhorn Residential Holdings, Site Plan 23-2019. SITE PLAN NO. 23-2019 SEQR TYPE: UNLISTED. SCHERMERHORN RESIDENTIAL HOLDINGS. AGENT(S): NACE ENGINEERING; BARTLETT, PONTIFF LAW FIRM. OWNER(S): SAME AS APPLICANT. ZONING: O. LOCATION: 1260-1264 WEST MT. ROAD. APPLICANT PROPOSES CONSTRUCTION OF A THREE STORY 16,530 SQ. FT. (FOOTPRINT) RESIDENTIAL STRUCTURE FOR 35 UNITS ASSOCIATED WITH EXISTING MULTI-UNIT RESIDENTIAL BUILDINGS. THE NEW BUILDING IS TO BE CONSTRUCTED IN THE CEA AREA. THIS IS PHASE 3 OF WESTBROOK AND COMPLETES THE PHASED CONSTRUCTION. SITE WORK INCLUDING LANDSCAPING, AND LIGHTING WITH PROJECT. A WAIVER FOR THE STORMWATER REQUIREMENTS IS PROPOSED WHERE APPLICANT WILL PROVIDE FULL STORMWATER FOR MAY MEETING AGENDA. PURSUANT TO CHAPTER 179-3-040 OF THE ZONING ORDINANCE, COMMERCIAL CONSTRUCTIONS SHALL BE SUBJECT TO PLANNING BOARD REVIEW AND APPROVAL. VARIANCE: RELIEF IS SOUGHT FOR HEIGHT. PLANNING BOARD SHALL PROVIDE A RECOMMENDATION TO THE ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS. CROSS REFERENCE: PZ6-2003 ZONING CHANGE; SP 48-2007 OFFICE BLDG.; SP11-2010 60 UNITS; SP69-2014 35 UNITS PHASE 2; WARREN CO. REFERRAL: APRIL 2019. SITE INFORMATION: CEA. LOT SIZE: 16.53 ACRES. TAX MAP NO. 288.-1-64. SECTION: 179-3-040. JON LAPPER & TOM NACE, REPRESENTING APPLICANT, PRESENT MR. TRAVER-Laura? MRS. MOORE-So this applicant proposes construction of a three story 16,530 square foot residential senior housing, 35 units. This is similar to the other projects, the other buildings on the same site. The applicant is looking, again, for height relief for this particular building which is similar to the previous request back in 2014. MR. TRAVER-I didn’t realize it was that long ago. Well good evening. MR. LAPPER-Time marches on. MR. TRAVER-It does indeed. MR. LAPPER-For the record Jon Lapper with project engineer Tom Nace and Rich Schermerhorn is here as well. This is the third and final phase of this project which has been very successful. What is proposed doesn’t change what’s there. It’s the same stormwater facilities that are there. Just putting the building in the next place that’s appropriate to put a building. We only need the variance because of, as the application stated, just the change in the grade to make it flat to add five feet of fill. So we’re asking for 4.9 foot height variance just because of the length of the building. You’re not going to find a site that’s the same height as the other buildings. MR. TRAVER-Yes, I was going to say this variance was an issue with the other phases of construction as well when they were approved. MR. LAPPER-Yes. MR. TRAVER-All right. Questions, comments from members of the Planning Board? 12 (Queensbury Planning Board 04/16/2019) MR. HUNSINGER-I had two concerns that were both site plan related and I think the applicant addressed them so I don’t really have any concerns with the variance request. MR. TRAVER-We’re certainly familiar with the site. MR. SHAFER-The variance is a height variance? MR. TRAVER-Height variance. MR. SHAFER-How does this building relate to the other two? MR. LAPPER-The building height is the same as the other buildings. It’s just that it sits up very slightly higher where it is on the site. MR. NACE-It’s a long building, John. The existing site slopes. So we have to, to accommodate the length of the building, a level site at the building footprint, we’ve got to put in fill. MR. SHAFER-It’s where you measure it. MR. NACE-Yes, you measure from the existing grade. MR. SHAFER-I noticed one of the walkways is going to be removed. Is there a place that another walkway could be built to the residence? MR. LAPPER-Well one answer is that Rich donated an easement or land to the Town for the Rush Pond walking trail. So that is actually on this property and runs adjacent to it. So that provides a nice facility for the Town and for the residents. MR. DIXON-The residents had a pathway to that trail and it looks like the pathway’s going to be gone now. It was a nice feature. MR. NACE-Yes, they have access through the road system to get to the trail. Rich is also thinking about that area between the existing building, the first building and the second building, there’s a grassy area in there. He’s thinking of making a little dog walk area in part of that, people can take their dogs out and see some grass and some place to walk. MR. SHAFER-My last question had to do with the lighting over the doors. I noticed that varied from, on the one end it was 8.3, to the front it was 4.6 and on the other end it was 2.7. Is that by design or by accident? MR. NACE-It’s just the nature of the program. Depending on where the points are and where the grid lies in relationship to the lights, you get a hot spot in between two lights. MR. SHAFER-Is that the result you want, though, for the three doors? MR. NACE-Yes, there’s adequate light. MR. SHAFER-Okay. MR. TRAVER-Anything else? MR. SHAFER-No. MR. TRAVER-All right. I guess we’re ready for a recommendation. 13 (Queensbury Planning Board 04/16/2019) RESOLUTION RE: ZBA RECOMMENDATION RE: Z-AV-18-2019 SCHERMERHORN The applicant has submitted an application for the following: Applicant proposes construction of a three story 16,530 sq. ft. (footprint) residential structure for 35 units associated with existing multi-unit residential buildings. The new building is to be constructed in the CEA area. This is Phase 3 of Westbrook and completes the phased construction. Site work including landscaping, and lighting with project. A waiver for the stormwater requirements is proposed where applicant will provide full stormwater for May meeting agenda. Pursuant to Chapter 179-3-040 of the Zoning Ordinance, commercial constructions shall be subject to Planning Board review and approval. Variance: Relief is sought for height. 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. 18-2019 SCHERMERHORN RESIDENTIAL HOLDINGS. 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. th Motion seconded by Chris Hunsinger. Duly adopted this 16 day of April, 2019 by the following vote: AYES: Mr. Shafer, Mr. Hunsinger, Mr. Dixon, Mr. Valentine, Mr. Deeb, Ms. White, Mr. Traver NOES: NONE ABSENT: Mr. Magowan MR. TRAVER-You’re off to the ZBA. MR. LAPPER-Thanks everyone. MR. TRAVER-The next item also under recommendations is Site Plan 9-2019, Leticia Martinez and HFA Architects. SITE PLAN NO. 9-2019 SEQR TYPE: UNLISTED. LETICIA MARTINEZ/HFA ARCHITECTS. AGENT(S): LETICIA MARTINEZ. OWNER(S): WALMART REAL ESTATE BUS. TRUST. ZONING: CI LOCATION: 24 QUAKER RIDGE BOULEVARD. APPLICANT PROPOSES TO INSTALL A 1,296 SQ. FT. CANOPY STRUCTURE WITH A FABRIC COVER FOR A PICKUP SERVICE FOR WALMART. PROJECT INVOLVES INTERIOR RENOVATIONS AND EXTERIOR RENOVATIONS. PROJECT INCLUDES REPLACEMENT OF EXISTING SIGNAGE AND NEW SIGNAGE. PROJECT INCLUDES SPECIFIC SIGNAGE FOR ONLINE GROCERY PICKUP INCLUDING PAVEMENT AREA SIGNAGE. PURSUANT TO CHAPTER 179-3-040 & 179-9-120 OF THE ZONING ORDINANCE, UPDATING FAÇADE, SIGNAGE, AND NEW PICKUP SERVICE AREA SHALL BE SUBJECT TO PLANNING BOARD REVIEW AND APPROVAL. VARIANCE: RELIEF IS 14 (Queensbury Planning Board 04/16/2019) SOUGHT FOR NUMBER OF SIGNS. PLANNING BOARD SHALL PROVIDE A RECOMMENDATION TO THE ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS. CROSS REFERENCE: SP 61-2007 CONSTRUCTION OF WALMART; SV 9-2017, SP 59-2017. WARREN CO. REFERRAL: APRIL 2019. LOT SIZE: 33.27 ACRES. TAX MAP NO. 303.15-1-25.1 SECTION: 179-3-040, 179-9-120 LETICIA MARTINEZ, PRESENT MR. TRAVER-Laura? MRS. MOORE-The applicant proposes a 1,296 square foot canopy structure with a fabric covering for their online grocery store pickup area. Part of this project is additional signage and so that requires a variance, and I noted the signage specifically so you understood that they’re adding two additional signs. They were approved for five signs at one point for the variance and now they have two additional. One is the vision center and the other is the pickup area with the spark. MS. WHITE-Orange? MRS. MOORE-Orange. MR. TRAVER-Good evening. MS. MARTINEZ-Good evening. My name is Leticia Martinez. I’m the applicant. So as she stated we’re trying to get a pickup canopy approved. This will just give customers the advantage of ordering their groceries on line and just going up to the canopy where their designated number is after they do it on line and they don’t even have to get out of the car, if they have kids or a busy schedule and the workers will come out and bring out the produce or whatever they ordered and then they can just leave. It is going to be 10 parking spaces for the pickup canopy. Six are going to be under the canopy and four are going to be just alone without the canopy. So that is as much information as I have for the canopy. And also we’re trying to go ahead and get two more additional signs approved on the building. It being such a large size and square footage, it won’t look overcrowded by us adding two more signs on the building. We also want to let the customers know that they have pickup and vision center as an advertisement sign. MR. TRAVER-And I see that there are a couple of the signs that you’re actually reducing in size as you update. MS. MARTINEZ-Correct. MRS. MOORE-Can I just confirm, just with this display, that you’re proposing the second option where the spark is sort of like a yellow color and the pickup is white versus a whole orange block? MS. MARTINEZ-Yes. The Walmart spark, the Walmart is supposed to be white and the spark is supposed to be yellow, and then on the pickup, the pickup is supposed to be white and the spark is supposed to be yellow. MRS. MOORE-But no orange block like it shows up on the screen? MS. MARTINEZ-No. MR. TRAVER-We went through that once already. 15 (Queensbury Planning Board 04/16/2019) MRS. MOORE-I know we did. I just want to make sure that I’m clear with what the applicant is keeping and not keeping. Great. MS. MARTINEZ-I believe the colors would remain the same. MR. TRAVER-Okay. So this evening we’re discussing the number of signs and should that be approved and you come back for Site Plan you’ll want to be sure to be able to verify those questions regarding the colors and the block and so on. Questions, comments from members of the Planning Board? MR. VALENTINE-Have you, yourself done other designs for these Walmart pickup areas? MS. MARTINEZ-Yes. MR. VALENTINE-Could you tell me where in the area? MS. MARTINEZ-I know that next week they’re going to do it at the other Walmart, but we have done them, we’re trying to do it basically nationwide. MR. VALENTINE-All right. So the one in Wilton, the one in Halfmoon, have you done those? MS. MARTINEZ-I believe there was one that we did in Halfmoon. If not it was maybe Clifton Park. MR. VALENTINE-Well it’s called Clifton Park. MS. MARTINEZ-Yes. I think that one was done last year. MR. VALENTINE-Okay. Yes, it was. I’m just, my thing is I’m looking when it comes back for Site Plan if you get approval from the ZBA, as far as looking at that to see if there were any other issues that came up at other sites that you know that you’re going to incorporate. That’s all. MS. MARTINEZ-It also varies on sites. Sometimes we don’t add the canopy. It just depends on what the client wants us to do to that Walmart. MR. VALENTINE-And I’m thinking in terms of traffic flow also. MS. MARTINEZ-Correct. Directional signage will be done to direct the traffic to make sure they get to where they’re supposed to without interfering with the rest. MR. VALENTINE-Thank you. MR. HUNSINGER-So one of the questions I had is on the cover itself. It’s fabric? MS. MARTINEZ-Correct. MR. HUNSINGER-Yes. So how well would that hold up with snow load? MS. MARTINEZ-I know that they do have numbers on all of that stuff. I believe it was provided. I did not bring it with me. MR. DIXON-Is there going to be any additional lighting under the canopy, any new lighting? MS. MARTINEZ-That I do not know. Basically the engineer that is doing the whole canopy was not able to make it to this meeting. They will be able to make it to the last meeting 16 (Queensbury Planning Board 04/16/2019) that’s going to be next week, but all that information should be provided in the documents that we made for the variance meeting. MRS. MOORE-So I know the canopy next week also has lights. So I’m assuming it does. I’m just trying to pull it up now, but I’m pretty sure there’s lights underneath the canopy itself. MR. VALENTINE-Will the canopy be used for signage? Any writing on it at all? MS. MARTINEZ-I don’t think the canopy itself carries any. I know that in front of each stall that we have we will have a number designated for what area you’re supposed to pull up into. MR. VALENTINE-But there’s no like Walmart advertising type stuff. MR. DEEB-You came in a little while ago and we were going to revise the signs and then you withdrew the application because you were going to have the pickup. MRS. MOORE-This is a different architectural firm. MR. DEEB-So she wouldn’t know about it. MRS. MOORE-She may not know. MR. DEEB-And I had a real problem increasing the number of signs from five to seven and I expressed that. So I‘m just thinking that you were approved for five. Now you’re coming in and asking for two more and I think I still have a problem with it. So I just wanted to make sure that was out there. Originally what was going to happen was you were going to have groceries, you know, pickup, but you weren’t going to have a door for the pickup right there. MS. MARTINEZ-Right. MR. DEEB-This time around is the door going to be right there? MS. MARTINEZ-No. So the pickup is going to be on the side of where the pickup area is going to be located. MR. DEEB-There’ll be another entrance to the building? MS. MARTINEZ-No. So we typically just have the two doors. The purpose of the whole online grocery pickup is for the customers not to get out of their car. MR. DEEB-I see. So they can just park there. No matter where you bring the groceries out, you just go to their car. MS. MARTINEZ-Correct. So we’re going to have those areas designated. So if you order online and it’s Number Three, you’ll pull up into Number Three. You’ll call a number and the worker brings out those groceries to you and then you go home. MR. HUNSINGER-Just like in the commercial, back to the future. MS. WHITE-Exactly, those fun cars. MR. DEEB-So, but you want to add another vision sign, is that what it is? You want to add another sign on the building? 17 (Queensbury Planning Board 04/16/2019) MS. MARTINEZ-Yes. MR. TRAVER-On the pickup there’s a new sign. MS. MARTINEZ-The vision center should be, it’s an advertisement to let customers know that they can go get their eyes checked inside that Walmart, and not all Walmart’s have a vision center or other tenants providing. MR. DEEB-Thank you. MR. TRAVER-But it is another sign. MR. DEEB-It is another sign. MR. TRAVER-And that’s what the application is here seeking our recommendation for is number of signs. MR. DEEB-But you are reducing the other sign. MR. TRAVER-Size wise. MS. MARTINEZ-Correct. We are going down on some signs to add a little bit. So currently on the building there is a 351.63 square feet and we’re going up to 372.12. It’s a 20.49 square feet difference. MR. TRAVER-Other questions, comments regarding the variance? Okay. We’re ready for a motion. RESOLUTION RE: ZBA RECOMMENDATION RE: Z-SV-3-2019 LETICIA MARTINEZ The applicant has submitted an application for the following: Applicant proposes to install a 1,296 sq. ft. canopy structure with a fabric cover for a pickup service for Walmart. Project involves interior renovations and exterior renovations. Project includes replacement of existing signage and new signage. Project includes specific signage for Online Grocery Pickup including pavement area signage. Pursuant to Chapter 179-3-040 & 179-9-120 of the Zoning Ordinance, updating façade, signage and new pickup service area shall be subject to Planning Board review and approval. Variance: Relief is sought for number of signs. 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 SIGN VARIANCE NO. 3-2019 LETICIA MARTINEZ/WALMART. 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. 18 (Queensbury Planning Board 04/16/2019) th Motion seconded by Chris Hunsinger. Duly adopted this 16 day of April, 2019 by the following vote: MS. WHITE-I have 9-2019, not 3. Or did I hear you wrong? I heard you read 3-2019. MR. DEEB-That’s what mine says. MR. TRAVER-That’s what the motion says. The agenda says 9-2019. Laura can you verify whether it’s 3 or 9? It’s got to be 9, right? MRS. MOORE-So, no, it’s referencing the Sign Variance itself, the Sign Variance number versus the Site Plan number. MR. TRAVER-So is this motion correct? MRS. MOORE-The motion’s correct. MR. TRAVER-Okay. AYES: Ms. White, Mr. Shafer, Mr. Hunsinger, Mr. Dixon, Mr. Valentine, Mr. Traver NOES: Mr. Deeb ABSENT: Mr. Magowan MR. TRAVER-You’re off to the ZBA. MS. MARTINEZ-Thank you. MR. TRAVER-The next section of our agenda is under New Business. And the first item under New Business is JAG Sheet Labels Incorporated, application Site Plan 14-2019. NEW BUSINESS: SITE PLAN NO. 14-2019 SEQR TYPE: TYPE II. JAG/SHEET LABELS, INC. OWNER(S): NATIVE DEVELOPMENT ASSOC., LLC ZONING: CLI. LOCATION: 24 NATIVE TEXTILES DRIVE. APPLICANT PROPOSES TO PREPARE 27,738 SQ. FT. OF BUILDING FOR OFFICE, WAREHOUSE AND LIGHT MANUFACTURING THAT IS ONLY A PORTION OF THE EXISTING WAREHOUSE OF 116,940 SQ. FT. THE PROJECT INCLUDES CREATING ADDITIONAL PARKING, AN UPGRADE TO THE FIRE ROAD, AND NEW CONSTRUCTION FOR TRUCK ACCESS. THE APPLICANT HAS INCLUDED A NEW ENTRY AREA WITH CANOPY AND WINDOWS ALONG WITH LANDSCAPING. PURSUANT TO CHAPTER 179-3-040 OF THE ZONING ORDINANCE, NEW INDUSTRIAL TENANT WITH EXTERIOR BUILDING SITE WORK SHALL BE SUBJECT TO PLANNING BOARD REVIEW AND APPROVAL. CROSS REFERENCE: SP 47-97, SP 22-94, BP 22-94, BP 98-161, 94-454, SP 32-2013, SP 69-2017. WARREN CO. REFERRAL: APRIL 2019. LOT SIZE: 33.37 ACRES. TAX MAP NO. 308.20-1-9.2. SECTION: 179-3-040 ED ESPOSITO & TIM BARBER, REPRESENTING APPLICANT, PRESENT MR. TRAVER-Laura? MRS. MOORE-So this applicant proposes to utilize a portion of an existing warehouse structure. They’re going to use 27,738. This will be for office area, warehouse and light manufacturing. The project includes additional parking for the new tenant, upgrade to the fire road and new construction for the truck loading docks, and there’s to be two of them, 19 (Queensbury Planning Board 04/16/2019) and there’s also supposed to be, as part of this construction, two future docks, or two future doors and two future docks. So that is also part of this project. MR. TRAVER-Okay. Thank you. Good evening. MR. BARBER-Good evening. Tim Barber with JAG. STEVE SPRINGER MR. SPRINGER-I’m Steve Springer, one of the owners. MR. ESPOSITO-Ed Esposito with Monarch. In the absence of any plans, it is true we have an existing site. Native Development Associates is proud to get back on the tax rolls. It’s been an existing site with an existing fire ring road. There are two simple areas of development. Get the new tenant in, provide parking with an asphalt overlay onto the existing fire lane and as Laura mentioned to do some docks at the rear side of the property. That’s pretty much it. We do have a response. We do have a letter from Chazen Engineering. They had asked for more drainage analysis than we originally provided. We just received the comments, but we’re proud to respond with hydro cad assessment as they requested. Our original plan for the drainage, we looked at it three different ways. With the rationale formula that is allowed in our Code we do have an itemized response to the Chazen letter. It appears that they were asking for more than the rationale. We have in the past provided 1.5 gallons per square foot of impervious for disturbed area, which skewed the number higher. Tim had elected to do three drywells in response to the two drywells that were required. We also did look at water quality volume. We’re very much aware of the filtering devices it takes. We’re adding two simple docks so we didn’t feel we needed to go in with a hydro cad. Today we can leave Laura with the plans. It does not change the plan one iota. The hydro cad assessment basically says that no improvements are made for the impervious because we have all our test pits. Tim was out there six in the morning on Thursday digging an 18 foot hole. It’s all, the best sand we’ve ever seen. MR. HUNSINGER-I was going to say it’s all sand. MR. ESPOSITO-It’s Oakville loamy, sandy fine. So we all know this to be true. The hydro cad said we need one drywell. Tim, you know, he likes to do things right. When we came in in our early analysis and said, gee, all you need is one, maybe two. He wanted to do three. So we’re here before you tonight to get perhaps a conditional approval if not approval. We know we can respond with a very thick package of information. I’d be glad to read into the minutes our response to Chazen Engineering who had asked for, we did one test pit and two percs and they want four test pits of the same data, you know, and so forth. So we’re kind of on the ropes where we do have a tenant that would pack their bags and are literally trying to move into this facility. We do have a working building permit already contingent on the approval, and we need to move through the process and we can appease all of Chazen’s comments. There is one, there was one, the first comment was that we were more than an acre of disturbance and we’ve recomputed and actually we were pulling New York State law, we know we were falling into the Town Code, but there is one clear item that is within New York State law that says pertains to construction activities. We’re simply re-surfacing the existing fire lane. It does not require permit coverage for the SWPPP. So we are approximately two tenths or more below the one acre at this point. We just need to re- submit everything, but I can confidently tell you all we really need at the end of the day is one drywell and Tim is still electing to do all three. We know we’re safe. We’ve addressed every instance of your concern and you’ve received that letter. I’d be happy to go over an itemized response with you, if it adds to any comfort level. MR. TRAVER-Well by default we require a signoff by the Town Engineer, and generally if you can represent to us that you feel confident you can respond to any concerns that were 20 (Queensbury Planning Board 04/16/2019) raised by Chazen and achieve that signoff, that basically satisfies us. That is a requirement. MR. ESPOSITO-Yes. MR. BARBER-Could we read our response into the record? MR. TRAVER-Sure, absolutely. MR. ESPOSITO-Their first comment was. MR. TRAVER-About the SWPPP. MR. ESPOSITO-Right. MR. HUNSINGER-Well how long is that? MR. ESPOSITO-It is, it’s as long as their letter. It’s three pages. MR. BARBER-You have the whole, do you guys have the letter? MR. TRAVER-Yes. MR. ESPOSITO-I could read our responses pretty quick. Okay. Our response to Number One, the proposed level of total disturbance is .72 acres. Therefore the project will not need to prepare a SWPPP in accordance with GP-0-15-002. The construction of the proposed truck access at the northwestern portion of the structure will admittedly disturb .54 acres. The construction of the 36 car parking area at the northeastern portion of the structure will disturb .18 acres of land and paving over the existing .14 acres of existing gravel fire road. Per New York State DEC Frequently Asked Questions About Permit Requirements of the SPDES General Permit (GP-02-01) for Stormwater Discharges from Construction Activities Version 3.0 of September 12, 2006, quote, Item 40A paving over an existing subbase material of processed crushed stone will not require a permit coverage. So we’ve had this pre-existing, you know, fire lane and all we’re merely requesting is to pave that fire lane and then add the phalange parking required to satisfy the tenant. So that sets us on the correct path. Measures for stormwater drainage, on Item Two, pursuant to Chapter 179-6-080 is referenced under Section 179-6-060 when there is excavation of 100 cubic yards or more on sites having a slope of 15% or more. It is not clear how this pertains to our site. Per Section 179-6-080(A) of the Town Code the SWPPP will need to be consistent with the requirements of the Town Code Chapter 147-8(B)(1) for SEC, for Sediment and Erosion Control. The plans now provide the background information and erosion and sediment controls as outlined in Chapter 147-8(B)(1)(a)-(p). Per Section 179-6- 080(B) the applicant will appease this request. The drainage areas and runoff analysis are provided using HydroCAD 10.000 and the 50-year storm analysis requested is included with this submission. Item Response Three, Response: Included with this submission is Stormwater Analysis using HydroCAD that uses SCS/NRCS Unit Hydrograph procedure (aka TR-20) as Sean requested, and they do get shorter because the bulk of it was addressed. Item Four Response: Per Queensbury Town Code Section 147 Attachment 2 – Schedule B Part 1 (1) for small watershed areas (up to 20 acres), the Rational Method may be used. This was for our original assessment and it still holds. The applicant will appease the request and included with this submission is the Stormwater Analysis using HydroCAD that uses SCS/NRCS Unit Hydrograph procedures per his request. Item Five, Response: All NYSDEC defined disturbances are now shown within the bounds of the limit of disturbances. Item Six Response: Included in this submission is a Pre-Development Plan showing the existing conditions and a Post-Development Plan showing the proposed conditions. Item Seven Response: The existing conditions plan was created using previously approved site plans, 21 (Queensbury Planning Board 04/16/2019) aerial photography, and site verification. Item Eight Response: Included with this submission is a Stormwater Analysis that provides the capacity calculation of the existing system in the pre- and post- conditions. Item Nine Response: This project disturbs less than one acre, therefore, does not require a New York State DEC SPDES Permit that requires to conform to the New York State DEC Stormwater Management Design Manual (SMDM). The National Resource Conservation Service Soil Survey maps this area Oakville loamy fine sand. Test pits were done to 18 foot to confirm soil conditions. Perc tests were done at 8 feet below grade, Tim was in the hole, near the elevation of the bottom of the dry wells. The applicant has re-tested new deep test pits four (4) total at the locations of the (3) dry wells. Item Ten Response: Included in this submission is a pre-Development Plan showing the existing sub-catchments and a Post-Development Plan showing the proposed sub- catchments. Item Eleven Response: An Erosion and Sediment Control Plan has been provided as Sheet SEC-1. Item Twelve Response: Water Quality Volume calculations were performed and the elevation of the drywells were raised 0.35 feet, four inches, above the ground to allow for any pollutants to be trapped prior to entering the drywells. The drywell’s function is to prevent flooding of the area during freeze/thaw periods during the year. Item Thirteen Response: Applicant is the owner and will provide a Post-Construction Maintenance Agreement. We printed that out and respectfully submit that. So those were Sean’s 13 comments itemized. We are confident. MR. HUNSINGER-Yes, a lot of them are just clarifications. MR. ESPOSITO-Yes. He’s asking the question with good reason. We came in with a more heightened software than our formula, but ironically the 50 rational assessment, the 1.5 gallons, the Warren County standard for the Lake George region was far less to be determined and so the question is do we sneak by with the one drywell per our big thick report or we just wanted to move on, but in all confidence we want to do the right thing. We never try to cut anything. WE just thought we were under an acre. So that’s it. MR. TRAVER-Well, as long as you’re able to work that out with the engineer. I had a question. Can you clarify the signage? Are you planning on any building signs, freestanding signs? MR. BARBER-Yes, there’s going to be building signs for the tenants and we figured we’d let them handle that with the sign permit application as its own entity. MR. TRAVER-What about a freestanding sign? MR. BARBER-There is an existing freestanding sign on the site. It’s right here. There’s an existing freestanding sign right there on the corner of the property. The two posts are still there. We’re going to again come in for a sign application, put a nice sign out there identifying the park and the tenants, but it’ll fall within the. MR. TRAVER-It’ll be Code compliant. MR. BARBER-Yes. MS. WHITE-My next question was is this an expansion for Sheet Labels? MR. BARBER-Yes. We’ve got 40, 45 new jobs in Town. We just signed on Angio Dynamics for another 40,000 square feet. That’ll be forthcoming. So it’s active out there. It’s nice to see. So the existing parking is always vacant. It’s a sea of parking. So Angio will fill the front, but the tenant in the back would be just what we’re proposing. There’s no more development anticipated on the property. 22 (Queensbury Planning Board 04/16/2019) MR. SHAFER-Was the wastewater system therefore designed for full occupancy and you will not exceed that? MR. BARBER-Yes. The wastewater system was designed for a shift of 76 people per shift three times a day, 3600 gallons per day of volume. So it’s huge, and now, we actually have sewer back here. So when Steve and I can rub a few more nickels together we’re going to hook up to the sewer system. MR. SPRINGER-Yes, the nickels don’t go very far. MR. TRAVER-They don’t indeed. MR. SPRINGER-We’re excited about the prospect of the property, though, and we’ve had excellent response to the space that we have. It’s really nice space and we have some really quality tenants there. So we’re excited about that, and as we go forward and we have additional land at some point we’d like to make some other people happy with some additional space as we get to the point where we see some interest. MR. TRAVER-Sure. MR. SPRINGER-But we have, it was kind of surprising, it took us a year to kind of get through all the buildings, to get the roofs and that sort of thing under control because they’ve been empty for a long time. Ten years is a long time to leave a building, but the building, it was a great building when it was built and BBL was the construction manager. They did a great job managing it. So everything’s back on line and we’re excited about the prospects, and our tenants are happy, and as I say the guys at Sheet Labels, there’s 30. They’re excited. MR. BARBER-They’re going to be there a while. They’re long term leases. MR. SPRINGER-Yes. They’re spending a lot of money on their fit up. MR. VALENTINE-Can I ask you guys just a basic question? In the very, very beginning I should have asked it. Steve, I know you from 20 years ago at the IDA we had a project down in Clifton Park, and I know you weren’t here the last time the presentation was made. Who are the owners? MR. BARBER-We’re partners. MR. VALENTINE-Okay, the both of you guys. MR. SPRINGER-And then Dick and Nicholas Taylor are the other two partners. MR. VALENTINE-Okay. That’s all I needed to know. MR. TRAVER-We do have a public hearing on this application as well. Is there anyone in the audience that wanted to address the Planning Board on this application? I’m not seeing anyone. Laura, are there any written comments? PUBLIC HEARING OPENED MRS. MOORE-There’s no written comments. MR. TRAVER-Okay. So we’ll close the public hearing. PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED 23 (Queensbury Planning Board 04/16/2019) MR. TRAVER-This is a Type II SEQR under the new guidelines. MRS. MOORE-You don’t need to do SEQR. Can I just add a couple of things that I have? In the resolution it talks about waivers being requested. No waiver is requested. So that can be removed, and then my question to the applicant, is the space now filled or do you still have tenant space available? No, there’s, there will be some more tenant space available, roughly, 20,000 square feet and that’ll be served from the other side where Angio Dynamics currently is. MRS. MOORE-Okay. MR. TRAVER-Any other questions, comments? MR. DIXON-Can I just get some clarification? It’s not going to change my opinion on anything, but when you’re talking about the fire road. It’s on the west side of the property? MR. BARBER-Yes. The fire road goes. MR. DIXON-And the whole fire road’s going to be paved? MR. BARBER-No. We’re going to start pavement right here and we’re going to pave just to this limit right here. MR. DIXON-Okay, and where are the gravel parking spaces you had mentioned? MR. BARBER-Gravel parking spots are right here. MR. DIXON-Okay. MR. BARBER-Yes. MR. DIXON-Thank you. MR. BARBER-You’re welcome. MR. TRAVER-Any other questions, comments? MS. WHITE-I’m just thrilled because I started with Sheet Labels in my previous life. This is very good. MR. SPRINGER-We dragged them out of Glens Falls. MR. TRAVER-Very cool. All right. I guess we’re ready to entertain a motion, then. MR. DEEB-Laura, engineering signoff. I was looking for it in here. MR. TRAVER-It should be in the resolution. MR. DEEB-Letter G? MRS. MOORE-Letter D, if application was referred to the engineer, an engineering signoff is required prior to signature. So it’s Letter D. RESOLUTION APPROVING SP # 14-2019 JAG/SHEET LABELS, INC. 24 (Queensbury Planning Board 04/16/2019) The applicant has submitted an application to the Planning Board: Applicant proposes to prepare 27,738 sq. ft. of building for office, warehouse and light manufacturing that is only a portion of the existing warehouse of 116,940 sq. ft. The project includes creating additional parking, an upgrade to the fire road, and new construction for truck loading docks (2). The applicant has included a new entry area with canopy and windows along with landscaping. Pursuant to Chapter 179-3-040 of the Zoning Ordinance, new industrial tenant with exterior building 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; The Planning Board opened a public hearing on the Site plan application on 04/16/2019 and continued the public hearing to 04/16/2019, 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 04/16/2019; 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 14-2019 JAG/SHEET LABELS INC.; Introduced by David Deeb who moved for its adoption. According to the draft resolution prepared by Staff with the following: 1) No waivers were requested. 2. Adherence to the items outlined in the follow-up letter sent with this resolution. a) The limits of clearing will constitute a no-cut buffer zone, orange construction fencing shall be installed around these areas and field verified by Community Development staff; b) If applicable, the Sanitary Sewer connection plan must be submitted to the Wastewater Department for its review, approval, permitting and inspection; c) If curb cuts are being added or changed a driveway permit is required. A building permit will not be issued until the approved driveway permit has been provided to the Planning Office; d) If application was referred to engineering then Engineering sign-off required prior to signature of Zoning Administrator of the approved plans; e) Final approved plans should have dimensions and setbacks noted on the site plan/survey, floor plans and elevation for the existing rooms and proposed rooms in the building and site improvements; f) If required, the applicant must submit a copy of the following to the Town: a. The project NOI (Notice of Intent) for coverage under the current "NYSDEC SPDES General Permit from Construction Activity" prior to the start of any site work. b. The project NOT (Notice of Termination) upon completion of the project; c. The applicant must maintain on their project site, for review by staff: i. The approved final plans that have been stamped by the Town Zoning Administrator. These plans must include the project SWPPP (Storm Water Pollution Prevention Plan) when such a plan was prepared and approved; ii. The project NOI and proof of coverage under the current NYSDEC SPDES General Permit, or an individual SPDES permit issued for the project if required. 25 (Queensbury Planning Board 04/16/2019) g) Final approved plans, in compliance with the Site Plan, must be submitted to the Community Development Department before any further review by the Zoning Administrator or Building and Codes personnel; h) The applicant must meet with Staff after approval and prior to issuance of Building Permit and/or the beginning of any site work; i) Subsequent issuance of further permits, including building permits is dependent on compliance with this and all other conditions of this resolution; j) As-built plans to certify that the site plan is developed according to the approved plans to be provided prior to issuance of the certificate of occupancy. k) This resolution is to be placed in its entirety on the final plans l) Signage to be Code compliant. th Motion seconded by Chris Hunsinger. Duly adopted this 16 day of April, 2019 by the following vote: AYES: Mr. Deeb, Ms. White, Mr. Shafer, Mr. Hunsinger, Mr. Dixon, Mr. Valentine, Mr. Traver NOES: NONE ABSENT: Mr. Magowan MR. TRAVER-Good luck. MR. BARBER-Thank you, Board. MR. TRAVER-All right. The next item on our agenda under unapproved development is Site Plan 25-2019 Giovanone Real Estate Partners. SITE PLAN NO. 25-2019 SEQR TYPE: UNLISTED. GIOVANONE REAL ESTATE PARTNERS. AGENT(S): NACE ENGINEERING, PC. OWNER(S): SAME AS APPLICANT. ZONING: CLI. LOCATION: BIG BOOM ROAD. APPLICANT PROPOSES TO MAINTAIN AN INSTALLED 535 FT. OF SIX FOOT HIGH CHAIN LINK FENCE ON THE FRONT (EAST) AND SIDE (NORTH) ADJOINING THE EXISTING FENCE. PROJECT STILL MAINTAINS TEMPORARY STORAGE FOR UPS HOLIDAY DELIVERY TRAILER AND FOR PROPERTY OWNERS – POOL HOLDING AREA FOR CUSTOMERS. PROJECT INCLUDES 8,246 SQ. FT. OF NEW GRAVEL TO AN EXISTING 21,487 SQ. FT. OF GRAVEL AREA. PURSUANT TO CHAPTER 179-3-040 OF THE ZONING ORDINANCE, MODIFICATION TO EXISTING SITE PLAN SHALL BE SUBJECT TO PLANNING BOARD REVIEW AND APPROVAL. CROSS REFERENCE: SUB 3-2003; SP 63-2017. WARREN CO. REFERRAL: APRIL 2019. LOT SIZE: 1.84 ACRES. TAX MAP NO. 309.17-1-23.23. SECTION: 179- 3-040, 179-9-120. TOM NACE, REPRESENTING APPLICANT, PRESENT; MIKE GIOVANONE, PRESENT MRS. MOORE-So the applicant has installed a 535 feet in length six foot high chain link fence. This is from the front and to the east side and also on the north side adjoining the existing fence. The project includes maintaining 8,246 square feet of new gravel to the existing 21,487 square feet of gravel. The project still maintains temporary storage for UPS Holiday delivery trailer and for the property owners. MR. TRAVER-Good evening. MR. NACE-Good evening. For the record, Tom Nace, Nace Engineering, and Mike Giovanone owner of Concord Pools. I don’t know what there is to add. We were here back in 2017 in November to get approval for UPS to use, as a temporary loading facility, to use part of 26 (Queensbury Planning Board 04/16/2019) Mike’s land. At that time there was a fence along the south portion of that property and a fence along the western portion that separates the UPS area from the storage project. This past year Mike asked a question of several people whether or not a permit was needed for a fence. He got the answer no, it wasn’t needed at all. Nobody realized that it was required to have Site Plan approval for a fence on an industrial commercial site. So therefore Mike went ahead and put the fence up. We’re here asking for permission to do what’s already done. MR. TRAVER-Okay, and also the gravel area expansion. MR. NACE-The gravel area expansion was primarily to allow the use of the second entrance out onto the road, onto Big Boom Road. MR. TRAVER-Okay. All right, and there are no other site changes, or no further site changes proposed, no lighting or signage? MR. NACE-No. MR. TRAVER-So it’s just the fence and the expansion of the gravel area. MR. NACE-That’s correct. MR. TRAVER-Okay. Questions, comments from members of the Planning Board? MR. DEEB-I guess, Tom, explain, the plans show new gravel area into Big Boom Road. The Board requests clarification. You just gave us that. MR. TRAVER-Yes. MS. WHITE-So when you stated you asked a lot of people and got the answer no, but not anybody at the Town. You didn’t address any of those questions to the Town? MR. GIOVANONE-I called Kyle at AFSCO fence who we’ve dealt with for four years and I explained to him what we were going to do. WE met with the National Grid supervisor to make sure we were far back from where we could because they have a pole there. So we went around the pole, and I had AFSCO fence they said we’ve done hundreds and hundreds of commercial fence here and you do not need a permit and I said okay I just wanted to make sure. I wasn’t trying to skirt. MS. WHITE-Yes, I was just curious how you, you know, arrived at the no. MR. GIOVANONE-There were two sides already fenced, but last year, this is a holding area for these fiber glass pools, and we had some mischief with the pools that were set there and we’re just trying to keep them safe. They’re very expensive. That’s all. No lighting, no power, no water, no nothing. MS. WHITE-Okay. MR. TRAVER-We do have a public hearing on this application. Is there anyone here that wants to address the Planning Board? I’m not seeing anyone. Any written comments, Laura? PUBLIC HEARING OPENED MRS. MOORE-There were no written comments. MR. TRAVER-Okay. Any other questions, comments from members of the Board? 27 (Queensbury Planning Board 04/16/2019) MR. SHAFER-Just one question. It looks like from the plan there will be three driveways accessing the road? Or is the asphalt drive no longer going to be used by you guys? MR. GIOVANONE-The driveway that comes in to the storage facility? MR. SHAFER-It just says asphalt driveway on the plan. MR. GIOVANONE-That’s the entrance into the Boat and RV storage facility, yes, sir. MRS. MOORE-There’s a gate listed on that fence link. So if you look up here I’ve tried to draw it. MR. GIOVANONE-That road is blocked. MRS. MOORE-There’s no gate on that end? MR. GIOVANONE-No, ma’am. MRS. MOORE-Okay. MR. SHAFER-It looks like the gate serves the storage buildings in the back? MRS. MOORE-No, there’s no gate there. I think it’s just a notation that it might be removed. MR. TRAVER-So they should submit as built plans. MR. GIOVANONE-The shared entrance, this entrance here, that’s not paved. MRS. MOORE-This says gate here. MR. GIOVANONE-There’s a gate here, a gate here and a gate here, but that’s all gravel. The paved entranceway is a common entrance for the building and the storage. MRS. MOORE-Okay. Do you need all three gates? MR. NACE-There are only two gates onto public property, onto the road. MRS. MOORE-Okay. MR. NACE-The third gate is into the driveway. MRS. MOORE-And that’s what Mr. Shafer’s asking. MR. SHAFER-My question is are you using that asphalt driveway now? MR. GIOVANONE-It’s the main entrance to the building, yes. MR. SHAFER-Will you continue to use it if approved here tonight? MR. GIOVANONE-Yes, sir. It’s the only way in. MR. SHAFER-So then that’s three access points to Big Boom Road. MR. NACE-Correct. 28 (Queensbury Planning Board 04/16/2019) MS. WHITE-I thought you said one was internal? MRS. MOORE-It is internal. So if you look at the asphalt driveway, he has a gate there. That gate allows them to access the actual driveway onto Big Boom. He has a second gate that’s existing that’s closest to Big Boom that’s not, it’s a lighter shading, and then further down there’s a gate. So that’s, this gate is the newest gate that I, so there’s two direct access to Big Boom Road and one access from the asphalt driveway. MR. GIOVANONE-It’s important to know that the two gates that are on Big Boom Road literally will be used three or four times a month. It’s just to bring the delivery truck in, unload it out and then they’re closed. The other gate is so we don’t have to go out onto the road with anything. MS. WHITE-That’s how I understood it. Okay. MR. TRAVER-So, Laura, are these plans sufficient or do you need them updated? MRS. MOORE-No, they’re sufficient. MR. TRAVER-Okay. Any other questions or comments? This is an Unlisted SEQR. MS. GAGLIARDI-Excuse me, Mr. Chairman, did you close the public hearing? MR. TRAVER-Yes, I did. I even have a check mark to prove it on my agenda. I’m trying to get better. PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED MR. TRAVER-All right. Does anyone have any environmental concerns that would impact on the SEQR? Okay. I guess we’re ready for that motion. RESOLUTION GRANTING A NEGATIVE SEQR DEC. SP # 25-2019 GIOVANONE The applicant proposes to maintain an installed 535 ft. of six foot high chain link fence on the front (east) and side (north) adjoining the existing fence. Project includes maintaining 8,246 sq. ft. of new gravel to an existing 21,487 sq. ft. of gravel area. Project still maintains temporary storage for UPS Holiday delivery trailer and for property owners – pool holding area for customers. Pursuant to Chapter 179-3-040 of the Zoning Ordinance, modification to existing site plan 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; 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. 29 (Queensbury Planning Board 04/16/2019) MOTION TO GRANT A NEGATIVE DECLARATION FOR SITE PLAN 25-2019 GIOVANONE REAL ESTATE PARTNERS. 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. th Motion seconded by Michael Valentine. Duly adopted this 16 day of April, 2019 by the following vote: AYES: Ms. White, Mr. Shafer, Mr. Hunsinger, Mr. Dixon, Mr. Valentine, Mr. Deeb, Mr. Traver NOES: NONE ABSENT: Mr. Magowan MR. TRAVER-And next we move on to the Site Plan resolution itself. We’re ready for that. RESOLUTION APPROVING SP # 25-2019 GIOVANONE REAL ESTATE PARTNERS 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 to maintain an installed 535 ft. of six foot high chain link fence on the front (east) and side (north) adjoining the existing fence. Project includes maintaining 8,246 sq. ft. of new gravel to an existing 21,487 sq. ft. of gravel area. Project still maintains temporary storage for UPS Holiday delivery trailer and for property owners – pool holding area for customers. Pursuant to Chapter 179-3-040 of the Zoning Ordinance, modification to existing site plan 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 04/16/2019 and continued the public hearing to 04/16/2019, 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 04/16/2019; The Planning Board determines that the application complies with the review considerations and standards set forth in Article 9 of the Zoning Ordinance for Site Plan approval, 30 (Queensbury Planning Board 04/16/2019) MOTION TO APPROVE SITE PLAN 25-2019 GIOVANONE REAL ESTATE PARTNERS. Introduced by David Deeb who moved for its adoption. Per the draft provided by staff conditioned upon the following conditions: 1) Waivers request granted: 2) Adherence to the items outlined in the follow-up letter sent with this resolution th Motion seconded by John Shafer. Duly adopted this 16 day of April, 2019 by the following vote: AYES: Mr. Deeb, Ms. White, Mr. Shafer, Mr. Hunsinger, Mr. Dixon, Mr. Valentine, Mr. Traver NOES: NONE ABSENT: Mr. Magowan MR. NACE-Thank you. MR. TRAVER-You’re all set. All right, and next under unapproved development we have Brian Connolly, Site Plan 24-2019. SITE PLAN NO. 24-2019 SEQR TYPE: UNLISTED. BRIAN CONNOLLY. AGENT(S): HUTCHINS ENGINEERING. OWNER(S): SAME AS APPLICANT. ZONING: WR. LOCATION: 135 EAGAN ROAD. APPLICANT REQUESTS APPROVAL OF AN EXISTING CLEARING WITHIN 50 FT. OF THE SHORELINE. THE CLEARING OF APPROXIMATELY 9,260 SQ. FT. INCLUDED BRUSH AND SMALL TREES. APPLICANT STABILIZED THE AREA WITH MULCH AND STRAW, NO FURTHER DISTURBANCE IS PROPOSED. PURSUANT TO CHAPTER 179-6-050 OF THE ZONING ORDINANCE, CLEARING WITHIN 50 FT. OF SHORELINE SHALL BE SUBJECT TO PLANNING BOARD REVIEW AND APPROVAL. CROSS REFERENCE: AV 108-1996, 96680-5402 SF HOME; WARREN CO. REFERRAL: N/A. SITE INFORMATION: HUDSON RIVER. TAX MAP NO. 315.8-1-7. SECTION: 179-6-050. TOM HUTCHINS, REPRESENTING APPLICANT, PRESENT MR. TRAVER-Laura? MRS. MOORE-Well the applicant requests to maintain existing clearing within 50 feet of the shoreline. The disturbance area is approximately 9,260, including brush and small tree within 50 feet of the shoreline. The applicant has already stabilized and re-seeded with mulch. No further disturbance is proposed. The Code Compliance Officer met the applicant on site and gave him guidance that he needed to stop work and the applicant and Code Compliance Officer agreed that it needed to be stabilized so that’s why the seeding and mulch went down, and then further review would be needed for site plan. MR. TRAVER-Okay. Thank you. Good evening. MR. HUTCHINS-Good evening, Board. I’m Tom Hutchins, and I do business as Hutchins Engineering. I’m here on behalf of owners Brian and Dawn Connolly who actually reside in Florida half of the year and they’re unable to be with us. This site is, well beyond the end of the public portion of Eagan Road across the private right of way down a very steep slope where very few people venture frankly, until a few years ago I wasn’t even aware that it was there, but it’s a really neat spot and it’s seldom traveled and there’s a group of a few people. 31 (Queensbury Planning Board 04/16/2019) Now I’ve done work for a number of them. So I know the area reasonably well. The Connolly’s I didn’t know before they contacted me. They are relatively newer owners and they just wanted to make some improvements between their house and the shoreline, basically in their front yard. It was not a level surface. It was rooted, it was somewhat spongy, and they hired a contractor that brought in some fill material and topsoil and then they had a meeting with the Code Compliance Officer and were advised to stop and they were essentially done with their project. Bruce advised them to stabilize the site which they did. Bruce has been back and I’ve discussed it with him and he’s satisfied that the site is stable, but by rights they should have come to see this Board before they did that action. I truly believe there was no intent. They just didn’t know, and I hope you took a chance to read their cover letter that they put with the application because they kind of put their spin on it, and with that I’ll turn it over to the Board. I have talked with a number of the neighbors I’d add and I haven’t found a neighbor yet that wasn’t quite supportive and had no issues with anything that they had done down there. MR. TRAVER-Okay. Questions from members of the Planning Board? MR. DIXON-So down by the river now there’s no buffer at all? All the brush was removed? MR. HUTCHINS-Yes, it was open, and right now it looks, I looked at it today. In the fall there was some distance between the sediment control fence and the water. Obviously the river’s high right now and correct there’s no buffer today. MR. DIXON-Are they looking to do any kind of additional plantings, at the very least a portion of it? MR. HUTCHINS-We’re willing to discuss that, yes. I’ve advised them that that may be something the Board would like to see. I think ideally they would like it to be where it is and establish, they don’t intend it to be manicured lawn. It’s a field of grass type situation. They cut a fair amount of brush. It was open before. You can see this is, can you scroll down, the next picture up. There you can see this was cleared before they started. Over in here there was brush on the east side and there was some brush over here on the west side. My tree line’s reasonably accurate where they extended the brush line. They didn’t cut any big trees. It was all small. That’s after the cutting. You can see there was brush here from, comparing it to that photo before, and then this surface they’ve left some fill m material in. MR. TRAVER-The river’s on the right in that picture? MR. HUTCHINS-No, the river’s behind you. You’re looking away from the river. MR. TRAVER-Okay. All right. MR. HUTCHINS-That’s standing at the front of the house looking toward the river. MR. SHAFER-When they brought in the topsoil, Tom, it doesn’t look like they changed the grade of the lawn very much. MR. HUTCHINS-There’s some. MR. SHAFER-A couple of feet? MR. HUTCHINS-I think that would be the upper end, one to two feet. I mean if you’re looking for fill you can see it, particularly now because there’s nothing growing. It’s just, it is starting to grow. 32 (Queensbury Planning Board 04/16/2019) MR. VALENTINE-Is the bottom one there a current picture? MR. HUTCHINS-This was last fall. MR. VALENTINE-That’s what I thought. Okay. Is that hay cover on that, is that what it is? MR. HUTCHINS-It’s straw. MR. VALENTINE-Okay. MR. HUTCHINS-And today it looks like this. I have one of each of these. This is sort of those two views. MR. TRAVER-In the meantime we do have a public hearing on this application as well. Is there anyone, sir, did you want to comment on this application? PUBLIC HEARING OPENED DAVID BOGUE MR. BOGUE-Yes, if I may. Good evening. My name is David Bogue and I am a neighbor of the Connolly’s. I own one door over, 145 Eagan and also 79 Eagan and 74 Eagan. Actually in June I will have been in this particular stretch of the river for 70 years. So I have seen the evolution of this section of the river. There are several of us neighbors who are doing some work down there. I just happened to move a house. I was before this Board last year seeking permission for Site Plan approval. So I’m actually building a new house right next to them. The Connolly’s are new in Town and I’ve gotten to know them quite well over the last year, but I can tell you if they had spoken to me before they undertook this project I probably would have advised them to do it a little bit differently, but as Tom was saying, I actually referred them to Tom because Tom helped me do the engineering on my property, and he did a superb job. Had they known the process I’m sure they would have followed it to the letter, but I can assure you in talking, I can’t speak for the neighbors but I have spoken to them and I’m speaking on behalf as one who owns three of the properties in that stretch. They’ve done a beautiful job with it, and actually improved the property. That particular segment of lawn was basically under disrepair for many years. It was just neglected. So a lot of the brush and stuff was just natural growth that just sort of encroached on the lawn. The other difficulty they had was because of the way the water flows off of the hill because we’re at the bottom of a very steep embankment and I have this on my properties as well, you end up with swamp land. You walk through it all the way down to the river and you’re ankle deep in water, sod and muck and everything. So they just wanted to elevate it a little bit so they had some dry terrain to be able to walk on and they did it the right way. I was finally able to get down to the river in the last two weeks when the snow melted. I happened to walk over to their property. It’s doing everything it should be. They put a silt fence along the front of the river as was required, but there’s been no runoff. The grass has grown beautifully and none of us have an issue. They’ve done nothing but just help improve that whole site plan. So I just wanted to share my perspective with the Board that there are seven of us on this stretch of river and it’s a private road and we’re all just families. There’s no public coming down there and they’ve just done a nice job of improving the waterfront down there. So that’s what I wanted to share with you. All right. MR. TRAVER-Thank you. Are there any written comments, Laura? MRS. MOORE-There are no written comments. 33 (Queensbury Planning Board 04/16/2019) MR. TRAVER-Okay. Seeing no one else in the audience and no written comments we’ll close the public hearing. PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED MR. TRAVER-All right. Any other questions, discussion? MR. DIXON-I’ll just go back to the buffered area. So if I was looking at the southeast zone, I wouldn’t call it a requirement, but I would encourage them to do some sort of plantings maybe to help stabilize that. I wouldn’t see it having to go all the way across, because obviously they want access to the river, but as we’ve been going through some of our courses, you know, a buffer also, having to put fertilizer down, it keeps them away from the lake. So I wouldn’t say that I would want it required, but I would recommend that they at least look at something in the southeast corridor. It can go on the other side also, but looking at the plans, it kind of looks like the southwest is more in line with the house and that’s where they’d probably want to keep things a little bit more open. MR. TRAVER-So some buffering on the southeast corner. I think we need to be specific, what number and species or number and type of vegetation. MR. SHAFER-You’re not talking about trees. You’re talking about shrubs? MR. DIXON-Shrubbery. MRS. MOORE-It could be a perennial planting bed. MR. HUTCHINS-It could be, yes, I can commit to a mulched planting bed on either side with some access in between. MR. SHAFER-It’s a single dock, Tom? They have a dock piled up on? MR. HUTCHINS-Yes, and we’ve discussed that. We’ll commit to some level of plantings on either side, yes. MRS. MOORE-If the applicant, if you indicate that two planting beds are to be located within 10 feet of the silt fence or within that silt fence area line. MR. HUTCHINS-As a shoreline buffer. MRS. MOORE-As a shoreline buffer, and the applicant will provide that information to Staff and if Staff does not feel it’s sufficient then we’ll come up with a plan, but my guess is we’ll see two planting beds that meet our Code. MR. SHAFER-Tom, if it were placed where the silt fence line is, is that above the level of where the water was today, for example? MR. HUTCHINS-It’s darn close today. Where the sediment control fence, I’ve come inland a little bit, yes, likely. Last fall it was some distance from the fence to the shoreline. MR. DIXON-I thought that was a nice letter that they had written. Because I don’t think they did anything intentional. There’s a lot out there. MR. TRAVER-All right. So we have a, under SEQR this is Unlisted. So we do have a SEQR resolution to process. We’ve heard the presentation in terms of how the project was done. We know it’s been reviewed by Town personnel. We know we’ve had some discussion about 34 (Queensbury Planning Board 04/16/2019) buffering. With all that said, do people feel comfortable in moving ahead with a SEQR resolution? Okay. I guess we’re ready for that. RESOLUTION GRANTING A NEGATIVE SEQR DEC. SP # 24-2019 BRIAN CONNOLLY The applicant proposes to maintain an existing clearing within 50 ft. of the shoreline. The disturbance of approximately 9,260 sq. ft. included brush and small trees and placing topsoil within 50 ft. of the shoreline. Applicant stabilized the area with seed, mulch and straw, no further disturbance is proposed. Pursuant to Chapter 179-6-050 of the Zoning Ordinance, clearing within 50 ft. of shoreline 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; 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 24-2019 BRIAN CONNOLLY, 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. th Motion seconded by Michael Valentine. Duly adopted this 16 day of April, 2019 by the following vote: AYES: Mr. Hunsinger, Mr. Dixon, Mr. Valentine, Mr. Deeb, Ms. White, Mr. Shafer, Mr. Traver NOES: NONE ABSENT: Mr. Magowan MR. TRAVER-All right, and next onto Site Plan. We’re ready for a resolution on that. RESOLUTION APPROVING SP # 24-2019 BRIAN CONNOLLY 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 requests to maintain an existing clearing within 50 ft. of the shoreline. The disturbance of approximately 9,260 sq. ft. included brush and small trees and placing topsoil within 50 ft. of the shoreline. Applicant stabilized the area with seed, mulch and straw, no further disturbance is proposed. Pursuant 35 (Queensbury Planning Board 04/16/2019) to Chapter 179-6-050 of the Zoning Ordinance, clearing within 50 ft. of shoreline 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; 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 04/16/2019 and continued the public hearing to 04/16/2019, 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 04/16/2019; 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 24-2019 BRIAN CONNOLLY. Introduced by David Deeb who moved for its adoption. Per the draft provided by staff conditioned upon the following conditions: 1) Waivers request granted: 2) Adherence to the items outlined in the follow-up letter sent with this resolution. 3) Planting beds to be added as a shoreline buffer. 4) Final approval by Staff (planting beds at shoreline). th Motion seconded by Michael Valentine. Duly adopted this 16 day of April, 2019 by the following vote: AYES: Mr. Dixon, Mr. Valentine, Mr. Deeb, Ms. White, Mr. Shafer, Mr. Hunsinger, Mr. Traver NOES: NONE ABSENT: Mr. Magowan MR. TRAVER-You’re all set. MR. HUTCHINS-Thank you. MR. TRAVER-That completes our agenda this evening. Is there any other business before the Board tonight? MRS. MOORE-So I just wanted to mention that you received two local laws. One was a zone change in reference to the upcoming property on Route 9L MR. TRAVER-Kubricky. 36 (Queensbury Planning Board 04/16/2019) MRS. MOORE-Kubricky. You’ll see an application for Fort Miller again revised, additional information about the site, and then this evening you also were given some information about the cell tower law for antennas that are located on utility poles, and so the State or Federal said if you the local government doesn’t pass a resolution or include this in your Code, sorry, they’re just going to be able to put them up. So we passed an aesthetic resolution and that’s what you have in your packets. MR. TRAVER-There’s a way to approve unapproved development, nip it in the bud, right? MRS. MOORE-Yes. In addition I have with me the packets for Clear Brook. So the revised application shows 12 lots. So before you leave, please pick up a packet. That’s all I have. MR. TRAVER-Okay. Thank you, Laura. MR. DEEB-I move we adjourn. h MOTION TO ADJOURN THE QUEENSBURY PLANNING BOARD MEETING OF APRIL 16, 2019, Introduced by David Deeb who moved for its adoption, seconded by Michael Valentine: th Duly adopted this 16 day of April, 2019, by the following vote: AYES: Mr. Deeb, Ms. White, Mr. Dixon, Mr. Hunsinger, Mr. Valentine, Mr. Traver NOES: NONE ABSENT: Mr. Magowan MR. TRAVER-We stand adjourned. Thanks, everybody. On motion meeting was adjourned. RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED, Stephen Traver, Chairman 37