Loading...
08-20-2019 (Queensbury Planning Board 08/20/2019) 1.1 QUEENSBURY PLANNING BOARD MEETING FIRST REGULAR MEETING AUGUST 20, 2019 INDEX Site Plan No. 53-2019 APEX Capital, LLC 1. SEEK LEAD AGENCY STATUS Tax Map No. 315.5-1-3.2; 315.5-1-2 Petition for Zone Change Site Plan No. 16-2019 Alex & Michelle Wilcox 3. Tax Map No. 278.20-1-3 Site Plan No. 39-2019 Pizza Hut 21. Tax Map No. 296.17-1-34 Site Plan No. 52-2019 William Mason 26. ZBA RECOMMENDATION Tax Map No. 239.8-1-24 Site Plan No. 49-2019 Verizon Wireless 29. ZBA RECOMMENDATION Tax Map No. 301.8-1-33 Site Plan No. 47-2019 Jeffrey Greenwood 33. Tax Map No. 226.19-1-83 Site Plan No. 46-2019 North Country Property Mgmt. 36. Tax Map No. 309.17-1-17.1 Site Plan No. 51-2019 Daniel Pickett 41. Tax Map No. 239.17-1-5, 239.17-1-9 1 (Queensbury Planning Board 08/20/2019) 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. QUEENSBURY PLANNING BOARD MEETING FIRST REGULAR MEETING AUGUST 20, 2019 7:00 P.M. MEMBERS PRESENT STEPHEN TRAVER, CHAIRMAN CHRIS HUNSINGER, VICE CHAIRMAN DAVID DEEB, SECRETARY JAMIE WHITE JOHN SHAFER BRAD MAGOWAN MICHAEL VALENTINE LAND USE PLANNER-LAURA MOORE STENOGRAPHER-MARIA GAGLIARDI MR. TRAVER-Good evening, ladies and gentlemen. Welcome to the Town of Queensbury th Planning Board meeting for Tuesday, August 20, 2019. This is our first meeting for August and th our 16 meeting of the year. We have a few administrative items before we get to our regular agenda, the first being approval of minutes, and actually before I begin that I should point out that we do have an emergency exit, illuminated signs. In the case of an emergency, please observe those if we have to leave in an emergency, and if you have an electronic device and thank goodness I remembered to turn mine off, please either turn it off or turn the ringer off so that will not interrupt our meeting. I’d appreciate that very much thank you, and the first administrative item is approval thth of minutes for the meetings of June 18 and June 20 of this year. APPROVAL OF MINUTES June 18, 2019 June 20, 2019 2 (Queensbury Planning Board 08/20/2019) MOTION TO APPROVE THE QUEENSBURY PLANNING BOARD MEETING THTH MINUTES OF JUNE 18 & JUNE 20, 2019, Introduced by David Deeb who moved for its adoption, seconded by Michael Valentine: th Duly adopted this 20 day of August, 2019, by the following vote: AYES: Mr. Deeb, Ms. White, Mr. Shafer, Mr. Hunsinger, Mr. Valentine, Mr. Traver NOES: NONE ABSTAINED: Mr. Magowan MR. TRAVER-All right, and the other administrative item we have is Apex Capital is a project that’s being considered for West Mountain and we’re being asked to seek Lead Agency Status. ADMINISTRATIVE ITEM: PLANNING BOARD TO CONSIDER ACCEPTING LEAD AGENCY STATUS FOR APEX CAPITAL, LLC (WEST MOUNTAIN) SITE PLAN AND REZONE APPLICATIONS. MR. TRAVER-Laura, do you want to give us an overview on that. MRS. MOORE-So the applicant, West Mountain under APEX, has submitted their petition for re- zone for two parcels that they now own. They need to change that from MDR to RC, and then they’re also requesting Site Plan approval for their zip line tower parking lot expansion and approval of the existing mountain bike system that’s on the site. And so the Town Board approved their resolution referring it back to the Planning Board and letting you know ahead of time that the wish that you would be Lead Agency. So you’d actually have to seek Lead Agency. MR. TRAVER-So we begin the process by requesting Lead Agency Status and that gives other potentially affected organizations a chance to respond. MRS. MOORE-Yes. MR. TRAVER-Okay. MR. VALENTINE-May I ask a question on that one? MR. TRAVER-Sure. 3 (Queensbury Planning Board 08/20/2019) MR. VALENTINE-Most of the time, any time legislative action comes from the legislative body, SEQR’s taken up by that body and I’m wondering why would they have us take on Lead Agency for a re-zoning? MRS. MOORE-Specifically because it includes both, they’re including both the re-zoning project and the site plan project. So they know that the site plan project is coming before the Planning Board and they would rather the Planning Board take the Lead Agency status than them. MR. TRAVER-And that’s not unprecedented. MRS. MOORE-No. MR. TRAVER-Any other questions or discussion on that? Okay. So just to clarify, our action this evening is merely to trigger the process by requesting the Lead Agency Status for this site plan review and proposal. RESOLUTION SEEKING LEAD AGENCY STATUS APEX CAPITAL LLC WHEREAS, the Planning Board of the Town of Queensbury is in receipt of a Site Plan application for the expansion of the West Mountain Ski Area parking lot, construction of a zip line attraction, and approval of an existing mountain biking venue, and a Town Board referral for a Petition for Zone Change parcels 315.5-1-3.2 and 315.5-1-2 from Moderate Density to Recreation Commercial WHEREAS, pursuant to Chapter 179-3-040 of the Zoning Ordinance, expansion of a recreation center shall be subject to Planning Board of the Town of Queensbury review and approval. WHEREAS, the Planning Board of the Town of Queensbury has determined to begin an environmental review process under the State Environmental Quality Review Act (SEQRA). WHEREAS, the Planning Board of the Town of Queensbury has identified the project to be an Unlisted action for the purposes of SEQRA review pursuant to 6 NYCRR 617, WHEREAS, the Planning Board of the Town of Queensbury is the agency most directly responsible for approving the actions because of its responsibility for approving the land uses for the property, WHEREAS, The Planning Board of the Town of Queensbury hereby indicates its desire to be Lead Agency for SEQRA review of this action and authorizes and directs the Zoning Administrator to notify any other potentially involved agencies of such intent. That Part I of the SEQRA will be sent to the following agencies \[as identified in EAF\]: Town Board of the Town of Queensbury, Warren County Planning. NOW, THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED: 4 (Queensbury Planning Board 08/20/2019) MOTION TO SEEK LEAD AGENCY STATUS IN CONNECTION WITH SITE PLAN 53- 2019 APEX CAPITAL, LLC & REZONE APPLICATIONS. Introduced by David Deeb who moved for its adoption, seconded by Brad Magowan: As per the draft resolution prepared by staff. th Duly adopted this 20 day of August, 2019 by the following vote: AYES: Ms. White, Mr. Shafer, Mr. Hunsinger, Mr. Magowan, Mr. Deeb, Mr. Traver NOES: Mr. Valentine MR. TRAVER-All right, and before we move to the regular agenda, Laura, I know you were very helpful to us when we were looking at the Ad Hoc committee on unapproved development and I’m not aware that there’s been any response, certainly no formal response to our recommendations to the Town. I see tonight, I guess I bring it up because I see tonight we have three more unapproved development projects, one of them in a Critical Environmental Area and we were kind of hoping to curtail that. Is there any, or maybe you could just pass along that the Planning Board would be open to further discussion. MRS. MOORE-Further discussion, I can do that. I have not heard anything yet. MR. TRAVER-All right. MRS. MOORE-But I will let them know that you’ve asked. MR. TRAVER-I think it’s worth, obviously worth pursuing, and we’re all in agreement on that, including some at the ZBA as well. So rather than let it die, I’d like to kind of follow up on it if you could. Thank you. All right. So we’ll move to our regular agenda, and the first category is tabled items, and the first application is Alex and Michelle Wilcox, Site Plan 16-2019. TABLED ITEMS: 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. (REVISED) APPLICANT PROPOSES CONSTRUCTION OF A 2,616 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. 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. CROSS REFERENCE: AV 32-2018 (VOIDED), DISC 1-2019; WARREN CO. REFERRAL: 5 (Queensbury Planning Board 08/20/2019) 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 MR. TRAVER-Laura? MRS. MOORE-Okay. This applicant proposes to construct a 2,616 square foot home with associated site work. The application was tabled at the previous month’s meeting for the applicant to provide additional information about the site. One of the things was in reference to the driveway. There’s a response in your packets from the County DPW of the cursory review and then septic. The applicant has provided a letter from the engineer, Dennis MacElroy and then elevations and tree removal. The applicant has provided some photos which I’ll go through with balloon heights of what the proposal would be. MR. TRAVER-Okay. Thank you. Good evening. Welcome back. MR. WILCOX-Good evening. My name is Alex Wilcox. This is my wife Michelle Wilcox. Since our last meeting we have had the septic concerns addressed with a letter from Dennis MacElroy. This is the second time he went out to the property and kind of walked it and there’s a low-lying area where it’s planned out on one of the site plans of where the proposed septic will be. Also we had a couple of conversations, multiple conversations with Ed Downy, Senior Civil Engineer from the Warren County DPW, after which we had C.T. Male complete a sight distance survey for the two proposed access points on Moon Hill. After the survey was completed, we sent the sight distances over to Ed for review. Included in our submission you’ll find a letter from Ed regarding this, and that’s basically it. MR. TRAVER-And did you send them to all of us? I know I got some. I didn’t know if everyone on the Planning Board did. MR. WILCOX-Yes. MR. TRAVER-Yes, they were quite helpful in some respects and we’ve seen the heights and so on and we appreciate that very much. With regard to the sight distances, I noted in the letter it appeared to indicate that the sight distances for your entrances are below minimum. Is that correct? MR. WILCOX-Yes, for one aspect of them. So, yes, it’s definitely, so basically as it was explained to me on the side where, basically if you were going down Moon Hill, on that side of the road, either looking up and/or coming down, the sight distances there are well above, like an extra, and don’t quote me on this, but like 200 feet or so. It’s when you get into the, if we were coming up Moon Hill and trying to cross over and go into the driveway, either lower one or vice versa upper one, the sight distances are below where Ed said he would like to see them but again, multiple homes on that, especially the neighbor’s house is the same situation, but as he explained to me that, and again multiple conversations and some of it is he can’t legally state his official opinion of what he thinks on that just because of liability of his job, but basically how I talked to him and how I explained it to the Board as an ingress and egress and basically in that right of way, the County’s right of way, then we have to get a right of way permit. They would work with C.T. 6 (Queensbury Planning Board 08/20/2019) Male on designing it so it is an ingress and egress only U shaped driveway, and then also he wasn’t concerned about the curb cuts pertaining to the guardrail. They say basically after approval with you guys then we apply for the County ROW permit and then we go out and meet C.T. Male out there and we actually kind of map that right out to make it as safe as possible with the engineers all on the same page. MR. TRAVER-Thank you. Questions, comments from members of the Planning Board? MR. MAGOWAN-Well I just want to, again, thank you for the photos. I mean that helped me on the height issues, and your due diligence in getting together with the County and really giving us an explanation on the ingress and curb cuts. So that helps me out immensely. So thank you very much for really pushing hard for this. MR. WILCOX-You’re welcome. MR. DEEB-So you meet with the County after, if we approve it here then you meet with the County? MR. WILCOX-Basically I’ll be able to file for an ROW, working in that right of way, permit, and then that’s where the curb cut is. That would be one of the first things that would have to happen would be a curb cut for the property to allow access for, again, tree removal would be coming up the hill instead of down the hill. MR. DEEB-What about the ingress and egress? MR. WILCOX-That’s part of that as well. So that little, I think it’s like 15 or 20 feet that the County owns, it’s a different piece of property, but basically how C.T. Male, one of the designs that kind of stopped, but then they finished it out to the road, but that’s because the County has jurisdiction over how you enter and exit. MR. DEEB-So if we approve a site plan we don’t know where the ingress and egress is going to be. MR. WILCOX-No, you do. It’s just. MRS. WILCOX-But the County is going to be working with the engineer, together. MR. DEEB-I didn’t understand that. We’re putting the cart before the horse. MR. TRAVER-Well, it’s just a detail at the road. 7 (Queensbury Planning Board 08/20/2019) MR. VALENTINE-Well, we would approve a plan, and the plan would be based, what we approve is based on what was submitted for those driveway locations. Then the County DPW looks at that plan and says, okay, with those measured, sight distances, or that location, they’re measuring the sight distances and they’re giving, I don’t know if they do it here, but two permits wrapped in one or if it’s two separate. One is for working in a right of way and the other is for access to the County road, but the letter says that they don’t usually recommend two points of access onto a County road unless there are extenuating circumstances, which was going to lead into my question. What are the extenuating circumstances to request, and then if somebody would use his judgement to permit two curb cuts. I’m sorry I lead right to my question from yours. MR. DEEB-I expressed that concern the last meeting, about the ingress and egress. I’m leaning towards one ingress and egress, and we’re still on two right now. MR. TRAVER-Well, let’s let the applicant discuss it. MR. WILCOX-Basically again the discussions with Ed. So basically we’re going back and forth. So start off from fresh is I called him. I finally got a hold of him. I talked to him extensively on what we were trying to do and why we were trying to do it, and I originally told him we had a temporary construction access off of Walkup Road for accessing the site where there was going to be tractor trailers with equipment and things like that. So we went back to go get a sight distance survey done. So I got C.T. Male to go out there and complete their survey and then I forwarded that over to Ed and basically so it came back and he said it wasn’t as bad as he thought it was going to be but it wasn’t as good as it could have been, but that warrants in a sense him talking with me as far as a tractor trailer. I know we talked about a postage stamp driveway as a single access, but as far as a tractor trailer, especially on that hill, if it was to pull in, it would be very, as far as exiting it would be very dangerous for him to back out onto that road. There wouldn’t be enough area for him to obviously turn around into the site. So that was his main concern was construction during this process, where are you going to park the vehicles. It’s not like you can take an excavator up that road, and then it brings us to the second point of, again, that ingress and egress. I know it’s not a typical situation, but in the end he was saying to push forward with the “U” because of, as far as everything’s all said and done, all construction is done, us living there, we would use it as an ingress and egress. So it would be safer as far as us entering and exiting. MR. TRAVER-So what you’re saying, to paraphrase, is the “U” shaped driveway with the two curb cuts is basically initially to facilitate the construction process. Which would be dangerous and difficult without, if you only had one because of the turnaround and so on on that narrow road. MR. WILCOX-Yes. MR. TRAVER-And then once it’s there, you need to establish those curb cuts commence, and then once it’s there you would leave it there and close the second. MR. WILCOX-Yes, because Ed talked about like, you know, we could do a temporary U shaped driveway or something of the sort for doing the construction, but then whenever it’s temporary that means trees coming down in that area anyway, and as far as C.T. Male put it, the actual width of driveway and as far as tree line goes, yes there’ll be two points, but there’ll be two smaller points instead of one a little bit larger point. If we were allowed one access it would be kind of opened up, like butterflied in a way is one of the terms he used. So it would have a large swale going up and down the hill. So again just trying to reiterate what Ed said. 8 (Queensbury Planning Board 08/20/2019) MR. DEEB-So only one ingress and one egress at one point would enhance the sight distances. MR. WILCOX-I’m sorry, what was your question? MR. DEEB-One ingress, one point of ingress and egress would enhance the sight distances, would it not? MR. VALENTINE-You would add that bit of distance between two driveways, that distance would be added to one or the other to increase sight distance, or, depending upon the grading, decrease one. Could be that way. MR. WILCOX-Yes, as far as Ed said, that’s why he had us do the both access points. They were very similar on the chart of one was not greater than the other, as far as that goes. MR. DEEB-Okay. That makes a little more sense to me. MR. VALENTINE-I don’t see your narrative in his letter. I don’t see that he’s, you had a conversation out there. I’m not doubting your conversation but what he’s writing here is a letter of record. I don’t see your narrative in his letter. MRS. MOORE-Can I interrupt? So I also had the same conversation with Ed. When I asked Ed to, he went over what type of letter could be prepared and what information could be shared with the Board. I had the same, similar conversation that Alex had. Where we talked about two access points versus one access point and he said well this is what I need to write because neither one has the best distance. So in this case, or this particular case, case by case was that if there’s two access points on this type of distance, it may be useful to have two access points because of construction. It would create something more risky if they were allowed just one access point. So he had to include both data pieces versus what his, what the recommendation would be because he hasn’t had that one on one with the engineer yet. MR. TRAVER-So that’s what he’s representing as the extenuating circumstance. MR. VALENTINE-But he’s providing information to address the two driveways. He’s not putting an opinion in his letter that there should be two driveways. He’s not saying that anywhere in his letter. MRS. MOORE-That’s correct. MR. VALENTINE-And then another question I would have is why don’t we have one driveway that maintains permanent and one that’s abandoned after construction? 9 (Queensbury Planning Board 08/20/2019) MRS. MOORE-And I think Alex is trying to explain that it’s still the same amount of disturbance that’s occurring overall and I guess what is being achieved. Because the same, when you put those driveways in that particular area because of the drainage, they’re still creating these access points that are creating disturbance when you have to go back to rehabilitate that one access point then you’re disturbing the same site. MR. TRAVER-And I can imagine situations where, you know, having one driveway as opposed to a U shaped driveway, is potentially going to be more risky. I mean if you have a number of vehicles there for some event or something and, you know, I mean there are times when at my house I wish I had a U shaped driveway so I didn’t have to maneuver around as much, but anyway. MRS. MOORE-I think Ed’s point is that it is up to this Board to determine if there’s two access points granted. We will work with whatever this Board decides upon. MR. TRAVER-So our options would be, obviously, the access as described in the application which would be two access points constructed and to remain. One access point or two access points, one for construction only and then that to be reduced to one basically. Right? MR. SHAFER-Mr. Chairman, I have a serious problem with the County’s letter. MR. TRAVER-I’m sorry, which letter? MR. SHAFER-The County’s letter on sight distances that we’ve been talking about. MR. TRAVER-Okay. MR. SHAFER-The bullet on the top of page three, it seems to be very clear. It says “As shown in Tables I and II, the sight distances looking left (east) from either proposed driveway is below the th minimum recommended distance for the 40 mph speed limit and assumed 50 mph 85 percentile (design) speed on County Route 63. The stopping sight distances for westbound traffic on County Route 63 are also below the recommended minimum distances for both driveways.” And it goes on to say, “Intersection and stopping sight distances for the western driveway exceed the minimum recommended distances.” I see a conflict in that paragraph. In addition to the shortfalls of the sight distances. MR. WILCOX-Yes, my engineer said, like with the numbers there, my engineer from C.T. Male, Jim Houston, that prepared the sight distances said that that, the chart, there was one discrepancy that was in there. I think maybe that is what you might be speaking of. MR. SHAFER-The text says what it says. MR. WILCOX-Definitely. Yes, no, I understand. 10 (Queensbury Planning Board 08/20/2019) MR. TRAVER-So perhaps you can clarify for us, then, this was Page Three, yes, I have that highlighted myself. Okay. So there’s discrepancy in the data on the charts is what you’re saying. Could you clarify that for us and give us the correct, what you’re representing as the correct information? MR. WILCOX-Well, see we sent Ed over the, in an e-mail, the chart of the sight distances and then he came and he made his own chart from those. I mean I have the actual C.T. Male sight distance analysis, but I don’t think I have that as a full submittal, because that went to Ed directly. MR. TRAVER-Okay. MS. WHITE-But the final bullet point in the letter states that they will be doing actual sight distances in the field as part of the County ROW Permit and that pursuant to policy lower sight distance values may be used if they will not significantly degrade traffic safety and operations, and there is no reasonable alternative. So I guess that’s where I, is that? Okay. MR. TRAVER-Yes. MR. SHAFER-That’s a paragraph of Jell-O. It really doesn’t say anything, other than trust we’ll do something in the future if we can, given the circumstances. MR. VALENTINE-And I would believe there is a reasonable alternative. I mean that was presented the last time we went through this was a single drive with a turnaround at the top by the garage. So that nobody leaves by backing out of that driveway. Make the driveway at the top as big as you want for storage of other vehicles. MR. SHAFER-Question. Was there any discussion with the County about signs, warning signs close to the driveways? MR. WILCOX-Yes. So as far as, what Ed explained to me is, again, once they do their sight distances of their own, then they would determine if they want to put like a driveway sign or something like that. It all depends on once they actually do their sight distance survey. MR. SHAFER-There’s also a limited sight distance sign, without a number or anything giving the actual dimension. MR. WILCOX-Okay. MR. SHAFER-So there’s several signs that could be put up of where this could be approved as is. I was just asking whether or not the County had talked about that with you. MR. WILCOX-Yes. The only signs he mentioned was a driveway sign, but again I think he was just seeing until they go out there to actually have the final of everything. 11 (Queensbury Planning Board 08/20/2019) MR. HUNSINGER-Going up the hill there is a school bus stop sign that is fairly recent. That wasn’t there five years ago. So I think that is the kind of sign you’d want to see coming the other direction. MR. TRAVER-Well, that seems to be our sticking point at this stage. Why don’t we, let’s poll the Board and see how folks. MRS. MOORE-I believe you still have a public hearing. MR. TRAVER-We do, yes. I think we left it open. I’m going to start down at this end. For approval basically as designed, subject to County clarification of final design, the two entrance driveway. MR. MAGOWAN-I’m going to lead with the County’s recommendation. I’d like to see a turnaround and one. I like that option too. So I’m kind of on the fence. I like the one entrance as safe as possible, but like I said, one’s better than the other. So if you have two. I’m confused. MR. TRAVER-Well right now what I’m asking is, as proposed, subject to the final analysis and design elements provided by the County when they did their actual. MR. MAGOWAN-I would have to say being the County road, and they do all the maintaining and that of it, I would go with the County. MR. VALENTINE-Can I interject before you go on? What does the letter say the County DPW is recommending? They are not recommending anything. They are not stating anything. MR. TRAVER-That’s right. MR. VALENTINE-So Brad says I go with the County. MR. TRAVER-The applicant is requesting a design. MR. VALENTINE-No, I understand that, but I’m trying to get a full, we’re doing us and Brad is making a determination saying that I would go with what the County DPW says. MR. TRAVER-I’m just polling the Board. I’m not asking for a vote, because we have a lot of elements to discuss, but I just thought as a starting point, because we have at least three different permutations of potential driveways, we would start with, as proposed, any of them are going to be subject to the County final right of way analysis anyway, but fundamentally the double the U shaped driveway, would you be opposed to that or would you accept that, subject to the County’s review? 12 (Queensbury Planning Board 08/20/2019) MR. MAGOWAN-I could accept that. MR. TRAVER-John? MR. SHAFER-I’m still having heartburn over this paragraph in the letter. I think they’ve put us in a position. I’m not comfortable with the way it is proposed. MR. TRAVER-So that’s a no, or are you saying you want more information? MR. SHAFER-Well, more information would be something. As proposed I’m a no. MR. TRAVER-As proposed you’re a no? Okay. Jamie? MS. WHITE-I’m a yes. MR. TRAVER-Okay. I’m a yes. MR. TRAVER-David? MR. DEEB-I’d rather see one entrance in and out. MR. TRAVER-Okay. So you’re a no on the double. Chris? MR. HUNSINGER-I’m okay with the two. MR. VALENTINE-I’m a no just because of the driveway. The rest of this plan I wouldn’t have a problem, but the driveway. I mean I made that point at the last meeting that I wouldn’t consider it because of that, and they came back with it again, and I’d look kind of stupid in the minutes if anybody looked at it and said Valentine said no the last time and he agreed with it this time. I can’t go with it. MR. TRAVER-Right. Okay. So, let’s see, that’s three noes and four yeses I guess is where I stand. So let me start, John, let me get back to you. You were the first no. What would you propose as an alternative that you would find acceptable? One entrance, would you accept two entrances initially for construction support and then close the one entrance and leave one? MR. SHAFER-Well, only with the proper construction. To me, I would think you’ve got the same issues of stopping and intersection sight distances either way. 13 (Queensbury Planning Board 08/20/2019) MR. TRAVER-Well that would happen in either case. Right? I mean they’re going to have big trucks and so on there. They’re going to have to alert people traveling that road that this is going on. MR. SHAFER-Yes. I’m just driven by the sentence that says intersection and sight stopping distances for the western driveway exceed the minimum recommended distances. The western driveway. That’s what the County is telling us. MR. TRAVER-Yes, no I understand. So could you live with two entrances only during the construction phase? And then we would eliminate the, I guess the shortest sight distance entrance and retain one driveway. MR. SHAFER-Is this operation the western one in and the eastern one out? If it’s two driveways, is it one in and one out? MR. WILCOX-Yes. MR. SHAFER-I could live with that during construction. MR. TRAVER-Okay, and then what you would suggest would that the one entrance would be closed after the construction was completed? MR. SHAFER-Yes. MR. TRAVER-Okay. What do you think about that? MR. DEEB-Well I’m okay with the one in, one out during construction. But again we’re facing the problem that afterwards, like they said, the disturbance is already there. MR. TRAVER-Well the amount of disturbance isn’t really going to change that much. You leave them to that one driveway, they’re going to need to pave a big area in order to have a turnaround. MR. DEEB-Right. I’m okay with the one in and one out and then one after construction. I’d be fine with that. MR. TRAVER-Okay. And Michael? MR. VALENTINE-No, I would look for just the, I would say I’m fine with the two during construction and then a restoration of the eastern driveway after construction and utilizing the western driveway for the primary entrance. 14 (Queensbury Planning Board 08/20/2019) MR. TRAVER-Okay. I guess I’ll throw it back to the applicant. Is that something you could live with? We’d have the two entrances during the construction, and then once the heavy equipment is done only the western entrance I guess would be the one that would remain. That has the best option. MR. VALENTINE-It has stopping sight distances and the intersection sight distance. MR. TRAVER-It’s better anyway, yes. Would that be acceptable? MR. WILCOX-Yes, definitely. Yes, just, again, what David brought up there is the disturbance. When the trees come down there’s still going to be that big openness. MR. TRAVER-Right, understood. MR. DEEB-You could re-plant trees. MR. WILCOX-Yes. MR. DEEB-But safety is a concern. MR. TRAVER-It sounds as though that’s the plan that’s got the most support. MR. WILCOX-I know it’s just hearsay of what Ed said, but the safety is, again, on that side of it, I know for some reason the chart is, there’s something a little screwy there, but just on that side of the road, that’s the only, just again, just reiterating, just staying on that side with the U shape is, when we’re there in the end is ingress and egress. MR. TRAVER-And I think during the construction phase there’ll be plenty of signage and evidence that there’s some heavy equipment there. So people should be aware. Laura, do you have any other comments or anything about our discussion? MRS. MOORE-I guess I just want to confirm what we consider the western entrance is the closest one to the intersection? MR. VALENTINE-That’s what I’m going by, yes. MR. TRAVER-Yes. MR. VALENTINE-According to Ed’s letter, yes. 15 (Queensbury Planning Board 08/20/2019) MR. TRAVER-Yes. Okay. All right. So let’s, then the applicant is okay with that plan. I know that would mean some minor change likely to the design of the driveway, but that could be. MRS. MOORE-The applicant still has to address, which I received a copy today, engineering comments from Chazen. MR. TRAVER-Right. Okay. MRS. MOORE-That’s in regards to stormwater which effects this driveway situation. MR. TRAVER-All right. So let’s move on then to the remainder of the project. We do have the, let’s see, we got the letter from Dennis on the septic. Thank you for that. There is the engineering comments. Did you see anything in those comments that would be, that would require a fundamental change in your project in the engineering comments for stormwater and so on? MR. WILCOX-No, and like I said, like Laura said we just recently received those, the responses. They’re all pretty straightforward. They addressed all of them. It was basically designed out to the road. It was relatively flat. They address that on their new plan. There is no wetlands, no wetlands on the subject parcel. The wetlands previously referred to in the stormwater narrative refers to the stream corridor that passes through the Walkup Road. MR. TRAVER-Well I ask that because a signoff from the engineer is requirement for your final approval. MR. WILCOX-Yes. MR. TRAVER-Okay. All right. Any other questions, comments from the Planning Board before we re-open the public hearing and allow the public to speak? All right. Are there members of the audience that would like to address the Planning Board on this application? We left the public hearing open from the last discussion. Yes, sir. If you would come up and address the Planning Board. PUBLIC HEARING OPEN KEVIN WHITING MR. WHITING-My name’s Kevin Whiting. I live at 49 Walkup Road. It sounds like there’s still a whole lot of questions that aren’t answered yet. I don’t want to put you guys in an awkward position here because the Planning Board doesn’t, they didn’t write the Comprehensive Plan, you know, and there’s two parties, you and them, and you kind of check and balance each other a little bit. I didn’t see the balloon pictures, but to substitute some balloons for a house that size on a hill that size and a slope like that on that view shed. 16 (Queensbury Planning Board 08/20/2019) MR. TRAVER-I’m happy to share with you a set of them. MR. WHITING-Sure. MR. TRAVER-And understand, as we do, that these balloon pictures are not, they are subjective, but they are a tool. MR. WHITING-I mean I still, personally, feel like the house is way too big for the property, but that’s just my opinion, and so say you have to close that second driveway, as long as they kept the house permit open, they could have that driveway. Right? MR. TRAVER-I’m sorry? Say that again. MR. WHITING-That first driveway that you said would be restored or eliminated. MR. TRAVER-One of the two, yes, the one on the eastern side, would be there during the construction phase to facilitate, if it’s approved, to facilitate the equipment that would be required for the construction and so on, and once that’s done, that would be restored and, you know, trees and whatever, grass planted and only the western most driveway would remain. MR. WHITING-Right, but being done would be once the certificate of occupancy would be granted. So in theory if they never got the CO or left the permit open for 20 years, that driveway could be there for 20 years permitted as long as they left that permit open. Is that right? Like if the permit’s open and they never close the permit, it would be allowed to be there. Right? Say the permit was open for five years. MR. TRAVER-The building permit? MR. WHITING-Sure. Like say they just kept extending the permit. MRS. MOORE-Correct. If they continually extended their permit. MR. WHITING-$100 a year. MRS. MOORE-Whatever that is. MR. WHITING-You could keep that open indefinitely. MRS. MOORE-Right. However the Board could put a timeframe on it or ask the applicant what the timeframe is. 17 (Queensbury Planning Board 08/20/2019) MRS. MOORE-I understand what your question is. MR. TRAVER-Yes, I wasn’t sure that I understood but I do now. MR. WHITING-Because there’s construction in Weavertown and people put in a dirt road and it’s there forever because they’re just going to pay the extra money. MR. TRAVER-Yes. MR. WHITING-People do it in Vermont all the time. MR. TRAVER-Well that will not happen in this case. MR. WHITING-That’s good to know. I appreciate it. LYNDSEY WHITING MRS. WHITING-Lyndsey Whiting, 49 Walkup Road. My only concern with the U shaped driveway would just be removing all those mature trees on top of the slope. MR. TRAVER-Where the driveway. MRS. WHITING-Where the driveway would be. So now you are taking apart that natural view shed of Moon Hill. So I have a huge concern with that happening. I know they would plant trees, but you don’t replace 90 foot pines. MR. TRAVER-Yes, it takes time. They’re not going to be the same size as the ones that are there. Understood. MRS. WHITING-Sure. MR. TRAVER-Anything else? MRS. WHITING-No. I just don’t think that this house fits this property. It’s just, it’s way too big. MR. WHITING-It’s your choice, but thank you for your time. MR. TRAVER-Thank you. Is there anyone else that wanted to speak? Yes, sir. 18 (Queensbury Planning Board 08/20/2019) PHILLIP ROBERTSON MR. ROBERTSON-My name’s Phillip Robertson. I live on 37 Walkup Road, and I see you’re concentrating on the driveways and the septics and that’s all well and good, but Mr. Jenkins is the logger that was originally contacted to contract to cut the trees down along the property. There’s another project going on behind my property that he spoke to me a week ago about what was originally proposed and he reiterated that he was asked to take all the pines down from the ridge to clear for the construction. Mr. Wilcox has denied that but this is what he said a week ago. I’m still concerned about the number of trees that will be taken down on the lot. The size of the house still doesn’t jive with what the application is. I went to the Zoning Board, gave them the plans, excuse me, not the Zoning Board, the Assessor’s Office and the gentleman there gave me his determination of the size of the house is actually 4760 square feet, not 2616 square feet that they’ve applied for and the Zoning Board has approved. Now the Zoning Board has approved this 2616 square foot house. The actual house is 4760 square foot. That’s a monster, the largest house on the smallest lot and that’s a concern because somebody’s not doing their homework. Once again it’s against everything that the Comprehensive Land Use Plan has stated as far as where the house is located on the property, number of mature trees that are taken down and the orientation of the house to the viewing public on Walkup Road. I was fortunate enough to get a couple of people involved that were still, they questioned this as well, Tony Metivier and John Strough. They said there was nothing they could do. They said you guys ae independent, the Zoning Board and the Planning Board is independent, but they both said that, you know, they didn’t like to see this kind of thing going on where so many mature trees were removed from the ridges and what’s left of Queensbury, but they wouldn’t say it other than to me. So, once again, Mr. Magowan has said that the size of the house is really going to be like a lighthouse on the hill, and I still have a concern. It’s going to change the landscape dramatically and it will change the neighborhood forever, and just so that, you know, as far as being a good neighbor, this gentleman never contacted any of us on Walkup Road to say, you know, what’s palatable here. He says that to you folks. He says that to the Zoning Board, but it hasn’t said it to us, and as a good neighbor I just want to let him know that I’ve got my application for a solar array on the south part of my property. So although there’s a moratorium right now, I’m sure because of the size of my property it won’t be a concern for anybody but him. So I don’t know if this will dissuade him in any way, but who knows. And that’s pretty much it. I’m concerned about the fact that nobody has, on tonight’s page here it says 2616 square foot house when the house is twice that size. So I don’t understand how nobody has picked up on that. MR. TRAVER-We’ll clarify that. Thank you. MR. ROBERTSON-Thank you. MR. TRAVER-Is there anyone else that wanted to address the Planning Board on this application? Are there any written comments, Laura? th MRS. MOORE-There’s only one in here from June 20 which must have been read at that time. MR. TRAVER-Okay. Thank you. All right. We’ll close the public hearing and ask the applicant to return to the table. 19 (Queensbury Planning Board 08/20/2019) PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED MR. HUNSINGER-When we tabled this last month, didn’t we ask that a floor area ratio be conducted as part of the application? I seem to remember that as part of the tabling resolution. Even though it doesn’t apply, it was suggested that if it would be conducted then we would have a basis for comparison. MRS. MOORE-I don’t recall that. MR. TRAVER-I don’t recall that either. MRS. MOORE-I know he did clarify the square footage because the footprint that’s being listed did not include the decks. That’s why it has to be listed differently. MR. WILCOX-Yes, in general the house, I don’t have the exact number, it’s 1200 or so square feet on the second floor and 1700 square feet on the first floor. So it’s like 2921. MR. DEEB-That includes the deck? MR. WILCOX-The deck is not included in the square footage of the house. MR. HUNSINGER-It’s included in the site development. MR. WILCOX-Yes, it’s on the site plan review for impermeable surface. MR. HUNSINGER-I mean if you look at the site development data, only 7.9% is impermeable. So there’s no question you clearly meet the permeability requirement, and, you know, we had a lot of comments about floor area ratio. So that would just be a way for us to do that comparison. I understand it’s not required, and I’m sure if you did do the calculation that you’d be well under the requirements for either the Waterfront Residential or Commercial which are 22%, 30% and you’re only at 8% impermeable. So even if that was three floors you’d still only be at 24. MR. TRAVER-There was some comments about the amount of tree cutting that was going to be happening on the property. Can you comment on that? MR. WILCOX-Yes. So, just again, you know, we were going to have that temporary construction on Walkup. So that’s not happening, and also as far as walking the site with Dennis MacElroy, he’s pretty certain he can do an infiltrator septic system. So that would be less trees cut down, especially in the septic area. Instead of doing like 200 feet of pipe, we’d be down to like 100 or maybe even 75 to dampen and prevent more of a tree screen, and we are not clear cutting the lot. I want that to be on record, not taking down all of the pines by any means, and there is also a drawing, I don’t know if it was with the site plan or the other one, but there was one that actually 20 (Queensbury Planning Board 08/20/2019) had kind of a, kind of just a loop kind of leaving 100 or so foot buffer on the one side, generally coming up on Walkup, but it’s either on the site plan. MRS. WILCOX-Part of the agreement on that, when all those pieces of property were subdivided, we have to keep at least 20 feet of trees on either side of the property or else we could be sued by the neighbors that live on Moon Hill Road because it’s part of that subdivision. So we’d have to have at least 20 feet of trees on either side, but we also want to leave trees on our property. I would say at most, I mean I can’t really say because I’m not building the house, but as we discussed, like when we talked to Craig Brown and everything, he had thrown around, you know, that we probably would want to clear no more than half to three quarters of an acre and it’s a two acre lot. So that’s obviously not clearing the whole lot. MR. TRAVER-Yes, I mean I would think living in that nice area you’d want to keep the trees not cut them down. MRS. WILCOX-Yes, absolutely. MR. TRAVER-The other thing, unfortunately getting back to the driveway again. So now that we’re dealing with one driveway essentially which is going to be during the construction phase, at some point before we’re done here we’re going to want to think about planning for the duration of that construction permit. So that that driveway officially will go away. So we’ll have to put some kind of a timeframe on that, not at this moment. MR. WILCOX-After building permit. MR. TRAVER-Yes. In other words once you, assuming all this gets approved, once you begin construction and that driveway is created, we will need to establish a window of time during which you have that driveway available to you to complete that phase of the construction where you need the biggest equipment. I mean obviously some of the construction can still go on after the other driveway remains, but just so you understand that’s likely to be part of our conditions. MR. WILCOX-Most definitely. MR. TRAVER-Other questions, comments from members of the Planning Board? MR. VALENTINE-I have a question on the photos you have of the balloon heights. The residents behind you, say to the northwest, to the one man who was speaking, you’ll have trees remaining behind the house after the construction at the height that are also the same height as those that are going to be removed. Right? MR. WILCOX-Yes. MR. VALENTINE-So if anything, if I was a homeowner there and I implied about solar energy mechanism, there will still be trees there that could in effect, it would seem like they would block and create shadows more so than anything, if there was a solar unit. 21 (Queensbury Planning Board 08/20/2019) MR. TRAVER-Yes. Well assuming that there’s a ground mount array ultimately is an option. I would think that the contractor installing the solar would do an analysis and make recommendations as to where to place it. MR. VALENTINE-I’m just, my point is I think that the trees shown by the photos you have will remain as a separation between the house and the street behind them. MR. TRAVER-Yes. MR. WILCOX-I think there’s going to be about anywhere between 80 to 100 foot buffer of trees between Walkup Road and the start of potentially where the septic field would be, on the back. MR. VALENTINE-Right, because I’m thinking about the houses that are behind you. People make reference to they might construct a ground mount solar. MR. TRAVER-Other questions, comments? Mr. Secretary, I know you’ve been diligently working on a motion. MR. DEEB-Well, the only thing I have is you want to put a CO to be issued by a certain date? MR. TRAVER-Well I don’t know that we can say that it has to be issued by a certain date. MR. DEEB-Duration of the building permit? MR. TRAVER-What would you counsel, Laura, to ensure that that driveway, construction driveway is closed within a reasonable amount of time? MRS. MOORE-Do you think construction of this home is a two year project? MRS. WILCOX-So the bank that we work with for our construction loan, they need us to have, by the time we start construction to CO is nine months. So it’s not going to be more than a year. It’s just, when we get started, because honestly I don’t know if we’re going to be able to get the foundation in the ground before this winter. So we’re going to have to delay our start until next spring. MR. HUNSINGER-But you answered the question. Because your bank is going to require you to get a Certificate of Occupancy before they close on your permanent financing. MR. VALENTINE-Why can’t we time it that the driveway would be eliminated at the time of issuance of the C of O? 22 (Queensbury Planning Board 08/20/2019) MR. TRAVER-We can. I think that’s what we’re doing. MR. VALENTINE-Well I’m on the left end down here. MR. DEEB-So do you want? MRS. MOORE-I would include a specific timeframe, versus just issuing the CO, because as mentioned, you can extend your building permit, I can understand the bank loan. So in this case would say construction has to be completed within a year from the building permit issuance, or two years, whatever. You give it a timeframe that the applicant needs to come back. MR. TRAVER-Let’s do 12 months. The bank is talking about nine. So why don’t we do 12 months and you can always contact the Town if you need an extension and we can try to address that. MR. VALENTINE-The only thing I see, and I’ve come up against on that, is when you do a round number like say 12 because it’s a nice one to keep track of, you wind up with a winter construction season and that 12 months, say it ends in December, January and you’re not going to be doing much as far as restoration. MR. TRAVER-Well, but they won’t be applying for a building permit when they’re not going to be able to build. Right? MR. VALENTINE-They could apply for a building permit as soon as they get approvals. I’m just thinking. MR. WILCOX-It’s up to you guys. MR. TRAVER-If you have a suggestion, please share. MR. VALENTINE-I’m just thinking if we know the bank said nine and you’re going to say twelve. MR. WILCOX-I think worst case the bank said if I needed three more months they would give it to me. So if I built the house the maximum would be a year, but we anticipate a nine month build. MR. DEEB-The date we’re going to use is one year. Okay, but I think what he’s saying is he wants the date to begin by a certain, maybe not today but. MRS. MOORE-It’s the issuance of the building permit. 23 (Queensbury Planning Board 08/20/2019) MR. TRAVER-So 12 months from the building permit issuance. MRS. MOORE-Yes. MR. DEEB-All right. So the construction to be completed within. MR. TRAVER-The construction driveway be closed within. MR. VALENTINE-I feel myself catching up to you guys. MR. DEEB-All right. Construction driveway to be closed within 12 months of the building permit? MR. VALENTINE-Yes, that’s what you’re saying, 12 months. MR. TRAVER-Let’s see, the engineer’s signoff is already in the motion. This is Type II. Everything is Type II these days. MRS. MOORE-Yes. MR. TRAVER-For SEQR. MRS. MOORE-So before you start, one of the things that was mentioned was a different type of septic system versus what the plans had shown so that would re-define the cleared area being proposed. So in the final plan set I would also include as part of your conditions a revised plan set showing revised clearing limited, to be included, and then, two, we also talked about re- vegetation of that driveway that’s being removed. So that information needs to be on the plan, it needs to be re-vegetated and the driveway, this portion of this driveway is being removed or this footage of the driveway is being removed and will be re-vegetated. So that detail needs to be on that plan. MR. TRAVER-Yes, that’ll be a change, because right now it shows this U shape driveway. MR. DEEB-All right. Let’s give this a shot, and if we have to change anything we will. RESOLUTION APPROVING SP # 16-2019 ALEX & MICHELLE WILCOX The applicant has submitted an application to the Planning Board for Site Plan approval pursuant to Article 9 of the Town zoning Ordinance for: (Revised) Applicant proposes construction of a 2,616 sq. ft. single family home with 477 sq. ft. of porches and 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. 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. 24 (Queensbury Planning Board 08/20/2019) Pursuant to relevant sections of the Town of Queensbury Zoning Code-Chapter 179-9-080, the Planning Board has determined that this proposal satisfies the requirements as stated in the Zoning Code; As required by General Municipal Law Section 239-m the site plan application was referred to the Warren County Planning Department for its recommendation; The Planning Board opened a public hearing on the Site plan application on 04/23/2019 and continued the public hearing to 08/20/2019, 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 08/20/2019; 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 16-2019 ALEX & MICHELLE WILCOX. Introduced by David Deeb who moved for its adoption; Per the draft provided by staff conditioned upon the following conditions: 1) Waivers request granted: g. site lighting, h. signage, n traffic, o. commercial alterations/ construction details, p floor plans, q. soil logs, r. construction/demolition disposal s. snow removal. 2) Adherence to the items outlined in the follow-up letter sent with this resolution. a) If application was referred to engineering, then engineering sign-off required prior to signature of Zoning Administrator of the approved plans; b) Final approved plans should have dimensions and setbacks noted on the site plan/survey, floor plans and elevation for the existing rooms and proposed rooms in the building and site improvements, c) Final approved plans, in compliance with the Site Plan, must be submitted to the Community Development Department before any further review by the Zoning Administrator or Building and Codes personnel; d) The applicant must meet with Staff after approval and prior to issuance of Building Permit and/or the beginning of any site work; e) Subsequent issuance of further permits, including building permits is dependent on compliance with this and all other conditions of this resolution; f) As-built plans to certify that the site plan is developed according to the approved plans to be provided prior to issuance of the certificate of occupancy; 25 (Queensbury Planning Board 08/20/2019) g) Resolution to be placed on final plans in its entirety and legible. h) A “U” exit and entrance to be allowed during construction. Upon completion of construction the eastern entrance will be closed and re-vegetated with the western entrance to remain as the only ingress and egress. i) Construction driveway to be closed within 12 months of the issuance of building permit. j) Revised clearing limit should be included on the final plan. th Motion seconded by Chris Hunsinger. Duly adopted this 20 day of August, 2019 by the following vote: MR. DEEB-i. construction driveway to be completed within 12 months of building permit issuance. j. revised clearing limit should be included on the final plan. Did I get it all? MRS. MOORE-Someone needs to second it. MR. DEEB-No, I mean did I get it all? MR. TRAVER-Yes. As far as I know. MR. DEEB-Okay. MR. HUNSINGER-I’ll second the motion. MRS. MOORE-So you mentioned something about the construction driveway. MR. VALENTINE-One and two sounded like they were similar. Except that the second part added that, that the date of the construction. I’m not sure I heard it right. MR. TRAVER-Do you want to just read h and i. h. a U entrance and exit to be allowed during construction. Upon completion of the construction, the eastern entrance will be closed and re- vegetated. MR. TRAVER-That’s h. MR. DEEB-I also said western entrance to remain as the only ingress and egress. MR. TRAVER-Okay and then i. 26 (Queensbury Planning Board 08/20/2019) MR. DEEB-Construction driveway to be completed within 12 months of, I put issuance of building permit. MRS. MOORE-To be re-vegetated. You said completed. It’s missing some direction I guess. MR. SHAFER-Restored. MR. DEEB-All right. We’ll put vegetation to be restored. Will be closed and vegetation re- stored. MRS. MOORE-Yes. MR. TRAVER-That works. MR. DEEB-Re-vegetated. You don’t like that word I guess. MRS. MOORE-No, that’s fine. All I heard was the word construction. I didn’t hear anything about re-vegetation. MR. TRAVER-Well, if he adds closed, construction driveway to be closed and re-vegetated, that should work. MRS. MOORE-You have that, but there’s another line. Read the whole sentence again. MR. DEEB-And then after that I said the western entrance to remain as the only ingress and egress. MRS. MOORE-Go on to the second condition. There’s something that’s missing. MR. DEEB-The construction driveway to be closed within 12 months of the issuance of building permit. MRS. MOORE-Yes. MR. DEEB-That’s what I said. MRS. MOORE-Okay. I heard the word completed. MR. DEEB-I hope that’s what I said. 27 (Queensbury Planning Board 08/20/2019) MRS. MOORE-Versus the word closed. So that I was just trying to catch the wording. MR. TRAVER-All right. So we have a revised motion. Maria, did you get all that? MS. GAGLIARDI-I think so. MR. TRAVER-Okay. Thank you, Maria. So we have a revised motion. Do we have a second to the revised motion? MR. HUNSINGER-I’ll still second the motion. MR. TRAVER-All right. Any further discussion? Maria, could you call the vote for us, please. AYES: Mr. Deeb, Ms. White, Mr. Shafer, Mr. Hunsinger, Mr. Magowan, Mr. Valentine, Mr. Traver NOES: NONE MR. DEEB-Good luck. MRS. WILCOX-Thank you so much. MR. TRAVER-All right. Next under tabled items is Pizza Hut, Site Plan 29-2019, and this is also under unapproved development. SITE PLAN NO. 39-2019 SEQR TYPE: TYPE II. PIZZA HUT. OWNER(S): PIZZA HUT OF SOUTHEAST KANSAS, INC. ZONING: CI. LOCATION: 863 STATE ROUTE 9. APPLICANT HAS REPLACED A SPLIT RAIL FENCE WITH A 40 X 30 FIVE FOOT STOCKADE FENCE TO ENCLOSE AN OUTDOOR PATIO FOR 20-30 SEATS. PROJECT INCLUDES DECORATIVE LIGHTING IN PATIO AREA. PURSUANT TO CHAPTER 179-5-070 OF THE ZONING ORDINANCE, FENCE IN A COMMERCIAL ZONE SHALL BE SUBJECT TO PLANNING BOARD REVIEW AND APPROVAL. CROSS REFERENCE: SP 20-1999, SP 21925, AV 21-1999, AV 16-1996 WARREN CO. REFERRAL: JULY 2019. LOT SIZE: 1.26 ACRES. TAX MAP NO. 296.17-1-34. SECTION: 179-5-070 RANDY ZIDICH, REPRESENTING APPLICANT, PRESENT MR. TRAVER-Laura? 28 (Queensbury Planning Board 08/20/2019) MR. MAGOWAN-Mr. Chairman, excuse me, Laura. I would like to recuse myself from this application due to the contact I’ve had with him. MR. TRAVER-Understood. Yes. Michael, do you want to sit in. Thank you. (Michael Dixon, Alternate, sat in for Brad Magowan) MR. TRAVER-Hello. Welcome back. Laura? MRS. MOORE-So the applicant has replaced the split rail fence with a, originally it was a six foot stockade fence. The fence has been reduced in height since we last met. It is now I believe four feet. MR. ZIDICH-No, 42 inches. MRS. MOORE-Forty-two inches in height and still remains a stockade fence. The applicant has, as you see in the photos, it’s landscaped now. The posts that remained he’s used those for hanging planter baskets. There are still hanging lights between those posts as well for dining. MR. TRAVER-Okay. Thank you. Could you state your name for the record. MR. ZIDICH-Randy Zidich, district manager of Pizza Hut. MR. TRAVER-Do you have anything to add? MR. ZIDICH-Really I’ve just got to know if I’ve got to take it down. MR. TRAVER-Okay, and when last we were here we had asked you to come back with a proposed plan for a revision, and I guess you decided to go ahead and we discussed a lot of different things including putting this split rail back, removing it completely, reducing it in height, removing part of it so you can through it and rather than do that you decided on this particular plan. MR. ZIDICH-We cut the top off so it was easy to remove it. We put some shrubs that we planned on putting in there anyway. So that’s where we left it. MR. TRAVER-Okay. Questions, comments from members of the Planning Board? MR. DEEB-It does look better than it did. I will say that, but we did specifically as you to draw up plans and bring it back to us. 29 (Queensbury Planning Board 08/20/2019) MR. ZIDICH-I’m not good at drawing so I figured I could show you this. MR. DEEB-The lights are on top. I’m not sure I like those. Are they Christmas lights? MR. ZIDICH-No. They’re the lights you can buy, you can buy them right next door. MR. DEEB-Okay. I went up and looked at it but I didn’t get close. MR. TRAVER-There is a public hearing on this application. Is there anyone in the audience that wanted to address the Planning Board on the Pizza Hut application? I’m not seeing anyone. Laura, are there any written comments? PUBLIC HEARING OPENED MRS. MOORE-There are no written comments, and I can just relay that the applicant did call me and we had a conversation about the fact that it was cut prior to having the applicant submit a plan. The applicant did explain that it was cut and that he was bringing in photos that day. So that’s how that occurred, but it did get cut prior to my awareness and instead of presenting you with a plan, he presented you the product. MR. TRAVER-Understood. Okay. Thank you. I’m not seeing anyone that wants to address the Planning Board, and I don’t believe there are any written comments. MRS. MOORE-There are no written comments. MR. TRAVER-So we will close the public hearing. PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED MR. TRAVER-Is there any other discussion with members of the Planning Board? MR. DIXON-I do have a question. As fire code, since it’s an outdoor patio, I didn’t see any egress from there. Is there any issue, or is there one close to the building? MRS. MOORE-So there is egress, and you probably had the Fire Marshal already out there at some point. Can you explain what the required egress is for them? MR. ZIDICH-He didn’t say anything to me. MRS. MOORE-There were no outstanding issues. 30 (Queensbury Planning Board 08/20/2019) MR. ZIDICH-And we’ve had it before. So it hasn’t really changed except for the fence around it. MRS. MOORE-And I think to the Harbor Freight side, isn’t there an opening portion of that fence? MR. ZIDICH-No. MRS. MOORE-Or is it all enclosed. MR. TRAVER-But you’re saying that the Fire Marshal did review? MR. ZIDICH-He came by. MR. TRAVER-After the modification. MRS. MOORE-I can follow up with him just to confirm that. MS. WHITE-I mean I’m just seeing people taking a running jump. MR. DEEB-Yes. I’d rather see a gate somewhere in there. MR. VALENTINE-I was thinking the same thing. MS. WHITE-But the Fire Marshal would come out. MR. ZIDICH-Well there are two exits. You can go right around the building or you can go out the side. MR. TRAVER-Out the side of the fence? MR. ZIDICH-On the front side. MRS. MOORE-The front side. So it’s here. Where I’m blowing this up, this is where the access is. MR. VALENTINE-All right. 31 (Queensbury Planning Board 08/20/2019) MRS. MOORE-I thought the access point was in the back, but it’s in the front. MR. TRAVER-Okay. Any other questions, comments? MR. DIXON-Out of curiosity, you had said the franchise is going to have to re-model this store. MR. ZIDICH-Yes. We have our franchise agreement that we have to re-model all of our stores within four years. MR. DIXON-Is the intent to re-model this store? MR. ZIDICH-Our lease is up August of next year so we have to give them a letter of intent on st what we plan on doing by December 31 of this year. So we’re in negotiations trying to buy the property so we can do that rather than continue to rent there. MR. DIXON-All right. And the color scheme that you chose, so it went from a natural wood to a painted wood. MR. ZIDICH-That was our initial intent anyway, but we were told to stop. MR. DIXON-No, I understand that. MR. ZIDICH-We’d match it with the trim of the building. MR. DIXON-Okay. That’s what I couldn’t tell from the photograph. When I had driven by I couldn’t really tell. But I guess that would be something, as far as us as the Board evaluating, too, you know, is are we comfortable with the colors that you’ve chosen. If you’d gone through the proper process we would have had an opportunity to discuss all this. Not going through the proper process, it’s almost as if I’ve got to look at it as you’re proposing something brand new and how we’re going to address it. I think the color is on the dark side. MR. ZIDICH-That’s because of the paint on the other building. It needs to be re-painted. It was the same color. MR. DIXON-I guess what I’m struggling with, I realize what you did. You didn’t follow protocol. MR. ZIDICH-That’s not true. I did talk to Craig. He’s the one that told me, no, you don’t need a permit. Just go ahead and do it. So I did it and then two weeks later they came and said something to me. 32 (Queensbury Planning Board 08/20/2019) MR. DIXON-Right, the misunderstanding between the split rail versus going with the different type of fence all together. MR. ZIDICH-Right. MR. DEEB-But there wasn’t a misunderstanding at our last meeting. MR. ZIDICH-Well I talked to so many of you guys, I just. MR. DEEB-Well we sat here and asked you to draw up a set of plans and bring it to us. MR. ZIDICH-Right. MR. DEEB-That was pretty straightforward. But I still think it looks all right. It looks a lot better than it did. MR. HUNSINGER-And the plantings help a lot, too. It really breaks it up. MS. WHITE-And we have no recourse anyway. MR. TRAVER-No recourse to what? MS. WHITE-To the fact that there was no plan prior to this second phase. MR. DEEB-There still is no plan. MS. WHITE-Right. MRS. MOORE-I apologize. So there is, when an applicant comes in with an application and they’ve been cited, so this applicant is coming in to compliance by submitting you a site plan application. Perhaps he’s cut this fence out, but he’s still in the middle of site plan application and review before this Board. So he is still coming into compliance. MS. WHITE-Okay. MR. VALENTINE-A general question about Pizza Hut, when you were talking about your lease and stuff. This is not one of the stores that we read about? 33 (Queensbury Planning Board 08/20/2019) MR. ZIDICH-No, no. That was all about when Pizza Hut three years ago re-did the franchise agreement to the franchisees, they signed the contract that they wouldn’t shut the store down for so many years. That has come up. So say you replace this store in Queensbury with another one in Queensbury, you had to keep that other one open for three years. Now they’re starting to shut them down throughout the State. Not just this State, but across the nationwide. Most of the stores that have been closed are over in Syracuse. MR. DEEB-Both franchises here were owned by one person? MR. ZIDICH-Yes. MR. TRAVER-Any other questions, comments before we entertain a motion? I guess we’re ready. RESOLUTION APPROVING SP # 39-2019 PIZZA HUT 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 has replaced a split rail fence with a 40x30 at 42 inches in height stockade fence to enclose an outdoor patio for 20-30 seats. Project includes decorative lighting in patio area. Pursuant to Chapter 179-5-070 of the Zoning Ordinance, fence in a commercial zone shall be subject to Planning Board review and approval. Pursuant to relevant sections of the Town of Queensbury Zoning Code-Chapter 179-9-080, the Planning Board has determined that this proposal satisfies the requirements as stated in the Zoning Code; As required by General Municipal Law Section 239-m the site plan application was referred to the Warren County Planning Department for its recommendation; The Planning Board opened a public hearing on the Site plan application on 07/16/2019 and continued the public hearing to 08/20/2019, 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 08/20/2019; 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 39-2019 PIZZA HUT, Introduced by David Deeb who moved for its adoption. Per the draft provided by staff conditioned upon the following conditions: 34 (Queensbury Planning Board 08/20/2019) 1) Waivers request granted: g. site lighting, h. signage, j. stormwater, k. topography, l. landscaping, n traffic, o. commercial alterations/ construction details, p floor plans, q. soil logs, r. construction/demolition disposal s. snow removal. 2) Adherence to the items outlined in the follow-up letter sent with this resolution. th Motion seconded by John Shafer. Duly adopted this 20 day of August, 2019 by the following vote: AYES: Mr. Shafer, Mr. Hunsinger, Mr. Dixon, Mr. Valentine, Mr. Deeb, Ms. White NOES: Mr. Traver MR. TRAVER-All right. So you’re all set. All right. We move to the next section of our agenda which is under Recommendations to the Zoning Board of Appeals from the Planning Board, and the first application under that category is William Mason, Site Plan 52-2019. PLANNING BOARD RECOMMENDATIONS TO THE ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS SITE PLAN NO. 52-2019 SEQR TYPE: TYPE II. WILLIAM MASON. AGENT(S): WILLIAM MASON. OWNER(S): MATT SMITH. ZONING: WR. LOCATION: 3 SENECA DRIVE. APPLICANT PROPOSES DEMOLITION OF AN EXISTING 768 SQ. FT. HOME TO CONSTRUCT A NEW 768 SQ. FT. HOME WITH A BASEMENT AND SECOND STORY – FROM A TWO BEDROOM TO A THREE BEDROOM. NEW FLOOR AREA OF 2,196 SQ. FT. PURSUANT TO CHAPTER 179-3-040 & 179-6-065 OF THE ZONING ORDINANCE, NEW CONSTRUCTION IN A CEA 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. CROSS REFERENCE: MULTIPLE AV & SP “TAKUNDEWIDE”. WARREN CO. REFERRAL: AUGUST 2019. SITE INFORMATION: CEA, APA, LGP, TAKUNDEWIDE. LOT SIZE: .05 ACRE. TAX MAP NO. 239.8-1-24. SECTION: 179-3-040, 179-6-065 BILL MASON, PRESENT MR. TRAVER-Laura? MRS. MOORE-So this applicant proposes the existing 768 square foot home to construct a new 768 square foot home. This would include a basement and a second story, and this is similar to other homes in Takundewide where the applicant requires variances for setbacks from building. MR. TRAVER-Thank you. Good evening. MR. MASON-Good evening. Bill Mason, representing, I’m the applicant representing the owner, Matt Smith. 35 (Queensbury Planning Board 08/20/2019) MR. TRAVER-Okay. Would you give us an overview of your project? MR. MASON-This is very similar to ones that have been in front of this Board before at Takundewide. This is Cottage Number Three owned by Matt and Joan Smith. They would like to, it’s now currently a two bedroom home. They have a growing family. They have just two daughters and were very comfortable for many years, but both have gotten married and both may be heading for grandchildren. They don’t want to announce anything. MR. TRAVER-That’s out of our jurisdiction anyway. MR. MASON-But they’re getting a little bit crowded with two bedrooms and one bathroom for their growing family. So they’re proposing to tear down the existing, it’s a 24 by 32 foot building, the same as all the other ones at Takundewide. Tear it down and construct a 24 by 32 foot building with a second floor and an unfinished basement underneath. I don’t know that they need to say that it’s unfinished all the time, but that’s the way they’re going with this. Now with the Floor Area Ratio worksheet that is included, the square footage of the basement is included anyway. So the one, I guess that’s it in a nutshell. The one correction I just want to make in the general notes from Staff, it says that they have the opportunity to join in with the community septic system we worked very hard with the Boards to install not too long ago. They are part of it already. They’ve got a 1,000 gallon concrete septic tank with access port. It’s maintained regularly as part of the community septic system and the septic is pumped out 1,000 feet away from Lake George to drain fields that dose intermittently. It works beautifully. We haven’t had any problems. We’ve got a good healthy escrow fund that we contribute to ourselves and the Town has also about seven or eight thousand dollars that they’re holding in case we ever needed it for repairs or maintenance. MR. TRAVER-And I see we have a relationship with Takundewide going back to 2003 with an MOU. MR. MASON-Yes. The relationship’s a lot longer than that, but the MOU was written at that time, and at that time with wrestled with a lot of issues that continue to come up whenever an owner wanted to deal with these projects, and the critical part of it was that the Boards were uncomfortable with the fact that there was 18 acres of land at Takundewide that I believe the Boards viewed as possibly developable and were uncomfortable giving us credit for it, but we assured them that that’s not the case, that never is anybody’s intent, and it can’t happen without the approval of these Boards anyway. So that’s not going to happen, and the 18 acres should rd count towards this density thing. Takundewide has 21 acres with 32 homes which is about 2/3’s of a an per parcel and when you counted in each home, each of the 32 homes could fit within the Floor Area Ratio worksheet and build a 6,000 square foot home. We can’t do that. It would be going up six stories with setback issues. I’m not saying that. I’m just saying it just to point out that we’ve got so much land the density really is not a problem when you consider the 18 acres and from our point of view that was the critical thing that happened with the MOU. MS. WHITE-How many of the 32 homes have gone up a second story? MR. MASON-About half now I’m going to guess. I could go right through and add, but in the neighborhood that this is in, Number Three, both Number’s One and Two have done the exact same thing and Number Ten. So they’re the small one in this Neighborhood Four. It’s roughly half of the homes have done this and I would expect over time that they would all do it, but I would 36 (Queensbury Planning Board 08/20/2019) also expect that that would be a very long time frame because there are some that they have absolutely no interest in at all. MR. TRAVER-And the variances related to this application are typical for Takundewide, for this type of project within Takundewide HOA. MR. MASON-Yes. MR. HUNSINGER-When was the last time there was a complete re-build, though? I mean we’ve seen lots of them where they’ve added a second floor. MR. MASON-The last one I did was Number Ten and that was a re-build and Number Thirteen, excuse me, that was the last one. And right before that, Six, Seven and Eight were all teardowns with re-builds. Number Thirty was a teardown. This is really just a matter of money to the owner. As a contractor I tell them if you’re going to keep the first floor and really not change anything, then it makes sense, but once, and they never do that. I always get to the end of the project and say you should have torn this down because you moved the kitchen, you moved the bathroom. You’re crazy. You’re re-building, and it’s just 24 by 32. Some of them that I convinced, or that we decided to tear them down we went in and we went in and we removed all of the column very carefully, stacked it neatly and then re-installed it and they got the feel of the old camp but they got a new structure and I think it makes way more sense and it’s, I think, less money, but. MR. HUNSINGER-It’s the homeowner’s choice. MR. MASON-The homeowner’s choice. MR. SHAFER-Question. When was the community sewage system installed? MR. MASON-I think that’s about roughly 10 years. I’m sorry, I don’t have that with me. MR. SHAFER-And is there the capacity in that system to do additional re-builds? MR. MASON-Yes. The design capacity was, I believe, for five more homes. MR. SHAFER-I read it somewhere. MR. MASON-So this home added one bedroom. It’s not a problem. In the addition, we are supposed to, as some point, we haven’t done it, we’re keeping all of the data on the daily logs and we keep the data on how many times the pumps pump to the back and we can determine how many gallons that is, so we can actually determine, over all of these years, exactly how much sewage we’re producing and then we can come to a real number that I was told by the engineer that when we do that we’ll find that he designed it very conservatively because he was just doing estimates 37 (Queensbury Planning Board 08/20/2019) and it’s never that much and so if we ever were to approach the upper limit he said before you do anything talk to me and we’ll make sure exactly where you stand and we’ll take a look at the system and what the condition is and then they, okay. I’m giving you more than you asked but that’s all that goes through my head when you ask that question. MR. VALENTINE-Is there room for expansion of the system if necessary? MR. MASON-We could add another drain field, yes, if we wish. There’s lots of additional room up in the back that is not developed yet. MR. TRAVER-So before us this evening is actually a recommendation on the variances to the ZBA for this project, and that’s for, as we’ve seen with others in Takundewide, setbacks, permeability, floor area ratio. Does anyone have any issues with any of those variances? MR. DEEB-No. They’re the same as they’ve always been. MR. TRAVER-Yes. Does anyone have any other questions or comments before we move to a motion? All right. I guess we’re ready for the motion. RESOLUTION RE: ZBA RECOMMENDATION RE: AV 33-2019 WILLIAM MASON The applicant has submitted an application for the following: Applicant proposes demolition of an existing 768 sq. ft. home to construct a new 768 sq. ft. home with a basement and second story – from a two bedroom to a three bedroom. New floor area of 2,196 sq. ft. Pursuant to Chapter 179-3-040 & 179-6-065 of the Zoning Ordinance, new construction in a CEA 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. 33-2019 WILLIAM MASON. 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. 38 (Queensbury Planning Board 08/20/2019) th Motion seconded by Jamie White. Duly adopted this 20 day of August, 2019 by the following vote: AYES: Mr. Hunsinger, Mr. Magowan, Mr. Valentine, Mr. Deeb, Ms. White, Mr. Shafer, Mr. Traver NOES: NONE MR. TRAVER-Good luck at the ZBA. MR. MASON-Thank you very much. I’ll see you in a couple of weeks I hope. MR. TRAVER-Next under Recommendations is Verizon Wireless, Site Plan 49-2019. SITE PLAN NO. 49-2019 SPECIAL USE PERMIT 2-2019 SEQR TYPE: TYPE II. VERIZON WIRELESS. AGENT(S): DAVID BRENNAN, ESQ. OWNER(S): STEWART’S SHOPS CORP. ZONING: NC. LOCATION: 347 AVIATION ROAD. APPLICANT PROPOSES TO REMOVE AN EXISTING SMALL CELL WIRELESS FACILITY ON THE ROOF OF AN EXISTING STEWART’S SHOP STORE. THE APPLICANT PROPOSES A NEW SMALL CELL FACILITY TO BE LOCATED ON A PROPOSED LIGHT POLE TO BE INSTALLED WITH THE NEW STORE. THE PROJECT INCLUDES LEASE OF A 10 X 10 SQ. FT. AREA WITH THE LIGHT POLE AND CELL FACILITY HEIGHT AT 31 FT. 9 INCHES – LIGHT POLE AT 15 FT. 6 INCHES. PURSUANT TO CHAPTER 179-5-130 AND 179-10 OF THE ZONING ORDINANCE, TELECOMMUNICATION TOWERS SHALL BE SUBJECT TO PLANNING BOARD REVIEW AND APPROVAL. VARIANCE: RELIEF IS SOUGHT FOR SETBACK. PLANNING BOARD SHALL PROVIDE A RECOMMENDATION TO THE ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS. CROSS REFERENCE: SITE PLAN 7-2019. WARREN CO. REFERRAL: N/A. LOT SIZE: 1.037 ACRE. TAX MAP NO. 301.8-1- 33. SECTION: 179-5-130 & 179-10. DAVE BRENNAN, REPRESENTING APPLICANT, PRESENT MR. TRAVER-Laura? MRS. MOORE-So this applicant proposes a small wireless facility, which is a cell tower proposed on the new light poles that will be installed at the new Stewart’s store. Originally the small cell facility was placed on the building and at this time since the building is being replaced, and it still does the coverage for the school district and neighboring homes. MR. TRAVER-And we knew this was coming because the other applicant warned us that this would be part of their project, moving this antenna. So welcome. Good evening. 39 (Queensbury Planning Board 08/20/2019) MR. BRENNAN-Hopefully warned is too strong a word. Good evening, ladies and gentlemen. My name is Dave Brennan with Young/Sommer out of Albany. My bodyguard on this side is Chris Boyce from Pyramid Network Services and actually representing Stewart’s Chris Potter is actually monitoring my activities tonight on behalf of Stewart’s, but, yes, we do have an existing small cell facility at that Stewart’s. It was on what we call a ballast or tripod out on the roof of the older or more typical version of the Stewart’s store with, I’ve never been good with my architectural terms. I forget which type of roof, you would call that a mansard or something like that, a traditional one, and as Stewart’s is going through and improving their locations over time they’ve filed a program, this one for an upgrade, and this Board has seen and approved that improvement in the last few months, and in so doing we got the little bit of a heave ho that we needed to re-locate our facility, and these facilities, I know we have a couple of them in Town. I don’t know if I’ve had to actually come in front of this Board for a small cell facility, but I’ve been here on traditional towers, but these facilities basically provide what I’ll call in fill with additional capacity and band width for the Verizon Wireless network we have on our traditional towers and large scale antennas that provide a network over the entire Town and these basically augment or supplement that coverage using different frequencies to basically pickup areas where you have possibly coverage or capacity deficiencies, and so this particular one was placed in our interest among other reasons in keeping services and you’ve got a high user volume with the folks at the high school, the kids next door as well as the highway travel, commercial corridor. So the new Stewart’s design does not lend itself, it’s design is a flat roof and doesn’t lend itself necessarily to the same installation. So what we’re proposing is to do a small cell facility to add on to one of their existing light poles. So basically we were provided in advance their site plan. We were not quite as Stewart’s was. They were in the process and we let them go through and complete their site plan, tried not to step on their toes and were following in their footsteps, coming as a site plan addition requesting to take one of their existing poles and we’ll increase the diameter of it slightly. It will be the same sort of oil bronze finish. We’ll send that detail to the manufacturer and we’ll take the existing poles which are fifteen and a half feet tall and extend it to the top. The antenna would be 31 feet, and we’ve provided diagrams as well as a simulation for you to take a look at, and in so doing we kept the location at the approved location where Stewart’s had their plan. We had some thought in advance of trying to keep the foot candles appropriate for the light on site. We’re here tonight on a referral to the Zoning Board because in taking this particular pole which made sense we moved it, chose one that was in the middle part of the site farther off the road, so it’s not right out by the road frontage and all that considered generally substantially invisible. We had an opportunity to not put it in the right of way. It’s 172.5 feet away from a duplex or a four unit apartment building behind and so the new provisions that were put in for small cell facilities by the Town Board in April require a 200 foot setback from a residential dwelling unit, and so in striking a balance pushing it back into the site off the road right of way we got a little too close to a residential unit. It is situated, from the RF engineer’s perspective, in a way, in a location that provides coverage to the school. Though it was back in the middle of the site where it’s not visible. It’s certainly not visible from that residence, but we have to go to the Zoning Board and we’re asking for your favorable recommendation to that Board as well. MR. TRAVER-And this small type of cell facility doesn’t put out the RF that a tower does. Correct? MR. BRENNAN-No, it doesn’t. A traditional tower, a macro site with a six footer or eight foot panel antennas, you know, they will cover an area from a mile to two and a half miles depending on the environment. These cover basically 750 maybe 1,000 feet. So it’s a much smaller coverage. We do fully comply with the FCC limits on radio frequency emissions. We’re always at somewhere in the area of one percent or less of what the FCC allows. So even if it’s at full power, we’re not even close to 100% of what is allowed. The FCC is looking at those things. If they change the requirements in some fashion we will change our operation and comply. 40 (Queensbury Planning Board 08/20/2019) MR. TRAVER-Okay. Thank you. Questions, comments from members of the Planning Board? There’s no public hearing on this because this is a referral. MR. VALENTINE-Just a site plan question that may come in but it still applies to the Area Variance. Dave, where this is located, is there a reason why that it couldn’t go further back? It’s in the area where there’s like six parking spaces in a row there? Is there a reason why you couldn’t come south of that site somewhat? The other thing I was concerned with that being in a parking area like that, what are you going to do for snow conditions, snow plowing conditions there? MR. BRENNAN-Well it’s going on an existing pole that’s going to be there whether or not we put our equipment on it. Our equipment is all elevated about grade. We are putting in two bollards just in case someone backs into it, but as far as snow removal, this project isn’t impacting my expectation of how anyone would have to deal with snowfall on that site because it’s an existing pole in the proposed location. MR. VALENTINE-I was just thinking you’re going to push that snow from out in the interior parking and push it toward the curb line. Does your equipment start to get buried? MR. BRENNAN-No, it’s all elevated. I mean the majority of the equipment. MR. TRAVER-It would take a lot of snow. MR. MAGOWAN-It’s up there. MS. WHITE-It’s up there. MR. MAGOWAN-Twelve feet up. MR. DEEB-That’s going to be there anyway. Right? MR. VALENTINE-That pole, the equipment and the base there. MR. BRENNAN-So the equipment is all, there is a teleco box that’s a foot by a foot by six inches that’s probably four feet above grade, but the majority of the equipment’s 12 feet off the ground where the radios are. So and the teleco box I would expect would probably be on the back side. So I don’t think snowplowing would affect it. As far as re-locating it, there is another pole that is the same six spaces south. Like this pole? MR. VALENTINE-In the green area, that area between the property line. MR. BRENNAN-In the green? I’m sorry. 41 (Queensbury Planning Board 08/20/2019) MR. VALENTINE-But enough to get it away from that 172 foot, but then they’d have to go for a variance on the side property line. MR. BRENNAN-Yes, again, we didn’t want to change the location that Stewart’s selected for their actual light pole so that we’re not making any impact on their lighting requirements and their foot candles and coverage. I mean, the R F engineer kind of did like it here because it was actually seeing, there’s a building right here, kind of seeing behind, versus this pole, and again when we were initially looking at this, we started looked at it I think before the Town Board actually published its new requirements. So we were looking at the one that was further interior to the site with the idea being that on balance that you could put it back into the site off of the right of way, although our humble opinion would be that even in the right of way it’s acceptable, but this would be an opportunity to not put it in the right of way, and so then we saw the requirements came out., So we think it’s the right location. The interesting conversation that will have to be had at some point is the idea is if we were to come through, these are meant to ultimately provide coverage in a big picture of the 5G world to neighborhoods as an alternative to land line cable and so the Town Board had said you can’t have any of these within 200 feet of a residence is going to go, if you ever put one essentially in a residential neighborhood without a variance. It’ll be interesting at some point if we come back and try to put one in a neighborhood. It will be a siting dilemma to see if it requires variances. That’s down the road. MR. VALENTINE-Thank you. MR. BRENNAN-You’re welcome. MR. SHAFER-Is the teleco box being four feet off the ground, is that vandal proof? MR. BRENNAN-Yes. Those have an ability to be locked, yes. We certainly don’t want somebody out there opening things up. MR. SHAFER-No. MR. TRAVER-So this application is before us this evening for the variance for setback. Does anybody have any issues with the proposed setback? MR. DEEB-The whole project being integrated with the Stewart’s site plan is pretty seamless. MR. TRAVER-Yes. MR. BRENNAN-In a perfect world we would have had everything together and put it right in front of you during the Stewart’s but it took us a little while to design things. So we decided to sit back on the sidelines, let them get approved because this is more important to them than one antenna, and then come in, but we’ll try not to switch up anything and just construct it. MR. TRAVER-Okay. We’re ready for a motion. 42 (Queensbury Planning Board 08/20/2019) RESOLUTION RE: ZBA RECOMMENDATION RE: AV # 34-2019 VERIZON WIRELESS The applicant has submitted an application for the following: Applicant proposes to remove an existing small cell wireless facility on the roof of an existing Stewart’s Shops store. The applicant proposes a new small cell facility to be located on a proposed light pole to be installed with the new store. The project includes lease of a 10 x 10 sq. ft. area with the light pole and cell facility height at 31 ft. 9 inches – light pole at 15 ft. 6 inches. Pursuant to Chapter 179-5-130 and 179-10 of the Zoning Ordinance, telecommunication towers shall be subject to Planning Board review and approval. Variance: Relief is sought for setback. 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. 34-2019 VERIZON WIRELESS. 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 Michael Valentine. Duly adopted this 20day of August, 2019 by the following vote: AYES: Mr. Magowan, Mr. Valentine, Mr. Deeb, Ms. White, Mr. Shafer, Mr. Hunsinger, Mr. Traver NOES: NONE MR. TRAVER-Good luck. MR. BRENNAN-Thank you very much. MR. TRAVER-Next we move on to the New Business section of our agenda and the first application under that category is Jeffrey Greenwood, Site Plan 47-2019. 43 (Queensbury Planning Board 08/20/2019) NEW BUSINESS: SITE PLAN NO. 47-2019 SEQR TYPE: TYPE II. JEFFREY GREENWOOD. OWNER(S): SAME AS APPLICANT. ZONING: WR. LOCATION: 222 LAKE PARKWAY. APPLICANT PROPOSES TO CONSTRUCT AN 864 SQ. FT. 15 FT. HIGH TWO CAR GARAGE IN A CEA. THE SITE HAS AN EXISTING 1,182 SQ. FT. (FOOTPRINT), 2,470 SQ. FT. FAR AND FLOOR AREA INCREASE OF 864 SQ. FT. PURSUANT TO CHAPTER 179-6-065 OF THE ZONING ORDINANCE, CONSTRUCTION IN A CEA SHALL BE SUBJECT TO PLANNING BOARD REVIEW AND APPROVAL. CROSS REFERENCE: N/A. WARREN CO. REFERRAL: AUGUST 2019. SITE INFORMATION: APA, LGP, CEA. LOT SIZE: .62 ACRE. TAX MAP NO. 226.19-1-83. SECTION: 179-6-065. JEFF GREENWOOD, PRESENT MR. TRAVER-Laura? MRS. MOORE-This applicant proposes an 864 square foot two car garage located in a CEA and currently with our regulations the project increases its Floor Area Ratio. It’s now subject to Site Plan Review. The applicant supplied a survey and also supplied information on the current landscaping that’s on the site. MR. TRAVER-Okay. Thank you. Good evening. MR. GREENWOOD-I’m Jeff Greenwood. This is my wife Zoey. We hale from Connecticut where I spent the best part of my professional career, science and environmental teaching people of all ages about environmental conservation and nature and preservation of natural resources. So we find ourselves here at Lake George, a seasonal property, and we’re using it more and more and it just felt like it would be handy for us to have a garage to put our cars in, to put our outdoor furniture and grills. We have a canoe and things like that, and we recognize that since it is on the lake it’s a Critical Environmental Area and Lake George is a spectacular, unique body of water and there are noble organizations and agencies and private individuals that look out for that lake and we’re among them. So regarding the garage, we spoke to Craig Brown and he suggested the parcel is actually bisected by Lake Parkway and so we had the parcels combined so that we wouldn’t have to worry about a variance, and I had the property surveyed so we could ensure the correct placement of things, and decided to put this structure, the proposed garage, on the southern border hugging the line but still outside the setbacks. It is staked that way on the property, and that would allow, if down the road if we need to have a septic replacement, here would be a spot for that. So the proposed structure is just pretty much a generic garage, two car garage. It wouldn’t be higher than the maximum allowable there I would say, I guess is 16 feet. It’ll have pine board siding like the house has. Stone trenches on either side for runoff, downcast residential lighting. It’s kind of an Adirondack lot anyway, a lot of trees around. It will have electricity hopefully. So we’re just hopeful that we’ve met the requirements for you folks and you’d look favorably on this project and we can move forward. MR. TRAVER-Okay. Thank you. Questions, comments from members of the Planning Board? It’s fairly straightforward. 44 (Queensbury Planning Board 08/20/2019) MR. HUNSINGER-I was going to say it’s fairly straightforward. MR. TRAVER-There is a public hearing on this application. Are there folks in the audience that wanted to address the Planning Board on this application? Not seeing any hands, are there any written comments, Laura? PUBLIC HEARING OPENED MRS. MOORE-So there are written comments and they are all in favor. So I can just read, I’ll just read their names and their addresses. MR. TRAVER-Okay. MRS. MOORE-They’re all in favor of the project. So there’s one from David Wilcox of 26 Forest Road on Assembly Point. Jennifer and Steven Kitchen on 40 Forest Road. Yvonne and P.J. Seguljic from 32 Forest Road. And then Kathy and John are neighbors to the north side of the applicant and they are in favor of the project. MR. TRAVER-Okay. Thank you. Noted. No questions from members of the Planning Board? MR. SHAFER-Just a quick one. There’ll be electricity in the garage. No plumbing? MR. GREENWOOD-Correct. Yes. RESOLUTION APPROVING SITE PLAN NO. 47-2019 JEFFREY GREENWOOD 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 construct an 864 sq. ft., 15 ft. high two car garage in a CEA. The site has an existing 1,182 sq. ft. (footprint), 2,470 sq. ft. FAR and floor area increase of 864 sq. ft. Pursuant to Chapter 179-6-065 of the Zoning Ordinance, construction in a CEA shall be subject to Planning Board review and approval. Pursuant to relevant sections of the Town of Queensbury Zoning Code-Chapter 179-9-080, the Planning Board has determined that this proposal satisfies the requirements as stated in the Zoning Code; As required by General Municipal Law Section 239-m the site plan application was referred to the Warren County Planning Department for its recommendation; The Planning Board opened a public hearing on the Site plan application on 08/20/2019 and continued the public hearing to 08/20/2019, when it was closed, 45 (Queensbury Planning Board 08/20/2019) 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 08/20/2019; 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 47-2019 JEFFREY GREENWOOD. Introduced by David Deeb who moved for its adoption; Per the draft provided by staff conditioned upon the following conditions: 1) Waivers request granted: g. site lighting, h. signage, k. topography, n traffic, o. commercial alterations/ construction details, p floor plans, q. soil logs, r. construction/demolition disposal s. snow removal. 2) Adherence to the items outlined in the follow-up letter sent with this resolution. a) If application was referred to engineering, then engineering sign-off required prior to signature of Zoning Administrator of the approved plans; b) Final approved plans should have dimensions and setbacks noted on the site plan/survey, floor plans and elevation for the existing rooms and proposed rooms in the building and site improvements, c) Final approved plans, in compliance with the Site Plan, must be submitted to the Community Development Department before any further review by the Zoning Administrator or Building and Codes personnel; d) The applicant must meet with Staff after approval and prior to issuance of Building Permit and/or the beginning of any site work; e) Subsequent issuance of further permits, including building permits is dependent on compliance with this and all other conditions of this resolution; f) As-built plans to certify that the site plan is developed according to the approved plans to be provided prior to issuance of the certificate of occupancy; g) Resolution to be placed on final plans in its entirety and legible. Motion seconded by Brad Magowan. Duly adopted this 20th day of August, 2019 by the following vote: AYES: Mr. Magowan, Mr. Valentine, Mr. Deeb, Ms. White, Mr. Shafer, Mr. Hunsinger, Mr. Traver NOES: NONE MR. TRAVER-You’re all set. 46 (Queensbury Planning Board 08/20/2019) MR. GREENWOOD-Thank you very much. I’d like to thank Laura for her help holding my hand. MR. MAGOWAN-She’s very good. MRS. MOORE-So you will need those plans that you’re keeping. You’ll receive a letter. MR. GREENWOOD-Thank you very much. MR. TRAVER-Next under New Business, and also unapproved development, let’s see, next is North Country Property Management, Site Plan 46-2019. SITE PLAN NO. 46-2019 SEQR TYPE: TYPE II. NORTH COUNTRY PROPERTY MGMT. OWNER(S): R&P QUAKER I REALTY, LLC. ZONING: CLI. LOCATION: 415 BIG BAY ROAD. APPLICANT IS CURRENTLY OCCUPYING A 5,500 SQ. FT. EXISTING BUILDING AND UTILIZING THE 1.72 ACRE SITE FOR NORTH COUNTRY SNOW & ICE COMPANY. THE PROJECT INCLUDES STORAGE OF EQUIPMENT, VEHICLES AND MATERIALS AN NEW GRAVEL AREA TO BE ADDED. THE BUILDING TO BE USED FOR OFFICE SPACE, COMPANY VEHICLE WORK AND INTERNAL STORAGE. PURSUANT TO CHAPTER 179-9-020 OF THE ZONING ORDINANCE, CHANGE OF USE FOR EXISTING COMMERCIAL BUILDING SHALL BE SUBJECT TO PLANNING BOARD REVIEW AND APPROVAL. CROSS REFERENCE: SUB 11-2002 TWO LOTS; SP 27-1989, SP 68-1999, SP 71-2010 CHANGES OF USE. WARREN CO. REFERRAL: AUGUST 2019. LOT SIZE: 1.72 ACRES. TAX MAP NO. 309.17-1-17.1. SECTION: 179-9-020. KARLA BUETTNER, REPRESENTING APPLICANT, PRESENT MR. TRAVER-Laura? MRS. MOORE-So this applicant proposes to re-use an existing 5,500 square foot building and utilize the 1.72 acre site for North Country Snow & Ice company. So they currently have some items stored there. They did receive information from our office that they needed to stop, not continue, and they have done that. So right now they’re in front of this Board to finish off this project so that they can do storage of equipment, vehicles and materials and they’re proposing a new gravel area to be added. There is some interior work that is to be done. They do have an outlined floor plan of what is to occur. Mostly the maintenance building, probably interior office re-arrangement on the one side of the building and they did propose in their plan some updated landscaping in the front. MR. TRAVER-Okay. Good. Thank you. Good evening. MS. BUETTNER-Good evening. Karla Buettner from Bartlett, Pontiff, Stewart & Rhodes. I’m here with the applicant tonight, Michael Merrill, who’s the CEO of North Country Property Management, and Scott McDonald who is the Chief Production Officer. There will be a sheet that I sign. I kind of came into this a little while ago. My folks are here before you just for Site Plan Review. They are coming into lease this building for their facilities. They are currently 47 (Queensbury Planning Board 08/20/2019) working out of an office over on Maple in Glens Falls. They have a number of storage facilities and distribution centers around, six or seven of them around the area. I’m going to let them speak a little more to that, but they’re before you today because they have a lease that was just signed a couple of weeks ago with the owner of the property. MR. TRAVER-A couple of weeks ago? MS. BUETTNER-Yes. They’ve had a lease and now we’ve negotiated the full five year lease. MR. TRAVER-Okay. MS. BUETTNER-And the lease is contingent upon Site Plan approval. At this point they’re before you because it’s been more than seven years and it’s a change in use of the building. Nemer was using it for a while. They had their tow truck business back there. These folks are going to be in there, eventually have their office staff in there, their trucks in there. These are the folks that go out in the middle of the night when all of us are sleeping and they’re out with the highway guys, plowing, but they also do work. They build, they do masonry. I’ll let them talk a little bit about it. You have everything before you. There’s a landscape plan. There’s a few waivers that we’ve worked with, they’ve worked with Laura with respect to how to fill this out. We’re just here to answer any questions you may have. So I’m going to turn it over to Michael and he can explain to you a little bit, you may not know what North Country Property Management is. It’s a couple of different companies together. So I’m going to let him explain it and hopefully he and Scott can answer any questions for you. MR. TRAVER-Okay. Thank you. Good evening. MICHAEL MERRILL MR. MERRILL-North County Property Management is our legal name. So you won’t see that out anywhere. Our trade names are North Country Snow and Ice Management and North Country Facilities Management. So the North Country Facilities Management is the brand that we do all of our construction, our masonry, that sort of thing. So notable clients, you’ll see us on a lot of the Stewart’s sites. We’re at Exit 18 right now on Big Bay. We’re at Cumberland Farms, Dollar General, that sort of thing. So Scott runs our construction side. North Country Snow and Ice Management encompasses all of our, we were a snow only company for years, and we added landscaping just so we could keep our people employed year round and then the facilities side came from that. So our service area is quite large. So we service in-house. We’re sometimes up to a 100 mile service radius in-house. So even though the crews dispatch out of Glens Falls, they’re staying, like in a snowstorm they might be there for days in a hotel working the Albany market or working in Amsterdam or working the Vermont border over on the other side. We employ, at this point, about 40 to 50 full time year round and up to 250 in the winter, which is good for our move because the area in which we’re moving, we employ a lot of the laborers, as well as the skilled folks. So for a general labor person, we can do a lot for the general area, an immediate impact. A lot of these folks walk to work, they ride their bikes to work. We’re currently in the City of Glens Falls on Maple Street and we do have a decent base of folks that are employed right from the neighborhood where our office is located. We’re on the bus route in Glens Falls, too. We service primarily commercial clients, industrial, medical. We don’t do really municipal work. So we plow for a lot of the same, you know, Target and Rite Aid, CVS and Cumberland and all these type of people. Karla alludes to our storage hubs. Operationally 48 (Queensbury Planning Board 08/20/2019) it doesn’t make sense to move a lot of that snow gear back and forth if we don’t have to. So we have a hub in Albany. We have a hub on Exit 16 in Wilton. We have a hub in Amsterdam, and currently we’re renting multiple storage yards. As we’ve gone and started working the off season, which used to be the summer to us, we have items stored all over the place making operations very difficult. So we’ve not only outgrown our space but it’s becoming a logistical nightmare. What we’re trying to do today is seek approval for our Certificate of Occupancy so we can get our shop set up and have our operational crews leave from that building. Our office would currently stay on Maple Street in that building we’re in because we’re going to do a re-model we hope at some point and then we will be back in front of you to seek approval once we have those plans drawn and know what we want to do. MS. BUETTNER-So at this point what you have in front of you, they’re not adding anything to the front of the buildings. They’re not changing the site at all. They’re adding 19,000 square feet of gravel which may have been there at one point and sunk in in the back. That’s shown on the site plan. They’re adding some nicer landscaping on there. IT’s really going to make it look a little bit better. It’s interesting you said it looks like the Brady house. MR. MERRILL-Yes, it looks like the Brady house right now between the stone and the outdated landscaping. MS. BUETTNER-And downward lighting and all that. So there’s also a traffic map in there showing the traffic flow to make it a U shaped traffic through there, so it’s enter only, exit only. So really at this point we’re just here to answer any questions you folks may have and hopefully seek approval. MR. MAGOWAN-I have a question. Is this through the Nemer Group, the lease? MS. BUETTNER-Yes. MR. MAGOWAN-Okay. So they were here for, I think it was a towing company about seven years ago if I remember, and they were going to do some trucking and stuff like that. I’m happy to hear that you’ve finally outgrown Maple Street because I thought you were going to put racks and everything and start just piling everything. MR. MERRILL-We’re busy. MR. MAGOWAN-You are, and now after hearing your narrative, I’m amazed how long you’ve worked out of Maple Street over there, because like I said, the trucks, I see them all over, and especially in the wintertime I know the employees that are out there all night long. MR. MERRILL-We outgrew it about five or seven years ago. We’ve had separate plans over there. The business wasn’t conducive to being in the city even though we’re zoned Light Industrial. We were looking at buying across the street and maybe creating a yard because the whole area is Light Industrial, but it didn’t work out. So we started looking, and this has been, we’ve been looking at this property for two years now between Nemers and getting to this point. 49 (Queensbury Planning Board 08/20/2019) MR. MAGOWAN-The nice thing about it is the exit on the Northway for you there. I really think this is a good move. So basically you just want to re-group over there. MR. MERRILL-Yes. MR. DEEB-So Glens Falls wasn’t conducive to your business? MR. MERRILL-There’s some folks there that just didn’t appreciate us being there as much we thought they did. MS. BUETTNER-It was a great location, but they outgrew it. MR. DEEB-So you moved up to Queensbury where we’re much friendlier. MR. MERRILL-You are. MR. DEEB-Are there any lifts in the building? MR. MERRILL-Not currently, but we’re going to install. MR. DEEB-So you’re going to do repair work? MR. MERRILL-Our own, yes. MR. DEEB-So you’re going to make sure everything’s Code compliant when you do oil changes? MR. MERRILL-Absolutely. MS. BUETTNER-They’re not doing anything without letting me know. MR. DEEB-That was my concern, because I knew you were going to put lifts in. And you have a multitude of vehicles. MR. MERRILL-Yes. MR. DEEB-So I just want to make sure that environmentally we’re safe with your project. MS. BUETTNER-Absolutely. 50 (Queensbury Planning Board 08/20/2019) MR. MERRILL-And also in the shop, it’s noted in the site plan, there is a storage tank that the Nemer’s had to install. So we have a shop storage tank for any proper containment that gets pumped out. MR. VALENTINE-Is this the consolidation site? When you were saying Exit 16 and others, will they still remain intact? MR. MERRILL-Amsterdam, Wilton, Exit 16 and Albany will stay intact, and locally we’re in Hudson Falls. We rent two buildings in the City and then we also have a little storage lot in the City. The Glens Falls area and the Hudson Falls will move to Exit 18. MR. DEEB-To the chagrin of Glens Falls. MR. MERRILL-To the chagrin of Glens Falls. Well I don’t know. They’ll have somebody else in there maybe. We’ll see. Someone will go in there. MR. TRAVER-There is a public hearing on this application. Is there anyone here to address the Planning Board on this application? I’m not seeing anyone. Are there any written comments, Laura? PUBLIC HEARING OPENED MRS. MOORE-There were no written comments. MR. TRAVER-Okay. Then we’ll close the public hearing. PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED MR. TRAVER-Other questions, comments from members of the Board before we entertain a motion? Okay. I guess we’re ready for a motion. RESOLUTION APPROVING SP # 46-2019 NORTH COUNTRY PROPERTY MGMT. 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 is currently occupying a 5,500 sq. ft. existing building and utilizing the 1.72 acre site for North Country Snow & Ice Company. The project includes storage of equipment, vehicles and materials and new gravel area to be added. The building to be used for office space, company vehicle work and internal storage. Pursuant to Chapter 179- 9-020 of the Zoning Ordinance, change of use for existing commercial building shall be subject to Planning Board review and approval. 51 (Queensbury Planning Board 08/20/2019) Pursuant to relevant sections of the Town of Queensbury Zoning Code-Chapter 179-9-080, the Planning Board has determined that this proposal satisfies the requirements as stated in the Zoning Code; As required by General Municipal Law Section 239-m the site plan application was referred to the Warren County Planning Department for its recommendation; The Planning Board opened a public hearing on the Site plan application on 08/20/2019 and continued the public hearing to 08/20/2019, 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 08/20/2019; 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 46-2019 NORTH COUNTRY PROPERTY MANAGEMENT. Introduced by David Deeb who moved for its adoption; Per the draft provided by staff conditioned upon the following conditions: 1) Waivers request granted: j. stormwater, k. topography, o. commercial alterations/ construction details, q. soil logs, r. construction/demolition disposal s. snow removal 2) Adherence to the items outlined in the follow-up letter sent with this resolution. a) If application was referred to engineering, then engineering sign-off required prior to signature of Zoning Administrator of the approved plans; b) Final approved plans should have dimensions and setbacks noted on the site plan/survey, floor plans and elevation for the existing rooms and proposed rooms in the building and site improvements, c) Final approved plans, in compliance with the Site Plan, must be submitted to the Community Development Department before any further review by the Zoning Administrator or Building and Codes personnel; d) The applicant must meet with Staff after approval and prior to issuance of Building Permit and/or the beginning of any site work; e) Subsequent issuance of further permits, including building permits is dependent on compliance with this and all other conditions of this resolution; f) As-built plans to certify that the site plan is developed according to the approved plans to be provided prior to issuance of the certificate of occupancy; g) Resolution to be placed on final plans in its entirety and legible. Motion seconded by Brad Magowan. Duly adopted this 20th day of August, 2019 by the following vote: 52 (Queensbury Planning Board 08/20/2019) AYES: Mr. Valentine, Mr. Deeb, Ms. White, Mr. Shafer, Mr. Hunsinger, Mr. Magowan, Mr. Traver NOES: NONE MR. TRAVER-You’re all set. MR. MERRILL-Thank you. MR. MAGOWAN-By the way, welcome to Queensbury. MR. MERRILL-Well thanks. MR. TRAVER-Next under New Business is Daniel Pickett, Site Plan 51-2019. SITE PLAN NO. 51-2019 SEQR TYPE: TYPE II. DANIEL PICKETT. AGENT(S): DENNIS MAC ELROY. OWNER(S): SAME AS APPLICANT. ZONING: WR. LOCATION: 15 ANTIGUA ROAD. APPLICANT REQUESTS TO MAINTAIN PROPERTY DISTURBANCE OF 35,000 +/- SQ. FT. INCLUDING DRIVEWAY/PAVED LOOP AREA. PROJECT INCLUDES INSTALLATION OF STORMWATER DEVICES TO MANAGE STORMWATER. PURSUANT TO CHAPTER 179-9-020 & CHAPTER 147 PF THE ZONING ORDINANCE, SITE DISTURBANCE AND MAJOR STORMWATER SHALL BE SUBJECT TO PLANNING BOARD REVIEW AND APPROVAL. CROSS REFERENCE: AV 101-2000, SP 77-2000, AV 63-2001, AV 68-2002, AV 86-2002. WARREN CO. REFERRAL: AUGUST 2019, TOWN OF LG. SITE INFORMATION: APA, CEA, LGP. LOT SIZE: .6 ACRE & 2.33 ACRES. TAX MAP NO. 239.17-1-5, 239.17-1-9. SECTION: CHAPTER 147, 179-9-020. DENNIS MAC ELROY, REPRESENTING APPLICANT, PRESENT MR. TRAVER-Laura? MRS. MOORE-Okay. So this applicant is before the Board for installing some hard surfacing on a piece of property adjacent to their home lot and then in addition the applicant is proposing to install some stormwater management to handle the existing hard surface on that lot. MR. TRAVER-Thank you. Good evening. MR. MAC ELROY-Good evening. I’m Dennis MacElroy with Environmental Design, representing the Picketts on this application for Site Plan Review. As Laura indicated, this property owned by the Picketts actually involves two different parcels. The property’s on Antigua 53 (Queensbury Planning Board 08/20/2019) Road. The Picketts own the lakefront lot that to complicate further is split between the Town of Lake George and Queensbury. It’s one of those lots the shorefront is in the Town of Lake George. The remainder of the lot is within Queensbury. The line goes right through the house actually. That complicated some of the complications and what not for permeability. That parcel is linked with a small addition that’s on the easterly side of Antigua Road, as well, and that amounts to about two tenths of an acre or so, the part that’s on the east side of Antigua Road, and that is adjacent and contiguous to about a 3.6 acre parcel. So the work that had been done and that will require the stormwater management devices is on the easterly side of Antigua Road but involves two different parcels. That’s why you see on your application computations for two different lots. The concern from Staff was whether each lot in themselves satisfies permeability standards, and they do. They still meet the 25% impermeable and 75% permeable standards. Work was done on that property following some construction work that was done and permitted on the house lot. So there had been some disturbance there. In the process of cleaning it up, the owner expanded upon that clean up and did a little more disturbance and cleanup of the lot but stabilized it nicely and ended up paving a loop driveway. That’s what was left out of the mix here as far as getting a permit for disturbance and provisions for stormwater management. So that’s what this application addresses. It provides stormwater management for the new impervious areas and with the addition of those that would complete the project like it should have been done initially. MR. TRAVER-How long have the Picketts lived there, approximately? MR. MAC ELROY-Probably in the order of five or six years. I guess I don’t know that for certain. MR. TRAVER-And they had applied for some development work on the property for another application earlier? MR. MAC ELROY-They had application for their residence lot which again is linked with the area on the east side of Antigua. MR. TRAVER-Questions, comments from members of the Planning Board? MR. SHAFER-Mr. Chairman, when did this get added to the agenda? MS. WHITE-I don’t have anything. MR. VALENTINE-No, not on mine. MR. MAGOWAN-I’m not prepared on this either. MR. DEEB-It’s listed on the following week’s agenda. MR. VALENTINE-Yes, it’s on for next week. 54 (Queensbury Planning Board 08/20/2019) MS. WHITE-I have it for next week. MR. TRAVER-I have it. AUDIENCE MEMBER-We got a letter for tonight. MRS. MOORE-Yes. MR. DEEB-On our agendas it was listed for next week, MR. TRAVER-I would say, Laura, and I did get the updated agenda, but I would say this has been an issue, and you and I talked about it a long time ago, but there are times when a draft agenda is distributed to the Planning Board and then there’s a revision made, and unless you go to the website you don’t necessarily know that there’ been a change in the agenda, and we’ve talked in the past about whenever the agenda is adjusted that everybody alerted to it because not necessarily everybody is going to go, and it appears that that’s what happened in this case. MRS. MOORE-I was thinking that you received an agenda with your Staff Notes. MR. DEEB-No, we didn’t. MS. WHITE-This is all we got. MR. HUNSINGER-So we get agendas with the applications. That’s early in the month, and the hard copy does not have this on there. MR. TRAVER-And this has been an update which I, as a matter of course and going back and forth on this website, noticed the change and printed it out, but it’s been an issue in the past. It’s happened to me as you’re hearing from other Planning Board members. Let me poll the Board. Have members looked at this application in anticipation of it being on next week? MR. VALENTINE-I left all my materials for next week at home. MR. TRAVER-No, I understand you didn’t bring them. MR. VALENTINE-I didn’t even look at them. MR. DEEB-I saw the Staff Notes in this week’s. So I just went to it and moved it up. 55 (Queensbury Planning Board 08/20/2019) MR. TRAVER-Well it appears that a majority of members of the Board have not even reviewed the application. So I’m afraid. AUDIENCE MEMBER-We’ve been sitting since seven. Can we do our? MRS. MOORE-Your public hearing comment? AUDIENCE MEMBER-Yes. MRS. MOORE-Okay. Let me just clarify, talk with Dennis for a minute. Because my understanding was Dennis is not going to be available for next week, only potentially because the application would probably be tabled to next week. Or into September. So I don’t know what the status is of Dennis’ availability for next week. MR. VALENTINE-Do you have a sit in? No seriously, for their benefit. MR. MAC ELROY-The work that created the need for the application is going to, it’s stabilized. It’s in place. So there’s no, not a scheduling issue for the owner. MR. TRAVER-So there’s not a stop work order. MR. MAC ELROY-No. Well there’s no more work to be done other than putting in the stormwater management. MR. TRAVER-Okay. MRS. MOORE-Well, why don’t you think about it for a second so you can open your public hearing and let them speak if that is what they’re looking for. MR. TRAVER-All right. Yes. Let’s open the public hearing and I see we have some public comments. I apologize in advance for the confusion regarding the agenda. I apologize for that. It has happened in the past, but this is the first time it’s had an impact on the public or applicants. So my apologies. PUBLIC HEARING OPENED MARTIN FARBER MR. FARBER-My name is Martin Farber. This is my wife Susan. We live at 33 Antigua Road. We have some concerns about the project as a whole. The remediation, as I said, is after the fact. Specifically we’re concerned about the runoff. A huge number of trees have been taken out, 56 (Queensbury Planning Board 08/20/2019) which is going to increase the runoff there. We’re already facing a cove east of Plum Point. We’re already facing significant problems from runoff from Lockhart Mountain and the Silipigno house which I think has come before this Board in the past. The lake there, the ground is already becoming more shallow. We’re seeing more weeds, and this is only going to add to it. In addition there’s also habitat. We’ve seen some Pileated woodpeckers. We don’t see that anymore. Whenever you disturb a natural habitat, you increase the risk of non-native invasive species and we’re seeing increasing water lettuce, hopefully not Purple Loosestrife, but I try to pull that out as soon as I see it. The trees that they left are, some of them will probably be okay, but they made these islands, some of which are no more than six or eight feet in diameter. So those trees are dead. They just don’t know it yet because their roots are going to be asphyxiated. I would point out that these changes do not affect Mr. Pickett because his waterfront is on the other side of Plum Point. So he’s going to be fine, but those of us that live in that cove are already facing issues and this is just going to compound them. I would also question whether it’s supplicant to this body subject to any penalties when petitioning for an approval after the fact such as is being done here. In that case your role in approving plans the land use is just going to be reduced to approval for mitigation rather than for mitigation of potentially irrevocable damage instead of other things you’d like to see. MR. TRAVER-I’m sorry, could you repeat that last bit again? MR. FARBER-I said that I was wondering if there were any penalties for someone who goes ahead with plans. MR. TRAVER-For unapproved development. MR. FARBER-And then now you’re asked to approve mitigation of this, of essentially or potentially irreparable damage to the environment. MR. TRAVER-Understood. Anything else? MR. FARBER-I reserve the right to speak when it comes up on the agenda. MR. TRAVER-Yes. We will not be closing the public hearing. SUSAN FARBER MRS. FARBER-I just want to say that that parcel of land was acquired by Mr. Pickett when he was building his new house. Previously it had been part of different homes there, and it was always cherished as a sound barrier to the road. We have wildlife in there. He clear cut it. If you drive by, it’s not like he took a few dead trees out. That was a forest in there. Personally I object to the fact that he didn’t follow the process. Earlier someone said why didn’t he come to the neighbors and talk to us or let us know, but that’s neither here nor there, but I’m a process person and I think that you should be, I mean if you condone this, you’re allowing people, you’re giving them an open door to do whatever they want and then come to you for mitigation. So that’s what I wanted to say, and I won’t be back next week. He will. And I thank you for letting us just talk. 57 (Queensbury Planning Board 08/20/2019) MR. TRAVER-Thank you very much. All right. I see there’s another gentleman in the audience. Did you wish to address the Planning Board? No? MS. WHITE-He’s the potential sit in. MR. TRAVER-All right. So due to our issues, and again, I apologize for the issues that we’re having with the agenda. There was a change made and apparently that information was not shared with all the members of the Planning Board. So we are going to need to table this. Do members of the Planning Board feel that they can study this application sufficiently to, and do you have availability next Tuesday night? MR. MAC ELROY-I should introduce, with me is Nick Zeglin from my office. He’s worked somewhat on the property. I have a conflict for next Tuesday, but the question would be to the owner, Mr. Pickett, you know, whether a delay until September is meaningful. I don’t think so, but when are the meetings in September? thth MRS. MOORE-So it’s the 17 and the 24. thth MR. MAC ELROY-The 17 and the 24. MRS. MOORE-And they’re quite full at the moment. MR. MAC ELROY-Okay. Next Tuesday. MR. TRAVER-Okay. MR. MAC ELROY-Next Tuesday. MR. TRAVER-Very well. Then it’s a fairly straightforward tabling motion. MR. MAC ELROY-Is it of any value, any further explanation of the situation? I think that the way I would see it is that the timing I’d say is unfortunate. MR. TRAVER-Well it’s unfortunate because the owner clearly knew that a permit was required. They had already applied for work done on the property, and the concern of unapproved development has become so serious that we’ve had a committee study it and make recommendations to the Town as to how to try to limit it, and it still grows, and not that Mr. Pickett is responsible for all the unapproved development in the Town, but certainly in a Critical Environmental Area having unapproved development is the worst case scenario. I guess that’s all I’m going to say. So we need a tabling motion to next Tuesday. 58 (Queensbury Planning Board 08/20/2019) MR. SHAFER-Mr. Chairman, as part of our packet at home, do we have plans? MRS. MOORE-Yes, absolutely. th MR. TRAVER-Yes, there’s an application. The date next week is the 27. RESOLUTION TABLING SP # 51-2019 DANIEL PICKETT 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 property disturbance of 35,000 +/- sq. ft. including driveway/paved loop area. Project includes installation of stormwater devices to manage stormwater. Pursuant to Chapter 179-9-020 & Chapter 147 of the Zoning Ordinance, site disturbance and major stormwater shall be subject to Planning Board review and approval. MOTION TO TABLE SITE PLAN NO. 51-2019 DANIEL PICKETT, Introduced by David Deeb who moved for its adoption, th Tabled to the Tuesday, August 27, 2019 Planning Board meeting. th Seconded by Jamie White. Duly adopted this 20 day of August, 2019, by the following vote: AYES: Mr. Deeb, Ms. White, Mr. Shafer, Mr. Hunsinger, Mr. Magowan, Mr. Valentine, Mr. Traver NOES: NONE MR. TRAVER-See you Tuesday. MR. MAC ELROY-Thank you. Will it go to the end of the agenda, or under Old Business? MRS. MOORE-It’s Old Business. It will be at the front. MR. TRAVER-All right. I see we also have the resolution the Town passed regarding ground mounted solar, and apparently without realizing it we’ve already taken some action on that. We’ve commented that we wanted to know if it was commercial or. MRS. MOORE-You wanted to know if it was ground mounted. It is strictly ground mounted solar. That was your biggest question that needed to be clarified and they clarified it. 59 (Queensbury Planning Board 08/20/2019) MR. VALENTINE-They made it, there was a thing in there saying it was including residential and commercial. MR. TRAVER-Yes. Okay. Anything else before the Board this evening? Then we’ll entertain a motion to adjourn. MR. SHAFER-So moved. MOTION TO ADJOURN THE QUEENSBURY PLANNING BOARD MEETING OF TH AUGUST 20, 2019, Introduced by John Shafer who moved for its adoption, seconded by Chris Hunsinger: th Duly adopted this 20 day of August, 2019, by the following vote: AYES: Mr. Shafer, Mr. Hunsinger, Mr. Magowan, Mr. Valentine, Mr. Deeb, Ms. White, Mr. Traver NOES: NONE MR. TRAVER-We stand adjourned. Thank you, everybody. On motion meeting was adjourned. RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED, Stephen Traver, Chairman 60