Loading...
10-15-2019 (Queensbury Planning Board 10/15/2019) QUEENSBURY PLANNING BOARD MEETING FIRST REGULAR MEETING OCTOBER 15, 2019 INDEX Subdivision No. 6-2019 Barry & Jacqueline Lashinsky 1. MODIFICATION Tax Map No. 289.8-1-39 Site Plan No. 44-2019 The Glen At Hiland Meadows, Inc. 11. Freshwater Wetlands Permit 4-2019 Tax Map No. 296.8-1-3 Site Plan No. 51-2019 Daniel Pickett 16. Tax Map No. 239.17-1-5, 239.17-1-9 Site Plan No. 66-2019 James Keller 23. Tax Map No. 289.10-1-39 Site Plan No. 57-2019 Michael Chrys 36. Freshwater Wetlands Permit 6-2019 Tax Map No. 226.19-1-37 Site Plan No. 56-2019 Garner Holdings 46. Freshwater Wetlands Permit 5-2019 Tax Map No. 226.19-1-48, -49 Subdivision No. 8-2019 Thomas Caifa 53. SKETCH PLAN Tax Map No. 302.14-2-5 Site Plan No. 68-2019 Penelope Townsend 59. Tax Map No. 227.10-1-22 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 OCTOBER 15, 2019 7:00 P.M. MEMBERS PRESENT 1 (Queensbury Planning Board 10/15/2019) CHRIS HUNSINGER, ACTING CHAIRMAN DAVID DEEB, SECRETARY MICHAEL VALENTINE BRAD MAGOWAN JOHN SHAFER JAMIE WHITE MICHAEL DIXON, ALTERNATE MEMBERS ABSENT STEPHEN TRAVER LAND USE PLANNER-LAURA MOORE STENOGRAPHER-MARIA GAGLIARDI MR. HUNSINGER-I’ll call to order the meeting of the Town of Queensbury Planning Board on Tuesday, th October 15, 2019. Please notice the emergency exits. In the event of an emergency, we will make an announcement on how to proceed. There’s exits there and over here as well as into the hallway. Tonight st is our 21 meeting of the year and our first meeting of October. And with that our first item on the thth agenda is approval of minutes from August 20 and 27. APPROVAL OF MINUTES th August 20, 2019 th August 27, 2019 TH MOTION TO APPROVE THE QUEENSBURY PLANNING BOARD MEETING MINUTES OF AUGUST 20 AND TH AUGUST 27, 2019, Introduced by David Deeb who moved for its adoption, seconded by Brad Magowan: th Duly adopted this 15 day of October, 2019, by the following vote: AYES: Mr. Deeb, Ms. White, Mr. Shafer, Mr. Magowan, Mr. Valentine, Mr. Dixon, Mr. Hunsinger NOES: NONE ABSENT: Mr. Traver MR. HUNSINGER-So before we get into the agenda I’d just remind anyone who has a cellphone on them to turn the ringer down and if you would like a copy of the agenda they’re on the back table. We have two tabled items. The first one is Barry and Jacqueline Lashinsky, Subdivision Modification 6-2019. SUBDIVISION MODIFICATION 6-2019 SEQR TYPE: UNLISTED BARRY & JACQUELINE LASHINSKY. AGENT(S): MATTHEW F. FULLER. OWNER(S): SAME AS APPLICANTS. ZONING: RR-3A. LOCATION: MOON HILL ROAD. APPLICANT PROPOSES TO MODIFY AN EXISTING SUBDIVISION “IMPERIAL ACRES” (APRIL 1990). THE APPLICATION HAS BEEN REVISED TO SHOW EIGHT LOTS WHERE SEVEN LOTS ARE RESIDENTIAL AND ONE LOT IS FOR STORMWATER MANAGEMENT. THE STORMWATER MANAGEMENT HAS BEEN UPDATED IN REGARDS TO GRADING AND ADDING BASINS. PURSUANT TO CHAPTER 183 OF THE ZONING ORDINANCE, MODIFICATION OF AN APPROVED SUBDIVISION SHALL BE SUBJECT TO PLANNING BOARD REVIEW AND APPROVAL. CROSS REFERENCE: SUB 17-1989, AV 90-1989. WARREN CO. REFERRAL: N/A. LOT SIZE: 23.7 ACRES. TAX MAP NO. 289.8-1-39. SECTION: CHAPTER 183. MATT FULLER & BRANDON FERGUSON, REPRESENTING APPLICANTS, PRESENT MR. HUNSINGER-Laura? MRS. MOORE-Okay. There are revisions to this application which you have received. Just a reminder it’s eight lots where seven lots are residential and one lot is for stormwater management, and the previous application for subdivision back in 1989 there were two lots that are now considered combined for stormwater. Identified the revised grading and erosion plans and also revised is information on the stormwater, and then in reference to Chazen comments there were two comment letters. The main rd comment letter dated October 3, there’s only four comments left on that. 2 (Queensbury Planning Board 10/15/2019) MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. Good evening. MR. FULLER-Good evening. Matt Fuller, obviously, for the record. When we were here last time there were some comments from some neighbors about plantings and also one of the primary comments was the cold weather emergency outlet on the upper basin we’ll call it. That upper basin has been re-designed a bit, both with the Chazen comment letters and just the comments from the Planning Board last time. The outlet is going to be moved back so that it will outlet near the road and not as far I guess as it would have been before, and the southern, or the lower basin, closest to Moon Hill Road, as you see on the map there, would also include a planting schedule and one of the comments from one of the neighbors was the elimination of some of the trees and things that are there now to accommodate that basin. We did do a couple of things in the last month, one go to the Highway Department and get their take on the proposal and we got a response from them that as we proposed that was acceptable to them. One of the other discussions we had was looking at including drywells in lieu of these basins. We did include a drywell in the upper basin that will actually give it more cold weather frozen ground capacity for those off storms that we get occasionally in the winter that will produce rainwater that needs to infiltrate, but in terms of the lower part of the road, if you will, I think even going back to the Highway Department, there wasn’t really a feasible alternative to colleting the stormwater and infiltrating it in t that basin. The sandy soils are down in the lower level. So I think what we’ve done to try to mitigate that was the planting schedule and things like that, some of those comments. Going back to the original plan, the plan is to still release the stormwater easement that runs along the property line. So right in the upper basin area here towards the end of the last meeting we had a discussion, some of you might recall about there’s two retaining walls that are right here, and somewhat late breaking here this afternoon, we got a survey from our surveyor and then talked to Mr. Cavalier who’ll probably be up here in a little bit, but we will get in hopefully tomorrow or within a day or two an amendment to this application that will essentially swap this part of the land here, this finger if you will. I know none of us are really a fan of flag stick subdivision lots. So we will be swapping a small portion of this for a portion of the land right here, and I do have sketches I can give you. We’ll submit it formally, but we’re going to do a boundary line modification. That’s what we’re going to propose. It doesn’t impact the design or anything like that of any of this, but that will get these encroachments off of the portion of the property that we will propose to convey to the Town with the road. Obviously we can’t convey that with that encroachment there. So those would have to either be removed or, again, our solution have a conceptual agreement with the neighbor. It’s about a two to one swap. So the area that my clients will be getting in here, this area that we would convey to the neighbor is about two times the size of that. So I think it’s a reasonable accommodation. I think to my clients’ credit we could have taken the encroachments have got to go stance, but I think in talking with my clients it’s a reasonable proposal to come back with. So we talked about possibly trying to pull that off for next week, but with notices and things I don’t think we can actually accomplish that. MRS. MOORE-I don’t think so. MR. FULLER-So that’s the real genesis. I think the couple of Planning Board comments that we had left actually were resolved mid last week. I know the public hearing’s still open and there’s probably some comments and things, but we’ll obviously field questions from the Board. Knowing that the right thing to do with SEQR and things like that is to table and get the boundary line adjustment in with it. If we have things that are actually on this subdivision, comments or things like that, if we could address those tonight, hopefully get an idea where we’re at on that and then we’ll get the boundary line adjustment in to you. We’ll wrap this up and make it clean. MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. Anything else? MR. FULLER-That’s it. I’ve got Brandon here if you’ve got any technical questions. MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. Questions, comments from the Board? MR. VALENTINE-Just one thing here. I see Dennis coming in in the back. Maybe this is for him. When you were talking about the drywell down at the entrance, down at the bottom, no, not that one. Down below. Right now the grades are set for a 20 foot standpipe on that. So you’ve got to look at your elevation. MR. FERGUSON-Yes. We can look at that a little closer. MR. VALENTINE-It may just be a matter of the elevation was supposed to be. MR. FERGUSON-Yes, it looks like the elevation’s off. It should be 446. Yes, I see that. 3 (Queensbury Planning Board 10/15/2019) MR. HUNSINGER-Nice catch. MR. VALENTINE-It would look nice out there. rd MR. SHAFER-Question. Could you comment specifically on Item Three in Chazen’s October 3 letter? It sounds like there’s an unresolved question there. MR. FERGUSON-I believe that has to do with the spillway. Correct? MR. SHAFER-Correct, and the retaining wall. MR. FERGUSON-Yes. So we, after our last Board meeting we had talked about the spillway location and trying to pull it closer to the right of way, which is what we did. We also looked at kind of that basin as well and we actually made the basin a little bit deeper and dropped it in the ground a little more, but still fully holds a 100 year storm without infiltration, and that’s the idea is the emergency overflow spillway is just an overland way to get the water out. In case everything failed for some reason it wouldn’t blow out the berm of the spillway, and then as far as the retaining wall, we went out to the site again and looked at the basin location compared to the retaining walls. Actually the bottom of our basin would be lower than those retaining walls. I think we’re like 50 feet from the closest one and that’s to the very end of it which is a relatively low retaining wall at that point and 100 feet to the one that’s further away. MR. SHAFER-So that all is in response to Item Three in the letter? MR. FERGUSON-Yes, and I think we kind of spelled it out in there. MR. VALENTINE-Matt, you addressed this sort of when you were talking about the tradeoff of land, but the plans have two sections on here where they say that the drainage easement is to be abandoned, but it doesn’t say to whom. I don’t see that written. MR. FULLER-Yes, so it would be the land owner, as you can see the easement area that comes down here right now, I’m pointing out that. MR. VALENTINE-And it comes down and around the back? MR. FULLER-Correct. So this is the southerly end of the Cavalier to the southwest boundary line right now. We would quit claim that back to them. So the survey parcel is the one that gets released from that. MR. VALENTINE-Then the little one on the other side of the road at the top? MR. FULLER-Yes, that would just be a discontinuance item in the conveyance of Lot Six. So that, the 30 foot wide drainage easement shows up on the old subdivision plans. So when we went to convey Lot Six it would include a note in the deed that no reservation for that prior easement is maintained. That’s a good question. MR. VALENTINE-Okay. Thank you., MR. HUNSINGER-Any other questions from the Board? We do have a public hearing scheduled this evening. If you wouldn’t mind giving up the table. MR. FULLER-Sure thing. MR. HUNSINGER-Would anyone like to address the Board? PUBLIC HEARING OPEN RICHARD CAVALIER MR. CAVALIER-Good evening, everyone. MR. HUNSINGER-Good evening. 4 (Queensbury Planning Board 10/15/2019) MR. CAVALIER-Richard Cavalier and I’m the homeowner of the land that they were talking about. They were talking about a land swap here, border line adjustment if you will. When we left the last meeting here, I was thinking about being neighborly and doing the right thing and really sat back, looked at what would help me and my wife get over the storm basin up here and the concerns I have. You might remember I sent some photos in and the elevations and all that, and we’re very encouraged by the progress we made after I proposed the adjustment of the land, swapping it out, and I’m very encouraged by the re-shaping of the stormwater that’s up here. What I’m looking at of course doesn’t encapsulate what it is we’re discussing because I guess it’s not on the plan yet, and what I’m looking for, if it could be done perhaps if the applicant would consider, when I originally proposed it, one of my first concerns is that if I were to convey this parcel of land, perhaps they’d consider taking a more east/westerly route on the stormwater which would again bring it away from myself and Mr. Grenier, from their property, and would make it more east and west rather than coming, this is actually northerly towards my house down here, maybe more of a football shape if you will, and then perhaps get rid of some of the grading you see over here and keep some of the natural boundary, natural buffer that’s there. So perhaps they can bring it over to here. I don’t know if they’d be willing to consider that or if that was something that couldn’t be done. I’m not an engineer. So very encouraged by what is going on and the dialogue that we’ve had. th Slow as it may be, it’s very encouraging. A lot’s happened here at the 11 hour, but hopefully that all gets taken care of, and other than that, as far as tonight’s concerned, I would just like to see if perhaps they’d be willing to look at something like that and if we could keep this hearing public so that we have an opportunity to maybe address this at a later time, I would appreciate the consideration. MR. HUNSINGER-We’ll leave the public hearing open. MR. CAVALIER-Thank you, sir. MR. HUNSINGER-Anyone else? Yes, sir. Good evening. JEFF GRENIER MR. GRENIER-Hello again. I’m Jeff Grenier. I live at 738 Moon Hill. Can you go to Page Four of this just for now? This is not a picture. Just what they propose. As she’s doing that, basically I’ll say thank you for taking the time to listen to this matter and keep an open mind. The last time we met we had issues about buffering the trees, emergency overflow of the stormwater management number two and like has been said, Mr. Lashinsky and Mr. Cavalier have kind of agreed on a land swap that’ll kind of resolve a lot of my issues with that portion of it. The new plan submitted here on Page Number Four as shown before kind of the trees down below here and then a couple of trees up here. My only concern of that would be once again of the cutting, the clear cutting of a lot of the trees in this region here, as well as like the mature trees. So basically along here, along the roadway and then the trees back along here as well, and then I see up here you probably can’t see it, but it says five to six foot Canadian Hemlocks and it does say somewhere in there that it’s kind of, they can adjust it, different species of trees as they desire. My only concern would be with that, if you want to then go to picture number one, kind of give you guys a basic layout. I don’t know if you guys have the time, I’m sure you’re busy, to visit the property, but I’d just kind of take a couple of minutes to show you what we have. Since our last meeting, my wife and I purchased 8, five to six foot high arborvitae trees. As you can see here, so basically everything I’m going to show you is on the east side of the property near Stormwater Number One. I’m not going to show anything up near Stormwater Number Two. So this is kind of the wooded area. Behind here is Moon Hill Road and there’s a telephone pole. So during this 50 foot stretch right here, my wife and I planted 8, five to six foot high to try to create as much natural buffer as we can. So it just kind of goes forward to show you different angles, like the shed as they showed on the maps that they had, and then the trees that were planted a long time ago and the telephone pole. So this is kind of the area that we’re speaking about, the natural buffer along the road and t hen the mature trees here. As you can see it kind of shows you like the road angle of it and so on and so forth. So this is the road angle coming from Bay Road on Moon Hill. Mr. Lashinsky’s roadway here and the sign. So it’s basically everything this side of it. As you can tell, very mature trees in that area. Just more pictures of that to kind of give you a good understanding of just the tree coverage and so on, and as you can tell, I mean the average, what I understand the telephone pole is anywhere from 35 to 40 feet high. As you can see there’s some very large trees in that area, and what it does for me, how this mostly affects me, is anybody coming from that way, it’s a very large bend. It would just be, if they clear cut that it would just expose me basically to the noise. You could stand at the blinking light on Bay Road and you could see my entire yard which comes with road noise and all that on a busy street. So as we go, it’ll just kind of give you a decent idea of what we’re looking at. So there’s the shed. So they’re proposing basically to clear cut everything there to the roadway and kind of have it tailed off back and away. One of the recommendations that I have is keeping the natural buffer along the roadway and the property line or moving what’s obviously needed for the roadway for the development. It would ensure proper buffer for myself and others. It would protect the interest of 5 (Queensbury Planning Board 10/15/2019) myself and Mr. Lashinsky while enticing future home buyers to buy in an RR-3 area. I’m sure people looking to buy in the area want their privacy and so on and so forth. One thing I’d also recommend is re- locating Stormwater Number One. I understand on the opposite side of the road we talked about there were limitations because of the lot. I don’t know what lot that was off the top of my head. So over here, this one here, on the opposite side. There’s limited like originally I thought if it could be over in this area here, but the limitations from the three acre lot would kind of, you know, that wouldn’t work out, but moving it back you can’t, you might not be able to tell in the picture, but there’s actually a clear cut road that was done long before my time that kind of comes through here. It’s very wide. I mean you could probably fit an excavator in it, and it comes through and it comes through like my property like before it was established and there’s a roadway back here as well that would connect. So one thing I would suggest, I’m not an engineer, but to say, to have it come down, if it did have to come down and kind of collect in this area and leave this as a buffer, it would kind of alleviate a lot of my concerns at that point. I don’t know if that’s practical or not, but something I want to voice my concerns. If you want to go back to the photo quickly. So here’s the picture like the property I’m looking down into my property. As you can tell it’s kind of like a bowl if you will coming down from the Lashinsky property. There’s the rock walls that they spoke about, and the next one is a corner lot. It shows like the far corner which was originally one of my concerns the last time, how close it was to the border. Mr. Fuller stated that they couldn’t really mess with that. They couldn’t adjust the line. That’s where the road was. So right over, just on the other side of this wood is, I don’t know if you can see from there, but that’s the roadway that they’re proposing. So just, it’s 10 or so feet from my borderline, which is kind of a privacy concern for myself and the future residents of the development. To kind of give you a Birdseye view looking from the property line back down to my property, kind of what it looks like. Just another. So this is almost near Stormwater Number Two. The property line being there in the photo and then Mr. Lashinsky’s on the roadway there. MR. HUNSINGER-So is that labeled somehow? That picture there with the property line? You pointed to the property line. Is there any kind of mark there or no? MR. GRENIER-I don’t know if it’s, that’s what their surveyor did. I don’t know. So recently since the last meeting we had they had a surveyor go around again and kind of mark some things out and that’s what he concluded, kind of to be like the top I guess if you look at it, this most southwest portion of the lot. So basically that’s where I’m taking is right here. MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. MR. GRENIER-Yes, and then there’s just a couple of more photos to kind of show you what, another thing here, the surveyor went through. A couple of more photos just to show you. So basically one of our last concerns is still that emergency overflow. I understand it’s a 100 year storm or whatever, but just the way my land is, anything over here would be the overflow, and it would kind of come down and into kind of the bowl I have as a backyard. So just a concern of mine, but like Mr. Cavalier said if they could go east or west kind of back a little bit I think that would help as well, and like I said, right behind here is that roadway anyway, which something I’d probably plant trees on my own time on my property line. So, just another picture to kind of show you. So this is one of my last photos, it kind of shows you the bend of the roadway. It’s quite a bend around the corner, but for someone coming this way, coming on Moon Hill going I guess toward Tee Hill area, the lights and everything come through, would come through that clear cut area which is a privacy concern. I think that’s it. MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. Thank you. MR. GRENIER-Thank you. MR. HUNSINGER-Anyone else wish to address the Board on this project? Okay. If the applicant wants to come back. We will leave the public hearing open. Do you have anything to add? MR. FULLER-Yes, just real quick, a couple of things. Page Three of that PDF shows the limit of disturbance. So one of the things I wanted to note is some of the pictures that were taken, you’ve got the shed there, but the limit of clearing down here, you know we’re not proposing clear cutting that entire area. So I just want to keep that in that perspective is that’s not what the application is. The tree clearing is back further. The pavement is right there and the limit is back here. MR. VALENTINE-Can I address that in here? Because on the plan on here, it’s showing that cutting to form the basin is cutting way back. Not that I’m saying it’s wrong or right. 6 (Queensbury Planning Board 10/15/2019) MR. FULLER-Yes, right here is what I’m talking. So it’s not this area here when you come around the bend, the couple of pictures with the posts, or the mailbox and things. That area’s not being clear cut. There’s a limit here. MR. VALENTINE-The photos that I saw show their vegetation down there in that corner. That corner shows vegetation. MR. FULLER-This black line right here is the limit of clearing. MR. VALENTINE-It doesn’t show that on the sheet here. MR. FULLER-Yes. On Sheet Three, the dark line that goes around all the house locations and everything. MR. VALENTINE-I’m looking at Sheet Two here, Matt. MR. FULLER-No, yes, we’re looking at Three. MR. VALENTINE-I’m just saying what you’re showing on Sheet Two, the drainage area, here’s your edge of vegetation in here, that highlighted in green. That shows cutting. MR. FULLER-Could you bring Two up, Laura. It’s right here. So the line that we’ve drawn in cuts in right here, and then goes up. It doesn’t come all the way down here. MR. VALENTINE-Look at the edge of the, the nice curlicue lines here. MR. FULLER-Right here? MR. VALENTINE-That’s your edge of vegetation, up above. Now go up that way diagonally. That’s showing your edge of your vegetation. MR. FULLER-Up there, correct. MRS. MOORE-So there’s not an edge of vegetation down here. MR. FULLER-Yes, we can note that on there. It is, it’s on Three. So if we need to put something. MR. VALENTINE-Well that plan then differs from Sheet Three then you’re telling me. If you’re saying you’re not clear cutting up there, all right, that plan shows a lack of vegetation on that. MR. FERGUSON-Yes, and we can adjust that to show where that vegetation remains right there. MR. VALENTINE-The point he was making on the road that comes up here, the subdivision road, in between the subdivision road and the stormwater management area, that there is no vegetation there that provides for an open view. MR. FULLER-The other part I wanted to note, too, is you’re looking at pictures of leafed trees. If you actually were out there, there’s not a lot of pine trees out there. So in another few weeks, if I take another set of pictures, that’s clear through to the property anyway. What we’re proposing is an improvement here with a planting schedule that will actually bring in some year round screening. MR. VALENTINE-I just think there’s a dichotomy between what you’re telling me and what I’m looking at. MR. FULLER-Yes, we can certainly note this down here. Usually what we would do is note on site, because this is off site, all right. So we would note on site trees. We can put those. MR. FERGUSON-Yes, we can put a tree line down there showing, I mean it’s just some vegetation within the right of way that would remain. MR. FULLER-Overall we agree with your comment. We can certainly, that’s not a problem. We can show the actual trees here, similar to what was up in this area. MR. HUNSINGER-And how many of those would be the larger mature trees? MR. FERGUSON-A lot of that, I don’t know offhand. I know the actual trees fall within that right of way. 7 (Queensbury Planning Board 10/15/2019) MR. FULLER-I mean the other part, too, is first of all we obviously can appreciate the neighbor planting trees already. The remainder of the lot is clear cut. So I understand the shielding, but you can’t have a clear cut lot and then complain that you’re cutting down trees to put in a road. That’s why I was very appreciative to see the combination of what we’re proposing and what the neighbor has already taken steps to do. I think we’re going to be in a far better position than even what’s there now. Again, I think if I go out in a couple of weeks and take pictures and there’s no leaves there. MR. HUNSINGER-Well the other thing that’s helpful is now we know that very specific concern, we can all go and verify it ourselves. MR. FULLER-We can definitely show that down here on that Sheet Two. That’s not an issue at all. One of the things that I didn’t note earlier that we were just talking about, we did look at pulling this back. This right here, that note on the mat. We’re 100 foot setback from that well for the stormwater. So if we moved it back up into this area, I can understand, you know, the comment of moving it back up there from a cutting standpoint, but we are easily within that 100 foot at that point. So that’s an offsite limitation that kind of drove us to this, and that would be the same whether it was a drywell or a. MR. HUNSINGER-What about the question of flipping it on the other side of the driveway? MR. FULLER-Yes, we did talk about that last time, too, and it’s the three acre zoning. We would not want to convey that off with the highway as a three acre lot. MR. FERGUSON-That’s a steep area on that side of that, those roadways as well as topography. It just doesn’t work as well. You’d be cutting way back on the slope, creating a lot more issues. This area is already kind of a natural little low-lying area where we’re putting this. MR. FULLER-Yes, so it wasn’t just routinely. We looked at all those things, the drywells throughout the road, modifications to this basin, the upper basin. I think we’ve done a lot to address those issues. The emergency outfall to the top one would be graded along the road not to immediately dump to the lot below. And as far as shape of this, Brandon and I just talked about that. What I call the limit of disturbance is the issue here, but that’s a tradeoff. We can take a look at that. MR. FERGUSON-Yes, we’ll take a look at that. I don’t know how much you’re really going to gain on it because you’re kind of grading up into a little bit of a slope there on that land s swap area, but you’ll probably gain a little bit. We’ll take a look at it and see how much we can squeeze that over there. MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. I mean just looking at those contour lines from here seems to make sense. MR. FULLER-Yes, we would kind of just trade this limit of cutting. MR. VALENTINE-Well, the land, these two stormwater management areas, are they indeed going to the Town? If you’re in a swapping mood, if you’re dickering here, the last owner that just came up, I don’t know his last name, but in the back of his, way in the back as it comes up, there’s always a possibility of swapping something. Can you get a swap in there, extend that? MR. FULLER-We have that well. It’s 100 feet from the wetland. We’re within setbacks on the well. MR. VALENTINE-I understand you might be able to pick up on the rear right hand corner of that lot and still be outside the 100 foot. I’d just throw it out. I’m not going to design your project for you. Just a possibility. MR. FULLER-Again I think, I’d just come back to the main original premise. What we’re really striving here is to improve something we can do as of right. The subdivision’s pre-existing. It could be built without the approvals or without changes. That doesn’t seem to make sense to us. I think especially we have struck. Today was obviously a movement day. We’ve got that boundary line adjustment map proposal. We’re trying to move it along here. I think we’ve really done what we can to improve plantings and move the project forward with a better stormwater design. MR. HUNSINGER-Any other questions, comments from the Board? So we’re looking at a tabling motion. MRS. MOORE-So the applicant, depending on what their process is to get this moving, or get it back to Staff to review, the first meeting in November works for me for that application being on the agenda. I just need a timeframe to have. 8 (Queensbury Planning Board 10/15/2019) MR. FULLER-What does the second look like? th MRS. MOORE-The second meeting is on the 26. MR. FULLER-Is that packed? MRS. MOORE-No. MR. FULLER-Can we take that one? MRS. MOORE-Yes. MR. FULLER-Okay. I’ll work on getting the application in the next couple of days here. The map’s there. MRS. MOORE-Okay. So what Staff will do is work with Matt. I believe it’s just an amendment to the existing modification. So it can be advertised as a public hearing, or if it’s a separate application. So it’s some detail that we need to work out. MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. MR. FULLER-Yes, we’ll get it in. Were there any more kind of substantive issues at this point of what we’re proposing? Obviously we’ll take a look at that offer. That seems to be the move that we can take a look at. The others we’ve kind of driven as far as we can. If there’s no objections to that, we’ll go to the next step. If you’re kind of okay with the concept here we’re going to keep coming in this direction. MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. MR. DEEB-I like the spirit of cooperation. That’s the way it should be. th MR. HUNSINGER-Yes, thank you. All right. So we’ll entertain a motion to table this to November 26 so that they can modify some lot line adjustments. RESOLUTION TABLING SUB MOD # 6-2019 BARRY & JACQUELINE LASHINSKY A subdivision application has been made to modify an existing subdivision “Imperial Acres” (April 1990). Project consists of seven lots for residential and one lot for stormwater redesign. Previously approved plan was for 8 lots with two for stormwater. Pursuant to Chapter 183 of the Zoning Ordinance, modification of an approved subdivision shall be subject to Planning Board review and approval. MOTION TO TABLE SUBDIVISION MODIFICATION 6-2019 BARRY & JACQUELINE LASHINSKY, Introduced by David Deeb who moved for its adoption, seconded by Michael Valentine: th Tabled to the November 26, 2019 Queensbury Town Planning Board meeting. So the applicant can modify some lot line adjustments. th Duly adopted this 15 day of October, 2019, by the following vote: AYES: Ms. White, Mr. Shafer, Mr. Magowan, Mr. Valentine, Mr. Dixon, Mr. Deeb, Mr. Hunsinger NOES: NONE ABSENT: Mr. Traver MR. HUNSINGER-And just for the record the public hearing was left open and we’ll take public comments th at the 26 meeting. Okay. Next on the agenda is Site Plan 44-2019 for The Glen at Hiland Meadows, Inc. SITE PLAN NO. 44-2019 FRESHWATER WETLANDS PERMIT 4-2019 SEQR TYPE: UNLISTED. THE GLEN AT HILAND MEADOWS, INC. AGENT(S): RICHARD E. JONES ASSOCIATES. OWNER(S): EDDY PROPERTY SERVICES/GLENS FALLS HOME. ZONING: PUD. LOCATION: 39 LONGVIEW DRIVE. APPLICANT PROPOSES THREE PROJECTS FOR THE GLEN AT HILAND MEADOWS. PROPOSED IS A 20,897 SQ. FT. (FOOTPRINT) TWO STORY 41,794 SQ. FT. (FLOOR AREA) ADDITION TO THE MAIN BUILDING WITH 28 INDEPENDENT LIVING UNITS. ALSO PROPOSED IS A 5,016 SQ. FT. (FOOTPRINT) SINGLE STORY 9 (Queensbury Planning Board 10/15/2019) WELLNESS CENTER ADDITION TO THE MAIN BUILDING. SEPARATELY, A 25,268 SQ. FT. (FOOTPRINT) SINGLE STORY NEW BUILDING FOR A MEMORY CARE FACILITY FOR 30 RESIDENTS. PROPERTY ALSO INCLUDES ASSOCIATED SITE WORK FOR THE PROJECT. PROJECT OCCURS IN AN EXISTING PUD AND THE GLEN AT HILAND MEADOWS HEALTH FACILITY. PURSUANT TO CHAPTER 179-3-040 & CHAPTER 94 OF THE ZONING ORDINANCE, NEW COMMERCIAL CONSTRUCTION SHALL BE SUBJECT TO PLANNING BOARD REVIEW AND APPROVAL. CROSS REFERENCE: SP 54-99, SP 30-2006, SP 50-2007, SP 54-99 PUD. WARREN CO. REFERRAL: N/A. LOT SIZE: 45 ACRES. TAX MAP NO. 296.8-1-3. SECTION: 179-3-040, CHAPTER 94. RICHARD JONES & BRENT STEENBURGH, REPRESENTING APPLICANT, PRESENT MR. HUNSINGER-Laura? MRS. MOORE-Okay. So this application involves three projects. Again this is for an addition to the main building for 28 independent units and a wellness addition single story building of 5,000 square feet and then a separate building for a memory care facility which houses approximately 30 residents, and updates include additional landscaping. They have only a few comments to address with Chazen and Mr. Jones will also identify the information. I highlight notes from the previous meeting. I did have conversations via w-mail with the Water Department. They hadn’t responded yet. I did finally get them to respond and they’re acceptable to the changes and the last one is the Fire Marshal and they’re on board. MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. Thank you. Good evening. MR. JONES-Good evening. For the record Richard Jones, the architect for the project and with me is Brent Steenburgh, the Civil Engineer for the project. Basically as Laura said we’re down to two comments from th Chazen. One is the wetlands with the Army Corps and they are scheduled to be on site the 28 of this month, which is a Monday. It’s two weeks from yesterday. So hopefully we can get that taken care of and get that off the list. The other item from Chazen, Brent has basically been in conversation with Chazen. With reference to that comment, we’ve done some additional test pit on site to verify the water elevation table on the site and the new test pit indicated 11 feet which is much deeper than what the previous test pits indicated, and this was in the area of one of the dry swales that we were proposing for the memory care. MR. STEENBURGH-Yes. We were lacking some of, with the site plan re-designs, with the stormwater management to meet the standards required by the Town and New York State DEC, we initially went out on site in April and did some test pits in areas that we thought we were going to be doing. All of the stormwater management obviously as you go through the design and go through, find things out, we ended up having to design some of the features in areas where we didn’t have test pit information, and that was the crux of their second comment was getting some groundwater elevations in those locations, and one of them was in the location of the dry swale, and the test pit was 11 feet deep from bone dry. Didn’t have a drop of water in it. The other test pits, we did modify one of the dry swales, actually modified the site to bring it closer to our existing test pit information that we had. There’s historically been a lot of test pits and geotechnical study done on this site. So we have a lot of information to work with and that’ll be part of our final submission package to Chazen, but we feel confident that we meet the requirements for the separation distances from each of these practices to groundwater elevation. In addition to that, basically David Wendt from St. Peter’s Health Partners, the project manager for the project had met with the neighbors to the north, or the development to the north, and he met with them about a week and a half ago and they expressed some concerns about visibility of our building addition and our expansion of our parking and driveway loop to the backside, the north side, of our building, and one of their requests was that we add additional white pines for screening along the bank that separates their properties from the proposed addition/renovation for The Glen and we are willing to do that. We would certainly be adding those to our landscape plan. They had some concerns relative to the brightness of our light poles which we had submitted all of our foot candle elevation documentation to the Town indicating that everything was within the standards for that. So we feel that we can certainly mitigate any concerns that they would have relative to the visibility and what they might perceive as light wash from those new poles. Based on that, we would like to see a conditional approval tonight. The Board can certainly do that. We feel that the remaining comment basically from Chazen has been addressed, and I know Brent has revised his drawing and he’s actually done a letter with the test pit information, and we were actually going to submit that today, our two copies. We’re engineering the final signoff on the review today, but we have not submitted those yet. We’ll submit those probably tomorrow. MR. HUNSINGER-Great. Anything else? MR. JONES-No, I think that addresses everything that we had. 10 (Queensbury Planning Board 10/15/2019) MR. HUNSINGER-Questions, comments from the Board? MR. VALENTINE-This is my little minutia. Just going back I want to make sure we’ve got it right so when it comes time for the resolution. Our cover sheet says this is an Unlisted action, and then next on Staff Notes it says it’s a Type II, and then on the SEQR resolution it says Unlisted action, and I just want to make sure when we’re doing the resolution we do the right action. Okay. MRS. MOORE-So it would be considered Unlisted. I apologize for that. In addition it’s part of the PUD. So they did the overall SEQR form at that time of the PUD and they included projects like this, but to make sure it’s consistent all the way through, they’re doing the Unlisted SEQR. That makes it consistent all the way through. MR. VALENTINE-So it’s Unlisted then? MRS. MOORE-Yes. MR. VALENTINE-Thank you. MR. HUNSINGER-To me the only, well I shouldn’t say the only question, the obvious question is, is there any likelihood that the wetland boundaries would change when the Army Corps comes out? MR. JONES-I don’t believe there is. They were delineated in the spring. MR. STEENBURGH-Yes, they were delineated back in April by a very competent wetland biologist who works well with the Corps. I feel pretty confident that this biologist, you know, I mean if it changes a lot of times they’ll change a flag from me to you in location which really wouldn’t affect anything as far as the site plan goes. MR. HUNSINGER-Well some of the setbacks, though, may encroach. MR. JONES-Well I think the closest one is 54 feet and the wetlands in that area are very well defined. MR. HUNSINGER-I think so, too, but I’m not a wetland specialist. MR. JONES-Yes, and I know we initiated this project back in 2010, and at that point we had Deb Roberts doing the flagging for us and the flagging that was done then versus the flagging that was done now is almost identical. MR. STEENBURGH-That indicates to me that there’s little variation and it’s very consistent boundary. MR. HUNSINGER-So what would happen if the wetlands did change that required? MRS. MOORE-They’d come back. MR. HUNSINGER-Yes. Right. MR. JONES-We would address the wetlands permit at that point. MRS. MOORE-Right, if it’s changed or if there’s some element that triggered a variance, if it was within the wetlands itself, but I don’t foresee that. MR. JONES-No. I know Laura had sent me an e-mail maybe a month ago and had some questions relative to the type of basically the vegetation that borders the wetlands. The wetlands in the area of the independent living unit addition, it’s an open meadow and there’s no real shrubs or anything until you get to the side of the wetlands which is actually toward Haviland Road. So basically it’s an open field right to the edge of the wetlands. There’s nothing there. It’s an open meadow. MR. VALENTINE-Brent, the SWPPP we got with this was like 23 pages. Is that the abbreviated? MR. JONES-That is just the front end. Laura has the full copy. MR. VALENTINE-I was reading through it going, whoa, this is nice, just 23 pages. Okay. 11 (Queensbury Planning Board 10/15/2019) MR. JONES-We have the two inch version if you’re interested. MR. VALENTINE-No, no. I have a lot of those sitting around, too. MR. HUNSINGER-Other questions, comments from the Board? We do have a public hearing scheduled this evening. Is there anyone that wishes to address the Board? I don’t see anyone. Any written comments, Laura? PUBLIC HEARING OPEN MRS. MOORE-There are no written comments. MR. HUNSINGER-Are members of the Board ready to move forward with a SEQR resolution? Okay. So we will close the public hearing. PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED MR. HUNSINGER-And I will entertain a SEQR resolution. RESOLUTION GRANTING A NEG. SEQR DEC SP # 44-2019 FWW 4-2019 THE GLEN The applicant proposes three projects for the Glen at Hiland Meadows. Proposed is a 20,897 sq. ft. (footprint) two story 41,794 sq. ft. (floor area) addition to the main building with 28 independent living units. Also proposed is a 5,016 sq. ft. (footprint) single story wellness center addition to the main building. Separately, a 25,268 sq. ft. (footprint) single story new building for a memory care facility for 30 residents. Property also includes associated site work for the project. Project occurs in an existing PUD and The Glen at Hiland Meadows Health Facility. Pursuant to Chapter 179-3-040 & Chapter 94 of the Zoning Ordinance, new commercial construction shall be subject to Planning Board review and approval. The Planning Board has determined that the proposed project and Planning Board action is subject to review under the State Environmental Quality Review Act; The proposed action considered by this Board is Unlisted in the Department of Environmental Conservation Regulations implementing the State Environmental Quality Review Act and the regulations of the Town of Queensbury; No Federal or other agencies are involved; Part 1 of the Short EAF has been completed by the applicant; Upon review of the information recorded on this EAF, it is the conclusion of the Town of Queensbury Planning Board as lead agency that this project will result in no significant adverse impacts on the environment, and, therefore, an environmental impact statement need not be prepared. Accordingly, this negative declaration is issued. MOTION TO GRANT A NEGATIVE DECLARATION FOR SITE PLAN 44-2019 & FRESHWATER WETLANDS PERMIT 4-2019 THE GLEN AT HILAND MEADOWS, INC.. Introduced by David Deeb who moved for its adoption. As per the resolution prepared by staff. 1. Part II of the Short EAF has been reviewed and completed by the Planning Board. 2. Part III of the Short EAF is not necessary because the Planning Board did not identify Potentially moderate to large impacts. th Motion seconded by Brad Magowan. Duly adopted this 15 day of October, 2019 by the following vote: AYES: Mr. Shafer, Mr. Magowan, Mr. Valentine, Mr. Dixon, Mr. Deeb, Ms. White, Mr. Hunsinger NOES: NONE ABSENT: Mr. Traver 12 (Queensbury Planning Board 10/15/2019) MR. HUNSINGER-Any other questions or comments? Okay. RESOLUTION APPROVING SP # 44-2019 FWW 4-2019 THE GLEN The applicant has submitted an application to the Planning Board: The applicant proposes three projects for the Glen at Hiland Meadows. Proposed is a 20,897 sq. ft. (footprint) two story 41,794 sq. ft. (floor area) addition to the main building with 28 independent living units. Also proposed is a 5,016 sq. ft. (footprint) single story wellness center addition to the main building. Separately, a 25,268 sq. ft. (footprint) single story new building for a memory care facility for 30 residents. Property also includes associated site work for the project. Project occurs in an existing PUD and The Glen at Hiland Meadows Health Facility. Pursuant to Chapter 179-3-040 & Chapter 94 of the Zoning Ordinance, new commercial construction shall be subject to Planning Board review and approval. Pursuant to relevant sections of the Town of Queensbury Zoning Code-Chapter 179-9-080, the Planning Board has determined that this proposal satisfies the requirements as stated in the Zoning Code; As required by General Municipal Law Section 239-m the site plan application was referred to the Warren County Planning Department for its recommendation; The Planning Board has reviewed the potential environmental impacts of the project, pursuant to the State Environmental Quality Review Act (SEQRA) and adopted a SEQRA Negative Declaration – Determination of Non-Significance The Planning Board opened a public hearing on the Site plan application on 07/23/2019 and continued the public hearing to 10/15/2019, 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 10/15/2019; 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 44-2019 & FRESHWATER WETLANDS PERMIT 4-2019 THE GLEN AT HILAND MEADOWS, INC.; Introduced by David Deeb who moved for its adoption. According to the draft resolution prepared by Staff with the following: 1) No waivers requested; 2. Adherence to the items outlined in the follow-up letter sent with this resolution. a) The limits of clearing will constitute a no-cut buffer zone, orange construction fencing shall be installed around these areas and field verified by Community Development staff; b) If applicable, the Sanitary Sewer connection plan must be submitted to the Wastewater Department for its review, approval, permitting and inspection; c) If curb cuts are being added or changed a driveway permit is required. A building permit will not be issued until the approved driveway permit has been provided to the Planning Office; d) If application was referred to engineering then Engineering sign-off required prior to signature of Zoning Administrator of the approved plans; e) Final approved plans should have dimensions and setbacks noted on the site plan/survey, floor plans and elevation for the existing rooms and proposed rooms in the building and site improvements;- f) If required, the applicant must submit a copy of the following to the Town: a. The project NOI (Notice of Intent) for coverage under the current "NYSDEC SPDES General Permit from Construction Activity" prior to the start of any site work. b. The project NOT (Notice of Termination) upon completion of the project; c. The applicant must maintain on their project site, for review by staff: i. The approved final plans that have been stamped by the Town Zoning Administrator. These plans must include the project SWPPP (Storm Water Pollution Prevention Plan) when such a plan was prepared and approved; ii. The project NOI and proof of coverage under the current NYSDEC SPDES General Permit, or an individual SPDES permit issued for the project if required. 13 (Queensbury Planning Board 10/15/2019) g) Final approved plans, in compliance with the Site Plan, must be submitted to the Community Development Department before any further review by the Zoning Administrator or Building and Codes personnel; h) The applicant must meet with Staff after approval and prior to issuance of Building Permit and/or the beginning of any site work; i) Subsequent issuance of further permits, including building permits is dependent on compliance with this and all other conditions of this resolution; j) As-built plans to certify that the site plan is developed according to the approved plans to be provided prior to issuance of the certificate of occupancy. k) This resolution is to be placed in its entirety on the final plans th Motion seconded by John Shafer. Duly adopted this 15 day of October, 2019 by the following vote: AYES: Mr. Magowan, Mr. Valentine, Mr. Dixon, Mr. Deeb, Ms. White, Mr. Shafer, Mr. Hunsinger NOES: NONE ABSENT: Mr. Traver MR. HUNSINGER-You’re all set. MR. STEENBURGH-Thank you very much. MR. JONES-Thank you. MR. HUNSINGER-We have two items this evening under Unapproved Development. The first one is Site Plan 51-2019, Daniel Pickett. UNAPPROVED DEVELOPMENT: 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 OF 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, UNAPPROVED DEVELOPMENT. LOT SIZE: .6 ACRE & 2.33 ACRES. TAX MAP NO. 239.17-1-5, 239.17- 1-9. SECTION: CHAPTER 147, 179-9-020. JON LAPPER & DENNIS MAC ELROY, REPRESENTING APPLICANT, PRESENT MRS. MOORE-This applicant was tabled at the previous month’s meeting for disturbance of the area of 35,000 square feet including paved loop area. The project includes installation of stormwater devices to manage the stormwater on site. Revised information in reference to site details. The revised showing new grass swales to have a sediment forebay and emergency overflow, and there’s trench information and the planting plan including maples, white pines and photos of the existing conditions. MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. Good evening. MR. LAPPER-Good evening, everyone. For the record Jon Lapper with Dennis MacElroy. Even though we’re under the new hall of shame category of Unapproved Development, as we explained last month this wasn’t done with development in mind. This was to clean up a bunch of trees that had been knocked over in the storm and just re-vegetate the site, but because of the comments of the neighbor and the Water Keeper and the Board since we were here we received approval from Chazen, the Town Engineer, and that included augmenting the stormwater management plan that Dennis had proposed. So those changes are shown on the new plan to improve those facilities. We’ve added nine pine trees and three maple trees and provided a bunch of photos showing what the buffer area looks like. I know that you’ve all been up there and it’s really a pretty lovely park like setting and the only development area is just that circular driveway for guests parking because there’s inadequate parking on Antigua Road and any water that would come off of that is being treated in the basin. So we think we have this covered, but, Dennis, do you want to get into this in more details? 14 (Queensbury Planning Board 10/15/2019) MR. MAC ELROY-We’ve addressed the comments that came up last month, provided the additional plans that are in your packet, and as Jon said Chazen signed off on the technical review. MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. Any questions, comments from the Board? MR. VALENTINE-Dennis, on the proposed in the site plan, the trench that runs along there, the trench drain, is that a drain, do you have to have a grate on the top of that? Is it open? Picking up water along the top surface of that? MR. MAC ELROY-Correct. There’s a detail on one of the plan sheets.. It’s a trench drain, typical you’ve seen of the different highway entrances and what not. MR. VALENTINE-Right, and then that comes down into a grass swale? Am I reading the grass swale right that the most acceptable is only three inches of water? MR. MAC ELROY-There are spot grades from. MR. VALENTINE-No, I’m just thinking from the flared end section, the invert there, 353.75, correct? MR. MAC ELROY-Correct, MR. VALENTINE-And then the overflow weir is at 354. So in fact it’s only three inches of water being held in there? MR. MAC ELROY-No, that doesn’t mean it’s deeper in between. MR. VALENTINE-Okay. MR. MAC ELROY-It comes in. It comes in at a certain elevation. There’s the depression. Then there’s the overflow at that, over the stone weir. MR. VALENTINE-The copy I have, I’m trying to look and see what an existing grade and a proposed elevation was, and I couldn’t get anything except by going by the notes on the side for that area. MR. MAC ELROY-If you see on Sheet Four there’s a shallow grass depression detail in that area. It shows six and twelve. MR. SHAFER-Dennis, I had a hard time with that asphalt parking lot, hydrocarbons running into Lake George. Can you speak to how the stormwater design was responsive to a hydrocarbons from the asphalt and/or parked cars? MR. MAC ELROY-Well, the design is, you know, typical of stormwater runoff from impervious surface. There’s a little forebay and then infiltration through the shallow grass swale. MR. SHAFER-And that will be consistent over time, 20 years let’s say? Is there any maintenance that would have to be required? MR. MAC ELROY-On any stormwater infiltration basin there would be maintenance that would occur over time to keep from the cores clogging or less. So if that is maintained as a grass surface or as a mulch surface there would just be an aeriation periodically that would take place, but that’s typical of any basin like that. MR. SHAFER-I just wanted you to address that. MR. MAC ELROY-And there is an area that extends down in stone to get below frost level. It’s a provision within Park Commission regulations. So that you have that connection to a frost free situation. MR. DIXON-On Sheet Number Three, just a quick question. I’m sure it’s fine, but within the paved area, it’s not really demonstrated the existing trees that were there. MR. MAC ELROY-Correct. That were there or are still there? MR. DIXON-Well, they’re currently there. 15 (Queensbury Planning Board 10/15/2019) MR. MAC ELROY-Correct. MR. DIXON-The intent is to keep them there. All right. MR. HUNSINGER-Any other questions or comments from the Board? MR. MAGOWAN-The logs will be removed once the ground is frozen? Is that still the anticipation? MR. MAC ELROY-That’s our understanding. MR. HUNSINGER-Any other questions? We do have a public hearing scheduled this evening. Is there anyone that wishes to address the Board? We have someone in the back. If you want to come forward, sir, and if you would identify yourself for the record, and speak clearly into the microphone. PUBLIC HEARING OPEN MARTIN FARBER DR. FARBER-Thank you for allowing me to speak. My name is Dr. Martin Farber. I reside at 33 Antigua Road. I had the privilege of addressing this Board on previous occasions that this matter has come before it. For one thing I think beauty is in the eyes of the beholder. Perhaps these gentlemen would clear cut the Adirondacks and prefer to plant rye and Kentucky Blue grass and that would make it look nice, but I think most of us would disagree with that. I forwarded to you a screen shot of Google maps showing what this acreage looked like before it was clear cut and again my opinion is that that development is not necessarily good. The trees that are left in the paved areas are dead. They just don’t know it yet. Their roots have been compacted. They can’t breathe, and I think that the claim that this land improvement after the storms that we had in the last few years is just bogus. There’s nothing wrong with trees that are dead or falling. They provide habitat as long as they don’t produce to property and limb. I’d also like to comment I took the liberty of, when I was walking along Route 9, along the property, I saw some beer cans, and I collected about 10 or 12 large light beer cans from adjacent to the fire pit area. It’s hard for me to believe that cars passing were, the accuracy was so good that they had all these beer cans land in such a small area, and I’m concerned that this area, I don’t know from Mr. Pickett’s his friends or his family or whether that’s become known in the neighborhood as a potential hangout, but I have some concerns about that, and I guess that’s all I have. Do you know, actually, if Mr. Navitsky has had a chance to review the plans? I know he was not happy with the first set of stormwater mitigation. MR. HUNSINGER-We’ll see if there are any written comments. DR. FARBER-Okay. Thank you. MR. HUNSINGER-Anyone else? Did you want to speak? CHRIS NAVITSKY MR. NAVITSKY-I guess I will. Thank you. Chris Navitsky, Lake George Water Keeper. I was, I’m still not comfortable with the trench drain. I don’t think that that is going to catch all the water. I still think there’s going to be bypass. That’s what my comment was last month. They have added more stormwater management, which we felt was a positive. Clearly more plantings is better, but we mainly felt there’s going to be bypass from that area as well as uncaptured runoff going to, I guess it’s the north/northeast, which they appear to have caught with that new basin, but again, I still think there’ll be, because if you look at a trench drain half of it is metal grid. So that means half the stormwater is going to go over it. My thoughts. Thanks. Never seen one, really, that hasn’t clogged. I used to put them in in designs myself. So they tend to clog. It’s a maintenance issue. Thank you. MR. HUNSINGER-Thank you. Anyone else? Were there any written comments? MRS. MOORE-No written comments. MR. HUNSINGER-If the applicant would like to come back. I don’t know if you had any response. MR. LAPPER-Only that we did submit pictures of the blow down the last time we were here to show what happened, and Chazen’s obviously comfortable with the stormwater design. MR. HUNSINGER-Any other questions or comments from the Board? 16 (Queensbury Planning Board 10/15/2019) MR. MAGOWAN-Yes. The only one I have is, how many trees did we add? Just the hemlocks? MR. LAPPER-Twelve trees. The hemlocks are there now. They added pine trees and maple trees. MR. MAC ELROY-The other hemlocks had been added previously, had been planted in there. MR. MAGOWAN-When visited I thought I saw those. Okay. That’s on Six. MR. MAC ELROY-Correct. MR. HUNSINGER-Any other questions or comments? MR. DIXON-I do have a comment. So I still am concerned about blacktop area that’s blacktopped right around the trees. I do believe that those trees are also going to perish. They’re not going to last very long. What are your thoughts? What are your plans? I mean if they’re not there, I would imagine the homeowner’s either going to plant flowers in the dead spots. MR. LAPPER-Mike, we would agree as a condition that if those trees don’t survive they’ll be re-planted.. MR. DIXON-Is there any work near the blacktop that can create more permeability? It’s tough with a mature trees, especially with maple trees. You can get into the deeper trees, deeper rooted trees, the oaks, things of that nature, but I think if you re-plant you’re still going to have the same issue, unless you can get some more water to those roots. MR. VALENTINE-Mike, where are you talking about? MR. DIXON-So right along Antigua Road, just as you pull in on the left hand side there’s going to be at least one or two groupings of trees. So they’re demonstrated on the plans as just, we’ll call them a white circle, white oval. MR. MAC ELROY-If you look on Sheet Seven, it gives you some idea of what we’re talking about there. There’s some areas that may be encircled by a paved area with existing trees that were maintained. If those don’ t survive, Mr. Pickett I’m sure if you visited the site you see that he takes good care of his properties, that a tree would take its place, and one that might be more adaptable or suitable. There are trees, you know streetscapes, curved boxes and trees that are suitable for that type of application. MR. LAPPER-We’d certainly offer that as a condition. MR. DIXON-Aesthetically I think it’s very nice there. I was on the property. It looks nice. It looks presentable. I know the neighbors have concerns about the trees. I guess I really don’t take issue with it. I know that we’re going to probably lose the trees and I think that I have to accept that. MR. HUNSINGER-Any other comments from the Board? MR. SHAFER-Question. How do we deal with maintenance of the stormwater areas? Is that a condition? MR. HUNSINGER-Well it’s an enforcement issue. MRS. MOORE-It’s an enforcement issue. You can put it in as a condition that they have to be maintained. MR. MAGOWAN-Well I think that’s, it would be a given. MR. HUNSINGER-Yes. MR. MAGOWAN-I mean if you’re putting them in there then, because they do have to be freshened up. MRS. MOORE-So the applicant itself is in charge of those. You could have them draft a maintenance agreement. It outlines what the applicant’s responsible for. MR. SHAFER-An agreement between them and the Town? MRS. MOORE-Yes, and the Planning Board’s condition that there’s a maintenance agreement. 17 (Queensbury Planning Board 10/15/2019) MR. SHAFER-Is that uncommon? MRS. MOORE-No. It generally happens with a project that disturbs more than an acre. So, yes, it’s not uncommon but it typically happens with larger projects. MR. VALENTINE-I think with that trench drain that I was asking about before, I think that’s sort of, you can almost say that it is a given. If you’ve got one, you’re going to, hopefully you take care of it. That one across the width of our driveway, maybe 26 feet coming down the bottom of the driveway and if this starting, you know, three weeks ago you’ve got to get a leaf blower out all the time, and if you don’t and you get into mid, late November, it’s too late, you’re frozen. So I think that’s going to be incumbent upon the owner just to do that himself, or you will have a situation where you say you’re just going to have water pouring right over it. So again, you can’t write commonsense into these plans, but you would think that that would just be something that would be taken care of by the property owner himself, but if you make it a condition then you’ve got something to go back and say, hey look it, that water is bypassing or overflowing or whatever because, and then you get a leaf blower and go out and take care of it. MR. LAPPER-And we’ll agree to that condition on behalf of the applicant as well. MR. HUNSINGER-Anything else? This is a Type II SEQR. If the Board’s comfortable, we’ll close the public hearing. PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED MR. HUNSINGER-And we will entertain a motion. We already closed the public hearing, sir. DR. FARBER-I wondered if the Board would also make a stipulation that the trees planted that they be sure that they’re indigenous trees, not Norway Maples. MRS. MOORE-They have to anyway. MR. HUNSINGER-Yes, they have to anyway, by Code. They have to by Code, sir. We have a list of native trees that are acceptable. DR. FARBER-That’s good to know. RESOLUTION APPROVING 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. 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 10/15/2019, 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 10/15/2019; 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 51-2019 DANIEL PICKETT. Introduced by David Deeb who moved for its adoption; Per the draft provided by staff conditioned upon the following conditions: 18 (Queensbury Planning Board 10/15/2019) 1) Waivers request granted: g. site lighting, h. signage, 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. 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. h) Any trees that don’t survive in the existing paved area will be replaced. i) Applicant must maintain stormwater devices with a maintenance agreement with the Town. Motion seconded by Brad Magowan. Duly adopted this 15th day of October, 2019 by the following vote: MRS. MOORE-So you mentioned one item of the stormwater maintenance. You want to include both. MR. VALENTINE-The swale and the trench. MRS. MOORE-Yes. MR. VALENTINE-Again, it’s literally a given, but it ties in to the whole system. MR. DEEB-So you want me to add? MRS. MOORE-Stormwater devices. MR. HUNSINGER-Stormwater devices. MR. DEEB-Okay. Applicant must maintain stormwater devices. MRS. MOORE-With a maintenance agreement. MR. DEEB-With a maintenance agreement with the Town. AYES: Mr. Valentine, Mr. Deeb, Mr. Shafer, Mr. Magowan, Mr. Dixon, Mr. Hunsinger NOES: Ms. White ABSENT: Mr. Traver MR. HUNSINGER-You’re all set. MR. LAPPER-Thank you. MR. HUNSINGER-The next project on the agenda is Site Plan 66-2019 for James Keller. SITE PLAN NO. 66-2019 SEQR TYPE: TYPE II. JAMES KELLER. OWNER(S): SAME AS APPLICANT. ZONING: WR. LOCATION: 17 FERWOOD ROAD. APPLICANT PROPOSES TO MAINTAIN AND COMPLETE A 540 SQ. FT. OPEN DECK WITH STAIRS TO SHORELINE. THE SITE CONTAINS AN EXISTING 3,408 SQ. FT. HOME (FLOOR AREA) AND TWO SHEDS. PURSUANT TO CHAPTER 179-4-080 & 179-6-050 OF THE ZONING ORDINANCE, HARD SURFACING WITHIN 50 FT. OF SHORELINE SHALL BE SUBJECT TO PLANNING BOARD REVIEW AND APPROVAL. VARIANCE: RELIEF IS SOUGHT FOR SETBACKS AND PERMEABILITY. 19 (Queensbury Planning Board 10/15/2019) PLANNING BOARD SHALL PROVIDE A RECOMMENDATION TO THE ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS. CROSS REFERENCE: AV 61-1992, AV 37-1999, AV 47-2019. WARREN CO. REFERRAL: N/A. SITE INFORMATION: UNAPPROVED DEVELOPMENT. LOT SIZE: .24 ACRE. TAX MAP NO. 289.10-1-39. SECTION: 179-4-080, 179-6-050. JAMES KELLER & CULLEN FULLER, REPRESENTING APPLICANT, PRESENT MR. HUNSINGER-Laura? MRS. MOORE-The applicant proposes to maintain and complete a 540 square foot open deck with stairs to shoreline. The site has an existing 3,408 square foot home, floor area, with two sheds. One of the sheds is close to the shoreline already. In reference to what needs to be completed, the items are plantings and footings. MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. Thank you. Good evening. DR. KELLER-Good evening. James Keller, owner of 15 Fernwood Road and I have Cullen Fuller with Rucinski Hall. MR. HUNSINGER-Would you like to tell us about your project? DR. KELLER-I started a deck project on a house I just purchased in March. There was an existing platform that existed on the house. This was a house that had been vacant for about two years. It was clearly rundown and dilapidated. The platform that existed was fairly rundown and had no railing to it. So the drop off of the, you can see in the picture, any of those pictures would do if you bring those up, but the drop off of that is at least a good, I’ll call it a 10 foot drop to one level and then another about 8 foot drop to the next. So no railing had existed and the dilapidated platform that was there was quite dangerous. I have three young children. Keeping them from the edge when we initially purchased the property was a bit of a task. So I had gone about starting a deck which I found out the hard way that I needed a permit. I’ve done a number of projects in Queensbury before and I’ve always permitted them. I didn’t realize taking down the original deck that was there, the platform let’s call it, and starting another one required a permit and found that out the hard way. So I’ve constructed most of the deck itself. I haven’t poured the footings. I haven’t finished the railing. I was actually in the process of finishing the deck. I had probably a weekend’s worth of work left and I received the Stop Work Order on it. The main reason myself for putting the deck up was mostly from a safety standpoint. MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. Questions, comments from the Board? MR. MAGOWAN-Your existing platform, I mean I’m looking at these pictures up here, and one, did you remove a tree too? DR. KELLER-One tree was removed. It was an oak tree that was basically a dead tree when I purchased nd the property on March 22. MR. VALENTINE-Of this year? DR. KELLER-Of this year, yes. I just purchased the property. MR. MAGOWAN-Because I’m looking at a pictures, the ones that were in with the application, 2018, 2017 samples. MR. FULLER-This photos were taken off a real estate website. Yes, indeed, the tree was there originally and the platform was basically set back from the first retaining wall. DR. KELLER-It’s tough to really see the platform because the property’s so overgrown. These are the MLS photos that were up there. You can’t really see that there’s a platform that exists up there. It honestly was rundown. You could step through it in sections. So it’s just, it’s tough to see from the picture there. MR. FULLER-This is the best documentation that we have available. MR. MAGOWAN-That platform was level with that upper retaining wall. DR. KELLER-Correct. 20 (Queensbury Planning Board 10/15/2019) MR. MAGOWAN-So you walked out the basement and you came around to that? DR. KELLER-Correct. There’s still some existing that’s there right now. I don’t know if anyone has been out to the property, but there’s still some existing portion of that that goes by that basement door. MR. MAGOWAN-I mean I was just astonished that this came in, I mean right on the shore, taking down also a tree that’s right on the shore, from the real estate pictures, and you didn’t think you needed a permit. I mean if you’ve done anything in Queensbury, you know that’s one thing we really strive for is a permit, but I mean in a critical water area, and we have the rules and regulations of doing modifications on shoreline buffering and stuff like that. DR. KELLER-I understand the lack of knowledge in doing a, you know, to be doing a deck, but literally if I look 500 feet in one direction of the lake and 500 feet in the other direction of the lake, at no point did I feel like what I was putting up was any different than what had already existed. So personally for what was existing there and what I was upgrading and making safer, to be honest, and like I said I’ve done plenty of projects in Queensbury that I’ve permitted. I was actually just finished with a permit on a septic upgrade that I had applied for. That’s my fault. I take full responsibility for not realizing that that’s the step I had to go through. MR. MAGOWAN-Because, you know, the other deck came to that retaining wall. Correct? DR. KELLER-Came to the back side of it. MR. MAGOWAN-The back side of it. Now you’re overhanging it. I mean you’ve come out in between your two partitions, or your retaining walls I should say. DR. KELLER-Yes, correct. Just from a stability standpoint. MR. MAGOWAN-I understand that and I can see that, and you haven’t poured those footings yet. DR. KELLER-No, I have not. MR. MAGOWAN-Yes. Okay, and what are your plans for the sides? DR. KELLER-So on the one side that you’re looking at in the picture to the right here, there will be a stairway that comes down, because there’s really no lake access. There’s like cinderblocks actually that exists there that you walk down these dilapidated cinderblocks, So my plan was to build a stairway off of that side. I believe it does show in the plans. MR. FULLER-It indicates that there’s available on that side. Inevitably they will have to be maintained by the grade or designed through grade, but they will be on. DR. KELLER-It’s on the side where you can see that existing what’s called the shed. So it will come off of that side down towards the shed towards the water. MR. MAGOWAN-Okay. So I mean it is, it’s a very high lot, steep coming down. DR. KELLER-It is. It’s extremely steep coming down. MR. MAGOWAN-And I could see having the steps down. Also maybe a slide off the front of the deck into the lake. DR. KELLER-That would be fantastic. My kids are really hoping for something like that, but what, but, you know, seeing the side, stabilizing that, because you know, it does, it all comes down. A set of steps, you know, the retaining wall’s there for the house, but I’m also looking at seeing the dirt and everything coming down to the lake. So what can we do, now that you’ve moved into this improvement, what can we do to stabilize those side banks and get a form of shoreline, a better shoreline buffering for us? MR. FULLER-As far as vegetation or as far as plantings and that sort of thing? MR. MAGOWAN-Vegetation. 21 (Queensbury Planning Board 10/15/2019) MR. FULLER-We have proposed plantings on the bottom to maintain any runoff or whatever runoff. Not to say that they’d generate more of a runoff, but we’re planning on plantings in the front, plantings on the side, to stabilize, and an embankment would probably be in our best interest as well. DR. KELLER-In front of the wall right now where the posts come down, my plan is to lattice that and allow nice vineage to come up and actually hide the wall as well because I mean personally it’s an ugly wall. So to add, you know, plantings through there and to hide that as well is part of my, was part of my plan. MR. MAGOWAN-Well that’s not much of a buffer. I mean, you know, you don’t have 15 feet. DR. KELLER-There’ s about three feet in there. So vine I would feel like would be a fairly, you know, covering the wall and allowing for a buffer. MR. MAGOWAN-But see I see the steps coming down, and looking at the pictures, can we incorporate some form of retaining walls within those steps? DR. KELLER-Here’s the complete reality of this lot is that it is nothing but rock. This entire area is. When I tell you it’s 80% rock, 20% dirt, it is solid as the ground can be. So trying to dig in to this, and you can’t get an excavator down there. That’s impossible. There’s no way that you can bring an excavator into that small area on the side there. MRS. MOORE-Is there a way to do like a terraced stair? Because you’re going to do a stairway anyway. DR. KELLER-We’re going to do a stairway, yes. It’s so steep, when I stand on that, it’s almost a straight, you know, it’s got a little bit of back, but it’s so steep. MR. VALENTINE-It would even look to be advantageous on both sides of this, at least with that slope, even just to have ground cover. DR. KELLER-I mean I’d be more than happy to plant, it’s my intention as well, and I don’t think there’s a picture that scans over a bit on this lot, too. There’s also another like straight up hill. If you can bring up the original MLS plans maybe. Okay. So behind the shed which again you can’t see because it’s so overgrown because like I said this house was untouched for two years, there’s another embankment that goes up probably 20 feet that through that dressing that up, adding new plantings through there. The property was a bit of an eyesore on the lake to be honest. So I’m more than happy to address some of that embankment area with nice plantings to make it look better for sure. Structurally it’s not necessarily an issue. MR. VALENTINE-I was thinking when you said before about vines and stuff like that and you’re saying you’re looking at that for how it looks or appears, I’m thinking that’s not really the issue here before us. I think the issue here is to hold the slope, not to have any runoff bringing sediment or anything washing down. I don’t think you want to introduce, just my thought, say mature tree growth between both of those walls. DR. KELLER-That would be impossible. MR. VALENTINE-You put a new root system in there, it’s going to be half, but I think that you’re not any different, I don’t mean to sound that way. Other neighbors around you have the same problem, but we’ve got that same thing we’re trying to enforce as far as whether it’s Glen Lake, Lake George, Sunnyside, whatever, hold that slope, keep that runoff from coming back down in, and I just think the only thing you’ve got is some low-lying ground cover, stuff that’s going to hug that and hold that rain and wash off, runoff stuff like that. I don’t live on the lake, but I’m fully aware. I dig nothing but rock all over my yard. DR. KELLER-Yes, I mean and I’m more than happy to plant low level plants and whatever may be that’ll hold the soil, and realistically I mean it’s pretty well solid at this point but I don’t mind adding to it to ensure that’ll happen, plus it makes it look nicer, realistically. MR. HUNSINGER-So a lot of the discussion this evening is really on the site plan issues. They’re here for a recommendation to the Zoning Board. Obviously the discussion relates to the permeability issue, but also we haven’t talked about the setback at all, except for indirectly. Are there any specific concerns about either of the two reliefs that are being requested, the setback or the permeability? MR. SHAFER-Are there two cinderblock walls down by the lake? 22 (Queensbury Planning Board 10/15/2019) DR. KELLER-Yes, two. They’re stacked as you can see in the picture. MR. SHAFER-What is the purpose of the one closest to the water? DR. KELLER-That also has some land holding ability. I mean there’s like a three foot section in between the two. So it does hold back the land a bit that lower one, too. You can maybe see it a little bit better there. MR. SHAFER-Will that leaning tree survive? DR. KELLER-It’s been there for a long time at this point. So I’m going to say probably yes. MR. MAGOWAN-Well the other one didn’t. DR. KELLER-Right, right, but it’s a pine. MR. VALENTINE-But there are a lot of out there along the shoreline of the lake. DR. KELLER-And they all lean just like this one. MR. VALENTINE-Did you have to get a crane to take it? DR. KELLER-No, I dropped it on the ice. MR. MAGOWAN-I was going to say, he dropped it on the ice. nd DR. KELLER-March 22 there was still enough ice out there. MR. SHAFER-I don’t know the answer but I’ll throw out the question whether or not that wall closest to the lake would, the issue of sedimentation would be better served by some other facility than that wall. That is just ugly. DR. KELLER-I agree. My plan is to just plant it, make it look nicer. MR. SHAFER-What about the idea of taking it out and planting ground shrubs? Did you build that? DR. KELLER-No, that was existing. MR. FULLER-Most everything on that site is existing. DR. KELLER-These are pre-existing conditions. MR. FULLER-Including the side. MS. WHITE-He’s talking about putting lattice. That would grow in one season. In one season that would be covered. MR. MAGOWAN-I don’t have a problem with the walls. DR. KELLER-The second wall. The first wall, I mean I can attempt to lattice the first wall, too. It’s the second wall that I plan on latticing in front of where the posts come down. MR. MAGOWAN-But you can always stone façade it. DR. KELLER-That may be part of my plan at some point. MR. MAGOWAN-Do a cobblestone. DR. KELLER-There’s a lot of ways to dress it up for sure. MR. MAGOWAN-I’m not worried about that. That’s the way you bought the house. DR. KELLER-Right. 23 (Queensbury Planning Board 10/15/2019) MR. MAGOWAN-I mean my concern was seeing the tree that goes to the water, but for me it’s going to be hard to give a recommendation to the Zoning Board until I see, you know, even though stormwater is not one of the things. MR. HUNSINGER-Well permeability is. MR. MAGOWAN-Well, yes, the permeability. So it would be hard for me to give a recommendation without actually seeing more of a planning schedule, diagram or plan, planting plan. DR. KELLER-As far as true permeability, I also, you know, the permeability percentage is very close. MR. FULLER-Very close. DR. KELLER-The permeability dropped because the deck itself, a deck is not permeable structure. We actually just cut back a portion which doesn’t reflect in the permeability percentage. We just cut back a portion of the existing driveway above because we just installed a well on the property because the house pulled water from the lake so we didn’t want to drink that so we cut back a portion of the driveway to install our well line. I also own the house behind this house as well which is about 1.3 acres. So at this point I have not combined the lots. If that were the case to combine the lots, I talked to Craig Brown about this, you know, I could easily go and bring my permeability to meet the standards if I combined lots. He said basically what you’d be doing if you combined lots is you would then be applying for a variance because you would have two houses on one lot. MR. HUNSINGER-Right. DR. KELLER-So he said apply for your variance for your minimum permeability and leave them two separate lots. So I do own the back lot which is over an acre. MR. FULLER-It’s well above the permeability. DR. KELLER-There’s a lot of permeability. MR. MAGOWAN-Well, I mean see unfortunately we have an unapproved situation here and our Chairman Steve Traver is not here tonight, and I know we’ve tried to work on this and you have done what you’ve done. Personally I kind of like it and if you lattice the front and you can hide that second wall and bring it down, and I think it’s going to look nice, but since we’ve done this, the whole point of getting the permit and coming for approvals and also being on the water is also trying to protect what we have for our waters and improve them along with these, you know, with improving your properties this is improving the lake, too, at the same time. DR. KELLER-Absolutely. MR. MAGOWAN-And Chris is always here for the lakes and he’s an awesome guy to talk to. DR. KELLER-I just spent quite a bit of money putting in a brand new septic system that was non- conforming, which I knew I was getting into when I bought the house. So I’ve already taken this house in a direction where there’s not going to be sewage seeping into a lake from an existing 300 gallon pit that was built in 1940. MR. MAGOWAN-I appreciate that, and then being able to increase the permeability by taking out some of the driveway for the well, and these are all great intentions and I’m happy to hear that, but I’m looking h ere and I see the steps, with the railing and the steps down. Is that just steps off the side of the deck and then the rest of the way you’re going to walk down to the lake? DR. KELLER-Steps down towards. MR. MAGOWAN-The shed. DR. KELLER-Yes, down towards the shed. MR. MAGOWAN-Or the lake house. DR. KELLER-Yes. Steps that will go down towards the shed and then right now there’s existing kind of cinderblock that realistically I could, you know, use rocks to make some steps down from that point. 24 (Queensbury Planning Board 10/15/2019) MR. FULLER-I think what we’d probably most likely is bring the steps down to a place where it would be efficient to put in pavers or something of that nature, something more permeable, but obviously the point is getting down from the deck safely to a condition where he can use pavers or something of that nature that are permeable that allow seepage nod protect some of the runoff. MR. MAGOWAN-And I like that, but I’d really like to see what we can do, because I guess it would be coming off of that side, and I understand about rocks, because I know the area, but I would like to see more of a plan of what we can do to secure the side with planting, more of a planting of vegetation along with more of a detail of how the steps will come down and how you fill finish it out down to the shed. MR. VALENTINE-But you’re giving them advice as to what to come back with for Site Plan, and that has to be after the fact of tonight and the ZBA. He can’t magically do something on his Site Plan tonight. MR. MAGOWAN-Well, no, but I mean I have a hard time passing this on to the ZBA without, because the project to me is not complete. MR. DEEB-You’re going to be able to complete the project with an amended Site Plan. MR. VALENTINE-All we’re passing on is the variance. MR. DEEB-We can still send it to the Zoning Board. MR. SHAFER-But I have heartburn about that lower wall. DR. KELLER-The lower wall is existing. MR. DEEB-There’s nothing he can do about that. MR. MAGOWAN-The lower wall, John, we can’t do anything about. DR. KELLER-I didn’t build that wall. MR. SHAFER-You could agree to take it out and replace it with some plantings. DR. KELLER-Taking it out would be of zero benefit to the property. MR. SHAFER-I disagree. You could plant shoreline buffering there. You could plant all kinds of shrubs along the shoreline and it would look 100% better. DR. KELLER-I’m not really sure. MR. FULLER-I think that might also affect the integrity of the slope. DR. KELLER-That’s a structural wall. MR. DEEB-I think we’re overstepping our bounds. MR. FULLER-A lot of this is pre-existing, non-conforming situation. MR. HUNSINGER-We’re here for setback and permeability. DR. KELLER-Or discuss a wall that was already pre-existing that has a structural component to it. MR. HUNSINGER-So I mean to the concerns that have been raised, we essentially have two choices. One is to say we don’t have any significant concerns. The other is to say, you know, we have these concerns and pass it on to the Zoning Board. It sounds like we’re going the second route where we’ve identified some areas of concern including runoff and steps which could impact the setback because if the steps encroach on the lake more. MR. SHAFER-Well according to the chart, Chris, the existing setback from the water is 10 feet. MR. HUNSINGER-Right. 25 (Queensbury Planning Board 10/15/2019) MR. SHAFER-Required is 50. Is that 10 to the first wall or the second wall? MR. MAGOWAN-No the walls were existing there. MR. HUNSINGER-The walls were existing. MRS. MOORE-And the setback from the deck. MR. SHAFER-I’m on the existing table. It says 10 feet 10 inches. MRS. MOORE-So I don’t know where that’s coming up. MR. MAGOWAN-Is the deck like 10 feet. DR. KELLER-Ten feet from the water. MRS. MOORE-It’s seven feet. DR. KELLER-Seven feet from the water. MRS. MOORE-Seven feet from the shoreline. MR. FULLER-The first wall was 10 foot 10 from the shoreline. So we’re within the first, the first wall in from the lake we are within that. DR. KELLER-The second wall to the lake, the wall there you have issue with is about three feet from the lake. MR. SHAFER-And it doesn’t look like there’s a large elevation difference between the back of the first wall and the bottom of the second wall. DR. KELLER-It’s about seven feet. MR. SHAFER-Elevation distance from one wall to the other? MR. FULLER-The elevation is. DR. KELLER-Seven feet. MR. SHAFER-Boy is sure doesn’t look it. MR. VALENTINE-Sure it does, John. MR. FULLER-The elevation. MR. VALENTINE-It’s going to be the height of that second wall. DR. KELLER-Standing there it’s seven feet to the top of the wall. MR. HUNSINGER-No, I think what John is saying is. MR. SHAFER-Between the walls. MR. SHAFER-Yes, between the walls. MR. VALENTINE-There’s a three foot walkway that’s got to be level in there. If somebody went and put a tiered break in there and take a little bit of the slope, just like you would, going down the slope, tiering it in. They did it in two walls. It came with the property. MR. MAGOWAN-And they were built at two different times. DR. KELLER-Absolutely, they were built at two different times. MR. MAGOWAN-I’m pretty sure the second wall was put up down to the lake to secure the upper wall. 26 (Queensbury Planning Board 10/15/2019) DR. KELLER-The lower wall is a newer wall. MR. MAGOWAN-Right, not that I’m an engineer, but from what I see. MR. VALENTINE-That’s the purpose, though, of putting in tiered walls like that is to keep the grade level between the two. DR. KELLER-Correct. It’s definitely structural. There’s no question about it. And I can tell you this, it’s certainly not the ugliest wall on the lake. MR. SHAFER-It sure looks in the pictures. I’m sorry. MR. FULLER-It’s not ideal but it does serve a purpose. DR. KELLER-It does. MR. FULLER-And it’s kind of essential to the property to maintain that wall just on the structural standpoint, and everything on this except for those new piers and the new deck is pre-existing condition of non-conforming. MR. SHAFER-So, Chris, what are we passing on? The setback to the deck from the water? MR. HUNSINGER-So if you look at the draft resolution, we’re asked to make basically one of two choices. Either we have not identified any significant adverse impacts or we have areas of concern. So it sounds to me like we’re looking at areas of concern, and we pass those on to the Zoning Board and they use those comments accordingly when they consider the two variance requests that they’ve asked for, and assuming it goes through the Zoning Board, then it would come back to us for Site Plan, and some of the things that we’ve been talking about are really Site Plan issues that are not directly related to the variance request. Does that make sense? MRS. MOORE-So I have three items. Do you want me to read my three? MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. MRS. MOORE-So areas of concern would be the stairway design, the retaining wall vegetation, the ground cover plantings and erosion control for the stairway area. MR. DEEB-Can you repeat that, please? MRS. MOORE-Do you want me to repeat that? Okay. So these are the three areas of concern that I have, and you may have others. So one of them is the stairway. Two is retaining wall vegetation. Three is the ground cover plantings or erosion control for the stairway, and I don’t know Brad may have some additional ones. MR. MAGOWAN-I think he knows what we’re asking for. MR. SHAFER-I think the word shoreline has to be in there somewhere. Aren’t we concerned about buffering the shoreline? MR. HUNSINGER-Yes. MRS. MOORE-Yes, so retaining wall vegetation at the shoreline. Okay. So are you concerned about the retaining wall that’s closest to the shore with vegetation as well? DR. KELLER-The first wall, again, there’s about a three foot section between the top wall and the second wall. There’s about a two foot walkway along the lakeside. So there would be absolutely no reason to plant anything there because it’s a walkway from one dock to another dock, and I can’t build up the shoreline. So to put anything along that other than. MRS. MOORE-Some ground cover. So why don’t we look at it this way, that you want some information about retaining wall vegetation from both walls. DR. KELLER-I’m still really confused about the first, the lakeside wall. 27 (Queensbury Planning Board 10/15/2019) MRS. MOORE-It’s up to you how to address that. If you can’t come up with a plan. Right now we’re not seeing a walkway path. We’re seeing, you know, it looks like a stone wall, retaining, and some grass in between the wall and the first retaining wall. So I’m sure there’s other pictures or other information that you might have that says this is only a walkway and maybe I can only put planting boxes during the season in this area, and I don’t know what the answer is, but I think the Board’s concerned about both walls and vegetation. DR. KELLER-My confusion is this lakeside wall has zero to do with my property. Nothing. MRS. MOORE-However, you’re now opening up the entire, once you come in for Site Plan, the entire site’s under review. DR. KELLER-Even as a pre-existing? MRS. MOORE-Yes. DR. KELLER-Okay. MR. DEEB-Well I thought we agreed that you were going to put ivy plantings on. DR. KELLER-Absolutely. I’m more than happy to do that. MR. DEEB-Brad mentioned brick facing on the, some kind of facing on the. MR. MAGOWAN-Well the wall, I mean that’s just a beautification. MR. DEEB-Why are we doing this on the wall? DR. KELLER-I’m just as confused as you are. MRS. MOORE-That’s what you as a Board are discussing. MR. DEEB-I don’t know what the rest of the Board feels, but I think maybe we should get some consensus. MR. MAGOWAN-Yes, I don’t have a problem with the wall. MR. HUNSINGER-The issue is with the shoreline plantings. MR. DEEB-Yes, we have two issues. We have stairway design and ground cover plantings for the runoff mitigation. MRS. MOORE-Okay. MR. DEEB-That’s what I came up with. I don’t know how the walls got in there. MR. MAGOWAN-Right. MR. SHAFER-The wall is all across the front of the property, David. MR. MAGOWAN-But it’s been there. MR. DEEB-It’s been there. He bought it that way. MR. SHAFER-Every project we do we deal with shoreline buffering. Every project we do shoreline buffering comes up. MR. DIXON-But I guess for this meeting, though, is it impacting permeability? MR. SHAFER-According to the pictures this is obviously a candidate for a shoreline buffer. MR. MAGOWAN-Well we can’t have him tear down the wall to shoreline buffer. So what I’m asking for is what we have h ere, let’s see what he can do to give us whatever buffer he can give us. MR. HUNSINGER-Yes. 28 (Queensbury Planning Board 10/15/2019) MR. MAGOWAN-Because a little is better than nothing. MR. HUNSINGER-Yes, we’re just passing our concerns on to the Zoning Board. MR. MAGOWAN-Right. That’s it. MR. HUNSINGER-And then it’s up to the Zoning Board and/or the applicant to address them. MR. MAGOWAN-Nothing against the wall, but that’s not part of this. MR. HUNSINGER-Make the motion and see where it goes. MR. DEEB-Okay. I’ll make the motion. RESOLUTION RE: ZBA RECOMMENDATION RE: AV # 47-2019 JAMES KELLER The applicant has submitted an application for the following: Applicant proposes to maintain and complete a 540 sq. ft. open deck with stairs to shoreline. The site contains an existing 3,408 sq. ft. home (floor area) and two sheds. Pursuant to Chapter 179-4-080 & 179-6-050 of the Zoning Ordinance, hard surfacing within 50 ft. of shoreline shall be subject to Planning Board review and approval. Variance: Relief is sought for setbacks and permeability. 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. 47-2019 JAMES KELLER. Introduced by David Deeb who moved its adoption, and b) The Planning Board, based on a limited review, has identified the following areas of concern: 1) Stairway design 2) Ground cover/plantings for runoff mitigation th Motion seconded by Brad Magowan. Duly adopted this 15 day of October, 2019 by the following vote: MR. HUNSINGER-Any discussion? MR. MAGOWAN-Do you need anything more? MRS. MOORE-Read the second one again. MR. DEEB-Ground cover plantings for runoff mitigation. MRS. MOORE-Can I suggest maybe ground cover slash plantings? MR. DEEB-Ground cover slash plantings. MRS. MOORE-Because then you can do either or. MR. DEEB-Thank you. AYES: Mr. Valentine, Mr. Dixon, Mr. Deeb, Ms. White, Mr. Shafer, Mr. Magowan, Mr. Hunsinger NOES: NONE ABSENT: Mr. Traver 29 (Queensbury Planning Board 10/15/2019) MR. HUNSINGER-On to the Zoning Board. DR. KELLER-Thank you very much. MR. HUNSINGER-We have two items under Old Business. The first one is Site Plan 57-2019, Freshwater Wetlands permit 6-2019 for Michael Chrys. OLD BUSINESS: SITE PLAN NO. 57-2019 FRESHWATER WETLANDS PERMIT 6-2019 SEQR TYPE: TYPE II. MICHAEL CHRYS. OWNER(S): SAME AS APPLICANT. ZONING: WR. LOCATION: FOREST LANE. APPLICANT PROPOSES 896 SQ. FT. HOME WITH A 2,112 SQ. FT. FLOOR AREA. PROJECT INCLUDES SITE WORK FOR SEPTIC, STORMWATER AND SITE GRADING. PROJECT IS ALSO WITHIN 100 FT. OF WETLAND. PROJECT PREVIOUS APPROVAL HAS EXPIRED – THERE ARE NO CHANGES TO THE APPLICATION. PURSUANT TO CHAPTER 179-3-040 & CHAPTER 94 OF THE ZONING ORDINANCE, PROJECT WORK WITHIN 100 FT. OF A WETLAND BOUNDARY SHALL BE SUBJECT TO PLANNING BOARD REVIEW AND APPROVAL. CROSS REFERENCE: SP 49-2018. WARREN CO. REFERRAL: SEPTEMBER 2019. SITE INFORMATION: APA, LGP, CEA. LOT SIZE: 7.27 ACRES. TAX MAP NO. 226.19-1-37. SECTION: 179-3-040, CHAPTER 94, 179- 6-065. JON LAPPER & DEVIN DICKINSON, REPRESENTING APPLICANT, PRESENT MR. HUNSINGER-Laura? MRS. MOORE-In regards to Michael Chrys, Site Plan 57-2019, this property is located on the south side of Cherry Lane. The revision is reference to the landscaping plan. The applicant is showing clearing limits on the site to maintain a small border to Cherry Lane. The applicant has submitted an alternative cutting plan. The project includes removal of dead and downed trees and re-planting of disturbed areas, and the plantings include flowering shrubs at the perimeter of the disturbed area. MR. HUNSINGER-Thank you. Good evening. MR. LAPPER-Good evening. For the record, Jon Lapper with Devin Dickinson. As the Board will recall this project was fully approved last year and the applicant didn’t get the building permit application in time so we had to re-submit and because of the change in Code and to address issues raised by the Water Keeper and the Board last time, Devin re-submitted with an alternative planting plan along the wetland area. The other application he addressed the well, but first I guess we’ll be talking about them separately, Michael Chrys. So I’ll ask Devin to go through the planting plan and just describe what it is we’re proposing. Really it’s a better plan that what was approved last year. MR. DICKINSON-So one of the concerns that was raised in the last meeting I think for everyone was the clearing within 75 feet of the wetland. So I added a Sheet Four to the plan. That outlines the area that is within the 75 foot buffer of the wetlands. On this plan what I did is call for a mix of native shrubs to be planted around the entire perimeter that falls within that 75 foot buffer area. All the cleared area around the house I think very typically would be just a dense grass cover. It allows some movement around the house for maintenance and access to the stormwater basins and those types of things. I also tried to reduce the clearing limits a little bit on this plan as well as just to shrink that footprint within the 75 foot setback. I also included a narrative with a color photograph to give you an idea of the site condition now. I don’t know if anyone got a chance to get to the site or not, but there’s some pretty large downed trees. They’ve been down for quite a while that have really inhibited a lot of growth in the area of the proposed house. As you get further down closer to the wetlands there’s actually better undergrowth and brush. It offers better filtration and the aspects. So I think overall this has the potential to be an improvement over what’s there, adding more vegetation as well as some of those buffering shrubs there. MR. LAPPER-And as you can see from the photo it’s really a mess now. MR. MAGOWAN-I would say that’s pretty thick. MR. HUNSINGER-Anything else? MR. LAPPER-Not at this time. MR. HUNSINGER-Any questions, comments from the Board? 30 (Queensbury Planning Board 10/15/2019) MR. MAGOWAN-Devin, I’d like to thank you for going back in, taking the picture and coming up with a planting plan and doing what you can to shrink down the areas on the removal from the wetlands, and, Jon, I do agree with you. I think this is a much better project than you had last year. MR. HUNSINGER-Anything else from the Board? Okay. We do have a public hearing scheduled this evening. Is anyone here to address the Board? Okay. If you’d give up the table, please. Good evening. PUBLIC HEARING OPEN CHRIS NAVITSKY MR. NAVITSKY-Good evening. I didn’t get introduced this time. Chris Navitsky, Lake George Water Keeper. We appreciate the Planning Board’s thorough review on the application and their request for additional information to justify the clearing in the protective boundary and buffer along the wetlands. However, we disagree with the assessment of the existing buffer wetland and feel the disturbance contradicts the intention of the newly implemented Town Code. Not only will the removal of mature vegetation impact the wetland, but the proposed earthwork will remove the humps and hollows that are present, which, you know, you’ve got the humps and hollows when you’ve got runoff coming down, it pools the runoff. It detains it. It slows it. That’s going to be replaced with a lawn and smooth graded right down to the wetland. So this is the reason that the Town Board amended the Town Code to place a 75 foot limited disturbance along wetlands to restrict the excavation and the disturbance, and really the vital water quality protection measures such as the on-site wastewater treatment system we feel is not compliant. We feel the natural wetland buffer contains a variety of mature vegetation contrary to the description provided and the proposed project violates the intent of the Town Board’s Code. We also, Laura, if you could, I had a couple. Here, that’s a photo or that’s their site plan. If you could toward it once, Laura. I took a picture from where a wetland flag was. So instead of just getting a close up of a fallen tree, this is about the width of what you’re seeing, this entire area. If you forward it once more, Laura. This is a photo taken about at the edge of the clearing where their septic tank will be, and I could tell that because I paced it off of flaggings that were there, and the next photo will show you really where that house will be and, you know, that’s not all dead, diseased dying trees. I mean that’s a nice forest. So we feel that’s an important aspect that is going to be lost, and you can see that these are not scrub trees. These are between two and four foot caliper trees. I still feel the wetland boundary should be verified with the Adirondack Park Agency. There’s a note on the plan that was done in 2007 but no reference to a map that was proposed or used for that. We still feel that the septic system is a fill system within 100 feet of the wetland. That’s against Town Code, and regarding the wetland permit, this is the language that’s in there. Proposed activity is consistent with the policy of the chapter to preserve, protect and conserve freshwater wetlands and the benefit derived thereof, and to prevent destruction of freshwater wetlands and to regulate such wetlands in order to secure the natural benefits of the wetlands. So clearly they’re impacting the wetlands by removing the buffer. The proposed activity is reasonable and necessary, is it. And then there’s no reasonable alternative for the proposed regulated activity. So clearly they’ve got room on this, if you look at the site plan, to move that home up the hill, push that disturbance away from the wetland buffers and to provide that. So really I feel that you should deny this application or at least require them to re-engineer it and protect the wetland buffer. Thank you. MR. HUNSINGER-Thank you. Anyone else? Yes, ma’am. CAROL COLLINS DR. COLLINS-Hi. My name is Dr. Carol Collins. I’m a limnologist and a freshwater expert. I’ve lived on this swamp wetland my entire life and so I know it quite well. I feel this is really a harmful plan and I’ll tell you why, but I do also have some pictures that I took, and it’s just a beautiful, beautiful, what I would describe it as a marsh headwater of a Class One wetland, which goes to a Double A Special Stream which hasn’t been talked about but that’s part of this whole, the wetland. Inside, internal to it is a jurisdictional stream and because it runs into the Class A Double special waters DEC classifies that as a Double A special stream. Now I’ve not seen any indication of the high water marks of this stream. This stream is contiguous with this wetland. So we really don’t see just how far this wetland or stream bank really extends to. That really needs to be delineated. If you were to go there today, you will see that those areas are marshy. I took my grandkids in there last weekend and, you know, they were, well they were a mess. Grandkids are, so you really need to understand that the types of plants in there are wetland plants. They even go all the way up to that roadside. You’ll see Phragmites and cattails. So we know the classification that exists now is incorrect, but more importantly this wetland, this wetlands, headwaters to this lake, is Class One and that stream is Double A Special. So taking any shortcuts with fill and everything else on this site is really a disaster. So I do have lots of pictures on my camera, if you want 31 (Queensbury Planning Board 10/15/2019) to just look at the types of plants. You can just scroll through. So this is all taken pretty much right, the bank comes down and pretty much right there is where the wetland starts, the humps and hollows, and places where you need the water to come up to. Also I have a picture of that stream. I don’t know if you’re really familiar with it. So again, I’m concerned about these infiltration basins. Some of them are just on top of this wet area. If you were to go down and in or if the bowl is to rise, which it does, you would inundate those soils. Now an inundated infiltration basin is not something that you desire. It’s not going to be the type of system that can absorb and retain the nutrients that we want it to, and then also putting them on the fill zones where it drops off you’re exposing it laterally to areas that won’t be able to handle it, including that Elgin system. So that’s all I have to say. If you have any questions, let me know. MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. Thank you. We had at least one other hand. Yes, ma’am. Good evening. LORRAINE RUFFING MRS. RUFFING-Good evening. My name is Lorraine Ruffing and I’m a resident of Assembly Point. Regarding the request for a wetlands permit, I think it has to be viewed in the light of the new regulation 179-5-050 which imposes cutting restrictions within 75 feet of all DEC regulated wetlands. That is no woody vegetation greater one inch may be removed. Regarding SP 57-2019, I think the cutting plan that you’re looking at tonight and the photos submitted are misleading, very misleading, and we have other pictures that have been taken which show they’re misleading. The cutting plan mentions only dead and downed trees, and the photos, the photo does not show the mature, healthy growth that is on that property, and I have attached to my statement other photos. I think the new construction would require that these be removed and replacing them with dense grass or native shrubs is not sufficient. So one thing the Planning Board could do, according to the new regulation, is to request the Soil Conservation Service to review the plan and make recommendations, and at the very least sizeable trees versus shrubs should be in the re-vegetation plan. Thank you. MR. HUNSINGER-Thank you. Anyone else? Yes, sir. JOHN COLLINS MR. COLLINS-My name is John Collins. I live at 35 Knox Road. The only thing I want to say, and I believe Mr. Magowan may have said it on an earlier application here, and that is the existing, or the prior approval has expired because the owner did not secure the permits in time and he’s got to come back in, and the fact that he’s coming back in means that you have to take a fresh look, just like you had to do with Mr. Keller. There was extensive discussion about the condition of that property. Since the last approval, the regulations have changed with regard to what you can do with properties near wetlands and in this case here, at this point in time, the prior approval is irrelevant. It’s looking at the plans as they exist today under current rules and regulations with your current knowledge on how you are to properly address development near a wetland, and you take that fresh look at this because we have walked the property. We live nearby. You can see the flow comes through the wetlands and it comes out into the lake, and then it runs right down and it goes right by our property. You can see the vegetation on a flush out after a huge storm in that wetland. It comes out and then runs right down Assembly Point. It goes right by our house. So even though I don’t live right next door, what happens in those wetlands does impact us down at 35 Knox Road along with everybody else along the properties there. So it is important that we make intelligent, correct decisions on how manage development in the area. Thank you. MR. HUNSINGER-Thank you. Good evening, ma’am. FLORENCE CONNOR MRS. CONNOR-I’m Florence Connor and I live on Holly Lane and I’ve been on Assembly Point since I was 10 years old and I’m now 80 so I’ve been there a hell of a long time. I also worked in real estate, and in real estate when we came up to something that had wetlands, we called in an authority on wetlands, whether they were checked in 2015, 2017, we called someone else in who was an authority to see what the wetlands were today, and we had them marked and then we would look at the property from there on, and I think that right now everyone is working with wetlands that were marked by someone, somewhere at some time. It may be time to look at them, see what the wetlands are. Wetlands aren’t just where you get your feet wet. Wetlands are identified by the plants that are growing in that area. There are plants that we see every day and we don’t realize. Those are wetland plants. It wouldn’t be growing there unless it was a wetland. Have we had anyone go in there and look at the plans and say, yes, this is wetland, an authority that knows what they’re talking about? There was a time when one of the Planning Boards here said, yes, they’ve mis-measured the wetlands, and I’m not saying it was you. 32 (Queensbury Planning Board 10/15/2019) I’m just saying it was a couple of years ago. They said yes I think they’re about 15 feet off of what they’re supposed to be and then they made their decision. That’s not the way we should act. We need to know exactly what we’re talking about. So I’m suggesting we get an authority in. We find out where those wetlands are and then I won’t go over the rule that you have, but you made that rule. The rule was made for a good reason. Then they brought in D. D was a mistake. Now you have the opportunity right now to say, we don’t care if there’s wetlands. We’ve got D. We don’t even have to ask for a variance. We could just give it to them, and to tell you the truth at the last meeting it sounded like you all had decided, why should we worry about it. We’ve got D. I don’t think we should look at D. I think the rule was made for a specific reason because you cared, and then I want to say also that Queensbury has done a great job. They’ve worked on the salt. They’ve worked on the streams. You’re doing a good job. Now don’t mess it up by one little thing here that looks like it’s small. It’s not small. This is a big deal. This is one of the things that could be the chip that starts other things rolling the wrong way. I hope I’ve explained myself clearly and I hope that you’ll seriously think about this, not as a little guy who’s building a house. So what it’s just a wetlands. No it’s not just a wetlands. It’s what makes the lake what it is. What happens outside of the lake is what makes the lake. The lake’s not, it may be spring fed, but only a little bit. The rest of it comes from somewhere else. MR. HUNSINGER-I would just make a point of order, ma’am. We don’t make the regulations. They’re made by the Town Board. The Town Board passes the Zoning Ordinance and then we enforce it, but the Town Board passes it. The Town Board passed the resolution. MRS. CONNOR-My mistake. MR. HUNSINGER-That’s okay. I just wanted to make sure you understood. MR. VALENTINE-May I ask a question? What is your reference to D? I didn’t follow that. MRS. CONNOR-Reference D was that 75 feet. I thought I was at this meeting the last time or reading about this meeting. MR. VALENTINE-I was not. MRS. CONNOR-Seventy-five feet from the wetlands you must have a buffer, and the buffer must be natural, not something you planted. It has to be natural growth. However, D said that I guess it was the Planning Board, I don’t know who it was. D said, never mind, we can just give it to them, we don’t even need a variance because we forgot to take that out. MR. HUNSINGER-It gives us the discretion is what it says. MRS. CONNOR-It negates the rule, if you ask me. Sorry I messed things up there. MR. HUNSINGER-Thank you. Anyone else? Would you like to come back to the table. MR. LAPPER-Devin will specifically address those points, but generally speaking this is a plan that protects the wetland because what the objectors didn’t talk about is that there are infiltration basins which are way above the elevation of the wetland that protect the wetland, which is what the wetland regulations are all about. It’s not that it’s prohibited. It’s that it has to be approved by the Planning Board. I think we’ve got a responsible plan here with a very modest, very modest sized house. I’ll hand it over to Devin. MR. DICKINSON-So I’ll start with Chris’ comments here. This can be very easily misconstrued and I hope some of you got a chance to go to the site. There is some mature vegetation. What I focus on is the 75 feet within the wetland. That’s the buffer that we’re discussing. It’s easy to swing your camera in one direction or another and take a picture of the big tree. If you go down the site that area within the 75 foot buffer is the area with the blow downs. It’s mostly scrub brush between there and the wetlands. The wetland in this area is beautiful. It is. There’s no question. We’re not disturbing it. We’re not touching it. We’re not digging in the wetlands. We’re not disturbing that at all. These wetlands have been flagged by the Adirondack Park Agency. They’ve been surveyed by Don Pidgeon and by Dave Bolster. Those flags are there. Those two surveys agree with each other. MR. SHAFER-When was the flagging done? MR. DICKINSON-I didn’t do any of the base survey on this so I’m not sure. MR. LAPPER-It was down around ’06 but they came back and looked at it again. It’s very delineated, very easy to see because of the elevation change that nothing’s changed. 33 (Queensbury Planning Board 10/15/2019) MR. DICKINSON-So there are some larger trees. The majority of the site is not large mature trees. The trees, like I said, I did not focus on anything that was outside of the 75 foot buffer. I’m sure there are trees that have to come down like there are with any development. Again, you know, speaking to the shrubs, when you look at your regulations for your shoreline buffer you talk about ground cover, shrubs, and all these things play together with each other. Big trees they do help. They’ll pull groundwater, but again it’s a lot of times those smaller plants that really slow down and infiltrate and will filter some of that runoff. Chris talked about the septic. Again, I’ve met with Dave Hatin. I actually put a note on these plans just to squash this argument hopefully once and for all so it doesn’t come up at the next one. We’re going to do amended soils in this area now. We’ll go through a freeze thaw, because one of the issues we have with the site is that the grading for the house and the septic is co-mingled. So now we’re going to come in now, we’re going to put the system, or the soil in, let it go through a freeze/thaw cycle. It no longer becomes a fill system. They can install it in the spring and that does meet the regulations of the Code. Moving the house, again, is easy to say, but we have setbacks. We’ve condensed and consolidated this development as much as we can. We’ve got a 20 foot setback from the house to the septic system. The entire development is based around that small area we can get a septic in. We’ve got setbacks from stormwater to the septic. We’ve met all these things. As close as we can get and consolidate this development. So again I did talk about, Dr. Collins mentioned how beautiful the wetlands are. There’s no question. She talked about walking through them and beautiful plants. Again, we’re not touching these wetlands. We’re not going in and disturbing wetlands. On this site I think the bank they’re talking about is maybe in the area of the proposed well as you come actually south of our development site there is a little bit of a bank, but the area with the house is a very gradual slope from the road down to the wetland. The bank’s really not in the development site. It’s easy to get confused. It’s just overgrowth along the road all the way down. Then the only other comment, again, were the wetlands which we kind of addressed out of order there. Mrs. Connor brought up, like was said, an authority has come out. I’m not a wetlands specialist. I didn’t flag these. The APA came down and flagged them and they were surveyed by two different surveyors. MR. DEEB-When you said they came back and looked at it again. When was that? MR. LAPPER-I think it was 2012. I also want to remind the Board that at the last meeting a former Planning Board member was here who lives on Assembly Point and talked about how this area is just kind of a mess and just to get it cleaned up and there are only a few lots left in Shore Colony for development and the last few that have been approved by this Board have improved the area with stormwater practices just like this one will. MS. WHITE-It was mentioned that there’s a stream and forgive me for not being an expert on reading, but I don’t see a stream identified on here. MR. LAPPER-It’s not here. It’s within the wetlands elsewhere. Not near the development site. MS. WHITE-Okay. MR. LAPPER-I mean in general this wetland serves to filter water before it goes into the lake. A wetland is a good thing. It’s a filter. And that’s what this does, and with Devin’s plan any stormwater generated by this site is going to be treated and infiltrated before the wetland. So it protects the wetland which protects the lake. MR. VALENTINE-So the wetland boundary that’s shown on here comes from the survey 2006 or 2008? MR. LAPPER-2006 which was verified again in 2012. MR. DICKINSON-My reference for the survey itself was 2008. That’s when Don Pidgeon surveyed it. I think Bolster’s survey was like 2010 or 12. MR. VALENTINE-We have another project just to the north of this coming up. MR. LAPPER-Same applicant. It’s just owned in a different entity. MR. VALENTINE-There was not, it was 2006 and then there was a closer date than 2012. MR. HUNSINGER-You provided test pit data for where the septic system is going. MR. DICKINSON-Yes. 34 (Queensbury Planning Board 10/15/2019) MR. HUNSINGER-But you didn’t provide anything for where the swales are. MR. DICKINSON-Yes, so that was addressed by Chazen. One of the issues is I didn’t want to, it’s difficult to access with the downed trees and the undergrowth to get in there with a machine. So at the time we did it I wanted to make sure we get the septic system in. The soils very uniform between the two sites and one of the conditions from Chazen was before construction you do a test pit down there and verify it. MR. LAPPER-But there’s a pretty big. MR. HUNSINGER-There is about a 10 foot drop between, if I read the plans right, it looks like it was 334 from 324. MR. DICKINSON-Yes, maybe eight feet, nine feet. MR. LAPPER-So that’s pretty dramatic. MR. HUNSINGER-Yes. MR. DICKINSON-But it’s a very gradual slope in there, because these are one foot contours on this plan. It’s a pretty gradual slope from the ground, and I think if you look at the cross section on that stormwater basin down at the bottom there’s very little cutting. It’s actually kind of split. It notes 12 inch deep, we’re probably only about 6 inches in the soil., and I kept that very shallow intentionally for a number of reasons. One was just in case we didn’t get a different test pit down there. It’s a very shallow device, and then the other isn’t shallow enough if they wanted to add plantings or anything like that they could turn it into a pseudo raingarden. MR. LAPPER-Within the basin itself. MR. DICKINSON-Within the basin itself. MR. HUNSINGER-So how will you guarantee that there’s at least 24 inches between the bottom of the basin and mottling? MR. DICKINSON-We can go down there now with an excavator and dig a test pit or we do it prior to construction. MR. LAPPER-So essentially Chazen said it’s okay. MR. DICKINSON-Right. Basically so before we can go in for a building permit at some point we’ll have to go and do a test pit. MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. Other questions or comments? MR. DEEB-To move the building south you’d have to get a variance? MR. DICKINSON-Yes, the problem and one of the things I juggled with both these sites really like I said was, you know, this is a brand new development with only 12,000 square feet of disturbance. I tried to consolidate as much as possible, as doing that, like I said you’ve got setbacks between the stormwater and the septic, your well and the septic, the well and the septic, and that’s really what kind of drove this whole thing is, you know, being 20 feet from this, 25 feet from that. MR. LAPPER-So that no variances were required. MR. DICKINSON-Correct. MR. LAPPER-And there’s a pretty big distance between the wetland, the actual wetland and the development. MR. DICKINSON-And to encroach on the septic system with new development and get a variance with the basement. Truthfully I don’t think they’d approve it. That would be a hard sell for a variance for that. MR. LAPPER-It’s better to comply. 35 (Queensbury Planning Board 10/15/2019) MR. HUNSINGER-And just to verify, and I think we talked about this last time, so the closest that the house itself, the building is, to the wetlands is 74 feet as shown on the plan. Right? MR. DICKINSON-Correct. MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. MR. DICKINSON-I’ve got a leader on the plan that’s 74 feet. MR. MAGOWAN-The corner of the house to the wetlands. MR. DICKINSON-Along Cherry Tree Lane there you’re saying. MR. VALENTINE-No, going from the back corner of the house. MR. LAPPER-The question was about the house. MR. DICKINSON-So as the wetland goes off of our property, it might be 60 feet if I had to guess, 55 feet. MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. MR. LAPPER-And that’ll all be planted. MR. HUNSINGER-What’s the feeling of the Board? MR. SHAFER-I’m okay. MR. MAGOWAN-I’m okay. MR. NAVITSKY-Mr. Chairman, just one clarification. There’s a leader that says 74 feet, but that’s not to the closest point of the wetland. MR. HUNSINGER-It was pointed out, yes. The closest point to the wetland is on Cherry Tree Lane. DR. COLLINS-The infiltration basins are not supposed to be in there. MR. HUNSINGER-I understand. That wasn’t my question. My question was the house. MR. DEEB-They mentioned you’ve got some good solid trees on that buffer. They’re saying, is there any way you can preserve some more of your trees? MR. DICKINSON-There aren’t a lot of larger trees in the 75 foot buffer. That’s what I focused on because that was really the question, the homework from the last meeting. MR. HUNSINGER-Right. MR. DICKINSON-Up closer to the road there are some trees. I don’t have specific trees located, but they’re not in the 75 foot wetland buffer necessarily. MRS. RUFFING-Mr. Chairman, I wasn’t going to speak again but Mr. Lapper made the comment that in a previous meeting an Assembly Point resident spoke in favor of this and said, you know, that this particular plot of land was. MR. HUNSINGER-Yes. I don’t think t here’s any need for you to rebut that. MRS. RUFFING-But I would dispute that and we have pictures to show that this area is not. MR. HUNSINGER-He was just stating someone’s opinion, his recollection of someone’s opinion. I don’t think there’s any need for you to rebut that. MRS. RUFFING-Okay. MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. Well I heard the majority of the Board is ready to move forward. So I will close 36 (Queensbury Planning Board 10/15/2019) the public hearing. PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED MR. HUNSINGER-It is a Type II SEQR. So no further SEQR review is necessary, and with that we’re ready for a motion. RESOLUTION APPROVING SP # 57-2019 FWW 6-2019 MICHAEL CHRYS The applicant has submitted an application to the Planning Board: Applicant proposes to construct new single family home, 1056 sq. ft. (footprint) and 2112 sq. ft. floor area. Project includes site work for septic, stormwater, and site grading. Project has a permeable driveway. Project previous approval has expired – there are no changes to the application. Pursuant to Chapter 179-3-040, 179-6-065 and Chapter 94 of the Zoning Ordinance, project work within 100 ft. of a wetland boundary 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 09/25/2019 and continued the public hearing to 10/15/2019, 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 10/15/2019; 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 57-2019 & FRESHWATER WETLANDS PERMIT 6-2019 MICHAEL CHRYS; Introduced by David Deeb who moved for its adoption. According to the draft resolution prepared by Staff with the following: 1) Waivers requested granted; g. site lighting, h. signage, 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. a) The limits of clearing will constitute a no-cut buffer zone, orange construction fencing shall be installed around these areas and field verified by Community Development staff; b) If applicable, the Sanitary Sewer connection plan must be submitted to the Wastewater Department for its review, approval, permitting and inspection; c) If curb cuts are being added or changed a driveway permit is required. A building permit will not be issued until the approved driveway permit has been provided to the Planning Office; d) If application was referred to engineering then Engineering sign-off required prior to signature of Zoning Administrator of the approved plans; e) Final approved plans should have dimensions and setbacks noted on the site plan/survey, floor plans and elevation for the existing rooms and proposed rooms in the building and site improvements; f) If required, the applicant must submit a copy of the following to the Town: a. The project NOI (Notice of Intent) for coverage under the current "NYSDEC SPDES General Permit from Construction Activity" prior to the start of any site work. b. The project NOT (Notice of Termination) upon completion of the project; c. The applicant must maintain on their project site, for review by staff: i. The approved final plans that have been stamped by the Town Zoning Administrator. These plans must include the project SWPPP (Storm Water Pollution Prevention Plan) when such a plan was prepared and approved; ii. The project NOI and proof of coverage under the current NYSDEC SPDES General Permit, or an individual SPDES permit issued for the project if required. g) Final approved plans, in compliance with the Site Plan, must be submitted to the Community Development Department before any further review by the Zoning Administrator or Building and 37 (Queensbury Planning Board 10/15/2019) Codes personnel; h) The applicant must meet with Staff after approval and prior to issuance of Building Permit and/or the beginning of any site work; i) Subsequent issuance of further permits, including building permits is dependent on compliance with this and all other conditions of this resolution; j) As-built plans to certify that the site plan is developed according to the approved plans to be provided prior to issuance of the certificate of occupancy. k) This resolution is to be placed in its entirety on the final plans. l) Site Plan to be updated to reflect the lot size of 7.27 acres. m) APA correspondence verifying wetland delineation to be included in the Site Plan. th Motion seconded by Michael Valentine. Duly adopted this 15 of October, 2019 by the following vote: AYES: Ms. White, Mr. Shafer, Mr. Magowan, Mr. Valentine, Mr. Dixon NOES: Mr. Deeb, Mr. Hunsinger ABSENT: Mr. Traver MR. HUNSINGER-You’re all set. MR. LAPPER-Until the next one. MR. HUNSINGER-Until the next one. The next item on the agenda is Site Plan 56-2019 for Garner Holdings. SITE PLAN NO. 56-2019 FRESHWATER WETLANDS PERMIT 5-2019 SEQR TYPE TYPE II. GARNER HOLDINGS. OWNER(S): SAME AS APPLICANT. ZONING: WR. LOCATION: FOREST LANE. APPLICANT PROPOSES 896 SQ. FT. HOME WITH 2,112 SQ. FT. FLOOR AREA. PROJECT INCLUDES SITE WORK FOR SEPTIC, STORMWATER AND SITE GRADING. PROJECT PREVIOUS APPROVAL HAS EXPIRED – APPLICATION REMAINS THE SAME WITH NO CHANGES. PURSUANT TO CHAPTER 19-3-040 & CHAPTER 94 OF THE ZONING ORDINANCE, PROJECT WORK WITHIN 100 FT. OF A WETLAND BOUNDARY SHALL BE SUBJECT TO PLANNING BOARD REVIEW AND APPROVAL. CROSS REFERENCE: SP 50-2018. WARREN CO. REFERRAL: SEPTEMBER 2019. SITE INFORMATION: APA, LGP, CEA. LOT SIZE: .54 ACRE. TAX MAP NO. 226.19-1-48, -49 SECTION: 179-3-040, CHAPTER 94, 179-6-065. JON LAPPER & DEVIN DICKINSON, REPRESENTING APPLICANT, PRESENT MR. HUNSINGER-Laura? MRS. MOORE-Okay. So in reference to the revisions for this one, revised site layout and utility plan. The site is to have an on septic and well installed. Information in regards to the well, the well location has been revised to be 23 feet from the wetland boundary and protection measures to occur during the drilling process. In addition revised under landscape plan, the applicant has shown a clearing limit on the site that maintains a small border toward Cherry Lane and tree clearing to the rear of the home for an infiltration basin, no work is to occur in the wetland. The alternative planting plan includes removal of dead and downed trees, re-planting disturbed areas. Again, the new plantings include dense grass, flowering shrubs and switch grass. A photo has been included showing the downed trees. MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. Thank you. Good evening. MR. LAPPER-Again for the record Jon Lapper with Devin Dickinson. So I guess we’d like to incorporate our comments from the last application because it’s really the same in terms of the buffer planting plan that’s been submitted on this one, but the difference in this application is that Chris Navitsky had pointed out the location of the well in proximity to the wetland, and at that that required some protection during building to make sure there wasn’t siltation that got into the wetlands. So Devin did do things. He moved the well as far as possible from the wetland area, and then provided a plan to protect the wetland during, which he can explain, but during that construction period to avoid siltation into the wetland. MR. DICKINSON-Okay. So to start with the well. I did two things with the well, three things really. Like Jon said I did move the well a little bit so we could get it further from the wetland, increased that buffer. I called for a temporary sediment basin to be excavated, and in that excavation also create a berm, just to trap any tailings that will infiltrate. Then I added a hay bale barrier on the other side of the berm and a silt fence. That’s all on Sheet Two. So we’ve got triple protection there for the wetlands. The other 38 (Queensbury Planning Board 10/15/2019) thing I did on this site, this site’s a little bit different than the last one. This has some larger downed trees on it as well. These two sites are almost adjacent to each other, similar vegetation and that kind of thing. This did have a nice clump of hemlock trees when you get down closer to the wetland. So I’ve kind of noted their approximate location on my plan, obviously to save those. They’re outside of the clearing limits. I’ve also added a 20 foot wide switch grass buffer outside of our area of disturbance within 75 feet of the wetlands, and this is really to fortify kind of the lack of better undergrowth and vegetation on this site and match more similarly what the wetland plantings are there. I added switch grass in the area of the well. Obviously we need to get down and drill the well. When it’s done we need to re-plant and secure that area. MR. LAPPER-So that switch grass will help stabilize in the area of the wetland. MR. DICKINSON-Yes, it’ll stabilize it. It, again, will trap water and will filter and all those kind of good things. I also added some shrubs again with this plan and this one again like the other one I did tweak it slightly just trying to reduce that area of disturbance as much as we can. This one is actually 10,000 square feet of disturbance. We have all the same constraints on this site. Building setbacks, setbacks to the septic system, stormwater, all those types of things, and again like the last one I put notes on my plan that we’re going to do amended soils in the area, do a freeze/thaw cycle for the septic system, again, alleviating any question about the toe of slope and those types of things. Like the last site all the grading is co-mingled. MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. Questions, comments from the Board? MR. VALENTINE-This is going back to my little tweaking numbers. On our own page for our Staff Notes it says proposed is 896 square foot home, but the second page on that says 1,056 square foot home. On the Staff Notes. MRS. MOORE-It’s inaccurate. MR. DICKINSON-Yes, the 1,056 is the footprint of the home. MR. VALENTINE-All right. So the 896 is not the number to use because that’s in the resolution also. MR. DICKINSON-I’m taking a guess here. That might have been the house footprint and the 1,056 is probably with the porch. In the application they split all this stuff for what’s this and what’s attached and detached. That would be my guess is probably what it is, because in my stormwater calculations I always separate the porch and the house. MR. LAPPER-But you’re using the larger number. MR. DICKINSON-Yes, I used the larger number, the 1056 for the footprint. Again, I believe, Laura, in the site plan application you have to put house footprint and porch. MRS. MOORE-And porch. MR. DICKINSON-Decks, sheds. MRS. MOORE-This is only talking about the house itself and not the porch. MR. VALENTINE-So which goes in the resolution for David, then? Which is he going to use? That 896 or the 1056? MR. LAPPER-1056 would be better because that’s what the stormwater plan was based on. MR. DICKINSON-Yes, because it’s really the house, the porch is incorporated in that footprint there. MR. HUNSINGER-Other questions, comments from the Board? I’m not a plant guy. Switch grass, why was that the choice? MR. DICKINSON-That’s used a lot of times if you’re re-establishing wetlands, if you’re filling wetlands and you’re trading off or you, you know, when you create wetlands. MR. LAPPER-So that’s a tall hearty. 39 (Queensbury Planning Board 10/15/2019) MR. DICKINSON-Or if you’re inadvertently filled wetlands and got caught and you need to re-establish. MR. HUNSINGER-So it’s the common plant. MR. DICKINSON-It’s pretty common, yes. MR. DIXON-I may be missing it, but what’s the measurement between the back of the house to the wetland boundary? I don’t see a measurement on that. MR. DICKINSON-You know what I don’t think there is one on there. I would say probably roughly that’s similar 75 feet. MR. HUNSINGER-It says on Sheet One of Four, that southeast corner. MR. DICKINSON-So then off the property, no, that would be closer. That’s, I would say maybe 60 feet on that one. I don’t have a scale on me. Actually, you know what, the house is very close to the 50 foot shoreline setback. So I’d say we’re probably just over 50 feet. I do have that setback on there. So you’re probably 51 or 52 feet. MR. LAPPER-But just in one place. MR. DICKINSON-Right. MR. DIXON-Just one other quick question for you. I don’t recall from last year when you presented. So the neighbor to the north, are they on well at all or I see a water shutoff at the road. MR. LAPPER-Shore Colony has a water system but it’s seasonal. So if you want a year round house you have to have a well. MR. DICKINSON-I walked the property. I didn’t see a well anywhere there. MR. LAPPER-Some of the homes are still seasonal and don’t have wells. MR. HUNSINGER-Other questions, comments from the Board? We have a similar public hearing scheduled for this application. If anyone would like to address the Board on this project. Good evening again. PUBLIC HEARING OPEN CHRIS NAVITSKY MR. NAVITSKY-Good evening again. I can always use the practical obviously. I won’t repeat a lot of my initial comments that I had, but clearly it still falls in that the Town Board felt that this was important to put in the wetland buffer in an undisturbed area, and that’s what that Item D was was the ability to create a cutting plan to allow that 75 foot undisturbed buffer that the Town wanted to be sacrificed. Mr. Lapper I think stated it quite well. Because this buffer is important because it protects the wetlands and I think just as a quote, protects the wetland that protects the lake. So again we are sacrificing that. Regarding the APA language, now right here on the plan it states, and I’m not going to take my glasses off to try to read this, but it says that it was flagged in 2006, surveyed in 2007. If it was re-certified in 2012 then maybe since they know how soon it was done maybe they can provide that. I think that would be a valid request since it’s been done so recently as they say. Now, Laura, I had another, and I go to a lot of Planning Boards, and I like Devin, but I’ve got credibility and I don’t swing a camera. So I really think that that’s crossing the line. I want you to take my comments seriously. So if you could, again, I still feel that, was there another. MR. HUNSINGER-We’re offline. There we go. MR. NAVITSKY-So in this one, and again, I took these pictures with the arrows, and if you could forward that, Laura, I’d appreciate it. Thank you. Because right in the center of that, I don’t know if there’s a pointer on this. MRS. MOORE-Yes, there is, if you punch the center of it. There you go. MR. NAVITSKY-Right in there there’s actually, you can’t make it out. The next photo, if you forward it, 40 (Queensbury Planning Board 10/15/2019) actually shows that there’s a flagging right there. So you can tell, we took the picture directly at a flagging so it’s on line. The camera’s not swinging. So that shows an area where those areas right along the cleared area that they will have. So you can see where the trees are. If you could forward it, Laura, I’d appreciate it. Thanks. And then again this is right over that flagging that I took the picture of, and then if you forward it you can see, at that angle going back, I’m not swinging a camera, I mean this is a tree. So nothing misleading here. Regarding, and I’m glad the numbers were brought up on the building footprint that was used for stormwater, because that actually is the number they used for their stormwater calculations, but that doesn’t take into account the overhang. So that roof has a two foot overhang around the entire roof line. I know Chazen approved this, but they approved the wrong stormwater calculations. Again, that ties into the concern about approving the plan without going out and having those test pits. So I’m glad the 1,056 square feet of the footprint was shown, but that doesn’t include the imperious area of the roof overhang. So that’s all I have to say. Thank you. Thank you, Laura. MR. HUNSINGER-Thank you. MR. DEEB-Chris, I always take your comments seriously. MR. NAVITSKY-Thank you. MR. HUNSINGER-Yes. MR. VALENTINE-Yes, that didn’t have to be said. MR. NAVITSKY-Thank you. MR. HUNSINGER-Anyone else? YEs, ma’am. CAROL COLLINS DR. COLLINS-Okay. So the stormwater and what wetlands really do. MR. HUNSINGER-Could you identify yourself. DR. COLLINS-Dr. Carol Collins. So I really need to address wetlands can protect the area they were collecting before there was development and that’s why we got Lake George at the state it was years ago. That we know Lake George has changed significantly over time because of development. So that wetland cannot solve all the problems that we are now dumping on it like these two new houses tonight. Okay. So just remember that, they filter but they don’t filter everything. That import, export loading is very much dependent on what we put in the wetland and how much impervious area we put in there and how many septic tanks. Now let’s talk for a minute about the stormwater. Infiltration plans are very nice. There’s a lot of nutrients that we look at when we’re trying to protect the lake. You all know about sediment, and they can do a pretty good job with sediment and we differentiate all those types of sediment that come in, but the thing they don’t do a great job of is the one that’s so important for Lake George, phosphorus. You all know it, right, that’s where we’re heading in terms of the algae blooms. That’s the one we’ve got to look at. Those infiltration basins, 50%, but now since they’re in the high water zone, which you haven’t addressed yet, we have not marked those out, and that stream is right within that area and it flows and meanders. That’s what that stream does. You can walk it. I don’t walk it, but, so when you move those infiltration basins, because they will be inundated at some point, they’re no longer going to be able to do that 50%. They don’t absorb that much and there’s other nutrients that we also look at in these things. I want you to pay attention to phosphorus. I want you to pay attention to what stormwater basins can really take care of because it can’t take care of all this stuff. I know Mr. Lapper thinks, oh it’s a wetlands. It’s going to take care of everything before it gets to the end. No, it doesn’t. We’ve monitored it and it doesn’t. We see the algae blooms that are occurring at the end of it. They’re in the area where the productivity is higher than it should be and it’s producing algae blooms. They have been verified in a grant with the money basically from EPA. So it’s not magic. We’re inundating this way too much. Thank you. MR. HUNSINGER-Anyone else? Yes, ma’am. LORRAINE RUFFING MRS. RUFFING-My name is Lorraine Ruffing, Assembly Point. Regarding the current application, again, the photos that have been submitted to you are misleading, and I think others have made that plain. They 41 (Queensbury Planning Board 10/15/2019) do not show the mature growth that is on this particular plot. Replacing that mature growth, which has to be taken down if they’re going to construct a house there, with shrubs and grass is not sufficient to protect the wetlands which are below this particular plot. Thank you. MR. HUNSINGER-Thank you. Anyone else? Okay. If you want to come back. Any questions or comments from the Board? MR. DEEB-Just one. Are you folks promoting no more development? DR. COLLINS-It has to be scaled back to suit this site. If you’re going to push it toward the wetland, that’s a big mistake and that’s what we’re doing. We’re encroaching way too much. That’s why that 75 foot rule was put in. The real number, by the way, is 300 feet. That’s what the real number is, and I threw up all sorts of material for you which you can just peruse at your leisure, but that’s the real number that we need. Seventy-five is huge compromise, and now we’re going down to sixty. That’s a big mistake. So, you know, we’re going to have the development, but do it right, and you can make it done right. MR. DEEB-Thank you. MR. DICKINSON-So, if I can speak on that behalf, you know because we’ve been here multiple times and you kind of get lost in, you know, the most current issues. If we can back up, this has a two car parking space with porous pavers. It’s 1,056 square foot footprint for a house and porch. There’s no garage. There’s no attached or detached garage. There’s 10,000 square feet of disturbance. This is a very minimal site compared to most development. To say that I didn’t design this site, you know, according to the wetlands and everything else here is wrong. I spent a lot of time on this to make it work. I’m a third generation Lake George local. My grandfather’s been the mayor of Lake George Village at one time. My dad’s been the Supervisor. I’m not here to destroy this place. I love it. And my kids will too. So to address some of these issues, we have 192 cubic feet of surplus in our stormwater devices. So we can easily add the overhangs and still probably have 180 cubic feet of surplus. Infiltration is the highest order of treatment in stormwater management. It’s right in the Lake George Park Commission regulations. That’s what they prioritize, and there’s a reason for it because it does a good job. Phosphorus is a tough thing, and when you go to stormwater summits they still debate what the best way is to get rid of phosphorus. That’s not something that’s addressed in the Minor stormwater plan. We did infiltration because it’s the highest order. We used porous pavers and things like that to reduce runoff. To talk about the photos again, you know, I walked down this site and stood in an area where the development is and faced the wetlands. I talked about some mature trees there in that buffer and I think Chris’ picture is looking at the same trees I talked about keeping. When you look at Chris’ picture you see there’s undergrowth. That’s the area that I’m talking about adding the switch grass. I think we’re on the same page here about the trees. Now trees outside of the 75 foot buffer I didn’t look at. That’s really more in the area where there are those larger downed trees. Again, in any development there’s going to be tree removal. Like I said, we’ve narrowed it down to 10,000 feet of disturbance for the entire site, for house, drive, stormwater, septic and well, and another thing to keep in mind about the grass, I know grass gets a bad rap and I understand why, but vegetative filter strips are an approved stormwater management treatment device. They can be used as pre-treatment for stormwater and other things. So let’s not mix grass with pavement and concrete. MR. HUNSINGER-Any other comments from the Board? Were there any written comments, Laura? MRS. MOORE-There’s no written comments. MR. HUNSINGER-This is also a Type II SEQR. Is the Board comfortable moving forward? All right. We will close the public hearing. PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED MR. HUNSINGER-And unless there’s any other questions or comments I’ll entertain a motion. RESOLUTION APPROVING SP # 56-2019 & FWW 5-2019 GARNER HOLDINGS The applicant has submitted an application to the Planning Board: Applicant proposes to construct new single family home, 1056 sq. ft. (footprint) and 2112 sq. ft. floor area. Project includes site work for septic, stormwater, and site grading. Project has a permeable driveway. Project previous approval has expired – application remains the same with no changes. Pursuant to Chapter 179-3-040, 179-6-065 and Chapter 94 of the Zoning Ordinance, project work within 100 ft. of a wetland boundary shall be subject to Planning Board review and approval. 42 (Queensbury Planning Board 10/15/2019) 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 09/25/2019 and continued the public hearing to 10/15/2019, 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 10/15/2019; 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 56-2018 & FRESHWATER WETLANDS PERMIT 5-2019 GARNER HOLDINGS; Introduced by David Deeb who moved for its adoption. According to the draft resolution prepared by Staff with the following: 1) Waivers requested granted: g. site lighting, h. signage, 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. a) The limits of clearing will constitute a no-cut buffer zone, orange construction fencing shall be installed around these areas and field verified by Community Development staff; b) If applicable, the Sanitary Sewer connection plan must be submitted to the Wastewater Department for its review, approval, permitting and inspection; c) If curb cuts are being added or changed a driveway permit is required. A building permit will not be issued until the approved driveway permit has been provided to the Planning Office; d) If application was referred to engineering then Engineering sign-off required prior to signature of Zoning Administrator of the approved plans; e) Final approved plans should have dimensions and setbacks noted on the site plan/survey, floor plans and elevation for the existing rooms and proposed rooms in the building and site improvements; f) If required, the applicant must submit a copy of the following to the Town: a. The project NOI (Notice of Intent) for coverage under the current "NYSDEC SPDES General Permit from Construction Activity" prior to the start of any site work. b. The project NOT (Notice of Termination) upon completion of the project; c. The applicant must maintain on their project site, for review by staff: i. The approved final plans that have been stamped by the Town Zoning Administrator. These plans must include the project SWPPP (Storm Water Pollution Prevention Plan) when such a plan was prepared and approved; ii. The project NOI and proof of coverage under the current NYSDEC SPDES General Permit, or an individual SPDES permit issued for the project if required. g) Final approved plans, in compliance with the Site Plan, must be submitted to the Community Development Department before any further review by the Zoning Administrator or Building and Codes personnel; h) The applicant must meet with Staff after approval and prior to issuance of Building Permit and/or the beginning of any site work; i) Subsequent issuance of further permits, including building permits is dependent on compliance with this and all other conditions of this resolution; j) As-built plans to certify that the site plan is developed according to the approved plans to be provided prior to issuance of the certificate of occupancy. k) This resolution is to be placed in its entirety on the final plans l) Both parcels are to be merged into one. m) APA correspondence verifying wetland delineation to be included in the Site Plan. th Motion seconded by John Shafer. Duly adopted this 15 day of October, 2019 by the following vote: AYES: Mr. Shafer, Mr. Valentine, Mr. Dixon, Mr. Hunsinger 43 (Queensbury Planning Board 10/15/2019) NOES: Mr. Deeb, Ms. White, Mr. Magowan ABSENT: Mr. Traver MR. HUNSINGER-You’re all set. MR. LAPPER-Thank you very much. MR. DICKINSON-Thank you. MR. HUNSINGER-We have two items under New Business. The first one is Subdivision 8-2019 for Thomas Caifa. NEW BUSINESS: SUBDIVISION SKETCH PLAN 8-2019 SEQR TYPE: UNLISTED. THOMAS CAIFA. AGENT(S): SAME AS APPLICANT. OWNER(S): ESTATE OF SHANNON CAIFA. ZONING: PR-42A. LOCATION: 139 DIXON ROAD. APPLICANT PROPOSES A TWO LOT SUBDIVISION OF A 2.75 ACRE PARCEL. PARCEL 1 TO BE 1.25 ACRES, PARCL 2 TO BE 1.5 ACRES. THERE IS AN EXISTING HOUSE ON LOT 1 THAT IS TO REMAIN. PURSUANT TO CHAPTER 183 OF THE ZONING ORDINANCE, SUBDIVISION OF LAND SHALL BE SUBJECT TO PLANNING BOARD REVIEW AND APPROVAL. CROSS REFERENCE: 2006-143 SEPTIC ALT. WARREN CO. REFERRAL: N/A. LOT SIZE: 2.75 ACRES. TAX MAP NO. 302.14-2-5. SECTION: CHAPTER 183. THOMAS CAIFA, PRESENT MRS. MOORE-So the applicant would like a discussion in regards to subdividing a 2.7 acre parcel into two lots. Parcel One to be 1.25 acres and Parcel 2 to be 1.5 acres. Lot One is to remain with the existing house and Lot Two will have a new house. In reference to this, the property is zoned Parkland 42 acres, and obviously it’s undersized so the project is subject to variances once we get past this stage. MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. Good evening. Do you want to walk us through what you’ve suggested and proposed. MR. CAIFA-Good evening. Sure. MR. HUNSINGER-I’m sorry. If you could introduce yourself for the record, please. MR. CAIFA-Thomas Caifa. So on this sketch here you can see where the Number One and Number Two is. This is the property in question, my sister’s property. So really it’s just a very simple, I just wanted to cut it in half basically, and I know you guys aren’t really big on the flag stick thing, but there really is no way to get back there to it. The piece of property is, and the reason I’m even attempting to do this here with you guys today is, you know, it’s very unique, and I don’t know how it got to be. I guess if you looked at the history of the property you probably could know, but how it got to be a residential piece that was one hold over left there for that little piece of hard property. That’s what my sister got stuck with when she bought it because you can see she’s got five or six times more property than any of the residential people around her, but she’s just, that last piece that’s part of the Park, that’s where there’s actually a residence. Everything else is the actual Park. So my sister was going to be here with me but she passed away in April. This was something that she really wanted to do. So now I’m the executor of the estate and I’m just kind of moving forward with this because I think that’ what my sister would want me to do, plus, you know, I have to answer to the other family members and what are we going to do to maximize the value of the property as well. So I kind of have to answer to other people too here. So here I am. I don’t really know what my options are. I’m just kind of getting started here. I just really, I’m just throwing it out there for discussion and what you guys think. Is it worth it for me to pursue this, is it not worth it? I had an alternate plan, if you really were totally against this one. I just threw it in here. If that plan is really out of the question completely, perhaps we could do something along this line here, where we would subdivide the property, if the adjacent landowners were agreeable, and they could buy those pieces and increase the size of their properties. MRS. MOORE-So it would just be dissolving, it would be a lot line adjustment pretty much for all those lots that are to the north of the existing house. MR. DEEB-That would be simplest. MR. CAIFA-So, and I’m not partial to either one. Like I said, I’m just trying to figure out what we can do 44 (Queensbury Planning Board 10/15/2019) to maximize the property there. It’s a really big piece with a small old house on it. MR. VALENTINE-So on this one here, what are you looking to do? MRS. MOORE-So what happens actually in this sense is that if it does get dissolved it’s those properties now have a lot that has two different zones. So, I mean it just creates a little bit more work, either way it creates more work on the applicant’s behalf. This one creates an issue where the lot’s two zoned, which is, there’s no outstanding issue but those that dissolve the lot into a lot line adjustment would be faced with, if they wanted to put an addition that would occur, in the Parkland their setbacks are 100, 100 and 100. So they would be subject to themselves getting a variance also, not that they would put additions. MR. VALENTINE-Is that Dixon Court? MR. HUNSINGER-Yes. MRS. MOORE-Yes. MR. VALENTINE-Okay. Are those houses, they’re all built? MR. HUNSINGER-Yes. MRS. MOORE-Yes. MR. HUNSINGER-It’s a long established neighborhood. So how wide is your lot? MR. CAIFA-So if you start at the road, that’s 131 feet across, and it pretty much is uniform until it gets to that place where it winds out over there. MRS. MOORE-So it would be a long driveway. MR. DIXON-How wide are you proposing that to be? MR. CAIFA-The driveway itself? MR. DIXON-Well not necessarily the drive itself, but the whole parcel leading back to Lot Number Two. MR. CAIFA-Do you want to know the acreage? MR. DIXON-As far as the width. MRS. MOORE-The width between the new property line, like right here that’s coming back. So you have 131. It’s going to be split. So how much road frontage would each of them have again? MR. CAIFA-I really don’t have anything in there as far as a set number. Again, this is all just for discussion. Maybe you know what it should be. I don’t really know. MR. VALENTINE-It’s too bad you couldn’t just get an easement across that existing lot, you know, for access in the back. Then you don’t need the flag lot part of it, but obviously that house already there and everything, they’ll exact their price from you anyhow to do it. MR. MAGOWAN-Then what’s wrong with just leaving it? Are you just trying to honor your sister’s wishes? By the way, I’m terribly sorry. MR. CAIFA-I mean it’s two fold. I’m trying to honor my sister’s wishes but also I’m the executor but there are other family members involved here, you know, and my job as the executor is to maximize the value of the estate. So I’m just exploring the options to the end here basically. If I had to leave it and walk away that’s fine. I’m not, you know, you’re not going to break my heart to tell me no. I’m just wondering if there’s a way that we can do something with it. I mean if there isn’t there isn’t. It seems like a very weird piece. It’s the only piece that’s not a residential piece there. MR. HUNSINGER-The problem with proposing that is that all of those homeowners that would abut your new Lot Number Two will come out and complain and say, you know, I’ve never had a house behind me before. I’ve been here for 20, 30 years. I don’t want it because it’s going to disrupt my peace and 45 (Queensbury Planning Board 10/15/2019) tranquility. MR. CAIFA-No, I get that. MR. HUNSINGER-I mean well that’s why we discourage flag lots. MR. CAIFA-They already complain now whenever a tree falls over onto their property. MR. MAGOWAN-I can see that happening. MR. CAIFA-It happened to my sister many, many times. MR. HUNSINGER-Your alternate Plan Two I think might be more acceptable to those neighbors, but I think it would be very difficult for you to pull off. I just see, you know, because everyone would have to buy into it. MR. MAGOWAN-Yes, because if you had one do it and then the middle one didn’t and the last one, you know what I’m saying. MR. HUNSINGER-Yes. MR. CAIFA-To be honest with you if just the first one did it, that would be fine with me. And stop right there. MR. VALENTINE-Well if the first one did it then you’re going to cut yourself off from the remainder of the back. MRS. MOORE-No, so if this one took it, then he’d have the whole thing. Right? So it would be an L. MR. VALENTINE-I thought he was just thinking okay if the first one. MR. MAGOWAN-I look at it, one, it’s a long driveway. You’d have to bring power all the way back there. You’d have to bring a water line all the way back there, which would be expensive for a house to be built, and then like I said everybody from Dixon Court I know is going to come out, you know, because now you’ve taken away their woodland. I mean that’s a tough one. MRS. MOORE-Yes, I think I have another alternative. So the other alternative would be to work with the City of Glens Falls, because those are the abutting property owners for their purpose, and I don’t know if they would even take property. I don’t know how they take property. I don’t know how they do that, whether it’s a donation on your behalf and you get some value out of that or whether they purchase it from you, and I don’t, again, don’t know what their process is to do that. MR. CAIFA-Worst case scenario we sell the property and whoever buys it gets a big chunk of land, but I know historically from my sister living there, you can see the house and you can see by my wonderful third grade drawing here, there’s a tiny barn out back. It’s bigger than up close. My sister never went beyond the barn. There was never any need to. It’s just such a big piece. MR. VALENTINE-If this is, you’re saying it’s Parkland. MRS. MOORE-Yes. MR. VALENTINE-Is there any entity that would want to take it as Parkland? MRS. MOORE-Well that’s what I’m saying the City of Glens Falls may because that’s the only property that borders. They own this and this is. MR. VALENTINE-Well, the option is to work some deal with whoever would want it for that Parkland. They’ve got to do an appraisal on it, then you could get something for the Parkland, keep some frontage out front where the house is to get a conforming lot. Keep the house and the lot out front and work some deal on the remainder of the land. MR. SHAFER-What determines it being Parkland, Laura? MRS. MOORE-It was zoned from a while ago. 46 (Queensbury Planning Board 10/15/2019) MR. SHAFER-So it’s zoned Parkland. MRS. MOORE-It’s zoned Parkland, yes. MR. SHAFER-It has nothing to do with its function. MRS. MOORE-No. MR. SHAFER-Gotcha. MR. CAIFA-No, it doesn’t even meet the definition of the Parkland zoning. MRS. MOORE-Right. MR. CAIFA-It’s residential and yet the Parkland zoning says it’s controlled by a municipality, but my sister, it’s obviously not. That’s not even in the definition of the zoning that it’s in. MR. DIXON-The difficulty with your Plan Number One as well is, well your sketch right here, you’ve got your septic system and the leachfield goes to where the driveway is. So without the exact measurements, you start to limit your space as far as what you can do. It’s a tough one. MR. VALENTINE-Gee we sit here all night wanting to take somebody else’s plans and tell them how they should be doing it and everything. Now we have the opportunity and we can’t do anything. MR. CAIFA-It’s tough. Right? MR. DEEB-You’re in a tough situation. MR. CAIFA-I mean if I approach the City of Glens Falls about taking a swipe of that for Coles Woods, it would still require a subdivision to give them that chunk. MR. HUNSINGER-Right. MRS. MOORE-Unless they took the whole thing. MR. VALENTINE-I wouldn’t do the whole thing. I wouldn’t give it up. MR. CAIFA-Yes, I wouldn’t give them the whole thing. MR. MAGOWAN-It wouldn’t be a lot line adjustment? MR. MAGOWAN-Well, no, a lot line adjustment would create two lots when there was only one to begin with. So it’s not a lot line adjustment. MRS. MOORE-Right. It would create a lot that’s nonconforming. I mean it’s already nonconforming. Now it’s even further nonconforming. Which is, I mean, you’re subject to a variance anyway. MS. WHITE-No matter what you do. MRS. MOORE-No matter what you do. So you’d have to go through the variance process no matter what you did. MR. DIXON-But that’s, I don’t want to say that would definitely get approved, but it is more palatable for that to have Lot One in the front. Lot Two if that went to Glens Falls. It looks more attractive on paper. MRS. MOORE-That’s another exploration. MS. WHITE-And would the front lot then be re-zoned residential as part of the process? MRS. MOORE-So the applicant could potentially go, because next door is MDR, you could get it potentially re-zoned. So it’s another part of the process to re-zone a property so then it would be MDR where two acres would be the minimum. So then it could potentially be compliant. So it’s just sounds like multiple steps that you’re going through potentially. That seems to be probably this option seems more likely 47 (Queensbury Planning Board 10/15/2019) than the other two at the moment. MR. HUNSINGER-Did we help you out? MR. CAIFA-Yes, because I certainly don’t want to come back 50 times and fight neighbors. I don’t want to make trouble for them either. MR. DEEB-Aren’t you glad you waited all night to come here for this? STUDENT IN AUDIENCE-I feel like these guys should go first, like the new buildings one. Because like they have the simplest ones and they go like for five, ten, fifteen minutes and they have to wait like four hours just to hear the simple message, and the guy last time I was here took so long had like two planning things to do. These ones are my favorite ones to listen to, the last ones. MS. WHITE-Do you think going forward you can discuss? MRS. MOORE-Yes, I can see what avenues might be pursued with the City of Glens Falls, and I don’t know exactly who to communicate with, but I can pursue and find out who. MR. CAIFA-But in your opinion the City of Glens Falls one is the possibility. The other ones probably not so much. That’s the consensus. MR. HUNSINGER-I think that one’s viable but you’d have to find one of the owners to, one or more of the owners to buy into your plan. MR. VALENTINE-And they’re going to know right away that you’re the one that’s in the pickle. MR. HUNSINGER-Yes, that’s the problem. MR. CAIFA-Well, I’m not really in a pickle because I don’t care if I build it or not. MR. VALENTINE-They’ll look at it that way is what I’m saying. MR. CAIFA-How often does somebody get to have a backyard twice as big just like that? MR. MAGOWAN-They probably have it now since you haven’t been back there and you don’t even know it. MS. WHITE-They’ll just go from illegal usage to legal usage. MR. HUNSINGER-So I hope we helped you. MR. DEEB-I hope so. MR. CAIFA-Yes, no, that’s great. It points me in at least a direction where I’m not wasting my time or your time, and that’s all I really want to get out of this anyway. MR. HUNSINGER-Right. Thank you. Thanks for coming in. MR. MAGOWAN-Again, sorry about your sister. MR. CAIFA-Thanks. It’s too bad she couldn’t have been here for this. MR. MAGOWAN-She’d be proud of me. MR. CAIFA-She’s the extrovert, not me. MR. DEEB-Take care. MR. HUNSINGER-So the last project on our agenda is Site Plan 69-2019 for Penelope Townsend. SITE PLAN NO. 68-2019 SEQR TYPE: TYPE II. PENELOPE TOWNSEND. AGENT(S): HUTCHINS ENGINEERING. OWNER(S): SAME AS APPLICANT ZONING: WR. LOCATION: 32 BEAN ROAD, KATSKILL BAY. APPLICANT PROPOSES RENOVATIONS TO AN EXISTING HOME THAT INCLUDES TWO 48 (Queensbury Planning Board 10/15/2019) RESIDENTIAL ADDITIONS – 270 SQ. FT., AND PORCH ADDITIONS – 140 SQ. FT. PROJECT INCLUDES UPDATING OF TWO WALKWAY PATHS – 105 SQ. FT. THE EXISTING HOME FOOTPRINT OF 2,955 SQ. FT. IS TO BE 3,225 SQ. FT. THE HOME FLOOR AREA IS 5,985 SQ. FT. AND IS TO BE 7,315 SQ. FT. PURSUANT TO CHAPTER 179-6-065 OF THE ZONING ORDINANCE, NEW CONSTRUCTION IN A CEA SHALL BE SUBJECT TO PLANNING BOARD REVIEW AND APPROVAL. CROSS REFERENCE: SP 34-1994, SEP 50-2019, 758- 2005 DECK, RC 739-2018 GUEST HOUSE, RC 540-2019 ALTERATIONS. WARREN CO. REFERRAL: OCTOBER 2019. LOT SIZE: 1.14 ACRES. TAX MAP NO. 227.10-1-22. SECTION: 179-6-065. TOM HUTCHINS, REPRESENTING APPLICANT, PRESENT MR. HUNSINGER-Laura? MRS. MOORE-So the applicant proposes renovations to an existing home that includes two residential additions and this is a 270 square foot and a porch addition of 140 square feet. The project also includes updating two walkway paths. MR. HUNSINGER-Good evening. MR. HUTCHINS-Good evening, Board. Tom Hutchins, Hutchins Engineering with the applicant, Penny Townsend, and this property is 32 Bean Road. It’s over a one acre parcel, a magnificent lakefront piece and being very brief she proposes some relatively minor additions to the property. There are three small building additions which involve conversion of a porch area and two small building additions which total 270 square feet in footprint. There is also a new covered porch which totals a net increase in porch area of 140 square feet. They also propose to renovate or remove some existing walkways and install new walkways which would be stone walkway. That’s a net increase of 105 square feet. So we’re talking about a net increase in floor area of 410 square feet counting porches and net floor area. There was a little mix up in our numbers that we presented the FAR numbers which is why it looked like there was over 1,000 square feet of addition. There’s not. We’re talking about 410 square feet for the area. We’re talking about, this being Bean Road, here’s the shoreline all along here. We’re talking about a small building addition here, a small building addition here, a small building addition here and a covered porch from here over to the guest house, and that’s it. I’ve got some photos here of our shoreline. It’s absolutely wooded. There’s one spot on the lake I think you could see the house. PENNY TOWNSEND MS. TOWNSEND-There’s one spot on the lake you can see the house if you’re right in front of it. MR. HUTCHINS-But obviously it’s wooded. You can see the photos. Septic system is compliant. It was installed in the late 1990’s. I went through it last yesterday and it was actually by the Town Board at that time for an existing condition that was non-compliant. Compliant with setbacks, FAR, permeability, all that, and with that I’ll turn it over to the Board for comments and do you want to add anything? MS. TOWNSEND-No. It’s a house that was built in 1913. Looks like an old camp. My intention is to keep it looking like an old camp, but update it on the inside. MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. Questions, comments from the Board? MR. MAGOWAN-I would just like to know what Bob and Rita have to say? MS. TOWNSEND-Bob and Rita are right on board with it. I spoke with her yesterday. I actually spoke with several of the neighbors and they’re pleased that it’s not going to change significantly. MR. MAGOWAN-Yes, I mean you’re talking under 500 feet. MS. TOWNSEND-Well not only is it 500 feet, but the exterior of the property will continue to look the way it has for 100 years. MR. VALENTINE-Who are Bob and Rita? Since Brad asked the question, can we ask, who are Brad and Rita? MS. TOWNSEND-Whitemans, who are our neighbors to the south. MR. VALENTINE-How about Dave Michaels to the other side? 49 (Queensbury Planning Board 10/15/2019) MS. TOWNSEND-The Michaels, they seem to be fine with it, too. MR. VALENTINE-I was really being facetious. I’m sorry. MR. MAGOWAN-I grew up in the neighborhood when I was younger, but really it’s a beautiful piece of property. MS. TOWNSEND-It is a lovely piece of property. MR. MAGOWAN-And I want to thank you for keeping your shoreline buffer. It’s so thick. MR. VALENTINE-Are there any issues to be discussed about this? MR. HUNSINGER-Are there any questions? MR. DIXON-It’s nice. This one is very straightforward. MR. HUNSINGER-It is. MR. HUTCHINS-Just one quick point. If it weren’t for the recent changes we wouldn’t be here at Site Plan. Any increase in floor area we have to come for site plan, which we’re fine with, but we think this is a very good project. MR. HUNSINGER-It’s easy to be fine with it when it’s straightforward. We have a public hearing. MS. WHITE-And you came to us beforehand. MR. HUNSINGER-We do have a public hearing scheduled this evening. Any written comments, Laura? PUBLIC HEARING OPENED MRS. MOORE-There are no written comments. MR. HUNSINGER-Anyone want to address the Board? Okay. We will close the public hearing. PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED MR. HUNSINGER-This is a Type II SEQR and unless there’s any additional questions or comments, I will entertain a motion. RESOLUTION APPROVING SP # 68-2019 PENELOPE TOWNSEND 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 renovations to an existing home that includes two residential additions – 270 sq. ft., and porch additions – 140 sq. ft. Project includes updating of two walkway paths – 105 sq. ft. The existing home footprint of 2,955 sq. ft. is to be 3,225 sq. ft. Pursuant to Chapter 179-6-065 of the Zoning Ordinance, new 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 10/15/2019 and continued the public hearing to 10/15/2019, 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 10/15/2019; 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, 50 (Queensbury Planning Board 10/15/2019) MOTION TO APPROVE SITE PLAN 68-2019 PENELOPE TOWNSEND. 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, j. stormwater, 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 15th day of October, 2019 by the following vote: AYES: Mr. Valentine, Mr. Magowan, Mr. Dixon, Mr. Shafer, Ms. White, Mr. Deeb, Mr. Hunsinger NOES: NONE ABSENT: Mr. Traver MR. HUTCHINS-Thank you. MR. HUNSINGER-You’re all set. MS. TOWNSEND-Thank you. MR. HUNSINGER-You’re welcome. Good luck. Is there anything else to be brought before the Board? Would anyone like to make a motion to adjourn? th MOTION TO ADJOURN THE QUEENSBURY PLANNING BOARD MEETING OF OCTOBER 15, 2019, Introduced by John Shafer who moved for its adoption, seconded by Michael Valentine: th Duly adopted this 15 day of October, 2019, by the following vote: AYES: Ms. White, Mr. Magowan, Mr. Shafer, Mr. Valentine, Mr. Deeb, Mr. Dixon, Mr. Hunsinger NOES: NONE ABSENT: Mr. Traver MR. HUNSINGER-We’re adjourned. RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED, Chris Hunsinger, Acting Chairman 51