Loading...
08-25-2020 (Queensbury Planning Board 08/25/2020) QUEENSBURY PLANNING BOARD MEETING SECOND REGULAR MEETING AUGUST 25, 2020 INDEX Site Plan No. PZ 223-2016 Fort Miller Company, Inc. 1. Special Use Permit No. PZ 224-2016 Tax Map No. 279.-1-59.2, -72, -73, -48 ONE YEAR EXTENSION Site Plan No. 9-2020 Kathy Sanders 2. Tax Map No. 289.17-1-42 Site Plan No. 30-2020 Gary Higley 6. ZBA RECOMMENDATION Tax Map No. 289.10-1-14 Site Plan No. 19-2020 Brian Hayward 8. Tax Map No. 316.17-1-4 Subdivision No. 9-2020 Benjamin Aronson Trust 11. PRELIMINARY STAGE Tax Map No. 266.3-1-76 Subdivision No. 10-2020 FINAL STAGE Site Plan No. 32-2020 Frank & Cindy Steciuk 14. Special Use Permit No. 2-2020 Tax Map No. 296.14-1-51 Site Plan Modification 29-2020 Camp Knox/Ballas 15. Tax Map No. 239.7-1-14 Site Plan No. 33-2020 Paul LeJuez 26. Tax Map No. 226.19-2-21 Site Plan No. 34-2020 Jonathan LeJuez 32. Tax Map No. 226.19-2-20 THESE ARE NOT OFFICIALLY ADOPTED MINUTES AND ARE SUBJECT TO BOARD AND STAFF REVISIONS. REVISIONS WILL APPEAR ON THE FOLLOWING MONTH’S MINUTES (IF ANY) AND WILL STATE SUCH APPROVAL OF SAID MINUTES. 1 (Queensbury Planning Board 08/25/2020) QUEENSBURY PLANNING BOARD MEETING SECOND REGULAR MEETING AUGUST 25, 2020 7:00 P.M. MEMBERS PRESENT STEPHEN TRAVER, CHAIRMAN CHRIS HUNSINGER, VICE CHAIRMAN DAVID DEEB, SECRETARY JOHN SHAFER BRAD MAGOWAN JAMIE WHITE MICHAEL VALENTINE LAND USE PLANNER-LAURA MOORE STENOGRAPHER-MARIA GAGLIARDI MR. TRAVER-Good evening, everyone. Welcome to the Town of Queensbury Planning Board meeting thth for Tuesday, August 25, 2020. This is our second meeting for the month of August, our 11 meeting for th this year, and our 7 meeting with the temporary, hopefully, COVID guidelines. We have projects this evening that have public hearings, and for those that are unable to attend in person this evening, the Town has provided a phone number for you so that you can call in and make public comment, and that number is 518-761-8225, and I announce that now because when we open public hearings later if you wish to comment please be prepared to dial that number to make your comments. We do have a couple of administrative items, and as it relates to public hearing, we did have a public hearing scheduled tonight for th Frank & Cindy Steciuk. They have requested that that application be tabled to October 27. So pending Planning Board approval of that tabling motion, if anyone is here or on the phone watching us on the Town YouTube channel and intended to comment on that project, I understand there will be some changes and we’ll discuss it briefly when it comes up on the agenda shortly, but it’s not going to be reviewed this evening, and, Laura, I understand we have an Administrative Item regard Fort Miller. MRS. MOORE-Correct. With Frank & Cindy’s application, you’ll have to make a formal tabling resolution. We can do that later in the meeting. MR. TRAVER-Okay. ADMINISTRATIVE ITEM SITE PLAN PZ 223-2016 & SPECIAL USE PERMIT PZ 224-2016 FORT MILLER REQUEST FOR ONE-YEAR EXTENSION MRS. MOORE-The Fort Miller application, they are requesting a one year extension due to COVID issues. They are in the process of wrapping up their final plans at this time, and they just thought it would be safe to request their extension. MR. TRAVER-Okay. All right, and let’s see. We don’t have a draft motion to that effect? MRS. MOORE-Actually you do. It’s in the. MR. TRAVER-It was just handed out? MRS. MOORE-Yes. MR. TRAVER-Okay. Thank you. MR. HUNSINGER-I was going to say. Our secretary is all over it. MR. TRAVER-Yes, I should have known. MR. DEEB-Steve, do you want to mention about phones and exits. MR. TRAVER-Right. Yes, thank you. Yes, I forgot to mention as we started the meeting also that those that are in attendance with us tonight, if you notice the red emergency exit lights. In the event of an emergency, I know we had quite a bad thunderstorm a few hours ago. If there is an emergency of some kind, those are the exits. If you have an electronic device, cell phone, tablet or other device, if you would please shut it off or turn the ringer off so that it does not disturb our meeting, that would be appreciated. 2 (Queensbury Planning Board 08/25/2020) And I did alert the public about the public hearing. So thank you for that, and we’re ready to entertain a resolution on the extension request for Fort Miller. RESOLUTION TO GRANT A ONE YEAR EXTENSION FORT MILLER The applicant proposes to construct an access road from the existing sand & gravel operations to State Route 9L. The project includes future sand & gravel operations. The sand & gravel operations have been reviewed by NYSDEC – documentation has been included as part of submission. Applicant requests waiver from 1,000 ft. to a residence for operations of the sand & gravel removal. Pursuant to Chapter 179- 10-060 & 179-3-040 of the Zoning Ordinance, commercial sand, gravel and topsoil extraction in an RR5 zone shall be subject to Planning Board review and approval. The Planning Board approved Site Plan PZ 223-2016 & Special Use Permit PZ 224-2016 on May 29, 2019. MOTION TO APPROVE A ONE YEAR EXTENSION FOR SITE PLAN PZ 223-2016 AND SPECIAL USE PERMIT PZ 224-2016 THE FORT MILLER COMPANY, INC. Introduced by David Deeb who moved for its adoption, seconded by Chris Hunsinger: Due to COVID. th Duly adopted this 25 day of August, 2020 by the following vote: AYES: Mr. Deeb, Ms. White, Mr. Shafer, Mr. Hunsinger, Mr. Magowan, Mr. Valentine, Mr. Traver NOES: NONE MRS. MOORE-Can I ask the Secretary to include due to COVID. MR. TRAVER-Next we move to tabled items, and the one and only item that is tabled tonight is Site Plan 9-2020 for Kathy Sanders. SITE PLAN NO. 9-2020 SEQR TYPE: TYPE II. KATHY SANDERS. AGENT(S): REDBUD DESIGN LA. OWNER(S): SAME AS APPLICANT. ZONING: WR. LOCATION: 119 BIRDSALL ROAD. APPLICANT PROPOSES TO RENOVATE AN EXISTING 1,232 SQ. FT. (FOOTPRINT) HOME WITH A SECOND STORY AND AN OPEN DECK ADDITION TO AN EXISTING DECK. THE HOME HAS AN EXISTING FLOOR AREA OF 3,971 SQ. FT. AND PROPOSED IS 5,513 SQ. FT. PROJECT INCLUDES SITE WORK FOR RETAINING WALLS ON LAND, REPAIRS OF SHORELINE RETAINING WALL, LANDSCAPING, STORMWATER MANAGEMENT AND A NEW SEPTIC SYSTEM. REVISION INCLUDES ADDITIONAL GREEN SPACE AND A REDUCED BEDROOM SIZE ON THE SECOND FLOOR. PURSUANT TO CHAPTER 179-3-040 & 179-6-050 OF THE ZONING ORDINANCE, NEW FLOOR AREA CONSTRUCTION IN A CEA AND HARD SURFACING SHALL BE SUBJECT TO PLANNING BOARD REVIEW AND APPROVAL. CROSS REFERENCE: AV 26-2019 DOCK REPLACEMENT; WARREN CO. REFERRAL: N/A. SITE INFORMATION: GLEN LAKE, CEA LOT SIZE: 0.45 ACRES TAX MAP NO. 289.17-1-42. SECTION: 179-3-040, 179-6-050. GEFF REDICK & CLARK WILKINSON, REPRESENTING APPLICANT, PRESENT MRS. MOORE-Laura? MRS. MOORE-So this applicant did receive their variances the other evening for setbacks, permeability, or sorry, for floor area ratio. They did revise their application materials so they reduced the bedrooms on the second floor and they increased their green space. That’s why the Zoning Board had approved it. MR. TRAVER-So the changes they made in the project do not need to go back to the ZBA? MRS. MOORE-Correct, and that was done as part of their submissions this evening. MR. TRAVER-Okay. Thank you for that. Is someone representing Sanders here this evening? Before we take comments from applicants, I would ask that due to the COVID, part of our COVID protocol is that when we have applicants speak at the podium, when you’re done, there should be some sanitary wipes there. When you’re done if you would wipe off the microphone for us, please. Thank you. Good evening and welcome. MR. REDICK-Absolutely. Good evening, Board. Thank you. My name is Geff. I’m with Redbud development real estate architecture and I am here with Clark Wilkinson from Environmental Design Partnership representing Kathy Sanders. Kathy couldn’t be here tonight. She’s quarantining at home right now. She had to travel from a restricted State, but we are here to answer any of your questions. So 3 (Queensbury Planning Board 08/25/2020) my goal right now is just to provide you with a general outline of what happened since we last were here back in February, and then Clark Wilkinson will come up and provide any details and discuss any specifics for you. So in essence, as was already stated, we met with the Zoning Board last week. We got our variances for the side line and shoreline setbacks, also for the floor area ratio and we had re-designed the structure itself to reduce and eliminate a height variance that we had originally requested. As part of that design we also reduced the size of the structure, the second floor of the structure as well to reduce the floor area ratio as part of the design, and then the existing structure that’s part of the site, there’s a three car garage with a kind of lean-to off the back which was also removed as part of the design to help improve the floor area ratio, but I think it’s important, too, that the Board understands the history of the property. So in brief the owner purchased a pre-existing, non-conforming zoning lot, fully aware of what she would be getting into. It had a rusted metal roof. It had a non-conforming dock that was re-built with an approved application that has currently a buried oil fuel tank and rotted arsenic retaining walls on the property, and about a 50 year old septic system that is already approved for a new system. So we’d be bringing all of that up to date. Another component that’s interesting with this property is one of the bays of the existing garage is actually used by a gentleman by the name of Richard Phillips. He runs a small we’ll call it a landscaping business out of that garage. There’s no financial remuneration between the owner and Mr. Richard Phillips. She just lets him use it because he does a lot of work in that general neighborhood. So it’s part of her commitment to the general community for making sure that the history of the space stays the same. He can still continue to make a living there in essence, but she’s also committed to this concept of making sure the neighborhood is improved and the lake is taken care of. So as part of the design of this structure of her house we were also tackling the entire site. By re-doing, improving stormwater, reducing a significant amount of asphalt, again, Clark can speak to some of the specifics on that, introducing raingardens, or a raingarden, we’re under the 5,000 square foot threshold for the disturbance on the lot, and that’s a very strategic part of this design, but we’ve introduced a lot of plant materials along the shoreline. We’ve introduced raingardens you can see along the shoreline, and we’re re-directing all the surface water that would normally potentially get to the shoreline, and get it back toward that raingarden, and anything potentially coming down that slope is also going to go into that raingarden. So in general there’s, in our opinion, there are a lot of great improvements that are happening with this property, not only for the structure itself and for the habitat that the owner is going to be able to create for herself and for I will say grandkids that will be coming hopefully soon, but for the general community and her desire to make sure this property is a part of the lake and part of the community in the sense that it’s not going to be a detriment and add to it in any way. One of the original comments from the Planning Board in our last meeting in February was this consideration of the requirements of a shoreline buffer. We, as part of this neighborhood, there is a generally understood pedestrian path that goes around the lake. We didn’t want to impede on that. Instead we modified and created part of this raingarden and all the plantings. We utilized the raingarden plantings as part of this design. So we could maintain that planting buffer, or add to the plantings as much as we reasonably could along the shoreline, but at the same time maintain that pedestrian pathway that leads around the lake. So we didn’t necessarily meet the exact requirements of that planting scheme that’s certainly required as a buffer, but our goal with the stormwater management and the rain gardens is to mitigate that and break up that threshold a little bit. So if the board doesn’t necessarily have any questions for me, I’d like to introduce Clark Wilkinson, again, from Environmental Design Partnership. MR. TRAVER-Sure. By all means, and we may have questions for you after, but you may as well finish your presentation first. Thank you for your help. MR. REDICK-Absolutely. CLARK WILKINSON MR. WILKINSON-Good evening. As Geff said, I’m Clark Wilkinson with Environmental Design Partnership representing the engineering portion of this project. The things that Geff touched on are all good. As far as numbers go, the biggest number that you guys would be interested in is the fact that we increased the permeability by approximately 10% from existing, which is one of the reasons why we were able to get approval from the Zoning Board for the variances we were asking. The other interesting point is that one of the notes in the Staff Notes states that the water is from the lake. That is untrue. The water is from a well, an existing well on the property, and always has been and the two adjoining owners are also on wells, which is one of the reasons why we, back I believe in February or March were in front of the Town Board as the Health Department and got the variance for the revised septic system that we are constructing on the site as well. We’re going to the mat system on this and we’re enlarging the separation distance not only to the existing well on this property but we’re meeting the 100 foot requirements on the two adjoining wells as well. So tonight we’re here before you to ask for a site plan approval on this project, and again I think overall the project is a vast improvement from the original one you saw. We’ve increased the green space significantly and we’ve added some plantings and things like that. We’ve added significant plantings around the face of the entrance coming in as well as enhanced some of the stormwater plantings around the lake. So with that in mind, I’d turn it over to the Board for questions, comments. MR. TRAVER-Questions, comments from members of the Board? 4 (Queensbury Planning Board 08/25/2020) MR. VALENTINE-I have one, just a difference in what’s written in our agenda in the material an then back th to a January 9 letter that we got in the original material, and it said, in the letter it said it’s going to be a full upgrade to the existing septic system, but then in the material here it says that it’s a new septic system. MR. WILKINSON-It’s a brand new septic system to upgrade from the original. The original that’s there now is actually a drywell type system which is relatively inefficient. It doesn’t treat water as well as the one we are putting in, which is why we went to the Town Board of Health to obtain this variance. MR. VALENTINE-Thank you. MR. SHAFER-The path around the lake is the lawn down by the water? MR. REDICK-That’s correct. PAM CEMBROOK MRS. CEMBROOK-Yes. MR. REDICK-It should be understood there’s no easements found anywhere and we don’t have a Town report to uphold it, but the neighbors that have been living there for 30 years said this is the way it’s always been and we’re trying to maintain that and be good neighbors as well. MR. SHAFER-Sure. MR. HUNSINGER-I know one of the big issues at the last meeting was the height variance and I appreciate the fact that you were able to find a way to find a way to bring the height down so it didn’t require the variance. Thank you for that. MR. REDICK-Yes. Thank you. MR. HUNSINGER-And I would agree it’s a significant improvement over the plan. MR. TRAVER-The public hearing on this project was left open when it was tabled last time. So I will remind the viewing public of the phone number, 518-761-8225, if you would like to call in and generate public comment on this application, and in the meantime, Laura, are there any written comments? PUBLIC HEARING OPEN MRS. MOORE-I have two written comments. I’m not certain if they were read into the record the last time. So let me read them for the first time or again. So this is addressed to the members. “We have no objection to the application submitted by Kathy Sanders, 119 Birdsall Road, for a renovation and addition. We support her request without question. Sincerely, Kathleen and Wallace Hirsch” The next one is addressed to Craig Brown. “I am writing to show my full support for applicant Kathy Sanders of 119 Birdsall Rd. for renovation of existing home. She is a respectable and well liked person looking to spend more time in the North Country. She has fallen in love with the area and we welcome her and her family with open arms. The upgrades are appropriate and much needed and will be an asset to the neighborhood. Maureen Valenti” MR. TRAVER-Okay. Thank you. Other questions, comments from members of the Board? My phone hasn’t rung. So I will close the public hearing. PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED MS. WHITE-Are there members of the audience that were here for this public hearing? MR. TRAVER-Yes, are there folks in the audience that wanted to comment? Yes, sir. MRS. MOORE-You’ll have to re-open the public hearing. MR. TRAVER-Yes, the public hearing is re-opened. PUBLIC HEARING RE-OPENED JOHN CEMBROOK MR. CEMBROOK-I’ll be brief as it seems the project is in good opinion from what I’m hearing. My name’s John Cembrook. My wife Pam and I live on the property adjacent to Kathy’s proposed build. We’ve been 5 (Queensbury Planning Board 08/25/2020) on our property for about 20 years. We were friends with the prior owner, Colleen Beadleston. She lived there into her 90’s. We’re friends as well with Kathy Sanders and her family. From our point of view, and actually you see our foundation and deck just actually on this drawing. This is an improvement to a septic system, as noted a brand new septic system that’s further from the lake. It’s the removal of an oil tank. That’s very important to us noting there’s two wells that you can actually see on this diagram. Getting rid of that old 50 year old oil tank, very important to us, and then in terms of permeability, vastly improved, in terms of landscaping, in terms of terracing, in terms of water and runoff negatively impacting the lake. This design mitigates a great deal of those issues from the existing property. So we’re fully in support of it and I think as was noted by the two prior letters and many other letters that we’ve heard read at prior Zoning Board meetings fully in support of this. So I’ll be brief. Thank you for that. If there’s any questions. MR. TRAVER-Thank you. Thank you for your comments. Is there anyone else in the audience that wanted to comment on this application? My apologies for forgetting to give you that opportunity before. We actually, in our excellent COVID adventures in our last seven meetings, we haven’t had, quite honestly, a lot of public comment from the people actually in attendance. I’m not seeing any additional audience members that want to comment. So I will, for a second time, close the public hearing on Sanders. PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED MR. TRAVER-And does the Board feel comfortable moving forward? Okay. We have a draft motion prepared by Staff. RESOLUTION APPROVING SP # 9-2020 KATHY SANDERS The applicant has submitted an application to the Planning Board: (Revised) Applicant proposes to renovate an existing 1,232sq. ft. (footprint) home with a second story and an open deck addition to an existing deck. The home has an existing floor area of 3,971 sq. ft. and proposed is 5,513 sq. ft. Project includes site work for retaining walls on land, repairs of shoreline retaining wall, landscaping, stormwater management and a new septic system. Revision includes additional green space and a reduced bedroom size on the second floor. Pursuant to Chapter 179-3-040 & 179-6-050 of the Zoning Ordinance, new floor area construction in a CEA and hard surfacing shall be subject to Planning Board review and approval. Pursuant to relevant sections of the Town of Queensbury Zoning Code-Chapter 179-9-080, the Planning Board has determined that this proposal satisfies the requirements as stated in the Zoning Code; The Planning Board made a recommendation to the Zoning Board of Appeals on 02/25/2020, the ZBA approved the variance requests on 08/19/2020; The Planning Board opened a public hearing on the Site plan application on 06/23/2020 and continued the public hearing to 08/25/2020, when it was closed, The Planning Board has reviewed the application materials submitted by the applicant and all comments made at the public hearing and submitted in writing through and including 08/25/2020; 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 9-2020 KATHY SANDERS; 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, j. stormwater, k. topography, l. landscaping, n traffic, o. commercial alterations/ construction details, p floor plans, q. soil logs, r. construction/demolition disposal s. snow removal. 2) The approval is valid for one (1) year from the date of approval. You are responsible for requesting an extension of approval before the one (1) year time frame has expired if you have not yet applied for a building permit or commenced significant site work. 3) 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; 6 (Queensbury Planning Board 08/25/2020) 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. th Motion seconded by Brad Magowan. Duly adopted this 25 day of August, 2020 by the following vote: AYES: Ms. White, Mr. Shafer, Mr. Hunsinger, Mr. Magowan, Mr. Valentine, Mr. Deeb, Mr. Traver NOES: NONE MR. TRAVER-You’re all set. MR. REDICK-Thank you for your time. MR. MAGOWAN-Thank you for hanging in there and re-doing that. Really, it’s going to look beautiful. MR. TRAVER-Next on our agenda we move into Planning Board Recommendations to the ZBA, and our first application under Planning Board Recommendations is Gary Higley, Site Plan 30-2020. PLANNING BOARD RECOMMENDATION TO THE ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS: SITE PLAN NO. 30-2020 SEQR TYPE: TYPE II. GARY HIGLEY. AGENT(S): CIFONE CONSTRUCTION. OWNER(S): HIGLEY LAKE PROPERTIES. ZONING: WR. LOCATION: 23 JAY ROAD. APPLICANT PROPOSES TO CONSTRUCT A 590 SQ. FT. GARAGE ADDITION TO AN EXISTING HOME WITH 3,026 SQ. FT. INCLUDING DECKS WITH A FLOOR AREA OF 4,189 SQ. FT. – PROPOSED FLOOR AREA 4,306 SQ. FT. THE PROJECT SITE HAD A PREVIOUS APPROVAL FOR A 328 SQ. FT. ADDITION – THE GARAGE IS TO BE ATTACHED. PROJECT INCLUDES REMOVAL OF A 473 SQ. FT. METAL BUILDING. PURSUANT TO CHAPTER 179-3- 040, 179-5-020 & 179-6-065 OF THE ZONING ORDINANCE, NEW FLOOR AREA IN A CEA SHALL BE SUBJECT TO PLANNING BOARD REVIEW AN APPROVAL. VARIANCE: RELIEF IS SOUGHT FOR SETBACKS AND PERMEABILITY. PLANNING BOARD SHALL PROVIDE A RECOMMENDATION TO THE ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS. CROSS REFERENCE: SP 77- 2019, AV 57-2019; AV 1422-21421, RC-0147-2018. WARREN CO. REFERRAL: N/A SITE INFORMATION: GLEN LAKE, CEA, FLOODZONE. LOT SIZE: 0.23 ACRE. TAX MAP NO. 289.10-1-14. SECTION : 179-3-040, 179-6-605, 179-5-020. GARY HIGLEY, PRESENT MR. TRAVER-Laura, can you brief us? MRS. MOORE-This application is to construct a 590 square foot to an existing home with 3,026 square foot including decks with a floor area of 4,189 square feet. Proposed floor area is 4,306 square feet. The Board previously reviewed the addition of 328 square feet. It has not yet been constructed, but it will be consistent with the garage to be attached. Variance relief is for setbacks and permeability. 7 (Queensbury Planning Board 08/25/2020) MR. TRAVER-Okay. Thank you. Is Mr. Higley or someone representing him here? Good evening, sir. MR. HIGLEY-Good evening, Board members. Susan and I are asking to remove an existing garage that right now is 14 feet from the lake with blacktop underneath it, and build a new garage that will be approximately 65 feet from the lake. We will be removing blacktop and improving permeability and stormwater management. We have asked the advice of Nick Rowell, CPEFC, from Warren County Soil and Water and he has submitted a plan which I think you have a copy of. MR. TRAVER-Yes, we do. MR. HIGLEY-And Susan and I are hoping that you approve this project and for the benefit of the lake. We have a drainage problem on this property and this is going to really solve the issue. MR. TRAVER-So you’re replacing the garage with stormwater management. MR. HIGLEY-Yes. MR. TRAVER-We like that. MR. HIGLEY-Thank you. I do, too. MR. MAGOWAN-How can we say no. MR. TRAVER-Yes. MR. HIGLEY-Thank you. MR. TRAVER-Anything else? MR. HIGLEY-No. MR. TRAVER-Okay. Questions, comments from members of the Board? MR. HUNSINGER-I think you already said it. MR. TRAVER-There is no public hearing on this application at this point because this is a recommendation to the ZBA on the variances that they requested, which is for setbacks and permeability. Under SEQR this is a Type II. So we don’t need to do a SEQR review. It’s fairly straightforward. Does anyone on the Planning Board have questions or comments for the applicant? MR. MAGOWAN-It turned out nice. MR. HIGLEY-It did. MR. MAGOWAN-I think it’ll be a great improvement. MR. HIGLEY-I mean we have an issue where water runs down Jay Road, just because of the slope of the road and it comes down our driveway and ends up in the lake, and it has for 50 years or more probably, and this is going to solve that issue. MR. MAGOWAN-So what you’re saying is your beach is large enough and you don’t want it to get any larger. MR. HIGLEY-That’s exactly right. MR. DEEB-We appreciate you being good stewards of the lake. MR. HIGLEY-Thank you. MR. TRAVER-So it sounds as though we’re going to make a clean referral to the ZBA. Do you have your draft resolution? We can proceed. RESOLUTION RE: ZBA RECOMMENDATION RE: AV 23-2020 GARY HIGLEY The applicant has submitted an application for the following: Applicant proposes to construct a 590 sq. ft. garage addition to an existing home with 3,026 sq. ft. including decks with a floor area of 4,189 sq. ft. – proposed floor area 4,306 sq. ft. The project site had a previous approval for a 328 sq. ft. addition – the garage is to be attached. Project includes removal of a 473 sq. ft. metal building. Pursuant to Chapter 179- 8 (Queensbury Planning Board 08/25/2020) 3-040, 179-5-020 & 179-6-065 of the Zoning Ordinance, New floor area in a CEA 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. 23-2020 GARY HIGLEY; Introduced by David Deeb who moved its adoption, and a) The Planning Board, based on a limited review, has not identified any significant adverse impacts that cannot be mitigated with current project proposal. th Motion seconded by Brad Magowan. Duly adopted this 25 day of August, 2020 by the following vote: AYES: Mr. Shafer, Mr. Hunsinger, Mr. Magowan, Mr. Valentine, Mr. Deeb, Ms. White, Mr. Traver NOES: NONE MR. TRAVER-You’re off to the ZBA. MR. HIGLEY-Thank you. Thank you, Board members. MR. TRAVER-Next on our agenda we move into Old Business. The first application being Brian Hayward, Site Plan 19-2020. OLD BUSINESS: SITE PLAN NO. 19-2020 SEQR TYPE: TYPE II. BRIAN HAYWARD. AGENT(S): HUTCHINS ENGINEERING. OWNER(S): SAME AS APPLICANT. ZONING: WR. LOCATION: 5 PALMER DRIVE. APPLICANT PROPOSES TO REMOVE AN EXISTING 671 SQ. FT. HOME TO CONSTRUCTION A 1,536 SQ. FT. FOOTPRINT NEW HOME WITH A FLOOR AREA OF 3,072 SQ. FT. PROJECT INCLUDES SITE WORK FOR NEW SEPTIC, STORMWATER AND DRIVEWAY. PURSUANT TO CHAPTER 179-3-040 OF THE ZONING ORDINANCE, A PROJECT THAT OCCURS WITHIN 50 FT. OF 15% SLOPES SHALL BE SUBJECT TO PLANNING BOARD REVIEW AND APPROVAL. CROSS REFERENCE: SEP 67-2020, AV 36-2019. WARREN CO. REFERRAL: AUGUST OF 2020 SITE INFORMATION: HUDSON RIVER. LOT SIZE: .26 ACRE. TAX MAP NO. 316.17-1-4. SECTION: 179-3-040. TOM CENTER, REPRESENTING APPLICANT, PRESENT MR. TRAVER-This application is subject to public hearing. Laura? MRS. MOORE-This application was for a demo and re-build, construction of a 1,536 square foot new home. The floor area is 3,072. It was noted previously that the garage is part of this application, of the building itself. It’s not separate. The Zoning Board did grant the variance request, relief for setbacks as well as floor area. MR. TRAVER-Okay. Thank you. Good evening. MR. CENTER-Good evening. Tom Center with Hutchins Engineering. As Laura stated, we received our variances the other evening. A little different than what you had at the recommendation, we increased the south side setback based on some comments here from 2.9 feet to 5 feet off the south property line. So we were able to slide it a little bit further to the north. We didn’t want to split the difference because of the issue with the neighboring septic system on the property to the north. We’ll be doing a little bit of a revision on the stormwater management in lieu of some of the comments from the Town Engineer in order to address some of his issues for the 25 year storm and the separation distance from the well. By treating the house roof into infiltration trenches with infiltrators and allowing the driveway to infiltrate into the lawn area we were able to stay below the 25 year storm. So we don’t have a device per se within the distance to any well. Everything else is pretty much the same as you saw before. It’s a pretty straightforward project. We have good sandy soils. We have the septic variance, the well variance to the well separation to the neighbors. 9 (Queensbury Planning Board 08/25/2020) MR. TRAVER-Okay. Questions, comments from member of the Planning Board? MR. SHAFER-Tom, what’s the new setback? MR. CENTER-Excuse me? MR. SHAFER-The new setback? MR. CENTER-Five feet off of the south property. MR. SHAFER-Okay. MR. HUNSINGER-And so you’re pushing the whole house five feet? MR. CENTER-The whole house five feet. MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. MR. TRAVER-There is a public hearing on this application at this phase and I will remind the public once again if you would like to comment on Brian Hayward, Site Plan 19-2020 call the number I previously gave you which is 518-761-8225., and I’ll ask Laura, are there any written comments? PUBLIC HEARING OPENED MRS. MOORE-There are written comments. It’s actually a phone conversation that I had with a neighbor. “On 8/18/2020 Staff Laura Moore received a phone call from Kim Ott at 7 Palmer Drive. She explained that she and Harry Ott approve the Brian Hayward project as proposed. Note the neighbor is the one to the south of the project site.” MR. TRAVER-Okay. Thank you. My phone isn’t ringing. Is there anyone in the audience who would like to address the Board on this application? This is Brian Hayward. I’m not seeing any hands. So we’ll go ahead and close the public hearing. PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED MR. TRAVER-Does the Board feel prepared to move forward? MR. DEEB-Yes. MR. TRAVER-Okay. We have a draft motion. RESOLUTION APPROVING SP # 19-2020 BRIAN HAYWARD The applicant has submitted an application to the Planning Board: Applicant proposes to remove an existing 671 sq. ft. home to construct a 1,536 sq. ft. footprint new home with a floor area of 3,072 sq. ft. Project includes site work for new septic, stormwater and driveway. Pursuant to Chapter 179-3-040, 179- 6-050 & 179-6-060 of the Zoning Ordinance a project that occurs within 50 ft. of 15% slopes and hard surfacing within 50 ft. of shoreline shall be subject to Planning Board review and approval. Pursuant to relevant sections of the Town of Queensbury Zoning Code-Chapter 179-9-080, the Planning Board has determined that this proposal satisfies the requirements as stated in the Zoning Code; 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 made a recommendation to the Zoning Board of Appeals on 08/18/2020; the ZBA approved the variance requests on 08/19/2020; The Planning Board opened a public hearing on the Site plan application on 08/18/2020 and continued the public hearing to 08/25/2020, when it was closed, The Planning Board has reviewed the application materials submitted by the applicant and all comments made at the public hearing and submitted in writing through and including 08/25/2020; 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, 10 (Queensbury Planning Board 08/25/2020) MOTION TO APPROVE SITE PLAN 19-2020 BRIAN HAYWARD; 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, n traffic, o. commercial alterations/ construction details, p floor plans, q. soil logs, r. construction/demolition disposal s. snow removal. 2) The approval is valid for one (1) year from the date of approval. You are responsible for requesting an extension of approval before the one (1) year time frame has expired if you have not yet applied for a building permit or commenced significant site work. 3) 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 th Motion seconded by Brad Magowan. Duly adopted this 25 day of August, 2020 by the following vote: AYES: Mr. Hunsinger, Mr. Magowan, Mr. Valentine, Mr. Deeb, Ms. White, Mr. Shafer, Mr. Traver NOES: NONE MR. TRAVER-You’re all set. MR. CENTER-Thank you. BRIAN HAYWARD MR. HAYWARD-Thank you. MR. DEEB-Good luck, Brian. MR. TRAVER-Next under Old Business we have Frank and Cindy Steciuk. I understand that they’ve requested a tabling, Laura? MRS. MOORE-That is correct. They were tabled at the Zoning Board of Appeals. They had discussed coming back to this Board to discuss this project, but since then they’ve requested to be tabled. 11 (Queensbury Planning Board 08/25/2020) th MR. TRAVER-Okay. So they have requested to be tabled until October 27. MR. DEEB-I thought we had Aronson Trust next. MR. MAGOWAN-Yes. MR. TRAVER-I’m sorry. I’m getting ahead of myself. My mistake. I‘m sorry. So we’ll come to that one in a few minutes. The next application is actually Benjamin Aronson Trust. This is also under Old Business. Subdivision Preliminary Stage 9-2020 and Subdivision Final Stage 10-2020. SUBDIVISION PRELIMINARY STAGE 9-2020 SUBDIVISION FINAL STAGE 10-2020 SEQR TYPE: UNLISTED. BENJAMIN ARONSON TRUST. AGENT(S): MICHAEL J. MULLER, TRUSTEE. OWNER(S): SAME AS APPLICANT. ZONING: MDR. LOCATION: 1516 RIDGE ROAD. APPLICANT PROPOSES A TWO LOT SUBDIVISION OF 10.32 ACRES. THE TWO LOTS INCLUDE LOT 1 OF 6.10 ACRES WITH A 5,434 SQ. FT. (FOOTPRINT) SINGLE FAMILY HOME AND SHED, AND LOT 2 OF 4.22 ACRES WITH A 3,720 SQ. FT. (FOOTPRINT) GARAGE BUILDING. PURSUANT TO CHAPTER 183 OF THE ZONING ORDINANCE, SUBDIVISION OF LAND SHALL BE SUBJECT TO PLANNING BOARD REVIEW AND APPROVAL. CROSS REFERENCE: SP 68-2017, AV 62-2017 SECOND GARAGE; 2003-740 ADDITION; 2009-486 PORCH. WARREN CO. REFERRAL: SITE INFORMATION: APA. LOT SIZE: 10.32 ACRES. TAX MAP NO. 266.3-1-76. SECTION: CHAPTER 183. MICHAEL MULLER, REPRESENTING APPLICANT, PRESENT MR. TRAVER-Laura? MRS. MOORE-This is a two lot subdivision of a 10.32 acre parcel. Lot One is 6.10 and Lot Two is 4.22. The relief requested was granted for lot frontage where 100 feet is proposed and 200 feet is required and the Zoning Board granted that relief. MR. TRAVER-Okay. Thank you. Good evening. MR. MULLER-Good evening. My name is Michael Muller and I work with Benjamin Aronson Trust. The subdivision is a 10.32 acre parcel. We’d like to have the northerly parcel, shown on your map as Lot Number One retaining a residence along with the amenities and that would be on six acres, and the southerly lot, which on your map is Lot Two that would retain the existing garage and it would be approximately slightly larger than four acres. It’s essentially drawing a line, as required by your Code under your review, but you’ll find that there’s no new construction. No building permit is required. There’ll be no excavating. There’ll be no change in lighting, no change in planting, no new stormwater, no new driveway. It meets all the setbacks. This was built in 2017 in accordance with SWPPP and prior Site Plan review. Everything will stay the same. It’s just a line. MR. TRAVER-Okay. Thank you. Questions, comments from members of the Board? MR. VALENTINE-Just a question, trying to read through the minutes and I wasn’t here before, but to what is the garage accessory? MR. MULLER-It doesn’t have to be accessory. Your definition, and in speaking with Mr. Brown, in the Adirondack Park anything greater than 1250 square feet constitutes a principal building. MR. MAGOWAN-And it’s a beautiful garage. MR. TRAVER-Yes. We do have a public hearing on this application as well, and I will again remind the audience viewing us on the Town website that if you wish to comment on this application, Benjamin Aronson Trust, please call 518-761-8225. I’ll ask, Laura, are there any written comments? PUBLIC HEARING OPENED MRS. MOORE-There are no written comments. MR. TRAVER-Okay. Thank you. Any other questions, comments from members of the Board? Okay. We have a draft motion I believe. MR. DEEB-We’ve got to do SEQR. MRS. MOORE-You’ve got to do SEQR. MR. TRAVER-We have to do the SEQR resolution. Okay. 12 (Queensbury Planning Board 08/25/2020) MRS. MOORE-You have to close the public hearing MR. TRAVER-Okay. So under SEQR, this is an Unlisted Action. MRS. MOORE-I believe you need to close your public hearing first. MR. TRAVER-Okay. I’ll close the public hearing. PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED MR. TRAVER-The public hearing is closed, and this is one of those somewhat odd cases for SEQR where we’re creating a subdivision and yet it does require a SEQR review. Does anyone have any concerns about environmental impacts by creating this subdivision? Okay. We have a draft resolution I believe. RESOLUTION GRANTING A NEGATIVE SEQR DEC. SUB # 10-2020 BENJAMIN ARONSON TRUST The applicant proposes a two lot subdivision of 10.32 acres. The two lots include Lot 1 of 6.10 acres with a 5,434 sq. ft. (footprint) single family home and shed, and Lot 2 of 4.22 acres with a 3,320 sq. ft. (footprint) garage building. Pursuant to Chapter 183 of the Zoning Ordinance, subdivision of land 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 Long EAF has been completed by the applicant; Part 2 of the Long EAF has been reviewed by the Planning Board; 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 SUBDIVISION PRELIMINARY STAGE 9-2020 BENJAMIN ARONSON TRUST; Introduced by David Deeb who moved for its adoption, seconded by Michael Valentine; As per the resolution prepared by staff. 1. Part II of the Long EAF has been reviewed and completed by the Planning Board. 2. Part III of the Long EAF is not necessary because the Planning Board did not identify potentially moderate to large impacts. th Duly adopted this 25day of August, 2020 by the following vote: AYES: Mr. Magowan, Mr. Valentine, Mr. Deeb, Ms. White, Mr. Shafer, Mr. Hunsinger, Mr. Traver NOES: NONE MR. TRAVER-And so now we can move on to the Subdivision. MR. DEEB-Preliminary Stage. Okay. RESOLUTION APPROVING PRELIMINARY STG. SUB # 9-2020 BENJAMIN ARONSON TRUST A subdivision application has been made to the Queensbury Planning Board for the following: Applicant proposes a two lot subdivision of 10.32 acres. The two lots include Lot 1 of 6.10 acres with a 5,434 sq. ft. (footprint) single family home and shed, and Lot 2 of 4.22 acres with a 3,320 sq. ft. (footprint) garage building. Pursuant to Chapter 183 of the Zoning Ordinance, subdivision of land shall be subject to Planning Board review and approval. 13 (Queensbury Planning Board 08/25/2020) Pursuant to relevant sections of the Town of Queensbury Zoning Code-Chapter A-183, the Planning Board has determined that this proposal satisfies the requirements as stated in the Zoning Code; The Planning Board made a recommendation to the Zoning Board of Appeals on 08/18/2020; the ZBA approved the variance requests on 08/19/2020; The requirements of the State Environmental Quality Review Act have been considered and the Planning Board has adopted a SEQRA Negative Declaration A public hearing was scheduled and held on 08/25/2020; This application is supported with all documentation, public comment, and application material in the file of record; MOTION TO APPROVE SUBDIVISION PRELIMINARY STAGE 9-2020 BENJAMIN ARONSON TRUST; Introduced by David Deeb who moved its adoption. th Motion seconded by Brad Magowan. Duly adopted this 25 day of August, 2020 by the following vote: AYES: Mr. Valentine, Mr. Deeb, Ms. White, Mr. Shafer, Mr. Hunsinger, Mr. Magowan, Mr. Traver NOES: NONE MR. TRAVER-And we can move on to Final Stage. RESOLUTION APPROVING FINAL STG. SUB # 10-2020 BENJAMIN ARONSON TRUST A subdivision application has been made to the Queensbury Planning Board for the following: Applicant proposes a two lot subdivision of 10.32 acres. The two lots include Lot 1 of 6.10 acres with a 5,434 sq. ft. (footprint) single family home and shed, and Lot 2 of 4.22 acres with a 3,320 sq. ft. (footprint) garage building. Pursuant to Chapter 183 of the Zoning Ordinance, subdivision of land shall be subject to Planning Board review and approval. Pursuant to relevant sections of the Town of Queensbury Zoning Code-Chapter A-183, the Planning Board has determined that this proposal satisfies the requirements as stated in the Zoning Code; The Planning Board made a recommendation to the Zoning Board of Appeals on 08/18/2020; the ZBA approved the variance requests on 08/19/2020; A public hearing was scheduled and held on 08/25/2020; This application is supported with all documentation, public comment, and application material in the file of record; MOTION TO APPROVE SUBDIVISION FINAL STAGE 10-2020 BENJAMIN ARONSON TRUST; Introduced by David Deeb who moved its adoption. 1. The requirements of the State Environmental Quality Review Act have been considered and the Planning Board has adopted a SEQRA Negative Declaration; and if the application is a modification, the requirements of the State Environmental Quality Review Act have been considered, and the proposed modification\[s\] do not result in any new or significantly different environmental impacts, and, therefore, no further SEQRA review is necessary; 2. Waiver requests granted: sketch plan stage, stormwater and grading, 3. The approval is valid for one (1) year from the date of approval. You are responsible for requesting an extension of approval before the one (1) year time frame has expired if you have not yet applied for a building permit or commenced significant site work. 4. 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 5. Engineering sign-off required prior to signature of Planning Board Chairman. 6. The applicant must submit a copy of the following to the Town: 14 (Queensbury Planning Board 08/25/2020) a) The project NOI (Notice of Intent) for coverage under the current NYSDEC SPDES General Permit or for coverage under an individual SPDES prior to the start of any site work. b) The project NOT (Notice of Termination) upon completion of the project; and 7. The applicant must maintain on their project site, for review by staff: a) The approved final 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; and b) The project NOI and proof of coverage under the current NYSDEC SPDES General Permit, or an individual SPDES permit issued for the project. 8. Final approved plans, in compliance with the Subdivision, must be submitted to the Community Development Department before any further review by the Zoning Administrator or Building and Codes personnel. 9. The applicant must meet with Staff after approval and prior to issuance of Building Permit and/or the beginning of any site work. 10. Subsequent issuance of further permits, including building permits is dependent on compliance with this and all other conditions of this resolution; 11. As-built plans to certify that the subdivision is developed according to the approved plans to be provided prior to issuance of the certificate of occupancy; th Seconded by Michael Valentine. Duly adopted this 25 day of August, 2020 by the following vote: AYES: Mr. Deeb, Ms. White, Mr. Shafer, Mr. Hunsinger, Mr. Magowan, Mr. Valentine, Mr. Traver NOES: NONE MR. TRAVER-You’re all set. MR. MULLER-Thank you. MR. TRAVER-So, next we have Frank & Cindy Steciuk, Site Plan 32-2020 and Freshwater Wetlands Permit 2-2020. SITE PLAN NO. 32-2020 FRESHWATER WETLANDS PERMIT 2-2020 SEQR TYPE: TYPE II. FRANK & CINDY STECIUK. AGENT(S): DANIEL W. RYAN, PE. OWNER(S): SAME AS APPLICANT. ZONING: MDR. LOCATION: 62 COUNTRY CLUB ROAD. APPLICANT PROPOSES A TWO STORY STRUCTURE OF 2,196 SQ. FT. FOOTPRINT. THE BUILDING USE INCLUDES TWO VEHICLE GARAGE AND A LIVING SPACE WITH RECREATION AREA ON THE SECOND FLOOR. THE PROJECT CONSTRUCTION OF A NEW BUILDING OCCURS WITHIN 100 FT. OF A DESIGNATED WETLANDS REQUIRING A SITE PLAN AND A FRESHWATER WETLANDS PERMIT. THE SITE HAS AN EXISTING 2,898 SQ. FT. (FOOTPRINT) 2-STORY HOME WITH AN UNFINISHED BASEMENT AND ATTACHED GARAGE. ALSO THE SITE HAS A 150 SQ. FT. +/- SHED TO BE REMOVED. PURSUANT TO CHAPTER 179-4-010 AND 95 OF THE ZONING ORDINANCE, WORK WITHIN 100 FT. OF WETLANDS SHALL BE SUBJECT TO PLANNING BOARD REVIEW AND APPROVAL. CROSS REFERENCE: SUB 5-1983, 99525-7894 SF HOME; 2002-200 SHED; 2003-166 DECK & PORCH; 2003-178 POOL, 2015-023 ALTERATIONS; WARREN CO. REFERRAL: AUGUST 2020. SITE INFORMATION: WETLANDS. LOT SIZE: 2.02 ACRES. TAX MAP NO. 296.14-1-51. SECTION: 179-4-010 & 95. MR. TRAVER-As Laura informed us earlier, they were tabled at the Zoning Board of Appeals and have asked for some additional time to come back with an updated plan, and they are requesting a tabling to th October 27. This application does have a public hearing, and because we’re tabling it, we will open the public hearing and we will leave it open until the applicant returns, hopefully in October. PUBLIC HEARING OPENED MR. TRAVER-Do you have anything to add, Laura? MRS. MOORE-The Zoning Board was concerned with the same concerns that the Planning Board had in reference to putting two dwellings on an individual lot. MR. SHAFER-Sorry, I missed that, Laura. 15 (Queensbury Planning Board 08/25/2020) MRS. MOORE-The Zoning Board had the same concerns that the Planning Board had in reference to placing two dwellings on one lot. MR. SHAFER-Gotcha. RESOLUTION TABLING SP # 32-2020 & SUP # 2-2020 FRANK & CINDY STECIUK The applicant has submitted an application to the Planning Board for Site Plan approval pursuant to Article 9 of the Town zoning Ordinance for: Applicant proposes a two story structure of 2,196 sq. ft. footprint. The building use includes two vehicle garage and a living space with a recreation area on the second floor. The project construction of a new building occurs within 100 ft. of a designated wetlands requiring a site plan and a freshwater wetland permit. The site has an existing 2,898 sq. ft. (footprint) 2- story home with an unfinished basement and attached garage. Also the site has a 150 sq. ft. +/- shed to be removed. .Pursuant to Chapter 179-4-010 and 95 of the Zoning Ordinance, work within 100 ft. of wetlands shall be subject to Planning Board review and approval. MOTION TO TABLE SITE PLAN 32-2020 & FRESHWATER WETLANDS PERMIT 2-2020 FRANK & CINDY STECIUK. Introduced by David Deeb who moved for its adoption, seconded by John Shafer: Tabled until the October 27, 2020 Planning Board meeting with information due by September 15, 2020. th Duly adopted this 25 day of August, 2020 by the following vote: AYES: Mr. Shafer, Mr. Hunsinger, Mr. Magowan, Mr. Valentine, Mr. Deeb, Ms. White, Mr. Traver NOES: NONE MR. TRAVER-All right. Next we move into New Business. The first application being Camp Knox, LLC/Ballas, Site Plan Modification 29-2020. NEW BUSINESS: SITE PLAN MODIFICATION 29-2019 SEQR TYPE: TYPE II. CAMP KNOX, LLC/BALLAS. OWNER(S): CARA & STEPHEN BALLAS. ZONING: WR. LOCATION: 67 KNOX ROAD. APPLICANT PROPOSES REVISIONS TO AN EXISTING LANDSCAPING PLAN. REPLACING AN AREA OF APPROXIMATELY 100 SQ. FT. PERMEABLE PATIO AREA WITH 150 SQ. FT. PERMEABLE PATIO AREA AND LANDSCAPING AT SHORELINE. THE SITE HAS AN EXISTING 2,706 SQ. FT. (FOOTPRINT) HOME. PURSUANT TO CHAPTER 179-6-050 OF THE ZONING ORDINANCE, MODIFICATION OF AN EXISTING SITE PLAN AND HARD SURFACING WITHIN 50 FT. OF SHORELINE SHALL BE SUBJECT TO PLANNING BOARD REVIEW AND APPROVAL. CROSS REFERENCE: SP 53-2007, SP (M) 53-2007, NOA 11-2007, NOA 11-2007, NOA 4-2009, AV 3-2014, SP 4-2014. WARREN CO. REFERRAL: AUGUST 2020. SITE INFORMATION: APA, LGPC, CEA. LOT SIZE: .45 ACRE. TAX MAP NO. 239.7-1-14. SECTION: 179-6-050. CARA & STEPHEN BALLAS, PRESENT MR. TRAVER-Laura. MRS. MOORE-This applicant has made revisions to an existing landscaping plan. A portion of the area to be replaced has been started including approximately 100 square foot permeable patio area with 150 square foot permeable patio area to replace it. Also the landscaping plan is being updated at the shoreline. The applicant has tried to utilize the plantings that were in the original planting plan and indicated that they have died and so the applicant is proposing lawn area and maintaining the buffers that are identified. MR. TRAVER-Okay. Thank you. It should be noted, too, that after some discussion, prior to our meeting, it was deemed that this technically is unapproved development as well, since some development had started. Is there someone here representing Camp Knox? Yes, sir. MRS. BALLAS-Hi, good evening. MR. BALLAS-Good evening, Planning Board members. Thank you for hearing our case today. This is my wife, Cara Ballas. My name’s Steve Ballas. I just wanted to go over a brief outline of how we arrived at the approvals that we’re seeking. We’re the owners of 67 Knox Road. Some of you may or may not know that address. Prior to us purchasing it we did learn it had quite the history with the neighborhood and the neighbors. So coming in to do the project, we really wanted to gauge the neighbors, get all their 16 (Queensbury Planning Board 08/25/2020) concerns and ultimately really deliver a good project for our family and a good project for the neighborhood, and we feel we did a good job with that up front and in fact we do have two letters of support for the landscaping changes that we’re proposing. So we completed the house in November of 2018, and at that time we did inherit a landscape plan which we did follow and we got the CO in November of 2018. As you can imagine we finished the project up in the winter and landscaping was the final piece, so a lot of the plants did go in in the winter. That first winter a fair amount did not survive. It’s been through two winters now and we also quickly learned there’s a pretty significant deer population on Assembly Point which had their way with a lot of stuff, too. So we thought this would be a great time to kind of alter the landscaping plan to meet our family’s needs. So the existing didn’t really plan for existing conditions. So we’re ultimately seeking the support and approval of the Board for three items of the landscaping . Number One is adding a patio to the lower level. I apologize about my illustrative skills on the site plan here but I tried to do my best. On the lower northern side, we had an existing rock patio that was there. So what we’re looking to do here is simply add a permeable patio over the existing that we had. We still are above the 75% permeability. We’re a little over 76%. Number Two, on the, this is actually the southern side, lower southern side, we did have plantings there, and as I mentioned a lot of those plantings did not survive. So we’re looking to add a grass area there, a larger grass area. We have two young kids. As you come down from the house, that area is actually a little more flat down there. So it’s a good area for the kids to play, kind of community engagement and we’re looking to improve it in that way, and then lastly we want to add a number of native species plants to that lower berm and also all around the patio. So this house, you know, being newer, it got all new infrastructure. I know the primary concern is runoff into the lake. We’re members of the Lake George Association as well so we take those concerns as well. So the house has a brand new septic system which is actually in front of the house. We have an 85 foot setback as it is to the rear of the house, and then the septic system is 100 plus feet from the lake. We’ve got a two pump system that goes into the front. We’ve also got the whole stormwater management system. We’ve got two drywells in place. The entire gutter system on the house goes into those drywells. So I can attest we really have no runoff from the house that gets onto the surface. If you look at the plan, we have three, 9 to 10 foot buffer areas, as you come down from the 85 foot setback. We’re heavily planted on those first two. We actually moved some of the plants that survived into those berms and then we want to heavily plant the lower berms as well, as you get closer to the lake. So in conclusion, it’s those three, the addition of the patio over the stone, increasing the grass area to the lake, and then adding more plantings on the buffers that are closest to the lake. As I mentioned we do have letters of support from the neighbors and we’re hoping to receive your approval here as well today. So with that we’d be happy to answer any questions. MR. TRAVER-Okay. Questions, comments from members of the Board? As mentioned, there is a public hearing on this application, Camp Knox/Ballas, Site Plan Modification 29-2020, and I’ll ask the public if you would like to comment by phone, the number to call is 518-761-8225, and we’ll open that public hearing. PUBLIC HEARING OPENED MR. TRAVER-And, Laura, there were some written comments referenced. MRS. MOORE-There are. So I’ll start one. This is addressed to the Queensbury Planning Board and other government entities. “I’m writing to provide comments as a next door neighbor, regarding the Lake George waterfront landscaping changes that are underway at 67 Knox Rd. (Camp Knox). I want to fully support the comments, suggestions an directions of the Lake George Waterkeeper regarding the lakefront development regulations and goals. These goals work to protect the lake and all the properties along its shore. On our little bay on the west side of Assembly Point has had problems in the past with algae and unacceptable bacteria levels which effect the “family friendliness” of the lake water for all in the area. Septic and rainwater runoff are the main causes. Ten years ago this lot was fully treed and now, after three different owners/developers removing trees, this has become an open scar with the only trees remaining on the margins. Trees are our most valuable device for capturing rainwater in the canopy and infiltrating the water with their bark and root systems – this is vastly preferable than large grass areas. Trees also provide for better sound absorption for the legions of weekly renters that use this property all summer long. The proposal as shown in in the application on the Town’s website shows 3 trees in the “landscape revision 1” picture which are now missing and the plans provided do not show replacements or expansion. With a required one tree in every 20’ of shoreline, there should be at least 5 trees stretched out along the shoreline. Especially considering the illegal clear cutting that has occurred over the years on this side, this number of trees should actually be far greater. I do not believe illegal actions go away whenever property changes hands, but rather stay with the property just like an oil spill or tank leak would. So the Town should require more trees. Again, I would like to say that the Waterkeeper speaks for the lake and for me. Regards, Bob Glandon 63 Knox Rd., Lake George, NY 12845” And this is addressed to Mr. Traver and the Planning Board , “As an owner of property at 103 Knox Road I am aware of an application before your Board for further improvements at 67 Knox Road. I am in support of those improvements of an additional patio area. Under the Ballas’s ownership this previously ‘troubled’ property has received the care and maintenance to make it an asset to the neighborhood. Thank you. Dennis MacElroy 103 Knox Road, Lake George, NY 12845” 17 (Queensbury Planning Board 08/25/2020) MR. TRAVER-Okay. Thank you. MRS. MOORE-And then this is addressed to the Planning and Zoning Department. “My name is Stuart Rosenberg and I reside at 73 Knox Road and am a direct abutter to 67 Knox Road. I am writing today to let you know I support the revised landscaping/hardscape being proposed by Cara and Stephen Ballas. Sincerely, Stuart Rosenberg 73 Knox Road, Queensbury” And I’m just going to ask Chris if he wants to read his own letter or do you want me to read it in? CHRIS NAVITSKY MR. NAVITSKY-I’ll read it. MRS. MOORE-Okay. So Chris Navitsky has a Lake George Waterkeeper letter. MR. TRAVER-Okay. Why don’t you go ahead. Do you want to make public comment, sir? MR. SHAFER-Mr. Chairman, while we’re waiting, you had used the term unapproved development. So is part of this already in place? MRS. MOORE-So part of the patio has been started and some of the landscape has already been not re- planted. MR. SHAFER-And that wasn’t part of the other approved site plan? MRS. MOORE-The improved site plan had a smaller area with river rock. The applicant’s replacing that with a permeable patio area. MR. SHAFER-Good. Thank you. MR. TRAVER-Thus the reason for the application for modification, but it is somewhat after the fact. MR. NAVITSKY-Good evening. MR. TRAVER-Good evening. MR. NAVITSKY-Chris Navitsky, Lake George Waterkeeper. As has been mentioned, I’m sure the Board is aware, this property and the long history that you had with reviews due to non-compliance actions by previous owners with unpermitted disturbance, stormwater management non-compliance, building code issues. Upon review of the submitted material, it was shocking to see how the shoreline buffer has disappeared despite the conditions placed by this Board to protect it. The development of this property has done little for the protection of Lake George and has resulted in significant impacts from excessive vegetation removal, excavation, soil removal and stormwater runoff. It is recognized these actions have not been performed by the current applicant. But in my opinion, it is time for the previous conditions implemented to mitigate negative impacts of development be enforced, require restoration and prevent any further development on the property. The original Planning Board condition has not been adhered with, and has resulted in impacts to the natural resources of the Town. The Final approval by the Planning Board in May of 2011 as well as the modified plan in January 2014 contained the condition "The limits of clearing will constitute a no-cut buffer zone, orange construction fencing shall be installed around these areas and field verified’. It is evident from the clearing of the no-cut buffer continued through the permitting and afterward and the condition was not complied with as demonstrated by the photos that we have in 2007 and 2009 which were attached to this letter. The Board should require the shoreline buffer be restored as close to undisturbed conditions as possible to replace the existing "lawn-to-the-lake" condition with mature vegetation balancing the potential construction impacts. You don’t want to excavate right on the shoreline because that can cause just as much problems, but find that balance. The Planning Board should not approve any additional hardscape within the shoreline buffer zone and restoration of the entire shoreline buffer should be done to the greatest extent possible. The applicant is proposing a restored buffer falling well short of the Town Code requirements including a majority of that 35 feet to be grass or permeable patio. The Town should require a completely restored buffer with a diversity of planting to be in, quote from the Town Code, "harmony with the purpose and intent of the Code" and to mitigate, again, quote from the Town Code, "undue adverse impacts to the resources of the Town" as required by §179-9- 080, and also the Planning Board should require the stormwater management plan to be certified and inspection submitted. So we recommend that the Planning Board deny the application based for failure to adhere to prior conditions and require a restoration of the shoreline buffer as per the Town Code. Thank you. MR. TRAVER-Thank you. Is there any other written comment, Laura? 18 (Queensbury Planning Board 08/25/2020) MRS. MOORE-There’s no other written comment. MR. TRAVER-Thank you. MR. BALLAS-Can we respond to those? MR. TRAVER-Come up to the mic if you would, please. MS. WHITE-I think you have other commenters. MR. TRAVER-I’m sorry, say that again. MS. WHITE-I think we have more comments from the public. MR. TRAVER-Okay. Are there others that wish to comment, members of the public? Yes, sir. JOHN COLLINS MR. COLLINS-My name is John Collins. I live at 35 Knox Road. I would point you to the assessment records for this property. It shows four bedrooms. Septic system was designed for four bedrooms. Yet if you go to the Davies & Davies marketing materials for the rental of this property, they advertise this as a five bedroom property with a maximum of 12 people. We see the groups that come in to rent this property. Did I mention the rental rate is $14,400 a week. So they typically get a couple of families going in to rent the property, and they’re using a system that’s designed for four bedrooms, yet, I won’t say in every week’s instance, but in a number of instances, they have a full house with 12 people. So when I look at the landscape design here, it’s skimpy, especially in light of all the clear cutting that occurred on this property. So now you take the pressure from the septic system, which is back behind the house, combined with the weak plantings, and you’re putting more stress on the lake and I know Bob Glandon has mentioned about the fact that there is algae growth in that area and there is bacteria in that area on occasion. So it is my request that the Board reject this plan and work to get a more robust plan that takes more trees into account so that visually from the lake you have a filtered view which was the goal of the Town in approving development along the shorelines, so it looks less like Cleverdale and Rockhurst and more like the area of Assembly Point. Thank you. MR. TRAVER-Thank you. Is there anyone else in the audience that wanted to comment? I think I see a hand there. Yes, ma’am. MR. DEEB-Ma’am, could you state your name for the record. LORRAINE RUFFING MRS. RUFFING-Yes, Lorraine Ruffing, Assembly Point. 67 Knox Road has a long history of violations to environmental regulations and building permits. The property was virtually clear-cut in 2006 as the attached pictures show. This is what it used to look like, with lots of healthy old growth trees were removed within 35 ft. of the Lake. There was no revegetation as required by Town Code which says "where shoreline lot owners violate shoreline cutting restrictions, the Zoning Administrator shall require total revegetation so as to create a buffer strip. The existing landscaping particularly the pitch of the driveway at the back of the house creates excessive storm water runoff violating code 147 on storm water management. The question is how did this property ever qualify for a site plan approval because ''The project shall not have an undue adverse impact upon natural, scenic, aesthetic, or ecological...resources of the Town and that’s, again, according to code 179. The builders violated their own building plans requiring the Town to demand the removal of part of the structure. Now the current owners are requesting to extend a patio within 50' of the lake violating Code 179 which states that "No fill or hard surfacing within 50 ft. of the lake except by site plan approval." Given the number of flagrant violations of Town codes that have occurred on this property, I respectfully request that this new proposal for additional hardscaping be rejected and instead the owners be required to install the required 35 ft. buffer strip, and this is a sketch by the Waterkeeper about what it should look like, and not what you see on the screen. Thank you very much. MR. TRAVER-Thank you. Laura, do we have that information from the Waterkeeper, the proposed? MRS. MOORE-I don’t have the proposed one. MR. TRAVER-Okay. Thank you. Is there anyone else that wanted to address the Planning Board? Yes, ma’am. DR. CAROL COLLINS 19 (Queensbury Planning Board 08/25/2020) DR. COLLINS-Good evening. Thank you for listening to all of us tonight. My name is Dr. Carol Collins. I’m a neighbor on 35 Knox Road. You heard earlier from my husband John. My expertise is in well, water quality. I have a Ph.D. and have been work with the Town for over several years now to get everyone on board in protecting our water quality and our water resources, and I think the Towns doing a great job. These unapproved developments are really a tragedy in terms of what’s going on for the Town and for the lake, and I concur with everyone here tonight that this plan, it’s just haphazard even in the way it was presented, but we have spent a great deal of time getting people to recognize the importance of trees, restoring these natural buffers, and this just flies in the face of everything we’re doing. This represents to me a case of what not to do to Lake George and I don’t want that to effect the Town of Queensbury, who is the leader in Lake George, to reflect that upon them. So I feel that putting any further hard scape in that area is wrong, and I can cite scientific information but frankly I believe you know that. I do believe that given the formula that we should be putting in for five to six trees along that shoreline, plus additional on the upslope, up the hill. If you look at the site where it was, and I have some additional pictures, which is it okay if I approach the Board, the table? MRS. MOORE-Share them with me and then I’ll pass it along. DR. COLLINS-Okay. MR. TRAVER-I see that you’ve handed the pictures to Laura who will distribute them. Can you explain what they are pictures of? DR. COLLINS-Okay. So they’re pictures of what the original site was like, and it was treed and beautiful as you can imagine. When you were given 30% removal, that 30% removal was done, and then it seems like 30% more was done at the next, and then we’re down to a bare, thin landscape. MR. TRAVER-So that’s prior to the applicants owning the property. DR. COLLINS-No. The applicant actually took down additional trees, was witnessed by the neighbors, taking it down. So in addition to what you see, there were additional trees taken down. So now it’s barren, and what we need to do is to re-establish a shoreline. I mean in a way I’m glad this came up, because this, you know, whatever is happening, I mean this place is denuded. This is not what we want for Lake George, and what we need is a canopy of mixed species. We’ve been working a lot, the Town Board members and others, on trying to figure out what to do to protect the lake, an everyone says we need a mixture of deciduous plants. We need to put those oak trees back. We need to put the maple trees back. We need to put the evergreen back, and if you prescribe the five or six trees that should be across that frontage, that would be a start. It has to be mixed. It’s very important with the changes we’re seeing in our environment. We need to have another canopy below that canopy. We need to have a shrub component. We need less lilies. We don’t need 20 lilies or whatever these things were. We need real woody stemmed plants. What happens is when that canopy intercepts the rain waters, it then channels it down along the bark. Believe it or not bark captures 60% of the nutrients and runoff that we really want to capture. I really didn’t even know that until quite recently when we working on some LID regulations, but it’s so critical, and then what happens is those roots are like arteries and they bring that down into the depths of the soil. That’s what we’re looking to do. So we want our trees back, and I think everyone along Knox Road really would like to see this make the change, and not only for this site, but for other sites as well. I mean there’s a lot more I can say, but I think everyone knows it in their hear intrinsically that we need to restore these baselines . We don’t need more hard scape. We don’t want family friendly. We want lake friendly. Family friendly comes with a healthy eco system. MR. TRAVER-Thank you very much. DR. COLLINS-Thank you. MR. TRAVER-Do you want these photographs back, or can we keep them as part of the record? DR. COLLINS-You can keep them. MR. TRAVER-Thank you. Is there anyone else in the audience that wanted to address the Planning Board on this application? Okay. The applicant can return. I think you mentioned, as part of your opening remarks, that the property as you said I think has quite a history. MRS. BALLAS-I feel like we’re being penalized, honestly, for being the third builders and third owners on it and I totally understand the neighbors’ concerns, especially with the previous builders. I just feel like you get a letter in the mail and now we’re taking on a lot of the heat and a lot of those feelings have been building for a long time. 20 (Queensbury Planning Board 08/25/2020) MR. BALLAS-Yes, it’s unfortunate that we’re the recipients of this. As I mentioned, we purchased the house in May of 2018 and we followed every plan to a tee, otherwise we never would have gotten our certificate of occupancy. MR. TRAVER-So when you purchased the house in 2018 you implemented the most recent approval for the landscaping? MR. BALLAS-Correct. We inherited a landscaping plan. So when the house was purchased it was a shell. It had, you know, the siding was on it, the structure was on it. They had just, previous owner had to take the house down 10 feet, and this stuff had nothing to do with us. We didn’t clear anything from the lot. There was two kind of dead trees along, not down at the lake but along the buffer line, and that was it. We did no clearing, and in fact it’s unfortunate because we haven’t, you know, we completed the project, got the CO. We didn’t hear from any neighbors for two years until we just wanted to alter this a little bit. So now we’re hearing this. MR. TRAVER-Well, I’m sure there will be, other Board members will have comments to add, but I would say initially a couple of things, listening to you, looking at your application and hearing public comment from the people that live on that part of the lake that I think a handwritten drawing is probably not going to be adequate for a landscape plan for this area. I think it seems like it’s timely that you’re interested in developing that buffer, but I do think that, and this Board has spent a lot of time learning and training on and understanding the environmental impacts of buffering. It’s one of the major initiatives that we’ve been trying to do in the Town to protect the lake. So I think we’re going to see, and again I’m only speaking for myself at this point. We’ll have other comment, but I think, I suspect that we’re probably going to want to see a more detailed, more comprehensive plan that better matches the requirements, the Code requirements for buffering for the Town, but I’ll open it up for questions, comments from members of the Board. MR. DEEB-Do you offer the house out for rentals? MRS. BALLAS-We do. Unfortunately we do. I do not want to rent it at all. I’m originally from the area. My parents still live here. I’ve worked here my entire life. I went to Queensbury High School. We live in Boston now. I had known Steve for 10 years. He fell in love with Lake George with me, knowing me bringing him up here, and it’s been a dream for my entire family to own something on the lake, and I‘ve been lucky enough to be able to find this project and be able to have the means to do that. Unfortunately right now we don’t have the means to live there all the time or not rent it out. The goal is soon, in the next couple of years we’re going to be living at that property full time. So we will be your neighbors soon, hopefully forever, and right now we do rent it out and it is, kills me every time there’s renters in there. It’s a very personal house for me and a very personal lake for very many reasons. MR. TRAVER-A question on the septic. I understand it’s designed for a four bedroom facility. MR. BALLAS-Yes, I believe that’s the plan. MR. TRAVER-I see it’s advertised as a five bedroom. Is that an error or is it for rent as a five bedroom? MR. BALLAS-I’ll have to check with Davies on that, but we do, there is, as part of the house, there is an extra sleeping area in the house, well not sleeping area, but room that people stay if they have overflow or what not. MR. VALENTINE-Your purchase was in 2018, but the people had stated that tree removal and stuff had taken place in 2006. MRS. BALLAS-Yes, all the trees, it’s clear, we bought it clear cut, but we provided you guys all the photos of how it looked when we purchased it. How it looks now, that’s exactly how we bought it. MR. BALLAS-Yes, there’s a photo in there of the grass. That’s how it looked when we purchased it. It was just, it was a cleared lot. The house was there but the backyard had already been cleared. MR. VALENTINE-Laura, I’d ask you, if I’m looking on our agenda, on the cross references, there’s 2007, 2007, 2007, 2009, 2014, 2014. There wouldn’t have been anything caught anywhere to sit there and say that in any of those other applications that somebody would have noted that there was tree removal or not sticking to a plan? MR. TRAVER-Well, you’re speaking to the issue of unapproved development which is something that we’re increasingly concerned with. MR. VALENTINE-That’s my question is why, from 206 all the way through, with all those different appearances and permits or whatever that it wasn’t caught. 21 (Queensbury Planning Board 08/25/2020) MR. TRAVER-Well one of the issues that we face in the Town is enforcement. It’s very difficult, and Laura can attest to this, you know, her Department has finite resources, as all towns do, and enforcement unfortunately is one of the areas where that is felt. MRS. MOORE-I can interject and say that in May of 2018, I talked to our Code Compliance Officer today about this project and in May 2018 when the landscaping was installed, it was a compliant site. Everything was installed in compliance throughout the site. MR. TRAVER-As of 2018? MRS. MOORE-Yes. MR. BALLAS-Yes. We got our CO in November of 2018 and I mean if we did anything we weren’t supposed to we never would have gotten our CO. I mean we inherited this landscaping plan and we followed it to a tee. That’s why we got our CO. That’s why I’m a little confused at the comments because I thought those comments should have been directed years ago to the other. MR. TRAVER-And they probably were. MRS. BALLAS-And no trees will be taken down by us. So the few that you guys rare seeing in those photos, that’s will be on the property. MRS. MOORE-’So what they’re pointing out is that in the landscaping plan that’s in front of us, there are a few maple trees that were probably part of the original planting plan that are no longer, that you’ve identified as a grass area. So there was at some point some trees planted, and my guess is. MR. BALLAS-Yes, there was one small tree there which did not make it, that tree, but if someone really wants to re-plant that, there’s no issue. MRS. BALLAS-Anything, we’re all ears. MR. BALLAS-And we apologize about doing this. So we have the river stone there which essentially was a patio. It was a square river stone which, and we always intended to throw permeable patio block on top of it, which we did, and, you know, I think anywhere else, you know, landscaping to us we always thought as long as you’re not doing anything drastic or big you can kind of do it, but I understand now, being within 50 feet of the lake, there’s a lot more restrictions. MR. TRAVER-Right. MR. BALLAS-I mean ultimately at the end of the day all we did was put patio block on top of river stone that existed, and we’re looking to expand the grass area and add more plantings to the new berms, the buffers there. That’s really all we’re doing there. So we’re kind of shocked to learn that all this past would come out at us when honestly we came in and really thought we did a good job. We have a couple of neighbor support letters. MR. TRAVER-I think the thought is that since you are interested in updating the landscaping and the shoreline area, let’s put some thought into it and try to make it a compliant area. MR. VALENTINE-But let me go back. Laura said it was compliant. So what’s the difference between what was compliant in 2018 and today? MRS. MOORE-So if you look at this plan that’s on here, I’ll see if I can blow it up a little bit better, you’ll notice under the word “grass” there’s some other symbols that represent plantings that were planted in that, I apologize, I don’t know if it was May, but in 2018 that should have remained. The applicant is saying that those plants did not make it. MR. VALENTINE-Right, died over the winter. MR. BALLAS-Not all of them. We moved a lot of them to the existing berm. So we moved the ones around in the grass area and we want to add more to the ones that didn’t make it. MR. VALENTINE-So in effect you’re coming back at this point with a modification. MR. BALLAS-A modification to an approved. It was already, it is approved. It was conforming. We got our CO. 22 (Queensbury Planning Board 08/25/2020) MR. VALENTINE-So are there things that are missing right now on your site that should be there in the ground that are on an approved plan? MR. BALLAS-The one is the tree, I think I was like a maple tree, but when it got planted it was this big. MR. VALENTINE-So two inch caliper, three inch caliper. MR. MAGOWAN-Is this what we approved? This was what was approved in the plan. If you look real close you’ll see two little trees in there, too, and then this was before the smaller plantings went in. MR. BALLAS-Correct, no, all the plantings are in on that photo. You just can’t, they went in in November. So they went in in the winter so a lot of them didn’t, they didn’t have any buds or leaves. That’s why a lot of them didn’t make it because we were seeking to get our CO, and you know the landscaping’s usually the last to get done when you finish off a house. So some didn’t make it through that winter. It’s been through two winters, but, you know, some deer and so what we did was, what survived in that area we moved to the existing berms, and that’s why we figured we want to create. MR. MAGOWAN-You moved them to here, the upper berm. MR. BALLAS-Correct. So the upper berm, there’s two berms. They’re like nine to ten foot berms if you go up to the house. MR. MAGOWAN-Right. All right. So my question, a couple of things. I remember what we went through with this house. I remember the roof, way out of hand, and the clear cutting, it was, it was a nightmare, and I’m sorry you took it over, but I’m happy you did, but the damage was done before you owned it, and the reason I’m adamant on restoring what was here for the original plan and going back. I thank you for completing the project, but unfortunately in hindsight of pushing it to get your CO and late in the season it was kind of a, not a wise choice, and they didn’t make it and I’m sorry, but with all the destruction that was done to this property ahead of time, not by you, and I don’t have a problem with a couple of dead trees, and that does happen when you have the disturbance and the foundations. It probably got close to the roots and those trees were probably going to go anyway and it’s what you had to do, but the quality of our lake here, and I‘m sure you’ve probably seen Dr. Collins in her kayak sampling all the time, but I know she’s up and down, and for the lake and how far we’ve come, I really, I’m looking at the picture where your permeable pavers are now. That looks like wood chips. Is that wood chips around your stone? MR. BALLAS-It is wood chips which we want to plan all around it. MR. MAGOWAN-All right. Now do you know wood chips and that, you know, one of the biggest contributors to the pollutants of nitrogen are the decaying matter that’s up on the mountains and our natural forest. I mean that’s also a contributor. So one of the reasons why we don’t like the wood chips and the heavy mulches is because that nitrogen, that all breaks down and goes into the lake, and that’s why the wood chips weren’t in there but the river rock was. Also too in the winter time. MR. BALLAS-Those wood chips were all approved with this plan. MR. MAGOWAN-Were they? MR. BALLAS-So we had a square river rock, just like, we literally just put patio block over it. MR. MAGOWAN-But the river rock was just in the square. MR. BALLAS-Just the square. So all we did was put patio block over the river rock. MR. MAGOWAN-Yes, see I didn’t know about the wood chips ahead of time. MR. BALLAS-The wood chips got approved, because that was part of the original. MR. MAGOWAN-Is that still in our Codes to allow that in a buffer zone? MR. TRAVER-Well, it would be subject to review if it’s within the buffer. I mean the Code says no, but if it’s, an application is made, we can look at it. MR. MAGOWAN-But the other thing with grass and that, and in the wintertime, what you’ll have is the ground will freeze, all right, and once the ground freezes and we have our warm rainy spells, that water sheets and runs, and by having the plants in other areas to divert hopefully it can get absorbed here and there as it goes in. So it’s just, there’s a whole combination of this whole thing, and I want to thank you 23 (Queensbury Planning Board 08/25/2020) for taking over the project because it really turned out to look like a beautiful home with all that we went through to get it that way. MRS. BALLAS-Thank you. MR. MAGOWAN-And I understand you not understanding really what you did, but for myself I feel I’d like it restored to the original approved plan. Okay. I’m done. MR. TRAVER-So let me, if I could poll the Board. We have a plan, a handwritten plan, submitted by the applicant. Is this sufficient or do we need to see a re-examination of the plan and perhaps some more information? MR. SHAFER-Mr. Chairman, your first point was our having to react to a hand drawn sketch, which I think the quality of Lake George water is too important to do that. The idea of having a professional landscaping firm or whatever take a look at this and do it right, it seems to me the only approach that makes sense. MR. TRAVER-Okay. How do other Board members feel? MR. VALENTINE-The only question I have with that, and I would have suggested the same thing I think that was valid to start off with, to have that planted, but what do we have on that plan? Does that plan that’s going to be re-submitted as a modified plan reflect what was an approved plan in 2018 with what modification that the owners are proposing? Is that all we’re looking for? MR. TRAVER-Well that’s what we’re discussing. I’m not sure that’s all that I’m looking for. I think if we’re going to, if the applicant is talking about making revisions to the buffer area, I don’t know that we necessarily we need to go back merely to the last approval. I think we should take a fresh look at it. MR. SHAFER-Do we even know what the last plan consisted of? MRS. MOORE-It’s this plan that’s up here. MR. BALLAS-That’s it. Yes. We’re just overlaid that plan. MRS. MOORE-So remove the word “grass”. MR. SHAFER-I’m sorry, but I can’t make sense of that. MR. HUNSINGER-Yes. MR. BALLAS-That’s okay. I know it’s hard to read. MR. HUNSINGER-I mean even if I could read the letters, I don’t know what they represent. MR. TRAVER-Yes. So what I’m hearing from the Board, if I can summarize where I think we’re at, and you can correct me where I’m wrong. MR. DEEB-I’d like to ask them a question, too. MR. TRAVER-Go ahead. MR. DEEB-Would you be amenable to planting more trees? MR. BALLAS-Yes. We would discuss it. I mean I think, based on what we’re hearing today, it sounds like most people want that buffer back, which is, you know, fine with us, but to us, I mean, maybe, and I don’t know if you want to give us feedback on this. Perhaps we just seek approval on the patio, which was stone anyway, and if we restore back, you know, the area with the mulch and the plantings, the way this was approved, and maybe we’re just seeking approval on just putting the patio block down. I don’t know if you can give feedback on that? Because like I said this was compliant. This was approved, and if there’s a lot of push back or, you know, we don’t mind restoring it back. I guess the one thing we’d like to keep is the patio over the river stone which was a hard surface anyway. MR. TRAVER-And it looks like from this diagram, if we’re talking about the patio for a moment, and the patio is 11 feet back from the lake? MR. BALLAS-I don’t have the exact measurements on that, but it’s probably around 12 or so, 12, 15 feet from the lake. 24 (Queensbury Planning Board 08/25/2020) MR. TRAVER-Okay. MR. DEEB-So I think we need more specificity on this, you know, exact numbers and a drawing that would indicate how far it is away. MR. TRAVER-It sounds as though, and I’ll let other Board members obviously speak for themselves, but it sounds as though where we’re going is what we have before us this evening is not going to be acceptable for us. So what I would suggest is that you look at the information and we will be able to obtain the letter and some feedback, some general guidance from the Lake George Water Keeper, which is not Code, so it’s not something you’re required to follow, but it will give you some, from the environmental standpoint, some guidelines in terms of improving the impact on the lake, and the you can certainly also work with Laura to talk about putting a, I guess I would say a clearer plan. One way to do it would be to show what was last approved and so that’s sort of pre-existing, even though it wasn’t existing. You could say this is the previous approval. Here’s what we want to do, but I think for us to really be able to look at it with some comfort, it needs to be a more sophisticated presentation than this hand drawing, and understanding that your work in this shoreline area is not a small investment. It’s not a small investment in terms of the environmental impacts on the lake. So it’s worth doing right I think. Do other Board members feel comfortable with that general area? MR. HUNSINGER-Yes. MR. TRAVER-So there’s, and Laura can give some guidance on this as well, but if we don’t accept this tonight, which it sounds like we’re not going to do, there’s a couple of different ways that we can go with you forward to move forward with the project. One would be to just deny it, which sort of sets you back to Square One and you would come back with a new application. The other thing to do would be to table it, to not act on it tonight, give you an opportunity to work on it, come up with some more information for us, and come back with a revised plan to present to us with the information that we’re looking for which at least from my part would be what was the most recent approval, and then the changes that you’re proposing. So you’d have here’s what was approved. Here’s what we want to do, and with that I’ll put it out to other members of the Board. Does that sound like an approach? MR. HUNSINGER-Yes. MR. DEEB-Yes. MR. BALLAS-Just a question as well. MR. TRAVER-Sure. MR. BALLAS-We also have the opportunity, we could just re-plant to the original approved plan. correct, and it would be fine? MRS. BALLAS-The area would still be the same. The patio block would just be up off that stone, off the pea stone. MRS. MOORE-The river rock would remain river rock. MRS. BALLAS-Correct. MR. BALLAS-Yes. So there’s also the option, I know you mentioned a couple of options, but there’s also the option of just re-planting and doing everything back to the original approved plan. MRS. BALLAS-The stuff that died or that the deer ate. MRS. MOORE-It’s something that I would address with the, I would still suggest maybe tabling the application, re-approaching the Zoning Administrator and going over that detail. You’ve currently made a change to the site, so re-establishing that is part of your review. So I don’t think it’s that simple where you would just say I’m going to re-plant it the way it was. MR. TRAVER-So that’s my suggestion. I would communicate extensively with Laura. She is our resident expert on this. There is a lot of guidance offered in the Code. There’s also the Lake George Association and the Lake George Waterkeeper that can give you some guidance on that as well, and I’m sure you can come up with a plan that would be acceptable and improve the area as you intend. Do other Board members have anything to add to that? MR. MAGOWAN-No, I think that’s very good advice. MR. TRAVER-Okay. 25 (Queensbury Planning Board 08/25/2020) MR. NAVITSKY-Mr. Chairman, just one question if I may. MR. TRAVER-Sure. All right. We’ll let the Waterkeeper come up with a question, a follow up. Yes, sir. MR. NAVITSKY-You know I followed this project, I think my first letter was when my daughter was one month old. She’s now in eighth grade, and I never remember a patio being approved. I’ve followed , so I’d really appreciate if that plan can be provided. I don’t remember a patio ever being. MR. TRAVER-Obviously we don’t have that in front of us either, but it’s all part of the record. MR. NAVITSKY-Yes, we can FOIL that. MR. TRAVER-And the applicant doesn’t necessarily have to decide that they want to go back to the prior approval. They may still come forward with a modification, but it will be, we’re going to be tabling it, so it will be coming back up, and we’ll leave the public hearing open. MR. NAVITSKY-I appreciate that. Thank you. MR. TRAVER-Sure. So, Laura, do you have any other input? MRS. MOORE-No. I think the application could be tabled to the first meeting in October or the second meeting. It is up to the Board. MR. TRAVER-Okay. Do you think that’s sufficient time? MRS. MOORE-It is a question for the applicant. They have to submit revised information by September th 15. MR. TRAVER-Yes, if I could ask you to come back up on the mic again. So the next step in the process, for us as a Board, is to do a resolution tabling your project, which means we’re just setting it aside for the time being, so that you can go back and do some more work on it with Laura, with whoever you can reach out to, the Waterkeeper, you know, whatever, get some input. There’s plenty of information in the Town Code, and then come back to us. So the date that we table it to is generally a specific date. So the next step is to decide when we would have you come back, which means how long is it going to take you to prepare the information that we’re looking for? Laura just suggested the first or second meeting in October, which generally means that you would have to submit the information that would come to us for th our review before that meeting by September 15. Do you think you can do that, or do you need some more time? MR. BALLAS-So we actually, we’re going to have our landscaper do this drawing, but the submission deadline we have for it, he just couldn’t get to it. It’s obviously their business season now. So that’s two weeks away. So maybe if we could get a few more weeks. I think that would help. th MRS. MOORE-So it would move into the November meeting. So you’d have until October 15 to submit information. MR. BALLAS-Yes. That would be sufficient for sure. MR. TRAVER-Okay. MR. MAGOWAN-We don’t want to push the plantings again. I don’t think you want to do that again. MR. BALLAS-We’d have to wait until the Spring. We’ll wait ‘til the Spring on that one. MR. TRAVER-So in November, Laura, is there any elbow room? Is there any preference as to the first or second meeting? MRS. MOORE-I would suggest the first meeting. MR. TRAVER-The first meeting. Okay. So, Mr. Secretary, that would be November 17. MR. DEEB-You’d have to take a look at that rental, clarification on the rental agreement, whether it’s five bedroom, four bedroom. I think that causes some confusion also. MR. BALLAS-Sure, yes, and just for the record, I don’t know the exact number of bedrooms approval on the septic., I’ll look into that and I can certainly bring it to the next meeting to clarify. 26 (Queensbury Planning Board 08/25/2020) MR. TRAVER-And, Laura, to help us with some more information, I know that the Waterkeeper has submitted a letter and some drawings, would you, could you reach out to the Waterkeeper and see if you can get that and give that to us as well just for some guidance? Thank you. MRS. MOORE-I don’t have that yet Yes. MR. TRAVER-Anything else from members of the Board before we entertain a motion to table? Okay. I guess we’re ready to entertain a tabling motion. RESOLUTION TO TABLE SP MODIFICATION # 29-2020 CAMP KNOX, LLC/BALLAS 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 revisions to an existing landscaping plan. Replacing an area of approximately 100 sq. ft. permeable patio area with 150 sq. ft. permeable patio area and landscaping at shoreline. The site has an existing 2,706 sq. ft. (footprint) home. Pursuant to Chapter 179-6-050 of the Zoning Ordinance, modification of an existing site plan and hard surfacing within 50 ft. of shoreline shall be subject to Planning Board review and approval. MOTION TO TABLE SITE PLAN MODIFICATION 29-2020 CAMP KNOX, LLC/BALLAS, Introduced by David Deeb who moved for its adoption, thth Tabled to the November 17, 2020 Planning Board meeting with a deadline date of October 15, 2020 for submissions. th Seconded by Brad Magowan. Duly adopted this 25 day of August, 2020, by the following vote: AYES: Mr. Hunsinger, Mr. Magowan, Mr. Valentine, Mr. Deeb, Ms. White, Mr. Shafer, Mr. Traver NOES: NONE MR. TRAVER-Okay. So again, between now and then please reach out to Laura. She’s going to be your guidance in terms of steps coming forward, and we’ll look forward to seeing your project in November. MR. BALLAS-Okay. Thank you. MR. MAGOWAN-Thank you. MR. TRAVER-Next under New Business we have Paul Lejuez. This is Site Plan 33-2020. SITE PLAN NO. 33-2020 SEQR TYPE: TYPE II. PAUL LEJUEZ AGENT(S): STUDIO A – KRISTEN CATELLIER. OWNER(S): SAME AS APPLICANT. ZONING: WR. LOCATION: 16 HONEYSUCKLE LANE APPLICANT PROPOSES TO UPGRADE A 2,000 SQ. FT. SHORELINE AREA AND REMOVAL OF VEGETATION AND PLANTING NEW VEGETATION, BOULDERS AND UPDATING EXISTING PATHWAY. THE SITE HAS AN EXISTING 2,831 SQ. FT. (FOOTPRINT) HOME ON THE OTHER SIDE OF THE ROAD. PURSUANT TO CHAPTER 19-6- 050 & 179-8-040 OF THE ZONING ORDINANCE, HARD SURFACING WITHIN 50 FT. OF SHORELINE AND SHORELINE BUFFERS SHALL BE SUBJECT TO PLANNING BOARD REVIEW AND APPROVAL. CROSS REFERENCE: SP 43-2010 BOATHOUSE, 2015-424 COMBINE PARCELS, BP 2015-484 RES. DEMO, RC 246-2015 SF CONST, SP 34-2020. WARREN CO. REFERRAL: AUGUST 2020. SITE INFORMATION: APA, LGPC, CEA. LOT SIZE: .61 ACRES. TAX MAP NO. 226.19-2-21. SECTION: 179-6-050, 179-8-040. JEFF ANTHONY, REPRESENTING APPLICANT, PRESENT MR. TRAVER-Laura? MRS. MOORE-This applicant proposes to upgrade approximately 2000 square feet of shoreline area, removal of vegetation, planting new vegetation, including some boulders and updating existing pathway. MR. TRAVER-Okay. Thank you. Good evening. MR. ANTHONY-Good evening. My name’s Jeff Anthony, not Kirsten Catellier as advertised. Kirsten is president of Studio A. I’m the principle landscape architect. She had a newborn three weeks ago so she’s taken a few weeks off. So I’m representing her indirectly. The Lejuez’s, they’re proposing to re-vegetate their shoreline parcel around the lake between Assembly Point Road and the shoreline. The parcel is currently developed with a boathouse and docks and a path to get down to the lake, from the road to the lake, and the proposal is to not remove any trees. The trees that are there will all remain there. There’s a variety of trees at their place. We’ve calculated and inventoried the vegetation that exists and we’ve given 27 (Queensbury Planning Board 08/25/2020) you an inventory of that in our application. It’s mostly vines and shrubs that are in a variety of state of conditions of repair. Our proposal is to remove them and replace them with all brand new indigenous plant materials, and we plan to re-vegetate the entire area with new plant materials for a couple of reasons . One is they use the shoreline for recreation and sitting around, and they’d like to have nice vegetation and all new indigenous materials. Secondly they would like to develop some privacy from the street and the road. They get road noise. They get people walking along the road, and they’d like to increase the buffer along the edge of the street so they can have some privacy. Now this is going to do a couple of things. One is that it will improve from the lake view some visibility past the street to the houses beyond as we’re proposing arborvitae and buffer along the edge and we’re proposing replacement of all the shrub materials in that area of the lake, of the site between the road edge and the shoreline. Now in addition to what’s happened there, there is some existing erosion problems happening near the shoreline where we’re repairing the erosion problems by the addition of some filter fabric and stone and boulders that will be put in place to correct that problem. That should assist in mitigating runoff, mitigating sedimentation, and also improving the appearance of it. I’ve got Aaron Roberts here. He’s a landscape architect for the company. If you have technical questions, he did the inventory of the existing materials, and he did the proposed planting plan, and so we’re available to talk to you about that if you want. One other thing t that’s happening here which is kind of interesting is 16 Honeysuckle Lane really fronts onto Assembly Point Road, and it’s really 223 Assembly Point Road next door to 219 Assembly Point Road. Those two lots are owned by brothers, and they have like a little family compound there. So if you look at the site plan you’ll see that there’s an existing path that goes from 219 to 223 along the shoreline. That’s important to the family because there’s no improvements being proposed on it. It’s there, it exists, but it assists them between traversing between the two lakefront parcels so that they don’t have to go through the road, the street or along the street to get back down to the other one. So they do recreate together. They do do things together on the lakefront. So that’s an interesting thing. It’s no part of our proposal. It just exists and we’d like you to know that. So if you have any questions for us, we’d like to answer them. MR. TRAVER-Okay. Questions, comments from members of the Board? MR. HUNSINGER-How do you get rid of Virginia Creeper? MR. ANTHONY-That’s a very difficult plant to get rid of. MR. HUNSINGER-Yes. MR. ANTHONY-You have to dig it right up. MR. HUNSINGER-It was part of the proposal. MR. TRAVER-I was thinking the same thing. MR. ANTHONY-We’re not proposing to use any chemicals or anything like that. No pesticides, chemicals, herbicides or anything used in this application. MR. HUNSINGER-I mean because if you look, I don’t live far from Town Hall, but you can watch, especially when you drive down Blind Rock Road, you can see how it has gradually taken over as the predominant green, and vegetation along the side of the road, and it’s grown up all the trees and all the telephone poles and all the street signs. It’s really taken over, and just in the last few years. I mean you can literally watch it as it moves. AARON ROBERTS MR. ROBERTS-Just continued maintenance, dealing with it as it grows up the tree so it doesn’t strangle the tree. MR. HUNSINGER-Yes. MR. TRAVER-Other questions, comments? There is a public hearing on this application. I’ll remind the public if they would like to comment on this application, Site Plan 33-2020 by phone they can call 518-761- 8225, and, Laura, I’ll ask if there are any written comments? PUBLIC HEARING OPENED MRS. MOORE-There are no written comments. MR. TRAVER-Okay. Is there anyone in the audience that wanted to address the Planning Board on this application? Yes, sir. CHRIS NAVITSKY 28 (Queensbury Planning Board 08/25/2020) MR. NAVITSKY-Thank you. Chris Navitsky, Lake George Waterkeeper. I’d like to thank the Board for the opportunity, and when you first look at this it, it looks like a benefit to the lake, and I’m sure there’s a lot of good to that, but I think there’s some questions that we have, especially when we see 4,000 square feet of disturbance on the shoreline. We understand the desire of the project is to eliminate erosion and improve the plant health. A couple of observations. Erosion is a result of stormwater runoff, and I think that was stated. Without addressing that, the erosion will continue, and I think if we put in mulch, or mulch is put in, you know, you could see bigger impacts. So I’m just wondering if there can be any stormwater management or how that may be addressed to stop the washout. Secondly, the existing shoreline appears to be well vegetated. The question was answered on tree removal, but it just seems like a lot of disturbance right on the shoreline. So questions we had was, I think they touched it, they’ll be removed by hand, I think. Methods and equipment for removal of vegetation. We were going to ask about herbicides for removal. They said no chemicals. If that could just be a condition if that goes forward. One thing, details are missing on boulder placement. They want to extend boulders down towards the shoreline. We just weren’t sure on that. Is that going below the water line? Is there going to be material imported, top soil, things like that to replace what may have been eroded , and then also some erosion control measures, because as they said, they will be I believe physically removing the plants. There’s going to be exposed soil, so we need erosion control on this just to protect any washout. So we just felt that those needed to be addressed before the plan can be approved. Thank you very much. MR. TRAVER-Thank you. Is there anyone else that wanted to address the Planning Board? Yes, sir. JOHN CAFFRY MR. CAFFRY-I’m John Caffry from Caffry & Flower in Glens Falls. I’m representing John Kelly who’s the neighbor about four or five houses up the street, shares the same stretch of shoreline with the applicants, and we have a number of questions and concerns about the proposal. It’s commendable that they want to approve the shoreline, but we’re not entirely sure it’s really an improvement. There’s no topography provided with this application. It’s very steep. It’s practically a cliff, 15 feet high. There’s not much holding up the Town road across the top there, and so any erosion, anything they can do to reduce the current erosion and prevent erosion from what they do is going to be very important, and like Chris said, if there’s an erosion problem now, if we don’t stop where that water’s coming from, it’s just going to happen again. It doesn’t matter what you plant there. The same thing along the shoreline. Erosion happens on the shoreline when the waves crash up and erode the soil. I’m not sure that just putting large boulders on top of the dirt is going to solve the problem because the waves work their way in along the riprap along the shore and erode the dirt from underneath. So I think they really ought to, before they do this they ought to be asked to figure out where is this stormwater coming from that’s eroding their land. The question that’s not answered by this is why is the existing vegetation not in good shape? If the lake conditions and the soil conditions are not appropriate for growing healthy undergrowth there, how is it going to be any different just because you put different plants in? They’re going to suffer from the same effects of whatever is causing the existing vegetation to not do very well, and then if you plant a big, thick hedge along the road, that’s going to block the sunlight from coming in from the west, which half the day it may make even less light there for the plants. What we don’t know is are the plants they’re proposing suitable for understory or are those plants that belong in the sunlight? Some plants can do okay in the understory, some not, but being as it’s the understory, you’re not going to have really thick, lush undergrowth anyway. It’s just not going to work. So that I think needs more attention from a specialist in whatever field that is, an arborist or whatever. The other concern about putting an arborvitae hedge along the road is it’s a very narrow road. You barely can get two cars by there, and anytime you go up there on a nice day there’s people walking, they’re pushing baby carriages, they’re illegally driving golf carts. There’s a lot of people on that road, and anything that narrows it by putting a hedge up against it is not going to help. It’s just going to make it worse, and arborvitae have a tendency to do that. They expand and they start blocking things, and this came up in the last application. They talked about the things that were planted and then they died and they didn’t replace them. As I read the Code, the property owner is supposed to post a bond on these types of applications so if the plantings die, they’ll have to replace them, and if not the bond is there to do that. I see no mention of that in the application. Chris already mentioned the mulch. Mulch along the shoreline tends to wash into the lake. So I think what really needs to be done is for there needs to be a more detailed examination of the plants, of the appropriateness of the plants, whether they’re really going to improve the situation or if they’re just going to do it harm, and I think you ought to have the Town’s engineers review it for the stormwater issues and the shoreline erosion issues. That’s it. MR. TRAVER-Thank you. MR. MAGOWAN-While we’re waiting here, on the arborvitaes on the road. MR. CAFFRY-I had one other point I wanted to make. The last applicants mentioned the deer. A lot of what they’re proposing to plant, the deer on Assembly Point are just going to hammer them. The lilies, things like that, I know from personal experience, the deer are just going to hammer them. I think they 29 (Queensbury Planning Board 08/25/2020) really need to look at what the deer are going to need or not eat. It isn’t much. They’ll eat anything. They’ll eat the arborvitae. MR. TRAVER-Yes, it’s like candy to them. Yes, sir. JONATHAN LEJUEZ MR. LEJUEZ-I’m one of the two brothers. One of the questions raised, there are probably others I can address, but two of them, placement of the boulders, I think they’re pictured in the detailed drawing that we provided, but it’s in between the arborvitae, for one. Number Two, as for maintenance and overgrowth, I mean we have the same landscaper who is putting forward this project to maintain all of the landscaping, and as for the arborvitae, I mean we, actually I think it’s the Kelly’s design that we kind of copied as for the arborvitae being along the road, and as for the vegetation between the road and the docks, we took our presumed expert’s advice on what would make the most sense for vegetation there. So if anyone has specific suggestions there we’ll take all that on board, but we just went with what suggestions were made to us based on looking out for what’s best for the lake. MR. TRAVER-Thank you. MRS. MOORE-Could we have your name for the record. MR. LEJUEZ-Jonathan, and it’s Lejuez. Tricky. MR. TRAVER-Okay. Thank you. We haven’t gotten any phone calls for public comment. Do we have any written comments, Laura? MRS. MOORE-There are no written comments. MR. TRAVER-Okay. Well, we’ll close the public hearing. PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED MR. TRAVER-Follow up questions from the Board? MR. DEEB-Give them a chance to respond. MR. ANTHONY-Can we respond to a couple of those? MR. TRAVER-Sure. Absolutely. MR. ANTHONY-First off, just to assure everybody. There’ll be no machine work. It’s all hand work. We don’t even want to think of getting a machine in here of any kind. So it’s all hand work being done. If you look at the photos for the erosion that happens here, it’s little pockets here and there. There’s no channel, there’s no stream way, there’s no drainage.. There’s no drain way that’s really affecting this piece of property. There’s no work being proposed below the mean high water line. Everything is above the mean high water line. If we were proposing anything below the mean high water line, it would be a joint DEC/Army Corps permit for that, and so there is none. We’re not bringing in any amended soils or amended materials. The plant materials that we selected are native to the area. They’re indigenous to the area, and they’ll grow in this soil condition, and they’ll grow in the shade conditions that are there. The hedge on the lakeside, we’re proposing a Green Giant arborvitae. The deer don’t eat the Green Giant arborvitae. That’s one material that they don’t go after. MR. VALENTINE-Can you send me something on that, Jeff, to say that’s true and I’ll plant it in my yard. MR. SHAFER-They like hosta. Don’t plant hosta. MR. VALENTINE-My arborvitae look like lollipops. MR. TRAVER-Yes. MR. ANTHONY-And if you need a bond for this, I’m sure that’s something that can be negotiated . IF the plant materials happen to die, they can be replaced. We understand that that’s a guarantee for the Town, to assure this remains in this condition for the future. So bonding is not really a necessary problem. I’d have to talk to my client about that, but if t hat’s a condition that you’d request, that’s certainly a condition we can entertain. The buffer is not going on the road, on the shoulder. It’s going on the Lejuez’ property. It’s not going to be narrowing the street at all. So it’s being placed off the street. So those are my only really comments back. 30 (Queensbury Planning Board 08/25/2020) MR. TRAVER-What about the erosion issue? The changes you make do you feel are going to reduce the erosion? MR. ANTHONY-We’re just patching up a few spots that we see there’s a little soil exposed, and by putting in some filter fabric and putting some stones on it, I think that’s sufficient, and again, if the Town has a problem with their roadway and the stormwater drainage on their roadway, that’s something the Town should be addressing. MR. TRAVER-Yes, that’s something we’ve been talking about for a long time. Questions, comments from members of the Board? MR. SHAFER-During the implementation of the planting, how will you prevent any siltation from getting into the lake? MR. ANTHONY-I forgot, that’s another comment that was made. We will be putting erosion control devices along the shoreline edge. It’ll be a combination of hay bale backed up by filter fabric. We might even use some silt socks. MR. SHAFER-Okay. Thank you. MR. HUNSINGER-I mean it’s really amazing, especially this time of year, how much erosion you can get in a short period of time. Near our house in a neighborhood they took down a bunch of large trees out of their front yard, and they brought in some fill to level out the yard, and they put in the silt fence. Well big heavy rains that we’ve had the last few days, a section of the silt fence failed and there was silt for three houses down the edge of the road I mean it was just unbelievable how much silt came out, and when you looked at the lawn you wouldn’t have known it, but boy it was in the road. MR. ANTHONY-Especially when the site is under construction and not stable. We would have to have great erosion control measures there. MR. HUNSINGER-Yes. MR. TRAVER-A question for Laura. There was talk about something in the Code about bonding. Are you familiar with that? MR. HUNSINGER-I’m very familiar with that. Now that you mention it, because I didn’t want to bring it up. It’s in the Code, and it’s always been in the Code. I’ve been on the Board for 20 years. We’ve talked about it a few times, but we’ve never required it of anyone, to the best of my knowledge. It’s in the Code that we can ask for it, but it’s not something that we’ve ever done. We came pretty close on a couple of projects where there was, and I can’t remember what the project was, but we had a particular property owner that had been cited several times, and was taken to court a couple of times by the Town for violation of site plan, and basically unapproved changes to the site plan, and we were going to require it of him, and then sort of at the last minute, and I can’t remember why we didn’t ask for it. Maybe the attorneys could comment on why we didn’t. We’ve never done it. MR. TRAVER-Perhaps not this one, but I can think of at least another application we talked about this evening that might be worthy of consideration. MR. HUNSINGER-I think it’s always a good conversation and good discussion. MR. TRAVER-Yes. MRS. MOORE-If I could just add a comment. Typically because it’s under site plan, if something fails, some aspect, they’re still required to re-plant that or replace those items. So whether you discuss a bond, as part of the site plan if the plant dies, then it’s supposed to be re-planted. MR. TRAVER-Right. MRS. MOORE-And that would be a Code enforcement item, but I don’t have a preference as to a bond. MR. TRAVER-Okay. Thank you. I guess my feeling is, in this particular case, it appears the applicant is making a significant investment in what they believe to be an improvement in the vegetation. So I don’t personally feel that a bond is needed. MR. HUNSINGER-Well, I think one of the things that he said was that the landscaper who would be doing the installation is also the landscaper that maintains the property. So there’s a vested interest by him to make sure that what he does is quality work. He’s there to maintain it. 31 (Queensbury Planning Board 08/25/2020) MR. TRAVER-Yes. Good point. MR. ANTHONY-Chris, I do believe that you’re right. I believe that Gould’s Landscaping is the contractor I think and they will do the installation but I believe they also, if I’m not mistaken, I think I heard that they do the maintenance also. MR. HUNSINGER-That’s what he said. , Yes. MR. ANTHONY-I noticed his work all around the lake. They do a lot of projects that we’re involved with. They do the initial landscaping, then they apply maintenance right on top of it also. MS. WHITE-One more quick question. You mentioned no chemical use. Is there any intentions of using chemicals for anything? MR. ROBERTS-No. MR. ANTHONY-And again, the question about maintaining the other plant materials that are not wanted. With Gould’s lawn and landscaping in there on a regular basis maintaining stuff, they’ll be on top of it because everything they do they have to be responsible for. MR. TRAVER-Okay. Does the Board feel comfortable moving forward? Okay. I believe we have a draft resolution. RESOLUTION APPROVING SP 33-2020 PAUL LEJUEZ The applicant has submitted an application to the Planning Board for Site Plan approval pursuant to Article 9 of the Town zoning Ordinance for: Applicant proposes to upgrade a 2,000 sq. ft. shoreline area and removal of vegetation and planting new vegetation, boulders and updating existing pathway. The site has an existing 2,831 sq. ft. (footprint) home on the other side of the road. Pursuant to Chapter 179-6-050 & 179-8-040 of the Zoning Ordinance, hard surfacing within 50 ft. of shoreline and shoreline buffers 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 08/25/2020 and continued the public hearing to 08/25/2020, when it was closed, The Planning Board has reviewed the application materials submitted by the applicant and all comments made at the public hearing and submitted in writing through and including 08/25/2020; 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 33-2020 PAUL LEJUEZ; 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, , n traffic, o. commercial alterations/ construction details, p floor plans, q. soil logs, r. construction/demolition disposal s. snow removal The approval is valid for one (1) year from the date of approval. You are responsible for requesting an extension of approval before the one (1) year time frame has expired if you have not yet applied for a building permit or commenced significant site work. 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; 32 (Queensbury Planning Board 08/25/2020) 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) Site Plan to include erosion control measures. th Motion seconded by Jamie White. Duly adopted this 25day of August, 2020 by the following vote: MRS. MOORE-I’d like to add one additional item, that the plans be updated with the erosion control plan so that it’s on the final plans. MR. ANTHONY-Yes, we’ll be glad to do that and we’ll put the details for that right on the drawing when we submit it. AYES: Mr. Shafer, Mr. Hunsinger, Mr. Magowan, Mr. Valentine, Mr. Deeb, Ms. White, Mr. Traver NOES: NONE MR. TRAVER-You’re all set. MR. ANTHONY-Thank you. I think we’ll stand here for the next one, too. MR. TRAVER-Okay. The next one is Jonathan Lejuez, Site Plan 34-2020. SITE PLAN NO. 34-2020 SEQR TYPE: TYPE II. JONATHAN LEJUEZ. AGENT(S): STUDIO A – KRISTEN CATELLIER. OWNER(S): SAME AS APPLICANT. ZONING: WR. LOCATION: 219 ASSEMBLY POINT RD. APPLICANT PROPOSES TO UPGRADE A 1,800 SQ. FT. SHORELINE AREA WITH REMOVAL OF VEGETATION AND PLANTING NEW VEGETATION, BOULDERS, AND UPDATING EXISTING PATHWAY. THE SITE HAS AN EXISTING 1,552 SQ. FT. (FOOTPRINT) HOME ON THE OTHER SIDE OF THE STREET. PURSUANT TO CHAPTER 179- 6-050 & 179-8-040 OF THE ZONING ORDINANCE, HARD SURFACING WITHIN 50 FT. OF SHORELINE AND SHORELINE BUFFERS SHALL BE SUBJECT TO PLANNING BOARD REVIEW AND APPROVAL. SP 51-2018, AV 50-2018m, 96645-5372 RES. DEMO., 96665-5393 SF CONST., SP 33-2020. WARREN CO. REFERRAL: AUGUST 2020. SITE INFORMATION: APA, LGPC, CEA. LOT SIZE: .35 ACRES. TAX MAP NO. 226.19-2-20. SECTION: 179-6-050, 179-8-040. JEFF ANTHONY, REPRESENTING APPLICANT, PRESENT MR. TRAVER-Laura? MRS. MOORE-This application is an upgrade of the shoreline to 1,800 square feet with removal of vegetation and planting new vegetation, boulders and updating existing pathway. MR. TRAVER-Okay. Thank you. MR. ANTHONY-Mr. Chairman, how would you like us to handle this? Because it would be the exact same presentation that this Board heard. MR. TRAVER-Yes, this is the adjoining property and you’re proposing the same modification using the same methodology as discussed previously? MR. ANTHONY-Yes. This parcel is south of the one we just discussed. MR. TRAVER-Okay. MR. MAGOWAN-And the path is going to stay. MR. TRAVER-Right. AARON ROBERTS MR. ROBERTS-Correct. MR. ANTHONY-Yes. MR. TRAVER-Any differences in methodology or anything regarding this? 33 (Queensbury Planning Board 08/25/2020) MR. ANTHONY-The purpose of it is exactly the same. Just some privacy, create a landscape that is more touchable by human beings when they’re using it, replace scrubby vegetation with more groomed vegetation, patch up a few erosion control areas, and take down no trees. Just remove the shrub vegetation and replace it with indigenous, natural materials. Pretty much the same plant materials that we just discussed. Again the walkway remains as a convenience for the two brothers and the family so that they don’t have to go out onto Assembly Point Road to go back and forth while they recreate at the lake. I think that pretty much summarizes it, Mr. Chairman. MR. TRAVER-Okay. Thank you, and I’ll also remind the public perhaps viewing us on the YouTube channel that if you wish to make public comment and you’re not in attendance, you may call us at 518-761- 8225 and ask the Board if they have any follow up questions or comments? This is evidently the adjoining parcel. So it is a separate application, but it’s the same, essentially the same project. MR. ANTHONY-Mr. Chairman, if you want me to reiterate some of the conditions we talked about, I can. No machine work, all handwork on this project. No use of pesticides or herbicides or anything like that. No work below the mean high water line. It’s all above mean high water line. The same thing about the placement of the arborvitaes. They’re not going to be placed in a manner that will obstruct Assembly Point Road. They’ll be off the road. They’ll be on the applicant’s property. They’ll be the Green Giant arborvitaes, not a food source for the deer, and that’s the significant ones. MR. SHAFER-The same erosion control? MR. ANTHONY-Erosion control, again, we will show the erosion control at the shoreline for the period during construction and immediately following construction it will remain in place under everything is stabilized. MR. TRAVER-Okay. Are there any written comments, Laura? PUBLIC HEARING OPENED MRS. MOORE-There are no written comments. MR. TRAVER-Okay. We’ve received no phone calls. Is there anyone in the audience who wants to address the Planning Board on this application? I’m not seeing any. We’ll close the public hearing. PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED MR. TRAVER-The extra condition to the draft that you requested on the first application should be on this one as well. RESOLUTION APPROVING SP # 34-2020 JONATHAN LEJUEZ The applicant has submitted an application to the Planning Board for Site Plan approval pursuant to Article 9 of the Town zoning Ordinance for: Applicant proposes to upgrade a 1,800 sq. ft. shoreline area with removal of vegetation and planting new vegetation, boulders and updating existing pathway. The site has an existing 1,552 sq. ft. (footprint) home on the other side of the street. Pursuant to Chapter 179- 6-050 & 179-8-040 of the Zoning Ordinance, hard surfacing within 50 ft. of shoreline and shoreline buffers 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 08/25/2020 and continued the public hearing to 08/25/2020, when it was closed, The Planning Board has reviewed the application materials submitted by the applicant and all comments made at the public hearing and submitted in writing through and including 08/25/2020; 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 34-2020 JONATHAN LEJUEZ; Introduced by David Deeb who moved for its adoption; Per the draft provided by staff conditioned upon the following conditions: 34 (Queensbury Planning Board 08/25/2020) 1) Waivers request granted: g. site lighting, h. signage, j. stormwater, , n traffic, o. commercial alterations/ construction details, p floor plans, q. soil logs, r. construction/demolition disposal s. snow removal. 2) The approval is valid for one (1) year from the date of approval. You are responsible for requesting an extension of approval before the one (1) year time frame has expired if you have not yet applied for a building permit or commenced significant site work. 3) 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) Erosion control measures to be included on the Site Plan. th Motion seconded by Jamie White. Duly adopted this 25 day of August, 2020 by the following vote: AYES: Mr. Hunsinger, Mr. Magowan, Mr. Valentine, Mr. Deeb, Ms. White, Mr. Shafer, Mr. Traver NOES: NONE MR. TRAVER-You’re all set. MR. ANTHONY-Thank you very much. MR. MAGOWAN-Looking at the percentage of plants between the two properties, it’s kind of amazing. Did anybody see that? MR. ROBERTS-It’s not a count. It’s just a percentage of the existing. MR. TRAVER-Before we adjourn, I just wanted to report to the Planning Board that before our meeting this evening we had a meeting of the Planning & Zoning Technology Committee to talk about some of the technology that we’ve been working on in the Town, specifically the IPad, what we have come to call the IPad project and some other ideas going forward. I think we had a good discussion with Laura. We have some questions for her to answer for us, and we commented on some of the software we found useful during the brief period that we were actually able to use the Town provided IPads and I’ll be writing a report, submitting that to members of the Committee and to the Town. So that’s all I have. Does anyone have anything else? I’ll entertain a motion to adjourn. MR. SHAFER-So moved. MOTION TO ADJOURN THE QUEENSBURY PLANNING BOARD MEETING OF AUGUST 25, 2020, Introduced by John Shafer who moved for its adoption, seconded by Chris Hunsinger: th Duly adopted this 25 day of August, 2020, by the following vote: AYES: Mr. Hunsinger, Mr. Magowan, Mr. Valentine, Mr. Deeb, Ms. White, Mr. Shafer, Mr. Traver NOES: NONE MR. TRAVER- We stand adjourned. Thanks, everybody. On motion meeting was adjourned. RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED, Stephen Traver, Chairman 35