Loading...
09-22-2020 (Queensbury Planning Board 09/22/2020) QUEENSBURY PLANNING BOARD MEETING SECOND REGULAR MEETING SEPTEMBER 22, 2020 INDEX Site Plan No. 44-2019 The Glen at Hiland Meadows 1. REQUEST FOR EXTENSION Tax Map No. 296.8-1-3 Subdivision Mod. 6-2019 Barry & Jacqueline Lashinky 2. REQUEST FOR EXTENSION Tax Map No. 289.8-1-39 Site Plan No. 70-2014 James Varano 2. REQUEST FOR EXTENSION Tax Map No. 296.13-1-59 Site Plan No. 37-2020 CKT Enterprises, LLC 6. RE-AFFIRM APPROVAL Tax Map No. 302.7-1-18 Site Plan No. 41-2020 William & Kathleen Bosy 8. Tax Map No. 239.12-2-16 Site Plan Mod. 35-2020 Sherwood Acres Construction 8. Tax Map No. 289.11-1-27 Site Plan Mod. 38-2020 Hudson Headwaters Health Network 17. Tax Map No. 308.16-2-2.2 Site Plan No. 39-2020 Hudson Headwaters Health Network 20. Tax Map No. 309.7-1-54, 55, 58, 59, 60, & 61 Site Plan No. 40-2020 Adirondack Imaging 24. Tax Map No. 309.13-2-31.113 TOWN BOARD RE: Local Law to amend Queensbury Town Code 32. RECOMMENDATION to establish renewable energy systems and facilities regulations 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 09/22/2020) QUEENSBURY PLANNING BOARD MEETING SECOND REGULAR MEETING SEPTEMBER 22, 2020 7:00 P.M. MEMBERS PRESENT STEPHEN TRAVER, CHAIRMAN CHRIS HUNSINGER, VICE CHAIRMAN DAVID DEEB, SECRETARY JAMIE WHITE BRAD MAGOWAN JOHN SHAFER MICHAEL VALENTINE LAND USE PLANNER-LAURA MOORE STENOGRAPHER-MARIA GAGLIARDI MR. TRAVER-Good evening, ladies and gentlemen. Welcome to the Town of Queensbury Planning Board nd meeting for Tuesday, September 22, 2020. This is our second meeting for the month of September. This th is our 13 meeting this year, and this is our ninth meeting under the new Pandemic procedures for the Town Planning Board. I’d like to draw your attention to the illuminated exit signs. In the event that we have an emergency, that is the way out. If you have an electronic device, a cell phone or other electronic device, if you would either turn it off or turn the ringer off so it doesn’t interrupt our proceedings. I’d also like to draw attention for members of the public that may be viewing this meeting on the Town YouTube live website, every application that we have before us this evening does have an option for a public hearing that we will be exercising, and if you wish to, when they come up, if you wish to make public comment via telephone and you are not here in person, you may do so by calling 518-761-8225, and I’ll try to remember to remind people of that number at every public hearing. We have a number of Administrative Items before we get to our regular agenda this evening. One item that we’re going to be moving to the end of our agenda is an item that we began discussing last week which is a recommendation to the Queensbury Town Board for adoption of Local Law to amend the Queensbury Town Code to establish renewable energy systems and facilities regulations. We had requested some additional time to study some of the information and documents associated with that recommendation and we moved it from last week to tonight and so we’ll be discussing that after our regular agenda. We also have Site Plan 44-2019, The Glen at Hiland Meadows, requesting a one year extension. ADMINISTRATIVE ITEM: SITE PLAN 44-2019 THE GLEN AT HILAND MEADOWS REQUESTS A ONE YEAR EXTENSION. MR. TRAVER-Laura? MRS. MOORE-They are still working out information with the Freshwater Wetlands and the Army Corps and due to COVID that’s been very slow. So that letter is requesting a one year extension. MR. TRAVER-Okay. And I believe we have a draft resolution for that. RESOLUTION GRANTING A ONE YEAR EXTENSION SP # 44-2019 FWW 4-2019 THE GLEN The applicant has submitted an application to the Planning Board: The applicant proposes three projects for the Glen at Hiland Meadows. Proposed is a 20,897 sq. ft. (footprint) two story 41,794 sq. ft. (floor area) addition to the main building with 28 independent living units. Also proposed is a 5,016 sq. ft. (footprint) single story wellness center addition to the main building. Separately, a 25,268 sq. ft. (footprint) single story new building for a memory care facility for 30 residents. Property also includes associated site work for the project. Project occurs in an existing PUD and The Glen at Hiland Meadows Health Facility. Pursuant to Chapter 179-3-040 & Chapter 94 of the Zoning Ordinance, new commercial construction shall be subject to Planning Board review and approval. Applicant is requesting a one year extension. The Planning Board approved Site Plan 44-2019 & Freshwater Wetlands Permit 4-2019 The Glen at Hiland Meadows, Inc. on 10/15/2020. MOTION TO APPROVE A ONE YEAR EXTENSION FOR SITE PLAN 44-2019 AND FRESHWATER WETLANDS PERMIT 4-2019 THE GLEN AT HILAND MEADOWS, INC. Introduced by David Deeb who moved for its adoption, seconded by Brad Magowan: nd Duly adopted this 22day of September 2020 by the following vote: 2 (Queensbury Planning Board 09/22/2020) AYES: Mr. Deeb, Ms. White, Mr. Shafer, Mr. Hunsinger, Mr. Magowan, Mr. Valentine, Mr. Traver NOES: NONE MR. TRAVER-Next also under Administrative Items we have subdivision modification 6-2019 for Barry & Jacqueline Lashinsky, also requesting a one year extension. SUBDIVISION MODIFICATION 6-2019 BARRY & JACQUELINE LASHINSKY REQUEST A ONE YEAR EXTENSION. MR. TRAVER-Laura? MRS. MOORE-Again, due to COVID, they’ve had a problem with signatures, so they’re requesting a one year extension as well. MR. TRAVER-Okay. Any discussion on that request? I believe we have a draft resolution. RESOLUTION GRANTING A ONE YEAR EXTENSION SUB MOD # 6-2019 LASHINSKY A subdivision application has been made to modify an existing subdivision “Imperial Acres” (April 1990). The application has been revised to show 8 lots where seven lots are residential and one lot is for stormwater management. The stormwater management has been updated in regards to grading and adding basins. The project has been further revised to address lot line adjustment with adjoining properties. Pursuant to Chapter 183 of the Zoning Ordinance, modification of an approved subdivision shall be subject to Planning Board review and approval. The Planning Board approved Subdivision Modification 6-2019 Barry & Jacqueline Lashinsky on November 26, 2019. MOTION TO APPROVE A ONE YEAR EXTENSION FOR SUBDIVISION MODIFICATION 6-2020 BARRY & JACQUELINE LASHINSKY. Introduced by David Deeb who moved for its adoption, seconded by Chris Hunsinger: nd Duly adopted this 22day of September 2020 by the following vote: AYES: Ms. White, Mr. Shafer, Mr. Hunsinger, Mr. Magowan, Mr. Valentine, Mr. Deeb, Mr. Traver NOES: NONE MR. TRAVER-Next under Administrative Items we have Site Plan 70-2014 for James Varano, also requesting an additional one year extension. Is Mr. Varano present? SITE PLAN 70-2014 JAMES VARANO REQUESTS AN ADDITIONAL ONE YEAR EXTENSION. JAMES VARANO, PRESENT MR. TRAVER-Good evening. MR. VARANO-Good evening. MR. TRAVER-I think it was, the suggestion was offered to you that you come in person tonight regarding this extension because this would be extension number six on this application which generally exceeds what we normally do and we were interested to hear your discussion about the need for a sixth extension. MR. VARANO-Well, it’s due to a closing. I don’t happen to own the property as of yet. I just purchased it in the last, six, seven years from Fazio and I’ve been pretty much ready except for there’s some issues, Mr. Fazio might be able to elaborate a little bit more on that. I think he has to do some things to get ready for the closing. I’m ready, but my attorney’s, I didn’t want to lose the property, but we have not gone to close yet, and I’ve done everything I could possibly do. Now I think it is moving forward. The last I knew you were trying to get my lawyer to handle, Tim Schuler, my attorney Tim Schuler to handle his part and his side because his attorney is not in the picture anymore. MR. TRAVER-You’re requesting a one year extension. How close do you believe that you are to resolving this? MR. VARANO-I’m ready, and I think that he, what do you figure? I mean he had issues that were beyond, in the past. They’ve lost his daughter two years ago so there were some understandings there. I think the Board probably all knows of this, but anyway, I think he’s much closer now. I don’t know all the issues. 3 (Queensbury Planning Board 09/22/2020) MR. TRAVER-Maybe the other gentleman could come up and get on the mic. MR. VARANO-Yes, he might be able to. MRS. MOORE-So Mr. Fazio can speak, and state your name for the record. JOHN FAZIO MR. FAZIO-Yes. My name is John Fazio. I own the property. We’ve had some issues with taxes that we had to square away and some other things, and COVID put us behind as well. MR. TRAVER-Okay. Have all those items been settled, other than COVID. MR. FAZIO-Not quite but we’re getting closer than we’ve ever been. MR. TRAVER-Well this started in 2014 I understand . MR. FAZIO-Yes. Again some things were just beyond my control. Believe me I want to get this deal done, and if we could get one more extension that would really help. MR. TRAVER-How close do you feel that you are go getting this resolved? MR. FAZIO-I think within the next couple of months we can get it done. MR. TRAVER-Two months. MR. FAZIO-Yes. MR. TRAVER-Okay. Anything else? MR. FAZIO-No. MR. TRAVER-Thank you. I see another gentleman standing. Did you wish to comment on this as well? Yes, sir. STUART THOMAS MR. THOMAS-Hi. I’m Stuart Thomas. I helped with the original application. I’m with Reality Realty and I have a buyer and seller who are ready to consummate the deal. Part of the problem is that it has turned into something that an attorney has to handle with the State. MR. TRAVER-And why is that? MR. THOMAS-Because the State has a lien on the property. Okay. MR. TRAVER-So you have two owners and one buyer. MR. THOMAS-As we all do, but, yes, whenever there’s a lien on the property, the lien has to be cleared first and it’s my understanding, having talked to the State, that they’re willing to clear their lien from the property. Unfortunately, or fortunately, I’m not an attorney. So we’ve had to engage an attorney to work with the State to do so, but knowing the facts of the property and the lien, they seem to be willing to remove it. It’s just a question of, with everything going on and COVID and having to have an attorney do an extension. MR. TRAVER-Do you have anything in writing from them indicating that? MR. THOMAS-I do have something in writing. I don’t have it with me tonight. If you could give me an e-mail for someone I’d be more than happy to send it to you guys. MR. TRAVER-Well it’s not our application. So I’m just trying to get some information for the Board. MR. THOMAS-The bottom line is the State has a lien on the property. They’re willing to remove it, but there needs to be an attorney to fulfill the application. MR. TRAVER-Okay. Thank you. MR. HUNSINGER-What is the property? 4 (Queensbury Planning Board 09/22/2020) MR. THOMAS-It’s a parcel on Montray, a vacant lot on the right side behind Sweet Basil. Also the issue right now is that it also has a mortgage on it for more than it’s worth, and that person is willing to accept any proceeds towards the first mortgage. So there’s a blanket mortgage that covers it as well. So no one’s not trying to do something. It’s just complicated and I’m sorry. I thank the Town for your patience. MR. TRAVER-Anything else? MR. THOMAS-No. MR. TRAVER-Okay. Thank you. Yes. MR. SHAFER-What is the benefit of a one year extension as opposed to just letting them do it over? It sounds like they’re not ready for a site plan. MR. TRAVER-Well that’s why they’re here tonight. This would be, they’ve had five extensions starting in, I mean the application was first heard, as I understand it, in 2014, and starting in 2015 they’ve had a series of extensions. This now would be a sixth extension, which I think is excessive. MR. SHAFER-But my question is what is the benefit of the extension? MRS. MOORE-Can I answer that? So the benefit of an extension would be the applicant wouldn’t have to go back through their review process and pay the fee for site plan review, the public advertising, they don’t pay for it but we would have to re-advertise the public hearing. MR. VARANO-We did that twice. We already did it once. Because I missed the deadline the first time not knowing it wasn’t ready. I had to do the whole review again. So that was done one time before. Then were was six extensions. MR. THOMAS-It’s not a complicated thing in terms of that. What we’ve asked for and what you granted was a buffer relief between a commercial and a residential zone, and the issue was that basically by agreeing to put up some fencing to help with the buffer that we met the requirements necessary and you granted us the relief for the buffer. There’s not anything about the lot. It’s my understanding the lot is a buildable size and such. So it’s really just buffer relief. So that’s what we were asking from the Town, and I do believe that this would be the last extension that we would ask for. So I’m confident that we’re at a place where we’ll get something done. MR. TRAVER-Okay. Thank you. If you gentlemen want to take your seats and the Board will discuss it. MR. MAGOWAN-Not that I’m trying to make a stink or anything, but I think we said last time was the last time. MR. TRAVER-Well, and that’s why the opportunity was offered to the applicant to come in and explain, you know, because it is a request, and I think it’s, regardless of the fact that it’s the sixth request, we should hear it, and I thought that perhaps there might be some additional information offered that would have an impact on how the Board felt about granting a sixth extension, but I agree with you, but I guess I’d kind of like to poll the Board and see how, Jamie, how would you feel? MS. WHITE-I would vote no. MR. TRAVER-You would vote no? MS. WHITE-I did not hear any information that made me have a comfort level. MR. TRAVER-Mr. Magowan? MR. MAGOWAN-I have to say, I mean, I drive past the property all the time, you know. Mr. Fazio is a business owner. There are things, I’m trying to think of kindness. A year, no. Six months, okay. I’d be happy with a six month extension if we’re this close. MR. TRAVER-Okay. Mr. Deeb? MR. DEEB-We’re living in unusual times, okay. MR. TRAVER-Yes. MR. DEEB-And I think we have to take that into consideration. Yes we said it was the last time the last time, but nobody expected COVID to come in and hit us the way it did, and I think we better have, for our own image and to show compassion, I don’t mind doing it for another year, but this definitely would be 5 (Queensbury Planning Board 09/22/2020) the last time, and I would say this is it, because of the extenuating circumstances that have come up in the last year. MR. TRAVER-Well I don’t think granting extensions from 2014 is not compassionate, but I understand what you’re saying. MR. DEEB-I’m saying because of the last year, and I know what he’s been through. All right. The man’s been through a lot, and you’ve got to take that into consideration, you lose a child. MR. TRAVER-Yes. MR. DEEB-It’s a little different. MR. TRAVER-Chris? MR. HUNSINGER-I keep thinking about what the project is. It’s just such a simple project and because it is a simple project, I don’t have a problem giving him the year extension for all the reasons that were just mentioned. MR. SHAFER-Can I just ask, when did we last look at the application for the Site Plan? MR. TRAVER-I’m sorry, say that again? MR. SHAFER-When did we look at. MR. TRAVER-When did we originally look at it? 2014. MS. WHITE-2014. MR. SHAFER-So we haven’t looked at the Site Plan since 2014? MR. TRAVER-Because it hasn’t changed. MR. DEEB-It’s just a buffer, John. Nothing else. MR. SHAFER-I’m a no. MR. TRAVER-We just granted extension after extension after extension now since 2014. MR. HUNSINGER-Maybe we ought to have a show of hands of who was on the Board back in 2014. MR. TRAVER-Yes. MR. SHAFER-After six years it seems to me they just ought to start again. MR. TRAVER-Okay. What do you think? One suggestion was six months. MR. VALENTINE-Well, I don’t go for that. I don’t see six months doing anything. Sorry< Brad. I would look at the one year under the condition that it is written into the resolution itself, this is the last request. MR. TRAVER-Well I’m not actually sure that we can do that because they are entitled to a request, but I think it certainly will be noted for the record, and I doubt very likely if we were to grant another extension the applicant would attempt to get a seventh. I mean, I understand what you’re saying, and to Mr. Magowan’s point it’s likely that we expressed the last time, I did not have time to look up the minutes, but it’s likely that the last time we heard this we said it would be the last time, very likely, but I think we have to look at it tonight on its own merit, looking at the history of having granted the five years of extensions. Well, why don’t we do this. We have a resolution, a draft resolution before us. Let’s ask that it be read and we’ll just vote on it and see how it goes. RESOLUTION TO GRANT A ONE YEAR EXTENSION FOR SP # 70-2014 JAMES VARANO Applicant proposes construction of a single family dwelling Pursuant to Chapter 179-8-060, -070 of the Zoning Ordinance, installing/maintaining a buffer less than 50 feet between zones (CM & MDR – 10 feet is proposed) shall be subject to Planning Board review and approval. Applicant was granted an extension on 10/20/15 to 10/20/16. Applicant was granted a second extension on 10/18/16 to 10/18/17. Applicant was granted a third extension on 10/17/17 to 10/16/18. Applicant was granted a fourth extension on 10/16/18 to 10/15/19. Applicant was granted a fifth extension on 9/24/19. 6 (Queensbury Planning Board 09/22/2020) Applicant has requested another one year extension to September 2021. MOTION TO GRANT A ONE YEAR EXTENSION FOR SITE PLAN 70-2014 JAMES VARANO. Introduced by David Deeb who moved for its adoption, seconded by Brad Magowan: Duly adopted this 22nd day of September, 2020 by the following vote: AYES: Mr. Hunsinger, Mr. Magowan, Mr. Valentine, Mr. Deeb NOES: Mr. Shafer, Ms. White, Mr. Traver MR. TRAVER-So that means the, if my math is still accurate, that means the extension has been granted for one year. So I would admonish the parties, if it was not clear the last time, please bear in mind that this will be the final extension on this, and good luck in resolving your issues, and thank you for coming in and explaining it to us this evening. MR. VARANO-Thank you very much. MR. TRAVER-All right. We also have another item that was somewhat unusual. It’s really a technical item. We need to re-affirm the Site Plan approval for CKT Enterprises, LLC that we heard just last week because of a timing issue with the County Planning Board. SITE PLAN NO. 37-2020 SEQR TYPE: TYPE II. CKT ENTERPRISES, LLC. AGENT(S): RUCINSKI HALL ARCHITECTURE. ZONING: CI. LOCATION: 11 LAFAYETTE STREET. APPLICANT PROPOSES TO ENCLOSE THE EXISTING 2,627 SQ. FT. POLE BARN BUILDING WITH A 436 SQ. FT. ADDITION FOR OVERHEAD DOORS FOR A STORAGE BUILDING. THE PROJECT ALSO REQUESTS TO MAINTAIN A BUFFER OF AN OPEN FENCE AND LAWN AREA BETWEEN THE COMMERCIAL USE AND RESIDENTIAL USE WHERE A 50 FT. BUFFER IS REQUIRED. PURSUANT TO CHAPTER 179-3-040 & 179-9-120 OF THE ZONING ORDINANCE NEW COMMERCIAL CONSTRUCTION AN MODIFICATIONS TO AN APPROVED SITE PLAN SHALL BE SUBJECT TO PLANNING BOARD REVIEW AND APPROVAL. CROSS REFERENCE: SP 36-99, 99582-7952 BUILDING, CC-0356-2020 ALTERATIONS. WARREN CO. REFERRAL: SEPTEMBER 2020. LOT SIZE: 1.78 ACRES. TAX MAP NO. 302.7-1-18. SECTION: 179-3-040, 179-9-120. MR. TRAVER-Laura, did you want to comment on that, just the reasoning behind that? MRS. MOORE-I’m asking the Board to re-affirm their approval resolution due to the County recommendation timing review of the application. The County provided their comment, an NCI comment, th on September 16, which was after our meeting date, and we’re required to wait for them to provide a recommendation. MR. TRAVER-So it’s just a timing issue really. MRS. MOORE-Just a timing issue. MR. TRAVER-No change to the Site Plan. It stands as approved. MRS. MOORE-Right. MR. TRAVER-We are just going back on the record following the County, re-affirming our approval thth MR. VALENTINE-Was there a meeting on the 16 or was there a letter on the 16? thth MRS. MOORE-Their letter came on the 16 and it’s dated the 16. MS. WHITE-But they had no concerns. The County had no concerns. MRS. MOORE-Correct. MR. TRAVER-It’s just a technicality. MR. VALENTINE-Yes, but what was the date of the vote? MRS. MOORE-There is no vote. MR. TRAVER-So we have a draft resolution re-affirming that approval, if you could proceed with that we’ll take care of that. 7 (Queensbury Planning Board 09/22/2020) MR. DEEB-All right. RESOLUTION RE-AFFIRMING APPROVAL SP # 37-2020 CKT ENTERPRISES, LLC 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 enclose the existing 2,627 sq. ft. pole barn building with a 436 sq. ft. addition for overhead doors for a storage building. The project also requests to maintain a buffer of an open fence and lawn area between the commercial use and residential use where a 50 ft. buffer is required. Pursuant to Chapter 179-3-040 & 179-9-120 of the Zoning Ordinance new commercial construction and modifications to an approved site plan shall be subject to Planning Board review and approval. Pursuant to relevant sections of the Town of Queensbury Zoning Code-Chapter 179-9-080, the Planning Board has determined that this proposal satisfies the requirements as stated in the Zoning Code; As required by General Municipal Law Section 239-m the site plan application was referred to the Warren County Planning Department for its recommendation; The Planning Board opened a public hearing on the Site plan application on 09/15/2020 and continued the public hearing to 09/15/2020, 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 09/22/2020; 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 RE-AFFIRM APPROVAL OF SITE PLAN 37-2020 CKT ENTERPRISES, LLC; Introduced by David Deeb who moved for its adoption; Per the draft provided by staff conditioned upon the following conditions: 1) Waivers request granted: h. signage, j. stormwater, k. topography, q. soil logs, 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) Applicant to discuss future fence expansion with the neighbor and final decision to be placed on the final plans. i) If negotiations for the fence boundary fail, then the original Site Plan is approved as presented. nd Motion seconded by Michael Valentine. Duly adopted this 22 day of September 2020 by the following vote: AYES: Mr. Shafer, Mr. Hunsinger, Mr. Magowan, Mr. Valentine, Mr. Deeb, Ms. White, Mr. Traver NOES: NONE MR. TRAVER-We also have, moving to our agenda, we have one item that was on the agenda this evening that is going to be tabled, and that is William & Kathleen Bosy, and I want to mention to people viewing the public hearing via the YouTube channel, if you were prepared to comment on this application this evening, it’s being tabled until November and we’ll be discussing that shortly, but there will be another opportunity to make public comment on this application at that time. This is Site Plan 41-2020. 8 (Queensbury Planning Board 09/22/2020) SITE PLAN NO. 41-2020 SEQR TYPE: TYPE II. WILLIAM & KATHLEEN BOSY. AGENT(S): JON LAPPER. OWNER(S): SAME AS APPLICANT. ZONING: WR. LOCATION: 53 ASSEMBLY POINT ROAD APPLICANT PROPOSES TO DEMO EXISTING HOME OF 2,537.3 SQ. FT. FAR AND TO CONSTRUCT A NEW HOME OF 3,065.3 SQ. FT. FAR. THE PROJECT INCLUDES CONSTRUCTION OF A 384 SQ. FT. DETACHED GARAGE, INSTALLATION OF NEW LAWN AREA, PATIO AREAS AND DRIVEWAY. PURSUANT TO CHAPTER 179-3-040, 179-6-065, 179-6-050, & 179-9-040 OF THE ZONING ORDINANCE, NEW FLOOR AREA IN A CEA, HARD SURFACING WITHIN 50 FT. OF SHORELINE AND SHORELINE BUFFERS SHALL BE SUBJECT TO PLANNING BOARD REVIEW AND APPROVAL. CROSS REFERENCE: SEPTIC ALTERATION 2019 WARREN CO. REFERRAL: SEPTEMBER 2020. SITE INFORMATION: APA, LGPC, CEA. LOT SIZE: .22 ACRE. TAX MAP NO. 239.12-2-16. MR. TRAVER-Laura? MRS. MOORE-So they’re being tabled because the Zoning Board requested them to re-evaluate the amount of relief that they’re requesting They felt that the relief for the floor area was too much and they suggested re-designing the project. MR. TRAVER-Okay. I see. Okay. Any questions on that? They’re probably going to be modifying their project and coming back to us. MR. HUNSINGER-The question I have is what’s the sequence of presentations? Will they come back here first if they modify the plan or would they go to the Zoning Board first? MRS. MOORE-I will have to wait and see their project. MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. MR. TRAVER-Yes, it’ll be based on Staff assessment of the project. So the tabling is requested to November 24, and I think we have a draft resolution. MR. DEEB-Yes, we do. RESOLUTION TABLING SP # 41-2020 WILLIAM & KATHLEEN BOSY The applicant has submitted an application to the Planning Board: Applicant proposes to demo existing home of 2,537.3 sq. ft. FAR and to construct a new home of 3,065.3 sq. ft. FAR. The project includes construction of a 384 sq. ft. detached garage, installation of new lawn area, patio areas and driveway. Pursuant to Chapter 179-3-040, 179-6-065, 179-6-050 & 179-8-040 of the Zoning Ordinance, new floor area in a CEA, hard surfacing within 50 ft. of shoreline and shoreline buffers shall be subject to Planning Board review and approval. MOTION TO TABLE SITE PLAN 41-2020 WILLIAM & KATHLEEN BOSY. Introduced by David Deeb who moved for its adoption, seconded by Michael Valentine. th Tabled until the November 24, 2020 Planning Board meeting with information due by October 15, 2020. nd Duly adopted this 22 day of September 2020 by the following vote: AYES: Mr. Hunsinger, Mr. Magowan, Mr. Valentine, Mr. Deeb, Ms. White, Mr. Shafer, Mr. Traver NOES: NONE MR. TRAVER-And again, the public hearing is open on this application and we will leave it open, pending their return. PUBLIC HEARING OPENED MR. TRAVER-All right. So now we move to the Old Business part of our agenda. The first item being Sherwood Acres Construction, Site Plan Modification 35-2020. We heard this under Unapproved Development last week and they are back. OLD BUSINESS: SITE PLAN MODIFICATION 35-2020 SEQR TYPE: TYPE II. SHERWOOD ACRES CONSTRUCTION. AGENT(S): VAN DUSEN & STEVES. OWNER(S): SAME AS APPLICANT. ZONING: WR. LOCATION: 3 GLEN HALL ROAD. APPLICANT REQUESTS TO MAINTAIN 617 SQ. FT. OF HARD SURFACE IN THE DRIVEWAY AREA. IN ADDITION, THERE IS 107 SQ. 9 (Queensbury Planning Board 09/22/2020) FT. OF NEW CONCRETE SIDEWALK WITH RETAINING WALL FOR THE PARKING AREA OF THE HOME. THE PARCEL WAS PART OF PREVIOUS APPROVALS FOR A NEW HOME CONSTRUCTION AND ASSOCIATED SITE WORK FOR AREA VARIANCE AN SITE PLAN (1,019 SQ. FT. FOOTPRINT AND 2,035 SQ. FT. FLOOR AREA). PURSUANT TO CHAPTER 179-3-040 AND 179-9-120 OF THE ZONING ORDINANCE SITE PLAN MODIFICATION TO AN APPROVED SITE PLAN SHALL BE SUBJECT TO PLANNING BOARD REVIEW AND APPROVAL. CROSS REFERENCE: SP 14-2018, AV 8-2018 SF HOME. WARREN CO. REFERRAL: N/A. SITE INFORMATION: GLEN LAKE CEA. LOT SIZE: .21 ACRE. TAX MAP NO. 289.11-1-27. SECTION: 179-3-040. MICHAEL O’CONNOR & TOM CENTER, REPRESENTING APPLICANT, PRESENT MR. TRAVER-Yes, good evening. MR. O'CONNOR-Thank you. This is our third meeting on this project. We did appear before you I think last week and you did recommend that the variance be granted. We then went to the Zoning Board of Appeals and the Board did grant the variance without any conditions. I think the only question here is the permeability of the site, and I would tell you or try to point out to you, maybe not in technical terms, that the applicant really has done as much as he could, even though he made a mistake, in accommodating neighbors and trying to make the driveway which serves his property and serves the adjoining properties more stable. He did extra pavement. There’s no doubt about that, but he did install a drywell at the bottom of the driveway. If you’ve been there you’ll see it. It has excess stormwater storage capacity. He did install a conventional septic system further away from the lake which required him to actually purchase an easement from the adjoining owner to put a conventional system in, as opposed to the first time we were here and we were talking about doing holding tanks and what not. So we were able to get the property next to him to give permission to put a septic system, a conventional septic system, on that property. He installed infiltrators to the back of the property , roof drains that go to those infiltrators. Those infiltrators also actually have excess capacity for what will actually come off the roof. Some of the pavement that he did he did permeable pavers, and he did get some credit for that, not 100% credit. I think he gets 50% credit in the areas that are covered with the pervious pavers. That’s basically what I would give you as an overview. Tom Center is the engineer for the project. I understand there’s a letter from the Town’s Engineer which I don’t understand why they send these projects to the Town Engineer, to be honest with you, on half acre lots, or less than half acre lots. It really seems like it’s overboard, but I’ll let Tom address the concerns of the Town Engineer. MR. TRAVER-One question that I had was regarding the paving, did the owner do the paving himself, or did he have a professional do it? MR. O'CONNOR-I truly, Mr. Traver, don’t know that. He doesn’t have that type of equipment. MR. VALENTINE-Well, the letter that we got in the record said that he blamed the contractor for that sidewalk. MR. TRAVER-For not following the plans. MR. VALENTINE-Yes. MR. TRAVER-Okay. That was my question. Thank you. MR. O'CONNOR-The sidewalks, too. You have to take a look at the sidewalks. He put in river rock along each side of the sidewalks which basically are like sink wells for that. Although you don’t get credit for that like you do get credit for the permeable pavers you put in, and if you take a look at the site, I presume you’ve all been to the site, I think it’s a nice project. He did a good job. That he did a good service to his neighbors as well as to himself and has made something that used to be in dispute with people on that driveway and using that going up no longer an issue between them all. They all get along well. I think you have a letter in your file from Mr. Mackowiak who is the adjoining owner to the, as you’re standing looking in to the house, to the left, and I don’t know if you have something from Mr. Gansle. MR. CENTER-Mr. Gansle is here. MR. O'CONNOR-Mr. Gansle is here. Okay. He also benefits. Mackowiak and Gansle benefit by what was put in there. I don’t know if you’ll read the letter from Mr. Mackowiak or not. MR. TRAVER-That was included in the record? MR. O'CONNOR-It was in the record with the Zoning Board of Appeals. MRS. MOORE-When you open the public hearing I’ll read that letter. 10 (Queensbury Planning Board 09/22/2020) MR. TRAVER-Okay. MR. O'CONNOR-Okay. I’ll have Tom Center come up. MR. TRAVER-So I’m going to again remind the public that we do have a public hearing on this application, and if you wish to comment via telephone the number to call is 518-761-8225. MR. CENTER-Good evening. Tom Center, engineer of record for this project. I do have to apologize. I didn’t realize this was going to the Town Engineer. Most of these small projects are reviewed at the Staff level. We had already been through that once before when I was asked about this in working through with Mr. Brown. He came up and looked at what was done extra, what we have for stormwater, what’s our stormwater currently based on, using minor calculations. When you sent it to the Town Engineer, the Town Engineer is held to the Code which in 147 requires that it be reviewed to the stormwater design manual which is actually for one acre projects, one acre disturbance or larger. So you’ve got to remember all those separations are based on having a one acre lot and other one acre lots on vacant land and those distances where disturbance of larger volumes of stormwater going into these different devices. It’s really a battle we’ve had for a long time how this applies in what we’re trying to do to make a project better when we’re working on existing non-conforming areas. I believe that if we had to look at this as the 25 year design storm, which doesn’t have restrictions for infiltration devices like 1.5 gallons per square foot that we could do this as a Hydro Cad and model the lot so we don’t have any additional runoff coming off the site. You’ve seen that in the larger projects. You’ve always talked about the pre versus the post. If we have to go in that direction, I believe that this project will meet that standard. MR. TRAVER-One of the confusions that I think I saw the engineer had was that the plans that they viewed did not seem to match what was there or the other way around. MR. CENTER-I believe what he was looking at is he was looking at the original site plan and the parking area in that area. MR. TRAVER-Okay. MR. CENTER-Which at that time there was not Mr. Gansle’s project encompassed the two of them. MR. TRAVER-Right. MR. CENTER-But that’s where the disturbance between those two shared accesses come from. So the plan that we gave you that just shows the hard surface and the additional and what was put in does not have topography grading and all that, but if you’ve been to the site you can see that the grading has been improved to direct that runoff like we were asked to to the drywell that’s down in front of Mr. Burke’s parcel on Mackowiak’s property, and that was to improve the current runoff situation where runoff is going shooting down that road and beyond and would eventually enter the lake according to Mr. Gansle who’s lived there and experienced the issues that are there. As far as the other, most of the comments have to deal with stormwater and the stormwater design manual which I think we’ll work through, whether we have to do a model for him and work through those things. MR. TRAVER-Okay. Questions, comments from members of the Board? th MR. SHAFER-Tom, there is a Chazen letter dated September 17. MR. CENTER-Yes. MR. SHAFER-And I received it yesterday. MR. CENTER-Yes. MR. SHAFER-I’m concerned about the last sentence. It says the applicant shall revise the location of the stormwater management practices to demonstrate conformance to the NYS DOH regulations. How substantive is that and does that alter the Site Plan? MR. CENTER-This is a conversation that we have had. There’s some controversy on how DOH looks at these new stormwater design projects on existing non-conforming lots. Whether it’s applicable or not. We’ve gotten this comment on the last four jobs and we are currently working through this. MR. SHAFER-Did the Town Engineer have a comment on that? MR. CENTER-The Town Engineer is the one that made these comments. We’re trying to find the solution to work through these. MR. SHAFER-These are the Town Engineer’s comments? 11 (Queensbury Planning Board 09/22/2020) MR. CENTER-These are the Town Engineer’s comments. MRS. MOORE-If I could interject here. I did have a conversation with Sean Doty in reference to this particular project and after we discussed some of the items and the actual design and the materials that were provided, he and I were in agreement that he could work those details up. MR. TRAVER-Administratively the way it works, John, is that, to answer your question directly, if the site plan or the design needs to change as the result of enabling an engineer, Town Engineer, to sign off on it then that would be a site plan modification. If it were sufficient. MR. CENTER-If it were a substantial change. MR. TRAVER-Yes. MR. CENTER-I think these are some technical questions we have to sort through to find a solution. MR. SHAFER-So revising the stormwater management practices is not a substantive change? MR. CENTER-If we had to, we’d have to come back. MR. TRAVER-I mean that’s what he has to work out with the Town Engineer. MR. CENTER-We have to go through these things when we sit down and work on it through a model, as opposed to using calculations. MR. SHAFER-I’d like to raise the same point I’ve raised before. Four of these five applicants before us at tonight’s meeting have very lengthy and substantive comments from Chazen. They are all dated September 17th. We got them yesterday and they seem to be very substantive comments on the part of the Town Engineer. So I have a question of whether we as the Planning Board have the, what’s the word, right or ability to get into these kinds of issues because typically what happens is the engineer for the applicant or the applicant themselves says, they’re nothing, we’ll work them out with the Town Engineer. MR. TRAVER-Well, ultimately that’s their requirement to do that, but to answer your question again, administratively, it’s up to us to decide whether we have sufficient information regarding the application to move forward either approve or deny it or process it in whatever way is before us. So if you feel there’s inadequate information for you to be comfortable, to rely upon the applicant’s affirmation that they will work with the Town Engineer and get the required signoff, versus what the Town Engineer has stated in their letter, then you can be in favor of tabling the application pending more information. We have started a practice some y ears ago actually where we’ve had very extensive, particularly, some of these are obviously of a technical, sometimes even typographical nature, but we’ve started a practice where if there are very extensive engineering comments, we will send the applicant back to work with the Town Engineer and ask that they come back when they have a signoff. That’s a judgment we have to make based on the comments that we get on the engineer, and you can certainly advocate that position if that’s your sense. MR. SHAFER-I guess I’m just raising it as a question. I’m not sure what my sense is in this respect. MR. TRAVER-Well, in this case, I think as the applicant has offered, I think part of the confusion which impacts on the comments is the Town Engineer saw the plans that were approved, not the unapproved plans. MR. CENTER-He saw the. MR. SHAFER-The original. MR. CENTER-Well, the depiction that we have basically going for the variance in regards to the hard surface and the issues that Craig asked us to present at the time was we had additional impervious area that we needed to get a variance for. MR. TRAVER-Right. MR. CENTER-There was no other setbacks that had to do with more hard surface than was allowed and we needed that additional variance which then his determination was that we needed site modification which caused us to come back here. So our avenue was to look at the impervious area, the additional that we have storage for to explain the changes that were made to the project. So we really didn’t do a full re- design with the new topography as if it were a vacant site and this were a brand new project. We tailored our response to that permeable variance issue. 12 (Queensbury Planning Board 09/22/2020) MR. TRAVER-So I’m not sure if that answers your question, but basically it’s up to us to decide whether we have enough information to move forward, and again, it has been a practice on our part, occasionally, to have applicants work with the engineer, table the application, have them work with the engineer, come back when they’ve resolved all these issues. MR. SHAFER-But most times we never see it a second time. MR. TRAVER-No, no. They usually will come back and they’ll have a signoff or they’ll have very few comments. MR. SHAFER-But we’ve often approved site plans with the assurance on either the part of the applicant or the applicant’s engineer that they will work with the Town and work them out. MR. TRAVER-That’s correct. Yes, no doubt about it. MR. SHAFER-My only point I guess is that in every one of these tonight there is a very substantive letter from Chazen that came only one day before our meeting, and first of all I’d like to see it earlier, and secondly I would think that we as a Board should get into them a little more than simply taking the applicant’s assurance that they’ll work them out. A thought. MR. TRAVER-Well, I think the decision was made some time ago that we would rely, or we would have to rely on the Town Engineer to handle the engineering part and that the chore for the applicant and their engineer is to work with the Town Engineer and report to us that any engineering issues that are outstanding can be resolved. If we don’t feel that they can be resolved or if there’s so many of them that our thinking perhaps mounts that it’s going to result in a change in the application or it’s going to be such a lengthy process, that’s when we would table the application and try to get that worked through . Generally I think, at least it’s been generally my experience that usually there are differences in interpretation of Code or somebody will say well you did a calculation that reflected this and I think it should be that, and they have to sit down and just kind of work that out, sometimes a site visit and look at the actual site. Generally those things can be worked out, but there’s almost never an application, in my experience, that’s been reviewed by the engineer that doesn’t have some comments associated with it, but they’re generally ones that are within the scope of the ability of the applicant and the engineer to resolve those issues without major changes to the project. MR. DEEB-If I could interject. MR. TRAVER-Sure. MR. DEEB-I know what you’re saying, John, but again, the project, if there’s no an engineer’s signoff, then they have to come back and work it out. Now you say you’d like us to get a little more involved with the engineering comments. I don’t claim to be an engineer. I read the comments, but I don’t know what they mean. All right. So I don’t know where I could get involved. We have to trust our engineer to do the right thing, and that’s why we have that protection in there, that if they don’t come to agreement, then it’s going to be done again. MR. TRAVER-And this case is unusual because what we originally approved is not what’s before us. MR. SHAFER-Well, and it’s unusual, too, I think, Steve, in the last sentence. I still don’t know the answer to the question as to whether or not, if the stormwater management practices are totally changed, whether that will change what’s before us for the Site Plan. MR. TRAVER-Yes, go ahead. Do you want to answer that? MR. O'CONNOR-Yes, I have the same problem with not getting these comments in a timely manner so that we could actually review them and maybe meet before we come here and then have this long discussion. MR. TRAVER-Yes, that’s an issue we’ve had for many years, and there are times when it seems to be more timely, and other times when we have these kinds of issues, but regardless of the substance in terms of how confident you are that you can work with the engineer to resolve them, I think that’s the main concern here is that we have questions that we don’t know the answer to and generally when you have a project you will come in and represent that you haven’t answered all of these, and some of the things, you know, it drew my attention that the plans did not seem to match what the applicant was looking at, or what the engineer was looking at. MR. O'CONNOR-That was because I don’t think he had the full set of plans for the variance. 13 (Queensbury Planning Board 09/22/2020) MR. TRAVER-Right, and that’s rare. I mean usually the engineer has the application that’s presented and can do an evaluation. In this case because there was unapproved development and these various other issues, that raises another issue, an unusual issue for us that doesn’t normally happen. Thank goodness. MR. O'CONNOR-The comment I think is that Tom is going to sign off on his as a professional engineer. I mean he would have the liability of what he’s saying he thinks that there’s not a stormwater problem. That he has excess capacity for stormwater between the drywell and the infiltrators, and he’s responsibility for that to the applicant and to anybody else affected. MR. TRAVER-And of course any approval is conditioned upon having a Town Engineer sign off on the plans. MR. O'CONNOR-The other thing I’d mention is in the last couple of weeks we’ve had some pretty good rainstorms, and there has not been any problem with that site on our property or the adjoining property because of stormwater. I think we’re talking about something that’s not, these are technical issues based on the fact that he’s looking at the standard for the one acre disturbed lot as opposed to what is I think about a .26 or something acre lot, which is a pre-existing non-conforming lot in and of itself and what’s been done here is practical and it’s probably the best that you can do, and I don’t know what he meant by re-locating, you’re talking about disturbing, go back and disturb the site, tear up what has been done, and you’ve seen the site. The site is a very I think complete site right now and it seems like we’re creating a mountain out of a mole hill. MR. VALENTINE-I think part of the point that John brings up, and it’s not a matter of invalid versus valid, but there’s a substance thing there that a Board member is tasked with reviewing the material that’s before them and I think that there’s nobody here that does not take that on, and I know weekends are ruined in some cases knowing that you’re coming to a meeting on Tuesday and the weekends seem the time to do it, th but I know that the last letter that came was dated September 10, and then we met and I think that was a Thursday. We’re meeting on Tuesday. The date separation is the same for this letter, but the first letter, I read through it, and I’ll start off with your comment, I’m not an engineer, but I look at this stuff enough and you know what to have questions about and you see things, so you raise them. I got to the point I was reading that last letter for the last meeting that I called Sean. Didn’t get a return response. I called Laura and she said that she had just, that next day or the day of the meeting, she had said she had talked to him about it. There was a lot in there that concerned me to be looking at it to say it was not complete or there were things hanging out there, to a layman sitting here, that that bothered me to be going through that at that late date. Now I don’t know where to say, okay, who is, you know, where does that lie as far as that late date of a letter coming, dated coming out and then for us to review because I think it takes away from us in some manner to sit back and say, I’m not an engineer. MR. TRAVER-Right. No question. It’s really a disadvantage for the applicant because, again, if we don’t have a comfort level with the information that we have before us, we’re not going to be comfortable moving forward with the application. MR. VALENTINE-I didn’t have that comfort level last week and I asked my question to Laura, should we really be reviewing this then. MR. TRAVER-On this same application? MR. VALENTINE-Yes. MR. TRAVER-Yes. MRS. MOORE-No, it was a different application. MR. O'CONNOR-This is the first letter on this application, although they’ve had it. MRS. MOORE-I apologize. So your question was in regards to Clear Brook, and that was a subdivision of that date. MR. VALENTINE-Yes, it was the same date though. th MR. O'CONNOR-We submitted this application before the 15 day of August. MR. TRAVER-The bottom line for us tonight with regard to this application is if the Board does not feel comfortable moving forward, you can make a motion or suggest that it be tabled. That’s the bottom line. I mean we’re either going to move forward on it or we send it back and have the applicant work with the engineer and clarify any items of concern that we have. I mean that’s the option that we have. MR. VALENTINE-Well I’ll state, I’m not uncomfortable with the application, but I look at the paragraphs and the phrases that are, and the wording that you use in there that in some cases you’re looking at it and 14 (Queensbury Planning Board 09/22/2020) you’re saying, well, okay, do you want to, not you guys but the engineer, he wants a change or something should be looked at or something should be clarified or I don’t have enough. Those are the things that trigger you, I think, to get to where John is. MR. TRAVER-Yes, and we usually will ask an applicant, you know, if we have those kinds of questions, if they feel confident that they can get a signoff, and they usually will work to do that often before they even come to our meeting, feel confident and they review these things. Granted they usually have more time. So that’s an issue for the applicant as well as us, and one of the main responsibilities that Laura and her office have is making sure that an application is complete before it gets to us, but this is obviously outside of the Planning Office, the Town Engineer, and when that information comes in late, there’s nothing really, as far as this evening, that can be done about that, other than saying we just don’t feel comfortable moving forward and that’s a decision that we have to make as a Board. MR. DEEB-I’ve never really heard an engineer say I’m not comfortable with getting signoff, in all these years. MR. CENTER-Well there’s been times where if there was something with a separation requirement on stormwater that, and we haven’t been able to work it out with the engineer, then we have taken it through the variance process. Because if we’re going to hold the stormwater design manual to the nth degree on these small non-conforming lots and we can’t work out something that the engineer, if we can’t do a different device, if we can’t line upon so you have the infiltration, you get more infiltration over here, you move, you basically move stormwater numbers around on a site to make the model work versus this was a minor project that just talked about volumes, I would be doing a model which would incorporate lawns in the entire site. Then we’d have to come back for a variance from the stormwater design manual, which we did on the Kitchen project way back when. MR. TRAVER-Yes. MR. CENTER-Where you had it and you couldn’t come to an agreement. There was also some strong issues in the neighborhood that forced our hand, and with the Water Keeper and everybody else to actually make those changes and had to come back for a variance. MR. TRAVER-Right. MR. CENTER-So that’s the process. If we don’t agree, it comes back to everybody. MR. SHAFER-So can I just ask a quick question? MR. TRAVER-Sure. Of course. MR. SHAFER-Tom, the third page of Chazen’s letter, the top, actually there’s a half a page of text there talking about. MR. CENTER-Yes, that comment has been coming on the last four projects. It’s something that Laura, I’ve talked to Laura about. I think she’s talked to Sean about. MR. SHAFER-Well it has to do with 50 foot separation distances. MR. CENTER-Correct. MR. SHAFER-And accordingly he says shall be revised, the infiltration. What is your sense of that being worked out? MR. CENTER-That we need to look at where he’s talking about with the permeable pavers. Because we’ve looked at that before where DOH has said it’s permeable pavers to them it’s a permeable surface. It’s like as if it were grass, as if someone were parking on grass. MR. SHAFER-How does that deal with the 50 foot separation distance? MR. CENTER-Because he’s talking about stormwater re-charge which is the storage volume that’s underneath that permeable paver. He’s calling that stormwater re-charge. This is, again, we continue to go back and forth between the design manual that’s meant for very large areas and a large volume versus trying to do the right thing on a site to get stormwater green infiltration practices, trying to take impervious surfaces closer to getting them to perc closer to where they’re actually created so you’re not moving sediment and stormwater around. These are the things that we, as a group, with Staff and the Town Engineer and us as engineers, we put our heads together and say where are we at with these and we come into agreement to try and comply. 15 (Queensbury Planning Board 09/22/2020) MR. O'CONNOR-These permeable pavers have actually stone underneath them, crushed stone, and underneath that you’ve got the Glen Lake gravel, which is very porous. So whatever you get, I think what I said before, they’ve had some substantial storms since all this was done and nothing has occurred that would indicate the site isn’t handling on site the stormwater that they’ve received. MR. CENTER-The drywell per se that we located for the road that we put it in the best possible location and these are the conversations. He wasn’t involved in the conversation on the first go around. So we need to discuss those things that, hey, we were solving the local problem that would have been worse for those wells and we found a solution at the Planning Board level where we came between neighbors. Those neighbors literally said that hasn’t become an issue with any neighbors. So I think those are the things that two engineers sit down along with Staff and say where are we at with these things that are of a technical nature as to how we work this out. MR. SHAFER-Gotcha. MR. MAGOWAN-Mt. Chairman. MR. TRAVER-Yes. MR. MAGOWAN-We seem to be going around and around, the same thing, not that I want to interrupt, but I mean overall, above and beyond what you did on the property, I feel what you’ve done outside to help the neighbors and the stormwater for the road and everything, I think it’s admirable, and like I said, it really turned out to be a lot, but one of the things I want to say on the engineer is also there’s been a lot of times that we look for that engineer’s signoff. MR. TRAVER-It’s a requirement. MR. MAGOWAN-Yes, and the engineer would say I feel comfortable with these, and I can actually say after all the years I’ve been on I’ve never, unless they’ve come back with a modification to the site plan, they’ve usually worked it all out, and being comfortable with our local engineers that say, because their business thrives on protecting their clients, too. So I mean I have all the faith if Tom Center says these things we can work out, I believe wholeheartedly he means that and I trust that with, knowing his engineering firm along with our engineering firm. So, I mean, I feel comfortable with that. The timing of some of these, yes, I know this has been a problem in the past of getting them. It’s a lot. We’re trying to move quick. We’re coming out of COVID. We have a list going on. I think Laura has done a phenomenal job keeping these applications coming in. We’re getting out relatively easy. So it’s a lot of give and take and you’re right, some weekends are eaten up, a lot of evenings are, you know, caught with your head on the kitchen table just taking a little cat nap just to keep going. MR. TRAVER-Well, there have been occasions where the engineering comments have made us feel that we had to have the applicant work directly with the engineer and come back. That doesn’t happen all the time, but it’s not unheard of. I didn’t feel that this rose to that level, but, you know, it’s, people have to feel comfortable. It sounds like you feel comfortable. MR. MAGOWAN-I feel comfortable, yes. MR. TRAVER-How do Board members feel? Do you feel that we have enough information to move forward? MR. HUNSINGER-I read it as a disagreement in definition. MR. TRAVER-Yes, and that seems to happen all the time. MR. DEEB-It happens all the time, between the engineers and the Town. MR. HUNSINGER-Yes. MR. DEEB-I’ve heard it more than once from a lot of engineers. MR. TRAVER-Laura, the public hearing is still open. Are there written comments? PUBLIC HEARING OPENED MRS. MOORE-There are written comments. So this is addressed to David Deeb. “Below are my comments in support of the subject application. I am one of the 3 property owners that share use of the private road/Glen Hall Drive right of way in the vicinity of 3 Glen Hall Drive. 1. The additional hard surfacing in the parking area is providing access to the new parking spot at 5 Glen Hall Drive (i.e., adjacent Gansle property). If grass was used in this location, there would eventually be only dirt remaining from driving and turning on the grass strip while parking at the new spot at 5 Glen Hall Drive. 2. The decrease 16 (Queensbury Planning Board 09/22/2020) of site permeability will easily be mitigated by the new drywell, previously installed under this project. This drywell was a condition for approval of the Site Plan for 3 Glen Hall Drive. The drywell was located on my property, as recommended by the Engineer of Record, in order to maximize the amount of water collected. In the past this storm water eventually found its way into Glen Lake during heavy rain falls. Thank you, Ronald Mackowiak 9 Glen Hall Drive” MR. TRAVER-Any others? MRS. MOORE-No, that’s it, but I believe Mr. Gansle is in the audience. MR. TRAVER-Yes, sir. BERNIE GANSLE MR. GANSLE-Good evening. My name’s Bernie Gansle. Me and my wife Candice live at 5 Glen Hall Drive, that’s the adjacent property. We have a shared driveway access with 3 Glen Hall Drive. Both driveways were paved at the same time, and Danny leveled it all out so all the drainage on the top of both lots goes to the back away from the lake. It goes to the back of that and then down the driveway into the drywell, and I’d just like to say that we support any variances that would allow the current driveway configuration to remain unchanged. Since the driveways were paved this spring, all the water runoff from the top of both lots have been directed away from the lake and into the parking area, into the new water tank. I would also like to discuss the adding of the green space between the two parking areas. I would oppose this for three reasons. No green space currently provides a single paved area to allow cars from both residences to turn around and drive forward down the shared right of way. Without that ability we have to back up 150 feet down before we can turn around and pull out onto the Glen Hall Drive. We did that for four years. It’s very difficult and at night with no light it’s very difficult. There’s a lot of big trees there. Secondly adding a green area separating the area would create a maintenance problem. It would create a mud hole during heavy rains and parking for Glen Hall Drive is very tight and removing even a few square feet of parking area would make parking even tighter than it already is. Thank you. MR. TRAVER-Thank you. Is there anyone else in the audience that wanted to address the Planning Board on this application? I’m not seeing anyone. I haven’t gotten any phone calls. So we’ll close the public hearing. PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED MR. TRAVER-How do Board members feel? You heard the public comment. We’ve certainly addressed the engineering. Do you feel comfortable moving forward? MR. HUNSINGER-Yes. MR. TRAVER-Okay. We have a draft resolution I believe. This is a SEQR Type II. So no SEQR action is required. So I guess we’re ready to hear that motion. RESOLUTION APPROVING SP MOD # 35-2020 SHERWOOD ACRES CONSTRUCTION The applicant has submitted an application to the Planning Board for Site Plan approval pursuant to Article 9 of the Town zoning Ordinance for: Applicant requests to maintain 617 sp. Ft. of hard surface in the driveway area. In addition, there is 107 sq. ft. of new concrete sidewalk with retaining wall for the parking area of the home. The parcel was part of previous approvals for a new home construction and associated site work for area variance and site plan (1,019 sq. ft. footprint and 2,035 sq. ft. floor area). Pursuant to Chapter 179-3-040 and 179-9-120 of the Zoning Ordinance Site Plan Modification to an approved site plan shall be subject to Planning Board review and approval. Pursuant to relevant sections of the Town of Queensbury Zoning Code-Chapter 179-9-080, the Planning Board has determined that this proposal satisfies the requirements as stated in the Zoning Code; The Planning Board made a recommendation to the Zoning Board of Appeals on 09/15/2020; the ZBA approved the variance requests on 09/16/2020; The Planning Board opened a public hearing on the Site plan application on 09/22/2020 and continued the public hearing to 09/22/2020, 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 09/22/2020; 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, 17 (Queensbury Planning Board 09/22/2020) MOTION TO APPROVE SITE PLAN MODIFICATION 35-2020 SHERWOOD ACRES CONSTRUCTION; Introduced by David Deeb who moved for its adoption; Per the draft provided by staff conditioned upon the following conditions: 1) Waivers request granted: g. site lighting, h. signage, j. stormwater, k. topography, 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. Applicant is 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. nd Motion seconded by Brad Magowan. Duly adopted this 22day of September 2020 by the following vote: MR. SHAFER-Just for the record, I want to make it clear that I raised those points, not necessarily on the project. I think it’s a good project. I was raising it primarily for the timing and the process that we’re using on these engineering comments. MR. TRAVER-Understood. MR. SHAFER-And I obviously know the reputation of the applicant’s representative and I thought they answered the questions well, and so I’m a yes. AYES: Mr. Magowan, Mr. Valentine, Mr. Deeb, Ms. White, Mr. Shafer, Mr. Hunsinger, Mr. Traver NOES: NONE MR. TRAVER-You’re all set. MR. O'CONNOR-Thank you. MR. TRAVER-Next on our agenda we move to New Business, and the first item is Hudson Headwaters Health Network, Site Plan Modification 38-2020. SITE PLAN MODIFICATION 38-2020 SEQR TYPE: TYPE II. HUDSON HEADWATERS HEALTH NETWORK. AGENT(S): MJ ENGINEERING. OWNER(S): SAME AS APPLICANT. ZONING: CLI. LOCATION: 27 CAREY ROAD. APPLICANT PROPOSES TO MODIFY AN APPROVED SITE PLAN FOR THE 3,750 SQ. FT. BUILDING. THE 5,000 SQ. FT. BUILDING TO REMAIN AS PROPOSED WITH OFFICES, ETC. THE 3,750 SQ. FT. BUILDING WILL AMEND LOCATION AND NUMBER OF BAY DOORS FOR STORAGE OF THE RV UNITS AND GENERAL STORAGE FOR HHHN. THE PROJECT INCLUDES CONSTRUCTION OF 3,446 SQ. FT. OF SIDEWALK AND DRIVEWAY AREA. PURSUANT TO CHAPTER 179-9-120 OF THE ZONING ORDINANCE, MODIFICATIONS TO AN APPROVED SITE PLAN SHALL BE SUBJECT TO PLANNING BOARD REVIEW AND APPROVAL. CROSS REFERENCE: PZ257-2016 FENCE, SP 45-2018 SHED, SP 10-2020. WARREN CO. REFERRAL: SEPTEMBER 2020. SITE INFORMATION: CAREY INDUSTRIAL PARK. LOT SIZE: 1.70 ACRES. TAX MAP NO. 308.16- 2-2.2. SECTION: 179-9-120. JAIME EASTON, REPRESENTING APPLICANT, PRESENT MR. TRAVER-Laura? 18 (Queensbury Planning Board 09/22/2020) MRS. MOORE-This applicant is modifying an approved site plan for a previous building. The building is 3,750 square feet for a storage building. It’s being modified or upgraded to allow for storage of two RV units and so they now have a new access point and it’s got its own wastewater system for the RV units versus a building septic system. MR. TRAVER-Okay. Thank you. Good evening. MR. EASTON-Good evening, Board. My name is Jaime Easton. I’m with MJ Engineering. This Board saw this project previously, December or January of last year. We did have engineering comments but we had satisfied those previously with Chazen, and if you noticed, nothing really changed on the site plan. Sometimes it’s just for the Board, for me working in lots of different communities for them to understand. Typically engineering comments are received, can vary from the day before to maybe three to four days on average before an application is heard. So that’s very common to see that from the TDE’s portion that we receive comments back, but typically a lot of the comments are technical in nature. Sometimes they’re just calculation changes, things like that, but again it’s so minor on stuff that most of the times the engineers, we work them all out together. So originally, before COVID, this building right there that I’m highlighting was going to be a storage building, because the building to the north at the top of the page was going to be all changed to office. They kind of had storage there. Hudson Headwaters was going to put storage down in this building and use it as two garage bays. That’s what you approved originally. Then COVID hit. Their model of having the ability to reach the public in different fashions and different ways came out, and one of those was basically with two RV’s. Having a mobile ability to reach out to people, whether that’s testing at remote sites, or going to people’s homes or whatever it happens to be. So this was a direct result of COVID related. Hudson Headwaters has purchased two RV’s, and they’d like to store then instead of being outside. As with all RV’s, there is a waste product that is generated, water and sewer that’s contained inside that we want to get rid of that. Well on the previously approved plans we had this facility had a leach field in the back. We upgraded it to a grinder pump to connect to the existing Town municipal sewer system. That’s currently being installed right now. So what we have is a very simple waste pit, If you’ve ever been in a motor home, you go out, there’s a waste pit connection and you are able to connect onto via gravity and you then float to the grinder pump and take it away to the Town system. So that’s what it’s used for. Frequency of this, I can see this driveway, even though it’s a large amount of asphalt there, this driveway basically being used once or twice a week. I would not estimate anything over, it’s not going to be a high frequency driveway entrance in and out. So that’s really why we’re back here, why we had approved plans, had them all done and went through and Hudson Headwaters is only currently right now putting in the grinder pump in all their buildings. They wanted to pause this project because they wanted to build everything all together after COVID hit and the goal was really to start this in the spring time upon the Planning Board granting us approval, and at this point I’ll turn it over to the Planning Board and see if they have any general questions about this project. MR. TRAVER-Okay. Thank you. Good evening. Questions, comments from members of the Board? MR. DEEB-Well, the lighting plan doesn’t clearly identify the lighting fixtures on the building. That was a comment on our plans. Can you clarify that? MR. TRAVER-The cut sheets for the lighting fixtures I think is what we’re looking at. MR. EASTON-We’ll have to coordinate with the NEP engineer if there is a, I’ll say light that’s going to be needed there, but it would be more for building code if a light is required there. We’re not lighting up that driveway entrance for parking, you know, the parking lot or whatever. So I would envision a light being very similar to what you have between your two garage doors or a single garage door for New York State Building Code requirements, but it’s not going to be lit up all the time. MR. DEEB-Are there going to be lights on the building? MR. EASTON-Not from anything that’s changed from the previous approved plans. No. MR. MAGOWAN-I’m sure you’ll have lights over the garage doors down light, or any of the exit doors on the side of the building, and I can see your lighting for that, I would predict. MR. EASTON-Yes. So the lighting at the doorway entries and things like that is driven by New York State Building Code. We can reach out to the NEP and provide those cut sheets. MR. TRAVER-Yes, if you can provide those to Laura at the Town Staff. MR. EASTON-We have no problem, but we refer to it from the civil side of site lighting as what is it going to look like, what’s the photometrics? Is there any light spillage over the property as a result of those light fixtures like lighting up a parking lot. We’re not proposing anything with that driveway entry point that we’ve already previously approved. MR. HUNSINGER-You did give us a photometric but you just didn’t give us the cut sheets. 19 (Queensbury Planning Board 09/22/2020) MR. EASTON-Okay. That’s easy enough. Yes. I don’t remember on. MR. HUNSINGER-It’s on C-11, the lighting plan. MR. TRAVER-We do have a public hearing on this application. Is there anyone in the audience that wanted to address the Planning Board? I’ll remind folks that are observing us on the Town YouTube channel that if they wish to comment by phone, again the number to call is 518-761-8225. Laura, are there any written comments? PUBLIC HEARING OPENED MRS. MOORE-There are no written comments. MR. TRAVER-Okay. Other questions, comments? MR. HUNSINGER-Yes, I mean the main concern I had was the additional curb cut, but he fully addressed that. It’s just not a concern at all, and it was even a minor concern because it’s a side road anyway. If it was Corinth Road it would be something different. MR. TRAVER-Okay. Well I’m not getting any phone calls. So we’ll close the public hearing on this application. PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED MR. TRAVER-Under SEQR this is Type II. I guess if there are no other questions or concerns we’ll entertain a motion. RESOLUTION APPROVING SP # 38-2020 HUDSON HEADWATERS HEALTH NETWORK The applicant has submitted an application to the Planning Board: Applicant proposes to modify an approved site plan for the 3,750 sq. ft. building. The 5,000 sq. ft. building to remain as proposed with offices, etc. The 3,750 sq. ft. building will amend location and number of bay doors for storage of the RV units and general storage for HHHN. The project includes construction of 3,446 sq. ft. of sidewalk and driveway area. Pursuant to Chapter 179-9-120 of the Zoning Ordinance, modifications to an approved site plan shall be subject to Planning Board review and approval. Pursuant to relevant sections of the Town of Queensbury Zoning Code-Chapter 179-9-080, the Planning Board has determined that this proposal satisfies the requirements as stated in the Zoning Code; As required by General Municipal Law Section 239-m the site plan application was referred to the Warren County Planning Department for its recommendation; The Planning Board opened a public hearing on the Site plan application on 09/22/2020 and continued the public hearing to 09/22/2020, 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 09/22/2020; 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 MODIFICATION 38-2020 HUDSON HEADWATERS HEALTH NETWORK; Introduced by David Deeb who moved for its adoption. According to the draft resolution prepared by Staff with the following: 3) No waivers were requested. 4) The approval is valid for one (1) year from the date of approval. Applicant is 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. 5) 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; 20 (Queensbury Planning Board 09/22/2020) 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. l) Lighting cut sheets to be submitted to the Town Planning Staff. nd Motion seconded by Chris Hunsinger. Duly adopted this 22 day of September 2020 by the following vote: AYES: Mr. Valentine, Mr. Deeb, Ms. White, Mr. Shafer, Mr. Hunsinger, Mr. Magowan, Mr. Traver NOES: NONE MR. TRAVER-You’re all set. Next under New Business we have also Hudson Headwaters Health Network, application Site Plan 39-2020. SITE PLAN NO. 39-2020 SEQR TYPE: TYPE II. HUDSON HEADWATERS HEALTH NETWORK. AGENT(S): MJ ENGINEERING. OWNER(S): SAME AS APPLICANT. ZONING: O. LOCATION: 26, 28 SO. WESTERN AVE., 35, 37 HOLDEN AVENUE. APPLICANT PROPOSES SITE WORK ON SIX PROPERTIES INCLUDING BUILDING DEMOLITION, REMOVAL OF DRIVEWAY AREA, TREE AND SHRUB REMOVAL, REVEGETATION AND INSTALLATION OF THIRTY NEW PARKING SPACES. THE NEW PARKING IS ASSOCIATED WITH 309.7-1-58 HAVING AN EXISTING MEDICAL OFFICE BUILDING WITH THIRTY SPACES. PROJECT INCLUDES MERGING SIX PROPERTIES. PURSUANT TO CHAPTER 179-3-040 OF THE ZONING ORDINANCE, SITE DEVELOPMENT WORK SHALL BE SUBJECT TO PLANNING BOARD REVIEW AND APPROVAL. CROSS REFERENCE: DEMO 29-2019; SP 41-2005, 88547- 2500 LAW OFFICE. WARREN CO. REFERRAL: SEPTEMBER 2020 & GLENS FALLS. LOT SIZE: 2.38 +/- ACRES. TAX MAP NO. 309.7-1-54, 309.7-1-55, 309.7-1-58, 309.7-1-59, 309.7-1-60, 309.7-1-61. SECTION: 179-3-040. JAIME EASTON, REPRESENTING APPLICANT, PRESENT MR. TRAVER-Laura? MRS. MOORE-So this application is discussing six properties where two properties will maintain the existing buildings. One of those properties is the medical office building, which is parcel 309.7-1-58. This is an existing medical office building. They’re including 30 spaces and note the project includes merging all six properties. MR. TRAVER-Okay. Thank you. Hello again. MR. EASTON-Hello. Good evening, Board. Jaime Easton with MJ Engineering. The description of what was just discussed is pretty clear. In the sense of there is Hudson Headwaters Health Network owns the six parcels, you know, that surround this block, and currently one building is already taken down on it. Two other buildings they wish to take down, and then remove some of the scrub brush and vegetation while keeping some of the large specimen trees on the site, and the third goal is to remove the impervious area and then add parking on the one side of it and help prevent a little bit of drainage that they have right now. Currently off of, I believe it’s Columbia Street right here, stormwater sheets across that wooded yard 21 (Queensbury Planning Board 09/22/2020) and there’s a dumpster enclosure sitting right near their entryway and that causes some problems for them because it kind of just sweeps across. So we just added one catch basin in there directly underneath the paver so it’s a little bit more containing at that location. In this project we’re actually reducing down the overall impervious area by about 25%. So that’s good for stormwater. That’s a stormwater requirement for this project, even though we’re not building much because we are disturbing a lot. We will be getting a stormwater permit from New York State DEC for this project, and that was kind of outlined in the comment responses from Chazen, and they wanted, even though we reduced down the impervious area and that was one of their comments was the amount of stormwater that was left. They wanted us to model that existing which is fine by me. I can just run the HydroCad, the Hydro Flow model and run that and show that we’re taking a lot less pavement off the area or pervious area that’s all going there. So it should be less water. So they just wanted us to prove that. So that’s all. It’s a very simple project. MR. TRAVER-Questions, comments from members of the Board? MR. HUNSINGER-I have a couple. I noticed on the Site Development Data, Page Three, you didn’t put in the proposed setbacks. You put question marks. MR. TRAVER-What page was that, Chris? MR. HUNSINGER-Page Three of the application. MR. EASTON-I think the reason why we kept, two reasons why we had a question was, one is there’s no new buildings. So there’s no proposed and the problem is also we’re merging all the lots. So depending on how you look at it, they’re all fronts now. So everything is a front yard. So there’s, looking at that, I think we were confused on at least that portion of it. MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. I just thought we should have had it. I mean to me it’s an incomplete application if you don’t have that. I don’t have a problem with any of those setbacks. I’m sure you’ll meet them all, but just for the record I think it should be complete. MR. TRAVER-It should be complete, yes. MR. HUNSINGER-And usually I don’t even catch that stuff, but it’s probably because you put the question marks. And then the only other comment I had is I’d like to see a couple of street trees. We do have general requirements for a street tree within every hundred feet of a linear street, and you do give us a landscape plan on C-7, but particularly along Southwestern Avenue it seems like there’s plenty of room to put in a couple of street trees and maybe on Nathan Street as well. MR. EASTON-Okay. Some of the larger, I’ll call it specimen trees that are currently on Southwestern we’re not touching. We’re adding these three because most of this stuff in here from our landscape architect is mostly diseased and everything else. So I could definitely see adding either one, two or three on Columbia Street. That’s certainly fine, and if you want that wrapped on Holden, along this way, too, we plan on keeping these two specimen trees out here, and there’s one or two within this green area and certainly we could wrap it up around the corner if that’s a requirement. MR. HUNSINGER-I was looking more, I mean if you’re going to offer that, that’s great. I was looking more at Southwestern Avenue, maybe between the two buildings put one or two trees, and then on Nathan Street. MR. EASTON-Okay. I mean I can certainly, I’m not objecting to trees. We could fill in, like I said, on Southwestern most of these existing trees are there, and I’ll talk to my landscape architect to spread those out accordingly and add more of a street scape for that main, because that’s more of the main thoroughfare through there. MR. HUNSINGER-Right. If they weren’t shown on the plan, I was assuming there weren’t going to be new ones. MR. TRAVER-If we’re going to add that as a condition, we should be specific in terms of numbers and locations. MR. HUNSINGER-So you show three new ones along your parking area. MR. EASTON-Yes. MR. HUNSINGER-My suggestion would be the same size tree, two additional trees on Southwestern Avenue and two additional trees on Nathan Street. MR. EASTON-Okay. I have no objection to that. 22 (Queensbury Planning Board 09/22/2020) MR. HUNSINGER-Yes. I didn’t see a problem with Holden Avenue personally. I mean if you want to put more there, that would be fine. Part of where I’m coming from is there seems to be a lot of trees that were taken off, not necessarily on your property, but in that general area. MR. TRAVER-Yes. MR. HUNSINGER-Both sides of Southwestern Avenue in the last couple of years. It’s just kind of obvious to me. MR. TRAVER-Did you have anything else, Chris? MR. HUNSINGER-No, that was it. MR. TRAVER-Other questions, comments? I’ll remind the audience for the public hearing if you wish to comment by phone that number again is 518-761-8225, and just note that we have not received any calls as of yet. Laura, are there any written comments? PUBLIC HEARING OPENED MRS. MOORE-There’s one written comment, and I think you’re in the process of addressing that. This individual, Julia Coon, wrote to me, “Thank you for taking the time to talk to me and explain things to me today. We live at 10 Nathan St. directly across from where HHHN would like to put a parking lot. The only concern we have is privacy. My husband recently had a massive stroke and our granddaughter, who we care for after school and has autism, both have noise issues. Neither one tolerates extra noise from traffic or loud voices. We would like to see a fence or something put up to block some of that out. Thank you for considering this. Julia and Arthur Coon” And so they are at Nathan Street and you mentioned two additional trees, and I don’t know whether there’s discussion in regards to more vegetation on that side or a fence. It’s up to the Board. MR. TRAVER-Okay. Thank you, Laura. Any further discussion regarding vegetation? I think Chris’ suggestion of the addition of the trees will certainly help. The more trees we have the better. MR. EASTON-I guess the only question for the Board is would you rather see a conifer, you know, an evergreen along those roads, versus a deciduous tree along Nathan? MR. TRAVER-For that site I think I kind of like deciduous trees, myself, but I don’t know, or a mix. MRS. MOORE-Maybe a mix would be something to discuss. Because that would minimize some of the noise at a lower level. MR. DEEB-Two additional deciduous and then two additional conifer. MR. TRAVER-Works for me. MR. DEEB-So you’d end up with eight trees total. MR. TRAVER-People comfortable with that? I have not received any calls. We’ve taken written comment. There’s no one in the audience that wanted to address the Planning Board. So we’ll go ahead and close the public hearing. PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED MR. TRAVER-Under SEQR this is a Type II. So we need not take any SEQR action. If there are no other questions for the applicant, I’ll entertain a motion. RESOLUTION APPROVING SP # 39-2020 HUDSON HEADWATERS HEALTH NETWORK The applicant has submitted an application to the Planning Board: Applicant proposes site work on six properties including building demolition, removal of driveway area, tree and shrub removal, revegetation and installation of thirty new parking spaces. The new parking is associated with 309.7-1-55 having an existing medical office building with thirty spaces. In addition, the building on parcel 309.7-1-58 is also to remain at this time. Project includes merging six properties. Pursuant to Chapter 179-3-040 of the Zoning Ordinance, site development work shall be subject to Planning Board review and approval. Pursuant to relevant sections of the Town of Queensbury Zoning Code-Chapter 179-9-080, the Planning Board has determined that this proposal satisfies the requirements as stated in the Zoning Code; As required by General Municipal Law Section 239-m the site plan application was referred to the Warren County Planning Department for its recommendation; 23 (Queensbury Planning Board 09/22/2020) The Planning Board opened a public hearing on the Site plan application on 09/22/2020 and continued the public hearing to 09/22/2020, 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 09/22/2020; 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 39-2020 HUDSON HEADWATERS HEALTH NETWORK; Introduced by David Deeb who moved for its adoption. According to the draft resolution prepared by Staff with the following: 1) No waivers were requested; 2) The approval is valid for one (1) year from the date of approval. Applicant is 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. l) Setback requirements to be listed on the Site Development Data sheet. m) Two deciduous street trees to be added of two and a half to three inch caliper on Nathan Street and Southwestern Avenue; and two additional coniferous trees to be added on Southwestern and Nathan Avenue. nd Motion seconded by Jamie White. Duly adopted this 22 day of September 2020 by the following vote: MR. VALENTINE-I guess with the conifers, knowing that they would block sound more so than deciduous that’s going to lose leaves at some point, could you locate those on the map in front of the Coon property where that request came from. MR. EASTON-Yes. MR. VALENTINE-It’s right on the corner there. MR. EASTON-Okay, the corner. MR. VALENTINE-Yes, which would be the southeast corner. 24 (Queensbury Planning Board 09/22/2020) MR. EASTON-Okay. I have no problem doing that. I’ll just add it to the plans. MR. TRAVER-Any other comments, questions? Maria, can you call the vote for us, please. AYES: Mr. Hunsinger, Mr. Magowan, Mr. Valentine, Mr. Deeb, Ms. White, Mr. Shafer, Mr. Traver NOES: NONE MR. TRAVER-You’re all set. MR. EASTON-Thank you very much. MR. TRAVER-Next we have, also under New Business, Adirondack Imaging, Site Plan 40-2020. SITE PLAN NO. 40-2020 SEQR TYPE: UNLISTED. ADIRONDACK IMAGING. AGENT(S): THE LA GROUP. OWNER(S); BOLDSTAR, LLC. ZONING: CLI. LOCATION: CORNER OF CORINTH ROAD & CAREY ROAD. APPLICANT PROPOSES TO CONSTRUCT AN 18,200 SQ. FT. MEDICAL OFFICE BUILDING INCLUDING AN IMAGING CENTER. THE LOT IS LOCATED IN THE CAREY INDUSTRIAL PARK AND IS A CORNER LOT. ACCESS TO THE SITE WILL BE FROM CAREY ROAD BUT WILL HAVE FRONTAGE ON CAREY AND CORINTH ROADS. THE BUILDING HAS THE IMAGING CENTER OF 15,000 SQ. FT. AND THEN 3,200 SQ. FT. AREA FOR A FUTURE TENANT. SITE WORK INCLUDES INSTALLATION OF PARKING AREA, LANDSCAPING, STORMWATER MANAGEMENT AND LIGHTING. PURSUANT TO CHAPTER 179-3-040 OF THE ZONING ORDINANCE, NEW COMMERCIAL CONSTRUCTION SHALL BE SUBJECT TO PLANNING BOARD REVIEW AND APPROVAL. CROSS REFERENCE: NORTHERN DISTRIBUTING SUB. WARREN CO. REFERRAL: SEPTEMBER 2020. SITE INFORMATION: CAREY INDUSTRIAL PARK. LOT SIZE: 2.87 ACRES. TAX MAP NO. 309.13- 2-31.113. SECTION: 179-3-040. MATT BROBSTON, REPRESENTING APPLICANT, PRESENT MR. TRAVER-Laura? MRS. MOORE-This applicant proposes an 18,200 square foot medical office building including an imaging center. The lot is located in the Carey Industrial Park and is a corner lot. Access to the site will be from Carey Road, but will have frontage on Carey and Corinth Road. The imaging center is approximately 15,000 square feet and a future tenant is to be 3,200 square feet. The site work includes installation of the parking area, landscaping, stormwater management and lighting. MR. TRAVER-Okay. Thank you. Good evening. MR. BROBSTON-Good evening. I’m Matt Brobston from the LA Group. I’m joined this evening by Rabia Shinaishin from Hyman Hayes Associates. Larry Novick from Benachio Construction will be constructing the project. Jim Holmes from Adirondack Imagining and Kevin Knoblauch as well from Benachio. So I prepared a presentation. I’ll run through some items to get you familiar with the project and I’ll field questions at the end. I did want to modify one of the things that Laura read. She did read the imagining center to be 15,000 square feet. The imaging portion of the building is 9850 square feet with a lease area of 4250 square feet, and then there’s a future lease area of 3200 square feet, totaling the 18,200 square feet. So just some small adjustments and we’ll look at that on the plans as well. We can go from there. The project is located on the corner of Corinth and Carey Road. It’s located within that Commercial Light Industrial zone. It’s the previously Lot 20 of the Northern Distributing parcel subdivision here. We’re sort of adjacent and across Carey Road from Hudson Headwaters facility here, medical facility, and we’d be looking to come in with our entrance, which we’ll see in another slide, directly across from the existing driveway entrance off of Carey Road. There’ll be no new entrance on Corinth. All access would come off of Carey Road for this project. The project is also located along Glens Falls Transit bus line and there appears to be a bus stop location in this location just off of the property with that shelter. So this is the survey for the parcel. You can see it’s currently, the majority of it is wooded. There are some trails that run through this parcel, but it’s 2.87 acres, and you can see in this slide the entrance off of Carey Road this adjacent parcel. To the south there is a self-storage facility. The majority of this parcel would be cleared of any large trees for the development. This is identifying those areas. All these plans are plans that were crated and reviewed by the engineer, and we can go over the engineer’s comments. Again, you guys have touched on the comments of the comments, and those things earlier. I’m not sure we can get too much into this. All of our entrance for construction will be coming off of Carey Road. Northing coming off of Corinth. There is some existing stub utilities that were planned for during the construction of the subdivision, and I’ll show you where they’re located so that we can connect to those with our proposed building and connections. So this is the general layout of the site. The building is set back off the road with the parking in front along Corinth. The main entrance would come off of Carey and you’d be driving in and directed to the main area for drop off. There’d be a small canopy off the front of the building, not a 25 (Queensbury Planning Board 09/22/2020) traditional pull off area for drop off. It is an imaging center. It’s not necessarily a surgery center or something like a medical office for treatment. It is mainly for imaging. So a lot less needing to stop, help somebody out, that kind of thing. We did locate the handicap spots adjacent to the main entrance with a crosswalk, identifying that as an area for vehicles. You can see here this area is the main part of the building which comprises roughly 15,000 square feet which is divided into those two pieces in the building. This portion of the building would be the imaging center, with this being a lease area. This darker area that you see here would be a future lease, possible lease tenant for that building. Upon entering the site you would drop off or circulate around. This parking lot here would be mainly staff parking, and we’ve utilized porous pavement in this area along the parking, along the car areas, not within the drive aisle to minimize our disturbance and grading in that area. We’ve included in this plan, you can see the monument sign. One of the comments had to do with distance off the road. We’re 25 feet off the road which complies with the corridor zoning for that. Any of the future signage would need to come back and get approved I believe through your Building Department. MRS. MOORE-A standard permit. MR. BROBSTON-Yes. We’d need a permit for that. One key feature for this site really is this area here off the western portion of the building. Inside of the building, this is an area where they have a weight room for imaging specifically for women’s health imaging. There might be an area where there might be a gown waiting area, waiting to go into a procedure. So we’ve tried to assist in some of the calming natures that we can add in, and added a garden you can look out onto while still maintaining some privacy. So there’s a privacy fence there along with some vegetation to kind of block the views in while providing some areas for visual appeal from inside out. We’ve also located, I can touch back on some of those stormwater impacts and how we’re treating that on another slide. There’s a couple of exits out of the building, and the walk does kind of loop back, which is noticeable, and you’d typically think it would be in a straight line. The reason for that is there’s some MRI equipment and imaging equipment in there that requires some setbacks for any pedestrians outside the building. So that’s the reason for the swooping nature of that walk. We’ve tried to identify and locate the transformer, electrical transformers, outside Carey Road, which is typical for what’s going on out there, not uncommon to try and plan around it to try and not highlight it, just make it go away. One of your comments about street trees, we have introduced some street trees along Carey Road, and the landscaping plan, when we get to it, is really something we’ve tried to put some emphasis on, around the building, to make this look like a very appealing place to come. The next slide is basically just the basic plan that we submit to the engineer for review, but one thing it does have on here that it didn’t have on the other slide that I showed you was the fire department movements within the facility and how they get around the site and out for procedures. One thing I didn’t mention on the previous slide, there is a dumpster. This area, again, this is the portion of the parking lot that would be porous pavement, and you can probably see this will be walk on the back a little bit better here. There is proposed to be 93 parking spaces for the project. It’s roughly one per two hundred square feet, which is something that the client has recommended just as the nature of the business having a little bit more than is typical or is required. So that’s something we’re asking for. We’ve tried to mitigate that by having some of these parking spots be porous pavement as well. We understand that. If we can go on to the next slide. The next slide talks about the grading of the site. Really we tried to set the building up high and drain everything out away from the main entrance, main door, and really the concept here is to have this dry stream bed that runs around the site, and would be depicted with some river stones in the bottom and would fill up during storm events but would remain dry. Also enhance that feature by adding in some plants that would be kind of more naturalized and native looking ones that you might see in a stream bed that soften that look, trying to really get away from larger basins that just fill up with water and stand with standing water. So we’re doing a lot of infiltration on this site. The soil is sandy, allowing for infiltration basins as well as for porous pavement. So the main infiltration portion of these basins are down in this area here. Next slide. This is the utilities connections that I spoke of earlier. There’s an existing stub sanitary connection that is here which we’ll be connecting with an E-1 Grinder Pump, the standard that DOH and the Town has requested that we use. MR. TRAVER-Excuse me. We have a caller who’s stating that on the YouTube channel the volume is insufficient. They have their t.v. set or whatever, computer turned up to 100. I don’t know. Is it possible that you can raise the audio level on the transmission? PETER PEPE MR. PEPE-It’s the normal problem we have. We get static from time to time, and it happens to be happening right now. Earlier this evening it was crystal clear. Now we have static. MR. TRAVER-Okay. Our YouTube technician is saying that we do have some interference from time to time. They’re doing the best they can. You’re welcome. I’m sorry. MR. HUNSINGER-People do watch. MR. TRAVER-Yes. 26 (Queensbury Planning Board 09/22/2020) MR. MAGOWAN-Thank you for calling in. MR. BROBSTON-So the sanitary would be pumping up to an existing force main that’s on Corinth. We’ve been directed to use this E-1 Pump to pump the sewer and we’ve been directed by the Town to, but items used and how to make the connection which we have included in our design. There’s an existing water stub connection which we’ll be connecting to here and bringing in to the facility for the water needs that there will be. Again, no new connections or crossings to the main. Everything has been stubbed as part of the subdivision. So nothing new for us to do but connect to what’s there. Go to the next slide. The next slide’s really going to be the landscaping plan, and I think you’re going to see we’ve kind of tried to plant this in a way that is a little bit more attractive and adds to some of the stream like features that you see. These areas in here are going to be the stone riverbed areas. Now there are only going to be depressions two to three feet with stone in the bottom but we’re going to plant around the edges and grade them such that they look kind of natural, and the plants would be native and something you might find there. It also provides us area that we would be able to snow plow off into without impacting any of our stormwater as well. So those areas are beneficial for the site. So that’s located in this area here. Again I’ll touch on the outdoor garden. That’s kind of hidden behind a screening fence and the reasons for that. We did enhance a lot of the plantings along the front of the building, bring in some flowery trees that kind of set that area up nicely. Along the back we’ve tried to add some plantings because we are taking down quite a bit of screening to the neighbor. We are tight to this area with the constrictions from some of the things in the back, as well as some stormwater facilities that are underground you don’t see, a drywell and some other connecting drainage ways that are servicing for our stormwater in these areas. We have provided some sod along these edgings to kind of give you an idea, to kind of stop the erosion during construction to kind of help with that immediate need. You can see we’ve tried to plant around this transformer to kind of block it from interior probably more than exterior, but they do need access to those facilities. So we are cognizant of that. We did do some base plantings around the bottom of the monument sign just to kind of bump up that as well and continued a lot of these plantings so you don’t just see a sea of lawn to the stormwater facility. On the next slide is the lighting plan. The lighting incorporates building lights that we commented earlier. One of the comments the Town had, needed some information as far as the average foot candle out in the parking lot. I got that today and provided it to the Town, but it’s 1.3 foot candles within the parking lot area, which they recommend around one and then five at the building entrances. The measured is 5.9 at the building entrances. So we’re right on target of where the Town wants us to be with our lighting for this. On the next slide, we’re going to kind of get into some of the architecturals. This is where you’ll see this divide in the building. This is the portion that is the imaging center that I spoke of, and this is the lease area as part of this plan. This is the future lease area for a future tenant, but the whole building is 18,200 square feet footprint. You see the canopy area as well in this area, kind of provides some protective cover upon entering the building. These are the imaging machines that are in these areas here. That’s going to require some additional space back there for the pedestrians and then on this site you have that gown waiting room that I spoke of earlier. The next slide I’m going to turn it over to Rabia to kind of walk through the elevations and describe the materials as well. MR. TRAVER-Good evening. RABIA SHINAISHIN MS. SHINAISHIN-I’m Rabia Shinaishin. Like Matt said, I’m the project manager from Hyman Hayes. So we’re the architects on the project working with Matt and Hudson Headwaters. So in terms of the overall design, basically I’ll be the one to talk about the building. If you have any questions, just please feel free to ask me, but in terms of the overall appearance of the building, the primary tenant, as it was mentioned earlier is Adirondack Radiology Associates. So they were keen on kind of keeping that presence that they have in the community and making sure that they have that connection to the Adirondacks and surrounding. So that idea of the kind of more earthy tones that you see, so in terms of like the colors that we have on the building, we’re trying to stick to a more neutral palate. The main building material that we have is EIFS. Then there would be some areas at the base for fiber cement accent panels and then some cultured stone may be utilized in certain key areas like at the entry and at the side of the building that faces west. So we gave a little bit more attention to certain areas of the building. In general the building is kind of trying to keep more of a neutral, earthy scale of the building . So in terms of glazing, Matt was talking about the layout of the interior on the inside. So there’s kind of, how the inside responds to the outside is there’s kind of a separation from the public to a semi-private to a more private zone. So that’s where you see a little more glazing for the public spaces, the entry vestibule and all, the waiting rooms. If you have any questions. MR. TRAVER-Questions, comments from members of the Board? MR. DEEB-I like the color scheme. MR. HUNSINGER-Yes, I do, too. I thought it was a beautiful design. MR. MAGOWAN-It’s calming. 27 (Queensbury Planning Board 09/22/2020) MR. VALENTINE-I was going to ask you about the rear elevation until I remembered what the use was on the other side. It wouldn’t matter. MR. DEEB-Do you have any prospective tenants? MR. BROBSTON-Adirondack Imaging, Adirondack Radiology is the main tenant, but I don’t know if there’s another tenant. MR. DEEB-So you have no idea what’s going to go in there, because I’m wondering what kind of traffic it will generate once you lease the building. MR. VALENTINE-Well the parking numbers are calculated to the full 18,000 square feet. MR. DEEB-Okay. MR. VALENTINE-I just thought I’d throw that in there to mess you up. That’s all. MR. DEEB-I appreciate it. MR. TRAVER-I’ll go ahead and open a public hearing on this application and just remind the public observing us on the YouTube channel that if they wish to comment they can call 518-761-8225. Is there anyone in the audience that wanted to comment on this application to the Board tonight? I’m not seeing any hands. Laura, are there any written comments? PUBLIC HEARING OPENED MRS. MOORE-There are no written comments. MR. TRAVER-Okay. Any other questions or comments? MR. SHAFER-I’ve seen some modern medical buildings that have been up closer to the road with the parking in the back. What drove the location of the building in this case? MR. BROBSTON-So in this case we’re really taking cues from the corridor district. Having that building set back further, the building, the site is not really that deep. If we were to put this building closer, we would lose a lot of that parking wrapping around the site and include stormwater. We only do this to try to minimize our disturbance, keep our, you know it appears as though we’ve disturbed quite a bit, and we have, but we’re really tried to tuck it in and be understanding of what’s going on adjacent to us as well. Putting it to the front would present this faux front on the road. You really would be looking at the back of the building. This provides the front door to the people driving in as well as to people entering off of Carey. So you’re presented to the front door. You see the front door as you’re passing by and the parking on site. That is there. So that’s really the reason, to show the front door as you’re passing by and bring you to it. MR. SHAFER-Are you familiar with the one in Delmar? MR. BROBSTON-I’m not. MR. SHAFER-The medical building in Delmar. It’s set right on the corner of a major intersection and they designed it very well so it looks good from both directions with the parking in the back. I mean it works extremely well, but I was just curious why you went to the back in this case. MR. BROBSTON-The setbacks here are 75 feet for the building. So getting the building at that point would really close off our use, the remaining area wouldn’t be sufficient enough to get the parking around. I don’t think it would provide that up on the corner that you’re talking about because the setback is what it is in that area. MR. VALENTINE-I was thinking about that, but the back of that building, because there’s self-storage units to the back side, that I think I would take advantage of moving the building back to the self-storage units myself. MR. TRAVER-Move the parking to the back you mean? MR. VALENTINE-No, no. I think the way it is now is because of the fact that the self-storage is there. MR. TRAVER-Okay. Yes. 28 (Queensbury Planning Board 09/22/2020) MR. BROBSTON-I did misspeak. It’s not 75 feet on the front setback. It’s 50, but I still think you wouldn’t get that up on the street feeling that you are talking about. MR. TRAVER-One of our concerns is light pollution, and I know that your lighting specs are a bit high. Can you tone them down a little bit? MR. BROBSTON-Yes, we can definitely look at, you know, adjusting that to be less intense. We’re looking to be right around that 1, lower it down a little bit. MR. TRAVER-And the five at the entrance. MR. BROBSTON-We can definitely work with the lighting engineers on those. MR. HUNSINGER-Yes, you had one spot on your photometric plan that was like 12, and I figured it was just an anomaly of the model that you ran. MR. BROBSTON-Yes, I’d have to look and see where that is. MR. HUNSINGER-Right under the main entrance. MR. BROBSTON-Yes, there are some lights underneath that canopy area to kind of. MR. HUNSINGER-I mean right next to it was five, but there was just that one spot. MR. BROBSTON-Okay. We can definitely look at that and adjust that. MR. HUNSINGER-The only other question I had, I don’t want to speak for the Board, but could you comment on the parking? Because only 61 spaces are required and you propose 95. You did comment that that’s what the tenant wanted to have, but if you could just elaborate for us. MR. BROBSTON-Yes, we’re really looking to have, this facility would have a high turnover, and just providing those spaces allows us to accommodate that turnover, as well as the facility, the lease areas that are proposed. The tenants that might be in there could also possibly require a higher volume of turnover and that would kind of help with that. So that’s the reason for that. MR. VALENTINE-Are you saying that there may be a need for more spaces to accommodate the future leases? MR. BROBSTON-No, not beyond this plan. MR. VALENTINE-I’m wondering, because I had the same thought, Chris, that knowing that the full 18,000 square feet was taking care of with 60 spaces, is I wonder if it wouldn’t pay to consider even banking some of those parking spaces now and just adding them as asphalt paving if they become necessary later on when the two other spaces are leased. MR. BROBSTON-That’s something we can look at. If we were to do that, I would suggest banking the ones that are on the curbsides of those parking area. MR. HUNSINGER-That would make sense. MR. BROBSTON-I would like to keep the stormwater intact, keeping the porous pavement in that rear end. That is one area that we could come back, you know, once we discuss it, and if we decide to bank that area, that might be a possibility as well. MR. VALENTINE-You had made, Matt, throughout the presentation, sandy soils, sandy soils, sandy soils. Were there any tests done? MR. BROBSTON-Yes, we did do deep hole test pits out there, to generate our stormwater design, and that was submitted to Chazen. They did have comments on that. Some of them they do want to have some additional test pits done in certain areas, which is common, and something we could definitely accommodate before we start construction in those areas. MR. HUNSINGER-That surprised me a little because your test pit data was pretty uniform. MR. BROBSTON-That’s just it. MR. MAGOWAN-Pretty common soil through there. Sand. MR. HUNSINGER-It’s all sand. 29 (Queensbury Planning Board 09/22/2020) MR. BROBSTON-They do have requirements. The DEC does require certain test pits within a certain number of square feet in these infiltration areas, and until we finalize the design we just don’t know where those areas are going to fall. MR. VALENTINE-The length of the lateral for the force main for a pump. Is that, I only remember setting them for residential. So I’m not used to,. that seemed long on there. Is that a normal length? MR. BROBSTON-It’s not normal. It is longer, but it is calculated with the E-1 Pump for the head that’s generated. So that can be modified. We also have to connect to an existing force main on Corinth. MR. VALENTINE-So they’ve got to meet the pressure. MR. BROBSTON-Yes, the pressure. MR. SHAFER-I noticed you’re clearing every square inch of the lot. Did you consider leaving some of those mature trees in the corners, for example? MR. BROBSTON-We did, and if we can minimize that as we get out there, I think some of the coverage you’re seeing is, if we can save some of those large specimen trees in some areas, as we get out there, we definitely will try and do that. Just, we didn’t have a pinpoint location of all of those, and that would have been, you know, a three acre site to pinpoint the larger trees on the outskirts would have been a difficult task, but some of these areas for sure, like up around Corinth we’re not doing so much grading, we could definitely maintain some of those trees, as well as even some of the areas on the south and on the eastern border. We can definitely try and maintain some of those. MR. SHAFER-Great. Thank you. MR. MAGOWAN-It’s a shame that you talked about taking out the curbs in the parking lot. That’s what kind of caught me. It was calming. I like that, and along with the planting and the riverbed. Like I said, I kind of like that design and that, to me, didn’t hesitate me at all letting you, you know, moving the building up front. I really like the design of what you did to that parking lot. I’m a full believer sometimes are parking lots are too large and if we could cut back a little and bank, but a lot of times I believe some of the ones that we have banked ended up being used, and you guys actually know more about what you need, but I think the way the planting is and the curb, it doesn’t look like there’s that many spaces there, and adding the permeable pavement over there, I like the idea where you park the cars. I have found up the turning radiuses really eat up and spit it out, but I like the way you’ve done your stormwater for the snow removal. I feel you’ve done a nice job with the colors and the building layout and it really was a nice. It was a pretty nice project to go through tonight and some nice slides. So thank you. MR. BROBSTON-Thank you. MR. TRAVER-Is there anyone in the audience, I guess I asked already. There’s no one in the audience that wanted to comment on this application. I have received no additional phone calls. There are no written comments, Laura? PUBLIC HEARING OPENED MRS. MOORE-There are no written comments. MR. TRAVER-Okay. We’ll go ahead and close the public hearing, then. PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED MR. TRAVER-Under SEQR, this is an Unlisted action. So I would ask the Board, having reviewed the materials, if t here’s a sense that there are any environmental concerns after review of those items that we need to review in detail or are we ready to move forward with SEQR? I think we have a draft motion. RESOLUTION GRANTING A NEGATIVE SEQR DEC. SP # 40-2020 ADIRONDACK IMAGING The applicant proposes to construct an 18,200 sq. ft. medical office building including an imaging center. The lot is located in the Carey Industrial Park and is a corner lot. Access to the site will be from Carey Road but will have frontage on Carey and Corinth Roads. The building has the imaging center of 15,000 sq. ft. and then 3,200 sq. ft. area for a future tenant. Site work includes installation of parking area, landscaping, stormwater management and lighting. Pursuant to Chapter 179-3-040 of the Zoning Ordinance, new commercial construction shall be subject to Planning Board review and approval. 30 (Queensbury Planning Board 09/22/2020) The Planning Board has determined that the proposed project and Planning Board action is subject to review under the State Environmental Quality Review Act; The proposed action considered by this Board is Unlisted in the Department of Environmental Conservation Regulations implementing the State Environmental Quality Review Act and the regulations of the Town of Queensbury; No Federal or other agencies are involved; Part 1 of the Short EAF has been completed by the applicant; Upon review of the information recorded on this EAF, it is the conclusion of the Town of Queensbury Planning Board as lead agency that this project will result in no significant adverse impacts on the environment, and, therefore, an environmental impact statement need not be prepared. Accordingly, this negative declaration is issued. MOTION TO GRANT A NEGATIVE DECLARATION FOR SITE PLAN 40-2020 ADIRONDACK IMAGING; Introduced by David Deeb who moved for its adoption. As per the resolution prepared by staff. 1. Part II of the Short EAF has been reviewed and completed by the Planning Board. 2. Part III of the Short EAF is not necessary because the Planning Board did not identify potentially moderate to large impacts. nd Motion seconded by Brad Magowan. Duly adopted this 22 day of September 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. Are people comfortable moving forward? MR. HUNSINGER-Yes. MR. VALENTINE-Yes. MR. MAGOWAN-The only thing I want to ask, it was the previous tenant on the previous application on his engineering comments, but they’re lengthy. They don’t look, there’s more questions than anything else, but do you have any problem with addressing all these with our engineer? MR. BROBSTON-No. I don’t mean to sound like everybody else up here. We did take the time to prepare comment responses. We did not provide them because we’re waiting to see if there’s any other comments this evening. We do have comment responses ready for Chazen. They’ll go out tomorrow. None of them would modify our design. A lot of those were items of clarification on their part, some small adjustments to the inverts and things like that, but nothing that’s going to affect the design draft what you see today. We’re definitely confident we can get to that resolution. MR. MAGOWAN-Thank you. MR. TRAVER-Any other comments before we move to a resolution? MR. DEEB-I’m going to add, there’s three more items to be added to the resolution. I want to make sure we’re all in agreement with them. The first one was lighting specifications are going to be lowered to meet Town recommendations. MR. TRAVER-Yes. MR. DEEB-Two, parking spaces, I don’t know how many. Do you want to list a number of parking spaces to be banked? MR. SHAFER-They were proposing 95 and the Code is 61. MR. DEEB-He wants to bank so many of them. Do you know how many you want to bank? MR. VALENTINE-That’s a type of a thing that I guess I don’t know if we really want to specify ourselves in the Site Plan because we start designing the plan. 31 (Queensbury Planning Board 09/22/2020) MR. DEEB-Then we just leave it generic. MR. VALENTINE-Yes. MR. DEEB-Parking spaces to be banked. MR. VALENTINE-The applicant acknowledges that it will be looked at as far as trying to maintain more green by eliminating unnecessary parking spaces and banking them for future use. Now did you get that verbatim? MR. DEEB-I got it. MR. VALENTINE-Okay. MR. SHAFER-They also committed to try to keep any mature trees. MR. DEEB-That was my next one. MR. SHAFER-All right. MR. DEEB-Did you want to list which trees that you want to put on there? Do you have certain trees that you want to list on there? I just put down certain trees to be maintained on the property. MR. SHAFER-Well I think the corners. MR. BROBSTON-Yes, we can definitely look at maintaining as many of those that are possible along the borders to the south and on the east. MR. DEEB-Southern and eastern border, and how about the corners? You said the corners also? MR. BROBSTON-Yes, really the corners that wouldn’t be developed. On the western south corner we have the transformer for the electrical and the other corner is going to need to be cleared for turning distances on the corner of Carey, but the other two corners will be covered in that area. MR. HUNSINGER-They’re part of the south and east. MR. BROBSTON-That norther corner is also part of the eastern property boundary. MR. DEEB-Then I’m just going to leave it at the southern and eastern border. All right. RESOLUTION APPROVING SP # 40-2020 ADIRONDACK IMAGING The applicant has submitted an application to the Planning Board: Applicant proposes to construct an 18,200 sq. ft. medical office building including an imaging center. The lot is located in the Carey Industrial Park and is a corner lot. Access to the site will be from Carey Road but will have frontage on Carey and Corinth Roads. The building has the imaging center of 15,000 sq. ft. and then 3,200 sq. ft. area for a future tenant. Site work includes installation of parking area, landscaping, stormwater management and lighting. Pursuant to Chapter 179-3-040 of the Zoning Ordinance, new commercial construction shall be subject to Planning Board review and approval. Pursuant to relevant sections of the Town of Queensbury Zoning Code-Chapter 179-9-080, the Planning Board has determined that this proposal satisfies the requirements as stated in the Zoning Code; As required by General Municipal Law Section 239-m the site plan application was referred to the Warren County Planning Department for its recommendation; The Planning Board has reviewed the potential environmental impacts of the project, pursuant to the State Environmental Quality Review Act (SEQRA) and adopted a SEQRA Negative Declaration – Determination of Non-Significance The Planning Board opened a public hearing on the Site plan application on 09/22/2020 and continued the public hearing to 09/22/2020, 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 09/22/2020; 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, 32 (Queensbury Planning Board 09/22/2020) MOTION TO APPROVE SITE PLAN 40-2020 ADIRONDACK IMAGING; Introduced by David Deeb who moved for its adoption. According to the draft resolution prepared by Staff with the following: 1) No waivers were requested; 2) The approval is valid for one (1) year from the date of approval. Applicant is 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. l) Lighting specifications to be reduced to Town recommendations. m) Parking spaces to be banked for future tenants as acknowledged by the applicant –amount to be determined by the applicant noted on plans. n) existing trees on the south and eastern property line to remain to the extent possible nd Motion seconded by Michael Valentine. Duly adopted this 22 day of September 2020 by the following vote: AYES: Mr. Magowan, Mr. Valentine, Mr. Deeb, Ms. White, Mr. Shafer, Mr. Hunsinger, Mr. Traver NOES: NONE MR. BROBSTON-Thank you very much. MR. TRAVER-Good luck. RECOMMENDATION TO THE QUEENSBURY TOWN BOARD FOR ADOPTION OF LOCAL LAW TO AMEND QUEENSBURY TOWN CODE TO ESTABLISH RENEWABLE ENERGY SYSTEMS AND FACILITIES REGULATIONS MR. TRAVER-So that concludes our regular agenda. Although recall that we have to discuss the referral to the Town Board for review and comment on the established renewable energy systems and facilities regulations. I know, Mike Dixon, you had an excellent comment you wanted to make, if you want to bring that forward. It was regarding the retiring of the. MIKE DIXON, PLANNING BOARD ALTERNATE 33 (Queensbury Planning Board 09/22/2020) MR. DIXON-It was that we didn’t have a clear definition of active use. So if we had a solar farm that became non-compliant, as far as. MR. TRAVER-It had to do with decommissioning and you were suggesting that there be some guidelines for how to make a technical determination if the solar farm or part of it was failing, and I think one suggestion you made was the energy output generated versus when the panels are new. MR. DIXON-Correct. Yes. So a better definition of what active and continuous service were. So in the definition page trying to define what active and continuous is, and tie that in with output, some sort of language in there so we don’t end up with a zombie farm, zombie solar array in the future, much like the zombie telephone poles that we have, zombie homes that we have. MR. TRAVER-And we don’t have to be specific about how to define that engineering determination. We really are just expressing our concern that the Town Board address it as part of the Code, and they would have, you know, they could reach out to the engineers or the proposals could make those specifications that then they would be held to. MR. DIXON-Right. Ultimately my concern would be that we would have somebody that would take advantage of a loophole and take one solar array operating, even though they’ve got an entire solar farm, and they would say it’s active. MR. TRAVER-Right. MR. DIXON-In our eyes it would not be active and we would like it to be decommissioned. MR. TRAVER-Yes. The decommissioning was one of the concerns that I had. I think it’s important that the Town make some type of determination as to how to define at what point does that solar panel or panels, you know, need to be decommissioned, and that there should be something in there that says that they’ll be removed and some restoration of the property done, because as you say, you don’t want to have these zombie panels, and they are, they do have some environmentally toxic components as well. So they do need to be dismantled and recycled or destroyed. MR. DIXON-And I think the Town Board did a nice job defining as far as if it’s inactive that the plan has to be returned to its natural use. MR. TRAVER-Right. MR. DIXON-Or natural state. Just getting there, I don’t think we did a great job defining that pathway, as, again, going back to defining what is active. MR. MAGOWAN-Well could we base that on nothing lasts forever . So you start off, you go online, you’re producing 100% of what you should be, and then over time as they wear and they get older, that percentage drops, you know, and then it comes to a point where we’re not making any money, you know, and we have too much of a farm. So maybe that’s where we need to determine maybe a percentage of production hits a certain point where we, you know, what you don’t want to happen is it goes so long that they actually have lost so much money, and now they just kind of vanish and then we’re stuck with, you know, that’s what we’re trying to prevent is that. MR. DIXON-Yes, I think tying it in with output, it starts off at 100% and whether the Town’s determines if it’s 75%, 50%, what is acceptable before we consider it at a state where it needs to be decommissioned or brought back up to its full potential again. MR. MAGOWAN-I mean would that be an easier way of putting it, would be our percentage of output compared to? MR. HUNSINGER-Well I think that’s what he’s suggesting. MR. MAGOWAN-Well, yes, I mean that’s how I perceive it in my mind is when it gets to a certain point where it’s not producing, where the company put it in is starting to say well this is not really doing what we want, this is when we want to be able to say, okay, well you need to bring it up or remove it. MR. TRAVER-I guess my concern is I don’t want to give the company that installs it power that they don’t have. I think the power needs to be retained by the Town, and I don’t know, I mean certainly a percentage of effective generation would seem like a very logical number, but my experience with this technology is that what seems straightforward and logarithmic isn’t always the case. So that’s why I’m concerned that we not, that we, as a Planning Board, not make a determination as to what the parameters should be as to when the panels are old or when it needs to be decommissioned, only that it should be, and a determination should be made and that should be added to the Code, so there’s some kind of a standard that everybody would have to adhere to, and I’m sure that information is out there, that the experts would be able to 34 (Queensbury Planning Board 09/22/2020) provide, and it could be age. It could be a visual appearance. I’ve seen some that they begin to visually deteriorate. So I don’t know the answer to that, but I think it’s important that it be in there for all the points that you raised. MRS. MOORE-So would it be a suggestion to include Mr. Dixon’s recommendation with a little modification to that, within the recommendations that I’ve suggested? MR. TRAVER-Yes. MRS. MOORE-That way it’s part of your recommendation to the Board that you want to make sure that the Code has some language in it for dismantling. MR. TRAVER-Yes. MS. WHITE-You would add that into your list as “L”? MRS. MOORE-Yes. MS. WHITE-Okay. MR. TRAVER-So as you can see from the material, and I trust that everybody’s had an opportunity to study it in the extra time that we had, you can see that Laura added some Laura added some excellent comments, as did Michael. I didn’t know if anyone else had any additional comments that we wanted Laura to include in our. MR. HUNSINGER-Well I didn’t quite understand a couple of Laura’s comments. The first one, the panels for a rooftop/building mounted limited to 12 feet in height. I thought it was pretty clear that they can’t exceed the height limit or whatever Code they’re in, if they’re on your rooftop. I wasn’t sure what your comment there was. MRS. MOORE-A standard panel is approximately 12 feet in height. However, in the particular topic of rooftop it doesn’t specifically identify a 12 foot panel length. So you could have. MR. HUNSINGER-Panel length? Panels aren’t 12 feet long. MRS. MOORE-Panel width. Or I don’t know, panel in depth. I’m trying to think of verbiage. MR. HUNSINGER-Like I said, I thought it was clear. I wasn’t sure what your comment was. MRS. MOORE-So I don’t know if they want to maintain, what happens if they designed a panel that’s 20 feet, and granted it doesn’t go over 40 feet in a zone, but it’s now 20 feet in height. MR. HUNSINGER-Well, the actual solar panels themselves are a standard size. MR. TRAVER-For now they are. MR. HUNSINGER-At least every one that I’ve ever seen. Even the biggest commercial installations are, I don’t know, like this, like this, and they weigh like 20 pounds. They’re super light. MR. TRAVER-But that might change at some point down the road. MR. HUNSINGER-It might change. Yes. So now I understand. Because I mean I read this. It says rooftop and building mounted solar collectors must comply with the maximum height restriction in the associated zone district. So I thought that was real clear that, hey, if you’re putting solar panels on your house, and the Code is 28 foot roof height and your panels are going to raise it above 28 feet, you can’t do it. MRS. MOORE-Right. MR. HUNSINGER-Yes. Okay, but you’re talking about the length of the panels themselves? MRS. MOORE-Yes. So then in every other instance in the Code it talks about specifically that panel width or height. MR. HUNSINGER-I thought it was talking about the height of the, and on the freestanding ones it’s talking about the height of the construction from the ground can’t be more than 12 feet. That’s how I read it. 35 (Queensbury Planning Board 09/22/2020) MR. MAGOWAN-You’ve got to remember, like say they’re on a peaked roof. To me it would be the height would be going up the roof. I mean I can’t foresee anybody putting a ground mounted on top of their roof unless they want to follow the sun from morning to evening. MR. TRAVER-And they may very well at some point. MR. MAGOWAN-That’s what I thought that 12 foot, that they wouldn’t put that if they weren’t able to get that on the ground. MR. VALENTINE-I didn’t even connect 12 feet with a roof mounted. MR. HUNSINGER-Yes. I didn’t either. That’s why I was asking the question. MR. DEEB-Suppose they do put a roof mounted, if they can put a roof mounted on the roof, really the height can’t exceed the peak of the roof. MR. HUNSINGER-Right. MR. DEEB-Period, and that’s got to be within Code. MR. HUNSINGER-Yes. MR. TRAVER-Any other suggestions? MR. HUNSINGER-I had two sort of questions, comments. Laura, have you been involved with the discussion? MRS. MOORE-No, I have not. MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. So the question I have is, I have solar panels on my house. We have photovoltaic solar panels. My next door neighbor has solar thermal panels for their hot water. My thermos voltaic panels fill the whole roof and it was only expected to generate 80% of the power that we use, and at the time, and they’ve been up there three or four years. The company that installed them could not legally install more than they could justify. They had to look at our electric utility records in order to size the panels, and they couldn’t put on more than what we use, by regulation. MR. TRAVER-I see what you’re saying. So it goes back to the grid. MR. HUNSINGER-Yes. MR. TRAVER-Yes. MR. HUNSINGER-My neighbor that has the solar thermal systems, I don’t think it’s the size of two tables. I mean they’re not very big for hot water. MR. TRAVER-But that just heats water, right? MR. HUNSINGER-So my question is, I’m not sure that we need to have a full acre of land for a ground mounted, it’s a freestanding solar thermal system, because they’/re not that big. So that was why I was asking if you’d been involved. I don’t know what the reasoning and the logic was behind that. MRS. MOORE-Right. So I think that that’s a good question, only because it generates additional work between this Board and the Zoning Board, and I think it’s definitely a good suggestion to evaluate that, with the specific description is that if two panels is sufficient for, and I apologize. I don’t know what an acreage lot is, then why would we require them to have one acre. MR. HUNSINGER-Yes. Right. MR. TRAVER-Well it could be just to limit the number of them. MR. HUNSINGER-Maybe. Yes, and they also look different. They don’t, like when we think of solar panels I think we think of the photo voltaic, because that’s what you see the most, but the thermal solar panels, they look different. They’re not as reflective, generally. MR. TRAVER-Right, they’re black because they’ve got to heat the water. MR. HUNSINGER-They’re usually black and they absorb heat instead of reflect. MR. TRAVER-It’s passive solar. 36 (Queensbury Planning Board 09/22/2020) MR. HUNSINGER-Right, and then the other question I had is on the, and I understand the logic for the discussion that we started with. The posting of the bond, and I remember, you know, it’s in the code that we can do it for site plan that we can require that the developer post a bond, and there’s really only been a couple of times where we’ve really had a serious discussion about that, and I know in the one instance, and we had counsel here at the meeting when we were sort of trying to hash that out, and the comments that were being made is that it’s either very expensive or you actually can’t get it. So I’m not sure, I mean I understand where it’s coming from, but in here it’s an absolute requirement that that be done on any solar farms. MR. TRAVER-I think one of the reasons for that. MR. HUNSINGER-But I wonder if it’s even possible. That’s why I raise the question. I’m sorry, Steve. MR. TRAVER-Well it can be done by a letter. It doesn’t have to be cash. I mean remember we did that with the Diner. They put up a bond letter about the road. Remember they didn’t want to build the road because. MR. HUNSINGER-I know we didn’t get a bond. MR. TRAVER-We got like a letter of credit or something like that and that would pay for the road that, before the Diner came along the land was restricted. So that if any further development took place you had to build the road. Right? MR. HUNSINGER-Right. MR. TRAVER-So the Diner came and they said we don’t need the road, and it’s like $800,000 or something. So we’re going to lose this project if we have to put in the road. So the solution was you put in a letter of credit, or whatever the technical term would be, that the money would be there and the road would be built should there be any further development, and they did that, and that’s one of the reasons. MR. HUNSINGER-That’s not what this language says, though. This says will require the positing of a removal bond. MR. TRAVER-And I think part of, the other reason behind that is because of the decommissioning and also because it’s a relatively young industry and there’s so many players that there are a number of potential installers, if you will, that may go out of business. MR. HUNSINGER-I don’t disagree with any of that. I’m just asking if it’s even possible. If you’re a new company coming into Town, and I don’t know what you need to do to get a bond posted. MRS. MOORE-So I think there should be a suggestion included in this recommendation back that indicates more detail needs to be provided about the bond or a decommissioning or project completion so that it’s clear to the deciding four, whether that be the Town Board, the Planning Board or the Zoning Board, how they can use the bond. How is it used. MR. HUNSINGER-Yes. How do you get it? MRS. MOORE-How do you get it. How do you use it. So that the project is completed or the project is decommissioned and no one’s at a loss for dollars and cents and we have a finished project is more like a mining reclamation. MR. HUNSINGER-I mean, I’m familiar with performance bonds and construction projects where you have a Triple A rated construction company. They go to the bank and for a point they get a performance bond that they can pledge on the project. MR. TRAVER-Yes. MR. HUNSINGER-But if you’re just a company doing business, can you walk into the bank and get a performance bond on a decommissioning of a solar farm? I just don’t know. MR. MAGOWAN-What it says here, the Planning Board shall, as a condition of approval require posting of a removal bond of a solar farm or solar powered plant’s equipment. In lieu of a removal bond , the Town Board, in its discretion, may permit the owner and/or to enter into a decommissioning agreement with the Town, which provides, in relevant part. MR. VALENTINE-Why is there the mixing of two different Boards in there? That was a question I had. Why is it saying the Planning Board should do it and then the Town Board is in there? 37 (Queensbury Planning Board 09/22/2020) MR. MAGOWAN-Well of course they want us to be the bad guy. MR. TRAVER-I’d appreciate clarification on that. MR. VALENTINE-Maybe they made a mistake. Maybe it was just a mistake and they left the word Town Board in and it should be Planning Board. MR. HUNSINGER-Yes. MR. TRAVER-One of the ways it can be done is by purchasing, it’s actually a form of insurance. For example we have a fundraiser every year where we have a hole in one contest where you get a hole in one you get like a million dollars or something, and we buy an insurance policy. I think the last time it was like $800, and the insurance is in the event that somebody gets a hole in one, I’m not going to be able to do it, but, you know, with our luck somebody gets it and then we have to come up with a million dollars. So you buy an insurance policy, and if by any chance somebody does it, the insurance policy will pay the million dollars. So it could be possibly something like that. There’s an incredible variety of mechanisms for doing this kind of thing, but you’re right, it should be worked out and determined what the various options are to insure that we’re not requiring the impossible. MR. HUNSINGER-Right. Spell it out, make it clear. MR. MAGOWAN-No, but a bond on a $184,000,000 project is going to be buco dinero, but a removal bond to remove this, you know, it might be a $40,000 or $50,000 which is a much more affordable bond for a company to, and our protection which goes along. MR. HUNSINGER-So one of the things that I just remembered on our solar panels, I don’t know what we paid to have them installed, but written into our agreement is if we have to have them removed for any reason, they’ll remove them for $500. MR. TRAVER-Like if you had to have your roof replaced or something? MR. HUNSINGER-Yes. If there’s some issue where they have to remove the panels, they’ll remove them for $500. So it was written right into our original agreement. I remember thinking at the time, boy, that’s like nothing, but of course that’s not disposal of the panels. MR. TRAVER-Right. MR. HUNSINGER-That’s just taking them off. MR. VALENTINE-Do we have time to go through, whether we have questions, on a page by page basis? MR. TRAVER-Yes, I mean that’s what we’re here for. MR. VALENTINE-Well I would like to go page by page, if we can. MR. TRAVER-Sure. MR. VALENTINE-If you don’t mind. I’d like to look in the definitions section, and Page Two starts off with, now these definitions are actually what is going to be going in to this local law. Right? So these definitions, do you know, are these new definitions or are they added somewhere? MRS. MOORE-These are new definitions that do not exist in the Code. MR. VALENTINE-Okay. Under Collective Solar, I just said add apartment complexes in there. Because the type of residential uses that they’re talking about here talk about the collectives, they leave out that. MR. TRAVER-Well they’re saying similar collective arrangements. MR. VALENTINE-Well why not just add apartment complexes and then just leave that other phrase at the end. Just a suggestion. MR. HUNSINGER-Good one. MR. VALENTINE-I’ll give you a Valentine one here. Under “Glare” it needs a period at the end of the sentence. MR. MAGOWAN-Good eye. 38 (Queensbury Planning Board 09/22/2020) MR. VALENTINE-I had a question on permit granting authorities, the bottom of Page Two, the definition goes on the next side. Town’s Building Inspector and Zoning Administrator are together charged with granting permits for the installation and operation of solar energy systems. And this is what I put. I put comma following proper review and approval by the Town’s Planning Board and/or Zoning Board of Appeals. My thought was don’t leave that hanging and say it’s only the building inspector and Zoning Administrator involved there. MR. TRAVER-They execute it but we approve it. MR. VALENTINE-Yes. MRS. MOORE-Can I just say that it’s only for certain projects. It’s not every renewable energy project that’s listed. The Planning Board is only charged with looking at the ground mounted operations. You’re never going to look at a roof mounted unless. MR. VALENTINE-No, but you will have solar farms around here. They will come before the Planning Board and they will not come in residential districts. They’re going to come in other residential districts. So that is a use that we will be reviewing for Special Use Permit and for Site Plan Review. MR. TRAVER-Yes. MR. VALENTINE-All right. Next one. Under Qualified Solar Installer, it says a person, and I just put, or business, it could be an individual person that does some type of installation or he could be an Apex or something like that. Now come down to Solar Access. This has been a problem, this and the subject with it, down in Saratoga Springs coming up to a lawsuit and counter lawsuit with the construction of this parking garage at the City Center. A space open to the sun and clear of overhangs or shade, and then I put and shadows, because that was the whole premise of the lawsuit with that Mouzon restaurant with the City Center when their garage went up, and they had solar panels on the house or the restaurant there, and the five stories there blocked sun view, you know, sun, and created shadows. Again, I’m just putting these down as suggestions. I think it’s different from shade, but it’s the same thing, but shadows, the shade would maybe, you’d look at it and say shade with a tree, and that goes to my next point. The next page, an easement recorded pursuant to New York Real Property Law the purpose of which is to secure the right to receive sunlight across real property or improvements thereon, and that would be the building that would be adjacent. MR. TRAVER-Anything else on Page Four? MR. VALENTINE-I don’t think so. I had something else, but it’s nothing. Next page, the next page is just a wording type thing under C. (4). It says Solar collectors, unless they are part of a solar farm, shall be permitted only to provide power for use by owners, lessees, tenants, residents, or other occupants. Now solar farms are not permitted in residential districts. So the reference to tenants, non-residential tenants maybe it meant, but tenants and residents, and I’m just saying am I reading this right because of the fact that it has that in there saying, unless part of a solar farm, but solar farm is not allowed in a residential district. MR. TRAVER-Well the other interesting thing, too, is this talks about the powers for use by the occupants, but none of the power that’s generated is used by the occupants. It goes on the grid but the occupant gets a lower rate or something like that. MR. VALENTINE-It defines it in here, too. MR. TRAVER-Yes, because one of the things that environmentalists in California were upset about when the power failures happened is they still had no power, even though they paid for all this solar stuff, because they were connected to the solar panels. That was interesting. So that language should be looked at. MR. HUNSINGER-And that’s in State law, too, by the way. MR. TRAVER-Is it? MR. HUNSINGER-Yes. MR. TRAVER-Okay. MR. VALENTINE-And I’m not sure how they meant that wording. I didn’t know when they put that unless part of a solar farm. MR. HUNSINGER-You can unhook from the grid and then you can store the energy. MR. TRAVER-If you get batteries or something. Right? 39 (Queensbury Planning Board 09/22/2020) MR. HUNSINGER-Yes, but if you’re connected to the grid, you have to get a net meter and basically the way it works is when your solar panels generate power, your meter goes backwards, and then when you use power it goes forward. That’s why it’s called a net meter. MR. TRAVER-Yes. Interesting. MR. HUNSINGER-And then once a year the utility company settles with you. If you have a positive balance, they pay you for the wholesale cost of the power that you gave them. MR. TRAVER-Interesting. MR. HUNSINGER-Maybe like three cents a kilowatt hour. MR. TRAVER-And you’ve had your system now for, what, two or three years you said? MR. HUNSINGER-Four or five. MR. TRAVER-Really? Would you do it again? MR. HUNSINGER-I would if they still had the same tax credits. MR. TRAVER-Okay. MR. HUNSINGER-And the same incentives. Yes. It was worth it for that. But it’s a long term investment. MR. TRAVER-Yes. It’s like 30 years or something. MR. HUNSINGER-If you think you’re going to make money right away, you won’t. MR. TRAVER-Right. MR. VALENTINE-The bottom of Page Five, the last one, Number Three. I just had a movement of phrasing again. Freestanding and/or ground-mounted solar energy systems shall be permitted in all zoning districts, subject to site plan approval by the Planning Board and the issuance of a solar energy system building permit. The only reason I say to change that. MR. TRAVER-One comes before the other. Yes. MR. HUNSINGER-Right. MR. TRAVER-And I thought that not all ground-mounted systems were permitted in all zoning. MR. VALENTINE-But ground-mounted it says it is, they are. MR. HUNSINGER-Yes. If you have an acre in residential. MR. TRAVER-That’s the acre. Okay. MR. VALENTINE-And it’s just the solar farms that are not allowed in all. MR. TRAVER-There it is on Number Four. MR. HUNSINGER-So I guess your same comment would apply at the top of Page Six where it should be in order of approval. MR. VALENTINE-Yes, that’s true. MR. HUNSINGER-That makes sense to me. MR. TRAVER-Absolutely. MR. VALENTINE-And I didn’t know, down at the bottom, F (2), and this is just a question, and it says solar farms are exempt from the setback requirement, and I’m saying okay, why. MRS. MOORE-I had the same question. 40 (Queensbury Planning Board 09/22/2020) MR. DIXON-I was looking at that one from a different perspective. If we’re allowing it for one acre, the 75 foot setbacks should be from all sides. MR. VALENTINE-You’re talking 150 and 150 and you’re talking a lot of amount of square footage off of a one acre lot. MR. TRAVER-Yes. MR. DIXON-If you have a home there’s no way you could ever do a freestanding. You’d always have to go for a variance. MR. HUNSINGER-Right. MR. VALENTINE-But I didn’t know why, okay, why are solar farms exempt from 75 feet? When a solar farm is really going to be larger than a one acre lot. MR. DIXON-I look at my house as an example. I’m on exactly one acre, and I’ve got a size house, I could probably put a ground-mounted array there, which I’d prefer over a roof mount, just my OCD, having something on the roof that I can’t get to, can’t maintain, but it would be shielded on the north side so the neighbors wouldn’t have to see it. So there’s a potential that I could do something, but going by the way the new Town law would be, I’d have to go in front of the Planning Board and Brad would deny me and I’d never be able to get that done. MR. VALENTINE-On Page 10, under Solar Farms, on the last item, Number Six, and just let me read that and I’ll remember what my question was. The average height of a solar panel array shall not exceed twelve feet. However, the Planning Board shall have the discretion to permit this, and I said, what happened to the Zoning Board? If somebody’s establishing a height, then that would be appealed to the Zoning Board. MR. TRAVER-It would be a variance. MR. VALENTINE-Right. MRS. MOORE-Typically, but if the Town Board grants the discretion to the Planning Board. MR. VALENTINE-Yes, but why would we want it? MRS. MOORE-Why do you want to review any of them? MR. VALENTINE-Yes, all right. But I just put that down. Why should the Planning Board have something that would be a ZBA. MR. TRAVER-Right. MR. DIXON-Could we back up to Page Seven, Item Five, and it may just be me, but Item Five, the last sentence in that, the proposed screening shall not, however, interfere with the normal operations of the solar collectors. Does it mean the same thing for adjacent properties if they have solar collectors? Or is that just semantics? MR. VALENTINE-No, because I think that comes into that issue we were talking about shading, shadows, and they also talk about an easement in there, so that you don’t create that. So I don’t think it’s semantics. No. So what do you want to say? MRS. MOORE-Say, or ask them to discuss, review this because of neighboring properties. MR. DIXON-Correct. It shouldn’t impact adjacent properties. MR. VALENTINE-Going back again on Page 11, I think I may have asked this one, Page 11 Number Nine, and that goes back to, it says which shall be reviewed and approved by the Town Board. And I’m wondering why that wouldn’t be the Planning Board. MR. HUNSINGER-Yes. I bet that was an oversight. MR. VALENTINE-See down below it says. MR. TRAVER-Yes, I think that’s a typo. MR. VALENTINE-Down in D at the bottom of the page, the second sentence also says the Town Board. And both of them are dealing with decommissioning. So I didn’t know. 41 (Queensbury Planning Board 09/22/2020) MR. SHAFER-That relates to the bond question that we had. MR. VALENTINE-Yes. And then, if we go to the tables at the end, the Use Tables. MR. TRAVER-Yes. MR. VALENTINE-When we get to, the whole premise is going to be solar farms. So we get under the residential uses, solar farm. It’s allowed by Special Use Permit in the Land Conservation district and nothing else, and the next, not the next page, but two pages after, Solar Farms, Special Use Permit in the Commercial Light Industrial and also the Heavy Industrial, and it just says Solar Farms, but I thought that the Local Law had stated that they were going to list these, the tables were going to change for. MRS. MOORE-So that’s in my notes that they need to add the ground-mounted as a use in the residential tables. MR. VALENTINE-Right. MRS. MOORE-It’s not there now. MR. VALENTINE-Right. MR. TRAVER-Anything else? MR. VALENTINE-I’m all set with mine. MR. TRAVER-Anybody else have any other comments, suggestions? So, Laura, you have your notes and all the work that you’ve already put into this. Are you going to create a document for us to review and process or are you going to be able to just give that to the Town Board as a? MRS. MOORE-I’ll amend it with the comments that were addressed tonight and just highlight the items, just clarify some of the items that Chris had questions on, and specifically the bond issue. MR. TRAVER-So it doesn’t need to be in the form of a resolution I guess is what I’m saying. MR. HUNSINGER-Well they’re looking for one. MRS. MOORE-You do need a resolution, but you can identify it, a document to be prepared by Staff and forwarded to the Town Board. Is it a positive recommendation that you want to see these Codes in there with some review of some specific items identified? MR. DEEB-Well should we give them a recommendation or wait? MR. HUNSINGER-Well they asked for one. MR. DEEB-Yes, well we could still wait until you present this to them. MR. TRAVER-My recommendation would be to clarify these items. I don’t know that I can just leave it blank and say. MR. HUNSINGER-Well I would say we recommend to the Town Board a favorable subject to clarification of the items. MR. TRAVER-Well what if they clarify it and say we disagree? MRS. MOORE-They have that right. MR. HUNSINGER-They could always do that. MR. TRAVER-Yes, but I mean we wouldn’t want to give a positive recommendation that way, then, right? MR. VALENTINE-Well, do you think that any of these things that we talked about, if they said, hey, the heck with you guys on that, is there anything here. MR. HUNSINGER-Yes, they’re kind of nitpicky, a lot of them I think with the exception of the bond, because that could be an absolute deal breaker. MR. TRAVER-Yes. MR. HUNSINGER-Maybe that’s the intention. I don’t know. 42 (Queensbury Planning Board 09/22/2020) th MRS. MOORE-So they’re potentially holding a public hearing on Monday, September 28. I don’t know if the decision would be made at that time, but I do know I would like to have this information put together so they have it prior to their public hearing. MR. TRAVER-All right. So do we have a draft resolution? MR. DEEB-Yes, I’ve got a draft. MR. HUNSINGER-I mean, Laura’s going to prepare the document, saying favorable subject to clarification of the items contained in the Staff report to be delivered to the Town Board. MR. TRAVER-That works. MR. HUNSINGER-Is that fair, Laura? MRS. MOORE-Yes. MR. SHAFER-There is a resolution. MR. TRAVER-He’s working on it. MR. HUNSINGER-I mean I certainly think it’s a step in the right direction to have the Local Law. MR. TRAVER-Yes, it’s better than nothing that’s for sure. MS. WHITE-Yes, I don’t think anybody’s thinking that we shouldn’t have this. MR. HUNSINGER-Yes. MR. DEEB-No, we need it. We’ve got to have it. MR. VALENTINE-Steve, as Chairman, do you want to read what Laura submits to them before? MR. TRAVER-I’m sure she’ll share it with all of us. I mean I’m certainly aware of the comments and what we talked about tonight, and I’ve read what she put together already. MRS. MOORE-So what it’s adding to your duties as a Board member is that you’re going to end up reviewing these items. I mean in some instances currently the solar is a permit, it’s a building permit. Yes, so it’s not subject to review by this Board. So this is a new duty that’s added to your existing site plan review. So, I mean if you think that it’s something that really should be happening at the Building Codes Department, and I’m not saying I agree with that, but you could say that. I mean this is adding to your workload. MR. VALENTINE-But what we’re looking at though would be the solar farms permitted in those districts. MRS. MOORE-You’re looking at freestanding or ground-mounted solar energy systems and solar panels. MR. VALENTINE-All right. So that goes to point that it’s not in the Use Table yet. MRS. MOORE-It’s not in the Use Tables yet. MR. HUNSINGER-How many ground-mounted systems exist in the Town right now? MR. VALENTINE-One on Haviland. That’s the one that started this whole thing. MR. TRAVER-Yes. MR. DEEB-Ground-mounted. MR. TRAVER-That’s the one that’s like a foot off the property line. MR. HUNSINGER-Well, counting that one, I’m aware of three. MR. DEEB-Where are the other ones? MR. HUNSINGER-Another one is the Bay Ridge Fire Department. MR. VALENTINE-Yes. 43 (Queensbury Planning Board 09/22/2020) MR. HUNSINGER-And then the third is. MR. VALENTINE-Over on Luzerne. MR. MAGOWAN-There’s another one up on Quaker Road across from Subaru there. MR. HUNSINGER-That’s right. MR. DEEB-That’s a ground-mounted. MR. HUNSINGER-And then one of my neighbors on Route 149 has one. MR. VALENTINE-Going on Ridge there’s one, too. Going on Ridge on the right hand side when you go north. MR. MAGOWAN-There’s other small ones around that have probably been in before, you know, anybody knew. They’re coming. MR. HUNSINGER-Yes. MR. DEEB-Yes, that’s why we’ve got to get this in I guess. MR. HUNSINGER-Well my neighbor’s been in a long time. His was years before ours. MR. TRAVER-All right. So do you have that resolution? RECOMMENDATION RE: TOWN BOARD RECOMMENDATION RE: LOCAL LAW Whereas, the Town of Queensbury Town Board is reviewing a zoning change to establish renewable energy systems and facilities regulations. The Town Board is referring the proposed zoning amendments to the Planning Board for an advisory recommendation pursuant to Section 179-15-020; Whereas, the Planning Board will review future site plans pursuant to the requirements of Section 179-9- 020; Now, therefore, be it resolved, that we find the following: MOTION FOR RECOMMENDATION TO THE TOWN BOARD AS FAVORABLE FOR PROPOSED LOCAL LAW AMENDING TOWN OF QUEENSBURY ZONING LAW TO ESTABLISH RENEWABLE ENERGY SYSTEMS AND FACILITIES REGULATIONS; Subject to clarification of items submitted by Staff in a report to the Town Board. Introduced by David Deeb who moved its adoption, and Motion seconded by Chris Hunsinger. Duly adopted this 22ndday of September 2020 by the following vote: MR. HUNSINGER-I would just say submitted by Staff in a report, just add the three words in a report to the Town Board. MR. DEEB-Okay. AYES: Mr. Shafer, Mr. Hunsinger, Mr. Magowan, Mr. Valentine, Mr. Deeb, Ms. White, Mr. Traver NOES: NONE MR. TRAVER-All right. Thank you, everybody and thank you, Laura, and Brad, you said you wanted to make a comment about the census, I guess. MR. MAGOWAN-Yes. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. To everyone here and viewing this evening, being involved with the County, finding out how important the census is to us and for some reason with everybody being home and everything being mailed out, our numbers seem to be very slow in coming in and filling out the census, and so we’ve been asked to try to help everybody, remind them how important the census is to our area and for the monies that come in and really for the representation that we get to cover our areas is most important. So it’s kind of been asked of us if we can all just ask ten people and pass it on, that they ask the ten people, and just remind them, have you filled out your census and got it in, thth because we’re already running out of time. Right now it’s ending on September 30. It was October 30 but it’s been changed. We’re trying to bump it out a little bit longer, but it’s so hard to make these changes. 44 (Queensbury Planning Board 09/22/2020) So really I’m just putting it out there, please. Really we have our signs out here in front of Queensbury. I know we’ve had stations put up at a lot of the farmer’s markets and putting it out there. You can fill it out on line. Call up your town office or your municipalities and see whatever you can do to pick up the form. It’s a simple one on line, easy to do, and it really is just to give information to help get the correct numbers that we need. So thank you all for taking your time and passing it on for ten people. That’s what we need. MR. TRAVER-Is there any other business with the Planning Board tonight? All right. Motion to adjourn. MOTION TO ADJOURN THE QUEENSBURY PLANNING BOARD MEETING OF SEPTEMBER 22, 2020, Introduced by Stephen Traver who moved for its adoption, seconded by Brad Magowan: nd Duly adopted this 22 day of September, 2020, by the following vote: AYES: Ms. White, Mr. Shafer, Mr. Hunsinger, Mr. Magowan, Mr. Valentine, Mr. Deeb, Mr. Traver NOES: NONE MR. TRAVER- We stand adjourned. Thanks, everybody. On motion meeting was adjourned. RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED, Stephen Traver, Chairman 45