Loading...
12-15-2020 (Queensbury Planning Board 12/15/2020) QUEENSBURY PLANNING BOARD MEETING FIRST REGULAR MEETING DECEMBER 15, 2020 INDEX Subdivision No. 19-2020 JP Gross Properties, LLC 2. PRELIMINARY STAGE Tax Map No. 307.-1-22 SEEK LEAD AGENCY Site Plan No. 48-2020 Mark Prendeville 2. FURTHER TABLING Tax Map No. 289.13-1-58 Site Plan No. 3-2020 Great Escape 3. REQUEST FOR EXTENSION Tax Map No. 288.20-1-20 Site Plan No. 57-2020 Rockhurst, LLC 6. ZBA RECOMMENDATION Tax Map No. 239.12-2-35 Subdivision No. 18-2020 Jennifer Ball 10. PRELIMINARY STAGE Tax Map No. 266.1-1-9.2 ZBA RECOMMENDATION Site Plan No. 59-2020 Penelope D. Townsend 12. ZBA RECOMMENDATION Tax Map No. 227.10-1-22 Site Plan No. 58-2020 Bonnie Rosenberg 15. ZBA RECOMMENDATION Tax Map No. 239.7-1-15 Subdivision No. 16-2020 Harrisena Church 17. PRELIMINARY STAGE Tax Map No. 266.3-1-59 Site Plan No. 53-2020 Michael Alford/Burch Bottle 19. Tax Map No. 308.15-1-40 Site Plan No. 55-2020 Foothills Builders 22. Tax Map No. 296.5-1-6 Subdivision No. 17-2020 Jennifer Ball 27. SKETCH PLAN Tax Map No. 266.1-1-9.1, 266.1-1-8 Subdivision No. 15-2020 Michael Kokoletsos 28. MODIFICATION Tax Map No. 296.13-1-26.1 & 296.13-1-26.2 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 12/15/2020) QUEENSBURY PLANNING BOARD MEETING FIRST REGULAR MEETING DECEMBER 15, 2020 7:00 P.M. MEMBERS PRESENT STEPHEN TRAVER, CHAIRMAN CHRIS HUNSINGER, VICE CHAIRMAN DAVID DEEB, SECRETARY JOHN SHAFER BRAD MAGOWAN MICHAEL VALENTINE MICHAEL DIXON, ALTERNATE MEMBERS ABSENT JAMIE WHITE LAND USE PLANNER-LAURA MOORE STENOGRAPHER-MARIA GAGLIARDI MR. TRAVER-Good evening, everyone. Welcome to the Town of Queensbury Planning Board meeting thth for Tuesday, December 15, 2020. This is our first meeting for December, our 18 meeting so far for 2020 th and our 14 meeting conducted during the pandemic. Please make note of the red emergency exit lights. If we do have an emergency of some kind that will be your way out. If you have a phone or other electronic device if you would either turn it off or turn the ringer off we would appreciate that so it won’t interrupt our meeting. There are some items this evening for which there is a public hearing and those in the audience will have an opportunity to participate if you wish, and also there will be available to folks who are perhaps watching this on the YouTube channel an opportunity to call in by telephone. If you wish to do so, the number to call is 518-761-8225 and I will announce that number again as we approach those items for public hearing. I’ll make note that we got our annual present from Maria. Thank you very much, Maria. So, let’s see, with that we will commence with the agenda. The first item, we do have some administrative items. The first item is approval of minutes from October, and that would be October 20 and October 27. I think we have a draft resolution. MRS. MOORE-I’m going to interrupt you. I know there’s people that are not sitting. There’s only enough space in this room for those that are sitting. So I’ll have to ask you to step out, or step out into the parking lot MR. TRAVER-Because of social distancing. MRS. MOORE-Correct. I appreciate it. MR. TRAVER-Thank you, Laura. APPROVAL OF MINUTES October 20, 2020 October 27, 2020 MOTION TO APPROVE THE QUEENSBURY PLANNING BOARD MEETING MINUTES OF THTH OCTOBER 20 & OCTOBER 27, 2020, Introduced by David Deeb who moved for its adoption, seconded by Brad Magowan: th Duly adopted this 15 day of December, 2020, by the following vote: AYES: Mr. Deeb, Mr. Dixon, Mr. Shafer, Mr. Hunsinger, Mr. Magowan, Mr. Valentine, Mr. Traver NOES: NONE ABSENT: Ms. White MR. TRAVER-We also have three other administrative items. The first is for the subdivision, Preliminary Stage, 19-2020 for J.P. Gross Properties LLC. ADMINISTRATIVE ITEMS 2 (Queensbury Planning Board 12/15/2020) SUBDIVISION PRELIMINARY STAGE 19-2020 JP GROSS PROPERTIES, LLC PLANNING BOARD SEEKS LEAD AGENCY MR. TRAVER-There is a process that we would be going through, beginning with we as a Planning Board requesting Lead Agency Status. Right, Laura? MRS. MOORE-That’s correct. MR. TRAVER-Okay. MRS. MOORE-Coordinated review with the Town Board at this time. MR. TRAVER-Okay. So is there any discussion about the, it’s a fairly straightforward process that we’ve engaged with other applications. We begin by doing Lead Agency and then later, it’s anticipated later this month the Town Board hopefully will consent to that and then in January we will be conducting SEQR and so on. With that, I believe we have a resolution. RESOLUTION TO SEEK LEAD AGENCY STATUS RE: SUB # 19-2020 J.P. GROSS WHEREAS, the applicant proposes: Applicant proposes a six lot residential subdivision. The project includes shared driveways – Lots 2 & 3 and Lots 4 & 5. Lot 1 is a corner lot with access to Twin Mountain Drive and Lot 6 will have access on Tuthill Road. Lot sizes: Lot 6 – 33.44 acres and includes a small section across from Luzerne Road; Lot 5 – 3.06 acres; Lot 4 – 2.80 acres; Lot 3 – 2.0 acres; Lot 2 – 5.01 acres; Lot 1 – 2.0 acres. Project is subject to water district extension triggering coordinated SEQR review. Project will require stormwater management and is a Class B subdivision for APA. Pursuant to Chapter 183 of the Zoning Ordinance, subdivision of land shall be subject to Planning Board review and approval. WHEREAS, the Planning Board of the Town of Queensbury has determined to begin an environmental review process under the State Environmental Quality Review Act (SEQRA). WHEREAS, the Planning Board of the Town of Queensbury has identified the project to be a Type I action for purposes of SEQR review pursuant to 6 NYCRR 617. WHEREAS, the Planning Board is the agency most directly responsible for approving the action because of its responsibility for approving the land uses for the property. NOW, THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED, the Planning Board of the Town of Queensbury hereby indicates its desire to be lead agency for SEQRA review of this action and authorizes and directs the Zoning Administrator to notify any other potentially involved agencies of such intent. MOTION TO SEEK LEAD AGENCY STATUS IN CONNECTION WITH SUBDIVISION PRELIMINARY STAGE 19-2020 JP GROSS PROPERTIES, LLC. Introduced by David Deeb who moved for its adoption, seconded by Michael Valentine: As per the draft resolution prepared by staff. th Duly adopted this 15 day of December 2020 by the following vote: AYES: Mr. Dixon, Mr. Shafer, Mr. Hunsinger, Mr. Magowan, Mr. Valentine, Mr. Deeb, Mr. Traver NOES: NONE ABSENT: Ms. White MR. TRAVER-The next item is a request for tabling. This is Site Plan 48-2020 for Prendeville. SITE PLAN 48-2020 PRENDEVILLE REQUEST FOR FURTHER TABLING TO JANUARY 2021 MR. TRAVER-Laura? MRS. MOORE-The applicant has requested to be tabled until January and they’re trying to resolve information with the Town Engineer. I believe that’s been completed and I anticipate them back in January. MR. TRAVER-Okay. Any questions about that? MR. VALENTINE-Was this a tabling for something that would have come up this month? It’s not a tabling for something that was expired? 3 (Queensbury Planning Board 12/15/2020) MR. TRAVER-It was tabled to tonight. MRS. MOORE-It was tabled to tonight. MR. TRAVER-So there’s still some outstanding issues. So they want to keep working on it for a while. MR. VALENTINE-Okay. Thank you. RESOLUTION FURTHER TABLING SP # 48-2020 MARK PRENDEVILLE The applicant has submitted an application to the Planning Board: Applicant proposes a two story addition with a basement to an existing home and associated site work. The floor area of the new addition is 3,844 sq. ft. with a 1,518 sq. ft. footprint. Pursuant to Chapter 179-3-040 & 179-6-065 of the Zoning Ordinance, new floor area and previous shoreline vegetation removal in a CEA shall be subject to Planning Board review and approval. Project was tabled to December 15, 2020. Applicant has requested further tabling to January 2021. MOTION TO TABLE SITE PLAN 48-2020 MARK PRENDEVILLE. Introduced by David Deeb who moved for its adoption, seconded by John Shafer: Tabled until the January 19, 2021 Planning Board meeting with information due by December 15, 2020. th Duly adopted this 15 day of December 2020 by the following vote: MRS. MOORE-I’m sorry. Did you table that to the first meeting in January? th MR. DEEB-I have here 26. Which one did you want? MRS. MOORE-The first meeting. th MR. DEEB-Which is the 19? MRS. MOORE-I apologize, I don’t have the calendar. MR. MAGOWAN-I’ve got the new calendar right here. th MR. DEEB-It’s the 19, Brad? thth MR. MAGOWAN-Yes, we’ve got the 19 and the 26. th MRS. MOORE-The 19, please. th MR. DEEB-All right. Amend that to the January 19, 2021 Planning Board meeting. AYES: Mr. Shafer, Mr. Hunsinger, Mr. Magowan, Mr. Valentine, Mr. Deeb, Mr. Dixon, Mr. Traver NOES: NONE ABSENT: Ms. White MR. TRAVER-The next item is with the Great Escape Theme Park, LLC. They have requested an extension of the approval to January of 2022. SITE PLAN 3-2020 GREAT ESCAPE REQUEST FOR EXTENSION TO JULY 2022 DANIELLE SMITH, REPRESENTING APPLICANT, PRESENT And this is for the Adirondack Outlaw project. Some might remember that. The initial approval was back in January of this year. Laura, do you have any background on why they want such a lengthy extension? MRS. MOORE-I have two of the representatives in the audience if you want to hear from them. MR. TRAVER-Okay. Does anyone have any concerns about the length of that extension? MR. DEEB-You said January of 2022? 4 (Queensbury Planning Board 12/15/2020) MR. VALENTINE-I thought it was a typo. MR. TRAVER-July 2022. MR. DEEB-July. All right. Because that’s more than 18 months. MR. TRAVER-It was approved in January of this year. MR. DEEB-Yes, you said January. So I got confused. MS. SMITH-Hello., everyone. MR. TRAVER-Good evening. MS. SMITH-So we’re requesting a lengthy approval because New York State has not given any guidance to the Great Escape on when they’ll be able to open. Unfortunately we were not able to open for our 2020 season and obviously that was not expected for us and Corona Virus while we hope is ended for 2021, just in case it is not, we just wanted to seek the approval until 2022, but, you know, we needed approval from Six Flags to keep trucking and put in this ride when we can. So that’s why we’re seeking the approval. MRS. MOORE-For the record, can you just state your name? MS. SMITH-Danielle Smith from Six Flags, Great Escape. MR. DEEB-Danielle, are you going to try to get it done this year? MS. SMITH-Yes. Yes, we are going to try. MR. DEEB-But you didn’t want to come back later for an extension in case you got it? You want to do it now? MS. SMITH-Well we will not complete it for January 2021, and that’s when our Site Plan expires. It expires in January 2021. MR. DEEB-Oh. MR. TRAVER-I think what we’re wondering is if we grant you an extension let’s say until July or August of this coming year, if things go well, and, as we know people are being vaccinated and so on, if you are able to resume operations of some sort, I would think regardless of whether the Park is operating at 100%, you could still begin the construction of this ride. How would you feel about that? And if that didn’t work, you could certainly come back and make a request? MS. SMITH-Yes, I think we would be open to a shorter extension, as long as we get okay from New York State so we can open our ride. MR. TRAVER-Understood. Sure. MR. DEEB-Do you want to go for a year? MR. TRAVER-Well, yes, let’s ask how Board members feel. I mean they’re asking for July 2022. Does anyone have an issue with that? MR. VALENTINE-I have just a general question before we get to that is from the time of approval up until now you’re doing Site Plan and you’re doing layout plan and stuff like that. Has that been progressing from the time that you, when, I can’t think of his name, Palumbo, Frank. MS. SMITH-Yes, so we were put on a work from home hold in March. So we really didn’t get to accomplish a lot, and then we were placed on a complete hold until we got guidance from New York State. So unfortunately had to stop the project in its tracks to focus on strictly just opening the Park. MR. VALENTINE-Yes, that’s what I was trying to separate, opening the Park versus designing the layout, the plan, the site plan and everything like that to present. I mean I’m looking at saying submit Site Plan, open when you can. MS. SMITH-Right. MR. TRAVER-Well they have the plans and you know they have all of the preparations for construction done. They just haven’t been able to, as I understand it, commence construction because of the winter weather followed by the COVID in the spring. 5 (Queensbury Planning Board 12/15/2020) MS. SMITH-Correct. MR. VALENTINE-Okay. MR. DEEB-It’s been approved. MR. VALENTINE-I remember that. MR. TRAVER-So do I. MR. MAGOWAN-I don’t have a problem going to what they’re asking. I mean, due to all the circumstances and then you know when everything ,if it does get back, I mean being in the construction industry now I mean shipping is just crazy. You don’t know when you’re going to get stuff and this and that. So if they plan on stuff there’s going to be delays and who knows when we’re going to come out of this. I mean with the vaccine, I’m praying it’s going to be a success but, you know, I don’t think it’s fair to say all right we’ll give you a year and if you’re not there, then you have to come back right in the middle of that. So for me I think it’s a fair thing to go. MR. TRAVER-Okay. Michael, how do you feel? MR. DIXON-I think I would go along with their allotted time line for 2022 with the thought of, I’ve never seen Six Flags do any construction during the summer when they’re trying to run the Park, which kind of corrals you to the fall. So you’re really looking at fall, winter and then the spring of next year. So I don’t think July 2022 is unreasonable. MR. DEEB-Actually that makes more sense now that you put it that way. MR. TRAVER-All right. So it sounds like we have general support for the extension as requested. So we have a draft resolution. Let’s see how that flies. RESOLUTION TO APPROVE EXTENSION REQUEST SP # 3-2020 GREAT ESCAPE The applicant has submitted an application to the Planning Board: Applicant proposes to construct a new ride “Adirondack Outlaw” that is to be 164 ft. in height, with an attendant booth of 24 sq. ft. and operator booth of 42 sq. ft. The project includes removal of 6,190 sq. ft. building area known as “The Saloon” café area of a larger building. The restroom area of 1,123 sq. ft. is to remain with a canopy to be constructed. The area of building removed will be converted to a ride access plaza for the “Steamin’ Demon” and the new “Adirondack Outlaw”. The project includes building demolition, grading and cut for new ride area, new lighting, landscaping, stormwater and associated upgrades to site features for Ghost Town. Pursuant to Chapter 179-3-040 of the Zoning Ordinance, new commercial construction shall be subject to Planning Board review and approval. Applicant has requested an extension to July 2022. The Planning Board approved Site Plan 3-2020 on January 21, 2020. MOTION TO APPROVE AN EIGHTEEN MONTH EXTENSION FOR SITE PLAN 3-2020 GREAT ESCAPE THEME PARK, LLC. Introduced by David Deeb who moved for its adoption, seconded by Chris Hunsinger: Extended to the end of July 2022. th Duly adopted this 15 day of December, 2020 by the following vote: MR. DEEB-Do you want to put the July date in there? MRS. MOORE-I would say the end of July 2022. AYES: Mr. Hunsinger, Mr. Magowan, Mr. Valentine, Mr. Deeb, Mr. Dixon, Mr. Shafer, Mr. Traver NOES: NONE ABSENT: Ms. White MR. TRAVER-You’re all set. MS. SMITH-Thank you. MR. TRAVER-And you understand that it’s granted as requested. So you’re good to the end of July 2022. 6 (Queensbury Planning Board 12/15/2020) MS. SMITH-Yes. MR. TRAVER-And one last favor, if you could take one of the cleaning wipes and just wipe down the microphone, please for the next speaker. Thank you. MR. DEEB-And I hope you open this summer. MS. SMITH-Us, too. Thank you, all. MR. MAGOWAN-I have to say in the 12 years I’ve had the rollercoaster in my backyard this is the first time that there was no noise, but I really don’t mind it, you know what I’m saying. You get used to it and it’s a happy noise, but it was sure different this summer. I mean it was like I could hear the birds. MS. SMITH-Thank you, all. MR. TRAVER-Okay, and now we move into our regular agenda. The first section of that is Planning Board recommendations to the Zoning Board of Appeals and the first item on that section of our agenda is Rockhurst, LLC,, Site Plan 57-2020. PLANNING BOARD RECOMMENDATIONS TO THE ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS: SITE PLAN NO. 57-2020 SEQR TYPE: TYPE II. ROCKHURST, LLC. AGENT(S): ENVIRONMENTAL DESIGN PARTNERS. ZONING: WR. LOCATION: ASSEMBLY POINT ROAD. APPLICANT PROPOSES TO DEMOLISH EXISTING BUILDINGS TO CONSTRUCT A NEW SINGLE FAMILY HOME WITH 2,400 SQ. FT. FOOTPRINT AND 4,300 SQ. FT. FLOOR AREA WITH EXTERIOR PATIO AREAS. PROJECT INCLUDES SITE WORK, FILL AND GRADING, STORMWATER MANAGEMENT, SHORELINE LANDSCAPING, NEW SEPTIC, AND WATER SUPPLY FROM LAKE GEORGE. PURSUANT TO CHAPTER 179-6-065 & 179-6- 050 OF THE ZONING ORDINANCE, CONSTRUCTION IN A CEA AND HARD SURFACING WITHIN 50 FT. OF SHORE SHALL BE SUBJECT TO PLANNING BOARD REVIEW AND APPROVAL. VARIANCE: RELIEF IS SOUGHT FOR SETBACKS AND HEIGHT. PLANNING BOARD SHALL PROVIDE A RECOMMENDATION TO THE ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS. CROSS REFERENCE: AV 22-2020, AV 8-1993, SUB 5-1993, SP 81-2011; AV 49-2020. WARREN CO. REFERRAL: DECEMBER 2020. SITE INFORMATION: APA, CEA, LGPC. LOT SIZE: 1.0 ACRE. TAX MAP NO. 239.12-2-35. SECTION: 179-6-065, 179-6-050. GAVIN VUILLAUME, REPRESENTING APPLICANT, PRESENT MR. TRAVER-Laura? MRS. MOORE-This applicant proposes to demolish an existing building to construct a new single family home with 2,400 square foot footprint, a 4,300 square foot floor area with exterior patio areas. The project includes site work for fill and grading, stormwater management, shoreline landscaping, new septic and water supply from Lake George. The relief for the variance sought is for shoreline setback where 50 feet is proposed and 75 feet is required and the home is 29 feet 10 inches in height where 28 feet is the actual allowed. MR. TRAVER-Thank you. Good evening. MR. VUILLAUME-Good evening. Gavin Vuillaume with Environmental Design, representing Rockhurst and Christopher Abele. Mr. Abele is with me this evening in case there’s some questions that I can’t answer he can help you out with anything else, but for tonight again we’re just here for referral to the ZBA, so we can appear in front of them for two variances as was stated. One being for the shoreline setback and the second being for the maximum 28 foot building height. So if you want to maybe just quickly turn your attention to the plans. MR. TRAVER-We’ve got them right here. MR. VUILLAUME-You’ve got it right in front of you. Okay. Well then I’ll just quickly point out a few items on both the existing conditions plan and the site plan. This first slide shows the site as it currently sits today. We have two existing cottages that are located on the parcel to the west and then there’s a second parcel that has a larger structure which is the main structure on this piece of property along with a small attached garage. Both along the frontages of the shoreline you can see there’s a kind of boat docks here and then another two or three docks over on the west side of the property. So one thing to keep in mind that for this project or for this current application we are really just now looking to develop the property, the one acre parcel, you call it the cottage lot where the two cottages are, that would be the first phase of this project. The second phase would be the development of the larger main parcel. So all the calculations that were done for the site plan, all the variances, the two variances that were required are 7 (Queensbury Planning Board 12/15/2020) only associated with the cottage lot. So, Laura, can you go to the site plan, please. So again just for your reference we have shown on this particular plan a very conceptual layout for the main lot, just so that you can see how it potentially could be developed in the future, but again, we’re really just focused on the one acre parcel on the western portion of these two properties. So the intent here is obviously to get the building as far away from the lake to meet the shoreline setback. As you can see over in this vicinity it’s the only small corner of the property where we’re really not getting in too tight to the lakeshore. However we are within the 75 foot setback. You can’t see on this plan, but I’m going to draw a quick line. It’s like right about in here, and again, keep in mind that this building will be further back than the two cottages that were there. That’s one positive. The second thing is that there’s really nowhere else to put the building taking into consideration all the other setbacks. We spent a lot of time looking at setbacks, not only for the structure itself but also the septic systems for this particular building and also the driveways. So I’ll quickly just go through the driveways. This parcel has frontage on Assembly Point Road . There is an existing, we showed you on the existing conditions, but there’s an existing gravel drive that runs basically from Assembly Point over to the main house. That driveway would be removed and we are now proposing a shorter, smaller driveway that would be towards the back of the main parcel. . I guess our challenge was to keep this driveway, again, in this almost same vicinity as the existing while providing access to the main parcel and not taking up too much room for the proposed house. The other challenge that we had was being able to provide areas for the septic systems and we’ve successfully been able to show those two septic systems within, you know, outside the 100 foot setback so we’re not within 100 feet of the lake or any additional adjacent wells. So at one point we were proposing to try to get a little bit tight to those setbacks, but we have been able to pull those setbacks, or pull those septic areas away from the lake far enough so that we do not need a variance for the septic fields. Along with that, a minor change or modification that would have to be made is we have to just make a slight adjustment of the property line that currently exists between the two parcels. Getting back to the numbers for the project, I think we started out the existing permeability on this particular site was 86% with the two cottages and the driveways that were there and now we are proposing 79.3%. So we’re not adding tremendous lot of permeability to it. We are providing adequate stormwater management through a grass infiltration basin here. We are also putting in gravel diaphragms along the edges of the parking area and we’re making some improvements to the drainage along Assembly Point Road. I believe that’s pretty much all we would really need to present for the variances tonight. Obviously there’s more plans that went in with the original application such as erosion control plans, planting plans, things of that nature. I’ve also got a diagram way in the back. We just had one kind of late addition to our application package, just to kind of give the Board a little idea of how much the building is actually above the 28 foot height requirement, and you can see it’s a very small section of the very tip of the roof is really the only portion that would upset that 28 foot building height, and again the main reason we can’t stay at the 28 feet is we need to raise the building high enough in order to make sure that we’re out of groundwater with footings, things like that. So we’re close but we just need that little bit of extra foot of material to make the drainage work properly on the property. That’s it. MR. TRAVER-Okay. Thank you. Questions, comments from members of the Board? MR. SHAFER-I was going to ask about the height. Could I see that? MR. VUILLAUME-Sure. MR. SHAFER-Go ahead while I’m looking. MR. DEEB-The building doesn’t impede any other sight lines or any other residences, does it? MR. VUILLAUME-No, no. Actually it’s pretty close to where the original cottages are. There are no buildings directly behind us as far as looking at the lake. So a lot of the views should stay the same. MR. HUNSINGER-So I had questions on the access. I was surprised that you didn’t use the existing driveway for the proposed house. MR. VUILLAUME-Okay. I can explain that. MR. HUNSINGER-And/or abandon the existing driveway and have the future development off Holly Lane. MR. VUILLAUME-Yes. I can get to that. As soon as she gets to the plan here we’ll talk about that a little bit. Okay. So really there’s a few reasons why we’re looking to have two separate driveways. Obviously as far as the property itself these are very expensive homes. It’s nice to have a separate driveway if possible. There is this driveway here. That was the one that was used originally for this. We do have access from Holly Lane. We have frontage on Holly Lane and we can do that. Unfortunately we’re experiencing a lot of, not issues but problems with some of the neighbors on providing that access. There seems to be a big concern that it will bring a lot of traffic into that small little neighborhood. So at the current time, and again this could change, we would like to just have this driveway continue to be used for the main house and then obviously have this cottage lot have its own access. The other little issue that we have with the 8 (Queensbury Planning Board 12/15/2020) driveway back here is that there’s not a lot of maneuvering at this vicinity. You can see that we’ve pushed this building almost as far as we possibly we could into the corner of the property. So it really doesn’t give you much maneuverability around the garage. I mean the garage, it generally is going to be in the back. The main living quarters is going to want to be in the front of the house. So really the only maneuvering area to get in and out of the garage and get out to the driveway is in this general area as opposed to being tucked into that tight corner. MR. HUNSINGER-Well, I mean if you just flip the garage doors to the south side. MR. VUILLAUME-Over on the side here? MR. HUNSINGER-The other side, the bottom side. MR. VUILLAUME-The bottom there’s not enough, you don’t have enough room to pull in and out of there. It’s just too tight. MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. MR. VUILLAUME-I suppose you might be able to do something back in here, but again it would be very difficult. MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. MR. DIXON-I’m going to ask a quick question. So the main house, there’s an existing main house there right now. Are you planning on removing both the small cabins and the main house. MR. VUILLAUME-No. The main house would stay for right now. MR. DIXON-And is the intent just to renovate it in the future? MR. VUILLAUME-Eventually, like this concept is showing, we would take down the original structure and put this one obviously quite a distance further back. MR. DIXON-And you’ve got a freestanding garage right now I think about where you’re displaying the septic field. MR. VUILLAUME-Yes. That’s about the same area, correct. MR. DIXON-So that’ll obviously come down. MR. VUILLAUME-That garage comes down. MR. MAGOWAN-Have you thought about just flip-flopping the whole building over, the garage and everything. That way you’d be able to share some of the driveway and the road together. MR. VUILLAUME-We’re going to be really tight to this, to the frontage along Assembly Point. I suppose that would be another maybe option, but that, again, I have a feeling we’re going to get really tight to Assembly Point Road with the building at that point. MR. SHAFER-Did you consider some other material than asphalt for the driveway and parking lot? MR. VUILLAUME-Well, again, we’re at the very early stages of the design of the site. So I’m sure we could use porous pavement, things like that to help with some of the stormwater. And again right now this is just proposed as a gravel driveway. So it’s not proposed to be asphalt. The only asphalt that we’re proposing would be for here, but that could be porous asphalt, yes. MR. DIXON-I think it’s a very nice project. As it progresses, though, I think we’ll have, to John’s point, questions about the driveway. The clearing that’s going to take place next to the lake, on the plan it looks like a fair amount of clearing is going to take place. So I would be prepared to answer questions on that. MR. VUILLAUME-Sure. We have a pretty substantial planting plan already started and we’d be more than happy to talk about that at a future date. MR. DIXON-And can you describe the septic field. Is it going to be self-contained? MR. VUILLAUME-Yes. And right in here is the proposed septic system for the cottage lot. The other one for the main lot is right adjacent to it. They’re not sharing a septic system. Currently the two cottages have tanks right behind the cottages and they do share a septic system. So these would be individual. 9 (Queensbury Planning Board 12/15/2020) MR. TRAVER-Other questions, comments? MR. SHAFER-Mr. Chairman, I wanted to raise the Chazen letter issue again, and I know it’s not as relevant tonight as it might be for Site Plan, but again there’s a Chazen letter, the Town Engineer, with 21 comments, which we got just two or three days before this meeting, without any indication, and as I’ve said before, applicants typically say, yes, we can meet all of those requirements, so we have to trust and take them at their word. MR. TRAVER-Well, actually, no, because they need the signoff. MR. SHAFER-Excuse me? MR. TRAVER-They need to have a letter that says they have no issues. MR. SHAFER-Well my point is if we’re going to get this letter we should get it before a couple of days before the meeting, and, Number Two, with some assurance that it will not affect the Site Plan. There are a lot of changes being suggested in this letter and I don’t have a clue whether or not there would be changes to the Site Plan. Now, I know we’re not doing the Site Plan tonight. We’re only doing the variances. MR. TRAVER-Yes, it’s a valid point and it’s long been a struggle that we’ve had between the Planning Office and the Town Designated Engineer. MR. SHAFER-This one just struck me, the 21 points. MR. TRAVER-Well, and it’s particularly difficult because of the compressed timeframe we’re working on this month. So that makes it worse, but they are required to get a signoff, and, you know, the discussion regarding Site Plan would be following variance approval or denial for that matter from the ZBA. So that letter could change. MR. DEEB-If they can’t resolve it, then they’d have to come back. It’s got to be signed off by the Town Engineer, and that’s where his engineer and the Town get together. And if they can’t do it, then they can’t go forward. So, I mean, I don’t think you have to really be concerned with that at this point. It’s got to be done. MR. TRAVER-So tonight our focus is on the referral to the ZBA, specifically regarding the waivers for the shoreline setback, 25 feet relief from the 75 foot requirement, and also the height. They’re asking for almost two feet, one foot ten inches of relief from the 28 foot requirement. So how do people feel about that? MR. DEEB-Well initially I didn’t realize the reasons they had to do it, but knowing that they have to get above the groundwater and keep it as minimal as possible, I don’t see what else can be done. MR. VALENTINE-That’s the same thought I had. It first it looked like, okay, why. MR. DEEB-I mean I read why, his explanation. MR. TRAVER-And the setback, as explained, you know, there’s not a whole lot of elbow room there for this size structure. MR. VALENTINE-No, there’s not. MR. TRAVER-Okay. Well, if there are no specific concerns that we want to bring to the Zoning Board with regards to the variances. There is no public hearing on this application, but there would be at Site Plan. MR. DEEB-Next week. When they come back for Site Plan there’ll be a public hearing. MR. TRAVER-So we do have a draft resolution. (Phone Ringing) MR. TRAVER-I’m sorry, could you repeat that? On this particular application? Not this evening. Tonight we are considering a referral to the Zoning Board of Appeals, and once it comes back, and we’re only discussing the variances this evening and there is no public hearing for that. I believe that if they receive the variances, or if they don’t, at some point they will be back before the Planning Board for Site Plan approval and there will be public hearing and public comment taken at that point. You’re welcome. Goodbye. MR. MAGOWAN-There’s no public comment on the variance either? MRS. MOORE-So tomorrow night at the Zoning Board there will be a public hearing. 10 (Queensbury Planning Board 12/15/2020) MR. TRAVER-So the ZBA will have a public hearing. Okay. MR. MAGOWAN-Yes, so we give them the option that they can speak then, but tonight no. MR. TRAVER-I think the ZBA has to give them the option because it’s their hearing, but they are required to have a public hearing, yes. All right. RESOLUTION RE: ZBA RECOMMENDATION RE: AV # 49-2020 ROCKHURST, LLC The applicant has submitted an application for the following: Applicant proposes to demolish existing buildings to construct a new single family home with 2,400 sq. ft. footprint and 4,300 sq. ft. floor area with exterior patio areas. Project includes site work, fill and grading, stormwater management, shoreline landscaping, new septic and water supply from Lake George. Pursuant to Chapter 179-6-065 & 179-6-050 of the Zoning Ordinance, construction in a CEA and hard surfacing within 50 ft. of shore shall be subject to Planning Board review and approval. Variance: Relief is sought for setbacks and height. Planning Board shall provide a recommendation to the Zoning Board of Appeals. The Town of Queensbury Zoning Ordinance, per Section 179-9-070 J 2 b. requires the Planning Board to provide a written recommendation to the Zoning Board of Appeals for projects that require both Zoning Board of Appeals & Planning Board approval; The Planning Board has briefly reviewed and discussed this application, the relief request in the variance application as well as the potential impacts of this project on the neighborhood and surrounding community, and found that: MOTION TO MAKE A RECOMMENDATION ON BEHALF OF THE PLANNING BOARD TO THE ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS FOR AREA VARIANCE NO. 49-2020 ROCKHURST, LLC. Introduced by David Deeb who moved for its adoption, and a) The Planning Board, based on a limited review, has not identified any significant adverse impacts that cannot be mitigated with current project proposal. th Motion seconded by Brad Magowan. Duly adopted this 15 day of December 2020 by the following vote: AYES: Mr. Deeb, Mr. Dixon, Mr. Shafer, Mr. Hunsinger, Mr. Magowan, Mr. Valentine, Mr. Traver NOES: NONE ABSENT: Ms. White MR. TRAVER-You’re off to the ZBA. MR. VUILLAUME-Thank you very much. MR. DEEB-Good luck. MR. VUILLAUME-Thank you. MR. TRAVER-The next item on the agenda is also a Planning Board recommendation to the ZBA. The applicant is Jennifer Ball, Subdivision Preliminary stage, 18-2020. SUBDIVISION PRELIMINARY STAGE 18-2020 SEQR TYPE: UNLISTED. JENNIFER BALL. AGENT(S): HUTCHINS ENGINEERING. OWNER(S): SAME AS APPLICANT. ZONING: RR- 3A. LOCATION: 253 PICKLE HILL ROAD. APPLICANT PROPOSES A TWO LOT SUBDIVISION OF 7.98 ACRE PARCEL TO LOT 1A OF 5.89 ACRES WITH AN EXISTING HOME AND LOT 2A TO BE A 2.09 ACRE MARKETABLE BUILDING LOT. PURSUANT TO CHAPTER 183 OF THE ZONING ORDINANCE, SUBDIVISION OF LAND SHALL BE SUBJECT TO PLANNING BOARD REVIEW AND APPROVAL. VARIANCES: LOT 1A – RELIEF IS SOUGHT FOR LOT WIDTH. LOT 2A – RELIEF IS SOUGHT FOR SIZE, WIDTH AND ROAD FRONTAGE. PLANNING BOARD SHALL PROVIDE A RECOMMENDATION TO THE ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS. CROSS REFERENCE: AV 46-2020. WARREN CO. REFERRAL: N/A. SITE INFORMATION: CEA. LOT SIZE: 7.98 ACRES. TAX MAP NO. 266.1-1-9.2. SECTION: CHAPTER 183. LUCAS DOBIE, REPRESENTING APPLICANT, PRESENT MR. TRAVER-Laura? 11 (Queensbury Planning Board 12/15/2020) MRS. MOORE-This applicant proposes a two lot subdivision of a 7.98 acre parcel to Lot 1A of 5.89 which includes an existing home and Lot 2A would be a 2.09 acre marketable building lot. Variances sought for Lot 1A for lot width and Lot 2A relief is sought for size, width, and road frontage. MR. TRAVER-Okay. Thank you. Good evening. MR. DOBIE-Good evening, Mr. Chairman and Board and Staff. For the record Lucas Dobie with Hutchins Engineering. With us in the front row are the clients that are applicants, Jennifer Ball and Dan Davies, and this is their own personal home here on eight acres as it sits today and the market isn’t very healthy up here as you all know, but ultimately we’d like to build a new house to the west with the contract buyer of the westerly property, the Harris lands, which we’ll discuss later tonight. Right now we’re going to the Zoning Board tomorrow night for our two lot subdivision for relief for the lot size being under three acres, our road frontage being less than 400 feet, and the average lot width being less than 400 feet for the RR- 3A zone. So there’s plenty of density, in my opinion there’s plenty of space and open field for another home along Pickle Hill Road and everything, all her projects that she does are first rate. So we believe there’ll be a real nice project here to enhance the neighborhood, and we applied to the Preliminary Stage here to you folks at the advice of Staff. So we’re going to ask for your recommendation to the Zoning Board and then table this application at our Preliminary Stage and if we’re successful with our variance we’ll do a full blown site plan and come back to you for the Site Plan approval and Preliminary and Final Subdivision approval. We’re very comfortable with the project and we’ll have a nice open space in a nice neighborhood. So we’re asking for your positive recommendation to the Zoning Board and we’d be happy to answer any questions you may have. Thank you. MR. TRAVER-Okay. Thank you. Questions, comments from members of the Board? MR. HUNSINGER-Could you just walk us through the project, what you’re proposing? MR. SHAFER-The confusing thing was the yellow lines on the two different drawings. MR. DOBIE-Yes. I included the 2013 subdivision plat by Bolster which has the yellow lines. That was when Jen bought the 4.9 acres from Pam Harris back then, and then she subsequently bought the lots I outlined in yellow in 2017. We reconfigured those lots into a three acre parcel which she then built a spec home on. In 2017 we worked that through the process, and then she added the remaining acreage into her parcel to bring it up to eight acres. The logic in including this old map was she bought two building rights in 2017. She built one home. So the little flag lot went away. So we think that puts us in a little stronger position that if you only built one home on the two lots that she bought. So now we’re trying to undo that merger. MR. DEEB-You merged two lots and now you want to separate them again. MR. DOBIE-Yes, where we did two boundary line adjustments, the flag lot, old flag lot, basically merged that acreage into her parcel in 2017. Now we’d like to take some of that acreage and put it along Pickle Hill Road and construct one new home. MR. VALENTINE-So the thing that caught me when I’m just reading before I looked at the plan and this was going to be my question coming in, is we had something that was 7.98 acres, all right, we’ve got three acre zoning here. So I’m looking at it and I’m saying, okay, one’s going to be, you’ve got the chance to create something. When you get the chance to really create a three acre parcel that conforms, and so I’m looking at that and now looking and I’ll tell you quickly I just looked at this other yellow line thing without going to here. So I had the same question John said and Chris looking to begin with, so I was sitting there thinking okay, why can’t we get a three acre parcel that conforms, but this is an existing house on the 5.98 acre? MR. DOBIE-That’s correct. MR. VALENTINE-All right. So there’s no way to pick up .91 acres on that lot. That’s what you’re saying then, with that house there. You’re going for variances anyhow on that lot for width and frontage? MR. DOBIE-Just on the two acre lots. Lot 1 has over 400 feet of road frontage. MR. VALENTINE-You’re right. I’m sorry. MR. DOBIE-We just thought we’d try to not ask for as many variances. MR. VALENTINE-Well I guess it’s pick the worst one that you want I guess, you know, what’s the worst evil there for variances. MR. DOBIE-And to your point, Mr. Valentine, we could re-gigger it if you will to put like almost a reverse flag lot where you take some acreage to the north, a 50 or 70 foot swath. 12 (Queensbury Planning Board 12/15/2020) MR. VALENTINE-Well that was just sort of like my underlying question. Did you look at the possibility of conforming with that lot. I’m assuming you probably did look at it to get the three acres. That’s the only thought I had with it. MR. TRAVER-This is a referral to the ZBA specifically regarding the variances requested. Does anyone have any specific concerns that we want to include in our recommendation? We have a draft resolution I think. RECOMMENDATION RE: ZBA RECOMMENDATION RE: AV # 46-2020 JENNIFER BALL The applicant has submitted an application for the following: Applicant proposes a two lot subdivision of 7.98 acre parcel to Lot 1A of 5.89 acres with an existing home and Lot 2A to be a 2.09 acre marketable building lot. Pursuant to Chapter 183 of the Zoning Ordinance, subdivision of land shall be subject to Planning Board review and approval. Variances: Lot 1A – Relief is sought for lot width. Lot 2A – Relief is sought for size, width and road frontage. Planning Board shall provide recommendations to the Zoning Board of Appeals. The Town of Queensbury Zoning Ordinance, per Section 179-9-070 J 2 b. requires the Planning Board to provide a written recommendation to the Zoning Board of Appeals for projects that require both Zoning Board of Appeals & Planning Board approval; The Planning Board has briefly reviewed and discussed this application, the relief request in the variance application as well as the potential impacts of this project on the neighborhood and surrounding community, and found that: MOTION TO MAKE A RECOMMENDATION ON BEHALF OF THE PLANNING BOARD TO THE ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS FOR AREA VARIANCE NO. 46-2020 JENNIFER BALL. Introduced by David Deeb who moved for its adoption, and a) The Planning Board, based on a limited review, has not identified any significant adverse impacts that cannot be mitigated with current project proposal. th Motion seconded by Brad Magowan. Duly adopted this 15 day of December 2020 by the following vote: AYES: Mr. Shafer, Mr. Hunsinger, Mr. Magowan, Mr. Valentine, Mr. Deeb, Mr. Dixon, Mr. Traver NOES: NONE ABSENT: Ms. White MR. TRAVER-You’re off to the ZBA. MR. DOBIE-Thank you, Board. MR. TRAVER-All right. Next on our agenda, also Planning Board recommendation to the ZBA is Penelope D. Townsend, application Site Plan 59-2020. SITE PLAN NO. 59-2020 SEQR TYPE: TYPE II. PENELOPE D. TOWNSEND. AGENT(S): HUTCHINS ENGINEERING. OWNER(S): SAME AS APPLICANT. ZONING: WR. LOCATION: 32 BEAN ROAD. APPLICANT PROPOSES TO REMOVE AN EXISTING 573 SQ. FT. DETACHED GARAGE TO CONSTRUCT A 676 SQ. FT. FOOTPRINT GARAGE WITH STORAGE ABOVE. FLOOR AREA OF GARAGE IS 1,352 SQ. FT., HEIGHT TO BE 22 FT. THE PROJECT INCLUDES A COVERED WALKWAY CONNECTING HOUSE TO NEW GARAGE. THE EXISTING HOME IS 4,332 SQ. FT. FOOTPRINT WITH PORCHES. NEW FLOOR AREA IS 7,220 SQ. FT. PURSUANT TO CHAPTER 179-6-065 OF T HE ZONING ORDINANCE, NEW FLOOR AREA IN A CEA SHALL BE SUBJECT TO PLANNING BOARD REVIEW AND APPROVAL. VARIANCE: RELIEF IS SOUGHT FOR HEIGHT. PLANNING BOARD SHALL PROVIDE A RECOMMENDATION TO THE ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS. CROSS REFERENCE: SP 34- 1994; SEP 50-2019, 758-2005 DECK, RC 739-2018 GUEST HOUSE, RC 540-2019 ALTERATIONS, SP 68-2019 RENOVATIONS, AV 47-2020. WARREN CO. REFERRAL: DECEMBER 2020. SITE INFORMATION: APA, CEA, LGPC. LOT SIZE: 1.14 ACRES. TAX MAP NO. 227.10-1-22. SECTION: 179-6-065. STEFANIE BITTER, REPRESENTING APPLICANT, PRESENT MR. TRAVER-Laura? 13 (Queensbury Planning Board 12/15/2020) MRS. MOORE-The applicant proposes to remove an existing 573 square foot detached garage to construct a 676 square foot footprint garage with storage above. The floor area of the garage is 1,352 square feet and the height is to be 22 feet. Relief that is requested is for height MR. TRAVER-Okay. Thank you. Good evening. MS. BITTER-Good evening. Stefanie Bitter for the record. I’m here tonight with Tom Hutchins as well as Penny Townsend, the landowner. We are simply requesting your recommendation for an Area Variance to allow the applicant to demolish the existing garage and re-construct the figure that’s presented on the screen behind you. The existing detached garage, for anyone who did a site visit, is structurally failing. It’s leaning a little bit to the left. It is in need of repair. The request of the applicant is to remove the structure which is approximately 573 square feet in size. The new structure will be 676 square feet in footprint and has a covered walkway from the existing garage to the existing structure. What is mainly being proposed is to allow the applicant to incorporate much needed storage in this detached garage. The existing home was constructed over 100 years ago and back then apparently they didn’t need basements or attics or big closets to allow for the storage and accumulation of stuff, and their kids’ stuff and everybody else’s stuff. With that, they’re proposing to allow for this new structure to assist with that need. The parcel is over an acre in size. The variance that’s being sought is simply for the height of this structure. There’s no floor area ratio that’s necessary with the request being presented. The existing garage is 20 feet in width and 16 feet in height. What’s being proposed is to add six feet additional in width so that it will be a two car garage structure and allow for two bays to be incorporated in the new structure and then it’ll be 22 feet in height so that the storage area can be easily accessible. That being said, the storage area will not be for living space. There will not be plumbing. There will not be water. There will only be electrical. It’s simply for easy access to get up to the storage space. In reviewing the balancing test, it is our opinion that the benefit to the applicant outweighs any detriments that can be deemed to exist to the community with this request. Specifically there is no undesirable change. This will increase the aesthetics, will allow for the recreation of a structure that is currently failing and there’s also structures in the immediate vicinity that are very similar. A lot of the neighboring properties have detached garages. Feasible alternatives may be deemed to exist. Increasing the width of the structure may be deemed a feasible alternative, but that would actually impose a greater burden or impact to lands that are not currently being impacted on the property. So we feel that this is the better alternative. The Area Variance should not be deemed substantial since we’re simply replacing the existing structure and accommodating for the storage needs of the applicant. No adverse impacts and this should not be considered self-created overall as to the factors we just outlined. I have Tom here as well as the applicant. So if there’s any specific questions we’re happy to answer them. MR. TRAVER-Okay. Well we’re here tonight specifically for the variance. So we’re discussing the height which is six feet above the maximum allowed height. Questions, comments from members of the Board? MR. HUNSINGER-It sounds like a lot but it’s not. MR. TRAVER-It does sound like a lot, yes. MR. HUNSINGER-We had a similar project last month if you remember where they were seeking a height variance for a garage. I mean 16 feet, you can’t build a two story garage and not require a height variance. MR. TRAVER-Right. I think that’s the intent. MR. DEEB-You said there were other structures in the surrounding area that have similar garages? MS. BITTER-Yes. MR. DEEB-Are any of them over the height restriction? MS> BITTER-I can’t tell you that for certain, but I can tell you, David, that I stood in front of this garage today and I was not concerned about impacting anybody’s visibility, and I did a full360. PENNY TOWNSEND MRS. TOWNSEND-I believe, having walked the neighborhood. MR. DEEB-Just identify yourself if you can. MRS. TOWNSEND-Penny Townsend for the record. Both my neighbors have two story structures. One started out as a garage, but now it’s a total guest house. The other is the Michaels, and they, I believe, have living above it because I think their son stays there, and both of those people have sent, or told me they were going to send letters of support when I went over the application with them . The existing garage has a little teeny attic space and quite frankly I can’t use it anymore because I can’t go up and down the 14 (Queensbury Planning Board 12/15/2020) ladder and carry things. I just can’t. By the time this is finished I’ll be almost 75. So I can’t carry things up and down ladders anymore. I can go up and down ladders, but not with something in my hand. MR. TRAVER-So how are you accessing, if this is approved, how would you access the second floor? MRS. TOWNSEND-There would be an internal stairway because I can do internal stairs. I can carry a fair amount of stuff, but not on a ladder, and my kids have let me with a fair amount of stuff. MR. VALENTINE-They do that. MR. SHAFER-Can I just ask, what will you be storing upstairs in this huge? MRS. TOWNSEND-Well, let’s see, I have my mother’s dishes, my grandmother’s dishes, that the kids all say they want, but don’t take them now, mom. I have family portraits that fill half my dining room that they’re hanging. They need to go somewhere. I have outdoor cushions that need to go somewhere. I have books. MR. DEEB-No explosives, though, right? MRS. TOWNSEND-No explosives. MR. DEEB-Believe me, I empathize with you about climbing stairs at our age. MRS. TOWNSEND-And the house, we chose to save the house. It was built in 1913. There’s really no basement. There never was, and there’s no attic. It goes to the rafter. So that was our choice to keep it, but it did impinge on our ability to store stuff. MR. SHAFER-My point is it’s 600 square feet up there. That’s the equivalent of about four or five storage buildings. MRS. TOWNSEND-But it isn’t because it’s a gambrel roof. So it’s only in the middle that I’ll be able to really walk and my children, in their 40’s, are very tall, like 6’7. MR. DEEB-Stefanie says that she looked around, a full 360 degrees, and saw no impact. Chris says it really isn’t that big of a difference. MRS. TOWNSEND-And the neighbor across the street can’t even see my garage because of all the trees in between, and in the summertime my lot, if you’ve been there, is very heavily wooded, and I chose to leave it that way. That’s what I want. It want it to be my little camp. MR. SHAFER-If you were to take a 16 foot elevation height and do a little bit flatter roof, you would still have the same square footage of storage in the second floor, without the eight foot height for the entire width. MRS. TOWNSEND-But I can’t walk. rd MR. SHAFER-You can for about 1/3 of the center part of the upstairs with a conventional sloped roof, Tom will understand this, with a 16 foot height. I personally think six feet’s a lot to ask for. MR. MAGOWAN-Well knowing the houses up in there and your neighbors, 100 years ago most of these places on the lake were camps. So you didn’t have much. To get here 100 years ago, you know, they’d come up for the summer and then they’d go back for the winter. So you didn’t need a whole lot of storage, but actually it’s tight. Sixteen feet, I don’t feel, for a garage, is definitely high enough. I understand what you’re doing. What I want you to do is hook up with my mother and she can tell you just how to get the kids to take all this stuff. She’s 90 and she still goes up on the ladder in our attic and I’m going to come off. MRS. TOWNSEND-Yes, well I did this summer a couple of times and it’s not worth it. I’ve had two falls already. So my request is, that’s my request. MR. MAGOWAN-Yes, I don’t feel that it’s really, I think the garage and the design will really flow nice and it will look nice in the neighborhood. You’ve got nice neighbors and nice homes on either side. I think it will blend in nice, and like you said, you’re pretty thick in there. So I’m good. MR. TRAVER-Okay. Other questions, comments? MR. VALENTINE-Stefanie started off saying the thing’s leaning to the left and I think it’s our duty to correct that. 15 (Queensbury Planning Board 12/15/2020) MR. TRAVER-All right. Well we do have a draft resolution. RESOLUTION RE: ZBA RECOMMENDATION RE: AV # 47-2020 PENELOPE TOWNSEND The applicant has submitted an application for the following: Applicant proposes to remove an existing 573 sq. ft. detached garage to construct a 676 sq. ft. footprint garage with storage above. Floor area of garage is 1,352 sq. ft., height to be 22 ft. The project includes a covered walkway connecting house to new garage. The existing home is 4,332 sq. ft. footprint with porches. New floor area is 7,220 sq. ft. Pursuant to Chapter 179-6-065 of the Zoning Ordinance, new floor area in a CEA shall be subject to Planning Board review and approval. Variance: Relief is sought for height. Planning Board shall provide a recommendation to the Zoning Board of Appeals. The Town of Queensbury Zoning Ordinance, per Section 179-9-070 J 2 b. requires the Planning Board to provide a written recommendation to the Zoning Board of Appeals for projects that require both Zoning Board of Appeals & Planning Board approval; The Planning Board has briefly reviewed and discussed this application, the relief request in the variance application as well as the potential impacts of this project on the neighborhood and surrounding community, and found that: MOTION TO MAKE A RECOMMENDATION ON BEHALF OF THE PLANNING BOARD TO THE ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS FOR AREA VARIANCE NO. 47-2020 PENELOPE D. TOWNSEND. Introduced by David Deeb who moved for its adoption, and a) The Planning Board, based on a limited review, has not identified any significant adverse impacts that cannot be mitigated with current project proposal. th Motion seconded by Brad Magowan. Duly adopted this 15 day of December 2020 by the following vote: AYES: Mr. Dixon, Mr. Hunsinger, Mr. Magowan, Mr. Valentine, Mr. Deeb, Mr. Traver NOES: Mr. Shafer ABSENT: Ms. White MR. TRAVER-You’re off to the ZBA. MS. BITTER-Thank you. MR. DEEB-Good luck. MR. TRAVER-Next item on our agenda is also under recommendations to the ZBA. This is for Bonnie Rosenburg, Site Plan 58-2020. SITE PLAN NO. 58-2020 SEQR TYPE: TYPE II. BONNIE ROSENBERG. AGENT(S): DENNIS MAC ELROY. OWNER(S): SAME AS APPLICANT. ZONING: WR. LOCATION: 73 KNOX ROAD. APPLICANT PROPOSES TO CONSTRUCT TWO RESIDENTIAL ADDITIONS. NORTHSIDE ADDITION OF 64 SQ. FT. IS ON UPPER LEVEL. SOUTHSIDE ADDITION IS TWO STORY, 370 SQ. FT. FOOTPRINT WITH 740 SQ. FT. FLOOR AREA. PROJECT INCLUDES NEW WASTEWATER, STORMWATER MANAGEMENT AND REDUCTION OF DECKS AND FLOOR AREA. THE SITE HAS ONE MAIN HOUSE AND TWO COTTAGES – 1,855 SQ. FT. FOOTPRINT. NO CHANGES TO EXISTING COTTAGES ON SITE. PURSUANT TO CHAPTER 179-3-040 & 179- 6-065 OF THE ZONING ORDINANCE, NEW FLOOR AREA IN A CEA SHALL BE SUBJECT TO PLANNING BOARD REVIEW AND APPROVAL. VARIANCE: RELIEF IS SOUGHT FOR SETBACKS. PLANNING BOARD SHALL PROVIDE A RECOMMENDATION TO THE ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS. CROSS REFERENCE: AV 48-2020. WARREN CO. REFERRAL: DECEMBER 2020. SITE INFORMATION: APA, CEA, LGPC. LOT SIZE: .48 ACRE. TAX MAP NO. 239.7-1-15. SECTION: 179-3-040, 179-6-065. DENNIS MAC ELROY & DOUG MC CALL, REPRESENTING APPLICANT, PRESENT MR. TRAVER-Laura? MRS. MOORE-The applicant proposes the construction of two residential additions. On the north side approximately 64 square feet is on the upper level, and the south side addition is two story of 370 square feet footprint, a total of 740 square feet. Relief is being requested for shoreline setback, floor area as well as setback for one side of the addition, for the side property line. 16 (Queensbury Planning Board 12/15/2020) MR. TRAVER-Okay. Thank you. Good evening. MR. MAC ELROY-Good evening. I am Dennis MacElroy with Environmental Design, representing the applicants Bonnie and Stewart Rosenburg. They are not with us tonight. They will be at the meeting if we progress back to you on Thursday. Doug McCall, who is the designer, builder of the proposed addition for this house, is in the audience. As described, this project involves the renovation of an addition to an existing structure in the Waterfront Residential zone. The Rosenburgs have owned the property for 35 years and they have reached retirement and are looking to make this more of a permanent residence for them. So they’re hoping for some additional comforts of the structure making it into a year round habitable structure, which it is year round now, but these improvements will add to that. So as a result of this design that they came up with there’s some additional floor area. There’s, we bump into a side yard setback, and there’s a shoreline setback which is somewhat different than most cases. As it exists it’s at 39 feet. There’s going to be a slight revision to that so it will go back to 41 feet, but besides the standard 50 foot setback that you’re used to, this one really falls under the average of the two adjacent properties, which, as shown on the variance plan, indicates that it’s more like 83 feet, the average of the two. So that’s where another variance request comes in. I know that, and this isn’t the public hearing portion but my understanding is that there will be favorable supportive letters from neighbors, the two immediate neighbors that are most affected by the setback and two more neighbors to the north and two more neighbors to the south. I believe the Town already has those in their files. So I think that we’ve got good neighborhood support. It is a request for variances, but that’s what the project results in. MR. TRAVER-Okay. I know this isn’t specifically on the variances, but one of the things I would like you to be prepared to discuss when you return for Site Plan is the shoreline buffer. Be thinking a little bit about that. MR. MAC ELROY-Yes. MR. TRAVER-Questions, comments from members of the Planning Board regarding the variances? MR. MAGOWAN-I have one. You’re taking the two feet off the front deck because it’s no good, or was it to just gain more frontage? MR. MAC ELROY-I think it’s not a necessary dimension that’s needed, that deck. So it’s appropriate. I think Doug has looked at this and decided that it’s not necessary. It can be removed, and therefore it does, you know, increases that setback. Minimally, understood, but it’s something. MR. MAGOWAN-Because I mean that’s pre-existing and you’re actually coming out on the sides and to me it would just be an added cost to take it off. I mean I would prefer to see more on the shoreline buffering if anything, but that was just my opinion. It just caught my eye and two feet. DOUG MC CALL MR. MC CALL-It’s a cantilevered deck. The cantilevered deck affects the design. It works with that existing house but not the new design. MR. MAGOWAN-Okay. Thank you. MR. MAC ELROY-I don’t know if you caught that for the record. MR. MAGOWAN-It’s a cantilevered deck, and it doesn’t go with the new design of the house. MR. TRAVER-Other questions, comments, concerns with regard to the variances requested? We have a draft resolution, I believe, for this. RESOLUTION RE: ZBA RESOLUTION RE: AV # 58-2020 BONNIE ROSENBURG The applicant has submitted an application for the following: Applicant proposes to construct two residential additions. Northside addition of 64 sq. ft. is on upper level. Southside addition is two story, 370 sq. ft. footprint with 740 sq. ft. floor area. Project includes new wastewater, stormwater management and reduction of decks and floor area. The site has one main house and two cottages – 1,855 sq. ft. footprint. No changes to existing cottages on site. Pursuant to Chapter 179-3-040 & 179-6-065 of the Zoning Ordinance, new floor area in a CEA shall be subject to Planning Board review and approval. Variance: Relief is sought for setbacks. Planning Board shall provide a recommendation to the Zoning Board of Appeals. The Town of Queensbury Zoning Ordinance, per Section 179-9-070 J 2 b. requires the Planning Board to provide a written recommendation to the Zoning Board of Appeals for projects that require both Zoning Board of Appeals & Planning Board approval; 17 (Queensbury Planning Board 12/15/2020) The Planning Board has briefly reviewed and discussed this application, the relief request in the variance application as well as the potential impacts of this project on the neighborhood and surrounding community, and found that: MOTION TO MAKE A RECOMMENDATION ON BEHALF OF THE PLANNING BOARD TO THE ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS FOR AREA VARIANCE NO. 48-2020 BONNIE ROSENBERG. Introduced by David Deeb who moved for its adoption, and a) The Planning Board, based on a limited review, has not identified any significant adverse impacts that cannot be mitigated with current project proposal. th Motion seconded by Michael Dixon. Duly adopted this 15 day of December 2020 by the following vote: AYES: Mr. Hunsinger, Mr. Magowan, Mr. Valentine, Mr. Deeb, Mr. Dixon, Mr. Shafer, Mr. Traver NOES: NONE ABSENT: Ms. White MR. TRAVER-You’re off to the ZBA. MR. MAC ELROY-Thank you very much.. I hope to see you Thursday. MR. TRAVER-The next item on our agenda is also under referral to the ZBA is Harrisena Church, Subdivision Preliminary Stage 16-2020. SUBDIVISION PRELIMINARY STAGE 16-2020 SEQR TYPE: UNLISTED. HARRISENA CHURCH. AGENT(S): VAN DUSEN & STEVES. OWNER(S): SAME AS APPLICANT. ZONING: MDR. LOCATION: 1616 RIDGE ROAD. APPLICANT PROPOSES A THREE LOT SUBDIVISION OF 3.8 ACRE PARCEL. LOT 1 TO BE 1.3 ACRE TO MAINTAIN AN EXISTING HOME 1,580 SQ. FT. WITH DECKS (FOOTPRINT). LOT 2 TO BE 1.3 ACRES AND LOT 3 TO BE 1.2 ACRES FOR NEW HOMES AND ASSOCIATED SITE WORK. PURSUANT TO CHAPTER 183 OF THE ZONING ORDINANCE, , SUBDIVISION OF LAND SHALL BE SUBJECT TO PLANNING BOARD REVIEW AND APPROVAL. VARIANCE: RELIEF IS SOUGHT FOR LOT SIZE. PLANNING BOARD SHALL PROVIDE A RECOMMENDATION TO THE ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS. CROSS REFERENCE: AV 37-2003 LOT LINE ADJ., AV 45-2020. WARREN CO. REFERRAL: N/A. SITE INFORMATION: APA, LGPC. LOT SIZE: 3.8 ACRES. TAX MAP NO. 266.3-1-59. SECTION: CHAPTER 183. MATT WEBSTER, REPRESENTING APPLICANT, PRESENT MR. TRAVER-Laura? MRS. MOORE-This application is for a three lot subdivision of a 3.8 acre parcel. Lot 1 is to be 1.3 acres to maintain an existing home. Lot 2 is to be 1.3 acres and Lot 3 is to be 1.2 acres. Lot Three is to have access off of Clements Road and Lot 2 and Lot 1 are to have access off of Ridge Road. MR. TRAVER-Okay. Thank you. Good evening. MR. WEBSTER-Good evening. My name is Matt Webster with VanDusen and Steves Land Surveyors, here on behalf of Harrisena Church. We’re here to seek relief from the minimum area for the lot size. Of course the minimum lot size would be two acres, and we are seeking relief to 1.3, 1.3, and 1.2 acres. The Harrisena Community Church is simply looking to raise some revenue, and they can use the land that they currently have to do so. This still fits with the character of the neighborhood as there are several lots in the area that are not two acres. MR. TRAVER-Okay. Thank you. Questions, comments from members of the Board? MR. VALENTINE-Well my first thought, this is just as a supposition, is because the one driveway is proposed to come off Clements Road, not a State road, looking at two curb cuts here, I was wondering if there was any, if you’d looked at the possibility of pairing the driveways of the two northernmost lots at the property line? MR. TRAVER-That would be a shared driveway> MR. VALENTINE-Yes. MR. TRAVER-Would you consider that? 18 (Queensbury Planning Board 12/15/2020) MR. WEBSTER-That’s certainly something we could take a look at. We can take a look at that. MR. TRAVER-Of course at this stage we’re at subdivision. MR. VALENTINE-That’s true. We’re not there yet. MR. DEEB-It does make it more palatable. I mean you could go two lots, get 1.9 acres out of both of them, and that gets you close to two acres. MR. WEBSTER-Yes, that was certainly something that was discussed, but the Church is looking, of course, to maximize the value of the land. MR. DEEB-So does everybody at this point. MR. TRAVER-So is the Planning Board. MR. DEEB-That was my first thought. 1.9 gets really close to conformance to have two lots. MR. HUNSINGER-Then you only have one curb cut onto Ridge. MR. DEEB-And you’ve only got one curb cut. MR. WEBSTER-Understood. That’s also why we showed the potential driveway on Clements Road. We’re minimizing any curb cuts on Ridge and of course the traffic. MR. TRAVER-Okay. So do we want to mention the one item that we discussed is trying to get a shared driveway as opposed to adding? MR. DEEB-Well that would be Site Plan. MR. HUNSINGER-I was going to say, that would be Site Plan. MR. TRAVER-That’s right. Yes. I’ve got to remind myself we’re just here for recommendation. MRS. MOORE-Actually that would be under your subdivision rule. Because of Ridge Road it would be required to have a shared driveway or a variance for two separate driveways, and then you did mention, do you want to mention that you may prefer a two lot subdivision versus a three lot subdivision? That’s definitely something that you should share with the Zoning Board if that’s how you feel. MR. DEEB-Yes, I would like to put that in there. How do the rest of you feel? MR. TRAVER-Would people be more comfortable with two lots versus three? MR. VALENTINE-I think the point’s valid, myself, when I first looked at saying okay we’ve got three consecutive lots here out of acreage that you could conform, and I know anybody coming up that owns property would say, yes, I’d like to get as many lots out of it as I can. MR. TRAVER-Right. MR. VALENTINE-But there’s not a reason not to do two, two acre lots, you know, or come close to it. MR. TRAVER-Okay. So we’ll include that in the referral. MR. WEBSTER-And in this case we are here asking for the relief for the 1.3 and 1.2 acres, but just because it still fits in with the character of the neighborhood. There are examples right close to this that are under those two acres. So again that’s just kind of our thinking on that. MR. DEEB-I understand that. MR. HUNSINGER-That’s what you tell the Zoning Board. MR. DEEB-You tell the Zoning Board that, yes. MR. TRAVER-That’s part of why they changed the zoning. All right. So then we have a draft resolution. RESOLUTION RE: ZBA RESOLUTION RE: 45-2020 HARRISENA CHURCH The applicant has submitted an application for the following: Applicant proposes a three lot subdivision of 3.8 acre parcel. Lot 1 to be 1.3 acre to maintain an existing home 1,580 sq. ft. with decks (footprint); Lot 19 (Queensbury Planning Board 12/15/2020) 2 to be 1.3 acres and Lot 3 to be 1.2 acres for new homes and associated site work. Pursuant to Chapter 183 of the Zoning Ordinance, subdivision of land shall be subject to Planning Board review and approval. Variance: Relief is sought for lot size. Planning Board shall provide a recommendation to the Zoning Board of Appeals. The Town of Queensbury Zoning Ordinance, per Section 179-9-070 J 2 b. requires the Planning Board to provide a written recommendation to the Zoning Board of Appeals for projects that require both Zoning Board of Appeals & Planning Board approval; The Planning Board has briefly reviewed and discussed this application, the relief request in the variance application as well as the potential impacts of this project on the neighborhood and surrounding community, and found that: MOTION TO MAKE A RECOMMENDATION ON BEHALF OF THE PLANNING BOARD TO THE ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS FOR AREA VARIANCE NO. 45-2020 HARRISENA CHURCH. Introduced by David Deeb who moved for its adoption, and b) The Planning Board, based on a limited review, has identified the following areas of concern: 1) Subdivision of the parcel into two lots instead of three lots. th Motion seconded by John Shafer. Duly adopted this 15 day of December 2020 by the following vote: AYES: Mr. Magowan, Mr. Valentine, Mr. Deeb, Mr. Dixon, Mr. Shafer, Mr. Hunsinger, Mr. Traver NOES: NONE ABSENT: Ms. White MR. TRAVER-You’re off to the ZBA. MR. WEBSTER-Thank you. MR. DEEB-Good luck. MR. TRAVER-The next section of our agenda is New Business, and the first item of business is Michael Alford/Burch Bottle, Site Plan 53-2020. NEW BUSINESS: SITE PLAN NO. 53-2020 SEQR TYPE: TYPE II. MICHAEL ALFORD/BURCH BOTTLE. OWNER(S): 428 CORINTH ROAD, LLC. ZONING: CLI. LOCATION: 428 CORINTH ROAD. APPLICANT PROPOSES TO RE-USE AN EXISTING 75,000 SQ. FT. BUILDING FOR WAREHOUSE, SALES OF ASSORTED CONTAINERS AND OFFICE AREA. PURSUANT TO CHAPTER 179-9-020 OF THE ZONING ORDINANCE, CHANGE OF USE AND NO SITE PLAN WITHIN THE PAST SEVEN YEARS SHALL BE SUBJECT TO PLANNING BOARD REVIEW AND APPROVAL. CROSS REFERENCE: SP 38-2001, 98510-6997 INT. ALT., 98658-7161 SEPTIC. WARREN CO. REFERRAL: DECEMBER 2020. LOT SIZE: 12 ACRES. TAX MAP NO. 308.15-1- 40. SECTION: 179-9-020. MIKE ALFORD, PRESENT MR. TRAVER-Laura? MRS. MOORE-This applicant proposes to re-use an existing an existing 75,000 square foot building for warehouse, sales of assorted containers and an office area. It requires Site Plan Review because it hasn’t had a Site Plan in the past seven years. MR. TRAVER-Okay. Thank you. Good evening. MR. ALFORD-Good evening. My name is Mike Alford. I’m with Burch Bottle packaging. We’re looking at the old Webb Graphic building and we’re proposing to use the space as a packaging and distribution warehouse. MR. TRAVER-Okay. MR. ALFORD-I don’t know if you have questions about it. 20 (Queensbury Planning Board 12/15/2020) MR. HUNSINGER-I’m glad to see it re-used. MR. TRAVER-Yes. MR. ALFORD-It needed a lot of, it hasn’t been touched in years. MR. HUNSINGER-Yes. I was in it as they were closing. MR. ALFORD-It’s much different now. MR. HUNSINGER-Yes. MR. DEEB-Are you going to do any renovations? MR. ALFORD-Not structural, no. MR. TRAVER-And not to the outside, right, just to the inside. MR. ALFORD-The inside, yes. They added some partitions and stuff and that’s all coming down. There were some drainage problems that we had to correct. In the future we’ll probably be back here for an addition, but right now it’s just for this use. MR. DEEB-It’s pretty straightforward. MR. MAGOWAN-I would like to thank you for coming to Queensbury and bringing it up. We’re always looking forward to economic growth in our area, and for taking up a building that’s just sat too long. MR. ALFORD-Once it was Webb Graphics, it was owned by Taylor. I live in the area it’s not that far. The area is great. MR. TRAVER-I do want to mention that there is a public hearing. We will open that now, and I want to let people know, remind them if they’re watching us on the YouTube channel, that if you wish to call the Planning Board and make public comment on this application you may do so at 518-761-8255, and I’ll ask is there anyone in the audience that wanted to address the Planning Board on this application? I’m not seeing any hands. Laura’s checking to see if there are any written comments. PUBLIC HEARING OPENED MRS. MOORE-There are no written comments. MR. TRAVER-No written comments. That’s okay. Questions comments from members of the Board? It’s fairly straightforward. MR. HUNSINGER-The one question from Staff Notes was on the site lighting and whether or not the fixtures are downcast fixtures? MR. ALFORD-We haven’t changed them. We’ve changed the lighting. We updated the lighting but they’re still pointing the same way they were, and they don’t seem to be, you know, we have, if you look at the front of the building, there’s nothing that points towards the road that would bother anyone, and it’s pointing in the same direction. It always has. There are neighbors. There’s a row of trees, cedar trees. MR. TRAVER-So the lighting is downcast? MR. ALFORD-Yes. MR. TRAVER-Okay. MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. MR. DIXON-Mr. Chairman, there’s one other item also that talks about site details. The survey indicates monitoring wells on the site. MR. TRAVER-Can you comment on that? Evidently there’s a well on site. MR. ALFORD-On the west side. MR. TRAVER-Do you know what the status of the well is? Is it still functional? 21 (Queensbury Planning Board 12/15/2020) MR. ALFORD-Not to my knowledge. There are two risers that have locks on them. We went through a whole environmental, that was the whole hold up for us. We wanted to make sure the property was clean. MR. TRAVER-Sure. MR. ALFORD-So I know there’s no contamination or anything. I don’t know anything about a monitoring well. That held us up for six to eight months because we were going back and forth to make sure the State would sign off on everything. We also had a State inspector walk through the building. While he was there he went through everything and said it was okay. MR. TRAVER-The notes do indicate that there’s some form of monitoring on the wells. Are you familiar with that? MRS. MOORE-Can I just clarify that? So it says monitoring wells on the site, and it’s just that whoever did the survey initialed it as NW. So I’m not quite sure whether they’re operating, but it sounds like if there was anything that was done on the site, an environmental review, that they would have evaluated those monitoring wells, and if you purchased the property based on the fact that the environmental clearance was given, then my guess is that either they function correctly or they’re no longer needed. MR. ALFORD-Yes, they’re just two stand pipes that come up with caps on them and we never got a resolution on what they were, but like Laura said the environmental review went through the whole site. I believe there’s nothing there. MR. HUNSINGER-They must have used them to test ground water. MR. ALFORD-It could have been. No one could give me an answer on it, and our environmental people couldn’t find anything. They did all kinds of core samples. MR. HUNSINGER-Did they take water out of these wells and test them? MR. ALFORD-I know they tested the site. I don’t know if they went through those wells, but I mean I would assume that if they saw the wells and they were concerned about it. MR. MAGOWAN-They would do a title search, too, to make sure. MR. ALFORD-Right. MR. DEEB-What kind of noise generation does the business put out? MR. ALFORD-We have tractor trailers. That’s it. MR. DEEB-What time do they come in? MR. ALFORD-Mostly during the day. Some will show up maybe six o’clock in the morning. MR. DEEB-I notice your hours are 11:30 p.m. MR. ALFORD-We’re considering running a second shift, but that would be for re-stocking the shelves inside. MR. DEEB-So that wouldn’t generate a lot of noise. MR. ALFORD-No, not at all. We’re a very quiet business. We make very little noise. Even our fork trucks are electric. MR. TRAVER-Any other questions, concerns regarding the application? We have a draft motion. MS. GAGLIARDI-Mr. Chairman, you need to close the public hearing. MR. TRAVER-Thank you. Yes. So we did not receive any phone calls, no written comments, no one in the audience wanted to comment. So we will close the public hearing. PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED MR. TRAVER-Thank you, Maria. So now we can entertain a motion. RESOLUTION APPROVING SP # 53-2020 MICHAEL ALFORD/BURCH BOTTLE 22 (Queensbury Planning Board 12/15/2020) 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 reuse an existing 75,000 sq. ft. building for warehouse, sales of assorted containers and office area. Pursuant to Chapter 179-9-020 of the Zoning Ordinance, change of use and no site plan within the past seven years 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 12/15/2020 and continued the public hearing to 12/15/2020, 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 12/15/2020; 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 53-2020 MICHAEL ALFORD / BURCH BOTTLE; 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, j. stormwater, k. topography, l. landscaping, o. commercial alterations/ construction details, 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. th Motion seconded by Chris Hunsinger. Duly adopted this 15 day of December 2020 by the following vote: AYES: Mr. Magowan, Mr. Valentine, Mr. Deeb, Mr. Dixon, Mr. Shafer, Mr. Hunsinger, Mr. Traver NOES: NONE ABSENT: Ms. White MR. TRAVER-You’re all set. MR. ALFORD-Thank you very much. MR. TRAVER-The next item on our agenda, also under New Business, is Foothills Builders, Site Plan 55- 2020. SITE PLAN NO. 55-2020 SEQR TYPE: TYPE II. FOOTHILLS BUILDERS. AGENT(S): HUTCHINS ENGINEERING. OWNER(S): TERRE MAJESTIC HOLDINGS. ZONING: MDR. LOCATION; LOT 9 – ROUND POND SUBDIVISION. APPLICANT PROPOSES TO CONSTRUCT A 2.019 SQ. FT. FOOTPRINT SINGLE FAMILY HOME, SINGLE STORY WITH A FULL UNFINISHED BASEMENT. PROJECT INCLUDES GRADING AND NEW SEPTIC SYSTEM. 23 (Queensbury Planning Board 12/15/2020) PURSUANT TO CHAPTER 179-6-060 OF THE ZONING ORDINANCE, CONSTRUCTION WITHIN 50 FT. OF 15% SLOPES SHALL BE SUBJECT TO PLANNING BOARD REVIEW AND APPROVAL. CROSS REFERENCE: SUB 4-1993. WARREN CO. REFERRAL: DECEMBER 2020. SITE INFORMATION: CEA (PORTION), STEEP SLOPES. LOT SIZE: 1.3 ACRES. TAX MAP NO. 296.5-1-16. SECTION: 179-6-060. TOM CENTER, REPRESENTING APPLICANT, PRESENT MRS. MOORE-The applicant proposes to construct a 2,019 square foot footprint single family home, It’s a single story with a full unfinished basement. The project includes grading for new septic system. The project is under review because it’s within 50 feet of 15% slopes. MR. TRAVER-Okay. Thank you, Laura. Good evening. MR. MAGOWAN-Mr. Chairman, I think I might speak up as I see some of my fellow neighbors here, but this is my neighborhood. So what do you feel I should do? MR. TRAVER-Well, you have disclosed a potential conflict of interest. If you feel that it is a conflict of interest, you can recuse yourself from deliberation of this application. Otherwise you’re fine. MR. MAGOWAN-I mean, I don’t feel I have a conflict of interest. MR. TRAVER-Okay. Understood. And the fact that these are your neighbors, you’ve disclosed that. . So that’s part of the record. That’s fine. Good evening. MR. CENTER-Good evening. Tom Center with Hutchins Engineering, representing this project this evening. I also have Mr. Leuci from Foothills Builders who’s building the house and his daughter is here who’s going to be living in the house. This is an approved building lot with a shared common driveway. We kept the house in close to the same location as the approved subdivision plan. We’ve got a small two bedroom septic system on the back side and in acknowledgement of the existing driveway, the existing neighbor’s driveway, we’ve shown the water lines actually come in via Birdsall Road. So we’re not coming across the front line up the driveway. In that tight neighborhood there’s not a lot of room to do that and we’ve have to cross the driveway. So it’s just as easy to come off the back side and come off Birdsall Road and up the back way for the water line, and we’re also looking at possibly coming off the power line on the back corner to come right down that property corner on Birdsall where we can look at bringing the power underground or above ground for National Grid for the electrical service. Other than that, we’ve got stormwater design. We’ve got new engineering comments. Nothing out of the ordinary there. We need to clean up a few details, clarify a couple of things, but other than that, it’s a pretty commonsense design. Three on one slope on the back side of the septic system, a slight slope for a lawn out the back side to a walkout basement on the back side of the house. MR. TRAVER-Okay. No variances. MR. CENTER-No variances. MR. TRAVER-Approved building lot. Questions, comments from members of the Board? Questions for the applicant’s representative? It’s a fairly straightforward home I would say. It’s almost a relief. MR. DEEB-It looks like it’s the same design, Joe, when you built your first subdivision off Peggy Ann. It looks like the exact same house. MR. CENTER-Very close to it. MR. TRAVER-We do have a public hearing on this application, and I’ll alert the folks that may be viewing this discussion on the Town’s YouTube channel that if you wish to comment on Site Plan 55-2020 for Foothills Builders, please call us at 518-761-8225, and I’ll ask, is there anyone in the audience that wanted to address? Yes, sir. So I will formally open the public hearing, and we do have a gentleman that would like to make a comment. PUBLIC HEARING OPENED RUSSELL THOMAS MR. THOMAS-My name’s Russell Thomas, and I own the one where they’re talking about the shared driveway. MR. TRAVER-Okay. 24 (Queensbury Planning Board 12/15/2020) MR. THOMAS-To my knowledge, that was changed. That is not a shared driveway. That was told to me by Mike Lamont and by Guido Passarelli that when I first built there there were no other houses. I’ve owned that since 1998 or ’99. The road wasn’t even in. I was always told that the road for that lot would come off of Birdsall, okay. MR. TRAVER-Excuse me for interrupting. Is that in your deed or do you have any paperwork to that effect? MR. THOMAS-No, there’s nothing in there. I don’t believe there’s anything even on the shared driveway now because when we did do the driveway, okay, when Mike Lamont laid it out, okay, it was on to LaRue’s property which is the one to the right going up the driveway. There had to be a lot line adjustment, which I did pay for. I also went through the Town with Mr. Bruce Frank because of the water runoff and everything else, all at my expense. The driveway has never been shared as far as expenses or anything. Plus when I went through with LaRue’s when we had to do the lot line adjustment, it was also told to us at that time the same thing, that that lot would be accessed from Birdsall, from Birdsall Road. Also that does hinder my house by coming in through there because it does pass over my property. MR. TRAVER-So you’re saying that if this house is constructed as proposed, it would cross your property? MR. THOMAS-That’s correct. MR. TRAVER-Okay. Anything else? MR. THOMAS-No. MR. TRAVER-Thank you very much. Are there any written comments, Laura? MRS. MOORE-There are no written comments. MR. TRAVER-We’ll leave the public hearing open for a little bit longer in case there’s folks on the phone call. Can I ask the applicant’s representative to come back up. So obviously the most striking of the public comments is the suggestion that the driveway as proposed would cross the property line of the neighbor. MR. CENTER-The existing driveway on Lot 10 is in the location of the common shared driveway. Laura, if you want to pull up the drawing from the original subdivision plans. We would be tying in to the existing driveway. Of course being a shared driveway you’ve got to finish constructing it onto Lot 9’s parcel, so, yes, I mean it shows we do have to cross the property line to get from Lot 10 to Lot 9. What I’ve got here is the original approved subdivision plans that was approved by the Town of Queensbury Planning Board and Department of Health which shows a common drive almost in the same location. You can see it in the hatched, the clouded area. You can see a common drive coming off here, following the property line, turning and coming up to the house on Lot 9 and then it showed a house location kind of in the central portion of the property and with a driveway here. MR. TRAVER-And where, the neighbor’s house? MR. CENTER-His house is actually further over here as opposed to the central portion of the parcel. So it’s a little bit closer to this side. We would just be coming off that, the edge of that existing driveway and tying in to, and creating the new driveway for the new house which we’ve located right here. There’s the property line here. So he’d actually brought that driveway a little bit more in and then up this way and we’re just tying in to it right at the property line. That driveway is kind of dictated to us on his property. Him being the first one to build there, we tried to do as minimal amount of disturbance on his parcel to create the driveway into Lot 9. MR. TRAVER-And this is representing the original. MR. CENTER-This is the original subdivision approval for the entire subdivision. MR. TRAVER-And that shows the shared driveway going. MR. CENTER-That shows a common driveway right there. It says common driveway on the driveway, on the plan if you were to zoom it you would see it says common driveway. Also I did a deed research for Mr. Thomas’ original parcel. I found two deeds. I found the one that he mentioned about the lot line adjustment, which would be that lot line, and then there’s a further deed when he originally purchased the property and it clearly shows on Schedule A of this deed that it has a restriction for Lot 9 to have access through a shared driveway. 25 (Queensbury Planning Board 12/15/2020) MR. VALENTINE-It just seems, I mean I don’t think any Planning Board would have that subdivision design and allow for two lots to have external access onto that other road rather than the internal road. It just doesn’t. MR. CENTER-Well there’s a slope. I mean we can bring the water line in there because it does come down to a low point there. So we can get a water line in there, but to build a driveway up there would be. MR. VALENTINE-Well the water line didn’t go the most direct route either. MR. CENTER-Right. I kind of followed the grade to get it up there. MR. TRAVER-So we haven’t received any phone calls. So we’ll go ahead and close the public hearing on this application. PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED MR. TRAVER-Laura, do you have any information that might clarify the shared driveway issue on this property? MRS. MOORE-Other than it’s an existing approved subdivision with a shared driveway. MR. TRAVER-Okay, so definitely there was, and in the public hearing we heard comment that there is no shared driveway. You’re saying that the confirmation by the approved subdivision it shows that there is a shared driveway. MRS. MOORE-The filed subdivision in our office shows that a shared driveway does exist. MR. TRAVER-Okay. Thank you. MR. SHAFER-Tom, your research of the Lot 10 deed shows a shared driveway? MR. CENTER-Yes, and Laura’s pulled that up there. She just hadn’t scrolled down far enough. It’s clearly in Mr. Thomas’ deed that shows. MR. VALENTINE-And there’s no map note on this subdivision that was filed? Was there no map note on the filed subdivision to reference access to? MR. CENTER-There wasn’t a map note. There was just in the schedule. It might be the next page, Laura. MR. VALENTINE-No, that’s all right. If you say it was not there. MR. CENTER-There it is right there, accepting and reserving, and the one that Mr. Thomas was referring to was, it gives a whereas, and whereas the parties’ desire to establish a new common boundary line between their respective premises, and that has language in it between 11 and 10. It doesn’t say anything about 9. It doesn’t have bearing on the original deed. MR. VALENTINE-So that’s just a metes and bounds description of the property lines of the two lots. MR. CENTER-Right, and it shows this pretty much same location. MR. TRAVER-Any other questions, comments regarding this application? We do have a draft resolution I believe for this. RESOLUTION APPROVING SP # 55-2020 FOOTHILLS BUILDERS The applicant has submitted an application to the Planning Board: Applicant proposes to construct a 2,019 sq. ft. footprint single family home, single story with a full unfinished basement. Project includes grading and new septic system. Pursuant to Chapter 179-6-060 of the Zoning Ordinance, construction within 50 ft. of 15% slopes shall be subject to Planning Board review and approval. 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 12/15/2020 and continued the public hearing to 12/15/2020, when it was closed, 26 (Queensbury Planning Board 12/15/2020) 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 12/15/2020; 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 55-2020 FOOTHILLS BUILDERS; Introduced by David Deeb who moved for its adoption. According to the draft resolution prepared by Staff with the following: 1) Waivers requested granted; g. site lighting, h. signage, 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) The limits of clearing will constitute a no-cut buffer zone, orange construction fencing shall be installed around these areas and field verified by Community Development staff; b) If applicable, the Sanitary Sewer connection plan must be submitted to the Wastewater Department for its review, approval, permitting and inspection; c) If curb cuts are being added or changed a driveway permit is required. A building permit will not be issued until the approved driveway permit has been provided to the Planning Office; d) If application was referred to engineering then Engineering sign-off required prior to signature of Zoning Administrator of the approved plans; e) Final approved plans should have dimensions and setbacks noted on the site plan/survey, floor plans and elevation for the existing rooms and proposed rooms in the building and site improvements;- f) If required, the applicant must submit a copy of the following to the Town: a. The project NOI (Notice of Intent) for coverage under the current "NYSDEC SPDES General Permit from Construction Activity" prior to the start of any site work. b. The project NOT (Notice of Termination) upon completion of the project; c. The applicant must maintain on their project site, for review by staff: i. The approved final plans that have been stamped by the Town Zoning Administrator. These plans must include the project SWPPP (Storm Water Pollution Prevention Plan) when such a plan was prepared and approved; ii. The project NOI and proof of coverage under the current NYSDEC SPDES General Permit, or an individual SPDES permit issued for the project if required. g) Final approved plans, in compliance with the Site Plan, must be submitted to the Community Development Department before any further review by the Zoning Administrator or Building and Codes personnel; h) The applicant must meet with Staff after approval and prior to issuance of Building Permit and/or the beginning of any site work; i) Subsequent issuance of further permits, including building permits is dependent on compliance with this and all other conditions of this resolution; j) As-built plans to certify that the site plan is developed according to the approved plans to be provided prior to issuance of the certificate of occupancy. k) This resolution is to be placed in its entirety on the final plans th Motion seconded by Michael Valentine. Duly adopted this 15 day of December 2020 by the following vote: MRS. MOORE-Can I just offer for the gentleman in the audience that typically the Board doesn’t get involved in civil matters between property owners. MR. TRAVER-Right. MRS. MOORE-So it’s not that they’re not listening to your discussion. It’s that they can’t act on things that are in a deed or that type of discrepancy that you’re describing. MR. TRAVER-Thank you for that clarification, Laura. AYES: Mr. Dixon, Mr. Shafer, Mr. Hunsinger, Mr. Valentine, Mr. Deeb, Mr. Traver NOES: NONE ABSTAINED: Mr. Magowan 27 (Queensbury Planning Board 12/15/2020) ABSENT: Ms. White MR. TRAVER-You’re all set. The next item on our agenda, also under New Business, is Jennifer Ball Subdivision 17-2020. SUBDIVISION NO. 17-2020 SKETCH SEQR TYPE: UNLISTED. JENNIFER BALL. AGENT(S): HUTCHINS ENGINEERING. OWNER(S): PAMELA HARRIS. ZONING: RR-3A. LOCATION; PICKLE HILL ROAD. APPLICANT PROPOSES A TWO LOT SUBDIVISION AND A BOUNDARY LINE ADJUSTMENT. PARCEL 266.1-1-9.1 IS 16 ACRES – LOT 1 TO BE 12 ACRES AND LOT 2 TO BE 3 ACRES. BOUNDARY LINE ADJUSTMENT WITH PARCEL 266.1-1-8 THAT IS 0.64 ACRE AND ADD 1.00 ACRE FOR TOTAL OF 1.64 ACRES. LOT 1 WAS FORMERLY COMMERCIAL GARAGE WITH PROPOSAL TO RENOVATE GARAGE AND CONSTRUCT A NEW HOME. LOT 2 TO BE MARKETABLE BUILDING LOT. PURSUANT TO CHAPTER 183 OF THE ZONING ORDINANCE, SUBDIVISION OF LAND SHALL BE SUBJECT TO PLANNING BOARD REVIEW AND APPROVAL. CROSS REFERENCE: (PARCEL 1.8) – AV 61-1990, NOA 2-2013. WARREN CO. REFERRAL: N/A. SITE INFORMATION: APA, L G P C. LOT SIZE: 16 ACRES. TAX MAP NO. 266.1-1-9.1, 266.1-1-8. SECTION: CHAPTER 183. LUCAS DOBIE, REPRESENTING APPLICANT, PRESENT MR. TRAVER-Laura? MRS. MOORE-This is a two lot subdivision and a boundary line adjustment. The parcel, the main parcel, 9.1, is 16 acres, and Lot 1 to be 12 acres and Lot 2 to be 3 acres. So the boundary line adjustment with parcel 8 is to add an additional one acre to that, making it more compliant. The applicant is here to discuss the activities that are occurring because the main lot will contain a new home and then convert the existing garage which is called the Harris garage so they’re going to convert that into a residential garage, expand it a little bit so there will be additional variances as I pointed out in my Staff Notes. MR. TRAVER-Okay. Thank you. Hello again. MR. DOBIE-Good evening, again, Board. For the record, Lucas Dobie with Hutchins Engineering, and with me is the applicant, Jennifer Ball, and Dan Davies, the contract buyer from Pam Harris on this 16 acre piece which contains the old Harris’ block, garage there if you will. It’s my understanding it’s pretty cluttered in there still. So they would like to clear it out, rehab the garage, add a set of dormers on the roof side for outdoor storage and really improve the property, and we have a fully compliant two lot subdivision with a one acre boundary line adjustment to the westerly neighbor, Hutchinson, which would give them significantly more land, and it will also encompass their well which is off the property. The neighboring well is on the Harris property just a little bit, but we’ll clean that up, too, as part of the action, and we’re here at the Sketch phase. We wanted to discuss this project in the context of her other project. This is really re-working that whole neighborhood there. On the 12 acre parcel we would like to construct a new home, their new home up on the knoll. A beautiful piece of property and then have a saleable three acre lot, which would be just to the west of her house now. Again it’s all open field for the most part, plenty of space, in our opinion, for these projects, and we’re taking the first step here with the Sketch plan phase and then we’re going to develop our architectural renderings and we’ll be back with a whole Site Plan in a couple of months to hopefully work them all through. With that we’d be happy to entertain any questions, comments from the Board, and thank you for your time. MR. TRAVER-Sure. We are at Sketch. So we’re just looking to give the applicant some feedback on this proposal. MR. HUNSINGER-Well I think you hit on two words, it’s fully compliant. MR. VALENTINE-That’s rare. MR. TRAVER-Those are two words we like to hear. MR. HUNSINGER-So there’s really not a whole lot to add. I mean you could make the three acre lot a little bit bigger than three acres, but, I mean. MR. DOBIE-Like Laura said, our variances on this project will be to rehab that garage because it is over the 2200 allowable square feet. MR. HUNSINGER-But it’s existing. MR. DOBIE-It’s existing. In a little bit of rough shape so we’re really looking forward to cleaning that all up and new siding and reduce the gravel way down significantly so it’ll create more green space and we’ve been advised by Staff that to pursue those variances we need our full blown Site Plan. We weren’t 28 (Queensbury Planning Board 12/15/2020) prepared to get that done for this meeting, so we submitted our Sketch and give us a little more time to work and incorporate any of your feedback. MR. TRAVER-Okay. Any other comments for Sketch plan? MR. MAGOWAN-Isn’t there still a foundation on one of the properties? Or was that taken out? There was an old foundation.. It looked like someone started to build. JENNIFER BALL MS. BALL-No. MR. MAGOWAN-Was it there before? I mean, I don’t remember. MS. BALL-It’s the lot on the corner of Pickle Hill and Ridge that the house burnt down. That’s the one that has the foundation on it. That has nothing to do with this. MR. MAGOWAN-All right. That’s the Steve Metivier one? MS. BALL-Right, and they actually just pulled that out. MR. MAGOWAN-I knew there was one there, but it seemed a little odd because it was in the middle of nowhere. MS. BALL-Yes, that was the Harris property at one point. MR. MAGOWAN-Okay. MR. TRAVER-Do you have any questions for us? MR. DOBIE-I don’t believe we do. MR. TRAVER-So I’m not h earing any concerns. MR. VALENTINE-I just had a question. The intent is to keep that garage with a 12 acre lot around it, then? MR. DOBIE-That is correct, sir. MR. VALENTINE-No further subdivision of it? MR. DOBIE-No.. MR. TRAVER-Any other questions. MR. VALENTINE-I’m just looking if it does get further subdivided where they’re going to come out. That’s all. MR. TRAVER-All right. I guess you’re all set. MR. DOBIE-Thank you. MR. TRAVER-Sure. MR. TRAVER-The next item on our agenda also under New Business and with a public hearing is Mike Kokoletsos, Subdivision Modification 15-2020. SUBDIVISION MODIFICATION 15-2020 SEQR TYPE: UNLISTED. MICHAEL KOKOLETSOS. AGENT(S): JON LAPPER. OWNER(S): SAME AS APPLICANT. ZONING: MDR. LOCATION: MONTRAY RD. & PINECREST. APPLICANT PROPOSES TO MODIFY AN APPROVED SUBDIVISION TO NOW INCLUDE INSTALLATION OF A FENCE. THE PROJECT WILL INCLUDE CLEARING AN AREA ALONG THE PROPERTY LINE OF 1,260 FEET TO INSTALL THE FENCE. ALSO, A PART OF THE PROJECT IS A FOREST THINNING TO REMOVE UNHEALTHY AND UNDESIRABLE TREES AND VEGETATION TO ALLOW FOR MORE HARDWOODS AND HEALTHY TREE SPECIES TO GROW. PURSUANT TO CHAPTER 183-17 OF THE ZONING ORDINANCE, MODIFICATION OF AN APPROVED SUBDIVISION SHALL BE SUBJECT TO PLANNING BOARD REVIEW AND APPROVAL. CROSS REFERENCE: SUB (P) 18-2018, SUB (F) 21-2018, SUB (P) 22-2018. WARREN CO. REFERRAL: N/A. LOT SIZE: 4.28 ACRES. TAX MAP NO. 296.13-1-26.1 & 296.13-1-26.2. SECTION: CHAPTER 183. 29 (Queensbury Planning Board 12/15/2020) JON LAPPER, REPRESENTING APPLICANT, PRESENT MR. TRAVER-Laura? MRS. MOORE-The applicant proposes to modify a proposed subdivision to include installation of a fence and to include clearing of unhealthy, undesirable trees to allow other hardwoods and healthy trees to grow. MR. TRAVER-Okay. Thank you. Good evening. MR. LAPPER-Hi, everyone. For the record, Jon Lapper. Ike and his dad John are both here to answer any questions. So before we get started, I was sitting home watching you on YouTube which is very convenient and one of the upsides of the pandemic. So I knew when I needed to be here, and it moved really fast when you got to the regular projects once you got past the recommendations. Quicker than I thought. So Mike did this subdivision so that he could build his house, and what’s happened was we expired here and we sent Bruce Frank and Craig up to the property. Because he’s got this large wooded lot all the neighbors kind of take advantage and dump all their clippings on his property which, so all summer he sees new grass clippings and it’s a big mess, and that’s really why he wanted some privacy, but then he went to get this DEC letter that was included in the packet that was something I don’t usually see to go to that level to explain what this stand of trees is like with the poplar trees that they call Aspens that are, you know, don’t have any cover at the bottom and the undergrowth is all gone. It blocks the sun and so even if it weren’t for the neighbors, there’s just a good reason to make it a healthy forest to take down some of these older trees, but the reason why he’s doing it is to get a track hoe in there obviously and be able to put in a fence, but all in all it’s a heavily wooded lot. The fence will serve as a buffer. There’s plenty of trees left and it’s just about at the edge of the property so the neighbors can’t use it as a dumping ground. So that’s it. We can answer any questions. MR. TRAVER-Okay. Thank you. Questions, comments from members of the Board? MR. MAGOWAN-Well I had a question on these eight Rottweilers. That’ s what I heard he needed this fence for. No, I’ve taken a walk and it is fairly heavily dense and it really is a shame, like I said, for so many years, people have just been encroaching, encroaching and even after, I believe you purchased it. I believe you even sent letters out to the neighbors kind of reminding them and it still kind of happened. So I say Mike and John thank you for coming back and asking, you know, instead of just going ahead and doing things. I think by pruning it out and taking down, that was a nice letter from the forester and that. I think it’s a great thing and it’s going to just change that whole lot, opening that up with some of those high canopy trees that are dangerous anyway. MR. TRAVER-Okay, any other questions, comments, concerns? MR. DIXON-Question. What type of fence are you proposing? There’s an existing fence there right now. MIKE KOKOLETSOS MR. KOKOLETSOS-Six foot chain link all the way around. MR. TRAVER-Excuse me, could you just state your name for the record, please. MR. KOKOLETSOS-Mike Kokoletsos, property owner. MR. TRAVER-And the fence is chain link, six feet high? MR. KOKOLETSOS-Yes. Once we get the equipment in there to construct the fence. Some of the neighbors have fences. Most of their fences are on my property and you can see that by the surveyor’s stakes, and their fences have gates. Why they have gates is so they can come on my property. So what I’m going to do is set it right up as close to theirs as I can so they’re not walking out through their back gate and using my property as a Queensbury transfer station. MR. SHAFER-Will those encroaching fences be removed as part of your project? MR. KOKOLETSOS-I’m not removing any of their fences. MR. SHAFER-So even if it’s on your property, you’ll leave it and put the chain link behind it? MR. KOKOLETSOS-Yes. MR. TRAVER-All right. If there are no concerns or further questions for the applicant, we have a motion we can entertain. MR. DEEB-We’ve got to re-affirm SEQR. 30 (Queensbury Planning Board 12/15/2020) MRS. MOORE-You have to open your public hearing. MR. TRAVER-Yes, I’m sorry. Thank you. There is a public hearing on this application. Is there anyone in the audience that wanted to address the Planning Board? I’m not seeing anyone. If there are members of the public that are watching this on the YouTube channel if they wish to comment, please call us at 518- 761-8225 and we’ll give you a couple of minutes to do that, should you wish to. Are there any written comments, Laura? PUBLIC HEARING OPENED MRS. MOORE-There are no written comments. MR. TRAVER-Okay. MR. DEEB-Do you want to go ahead and re-affirm SEQR? MR. TRAVER-What’s that? MR. DEEB-Do you want to re-affirm a Negative SEQR declaration now? MR. TRAVER-Well we have not received any interest on the phone. By the way, Laura, this phone doesn’t say Planning Board. It says kitchen. When people call, I don’t know if that’s what it shows them. All right. Well we’ll go ahead and close the public hearing. PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED MR. TRAVER-And we’ll entertain a motion. RESOLUTION RE-AFFIRMING SEQR NEGATIVE DEC. SP MOD # 15-2020 KOKOLETSOS The applicant proposes to modify an approved subdivision to now include installation of a fence. The project will include clearing an area along the property line of 1,260 feet to install the fence. Also, a part of the project is a forest thinning to remove unhealthy and undesirable trees and vegetation to allow for more hardwoods and healthy tree species to grow. Pursuant to Chapter 183-17 of the Zoning Ordinance, modification of an approved subdivision shall be subject to Planning Board review and approval. The Planning Board has determined that the proposed project and Planning Board action is subject to review under the State Environmental Quality Review Act; The proposed action considered by this Board is Unlisted in the Department of Environmental Conservation Regulations implementing the State Environmental Quality Review Act and the regulations of the Town of Queensbury; No Federal or other agencies are involved; Part 1 of the Short EAF has been completed by the applicant; Whereas, the Planning Board adopted Resolution SUB Preliminary Stage 22-2018 on 10/16/2018 adopting SEQRA determination of non-significance, and Upon review of the information recorded on the EAF, it is the conclusion of the Town of Queensbury Planning Board as lead agency reaffirms 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 REAFFIRM NEGATIVE DECLARATION FOR THE PROPOSED SUBDIVISION MODIFICATION 15-2020 MICHAEL KOKOLETSOS. Introduced by David Deeb who moved for its adoption, seconded by Michael Valentine; th Duly adopted this 15 day of December 2020 by the following vote: AYES: Mr. Magowan, Mr. Valentine, Mr. Deeb, Mr. Dixon, Mr. Shafer, Mr. Hunsinger, Mr. Traver NOES: NONE ABSENT: Ms. White MR. TRAVER-You’re all set. 31 (Queensbury Planning Board 12/15/2020) MR. DEEB-No, we’ve got to do the motion. MR. HUNSINGER-That was SEQR. MR. DEEB-We’ve got to do the resolution. MR. TRAVER-I thought we just did. MR. DEEB-No that was SEQR. Re-affirm SEQR. MR. TRAVER-All right. So we have an approval motion. RESOLUTION TO APPROVE SP MOD # 15-2020 MICHAEL KOKOLETSOS A subdivision application has been made to modify an approved subdivision to now include installation of a fence. The project will include clearing an area along the property line of 1,260 feet to install the fence. Also, a part of the project is a forest thinning to remove unhealthy and undesirable trees and vegetation to allow for more hardwoods and healthy tree species to grow. Pursuant to Chapter 183-17 of the Zoning Ordinance, modification of an approved subdivision shall be subject to Planning Board review and approval. Pursuant to relevant sections of the Town of Queensbury Zoning Code-Chapter A-183, the Planning Board has determined that this proposal satisfies the requirements as stated in the Zoning Code; The requirements of the State Environmental Quality Review Act have been considered and the Planning Board has adopted a SEQRA Negative Declaration. A public hearing was scheduled and held on 12/15/2020; This application is supported with all documentation, public comment, and application material in the file of record; MOTION TO APPROVE SUBDIVISION MODIFICATION 15-2020 MICHAEL KOKOLETSOS. Introduced by David Deeb who moved for its adoption. Per the draft provided by staff conditioned upon the following where the property owner is responsible for the following: th Motion seconded by Brad Magowan. Duly adopted this 15 day of December 2020 by the following vote: AYES: Mr. Dixon, Mr. Shafer, Mr. Hunsinger, Mr. Magowan, Mr. Valentine, Mr. Deeb, Mr. Traver NOES: NONE ABSENT: Ms. White MR. TRAVER-Now you’re all set. MR. LAPPER-Thanks, everybody. MR. TRAVER-That concludes our regular agenda. Just a reminder that we’ll be back together this Thursday, believe it or not. This is one of those months where we’re having two meetings a month. We also have elections for officers next week, or next meeting, which is Thursday, and I think that’s it. Did everybody turn in their Workplace Violence things to Laura? MR. VALENTINE-Not. MR. MAGOWAN-Not yet. I’ve got to see when I took it in the County. MR. TRAVER-All right. So we still have some folks that need to submit their Workplace Violence training items to you, Laura. MRS. MOORE-Yes. I still need some folks to return, either review the PowerPoint or PDF’s that I sent to you or provide me the ones that you have completed at your workplace. So that’s two different things. The Workplace Violence and Harassment training, and then you also have to submit your regular planning training, your four hour requirement if you haven’t done so, and I apologize I don’t know off the top of my head who still owes me the information. So if you think you owe information, you probably do. How’s that? 32 (Queensbury Planning Board 12/15/2020) MR. DEEB-How do we do the training, find something on line? MR. TRAVER-Well Laura sent us out an e-mail with all the PowerPoints, so you can do those and then there’s an attendance sheet you just fill out. MRS. MOORE-There’s a bunch of videos you can click on and then review and then submit saying that I watched this video, I did four hours’ worth of training. MR. TRAVER-All right. Then I guess we’re all set. We can stand for adjournment if somebody wants to make that motion. MR. HUNSINGER-So moved. MOTION TO ADJOURN THE QUEENSBURY PLANNING BOARD MEETING OF DECEMBER TH 15, 2020, Introduced by Chris Hunsinger who moved for its adoption, seconded by David Deeb: th Duly adopted this 15 day of December, 2020, by the following vote: AYES: Mr. Hunsinger, Mr. Magowan, Mr. Valentine, Mr. Deeb, Mr. Dixon, Mr. Shafer, Mr. Traver NOES: NONE ABSENT: Ms. White MR. TRAVER-We stand adjourned, ladies and gentlemen. We’ll see you in 48 hours. On motion meeting was adjourned. RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED, Stephen Traver, Chairman 33